Which denominations do not believe Jesus had siblings?

[Malachi4U]

We should note that men in the Church can and do sin. The Church does not. The Church holds the Dogma as well as the Faith and Morals passed down to us by Jesus Christ Himself. The Church applies that for us today to guide us. Even the Bible says that it does not contain everthing taught by our saviour.

Good examples of how the Church has guided us correctly would be issues such as birth control, abortion (infanticide), ordination of practicing homosexuals, stem cell research, cloneing, etc. Many wayward sects allow these sins, Christs’ body does not.

Everybody can self-mis-interpret Scripture. It is the authority of the Church, given by Christ Himself, that stears us straight. Without the Church the Bible is a somewhat insignificant work. It was inspired by God (the Church tells us so) but it was written by men. The very fact that we can and do misinterpret it or even have different views on what it means proves it was written by men. If God inked it out with His own hand and His own words then there would be no way we could misunderstand it, God is perfect. The Bible would be perfect if God wrote it. As it stands now the Bible is inspired and error free only if the Bible is a version approved by the Church that cannonized it and gave it to us and declared it inspired. All other versions are slowly drifting away from that truth. The JW and JST are two great examples. I even know protestants that condemn the NIV and KJV.

Just to end, the best Bible is the one you read.

 

[Xenos]

Again, the arguement is circular. The church cannot be wrong, therefore the church must be right.

We would then be trusting not the Word of God, but trusting that the church has given us the proper interpretation of the Word.

The Bible differs from you, my friend:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

(Here Peter declares Paul’s Epistles Scripture).

Surely you can see that the Bible disagrees with what you wrote. Is the Bible correct, or what the church told you???

The differences between different versions are in most cases not that significant.

The JW "Bible is probably the worst, yet if we cf. with other vresions the truth becomes clear.

I know of Evangelicals that condemn the NIV and KJV as well. That is irrelevant.

If you can only read the Scriptures through the “glasses” of the church, why read it at all? Read Church literature.

Many “sects” allow the practices that you mention. Some professing Catholics do as well. Bishops refuse to condemn these practices; the church refuses to condemn the Bishops. The Church is not the monolith you claim it to be.

You are absolutely correct: the best Bible is the one that you read!
Don’t you folks EVER read your Bible?

Lu 2:14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

Peace to you!

 

[Xenos]

Owen,

I saw your point, but things got sort of side-tracked. We probably missunderstood your point about “doctrine aside”.

At this point, I can see nothing that would change if we found that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

But, I’ve been wrong before (not being an inspired prophet).

 

[mean_owen]

Xenos:

Owen,

I saw your point, but things got sort of side-tracked. We probably missunderstood your point about “doctrine aside”.

At this point, I can see nothing that would change if we found that Mary was perpetually a virgin.

But, I’ve been wrong before (not being an inspired prophet).

Don’t sweat it, Xenos. We geniouses are often misunderstood.

 

[GrzeszDeL]

mean_owen:

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?

Dear M-O,

Various of the Church fathers saw various significances to Our Lady’s ever-virginity. Of those, perhaps the best is Pope Siricius I, who simply saw it as poor taste to ascribe further children to Our Lady (after all, She already had perfection, what more could she want?). Surely you can see how it might offend the æsthetic sense of the narrative to ascribe such a gluttony to the Mother of God. In a similar fashion, the Angelic Doctor objects that not only is the suggestion in poor taste, but it contradicts prophecy. I will happily grant, however, that this is a weak argument.

Far and away the most important reason why we must affirm the ever-virginity is simply that the Church has taught it. The whole of the Christian story rests on the authority of the Church, Xenos’ objections notwithstanding. Recourse to the Scriptures is useless, because the Scriptures are only as reliably complete and accurate as the Church which has assembled them.

I will happily concede that the Christian claims should be (like any other historical claims) regarded as independantly confirmable or falsifiable in theory, but like so many other historical claims, there remain no practicable methods to carry out this independant investigation. We must simply accept or deny the account presented to us, and said account includes the ever-virginity of Our Lady. Quite apart from whether or not it would be churlish of Joseph “do his duty,” it makes no more sense to believe in a Christianity wherein such things happen than it would make to believe in a Christianity in which Christ never rose.

