Jesus had siblings?

[twb1621]

bruno,
blasphemy? Don’t be absurd. She and Joseph were married.
The Bible also reads in Mk.6:3 “Isn’t this the capenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
Aren’t his sisters here with us?”

On the other hand… None of these siblings were at the crucifixion? From the cross Jesus gave the care of His Mother to John? And these siblings didn’t think Jesus was divine?
So we have a lot of mysteries to sort out.

I realize this is a very controversial issue. We shall see, if this is true, when we get to heaven.

God bless,
jean

PS when checking more than one Commentary, many times difficult questions are maddenly omitted? Further, if I ask my pastor the the same question,he will certainly give a different response from yours. So here we are, we are left on our own with the Lord to guide us. Shall we pray.

In regard to your reference in Mark, the problem with your interpretation is just that. It’s not the Biblical interpretation. Many Belief systems take from the bible which is a part of Christian teaching compiled by the Church but instead of also using the Historic Biblical interpretations that are part of that teaching, they put their own “opinion” in place. Refer to the Following;

Historic Biblical interpretation;
Mark… [3] Is he not the carpenter?: no other gospel calls Jesus a carpenter. Some witnesses have “the carpenter’s son,” as in ⇒ Matthew 13:55. Son of Mary: contrary to Jewish custom, which calls a man the son of his father, this expression may reflect Mark’s own faith that God is the Father of Jesus (⇒ Mark 1:1, ⇒ 11; ⇒ 8:38; ⇒ 13:32; ⇒ 14:36). The brother of James . . . Simon: in Semitic usage, the terms “brother,” “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents, but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters; cf ⇒ Genesis 14:16; ⇒ 29:15; ⇒ Lev 10:4. While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother,” as in the cited passages, a fact that may argue for a similar breadth of meaning in some New Testament passages. For instance, there is no doubt that in v 17, “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. On the other hand, Mark may have understood the terms literally; see also ⇒ Mark 3:31-32; ⇒ Matthew 12:46; ⇒ 13:55-56; ⇒ Luke 8:19; ⇒ John 7:3, 5. The question of meaning here would not have arisen but for the faith of the church in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

 

[diggerdomer]

If that is what you take away from these verses, fine.

But there can be NO doubt from the Bible itself that Paul thought it was better to remain single AS HE WAS and the Jesus Himself indicated that some WOULD be called to celibacy.

Are some called to celibacy? Sure. I never said anything to the contrary.

Did Paul think it better to be unmarried? Yes–but ONLY in the context of the ONE place in all his letters that he touched on this issue, which was responding to a specific circumstance of a specific group of people (the Corinthian community). This was NOT a dogmatic universal statement that being unmarried is preferable to the married state. There is absolutely NO evidence that Paul thought or taught that. Look at the beautiful passages in Eph 5 that talk about husbands and wives.

Cheers

 

[hopefull]

But you know what? That’s my opinion, and my very non-Catholic thoughts, and that’s all. Obviously, a Catholic is going to accept what the Church says.

I just want to make clear that Catholics “accept what the Church says” not because some bossy organization says so, or because we’re afraid to think for ourselves, but because what the Church says in teaching Faith and Morals is TRUTH; it is the Body of Christ who IS “The Way, the Truth, and the Life.” We rest in being able to rely on Truth. The Catholic Church is the ONLY Church established by Christ, and is the one who defined the Canon of Scripture and has the right and duty to interpret it. The Church (not our own individual opinions and perceptions clouded by concupiscence) is also the ONLY authority to which we can look that has been promised that the “gates of hell will not prevail against it” and that the Holy Spirit protects it, and that Christ will be with us until the end of time. Peter and his successors were given “The keys to the Kingdom of heaven”, no one else. Obedience comes from faithfulness, and faithfulness from obedience. In other words, even when we don’t understand, but give assent to accepting, the needed understanding is then given to us in faith. Many Protestant converts have commented on this. Having made an act of the Will to accept what Christ teaches through His Church, they discover a new level of understanding – faith superceding (not cancelling out or contradicting) reason! Icing on the cake, so to speak.

