'The' Only Child - A non-Scriptural Angle

[happilycatholic]

The expression “only child” when applied to Christ is uniquely appropriate. Christ is the true “Only Child”. The only child to be born of God. The only child to be given up for our salvation. He is The Only Child to the whole of the world.

I started this thread because I didn’t want to derail another thread with a similar discussion.

I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings. Maybe it’s just curiosity that’s gotten the better of some. Would it be such a stretch to think that Christ was an only child because it was intended by God? And to that end, the lifelong celebacy of Mary in devotion to Christ?

Think of the controversy that would be caused by descendants related to Jesus. It would most certainly stain His birth and His life throughout the Ages if The Holy Family were continually dragged through the mud by people who were determined to lay claim to being a decendant or by those who would try to discredit those who actually would be decendants. Think of the books already written upon supposition. Argh!

IMHO, When Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the Father, Mary was the only human thing left of His being. When Mary asdended the Miracle was complete. The Miracle is now complete and in Heaven as a whole. There is nothing earthly left of Christ. Every essence of Christ is in Heaven. There just simply can be no earthly part of Him left here.

I don’t find that hard to believe. In fact, I find it very easy to believe and so I do believe it.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Eucharisted]

There are lots of people in this world who hate Christians and Christianity, or who believe religion is just man-made fairy tales, or who believe the divinity of Christ is something the Church made up. These type of people do what they can to make up execuses for Catholicism, even going to extremely dumb conclusions on the Catholic Church, and some of them dare to “rewrite” history in order to support their claims. Such individuals are dangerous, because they believe they are the masters of the human race - even before it is articulated. And so we ough to pray for them, that the poison of lie and confusion may be purified by the Truth Himself, that is, Christ Jesus.

 

[ckempston]

The expression “only child” when applied to Christ is uniquely appropriate. Christ is the true “Only Child”. The only child to be born of God. The only child to be given up for our salvation. He is The Only Child to the whole of the world.

I started this thread because I didn’t want to derail another thread with a similar discussion.

I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings. Maybe it’s just curiosity that’s gotten the better of some. Would it be such a stretch to think that Christ was an only child because it was intended by God? And to that end, the lifelong celebacy of Mary in devotion to Christ?

I would venture to say that there is no desperate need to prove Christ had siblings. The desperation, in my view, seems to come from the other side, in the effort to force unnatural readings onto the Scriptures, which plainly say Christ had brothers and sisters, but do not plainly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Certainly, insofar as Christ is the Son of God, it is certainly appropriate to call him an only child. But in regards to his humanity, I don’t personally find this appropriate.

Think of the controversy that would be caused by descendants related to Jesus. It would most certainly stain His birth and His life throughout the Ages if The Holy Family were continually dragged through the mud by people who were determined to lay claim to being a decendant or by those who would try to discredit those who actually would be decendants. Think of the books already written upon supposition. Argh!

Why would this stain his birth any more than the humiliation of God becoming Man in the first place?

IMHO, When Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the Father, Mary was the only human thing left of His being. When Mary asdended the Miracle was complete. The Miracle is now complete and in Heaven as a whole. There is nothing earthly left of Christ. Every essence of Christ is in Heaven. There just simply can be no earthly part of Him left here.

Except, of course, in the Eucharist, right?

I don’t find that hard to believe. In fact, I find it very easy to believe and so I do believe it.

What are your thoughts?

Well, what has been said to me several times, quite correctly, is the ease in which something can be believed doesn’t make it true.

 

[happilycatholic]

I would venture to say that there is no desperate need to prove Christ had siblings. The desperation, in my view, seems to come from the other side, in the effort to force unnatural readings onto the Scriptures, which plainly say Christ had brothers and sisters, but do not plainly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

**Respectfully, the Scriptures do not “plainly say” anything interpretable to what you just stated. If they did, there wouldn’t be this debate today. **

---

Certainly, insofar as Christ is the Son of God, it is certainly appropriate to call him an only child. But in regards to his humanity, I don’t personally find this appropriate.

For what reason?

Why would this stain his birth any more than the humiliation of God becoming Man in the first place?

