Jesus had siblings?

[BRZ]

continued…

Sorry if I am derailing the thread but I think this is significant because of what is being discussed.

Sorry to write such a long response but I feel I must write these words. I am human, just like you. I know what it means to feel pride, because I see it in myself every day. It is something I am constantly struggling with, there is a reason that Pride is the most deadly of sins. In my opinion, Pride is what has fueled those who are heretics and schismatics. You may say I am using labels, but being politically correct is unimportant to me. What is important is understanding the truth. If you were to sit down and really look at what the Church teaches, I don’t see how you could think that any of it was not Truth.

Let’s take for example what you said about condoms. The Church says not to use them, you say basically that is a foolish idea. You say that condoms can help save lives, prevent disease, prevent children, etc. At what cost I say to you? It is these exact ideas that continue to ruin our society, not better it. We are meant to control ourselves, not act as animals do. We are not meant to sleep with everything that we see, to give into our base desires. We should be promoting a society that understands this, not one that says, “hey just use a condom” That is not the answer. If all people did not have sex until they were married we would not have Aids, or STD’s, or the need for abortions, divorces, and all the other things that come with it. That is the truth. You can deny it all you want but it is condoms, and the idea that we should give into our human desires that have created this culture that aborts millions of babies per year, that has led to the spread of AIDs which has killed tens of millions, which has led to STD’s which plague millions. If you can’t see the pattern here then I am sorry.

When Jesus was asked what is the most important of the commandments, I am sure you know what he said. Love God and Love your neighbor, for all other commands come from these. What do you think it means to truly Love your neighbor? Do you think loving your neighbor means having sex with someone to satisfy your desire? Indulging in pleasure because “hey we are only human.”? Do you honestly believe that this is the way we are meant to be? This goes for all pleasures, not just sex.

There is a reason why we believe that Jesus had no siblings, that Mary did not have sexual relations with her husband. It is the simple fact that we believe that Mary WAS NOT a slave to her human desires. She made the choice to be obedient, completely and fully unto God. You say that sex is not bad, and in truth, if sex is kept within what it is meant to be, it would not be bad, but sex is probably one of the most powerful causes of most peoples fall. I do not hate sex, and neither does the Church believe it is bad but you must realize what perfection is. Perfection is God, is Jesus and how Jesus lived his life. The truth is that if we are to be perfect we must follow exactly what Jesus did and said. To be perfect means to be chaste, not having sex because even though it may be fine within the context of marriage, it is nonetheless a human desire. We are meant to be the masters of our desires, not the slaves. I say to you, that if you do not understand the choices that Mary made, and if you do not understand the significance that Mary has within the framework of our salvation then you do not truly love God. For if you truly loved Jesus, you would also love his mother and you would try your all to follow in Jesus’ footprints and not those of your own. If you think that Jesus gave into human desire such as having sex (as some people seem to think in this thread) then that is truly a foolish notion.

There is plenty more I could say but it would take all night so I will just pray and hope that some day you will accept the authority of the Holy Spirit which is manifested through the truth and authority of the Catholic Church. By the way, calling the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church is just another way that protestants attack the Church. We are officially the Catholic Church (Universal Church). Calling the Catholic Church Roman is just another way to attack the Church as being “Alien” or not of God, but of only Rome. This term is used widely in the US but it is not so in other countries because of the protestant influence over the minds of Americans.

 

[keyboardrob]

I don’t have a good enough memory to recall all that’s been said in the recent, lengthy posts, but I am going to venture a comment or two.

In one post the term “Cafeteria Catholics” was used. The writer should remember that he who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones. Aren’t you, sir, somewhat a 'cafeteria Catholic"? you seem to have chosen an extremely traditionalist path in your beliefs at the expense of the privilege God has given each of us- the privilege to think and through reason (while avoiding heresy) come to faith in Holy Mother Church. Those who do not share your views aren’t “Cafeteria Catholics”- choosing what we want to believe and what we won’t believe. Faith is a journey and that means we each must find our own way to faith via Holy Mother Church. We were not made from cookie cutters- we are all unique children of God. As such, our faith journeys aren’t all the same. I beg you not delude yourself and others into thinking there’s a certain mark we must all tow. Are there basic principles? Yes- most of them enshrined in Matthew’s Gospel, Chs. 5,6,&7- the Sermon on the Mount.