Having said all that, anyone reading all these posts can see there is a lot of emotion, especially from faithful Catholics. Of course there is; that’s my Mom you’re talking about! Oh, right, she’s your Mom too! We are all her children, as Christ wanted when He spoke to St. John from the Cross. Here is a wonderful prayer: "God, I don’t understand this, please increase my faith. Mother Mary, pray for me. "

Blessings, and signing off from this thread,
hopefull

 

[twb1621]

According to the Jewish sources I’ve looked at, the completion of the marriage occurs during the “home-taking”, when the husband takes his wife home. (Like Isaac taking Rebecca into his tent - the assumption was clear that entering a man’s house/tent meant she was having sex with him.) They are legally married during the betrothal period. Ending the betrothal would have required a divorce. Jewish marriage doesn’t require a ceremony or a rabbi.

You’re willing to accept that she had an intact hymen after childbirth and never had sex with her husband, BUT if she did have sex with her husband, you’re unwilling to accept that she could have had seven children live to adulthood?

Hi Marie, the most important thing we must realize is we are not capable as individuals of interpreting the majority of the Bible. Since other people have broken away from the CC over centuries and instilled their own opinions into what the Bible is saying, you can see the results. It is unfortunate that when people have taken the Bible to start their own “faiths based on their own interpretations” the result has always been division and new belief systems. The Bible has always been used as part, not all, of the Catholic Teachings but it is a Catholic compilation with Catholic based Canons and as equally as important, historicly recognized translations and interpretations.
Facts:
“Bible” comes from the Greek ta biblia which means “the books.” We regard the Bible as a single book. In fact, it is a library of books which were written over a period of approximately 1500 years. The Bible, “The Book,” is about God revealing Himself to His people, the Jewish people first, then revealing Himself to all people in His Son, Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us about how God acts in human history, and it teaches us about God. It contains religious history. God is the author of the Bible. So, the Bible is not only about God, it is also by Him. The languages in which the books of the Bible were written were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Most of the Old Testament books were written in Hebrew. Parts of Daniel, Ezra, Jeremiah, Esther and probably Tobit and Judith were written in Aramaic (the language spoken by Jesus, which was related to Hebrew and popular in Palestine during His time). The Book of Wisdom, 2nd Maccabees and all the books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Some say Matthew had a shorter Gospel in Aramaic, but it no longer exists.

The Bible is divided into the Old Testament (containing 46 books), and the New Testament (containing 27 books). The word “Testament” means “covenant” or “agreement”. The Old Testament or Old Covenant, involves the family bond between God and the Israelites wherein He would be their God, and they would be His people (Exodus 24:1-8). Moses said, “… ‘This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you according to all these words.’” (Exodus 24:8). The old covenant was sealed with the blood of animals and an oath. The New Testament or New Covenant involves the fulfillment of the old covenant by a new covenant with God. “… I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” (Jeremiah 31:33). Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” (Luke 22:20). The new covenant was sealed with the Blood of Jesus Christ and the oath of our baptism.

The Old Testament was put together by the Hebrews and the New Testament was collected and preserved by members of the Catholic Christian Faith after the time of Christ.

The word “Gospel” means “Good News.” It means the good news of salvation proclaimed by Christ and the Church, and given to us in written form by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There are no original manuscripts of any books of the Bible in existence today. The oldest copy is the Book of Isaiah, which is in Hebrew, and dates from about 100 B.C. It was found in a cave near Jericho in 1947, and is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from approximately A.D. 350.
Continued next post

 

[twb1621]

The contents of the Bible developed in three stages:

Oral Stage - Stories handed down through the generations by word of mouth (almost all of the Book of Genesis is from oral accounts, or what we call tradition). The more important stories were memorized and told on special occasions.