Humiliation? I disagree. I believe you may want to reconsider that terminology. I don’t believe the word “humiliation” can be used in the context of the birth of Christ since it denotes disgrace, degradation and shame. Maybe you mispoke?

I would think that any earthly scandal with respect to the Holy Family would bring shame on the Family. Take for instance the question of whether the supposed subsequent children of Mary were Joeseph’s or because some believe he was in his eighties, they may be someone else’s?

Except, of course, in the Eucharist, right?

**Well, actually no. His presence in the Eucharist is divine, it IS Christ, not an earthly representation. It’s a Mystery. **

---

Well, what has been said to me several times, quite correctly, is the ease in which something can be believed doesn’t make it true.

You choose to believe what you believe.

 

[mark_a]

IMHO, When Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the Father, Mary was the only human thing left of His being. When Mary asdended the Miracle was complete.

Mary was assumed.

Just thought I’d point that out because this thread is likely to attract the “Catholics worship Mary” crowd.

 

[Duong_Nguyen]

**

I would venture to say that there is no desperate need to prove Christ had siblings. The desperation, in my view, seems to come from the other side, in the effort to force unnatural readings onto the Scriptures, which plainly say Christ had brothers and sisters, but do not plainly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

*** Of course we try desperately to spread the truth, who wouldn’t? Would you not try to help a fellow human?***

**Well, it really boils down to sola scriptura or accepting other things such as historical background of Jewish society. The Bible is the message but you still need context to understand it properly. This is really about how open you are to other modes of understanding the truth of the Bible than just reading it word for word. **

Certainly, insofar as Christ is the Son of God, it is certainly appropriate to call him an only child. But in regards to his humanity, I don’t personally find this appropriate.

*** Likewise the Jewish language (as in a few other Eastern languages) does not translate the cousin and brother distinctly, therefore the narrow English “brother” would not account for that. In addition the CC tradition has Joseph with his own children from a previous marriage, hence step-siblings of Jesus. I would ask what man in his right mind would try to have children with Mary after learning about God’s involvement. ***

Why would this stain his birth any more than the humiliation of God becoming Man in the first place?
*** I agree that this would not stain him any further than becoming Man. It is more a question about Mary’s perpetual virginity. Again it’s not like Mary could continue living a normal life with Joseph after bearing Jesus, Son of God.***

Except, of course, in the Eucharist, right?
Of course

Well, what has been said to me several times, quite correctly, is the ease in which something can be believed doesn’t make it true.
***This is quite true. Studying things for yourself is good, but don’t forsake any advice that may point you to truth. *****

The perpetual virginity of Mary is even implicitly recognized in the Q’uran. The Virgin Mary in the Koran
Here is a link to the list of recommended readings on Mary’s perpetual virginity.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71284

 

[JonNC]

happilycatholic;4647919]
I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings. Maybe it’s just curiosity that’s gotten the better of some. Would it be such a stretch to think that Christ was an only child because it was intended by God? And to that end, the lifelong celebacy of Mary in devotion to Christ?

I, as a Lutheran, believe in her pertetual virginity. But scripture is not explicit on the issue, and the conscience of a Christian should not be bound, one way or another. The issue of 'ever-virgin" should not be church dividing.

I don’t find that hard to believe. In fact, I find it very easy to believe and so I do believe it.

Agreed.

There is nothing earthly left of Christ. Every essence of Christ is in Heaven. There just simply can be no earthly part of Him left here.

What about the Eucharist?

Jon

 

[happilycatholic]

What about the Eucharist?
Jon

Hello JonNC!

---

As you know, it is the belief of the catholic faith that the Eucharist “becomes” the body of Christ and so it is divine in nature. I guess that could be argued. It begins as a lowly piece of earthly bread and transforms into Christ’s Body. But then again, that point is arguable if you aren’t catholic.

---

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

Mary was assumed.

Just thought I’d point that out because this thread is likely to attract the “Catholics worship Mary” crowd.

**Good point! Sorry **

---

**Thanks! **

 

[JonNC]

Hello JonNC!

---

As you know, it is the belief of the catholic faith that the Eucharist “becomes” the body of Christ and so it is divine in nature. I guess that could be argued. It begins as a lowly piece of earthly bread and transforms into Christ’s Body. But then again, that point is arguable if you aren’t catholic.