I read another comment about condoms, etc., I don’t want us to tread or slide down the moral slope that is the culture of death. At the same time, I believe the Church and those who guide Her need to realize that death takes many forms. Some of those forms include STD’s, starvation due to over-population, as well as abusing lives brought into this world either physically or mentally. I’m sure any readers of this post get my point. I’d rather see a condom used or a pill taken than abortions, sterilization as practiced in China, and a host of other things that are a direct result of the Church’s stance on birth control. I’m being very brief, but I hope my point is understood.

Finally, there was the remark that Mary wasn’t a slave to her human desires or Joseph’s and that’s why Jesus had no siblings. I don’t recall reading anywhere that Mary was a slave to such desires. I never heard of such things in my theology courses or history of the Church Councils we studied in seminary. I’'m convinced Mary and Joseph had healthy lives in every sense of the word. I’m certain of the virgin birth, but I don’t think that disqualified Mary and Joseph from having other children if they were so blessed. Having other children doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily a slave to any desires- their own or their spouse’s. Certainly my parents didn’t live as slaves to one another’s desires and I’d hate to think I or my sister are the result of some sort of sexual slavery.

Again, pardon the scattered thoughts and scanty coverage of a lengthy post. This is the best I could do.

Pax tecum,
Rob

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Rob,

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity is dogma of the church and as Catholics this is a must believe. Infallibility of the magisterium and pope in matters of faith and morals is dogma as well.

I use my intelect and faith when believing these because scripture, traditition, the Holy Spirit taught us this.

I am sorry you have trouble with that.

Eddie Mac

 

[paul_c]

I don’t have a good enough memory to recall all that’s been said in the recent, lengthy posts, but I am going to venture a comment or two.

In one post the term “Cafeteria Catholics” was used. The writer should remember that he who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones. Aren’t you, sir, somewhat a 'cafeteria Catholic"? you seem to have chosen an extremely traditionalist path in your beliefs at the expense of the privilege God has given each of us- the privilege to think and through reason (while avoiding heresy) come to faith in Holy Mother Church. Those who do not share your views aren’t “Cafeteria Catholics”- choosing what we want to believe and what we won’t believe. Faith is a journey and that means we each must find our own way to faith via Holy Mother Church. We were not made from cookie cutters- we are all unique children of God. As such, our faith journeys aren’t all the same. I beg you not delude yourself and others into thinking there’s a certain mark we must all tow. Are there basic principles? Yes- most of them enshrined in Matthew’s Gospel, Chs. 5,6,&7- the Sermon on the Mount.

I read another comment about condoms, etc., I don’t want us to tread or slide down the moral slope that is the culture of death. At the same time, I believe the Church and those who guide Her need to realize that death takes many forms. Some of those forms include STD’s, starvation due to over-population, as well as abusing lives brought into this world either physically or mentally. I’m sure any readers of this post get my point. I’d rather see a condom used or a pill taken than abortions, sterilization as practiced in China, and a host of other things that are a direct result of the Church’s stance on birth control. I’m being very brief, but I hope my point is understood.

Finally, there was the remark that Mary wasn’t a slave to her human desires or Joseph’s and that’s why Jesus had no siblings. I don’t recall reading anywhere that Mary was a slave to such desires. I never heard of such things in my theology courses or history of the Church Councils we studied in seminary. I’'m convinced Mary and Joseph had healthy lives in every sense of the word. I’m certain of the virgin birth, but I don’t think that disqualified Mary and Joseph from having other children if they were so blessed. Having other children doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily a slave to any desires- their own or their spouse’s. Certainly my parents didn’t live as slaves to one another’s desires and I’d hate to think I or my sister are the result of some sort of sexual slavery.

Again, pardon the scattered thoughts and scanty coverage of a lengthy post. This is the best I could do.

Pax tecum,
Rob

Rob,
This is a very Protestant attitude, to be frank. The Catholic Church teaches the morals and faith of the Apostles and interprets them for modern times with great effort and thought. Ours is to conform to the truth, not to try to conform the truth to our own thoughts and desires. We need to recognize that our own perception of the facts is very limited, no matter how educated we think we are…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Rob,

The Blessed Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity is dogma of the church and as Catholics this is a must believe. Infallibility of the magisterium and pope in matters of faith and morals is dogma as well.

I use my intelect and faith when believing these because scripture, traditition, the Holy Spirit taught us this.

I am sorry you have trouble with that.

Eddie Mac

And another AMEN here.