Writing Stage - As time went on, people began to write things down. Writing was difficult, and very few people could read. For hundreds of years both oral tradition and the written word existed side by side. Some parts of the Bible were written to meet a particular need of the community, Jewish or Christian. Not all Oral Traditions were written down.

Editing Stage - Material was chosen which best represented the religious traditions of the people. The oral and written accounts could have differed slightly, so editing was done to bring unity between the two. The contents of the Bible came from this last stage. These three stages of development existed for the most part simultaneously, though the Oral Stage came first and the Editing Stage came last.
Symbols for spoken words were developed probably about 6000 years ago. About 2500 B.C. the Egyptians developed papyrus, on which they inscribed their symbols. They joined several of these together and rolled them on a rod to make something like a scroll. About A.D. 105, the Chinese invented paper, but it was not introduced into the Western world until about A.D. 700. It was more than 700 years later (A.D. 1450) that Johann Gutenberg invented printing.
The Bible was written by many different human authors over a period of 1500 years. These human authors were inspired by God, that is, God breathed ideas into them which He wanted expressed, and they expressed these ideas in their own way. It was not their intention to write a book that would be entered into “The Bible,” as we know it. The whole thrust was to preserve the traditions of how God dealt with His people.

Since the Bible is not one book, but a library of books, there are many different kinds of writing in these books, e.g., prose, proverbs, parables, prophesy, prayers, poetry, (narrative hymns), legends, legal documents, letters, sermons, songs, stories, etc. This is called Literary Form.

In order to be able to understand a passage of the Bible one must be aware of:

In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.
The Writings - this consists of the remainder of the Old Testament.
The Bible is God’s gift to us. The Bible is God’s love letter to His people. It was written over many centuries and contains different kinds of writing. We all need help to interpret what is being said in the different books. The Catholic Church offers that help.
http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/b1.htm

2000 years, not 40 or 400 or 1500, the Teachings of Christ have not changed except in the opinion of a few who convinced many more…

 

[6days]

If you are saying that, "the Body of Christ who IS “The Way, the Truth, and the Life…” Are you considering the words of Jesus? See Jhn 14:6,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Then in Eph 5:23 we are told that Christ is the head of the church.
Col 1:24 relates to us that the church is the Body of Christ.

This is the only church established by Christ. The RCC simply makes claims for itself that are unfounded.

I am able to read Scripture for myself without a degree, and the letters to the churches were written to people without degrees from a seminary college.

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period. When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says. Even though the Bible says do not add or subtract from these words. The church claims authority over that, and this authority is given to the church by the church.

Blessings to you,
6days

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Do you really think it was God’s will that relatives could say uncle God?

What kind of sense does that make?

And if there were blood relatives of Jesus you think we’d never even hear of their names?

Get real!

I don’t think that Joseph was a widower either.

I can believe that the bretheren of Jesus were cousins–most probably from Joseph’s side of the family.

 

[BrianH]

Can you point to any evidence that there was?

Well, briefly, before turned to the earliest Christian history, the first verse I would point to is the following:

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There are no repeats in this list.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you are saying that, "the Body of Christ who IS “The Way, the Truth, and the Life…” Are you considering the words of Jesus? See Jhn 14:6,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Then in Eph 5:23 we are told that Christ is the head of the church.
Col 1:24 relates to us that the church is the Body of Christ.

This is the only church established by Christ. The RCC simply makes claims for itself that are unfounded.

Really? What are these?

I am able to read Scripture for myself without a degree, and the letters to the churches were written to people without degrees from a seminary college.

Correct. However, you have no certainty that your understanding or interpretation of what you read is correct. After all, you’re not infallible. Are you?

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period. When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says. Even though the Bible says do not add or subtract from these words. The church claims authority over that, and this authority is given to the church by the church.

I wish this really were the plain truth. Sadly, some Catholics do not accept what the Church says, and we have much room to improve in this area.

