SPLIT: Did Jesus have brothers? The perpetual virginity debate.

[Pure_and_Simple]

Then who or what is the Messiah’s Gate?

When God promised that He would pass through that gate… Did He lie?

Did His word return void?

Take a look at Wikipedia’s comments about the Eastern Gate also called the Golden/Beautiful Gate. It seems that Suleiman had it sealed up in 1541 to prevent the Messiah from passing through when He comes again. Apparently he did this because of Christian prophecies maintaining that the Messiah would return and pass through that gate. Could it be that Ezekiel’s vision, rather than being taken as metaphor/ symbolism, has an actual basis in the real, physical gate and the Second Coming of the Messiah?

One more thing that is confusing: if the Church regarded Ezekiel’s vision as pertaining to the Second Coming, then how did that teaching change to refer to Mary as the gate of the First Coming? Or, is it both?

Btw, no one has stepped forward yet to explain how the RC Church interprets the remainder of Ezekiel’s vision.

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Does that mean no one TAUGHT you? How come if Jesus told His Apostles “Go, therefore, and make disciples from all nations… TEACH THEM to fulfill all that I have commanded you”? (Matthew 28:19-20)

How can you go against Scripture by self-teaching yourself, and still claim to follow Scripture?

But if someone did, if someone taught you, WHO taught you? Are you certain he was SENT by Jesus? We know He told His Apostles when He sent them to TEACH all nations: “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me” (Luke 10:16) How can you prove the person that taught you was sent by Him? The last of the Apostles died 1900 years ago, is the one who taugh you a successor of the Apostles? How do you know he is? Are you certain he has Apostolic Succession?

Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is also “ALL ABOUT JESUS”.

“HONOUR thy father and thy mother”. God speaking. (Exodus 20:12, Dueteronomy 5:16)

“HONOUR thy father and thy mother”. Jesus speaking. (Matthew 19:19)

You imply that you do what’s written, but, do you do ALL THAT IS WRITTEN, or do you just select parts of it?

“… For behold, from this time on all generations will call me blessed.” (Luke 1:48) Do you call the Mother of your Savior BLESSED? How often do you do it? Elizabeth, FULL OF THE HOLY SPIRIT did: “You are most blessed among women and blessed is the fruit of your womb!” (Luke 1:42) Do you do as Elizabeth? If not, why not if it’s WRITTEN that you should?

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.’” (John 6:53) Do you EAT Jesus? When? How and how often do you do it? If you do, are your sure it’s Him?

“Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.” (James 5:16) Do you confess your sins? To whom?

“… but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, THE PILLAR AND FOUNDATION OF THE TRUTH.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Why do you say it’s the Bible, contradicting Scripture that says it’s the Church?

"I also say to you that you are Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I WILL GIVE YOU THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; and WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19) You reject Peter is THE ROCK and that he was given authority over the other Apostles. You believe the gates of hades OVERPOWERED Jesus’ Church. You deny His promise to His Church, yet you claim you understand Scripture. How could it be? Was His Church overpowered: yes, no? Did he abandon His Church: yes, no?

“… I am with you ALWAYS, EVEN UNTO THE END OF THE WORLD.” (Matthew 28:20) Jesus put no condition to that promise, He didn’t say “you either do this or I will abandon you.” Yet you believe He abandoned the Church.

“Know this well: no prophecy of Scripture can be handed over to private interpretation”. (2 Peter 1:20) Yet you insist on private interpretation of Scriptures, which holds pages and pages and pages of prophecies.

“There are, however, some points in them that are difficult to understand, which people who are ignorant and immature in their faith twist, AS THEY DO WITH THE REST OF THE SCRIPTURES, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16) Peter describes people that twist Paul’s writings as well as Scriptures. Have you considered you might belong to this group?

You’re interpreting the Bible by yourself and you’re reaching wrong conclusions. You also are wrong about Jesus’ “brothers” being children of the Virgin Mary. IT IS NOT WRITTEN that they are St. Joseph’s and the Virgin Mary’s children. IT IS WRITTEN that their father is Alpheous/Cleophas and their mother is “the other” Mary. We have presented ample evidence that your interpretation is wrong. Will you persist in your error? A bit of humility wont be bad, on the contrary, it will let you see the Truth.