 

[Roy5]

BRZ AND OTHERS

Thanks for taking the time to respond to much of what I said. I wish we could discuss this personally, as I try my best to be sympathetic to all who seek to serve God. As I noted, I come from a mixed religious background and find that people in each group are sincere in their efforts to love God and their neighbor. By the way, when Jesus was asked how to enter eternal life, he said nothing about doctrine or any church. He said love God and love your neighbor, and when that needed clarification he gave the parable of the Good Samaritan. Of special interest, the Samaritans were people despised by the Jews as 'heretics', but Jesus chose a Samaritan to be hero of his parable. Doesn't that tell us something about the attitude of Jesus toward 'heresy'. And remember, too, it was only a Samaritan of the 10 healed lepers who returned to give thanks to Christ.

 You certainly know how to argue ad hominem, as though everyone who thinks other than traditional Catholics think has to be ego-driven. That seems to be the main response to those who think for themselves - we must be egomaniacs. That avoids the issues, of course, and falls back on name-calling. Tsk! Tsk! When it comes to ego, who shows a bigger one: a person who confesses that he doesn't possess all the truth in a basket and is ready to concede that other faiths have some useful ideas to contribute, or a person who argues that HE possesses the full truth (while others don't) because HE belongs to the one true Church?

 Mary - 'a slave to human desire'? Whoever suggested that? But human desire for intimacy in marriage is not only normal but encouraged. Marriage without it is not a true union of 'one flesh' as the term is used in the scriptures. That's one reason we celebrate weddings with such enthusiasm. From this intimacy comes the blessing of children. My point was that it makes no difference to me (and I don't know) whether Mary and Joseph had a marital relationship and other children. The Church too often has rained on the joy that should accompany sex. I am focusing solely on married couples here, and would not encourage premarital sex. But for married couples to abstain throughout their marriage is hardly to be married at all. The courts certainly would grant an annulment.

 As for Roman Catholic Church, we could write at length about that. To begin with, here in this town we have a Polish National Catholic Church which is not under the Papacy - a more modern offshoot of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe that the Greek Orthodox Church may have Catholic somewhere in its official title. And perhaps some other Orthodox bodies? Then, many Catholic Churches have Roman Catholic on their outside boards and in their printed bulletins. The churches in the yellow pages here are listed under Roman Catholic. Ditto in the New York Times and other papers that carry church notices. And we could go on. It's also true that many mainline Protestant churches recite the Apostles Creed and affirm their belief in the Holy Catholic Church. As you say, the word catholic simply means universal, and many other churches are universal. The largest Presbyterian and Methodist churches in the world are in Korea. There are many more times the Anglicans in Ghana and Nigeria than in the USA. Etc. 

 But if you prefer Catholic and think that using Roman Catholic somehow indicates some sort of prejudice, that's your choice. Let us agree to disagree on that.

  Time doesn't permit me to go on. Unlike so many posters here, I embrace ecumenism, amd look forward to the day when Christians can be truly united in spirit though probably not as one organic body. My favorite Pope was John XXIII. I had the privilege, by the way, of being in the presence and hearing four Popes: Pius XII in Rome when I was a young student; Paul VI in Yankee Stadium (as I recall) in 1965; Pope John Paul II in Central Park in 1995; Pope Benedict XVI at Yankee Stadium in 2008.

 

[BRZ]

I will keep this short because I do not want to argue with you. Your views are flawed in so many ways. You pick and choose ideas and words of the bible to suit your needs taking things completely out of context with little understanding of what things actually mean. I truly pity you and I truly hope you will come to understand the truth and reality. I will pray for you.

 

[keyboardrob]

Rob,
This is a very Protestant attitude, to be frank. The Catholic Church teaches the morals and faith of the Apostles and interprets them for modern times with great effort and thought. Ours is to conform to the truth, not to try to conform the truth to our own thoughts and desires. We need to recognize that our own perception of the facts is very limited, no matter how educated we think we are…

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your straight talk in response to my post. There aren’t a whole lot of people beyond our corner of the net who could respond with frankness and Christian charity all wrapped into one. Please accept this compliment with the thanks it is intended to convey.

I’m not going to excuse my opinions before you or anyone else. My beliefs have been formed after graduating from Catholic seminary and years of observing life in general. I do not in any way intend to belittle the truths of our faith or part from them. I simply believe that there’s more to the Church’s truth than some would have us believe.