Meanwhile, I will be rather busy over the next couple days, so I may not drop into this thread again. As such, if I do not see you again before then, Mean-Owen, I hope that you and yours have a Merry Christmas. Are you all going to be lucky enough to celebrate it somewhere with snow, or will you be in one of those tragically warm parts of the country like AL or NV?

 

[Katholikos]

Xenos:

Again, the arguement is circular. The church cannot be wrong, therefore the church must be right.

We would then be trusting not the Word of God, but trusting that the church has given us the proper interpretation of the Word.

The Bible differs from you, my friend:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

(Here Peter declares Paul’s Epistles Scripture).

Surely you can see that the Bible disagrees with what you wrote. Is the Bible correct, or what the church told you???

The differences between different versions are in most cases not that significant.

The JW "Bible is probably the worst, yet if we cf. with other vresions the truth becomes clear.

I know of Evangelicals that condemn the NIV and KJV as well. That is irrelevant.

If you can only read the Scriptures through the “glasses” of the church, why read it at all? Read Church literature.

Many “sects” allow the practices that you mention. Some professing Catholics do as well. Bishops refuse to condemn these practices; the church refuses to condemn the Bishops. The Church is not the monolith you claim it to be.

The sequence goes like this: Jesus founded the Church on the Chief Apostle, Peter (Mt 16:18-19). The Church was born on Pentecost in 33 A.D. with the arrival of the promised Holy Spirit (Acts 2:1-4). The Church wrote many letters and documents, including those that she later selected and named the NT, which circulated among the local churches during the early centuries of Christianity. When the Church was nearly 400 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them as “Scripture,” and named them the NT. At the same time, she canonized the 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from the Apostles and named them the OT. She put both collections of writings together and named them ta biblia – the books – the Bible.

The Church – not the Bible – says that these writings and no others are the inspired Word of God. The Bible is not a continuous book, it’s a library of separate writings, written at different times and locations, for different audiences and purposes.

The Scriptures are Church literature.

To say that the Bible differs from the teaching of the Church is ludicrous.

To trust the Bible and not the Church that wrote the NT and assembled the Bible is illogical. If the Church was fallible then, your scriptures are fallible. If the Church was infallible then, she’s infallible now (actually, the Holy Spirit, which guarantees the Church’s teaching on faith and morals, is infallible). The Church cannot err in teaching faith and morals.

The Church who wrote the NT is most certainly the only qualified interpreter of it.

2 Tm 3:14-17 refers to the Greek Septuagint, the only Scripture Paul’s friend Timothy could have known since childhood. The NT didn’t exist.

2 Peter 1:21 is a warning against private interpretation.

2 Peter 3:16 doesn’t specify which of Paul’s letters are scripture.
If it’s all of them, three are missing and your Bible is incomplete. It also warns against twisting scripture, as all Protestants do. (Your Bible actually is incomplete, since Martin Luther cut 7 OT books and parts of Esther and Daniel out of it.)

You wrote: Many “sects” allow the practices that you mention." But you didn’t quote the post you are referencing, so I have no idea which practices you’re talking about. To which post are you replying?

The Church excluded from the NT any writing that did not conform to her teaching and to other accepted writings. Therefore, any interpretation that does not comport with the teaching of the Catholic Church is a misinterpretation.

Correction: Protestant arguments that prove the Bible from the Bible are circular. Catholic reasoning is logical.

Recommended reading: Logic and the Foundations of Protestantism by Brian Harrison chnetwork.org/
At the home page, click on “conversion stories,” then scroll down and click on Harrison’s name.

Peace be with you.

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[mean_owen]

GrzeszDeL:

Dear M-O,

Various of the Church fathers saw various significances to Our Lady’s ever-virginity. Of those, perhaps the best is Pope Siricius I, who simply saw it as poor taste to ascribe further children to Our Lady (after all, She already had perfection, what more could she want?). Surely you can see how it might offend the æsthetic sense of the narrative to ascribe such a gluttony to the Mother of God. In a similar fashion, the Angelic Doctor objects that not only is the suggestion in poor taste, but it contradicts prophecy. I will happily grant, however, that this is a weak argument.