---

HC

Hi happily,
Actually, I wouldn’t argue it. It is a mystery and a wonderous gift.

Jon

 

[happilycatholic]

Duong Nguyen:

I agree that this would not stain him any further than becoming Man. It is more a question about Mary’s perpetual virginity. Again it’s not like Mary could continue living a normal life with Joseph after bearing Jesus, Son of God.

If I may, let me just comment on this a little further. Becoming man did not “stain” Christ’s birth. I’m not sure where that’s coming from. It was all about Him becoming Man. That indeed was his ministry, to become man so He could die. Please explain how Christ’s brith was stained by being born human.

**And on the subject, imagine Christ’s brothers and sisters living and producing descendants through the ages and all the scandal that would have happened. Living, breathing relatives of Christ living out their lives in communities all around the world and sinning and possibly doing so until the current time. **

How in the world can a person imagine that? I can’t even wrap my mind around the possibility of any descendants of the Holy Family alive today or even in the recent past. It just doesn’t fit. It doesn’t even sound correct.

Imagine the distant descendant of Christ murdering someone or being a thief or anything like that. What if we found out that someone in prison today was a direct descendant of Christ? How would that play out?

It isn’t just about Mary not being ever virgin. There are ramifications of exsisting descendants that we can’t even imagine.

And you don’t think that would be a stain on the birth and life of Christ? …not to mention His ministry.

---

**EDIT: When I speak of “stain” I mean as the potential of sin. Sin would have been a stain.

 

[wisdomseeker]

The expression “only child” when applied to Christ is uniquely appropriate. Christ is the true “Only Child”. The only child to be born of God. The only child to be given up for our salvation. He is The Only Child to the whole of the world.

I started this thread because I didn’t want to derail another thread with a similar discussion.

I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings. Maybe it’s just curiosity that’s gotten the better of some. Would it be such a stretch to think that Christ was an only child because it was intended by God? And to that end, the lifelong celebacy of Mary in devotion to Christ?

Think of the controversy that would be caused by descendants related to Jesus. It would most certainly stain His birth and His life throughout the Ages if The Holy Family were continually dragged through the mud by people who were determined to lay claim to being a decendant or by those who would try to discredit those who actually would be decendants. Think of the books already written upon supposition. Argh!

IMHO, When Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the Father, Mary was the only human thing left of His being. When Mary asdended the Miracle was complete. The Miracle is now complete and in Heaven as a whole. There is nothing earthly left of Christ. Every essence of Christ is in Heaven. There just simply can be no earthly part of Him left here.

I don’t find that hard to believe. In fact, I find it very easy to believe and so I do believe it.

What are your thoughts?

i think this is one more attempt to disprove what Catholics have always taught that mother Mary is a virgen. the ever virgen Mary. i am not concerned with what the father of lies goes around saying to the umbelivers. i am concerned in staying faithfull to the teachings of the Church until the end.

**“I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.”
Saint Augustine (354-430), Against the Letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D… **

 

[Ruthie]

I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings.

I think it is part of rejecting the Catholic church; those who don’t want anything to do with her reject all sorts of things. Fancy vestments, highly decorated buildings, Saints in Heaven, kneeling, Crucifixes (not the sacrifice, but the objects), incense, and venerating Mary - anything they could get rid of that didn’t get a big show in the Bible.

To see Mary as nothing special… To me, it’s as if I claimed not to be an alcoholic because I don’t drink, nor do I have a liquor cabinet. The trappings are gone - but I’m still an alcoholic. Even if you only talk about her on Christmas, Mary is still the Mother of God.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

Ruthie

 

[SIA]

The expression “only child” when applied to Christ is uniquely appropriate. Christ is the true “Only Child”. The only child to be born of God. The only child to be given up for our salvation. He is The Only Child to the whole of the world.

I started this thread because I didn’t want to derail another thread with a similar discussion.