My sister is an MD specializing in pediatrics. I’ve seen, held, and given succor to many an abused child (defined in pediatrics as any human 16 years of age or younger)and/or adolescent. I do not differ from the Church’s teaching about the culture of life and I certainly agree that from conception until death, life is sacred. We have no right to snuff life out with indifference or callous attitude. I merely suggest that the culture of death and the modes used to kill life takes many forms. With Christian love and demonstration of Christ-like virtue on our parts, most of these efforts to kill can be stopped and healing begun. However, for the disease to be eradicated it needs to be diagnosed. This is my intent as I speak to many groups in my diocese and beyond about life being the only course we have to avoid eternal damnation.

On a personal level, I saw my maternal grandmother put to death in the nursing home where she was a patient the final five months of her life. She had Alzheimer’s disease. True, Gram was expiring the final morning of her life. She was dying the way she had always wanted- with dignity, her family at her side, and our pastor present with prayer and annointing of the sick. About three hours after we arrived, her breathing slowed to nearly nothing, etc., a nurse came in, gave her an injection and she was gone an instant after that shot. NO ONE will convince me that euthanasia was not committed that day. We found out later what was ordered in that final injection and my suspicions and my sister’s were confirmed. Again- another example of how there are many forms of death’s culture. We also found out through another doctor that this was a regular practice not only in nursing homes and hospitals in recent times, but has been going on for decades. Yet, it seems no one wants to do anything about such practices except the church and those who believe as she does on issues of life.

I will always point out these and other ways through which life can and is extinguished.

As for condoms and birth control meds- my admittedly confused attitudes on this issue stem from what was taught at seminary and by things I observed not only in the hospital wards, but also on the streets of many cities and villages i tried to serve in the USAF. I’ll always wonder how much needless death could be avoided if there was but a small alteration in the Church’s stance on artificial means of contraception.

Finally, Our Lady and my view of her. I am wholeheartedly devoted to Our Blessed Mother. in all my years of praying to her and, in a sense, with her, I have been denied nothing. As the final lines of a famous poem say- I have received all that I hoped for yet nothing I asked for. I am, amongst all men, most richly blessed". I simply am open to the possibility that there is more to Our Lady’s life on earth than what we may know. I also believe that in any marriage where God reigns supreme no spouse is slave to the other in any way. Let me conclude with this as regards Our Blessed Mother- modern scientific scholarship will never be able to answer articles of faith or refute them except by rationalization. The latter is a sure road to perdition.

My original post which you answered certainly pointed out that i’d not made myself clear. I hope you will pray for me and all those who need their eyes of faith cleared in both major and minor ways. I’ll be praying for you.

Again, thank you for your Christian charity in response to my first post.

Rob

 

[vstead]

One friend of mine, a member of the heirarchy and my former seminary instructor, has told me he never knew a more hard-hearted and inhumane man than the recently deceased Holy Father. He also told me that even though he owed his rise in the heirarchy to JPII and was humbled to be found worthy to serve the church as bishop, that it would take forever for Holy Mother Church to recover from the man’s 26 year papacy. . apologies if ive gone off thread but i wondered if you would elaborate on the piece about JP11 not being so great. Even a brief explanation.

 

[vstead]

I’m going to respond to the gentleman who brought up the subject of Blessed Pius IX and St. Thomas Aquinas.

I’m ashamed to admit it, but Holy Mother Church through some of those whose written works and acts are seemingly so revered has been respoonsible for the shedding of much innocent blood over the centuries. I’m as certain now, as I was in the seminary, (got a M. Div. but refused ordination), that Jesus was and probably still is horrified at the many things His Church has been guilty of. I’m equally certain that those responsible for these atrocities are getting there just punishment.

With respect to Pius IX-

When JPII beatified the man he did it while at the same time beatifying Blessed John XXIII. I heard it said and read the same thing on that occasion- that JPII would not have beatified John XXIII if he could not have somehow devised a way to beatify someone of a conservative stripe not unlike his own. My cousins (who still reside in Italy) said there was no excuse for the beatification of Pius IX and that if anyone prayed TO him it would be a miracle because the Church still bore the scars of his reign and ignorance. I trust my one cousin in particular knows from whence he speaks since he’s a bishop. I’ve heard the same thing said of St. Pius X and heard that in seminary. Point is, most folks who know anything of church history could not and still do not understand how JPII couold have beatified Pius IX. In fact, most Italians and many Catholics across the globe found it offensive that Pius IX was beatified in tandem with John XXIII. Even today, many can’t find good reason for JPII’s actions re Pius IX.