Where does the Bible say not to add or subtract? You don’t mean in Revelation, do you? If so, then that admonition applies only to that one book. The fact that Revelation was placed at the end of the NT is not in and of itself an infallible placement, and the words you reference do not form a bookend for the NT canon.

However, it is a plain fact that the Church, the Catholic Church, was given authority over the determination of the canon in that God used the Church to discern which writings of the early Christian community were inspired and which were not.

To be clear, I am not saying that the Church by its own authority MADE these books inspired…only God could inspire the authors. However, the Church was able to recognize this inspiration INFALLIBLY, and you have received your NT from the Catholic Church which wrote, discerned, collected, preserved, protected and preached the Word of God in its fullness for 15 centuries before your spiritual forebears rebelled against the authority established by God when He appointed Peter to be the head of His Church.

 

[twb1621]

Well, from what I’ve read on Jewish sites, Paul had to have been married because he was a rabbi. In order to be a rabbi, and especially if he was a member of the Sanhedrin, Paul had to be have been married. The only reasonable answer is that he was a widower. And considering his not-so-generous thoughts on marriage, I’d guess it hadn’t been a very happy marriage.

As for Jesus, I don’t know. We know nothing about what he did or did not do, other than a brief episode around his bar mitzvah and then a few years when he’s in his 30’s. If he was a rabbi, instead of it being an honorary title, then he certainly had to have been married. In that culture, he wouldn’t have had much credibility as a leader and teacher unless he was/had been married. If he was an Essene, it’s possible that he wasn’t, but he didn’t have the anti-woman attitudes that the Essenes seem to have had, nor was a hermit living in the desert as they were.

We know that his parents were careful to obey the Law of their people - they had Jesus circumcised at 8 days, Mary did the normal purification, they went to Passover in Jerusalem each year, and they brought Jesus once he was old enough - and we know that Jesus was obedient to them. Joseph - or Mary, if Joseph had died - would have had a duty to arrange a marriage when Jesus was about 16.

And, no, I don’t think he was married to Mary of Magdalene. And while I don’t know whether or not he was married, I lean to the side of “definitely maybe”. The fact that no wife is mentioned is not proof that he did not have a wife. That’s a logical fallacy called “argument from ignorance”. Peter was married, yet the only mention is a brief story about his mother-in-law. MOST people, with very few exceptions, were married, but there is little mention of the spouses of Jesus’ followers, male or female.

Not everything Jesus did was recorded. When he began his ministry, was he completely friendless? No friends are mentioned, only his followers.

However, as horrible as the idea seems to be to Catholics, I have no problem with Jesus being married and having children while still remaining sinless and “all God/all man”, just like I have no problem with the idea of Mary actually having normal marital relations with her husband. Then again, I don’t think, at ALL, that sex is sinful or corrupting or less than holy. If God had no problem ensuring Mary’s virginal pregnancy with the Son of God, I don’t think it would have been a real difficulty ensuring that any offspring of Jesus were completely human. He had cousins and others who were related to him through Mary, so I don’t think it’s so terribly impious to consider that he had siblings or children.

But you know what? That’s my opinion, and my very non-Catholic thoughts, and that’s all. Obviously, a Catholic is going to accept what the Church says.

Actually, it would be a surprise to hear you say anything else and I do not mean that in a sarcastic way. I’ll explain in the next post;

 

[twb1621]

This whole thread refers to a question that centers around the Full teachings of Christianity and by that I mean Bible, Sacred Tradition passed on through Apostolic Succession and the teachings of the Magisterium.

