i agree with much here. However i thought i had read somewhere where some pope had said that it was not to be read by catholics. If true i can see the wisdom in this since many people at the time and even today are ignorant of Christian doctrine and could be easily misled.
i reject this for the mere fact that the scriptures in its plain sense makes sense to believe Jesus had other sibblings by Mary. Secondly the catholic church has backed itself into a corner with this for wanting to protect Mary as being some kind of ever virgin. If Mary had other children by natural means it would have no impact on any doctrine of the faith.
That is possible.
What i’m waiting for is the final conclusion to his study. Then we’ll see if it lines up with the rest of scripture.
No, it seems to me that **celticcrusader **hit it on the head; you’re being purposefully uncooperative because you CAN see where this is going.
i’m begining to think that catholics have special powers over everyone else and that is to ability to read minds across the internet. i wish i had this ability to.
Perhaps it would not, but Catholics do not want to hear that Mary had other children because the claim can be proved untrue. Catholics such as us that you see here do not like hearing that Jesus was not an only child any more than you like hearing claims that your uncle had 43 cats, 642 parakeets, 300 wives, and 700 concubines. It simply isn’t true, especially if you have no uncles. We as humans do not like it when we hear untruths proclaimed as truth.
:dts: Stop. Please. You are most certainly not helping. None of us knows this person well enough to judge him (I don’t even know if it is a “him”). I for one want to see this debate through. Charitably.
The Orthodox Church knows the siblings of Christ to be children of Joseph from before his betrothal to Mary. Their behavior towards Jesus is consistent with their being His elder brethren so there is no conflict with the rest of scripture. You, however, because of your misinterpretation of other scripture, create a conflict with the passage being discussed.
It’s not that at all; I just know that you’re NOT “dense” as you put it, and I’m hoping that you will try at least a little harder to go along with the conversation.i’m begining to think that catholics have special powers over everyone else and that is to ability to read minds across the internet. i wish i had this ability to.
Where is the evidence for this claim in Scripture?
i agree. However the scriptures are clear that He did have other sibblings that is best to understand by Mary and Joseph. For example in Matthew 13:55-56 where His brothers and sisters are mentioned with both His parents it always means actual blood brothers and sisters.
Actually the conflict comes from catholic doctrines that tries to use the Scriptures to support doctrines that are not taught in Scripture. The doctrine of the ever virgin Mary is why these verses that mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters must be read at all cost to mean they are His cousins to support the idea that Mary was virgin throughout her life.
How long do you think she had to wait before she would know how this was to happen?
She had to wait until AFTER Gabriel told her. NOT before.
That is true. Now was it days, hours or seconds before she had her answer?
Can we say this was a normal conversation that would take maybe no more than 10 minutes or something like that?…
:doh2: I meant to draw attention to my previous post.^
It wasn’t recorded in Scripture but it was certainly known in the Church. After Christ’s resurrection and ascension all his siblings became believers and they certainly knew their relationship to Jesus. Salome, the mother of James and John is one of those siblings, which also explains how she could be so bold as to ask her little brother to allow her sons to sit at His left and right hand. None of this detail was recorded in the Bible since it did not pertain directly to the Gospel and the preaching of the Kingdom of God.
That is patently false. In Hebrew culture there is no distinction made between legal and blood siblings. There is no word or even concept for step brother or step sister in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. Also, only Jesus is called the son of Mary, none of His siblings are.
Nonsense! The belief that Jesus’ siblings are children of Mary is a modern Protestant invention opposed to what the Church has always known from the beginning. The ever virginity of Mary is not a Dogma in the Orthodox Church, but it is what the Church has always believed nonetheless. Your belief is the modern departure from the faith, not what the Catholics for what ever reason felt the need to dogmatise.
JA4, your claim has been soundly refuted by biblical scholars and Catholic apologists. Please see my Replies nos. 200, 206, 207, and 210 in the thread ‘Re: What can we say about the Virgin’.
For a married women not to have sexual relations with her husband was totally unheard of. The context of the message from the angel dealt only with the birth of Jesus that He must be born of a virgin. Nowhere in this passage do you see Him or anyone else forbidding Mary to have children by Joseph. You are reading catholic doctrine into the scriptures rather than letting the scriptures speak clearly.
The idea of an ever virgin married woman is totally alien to the Scriptures. People who married were expected to have children and lots of them.
Why don’t you just sum up your replies in a couple of sentences then i will respond.JA4, your claim has been soundly refuted by biblical scholars and Catholic apologists. Please see my Replies nos. 200, 206, 207, and 210 in the thread ‘Re: What can we say about the Virgin’.
Pax vobiscum
Good Fella