I don’t quite understand the desperate need to “prove” Christ had siblings.I’d say it has to do with it being professed in Scripture. Maybe it’s just curiosity that’s gotten the better of some. Would it be such a stretch to think that Christ was an only child because it was intended by God? And to that end, the lifelong celebacy of Mary in devotion to Christ?That on the other hand is not Scriptural

Think of the controversy that would be caused by descendants related to Jesus. It would most certainly stain His birth and His life throughout the Ages if The Holy Family were continually dragged through the mud by people who were determined to lay claim to being a decendant or by those who would try to discredit those who actually would be decendants. Think of the books already written upon supposition. Argh!

IMHO, When Christ ascended into Heaven to be with the Father, Mary was the only human thing left of His being. When Mary asdended the Miracle was complete.That’s also not Scriptural The Miracle is now complete and in Heaven as a whole. There is nothing earthly left of Christ.That’s anti-Scriptural. Every essence of Christ is in Heaven. There just simply can be no earthly part of Him left here.

I don’t find that hard to believe. In fact, I find it very easy to believe and so I do believe it.

What are your thoughts?

 

[happilycatholic]

Can someone tell me where in the Scriptures it tells us there is an earthly element of Christ on earth today?

Thanks,

HC

 

[happilycatholic]

I think it is part of rejecting the Catholic church; those who don’t want anything to do with her reject all sorts of things. Fancy vestments, highly decorated buildings, Saints in Heaven, kneeling, Crucifixes (not the sacrifice, but the objects), incense, and venerating Mary - anything they could get rid of that didn’t get a big show in the Bible.

To see Mary as nothing special… To me, it’s as if I claimed not to be an alcoholic because I don’t drink, nor do I have a liquor cabinet. The trappings are gone - but I’m still an alcoholic. Even if you only talk about her on Christmas, Mary is still the Mother of God.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us!

Ruthie

**You hit the nail on the head. I’m just amazed the things folks will deny just to prove they are not catholic! **

 

[happilycatholic]

SIA:

That’s why the thread is titled “A non-Scriptural Angle”. But if you’d like to answer my question regarding where in Scripture it tells us there’s an earthly (human) element of Christ left here, I’d love to see that. Whether it’s relatives, or whatever I’m open to suggestion here.

Thanks,

HC

 

[ckempston]

**

Respectfully, the Scriptures do not “plainly say” anything interpretable to what you just stated. If they did, there wouldn’t be this debate today. **

Matthew 13:56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

How is that not plain?

For what reason?

As have you.

 

[MHalsey]

Having siblings is scanalous?

It would be if the children were Joseph’s (or anyone else’s) and not God’s own.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy spirit. Yes, she was betrothed to Joseph before the Annunciation. But an earthly ceremony is only symbolic of the spiritual marriage of “two becoming one” the fruit of which is children and the reason why marriages are not final until consummated. The spiritual union of the Holy Spirit and Mary supersedes the earthly symbolic union of Mary and Joseph. Therefore, any children would be a product of an adulterous affair. Or are you suggesting Mary was not the spouse of the Holy Spirit? In which case, Jesus was conceived outside of marriage. It has to be one or the other if Mary did indeed have other children. That, or the Church is correct in that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

 

[ckempston]

It would be if the children were Joseph’s (or anyone else’s) and not God’s own.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy spirit. Yes, she was betrothed to Joseph before the Annunciation. But an earthly ceremony is only symbolic of the spiritual marriage of “two becoming one” the fruit of which is children and the reason why marriages are not final until consummated. The spiritual union of the Holy Spirit and Mary supersedes the earthly symbolic union of Mary and Joseph. Therefore, any children would be a product of an adulterous affair. Or are you suggesting Mary was not the spouse of the Holy Spirit? In which case, Jesus was conceived outside of marriage. It has to be one or the other if Mary did indeed have other children. That, or the Church is correct in that Mary remained a virgin her whole life.

Yeah, I would suggest Mary and the Holy Spirit were not spouses. Your humanistic argument would fall flat on its face in Jewish Law and thought, because Mary being betrothed to Joseph, and being the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, would indeed be “adulterous” under your supposed definition. In fact, since the Father is Mary’s father as well as Jesus’, not only would it be adulterous, but incestuous. Don’t you see where this slippery slope takes us? You can’t apply these human arguments to the relationship of Mary the Holy Spirit.

I find it highly likely that the church is indeed incorrect that Mary remained a virgin all her life.