I have seen some “Catholics” questioning their own faith as protestants do with the same questions and I would be willing to suggest they have no idea what the Vetus Itala or the Latin Vulgate are let alone where canon law comes from and that is very sad. Been there, and admittedly ashamed of it…

Most faiths only know what they received from their partial teachings and even Luther recognized after time passed that any person could come up with their own interpretations and start their own faith (which has happened since) . If a person Truly wants to learn the Truth about Jesus’ Teachings, Christianity and the accuracy and authenticity of the Catholic Church, compare what you have been taught with the vulgates especially the Latin Vulgate derived from the Vetus Itala and the Septuagint and the translations and interpretations that have carried with the Bible since Jesus established His Church. Compare them also to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and reference them all back and forth. You would be amazed at how far off a Bible translation can be after 1500 years or so when taken out of context.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, briefly, before turned to the earliest Christian history, the first verse I would point to is the following:

1Cr 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

There are no repeats in this list.

So, it is your contention that because James is mentioned separately from the twelve, he must be a separate person from the two James’ we know as Apostles?

Is this list an enumeration of the people?

Or is it a chronological listing of the appearances of Jesus?

If the former, you have a point. If the latter, then Jesus appeared to James as part of the twelve, a second time to James as part of the twelve, a third time to James alone and a fourth time to James as part of the apostles.

Which is correct?

Well, was Peter (also called Cephas or Kepha) one of the twelve?

Doesn’t this say that Jesus appeared in this order:

1. to Cephas/Peter
2. to Peter, James and the rest of the twelve
3. to 500 people which probably included Peter and James
4. to James alone
5. to all of the Apostles again
6. and, last of all, to Paul who (chronologically) was not an apostle at the time of Jesus’ other appearances.

That “last of all” seems to suggest that this is a chronological listing, don’t you think?

 

[diggerdomer]

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period. When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says.

Not true (sorry). As a Catholic, I accept what the Church says and it is not in opposition to the Bible.

Cheers.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period.

Since scripture plainly states that the Church (and not a book) is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), are Catholics wrong to listen to the Church?

When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says.

Please provide an example or two of this. Start separate thread, please, to avoid derailing this discussion of the kinsmen of Jesus.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’ve never said that he was divorced. Where did I ever say divorce? I said his marriage might not have been terribly happy, considering some of his attitudes. Might. Not was. Maybe. Might. Could have been. But if he was a rabbi, he was married. I’m pretty certain he describes himself as not married at the time of his writing, so he must have been a widower. I’m sure I said that.

My mistake.

Your personal, fallible speculation was that Paul may have been a widower.

I stand corrected.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just as you’ve clearly grown up with your ideas about Mary, I have spent over 35 years being taught that Mary and Joseph were ordinary people given an extraordinary duty. I can remember the first time I had even heard of the idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin - it was about two years ago. I laughed because I thought it was a joke.

You laughed because you have spent 35 years being taught incorrectly.

Look, one of the oldest documents in existence from the Early Church is called the “Protoevangelium of James”. It was written around 120 A.D., and it reveals what the Church has held regarding Mary, Joseph and their marital relationship from the earliest days.

Here is an article on the subject:

Mary: Ever Virgin
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” Neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing *Protoevangelium of James] *is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

If you are saying that, "the Body of Christ who IS “The Way, the Truth, and the Life…” Are you considering the words of Jesus? See Jhn 14:6,
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

Then in Eph 5:23 we are told that Christ is the head of the church.
Col 1:24 relates to us that the church is the Body of Christ.

This is the only church established by Christ. The RCC simply makes claims for itself that are unfounded.

I am able to read Scripture for myself without a degree, and the letters to the churches were written to people without degrees from a seminary college.

The plain truth is, that catholics accept what the church says, period. When it is in opposition to what the Bible says, they accept what the church says. Even though the Bible says do not add or subtract from these words. The church claims authority over that, and this authority is given to the church by the church.

Blessings to you,
6days

This IS the Church begun by Christ. And 1500 years later, someone came along and defied those beginings.

 

[Roy5]

PROTESTANTS NOT BOUND BY REFORMERS

I often read in theset postings that the early Reformers - Luther, Calvin, etc. - believed this or that which the Catholic church teaches. 