Far and away the most important reason why we must affirm the ever-virginity is simply that the Church has taught it. The whole of the Christian story rests on the authority of the Church, Xenos’ objections notwithstanding. Recourse to the Scriptures is useless, because the Scriptures are only as reliably complete and accurate as the Church which has assembled them.

I will happily concede that the Christian claims should be (like any other historical claims) regarded as independantly confirmable or falsifiable in theory, but like so many other historical claims, there remain no practicable methods to carry out this independant investigation. We must simply accept or deny the account presented to us, and said account includes the ever-virginity of Our Lady. Quite apart from whether or not it would be churlish of Joseph “do his duty,” it makes no more sense to believe in a Christianity wherein such things happen than it would make to believe in a Christianity in which Christ never rose.

Meanwhile, I will be rather busy over the next couple days, so I may not drop into this thread again. As such, if I do not see you again before then, Mean-Owen, I hope that you and yours have a Merry Christmas. Are you all going to be lucky enough to celebrate it somewhere with snow, or will you be in one of those tragically warm parts of the country like AL or NV?

Grz- The sites you linked put forth most of the standard arguments in favor of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The best, I’d say, are the early assertions of the claim. The worst, IMO, are the ones along the line that by having marital relations with her husband she would somehow dirty herself or diminish the wonderousness of Jesus’ birth. Those responses seem to go along the lines of the argument that, ultimately, sex, even within the confines of marriage, is ultimately dirty.

And Merry Christmas to you too. Where we normally go in Nevada (Reno) is at the foothills of the Sierras and has what I’d consider season-appropriate weather, whereas here in Birmingham it’s beginning to feel a lot like Halloween. Anywho, we’ll be spending a couple of days my bro in Kentucky. Impending grant deadlines are preventing a more substantial break. Will you be Christmas-ing in STL? The wife and kids were up there a couple of weeks ago to visit some family, but said deadlines precluded my accompanying them.

 

[Xenos]

“Sects” is a reference to Post #81 in this thread.

Apparently the Church has taught you infallibly on 2 Timothy and 2 Peter. Also, it is apparent that the CHurch teaches you that evangelicals always twist Scripture. That sort of cuts off discussion; so I’m out of this thread.

 

[cazayoux]

Howdy !!

Catholic here !!

It is NOT Church doctrine that priests can’t marry. It’s a rule that was put in place only a few hundred years ago.

St. Paul adressed the question. His response was that if you are called to serve Christ and you are already married, then stay married. If you are not, stay not. He explains that being married means does mean splitting your focus between Jesus and your wife. Not that you cannot serve Christ, but you - obviously - won’t have 100% of your focus on Him. Your marriage is sacred and you have duties to your wife. It’s not a judgement. It just is.

I can only guess that the Church observed a difference in action or service or something to have implemented the rule.

The Church does not claim this rule to be doctrine. It’s just a rule. One that could actually change.

My priest is married. He was Episcopalian and converted. He had to write a letter to the Pope asking for a by on the rule. It took three years to get a response. Just an interesting note I though.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

… just another note …

My priest is married. He’s GREAT at his job. I love the guy.

I still would not want to see the celibacy rule lifted.

michel

 

[Booklover]

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?”

If the Catholic Church is “WRONG” then all other Christian churches are wrong too! The Catholic Church is the only one that can trace its way all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles! It’s the only one that has the authority to teach in His Name! All other Christian churches are either offshoots of the Catholic Church or of each other. Not one of them can “claim” to be the Church that Jesus established.

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Xenos:

Apparently the Church has taught you infallibly on 2 Timothy and 2 Peter.

Since the Church was responsible for writing and recording the New Testatment, as well as declaring it “inspired,” it stands to reason that the Church would be able to interpret it.
No?

Also, it is apparent that the CHurch teaches you that evangelicals always twist Scripture.