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am mine. You attribute many things to me that are not true, but my personal beliefs are of no concern of yours. If I attempted to answer all of your ‘questions,’ I would be going way beyond the focus of this thread.

Now, we can have a robust, objective discussion of the subject at hand, challenging the basis of our respective beliefs, or we can lapse into personal attack and name-calling. If I have stepped on any toes here, it was only in an effort to bring all the issues into the light for discussion and not to belittle anyone’s dearly-held beliefs. I realize, however, that it’s difficult for some to rise above their emotions and rationally consider other’s posts. On the other hand, if you do not wish to hear other opinions, then perhaps this forum should be limited to Catholics only. I’m only here because I was invited to come back but will surely decline if another invitation comes in the future. And everyone probably says, Yay!
Oh well, live and learn. Merry Christmas everyone and God bless you.

 

[paul_c]

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am mine. You attribute many things to me that are not true, but my personal beliefs are of no concern of yours. If I attempted to answer all of your ‘questions,’ I would be going way beyond the focus of this thread.

Now, we can have a robust, objective discussion of the subject at hand, challenging the basis of our respective beliefs, or we can lapse into personal attack and name-calling. If I have stepped on any toes here, it was only in an effort to bring all the issues into the light for discussion and not to belittle anyone’s dearly-held beliefs. I realize, however, that it’s difficult for some to rise above their emotions and rationally consider other’s posts. On the other hand, if you do not wish to hear other opinions, then perhaps this forum should be limited to Catholics only. I’m only here because I was invited to come back but will surely decline if another invitation comes in the future. And everyone probably says, Yay!
Oh well, live and learn. Merry Christmas everyone and God bless you.

On the contrary, Please stay and discuss the points as long as you like. Its mutually beneficial. If someone doesn’t feel that way, they can always stop reading the thread.

 

[adrift]

Now, we can have a robust, objective discussion of the subject at hand, challenging the basis of our respective beliefs, or we can lapse into personal attack and name-calling.

The post you quoted was challenging you and I saw no personal attack or name calling. You are right though that it is far from the question at hand.

Now I know that there are many posting challanging your statements. You have not addressed mine. I assume because there are so many post that it was just that you can’t answer everyone. However, mine address the subject of this thread.
You accused others of ignoring Mark however you misquoted him. You haven’t addressed that.

 

[Prieldedi]

You are entitled to your opinions, as I am mine. You attribute many things to me that are not true, but my personal beliefs are of no concern of yours. If I attempted to answer all of your ‘questions,’ I would be going way beyond the focus of this thread.

Now, we can have a robust, objective discussion of the subject at hand, challenging the basis of our respective beliefs, or we can lapse into personal attack and name-calling. If I have stepped on any toes here, it was only in an effort to bring all the issues into the light for discussion and not to belittle anyone’s dearly-held beliefs. I realize, however, that it’s difficult for some to rise above their emotions and rationally consider other’s posts. On the other hand, if you do not wish to hear other opinions, then perhaps this forum should be limited to Catholics only. I’m only here because I was invited to come back but will surely decline if another invitation comes in the future. And everyone probably says, Yay!
Oh well, live and learn. Merry Christmas everyone and God bless you.

It’s not my opinion. It’s the doctrine of the Apostles taught by Jesus Himself and handed down to every generation of Christians for the last 2000 years.

Your beliefs are yours, true they do not concern me, but it would be un Christian for me if I keep quiet. I feel I have to tell you a few things in the hope you might see what many ex protestants have seen. My mother is one of them, she was a Baptist.

True some of my questions are beyond the original post, but I ask them to prove our point: Protestants follow parts of Scripture. Your religion says “Protestant”, so you do not believe the Eucharist is Jesus body and blood and reject other teachings of the Apostles. Yes, we can prove they (the Apostles) taught what we believe.

