Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[Maccabees]

One should remeber all protestants early on beleived in Mary being ever Virgin. Luther, Calvin , Zwingli, Anglican Refromers, Wesley all believed in the perpetual virginity of Maryof course teh Catholics and Orthodox have alwaerine siblings is sacrelgious just read St Jerome and a very recent protestant innovation.

 

[Xenos]

Militant,

You know, you chose your name well. Militant describes you to a “T”. But you certainly aren’t going to interest me in the Catholic Church. The true church would be demonstrating more of the fruit of the Spirit than you do. (Galations 5:22)

You ask others to look at Scripture, but a plain and simple reading of the texts show that you have ignored large parts of the Scriptures in those that you quoted concerning marriage. And none clearly say that leaders in the church cannot marry.

The entire question is interesting, but is majoring in minors.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Here is the bottom line. When Joseph married Mary Joseph was elderly. He had several children by his then dead wife.

Joseph was a widower who had several children by his first wife when he married Mary!

The ones called brothers in the Bible were “STEPBROTHERS”.

And you won’t find any of this evidence in the accepted Catholic canon of Scripture. You find it in extra-Biblical writings which are not binding doctrinal material.

 

[mean_owen]

Putting doctrine aside, a couple of hypothetical questions:

1. For those that insist that Jesus was Mary’s only son and that she retained her virginity perpetually- what would be different if we found out that Mary had in fact gone on to have other biological children (other than conflict with tradition)? Would that impact Jesus’ status in the Trinity, Salvation, Mary’s status, anything else?
2. For those that insist that Mary went on to have other kids, would it matter if we found out that in fact she did remain a virgin till the end of her days (other than it conflicts with your reading of the Bible)? Would that impact Jesus’ status in the Trinity, Salvation, Mary’s status, anything else?

Hypothetically.

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

I may be a quart low but you are on empty. Im not really surprised that you dont know Gods Word well.I think you need to pray to God that He may reveal it to you as you read the scriptures.

Just answer the questions, please. Your comments are an avoidance maneuver. I’ve had more formal education in the Scriptures than the average Protestant or Catholic – from a rabbi, a Protestant minister, and a Catholic priest, at two universities – both at the undergraduate and graduate level. But one can never know enough.

According to you, one who “knows God’s Word well” agrees with your misinterpretation.

Do you pay attention when you go to church? I believe after every reading before the homily a pronouncement is made . I believe they say THE WORD OF GOD. Does that ring a bell.

No, the lector says THE WORD OF THE LORD (Verbum Domine), to which the faithful reply, “Thanks be to God.” The priest or deacon says, THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD; the faithful reply, “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”

But there’s more to the “Word of God” than the daily readings.

That wasnt you snoring was it? God Bless

Please answer the questions. Did you read the website I provided? (It’s Methodist, not Catholic, BTW.)

I’m sorry – this is off topic, but I can’t let misinformation go unchallenged.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Xenos:

Militant,

You know, you chose your name well. Militant describes you to a “T”. But you certainly aren’t going to interest me in the Catholic Church. The true church would be demonstrating more of the fruit of the Spirit than you do. (Galations 5:22)

You ask others to look at Scripture, but a plain and simple reading of the texts show that you have ignored large parts of the Scriptures in those that you quoted concerning marriage. And none clearly say that leaders in the church cannot marry.

The entire question is interesting, but is majoring in minors.

Since the celibacy of priests in the Latin Rite Church is a disciple of canon law and not a doctrine of theology, what difference can it possibly make what the Scriptures say about it? But the requirement is, in fact, rooted in Scripture.

Jesus and St. Paul both encouraged celibacy in the Scriptures, but it was optional. But the practice is certainly biblical. To become a eunuch for the Kingdom of God, Jesus said, “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” St. Paul said, “Now to the unmarried and to the widows I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are.” And, “An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may pease his wife, and he is divided.”

The NT is not an instruction book, and there are many things in it that are not clear. It must be read within the context of the teaching Church that wrote it to be understood.