Looking to the future, there’s some folks now coming out with things they know about JPII. For me, it is to soon to make well founded judgements about JPII, his reign, and legacy. I do know many devout Catholics who cannot fathon his being a candidate for sainthood. One friend of mine, a member of the heirarchy and my former seminary instructor, has told me he never knew a more hard-hearted and inhumane man than the recently deceased Holy Father. He also told me that even though he owed his rise in the heirarchy to JPII and was humbled to be found worthy to serve the church as bishop, that it would take forever for Holy Mother Church to recover from the man’s 26 year papacy. Of course, Cardinal Giuseppe Siri of happy memory said the same thing of John XXIII and Paul VI, yet came within an ace of becoming pope in the conclaves of 1978.

One is left to wonder what goes on in the Vatican or at least in the minds of those who advise our popes or the popes themselves.

Pax Tecum,
Rob

Would you elaborate on the part relating to JPII’s shortcomings. Apologies if im going off thread. Ive just never heard this before.

 

[Roy5]

BRZ

Pitying me is hardly a substitute for dialoguing. I don't pity you, but we do disagree. I personally don't find that a serious problem. Disagreement is an honorable condition if both parties are respectful and honest. My attachment to democracy and the freedom to exchange views without rancor is important to me. 

This next Sunday, for example, a friend of many years - a Reform Rabbi - will come by for a visit. We won't agree on many things but we will have an exhilarating comversation over dinner and will remain good friends. I believe that such a spirit of tolerance and goodwill is in the best Christian tradition. Somebody once wrote a poem which comes to mind. It speaks of drawing a circle. It can be a circle that keeps people inside, or consign them to outside that circle. I believe in a great big circle, including within it as many of God's children of all faiths, races and other diverse conditions as possible. My understanding is that Christ would have us do that.

  May God bless the whole world - no exceptions (including BRZ).

 

[keyboardrob]

Would you elaborate on the part relating to JPII’s shortcomings. Apologies if im going off thread. Ive just never heard this before.

You can’t really go off thread in discussing JPII because he had lots of things to say over twenty six years as pope and over fifty years as a priest!

As for any shortcomings JPII may have had, I can only offer my own view of a man whom I had the privilege of meeting prior to his election as pope. It was August of 1978, hot, and i decided to have a beer on the way in to St. Peter’s to pay respects to Paul VI. A very genial priest asked if he could sit with me- I said sure and offered him hospitality. We had beer together and before leaving he reached into his valise and gave me an autographed portrait of the Black Madonna. He simply addressed the signature to me, added a blessing, and signed it “Karol Card. Wojtyla”. He parted but not before asking my prayers for him as he prepared for Conclave. Boy- was i shocked then and again in October when my afternoon drinking partner was elected pope himself!

That having been said- here’s my view of the late Holy Father’s shortcomings.

We all have shortcomings. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. I’m sure the man i met at that street side cafe would have been the first one to admit his own. beyond that, i repeat what I said in my earlier post and to anyone trying to take the measure of a man whose papacy and writings will become better understood as the years pass and history gives us perspective on JPII’s reign- let time tke it’s course.

Most people who tear this man apart do so because the feel he was much too conservative on many issues. My personal opinion is that he spent almost all his energy trying to save us from the slippery slope that leads to perdition. You cannot fault him or anyone for that- famed or obscure. Folks who malign JPII generally haven’t taken the time to study his life and how that fed into the legacy he left us in his many written works and recorded words. I have taken the time and have found that JPII was a man of great virtue and wisdom. The one shortcoming I felt he had was his seeming need to shut off avenues of thought with which he disagreed. On the surface, it looks like JPII simply closed doors. However, I myself have begun taking second looks at the man I met and his writings as Pope. When you take that second look, you find that, yes, he closed off some things- but opened other avenues which lead a person to truth and a better relationship with Holy Mother Church and Our Blessed Lord.

So- i stick to my original statement- only time and history will reveal any shortcomings he may have had as a man and a pope. I myself agree with the many signs seen at his funeral “SANTO SUBITO!” (Sainthood Now!).

Rob :angel1:

 

[vstead]

You can’t really go off thread in discussing JPII because he had lots of things to say over twenty six years as pope and over fifty years as a priest!