It is apparent that you jump to hastey conclusions. Please point out the Church’s teachings that ever even mentions Evangelical Protestant Christians.
Since you can’t, because no such thing exists (in fact, in 46 years, I’ve never heard a priest give a homily about what protestants believe ~ but many’s the firey sermon from protestant preachers about Catholic beliefs!) you can safely assume that we come to such conclusions by our own personal experiences in communicating and dialoguing with evangelical Christians.
Is the Bible Truth?
Who says so?
Who was the first to say so? (Look to the 4th century, about 1200 years before the birth of protestantism.)

That sort of cuts off discussion; so I’m out of this thread.

If you can’t admit that you’re wrong, it kinda does cut off the discussion. Sorry to see you cutting out of this thread so quickly.
But, as they say, if ya can’t take the heat, best get outta the kitchen…

 

[Dismas2004]

Xenos;

You still have not answered my question in post #73.

 

[Xenos]

Your last post makes my point better than I could. I’m not interested in heat; I’m interested in light. The insistance on the former is why I’m out of here; when you are ready to talk about light, let me know.

So you have run up against a couple of Jack Chicks; that’s no reason to become one yourself.

As far as #73 goes, I assume that you don’t have a problem with Scripture; there is nothing to answer

Ro 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[Katholikos]

Xenos:

Your last post makes my point better than I could. I’m not interested in heat; I’m interested in light. The insistance on the former is why I’m out of here; when you are ready to talk about light, let me know.

To whose last post are you referring?

I’m trying to understand what you mean by “heat” and “light” We’re just presenting verifiable facts of the history of the Bible. Isn’t that “light”?

As far as #73 goes, I assume that you don’t have a problem with Scripture; there is nothing to answer

You still haven’t answered this question:

Dismas 2004 wrote (#73):

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

Only the original Scriptures, in the handwriting of the Sacred Writers, are the “inspired Word of God.” Copies and translations are not. The oldest nearly complete manuscripts in existence in the original language (the NT was written in Koine Greek) date from the fourth century. The manuscripts were copied and preserved by Catholics. Nobody knows how many manuscript copies intervene between the originals and the oldest surviving copy. Every copy of every Bible in existence ultimately came from manuscript copies and fragments made by Catholic hands. The Church continued copying the Scriptures by hand for fifteen centuries, until the printing press was invented.

How do you even know that the oldest existing copies reflect the originals, since we have no originals?

The Bible (all 73 books) didn’t just fall out of Heaven with the chapters and verses marked. The Church inherited the OT writings from Jesus and the Apostles. She chose 27 of her own writings to form the NT. The entire collection she named the Bible.

How do you know your Bible is “inerrant” and “inspired”?

Obviously, you and every Christian has to take the Catholic Church’s word for it!

Isn’t this thread about Jesus having “brothers and sisters”? We seem to have gotten off topic.

Peace be with you, xenos.

JMJ Jay

 

[JulieofOregon]

It’s rather interesting to wonder about the family life of our Lord Jesus. In my opinion, it really doesn’t matter if Jesus had “blood” brothers and sisters. He may have and perhaps not. What matters to me the most is my fundamental belief of His life, His mission, and His fullfillment of the scriptures.

Rather than strive to seek differences between the Christian religions, I believe seeking our common denominators serves a far greater purpose. For we are all brothers and sisters.

semper fi

 

[Malachi4U]

Here is another question to add to this post. Since Scripture refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, and using the protestant logic of Jesus having siblings (not just spiritual brethren in Christ with the Holy Father as our spiritual Father like when a Baptist calls everyone in his church his brothers), and the fact that the word half-brothers and half- sisters was not used, does this mean by the same protestant logic that Jesus’ brothers and sisters would thus have to be Gods themself? Would they also have had a virgin birth? God would have actual sons and daughters other then Christ? That we have not a Trinity but a 8 person God? Does Scripture say Jesus is Gods only Son or the only Son at the time that verse was written? Does Scripture say we cannot have other Sons of God? Is the Catholic Church the one that invented the Trinity and can it be changed to an 8-person name?