Church disciplines are changeable. Doctrines are not.

I know a Catholic priest who is married and has four children, for example. He’s a convert from the Episcopal church. So you see, celibacy is a requirement of the Church which can be changed. But in the Latin Rite Church it won’t be, other than in exceptional cases. In the Eastern rites, candidates for priesthood who are already married are accepted.

JMJ Jay

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

Just answer the questions, please. Your comments are an avoidance maneuver. I’ve had more formal education in the Scriptures than the average Protestant or Catholic – from a rabbi, a Protestant minister, and a Catholic priest, at two universities – both at the undergraduate and graduate level. But one can never know enough.

According to you, one who “knows God’s Word well” agrees with your misinterpretation.

No, the lector says THE WORD OF THE LORD (Verbum Domine), to which the faithful reply, “Thanks be to God.” The priest or deacon says, THE GOSPEL OF THE LORD; the faithful reply, “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.”

But there’s more to the “Word of God” than the daily readings.

Please answer the questions. Did you read the website I provided? (It’s Methodist, not Catholic, BTW.)

I’m sorry – this is off topic, but I can’t let misinformation go unchallenged.

JMJ Jay

Hi Dr.Jay.[Maybe the more appropiate title according to your qualifications] Man does not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In the Beginning was the Word and the Word was made Flesh.Gods Word is written every where in the Bible. Gods Word is also spoken to us by His Spirit when we seek His face and become intimate with Him. Maybe thats the problem with you,to much theoligy and not enough intimacy? You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you do not have Gods Word in you,you have gained nothing. What we need as christians is Godly wisdom and understanding,and that is accomplished by fearing Him and seeking Him. God Bless. P/s Okay you got me on the Word of God,it used to be THIS IS THE WORD OF THE LORD.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

mean_owen:

Putting doctrine aside, a couple of hypothetical questions:

1. For those that insist that Jesus was Mary’s only son and that she retained her virginity perpetually- what would be different if we found out that Mary had in fact gone on to have other biological children (other than conflict with tradition)? Would that impact Jesus’ status in the Trinity, Salvation, Mary’s status, anything else?

Putting doctrine aside? How? The question makes no sense - the whole internal logic of Christianity is predicated on the infallibility of the Church. The only way we might hope to know anything about Christ is that the Church tell us. If the Church can be wrong, then we have good reason to doubt not just the perpetual virginity of Our Lady but also the Resurrection. In other words, if Mary really was not ever-virgin, then we might as well pack it in and head home, because there is no sense in claiming to be Christian in a world where the Church can be wrong about dogmas of the faith.

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

Aaahhhhh…okay, I see what you’re saying. Sorry, had a lapse there. Yes, I would agree they perhaps would do it out of zeal. The problem is - we really don’t know that in each case.

If you mean we don’t know the motivation in each case, then of course, you are right. However, if you mean we don’t know how many were married and how many celibate or continent, I refer you again to Cochini’s book, which has a long list of early (really early) bishops who were known (or not known) to be married or unmarried.

 

[Katholikos]

ahimsaman72:

It should be optional because it’s not a commandment of Scripture. You yourself call it a discipline of the Church and not doctrine. I believe they would be much happier and there would be less scandals.

I don’t consider the priestly position a job. This is the kingdom of God, not UPS. This is of interest to me because I have sought to learn and understand the Catholic Church in comparison with my own faith tradition. Of course the Catholic Church can choose how she operates - that’s her realm. I simply disagree with the practice.

A priest is one who offers sacrifice. Since you don’t believe in sacrifice, it amazes me that you would care what is required of a priest, one way or another. There are no Baptist priests, so there’s no comparison to make. Only the ancient Catholic and Orthodox Churches offer sacrifice.

I repeat, it is a discipline of canon law and not a doctrine of theology. There is no “belief” involved. It’s simply a job requirement, and it’s supported in scripture by both Jesus and St. Paul.