As for any shortcomings JPII may have had, I can only offer my own view of a man whom I had the privilege of meeting prior to his election as pope. It was August of 1978, hot, and i decided to have a beer on the way in to St. Peter’s to pay respects to Paul VI. A very genial priest asked if he could sit with me- I said sure and offered him hospitality. We had beer together and before leaving he reached into his valise and gave me an autographed portrait of the Black Madonna. He simply addressed the signature to me, added a blessing, and signed it “Karol Card. Wojtyla”. He parted but not before asking my prayers for him as he prepared for Conclave. Boy- was i shocked then and again in October when my afternoon drinking partner was elected pope himself!

That having been said- here’s my view of the late Holy Father’s shortcomings.

We all have shortcomings. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. I’m sure the man i met at that street side cafe would have been the first one to admit his own. beyond that, i repeat what I said in my earlier post and to anyone trying to take the measure of a man whose papacy and writings will become better understood as the years pass and history gives us perspective on JPII’s reign- let time tke it’s course.

Most people who tear this man apart do so because the feel he was much too conservative on many issues. My personal opinion is that he spent almost all his energy trying to save us from the slippery slope that leads to perdition. You cannot fault him or anyone for that- famed or obscure. Folks who malign JPII generally haven’t taken the time to study his life and how that fed into the legacy he left us in his many written works and recorded words. I have taken the time and have found that JPII was a man of great virtue and wisdom. The one shortcoming I felt he had was his seeming need to shut off avenues of thought with which he disagreed. On the surface, it looks like JPII simply closed doors. However, I myself have begun taking second looks at the man I met and his writings as Pope. When you take that second look, you find that, yes, he closed off some things- but opened other avenues which lead a person to truth and a better relationship with Holy Mother Church and Our Blessed Lord.

So- i stick to my original statement- only time and history will reveal any shortcomings he may have had as a man and a pope. I myself agree with the many signs seen at his funeral “SANTO SUBITO!” (Sainthood Now!).

Rob :angel1:

thanks rob. And what a lovely story. A great memory no doubt.

 

[twb1621]

I don’t have a good enough memory to recall all that’s been said in the recent, lengthy posts, but I am going to venture a comment or two.

qoute #1. “I’d rather see a condom used or a pill taken than abortions, sterilization as practiced in China, and a host of other things that are a direct result of the Church’s stance on birth control. I’m being very brief, but I hope my point is understood.”

Quote #2. "I’m certain of the virgin birth, but I don’t think that disqualified Mary and Joseph from having other children if they were so blessed. Having other children doesn’t mean anyone is necessarily a slave to any desires- their own or their spouse’s. "
Pax tecum,
Rob

 

[twb1621]

BRZ

Pitying me is hardly a substitute for dialoguing. I don’t pity you, but we do disagree. I personally don’t find that a serious problem. Disagreement is an honorable condition if both parties are respectful and honest. My attachment to democracy and the freedom to exchange views without rancor is important to me.

This next Sunday, for example, a friend of many years - a Reform Rabbi - will come by for a visit. We won’t agree on many things but we will have an exhilarating comversation over dinner and will remain good friends. I believe that such a spirit of tolerance and goodwill is in the best Christian tradition. Somebody once wrote a poem which comes to mind. It speaks of drawing a circle. It can be a circle that keeps people inside, or consign them to outside that circle. I believe in a great big circle, including within it as many of God’s children of all faiths, races and other diverse conditions as possible. My understanding is that Christ would have us do that.

May God bless the whole world - no exceptions (including BRZ).

All Christians know only what they were raised with for the most part and trust in those who taught them, usually their families. Regardless of specific issues, the disposition you reflect in this post is the very disposition that will allow all Christians to regroup through the revelations of Christ. This is where is begins… God’s peace.

 

[BRZ]

I am sorry if I came off as rude, that was not my intention. I just find it tiresome arguing with people. I never said that you were damned or anything like that. I am also not judging you. What I was saying was that there is a Truth and that Truth can’t be changed no matter how much you may want it to change. Now, of course, you don’t believe the Truth of the Catholic Church and I do. The problem I have with you is your assumptions that because I believe the Catholic Church to be the Truth that I must be someone who can’t think or reason and just take what is said without any thought. That is what I find offensive. All the free thinking in the world wont change the Truth.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

And often what passes for ‘free thinking’ is mere rebellion against Truth.