Seems you are leaving by your last lines, but I ask you to continue. I find your opinions worth being discussed. I believe I have not offended you, sorry if you feel I have. My mother’s family and I have had this kind of conversations in a very respectful tone, I feel I have done so with you. What happens is that when you read something I wrote, you cannot see the tone in which I said it. I can assure you that my tone is respectful and will always be.

I ask hard questions, my aunts have told me so, but that is part of the conversation. I believe every Christian, specially in our times of thousands of Christians churches, has to respond to many of those questions, even more so those who seek the truth, like you. St. Augustine said “of the doubt, faith is born”. I have doubted in the past, I confronted those questions myself and they were answered.

Please continue, don’t leave. I’m sure we both will learn from each other.

Merry Christmas to you too!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Take a look at Wikipedia’s comments about the Eastern Gate also called the Golden/Beautiful Gate. It seems that Suleiman had it sealed up in 1541 to prevent the Messiah from passing through when He comes again. Apparently he did this because of Christian prophecies maintaining that the Messiah would return and pass through that gate. Could it be that Ezekiel’s vision, rather than being taken as metaphor/ symbolism, has an actual basis in the real, physical gate and the Second Coming of the Messiah?

Many people besides Jesus have passed through it, so no.

The fact that you call a pile of stones “real” in contrast to Mary is very strange.

One more thing that is confusing: if the Church regarded Ezekiel’s vision as pertaining to the Second Coming, then how did that teaching change to refer to Mary as the gate of the First Coming? Or, is it both?

There is no earthly Temple anymore so I don’t see what it can have to do with the Second Coming.

 

[HOLY_POOH_FAN]

Just heard a homily from Fr Mitch Paqua SJ on today’s Feast of the Immaculate Conception. The original language of Jesus and Mary was of course Aaramaic. Aramaic has no superlatives so one says you are holier from me, not holier than. Elizabeth, inspired by the Holy Spirit said to Mary you are blessed among women, which was the superlative form - you are the most blessed of women. Same for full of Grace, she was chosen from the beginning and so free from Sin and full of grace. Common sense would demand that, and that she needed all her energy to handle being the Messiah’s Mother, she did not need, even if humanly she wanted more children. People who drop their babies off every morning to go to work out of necessity, OR not to be bothered by them as for some, to have a sitter or service care for them might not understand.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Pure and Simple:

Btw, no one has stepped forward yet to explain how the RC Church interprets the remainder of Ezekiel’s vision.

It’s important to understand that the Catholic Church does not have some sort of systematic interpretation of every verse in the Bible.

What is also important to understand is that Catholic teaching is based on the Deposit of Faith left to us by the Apostles themselves (before the New Testament was even written.) This teaching resonates in the Bible, and the Church will point out verses that back up or prove her teachings. However, since the Catholic Church’s teachings are founded on a deposit of Faith left by the Apostles, and not on a book (like Protestantism) there is no need for the Catholic Church to elaborate on every single verse in the Bible, at least not in some sort of official capacity.

 

[jediliz]

Jesus can’t be the New Ark…the Ark contains the law…can he contain himself?

And Jesus did NOT have Brothers or Sisters. For all we know, Joseph COULD have been a widower that was assigned as a care giver/protector of her virginity. She asked the Angel hoe a future conception would be possible…was she planning on having relations with Joseph? or was she a consecrated Virgin that would need to be married legally, but would live as brother and sister with her spouse?

And usually a child was referred to as the son of the FATHER’s name…not the Son of the mother’s name!

Did Paul not address fellow Christians as “brothers and sisters”? They weren’t his biological brothers and sisters, but spiritual brothers and sisters in Christ.

Also, I would think under Jewish law that the next oldest child would be required to care for the mother if the husband has passed away…so where were these so called siblings when Jesus was DYING? No where to be found! He gave Mary to the care of his beloved apostle because he was an only child.

if you were approached by a messenger Angel and told YOU were to be the mother of the Messiah, I think you’d want to devote ALL your time to that Child! After all, its not that often that you’re asked to carry and raise the SON OF GOD!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Btw, no one has stepped forward yet to explain how the RC Church interprets the remainder of Ezekiel’s vision.