It's important to remember that the Reformers did not becomes Popes, infallible when it comes to doctrine or morals. What they did was open the Christian world to fuller discussion, even debate, about such matters. Ask ten Protestants what they think about, say, the Virgin Birth, and you will likely get at least five opinions: (1) yes; (2) likely; (3) possible; (4) unlikely; (5) no. Mainline Protestants are especially tolerant of diverse views on the subject. It's usually regarded as not a make-or-break dogma. Believe it or not - welcome. 

 The Bible certainly takes precedence over the Reformers, and the truth is that the Bible isn't always clear. I wish God and the scriptures made things clearer so that belief was a simply matter.

 As to the Catholic Church being the original one, that is debatable. There were all sorts of heresies among early Christians, some of them like Arianism widespread. They were condemned by the votes of various councils. My study of Christian history suggests that the Roman Catholic Church gradually evolved into its position of authority in the west largely because of the decay of the Roman Empire plus the rise of Islam in the east. The difference between early Christians and medieval Catholics was enormous. I don't have the time or desire to document this. Take a couple good courses on Christian history in one of our better universities and you will find out such differences. I've taken them.

 

[diggerdomer]

You laughed because you have spent 35 years being taught incorrectly.

Look, one of the oldest documents in existence from the Early Church is called the “Protoevangelium of James”. It was written around 120 A.D., and it reveals what the Church has held regarding Mary, Joseph and their marital relationship from the earliest days.

Here is an article on the subject:

Mary: Ever Virgin
catholic.com/library/mary_ever_virgin.asp

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the “brethren of the Lord.” Neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: “The principal aim of the whole writing *Protoevangelium of James] *is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ” (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated “virgin of the Lord,” to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term “brethren.” The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as “brethren.” The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of “the brethren of the Lord.” And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.

Yes, it’s an early and important document. But it’s not Scripture, and that’s for a reason. You can interpret how you want to, but its claims are not binding on Catholic faith.

Cheers

 

[Randy_Carson]

PROTESTANTS NOT BOUND BY REFORMERS

I often read in theset postings that the early Reformers - Luther, Calvin, etc. - believed this or that which the Catholic church teaches.

It’s important to remember that the Reformers did not becomes Popes, infallible when it comes to doctrine or morals.

Correct. Only the popes are infallible in this regard.

What they did was open the Christian world to fuller discussion, even debate, about such matters.

Yes, they did open the theological Pandora’s Box, alright. No question about it.

Ask ten Protestants what they think about, say, the Virgin Birth, and you will likely get at least five opinions: (1) yes; (2) likely; (3) possible; (4) unlikely; (5) no. Mainline Protestants are especially tolerant of diverse views on the subject. It’s usually regarded as not a make-or-break dogma. Believe it or not - welcome.

You’re right…you will get a variety of answers to most theological questions. Which causes one to wonder…how is it that all of these earnest Christians who are studying to show themselves approved are all being led by the ONE Spirit into a multitude of conflicting and contradictory doctrinal positions?

The Bible certainly takes precedence over the Reformers, and the truth is that the Bible isn’t always clear. I wish God and the scriptures made things clearer so that belief was a simply matter.

True. And the other part of the Word of God, Sacred Tradition, also takes precedence over the reformers, who may be held to be of little account with regard to the faith.

As to the Catholic Church being the original one, that is debatable. There were all sorts of heresies among early Christians, some of them like Arianism widespread. They were condemned by the votes of various councils. My study of Christian history suggests that the Roman Catholic Church gradually evolved into its position of authority in the west largely because of the decay of the Roman Empire plus the rise of Islam in the east. The difference between early Christians and medieval Catholics was enormous. I don’t have the time or desire to document this. Take a couple good courses on Christian history in one of our better universities and you will find out such differences. I’ve taken them.

Thanks, but having already done our homework, we have come to the inescapable conclusion that the early Church was distinctively Catholic in its beliefs.