 

[inkaneer]

The idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters comes about because of mainly passages in the gospels that refer to the brothers of Jesus or the brothers and sisters of Jesus. They are Mt 12:46, Mt 12:55, Mr 3:32, Lu 8:19-20 and John 2:12 and 7:3. There is also Paul’s statement in Ga 1:19 "But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. " On the surface it looks like Jesus did have brothers. But did He? First of all nowhere is there a statement that these people were sons of Mary and Joseph. Only Jesus is called son of Mary. At the wedding feast at Cana there is no mention of any siblings of Jesus although it does say that His disciples were invited too. Odd that Mary and Jesus would be invited but not the rest of the family. But that is not exaxctly proof that these siblings did not exist. So let’s go farther. The idea that Jesus had siblings [children of Mary] hinges on one thing, that being that the verses in the Gospels require a strict interpretation of the Greek word for brother, ‘adelphos’ or the plural adelphoi, means a sibling(s). The question then is should ‘adelphos’ be interpreted strictly? If it can be shown that in every instance the word is used in the NT that it refers to a sibling relationship then a strict interpretation is warranted. BUT if there are instances where the word is used that is describing a relationship that is not between siblings then the strict interpretation has to be abandoned. Basic research shows that the word adelphos is not used to denote strictly a sibling relationship. Foe example, in Luke 22:31-32 we read: "31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” Here Jesus is saying that Satan has demanded all of the Apostles so he could sift them as wheat but Jesus has prayed only for Simon so Simon could strengthen his brethren. The word interpreted as ‘brethren’ is the Greek word ‘adelphoi’. Now we know that only one other Apostle, Andrew, was Simon’s sibling. Yet Jesus is calling all of the Apostles Simon’s brothers. There are other verses but the point is made. Now lets deal with Paul in Ga 1:19 where he writes: “But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.” Paul identifies the person he saw as an Apostle named James who he says was the Lord’s brother. Now James was a very common name at the time and Mt 13:55 does say that one of the ‘brothers’ of Jesus was named James but there were only two Apostles that had that name. One is identified as the brother of the Apostle John and the son of Zebedee. He obviously is not related to Jesus. The other Apostle named James the bible identifies as James the son of Alphaeus [Mt 10:3]. Now there is nothing in the Bible that tells us Mary married anyone else than Joseph so how could any of these two James be her sons? Again, the strict interpretation of ‘adelphos’ [brother] as meaning a sibling cannot be maintained. The Orthodox believe these ‘adelphoi’ were sons of Joseph by another prior marriage. Augustine, however, believed these were relatives of Jesus such as cousins or uncles. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language had a word to describe these familial relationships and were thus grouped under a much broader term of “brother” for which the scripture writers used the Greek word, ‘adelphoi’.

 

[nevadagardener]

Thanks, inkaneer, for that post about the two Jameses. Your Scriptural references back up what I’ve posted as to their being the first and second cousins of Jesus on Joseph’s side, by marriage. Here goes:

(After you work through the posts, you will see it all makes sense.) Three of the Apostles were Jesus’s first cousins, and two were His second cousins. Two apostles were also cousins named James: James the Less, His first cousin, and James the Greater, His second cousin.

Remember that Joseph is descended of the House of David, and we know that Joseph’s family was from Bethlehem.

Joseph’s brother, Cleophas, was also known in various Scriptural references as Clopas, others as Alphaeus. His wife is Mary of Cleophas, (sometimes Clopas), present at the crucifixion. This Mary would then be Our Lady’s sister-in-law, since both women are married to brothers, and Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas are Our Lord’s uncle and aunt.

Of this marriage, there are four sons, 3 of whom are Apostles, and one daughter.

First cousins of Jesus, nephews and niece of Mary and Joseph:

4 brothers:

Simon aka Symeon (Apostle)
James the Less (Apostle)
Jude (Apostle)
Joseph Barsabas (aka Joseph, Joses, Jose), commonly referenced with his brother, James, but not an Apostle of the 12

1 sister:

Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee (Mary is Our Lady’s niece, also present at the crucifixion)

Of this marriage, there are 2 sons, both Apostles.

Second cousins of Jesus, great nephews of Mary and Joseph

James the Greater (Apostle)
John the Evangelist (Apostle), with whom Mary lived after the death of Her Son

---

Perhaps a timeline of the martyrdom of the Cousins who were Apostles will be helpful.