Haydock commentary on Ezekiel 44

Ver. 2-3. *Opened. *No man perfectly understands the Scriptures but the Son of God. *Mat. xi. 27. *S. Jer. — This also insinuates, that Mary ever remained a pure virgin. *S. Aug. &c. *W. — Shut, even for the prince. *Some (H.) kings of Juda claimed the privilege of entering by it at any time, and passed through a part of the court assigned to the priests. *2 Par. vi. 12. and 4 K. xvi. 18. *This shall be no longer tolerated. *The gate might be opened in the week days if the prince wished to offer sacrifice, but not else, except on the sabbaths. *C. xlvi. 1, 12. — Lord, in peace offerings and religious feasts. — Porch. *Each had two doors. *C. xlvi. 2. *C.
Ver. 4. *Face. *This astonishment and attention (v. 5.) intimate the mysteries of the Church, prefigured by the Jewish rites. *W.
Ver. 5. *Ways, or “the going in,” and all that concerns the temple and sacrifices.
Ver. 7. *Flesh. *People of this description were not to enter the temple, which is here called the sanctuary, even though they adored God. *In some cases pagans were admitted into any part, except the most holy. *Epiphanes (C.) and Pompey forced their passage thither, to the great sorrow of the Jews. *Jos. Bel. i. 5. *See Eccli. lii. *Acts xxi. 28. — During the plundering of the city, the Chaldees did the like; (Lam. i. 10. *H.) and while idols were set up, all rules were neglected. — Doings. *You observe the exterior, and not the spirit of religion.
Ver. 8. *Yourselves, out of ambition, contrary to the regulations of David. *C.
Ver. 10. *Levites, or priests, (H.) who were seduced by Jeroboam, or offered victims on the high places. *4 K. xxiii. 9. *Such lost their privileges and were condemned to serve in the meanest offices. *It seems the race of Ithamar was alone guilty, and the threat against his house was now put in execution. *1 K. ii. 39. and iii. 14. *Lev. xxi. 17. and 2 Esd. vii. 64. *C.
Ver. 11. *Slay. *Levites *might do this, but the priests poured the blood round the altar. *v. 15. *They could not well slay all the victims.
Ver. 15. *And Levites, of the higher order. *H. — No simple Levites wee of this family. *It enjoyed the high priesthood from the time of Solomon.
Ver. 17. *Court; that is to do duty. — Linen. *Wool might have been taken from a dead sheep, which would render the person unclean. *C.
Ver. 18. *Sweat, or so as to make them perspire. *Sept. “girded violently.” *H. — They must have liberty to move, (S. Jer.) and have the girdle about their breast. *Braun.
Ver. 19. *Sanctify, by exposing them to the danger of touching the sacred vestments, which none were to touch but they that were sanctified. *Ch. — Sanctify here means to defile. *Ex. xxx. 29. *C. *and xxix. 37. *Holy things must be done in holy places. *W. — Divine religion has different clothing for the ministry, from what is used in common life. *S. Jer. *Ex. xxviii. 40. *C.
Ver. 20. *Shave, like the priests of Isis. *Juv. vi.
Ver. 21. *Wine. *Lev. x. 9. *The priests on duty abstain from wine. *Jos. Bel. vi. 15.
Ver. 22. *Widow. *Moses laid this restraint upon the high priest. *Lev. xxi. 13. *C.
Ver. 25. *Unclean, attending the funeral, which inferior priests alone might do. *Lev. xxi. 10. *M.
Ver. 27. *Day, after the seven first, (C.) though this would be a new regulation. *M.
Ver. 28. *No. *This is omitted in Heb. Sept. &c. *God was their portion. *C. — They had no land but what lay near their cities. *H.