Catholic priests are a lot less prone to sexual misbehavior than married Protestant clergymen according to the definitive studies done by Philip Jenkins of Penn State University. (He’s not Catholic, BTW.) But that’s the subject of another thread, and I’m sure was discussed at CA long before I ever got here.

The recent scandals were primarily caused by homosexual priests who should never have been ordained. With few exceptions, they involved not prepubescent children but teenage boys. Had the American bishops obeyed the 1961 directives of Rome, it never would have happened.

We’re hijacking this thread. My apologies.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

GrzeszDeL:

Putting doctrine aside? How? The question makes no sense - the whole internal logic of Christianity is predicated on the infallibility of the Church. The only way we might hope to know anything about Christ is that the Church tell us. If the Church can be wrong, then we have good reason to doubt not just the perpetual virginity of Our Lady but also the Resurrection. In other words, if Mary really was not ever-virgin, then we might as well pack it in and head home, because there is no sense in claiming to be Christian in a world where the Church can be wrong about dogmas of the faith.

:clapping: Jay

 

[Xenos]

GrzeszDeL:

Putting doctrine aside? How? The question makes no sense - the whole internal logic of Christianity is predicated on the infallibility of the Church. The only way we might hope to know anything about Christ is that the Church tell us. If the Church can be wrong, then we have good reason to doubt not just the perpetual virginity of Our Lady but also the Resurrection. In other words, if Mary really was not ever-virgin, then we might as well pack it in and head home, because there is no sense in claiming to be Christian in a world where the Church can be wrong about dogmas of the faith.

Ah, but here is the planted axiom that troubles me the most. Truth does not depend on the Church. It depends on the Word of God. The resurrection is proven by Scriptures. The prepetual virginity is not. Your logic is circular: “The Church cannot be wrong … Therefore, the Church cannot be wrong”.

As far as the qoute that you refer to, the author probably should not have said “putting doctrine aside…”; so then, why don’t you put aside his putting doctrine aside, and discuss his question about what difference it would make.

I fail to see a need to be argumentative here; although I may be missing something or there may be some baggage from other threads that I have missed. The original question that you quote is interesting to me.

 

[Dismas2004]

Xenos:

Ah, but here is the planted axiom that troubles me the most. Truth does not depend on the Church. It depends on the Word of God. The resurrection is proven by Scriptures. The prepetual virginity is not. Your logic is circular: “The Church cannot be wrong … Therefore, the Church cannot be wrong”.

As far as the qoute that you refer to, the author probably should not have said “putting doctrine aside…”; so then, why don’t you put aside his putting doctrine aside, and discuss his question about what difference it would make.

I fail to see a need to be argumentative here; although I may be missing something or there may be some baggage from other threads that I have missed. The original question that you quote is interesting to me.

and How is that we know that the Scriptures are not wrong?

 

[Church_Militant]

Even the end of John’s Gospel says that not everything that concerns Jesus was written down…

I think that a lot of non-Catholics use the Bible like some sort of security blanket and feel insecure if they can’t get all the answers from w/in its pages…

Tradition is not wrong according to St.Paul’s own writings. Only the Catholics were there back then…even at the point where we decided what books were the NT. Blow off the Catholic Church’s authority and you sort of void the warranty on the inspiration of that Bible in your hand there. How else will you know? W/o that assurance we are all very very far up a stump…

Here’s another good question: What if the Catholic Church really IS right?

Pax tecum,

 

[Malachi4U]

GrzeszDeL:

Putting doctrine aside? How? The question makes no sense - the whole internal logic of Christianity is predicated on the infallibility of the Church. The only way we might hope to know anything about Christ is that the Church tell us. If the Church can be wrong, then we have good reason to doubt not just the perpetual virginity of Our Lady but also the Resurrection. In other words, if Mary really was not ever-virgin, then we might as well pack it in and head home, because there is no sense in claiming to be Christian in a world where the Church can be wrong about dogmas of the faith.

Gods peace be with you theophilus GrzeszDel,

WONDERFULL!:clapping:

What great logic. Now if we can get others to ‘see’ it.