Saint James the Greater was the first of the Apostles to be martyred. He was beheaded in Jerusalem by the Jews in the year 42. His body was later taken to Compostella in Spain.

Saint James the Less, the oldest of the Apostles, 96 years old when he died, was thrown from the Temple of Jerusalem by the Jews and clubbed to death in the streets. This was in the year 62.

Saint Jude was clubbed to death in the year 67.

Saint Simon was crucified in the year 67.

Saint John was thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and miraculously did not die. But he went through all the horrors of martyrdom, in the year 95, and then died a peaceful death in the year 100.

Also: It was in the year 29 that Saint Joseph, foster father of Our Lord, died, at the age of 60.

It was in the year 32 that Saint John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus’s second cousin, son of Elizabeth, Our Lady’s first cousin.

Our Lady died in the year 58 at the age of 72, is risen from the dead, and assumed into Heaven three days later, and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Hope this helps. Now that you know the relationships, you can better understand the confusion with the various names of Joseph’s brother, Cleophas (sometimes referencing back one of two other aliases to his name in some of the scriptures); as well as a nephew of Saint Joseph, who is also a Saint Joseph (Barsabas), one of the four brothers but not an Apostle; as well as all of the Marys at the crucifixion, none of whom are sisters, but are either a sister-in-law or a niece of Our Lady.

Better?

 

[inkaneer]

Thanks, inkaneer, for that post about the two Jameses. Your Scriptural references back up what I’ve posted as to their being the first and second cousins of Jesus on Joseph’s side, by marriage. Here goes:

(After you work through the posts, you will see it all makes sense.) Three of the Apostles were Jesus’s first cousins, and two were His second cousins. Two apostles were also cousins named James: James the Less, His first cousin, and James the Greater, His second cousin.

Remember that Joseph is descended of the House of David, and we know that Joseph’s family was from Bethlehem.

Joseph’s brother, Cleophas, was also known in various Scriptural references as Clopas, others as Alphaeus. His wife is Mary of Cleophas, (sometimes Clopas), present at the crucifixion. This Mary would then be Our Lady’s sister-in-law, since both women are married to brothers, and Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas are Our Lord’s uncle and aunt.

Of this marriage, there are four sons, 3 of whom are Apostles, and one daughter.

First cousins of Jesus, nephews and niece of Mary and Joseph:

4 brothers:

Simon aka Symeon (Apostle)
James the Less (Apostle)
Jude (Apostle)
Joseph Barsabas (aka Joseph, Joses, Jose), commonly referenced with his brother, James, but not an Apostle of the 12

1 sister:

Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee (Mary is Our Lady’s niece, also present at the crucifixion)

Of this marriage, there are 2 sons, both Apostles.

Second cousins of Jesus, great nephews of Mary and Joseph

James the Greater (Apostle)
John the Evangelist (Apostle), with whom Mary lived after the death of Her Son

---

Perhaps a timeline of the martyrdom of the Cousins who were Apostles will be helpful.

Saint James the Greater was the first of the Apostles to be martyred. He was beheaded in Jerusalem by the Jews in the year 42. His body was later taken to Compostella in Spain.

Saint James the Less, the oldest of the Apostles, 96 years old when he died, was thrown from the Temple of Jerusalem by the Jews and clubbed to death in the streets. This was in the year 62.

Saint Jude was clubbed to death in the year 67.

Saint Simon was crucified in the year 67.

Saint John was thrown into a caldron of boiling oil, and miraculously did not die. But he went through all the horrors of martyrdom, in the year 95, and then died a peaceful death in the year 100.

Also: It was in the year 29 that Saint Joseph, foster father of Our Lord, died, at the age of 60.

It was in the year 32 that Saint John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus’s second cousin, son of Elizabeth, Our Lady’s first cousin.

Our Lady died in the year 58 at the age of 72, is risen from the dead, and assumed into Heaven three days later, and crowned Queen of Heaven and Earth.

Hope this helps. Now that you know the relationships, you can better understand the confusion with the various names of Joseph’s brother, Cleophas (sometimes referencing back one of two other aliases to his name in some of the scriptures); as well as a nephew of Saint Joseph, who is also a Saint Joseph (Barsabas), one of the four brothers but not an Apostle; as well as all of the Marys at the crucifixion, none of whom are sisters, but are either a sister-in-law or a niece of Our Lady.

Better?

I am not sure I agree with all that you wrote. What is your source(s) for this information?