It sounds to me like you merely want to argue. I never said having siblings is scandalous. And Christ “becoming” flesh and blood means He’s not flesh and blood until He becomes so during Transubstantiation so there is no earthly essence of Him here until that point at every Mass that the Eucharist is celebrated. Otherwise we wouldn’t have Transubstantiation.
In Post #4, you used the word “scandal” to refer to Mary and Joseph having a normal marriage and having other children. If that’s not what you meant, then I misunderstood. What did you mean by “scandal” in that statement?
Sorry to barge in Happily but I don’t see the reasoning behind saying what earthly existence of Christ do we have today.
And your proof for this is…
Hmm, I thought I was talking about spiritual marriage. You must have missed that.
How is talking about true marriage as being a spiritual thing “humanistic”?? Marriage is used to describe our relationship with God is it not? Jesus is described as the “Bridegroom” and the Church as the Bride that he prepares for the wedding feast.
Highly unlikely. Based on one line of scripture, which has been misinterpreted. Yeah, the church is incorrect.
One line? Hardly.Highly unlikely. Based on one line of scripture, which has been misinterpreted. Yeah, the church is incorrect.
**There is no barging in here, it’s a forum discussion-type thing. **
OK - then how many are explicit?
Here’s my statement:
Mary could not be the spouse of the Holy Spirit. If that were the case then why would the Angel tell Joseph to proceed with the wedding? In the Jewish culture it’s not possible for a man to proceed with the marriage of a woman once there has been a sexual union unless the 2nd man receives permission from the 1st. Once permission is granted not only can a marriage take place but sex can be a part of it. In Mary’s case the most important thing is that she would still be a virgin for Joseph.
Since there was no sexual union in the first place, why would Joseph need permission? Besides, are you saying God was required to follow the Jewish cultural custom and give permission?
From Matthew 1:18 until Matthew 25 we get a clear picture of what kind of relationship this was supposed to be. Matthew 1:18 first tells us that Mary was espoused to Joseph but that before they came together she was found with a child. The word used for coming together is synerchomai which literally means conjugal cohabitation. So Matthew makes it clear that Mary becomes pregnant before her and Joseph had sex. This flat out shows that she did not take a vow as the story would be quite different. If she had taken a vow Matthew wouldn’t have said before they came together showing he expected them to have sex, as there would be no sex.
For answers to this post, perhaps you could start by locating the many, many threads that have gone over it. especially the 'Knowing her" part.
He doesn’t need permission. That’s the point. The Angel tells Joseph not to fear moving forward with the wedding because Mary conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. This meant that she was still a virgin. When a Jewish woman married she was expected to be a virgin. Claiming the virginity of a woman meant that she was your wife. Unless you paid the family money. Study the Torah on this and you will see.
Oh no. Please don’t cite the Infancy Gospel of James. This work was never accepted by the early church as either inspired or historically accurate.
Yes and I have participated in them. They get old and the Catholic argument just doesn’t work.
I’ve read it and as commented in another response it holds no water. The Infancy Gospel of James as it is otherwise known was never accepted by the church as neither inspired nor historically accurate. It’s been dated to the mid and possibly the late 2nd century so no one knows what James they are trying to imitate.
Cochaba, according to Epiphanius (Haer. XXX. 2 and 16), was a village in Basanitide near Decapolis. It is noticeable that this region was the seat of Ebionism. There may therefore be significance in the care with which these Desposyni preserved the genealogy of Joseph, for the Ebionites believed that Christ was the real son of Joseph, and therefore Joseph’s lineage was his.
The insistence on some non-Catholics to prove that Jesus had brothers and sisters is similar to the muslim argument that He is not God. Since Jesus or Mary did not come out and say specifically such things (ie. Jesus has no brothers, Jesus is Son of God), then they must be false. The problem is that they cannot trust the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit and has taught from the beginning such things. Also, they cannot look at the whole of scripture, but must find one or two lines for their proof, and then make logical leaps to prove it.Some are lost without Scripture and contend that others “should be”.
Why do we need faith? If it’s all in black and white what’s left to have faith in? Faith is surrender. Surrender to what you do not know and more specifically, what you cannot know. I know this will irretate some, but that’s not the intention and I’m not sure why that belief bothers people who don’t believe it. I for one couldn’t care less that there are those that derive their entire faith doctrine only from what is in Scripture.
The fact remains that we simply cannot know if Christ had siblings or not by reading Scripture. I prefer to side with the Church not only because it is the guiding light of my faith, but because the Church has the most exhaustive deposit of knowledge in the world on Christian matters. We as Catholics believe our Church is an extension of Jesus Christ and His Apostles. So it is not difficult to accept that there are things we may not “know” and must have faith in the Church and its knowledge on these matters.