A prisoner of Christ,

 

[Xenos]

But you are still argueing in circles; “…the Church has to be right because the Church is right”.

The only way YOU can know the Scriptures are right is because the Church teaches you that. So you see, this is just one step deeper than the problem that you think I have.

Tradition is not the issue. anything more than a minute old has traditions. This is a strawman arguement.

I wil consider your question, Militant; but here is another good Question for you: “What if the Catholic Church is wrong?”

 

[mean_owen]

GrzeszDeL:

Putting doctrine aside? How? The question makes no sense - the whole internal logic of Christianity is predicated on the infallibility of the Church. The only way we might hope to know anything about Christ is that the Church tell us. If the Church can be wrong, then we have good reason to doubt not just the perpetual virginity of Our Lady but also the Resurrection. In other words, if Mary really was not ever-virgin, then we might as well pack it in and head home, because there is no sense in claiming to be Christian in a world where the Church can be wrong about dogmas of the faith.

There was a reason why I went out of my way to stress the hypothetical aspect of the question. The point, which was apparently missed by many here, was to ask if is there any external logic to these stances. (I’ll discuss this a bit more below). Although it’s going to be difficult to convince others of truths contained in a system based on faith, hopefully some of it can make sense outside of the rationale “because the Church tells me so”, or “because the Bible tells me so”. Or to put it a different way, is the only reason the Mary’s perpetual virginity is important because the Church says it’s true, or is there some intrinsic importance to her retaining her virginity? Incidentally, although your back-slapping comrades apparently missed it, I asked the flipside question also: what if the Catholic Church is right- specifically in regard to the perpetual virginity question? Or, why is it important for the opponents of perpetual virginity that Mary did have other kids- other than it argues against their reading of the scriptures?

If we believe that the Scriptures are only a story/text, then your response (that I asked a stupid question) would be appropriate. There’s no point in asking what events would have happened if Neo had taken the blue pill, because it’s just a text (movie), and that’s the way the screenplay was written. Likewise, if the Bible is just a story, the question “what if Jesus hadn’t been raised from the dead” wouldn’t be very useful, except maybe to give another fiction writer material for another book (i.e. The Last Temptation of Christ.

However, if we assume that the things taught in the Bible and in tradition aren’t simply a text but really happened, then they should be at least potentially historically verifiable, or better, historically falsifiable, given the appropriate evidence. Tho it would be a tough trick to show that Jesus is sitting at God’s right hand, the Resurrection could conceivably be disproven by the discovery of Jesus’ corpse. The fact that that hasn’t happened helps to make a case for the Resurrection, or at least prevents it from being disproven. If it were to be shown that the Resurrection never happened, then, as you say, we might as well all go home (but with a 10% raise-no more tithing woo-hoo!), since the Resurrection is the foundation of arguably the most basic tenet of Christianity. Thus, one can make an argument for why the Resurrection must have happened for Christianity to be viable, In other words, that is why the Resurrection is important. This would be a perfectly logical conclusion even for a non-believer (even if he doesn’t believe it).

On the other hand, if some archeologist were to find solid evidence that Mary had borne other children, (or for those opposing perpetual virginity, the opposite) how would that change the overall story? I thought seeing how both sides answered this question might help to understand the different points of view. Looks like it’s not going to happen, but I reckon I’ll live with it.

 

[Malachi4U]

Xenos:

…here is another good Question for you: “What if the Catholic Church is wrong?”

Gods peace be with you Xenos,

The Catholic Church declared the Bible inspired. If the Catholic Church is wrong then the Bible is wrong. If the Catholic Church is wrong then perhaps there is no Jesus either?

Christ founded a Church and it is the the Church that spreads the faith. (Since the Catholic Church gave us the Bible then all who use it are still using a tool of the Catholic Church!) I can send a KJV Bible to everyone in the world but to what avail? Can we all read? Untill modern times most people were unable to read or write. In many other nations most still cannot read. Before the 1400’s all books had to be hand made. The Bible is just a tool of the Church. Where does God tell me I must read a Bible to have a Hope for salvation? For hundreds of years Christians had Faith and Hope and Love and no Bible. Will they go to Hell because they did not read it? The answer is they had Faith which is not dependant on a book but upon God and His Church.