 

[Yerusalyim]

He wan’t the only bachelor in town. The priests of the temple wanted had to remove Mary from the temple because she was of age, and the concern is that women of age may lose their virginity which then would defile the temple. But they wished to preserve the virginity of the temple virgins so they sought older widowers who have no interest in having children (and probably have no ability to do so anyway) to take her as a wife (but in reality be more of a guardian). So they called all the old widowers in town to the temple, and the Holy Spirit showed the priests a sign that Joseph is the chosen one (a dove landed on Joseph). And thus Mary was betrothed to Joseph.

Joseph was indeed irked that Mary was pregnant because of the trouble it would bring to him. After reading the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph’s reactions and emotions in the Gospels made sense to me. Also it seems that Joseph handled the situation more maturely. A younger man would have made a big fuss of the issue and ratted Mary out to the pharisees who would have stoned her to death. Joseph seemed to proceed cautiously even though he was distraught by the events.

The story of Mary being a Temple Virgin is apocraphal…the Jewish Temple never had concerated virgins.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Something else to ponder: Mary was betrothed to Joseph, right? (Luke 1:27) Planning to get married. And, you know what that means. OK, so Gabriel is sent to her to tell her that she is going to have a Son (Luke 1:31). Her reaction? “How is this going to happen, since I have no knowledge of man?” (Luke 1:34). Huh?

Mary knew that children are produced through marital union. Says so right in the bible. Mary was planning to get married. Says so right in the bible. So, tell me why she was incredulous when told that she was going to have a son? So incredulous that she had the temerity to ask Gabriel, who stands in God’s Presence (Luke 1:19), just how this was to come about.

Ever virgin.

It’s a euphemisim meaning Mary hadn’t had sexual intercourse…"how can I get pregnant, I haven’t had sexual relations…

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s a euphemisim meaning Mary hadn’t had sexual intercourse…"how can I get pregnant, I haven’t had sexual relations…

Mary was espoused to St. Joseph. There was NO reason to ask this question. EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD NOT had relations with St. Joseph, the announcement of the Angel NO WHERE PRESUMED that she already had relations.

When someone, anyone says to a newlywed woman, you shall have a son etc… No woman would ever ask such a silly question HOW CAN THAT BE??? But this was the ArchAngel Gabriel, who stands at the Throne of God who said this. There is even LESS reason for a girl or woman, no matter how impertinent or stupid to say HOW CAN THIS BE???

There is only ONE reason to ask such a question. That reason is that Mary was already a consecrated Virgin, and it was already understood between Joseph and Mary that they would remain virgins. ONLY in this circumstance would the question HOW CAN THIS BE? be of utmost importance.

 

[Kennyb]

The Jews at that time still went by their tribal identity. All the persons in your tribal group were your brothers and sisters. It’s why many Christians call each other brother and sister–because the Christian family is the family of Christ, yes? The brothers and sisters mentioned need not have been directly related to Jesus, as we see from other references to these people mentioned in various parts of the Gospel accounts.

As to why it is important to our salvation, you hit upon a very important point, one that even many Catholics are unaware of, and that is that all Marian doctrines/dogmas are taught by the Church because they tell us something about Jesus, her Son, and not because they honor her, although they do that, too. Most Protestants never think about why the Catholic Church teaches the things it does about Mary, but only assumes it must be wrong merely because they haven’t explored those questions for the same reasons.

If you truly ponder the meaning of who Jesus was, fully God and fully human, the Marian teachings take on another perspective. One that, if you look into it, are reasonable and in no way detract anything from Jesus but rather enhance our understanding of his life and his act of redemption.

Della - Best explanation I have ever heard. I have a friend, who is Jewish, and she talks much about the tribal-ness of the Jews. It was extremely important to them. This was a way of protection. She even claims that the Ten Commandments related to treatment within and among the tribes only and was never intended to affect the treatment by Jews of others outside the “Nation” nor were they intended for “Gentiles”. Hence, the killings by Jews of those outside of the Tribes, when the Commandments forbid killing. Yes, I know that most was commanded by God as a protection of the Chosen People. But, can God contradict Himself? I don’t think so.

 

[epan]

I’ve been to Mary’s house in Ephesus. It didn’t look big enough for much of a family.