I was just pondering the illogical logic in the argument for Jesus having siblings and thought of this based on protestant logic. Could we use that logic for more questions too?

Sorry for the poor grammer above.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

Here is another question to add to this post. Since Scripture refers to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, and using the protestant logic of Jesus having siblings (not just spiritual brethren in Christ with the Holy Father as our spiritual Father like when a Baptist calls everyone in his church his brothers), and the fact that the word half-brothers and half- sisters was not used, does this mean by the same protestant logic that Jesus’ brothers and sisters would thus have to be Gods themself? Would they also have had a virgin birth? God would have actual sons and daughters other then Christ? That we have not a Trinity but a 8 person God? Does Scripture say Jesus is Gods only Son or the only Son at the time that verse was written? Does Scripture say we cannot have other Sons of God? Is the Catholic Church the one that invented the Trinity and can it be changed to an 8-person name?

I was just pondering the illogical logic in the argument for Jesus having siblings and thought of this based on protestant logic. Could we use that logic for more questions too?

Sorry for the poor grammer above.

Hi Malachi, Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN[from above] Son. That doesnt rule out other children. Its only our understanding.Maybe this is one of those questions you can ask when you get into heaven? Why did God tell us to multiply and tell Mary to stop at one? Doesnt make sense to me, Oh well. God Bless.

 

[Malachi4U]

SPOKENWORD:

…Jesus was the only BEGOTTEN[from above] Son. That doesnt rule out other children…

Good day SPOKENWORD,

So, could God have more sons since that was written?

Next, ponder this story someone told to me. Pretend you were living about 2,000 years ago and some guy walks into your temple and starts to speak to you,

“Hi my name is Jesus, I’d like to introduce you to my younger brother James. Say hi James. My other two younger brothers and my younger sister could not be here with me today, they’re taking their father Joseph out to lunch and our mother Blessed Mary is going with them. Blessed Mary is pregnant with yet another child. Oh yea, I’m here because I’m the only son of God begotten by my mother, a virgin till I was born. Yes that’s right, I am the Son of God born of the virgin Mary.”

Now imagine everyone laughing at Jesus and kicking him out. If that happened today, Jesus would either be on the TV talk show circut or in a psycho ward. He would have been laughed out of town. His mother had to remain a virgin to give him credibility to others.

This is just a story I heard that shows another reason that Blessed Mary was ever virgin. Besides, she was still alive during the early Church and could easily have corrected those who doubted she was a virgin all her life. That is why this subvject only receantly became a bigger topic in the 1800’s. The Church has allways remained loyal to what was taught in the begining, Blessed Mary was virgin all her life.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Malachi4U:

Good day SPOKENWORD,

So, could God have more sons since that was written?

Next, ponder this story someone told to me. Pretend you were living about 2,000 years ago and some guy walks into your temple and starts to speak to you,

“Hi my name is Jesus, I’d like to introduce you to my younger brother James. Say hi James. My other two younger brothers and my younger sister could not be here with me today, they’re taking their father Joseph out to lunch and our mother Blessed Mary is going with them. Blessed Mary is pregnant with yet another child. Oh yea, I’m here because I’m the only son of God begotten by my mother, a virgin till I was born. Yes that’s right, I am the Son of God born of the virgin Mary.”

Now imagine everyone laughing at Jesus and kicking him out. If that happened today, Jesus would either be on the TV talk show circut or in a psycho ward. He would have been laughed out of town. His mother had to remain a virgin to give him credibility to others.

This is just a story I heard that shows another reason that Blessed Mary was ever virgin. Besides, she was still alive during the early Church and could easily have corrected those who doubted she was a virgin all her life. That is why this subvject only receantly became a bigger topic in the 1800’s. The Church has allways remained loyal to what was taught in the begining, Blessed Mary was virgin all her life.

Hi Malachi,Some great story telling but still all assumptions.Personally to me there is no issue here. Thats why I said begotten son and yes there could be more sons but not from heaven.Even the people in Jesus day believed he had brothers and sisters. Good question to ask when you enter into heaven. God Bless.