Who told us Jesus rose from the dead? Who spread the Faith Jesus ‘verbally’ gave to them? Who told us the Bible was true? It was not the Bible it was the Church, the Catholic Church that Christ founded. Jesus never commanded us to write Scripture, His Church took it upon itself to do it. Why? Because Jesus Christ our personnal Lord and saviour gave it His authority on eath to do so! If the Bible is inerrant then it is because a Church with the authority of Jesus declared it so. (Mt 16:18-19)

Take a Bible and a Koran and tell me based solely on the book as evidance which one is error free? Which one is from God? Since most protestants only believe in Sola Scripture then use no outside data to prove the point of inspiration. How can a book prove itself as the only perfect book? It can’t, that is the job of the Church. I can find millions of people who will say the Koran is inspired and from God and the Bible is just a book full of condritictions and hate. They are right too if not for the Catholic Church that Christ founded in 33 A.D. (perhaps called The Way then). Based ofn Sola Scripture the Koran is every bit as or as not inspired as the Bible.

The question is not “what if the Catholic Church is wrong”, the question is, “What if you are wrong?” I’ll put my Faith in Christ and His Church he established. If you are wrong then perhaps you will or will not be saved, that up to Jesus. If I am wrong then it at least it proves to Jesus that I stayed loyal to the Faith Christ founded and to our forefathers in His Church and all the early Christians who died for our Faith, our Catholic Faith. Loyalty to Jesus and His Church and its martyrs who suffered and died for us, you and me both.

Which version or interpretation of the Bible are you loyal too? The JW one? The Mormon one? The AKJV, KJV NKJV, DRV, NAB, Geneva 1560 or 1599? Etc… The Bible like any other book is being rewritten and edited I am sure as I type. Some versions change words and meanings often. More books, less books, works or deeds or doing, rock or stone, etc… It is the Church that keeps the Bible as it should be and keeps it error free, not the other way around. It makes no difference if the Bible has one book or 500 books, it is just a tool. It is only as good as the Church that writes, edits and preserves it.

Where does Faith come from, a book or from God?

A prisoner of Christ,

PS, glad to see you with us on this forum and I hope you learn and share with us. Enjoy

 

[Xenos]

Malachi,

Thnak you for your welcome and for your kind note. I appreciate it, and yes, I think EVERYONE can learn freom these discussions.

From your posts, it appears that you have been led to believe that Sola Scriptura means people worship the Bible. This is not the case. People Woeship God and God alone. And yes, people came to faith before the KJV was printed.

The Scriputres declare:
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Romans 10:17). Now the Word of God can be written or spoken. The Word of God is how God is communicating with people today. We verify tradition by the Word, not the other way around.

Also, I think that you will find that the CHurch has not defined explicitly all that much of written Scripture. There are many passages that Catholic Christians are free to interpret.

As to telling the difference bewteen the Bible and other sources, the dfifference is plain. Internal inconsistencies, and many other methods of examining texts makes it quite clear. The Bible is unique among all other so called sacred texts, Koran included.

People can make any “bible” that they chose. JEhovah’s Witnesses are an example. But we have so many texts of early Scriptures that by comparing them, we can determine with great accuracy what the original says. It is not a question of loyalty to any particular version.

If our loyalty is to the Church; we need the apriori assumption that this church can never be wrong. That appears to be where many are. But again, this is circular reasoning.

Thanks again for your note. I apprecaite your kindness to me.

 

[Katholikos]

xenos wrote:

If our loyalty is to the Church; we need the apriori assumption that this church can never be wrong. That appears to be where many are. But again, this is circular reasoning.

The Church cannot teach error in faith and morals because it is guided in such matters by the Holy Spirit. It is the Spirit – God Himself – who can never be wrong.

JMJ Jay