One Father who is in heaven

[Nickolai]

From www.philthompson.net


If Mary is still a virgin, who are the "Brothers of the Lord"?
When non-Protestants call Mary the "Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. She is called aiparthenos in Greek: Ever-virgin.
When Protestants use the term "virgin" in reference to Mary, they usually mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." What gives rise to the disagreement are biblical verses that refer to the brothers (and sisters) of the Lord. Until I began reading the historical records of what Christians wrote and believed in the earliest centuries, I never thought to question the modern Protestant assumption that these were physical siblings of Jesus. (I had no idea at the time that Luther, Calvin, and even Wesley taught the earlier belief that she was ever-virgin.)

To put the question in historical context, we should look at the testimony of the early Church. The first time this question is recorded to have been raised was in the controversy between the Bible translator Jerome and the Arian Helvidius, who proposed that the "brothers of the Lord" were children born to Mary and Joseph after Christ's birth. Jerome, writing about 380, states that at first he declined to comment on Helvidius' remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world." Eventually, though, Jerome's friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in disrepute and was not heard of again for over a thousand years. Significantly, when in recent times the Radical Reformation resurrected the issue, reformer John Calvin refuted it on the same basis.

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matthew 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; 7:1, 5; 7:10; Acts 1:14). Let's examine a few of them: "While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him" (Matt. 12:46). "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). "For even his brothers did not believe in him" (John 7:5). "All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers" (Acts 1:14). "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?" (1 Corinthians 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to note is that in the Semitic world of the Bible, in the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, as in Hebrew, the term "brother" has a very wide meaning. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or political allies (1 Samuel 9:13; 20:32; 2 Samuel 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham's "brother" (Genesis 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother (Genesis 11:26-28), he was actually Abraham's nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Genesis 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chronicles 23:21-22).

The terms "brother" and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they meant kinsman (Deuteronomy 23:7, Nehemiah 5:7, Jeremiah 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kings 10:13-14).

No Word for Cousin
Why this ambiguous usage? Because where we would say "cousin", speakers of Hebrew and Aramaic used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But in everyday use Semitic people simply said "brother."
The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use "brothers" to mean both cousins and sons of the same father -- plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Jewish scholars a century or two before Christ's birth, it was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.) In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English "brother" has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint favored adelphos, even for true cousins.

The Jewish translators imported this Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for "brother" and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine just what "brethren" or "brother" or "sister" means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that unavoidable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve (Luke 2:41-51) the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him not only as "one of Joseph's sons" but as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3). In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons - not even when they are called "brethren of the Lord."

There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns, or at least Westerners, to grasp. It is that the attitude taken by the "brethren of the Lord" implies they are his elders. In ancient - and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons give advice to younger, not younger to the older; it is disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus' brethren counselling him that Galilee was no place for him, and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3-4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, 'He is beside himself'" (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews if the "brethren" were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary's "first-born" son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John. "When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son!' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother!' And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home" (John 19:26-27). Now the Gospels mention four of his "brethren," James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Modern arguments
Many modern Protestants insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the literal sense of the Greek. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "He did not know her until (Greek: eos) she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had other children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn't that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born" and "fourth-born," and so on? The problem is that they are using a narrow, modern meaning of the English word "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some strange meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Samuel 6:23). Did she have children after her death? Or the raven that Noah released from the ark - the bird "went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" (Genesis 8:7). In fact, as the story progresses, we see that the raven never returned at all.

[Nickolai]

Continued


There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deuteronomy 34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either. "And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace" (1 Maccabees 5:54 ). The soldiers were not slain on their return from battle, either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea - which is that nothing at all can be assumed from the use of the word "until" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "he had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox).

Some claim Jesus could not be Mary's "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this does not take into account the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Exodus 13:2, Numbers 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Exodus 34:20). Did the parents wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? In fact, the firstborn was dedicated to the Lord even if no other children were ever born. "The first offspring of every womb, both man and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals." (Numbers 18:15) The first son was the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt - the inscription refers to a woman who died during the birth of her "first-born."

Joseph and Mary
It has been argued that it would have been unnatural - even repugnant - for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage but remain celibate. Certainly the arrangement was unusual - but not as unusual as having the incarnate God in one's family, and not nearly as unusual as a virgin's giving birth to a child! But another look at the New Testament texts reveals that Joseph was Mary's betrothed. They were engaged, not married (Luke 2:5).
Betrothal was (and still is in some Eastern cultures) as serious as marriage; it invokes the responsibilities of marriage with none of the prerogatives; and to break a betrothal required that the agreement between the families be broken. This is why Joseph, on discovering his fiancée was pregnant, was minded to put her away quietly rather than embarrassing himself, his family, and hers. Only the visit of the angel convinced him to bear the disgrace of people knowing that his fiancée had become pregnant.

Why wouldn't Joseph and Mary had relations after the birth of Christ? Here's one thought: In Scripture, whatever merely touched the altar of God was holy. (Exodus 29:37), as the altar sanctifies the gift (Matthew 23:19). The ground where God revealed Himself was too holy to be touched disrespectfully by sandals (Exodus 3:5). The ark where God was revealed was made fearful and holy by His dwelling there - Uzzah merely touched it and died instantly! Compare that with the body of Mary, in which the God Who cannot be contained, contained Himself bodily. Her body didn't merely touch the altar or the ark; in a very real sense, her body was the ark for nine months, physically containing the shechinah, the manifest presence of God. Like the burning bush, she was exposed to the Consuming Fire, but was preserved from being consumed.

She didn't just touch God; she contained Him, gave birth to Him, and nursed Him! Knowing all that, it seems rash - and incredibly intimidating - to anticipate immediately becoming physically intimate with the body that has just served the Almighty as His temple! I have a hard time imagining that Joseph would be at all enthusiastic about the act of making Mary pregnant with his own sons; you don't have sex with the Ark of the Covenant.

What everybody used to know

If the "brethren of the Lord" were not Jesus' brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, one belief was that they were sons of Joseph but not of Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage (who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings. One ancient apocryphal work, the second-century Protevangelion of James, records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers to serve as the protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: "I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl" (4:8-9).

The best-documented ancient teaching is that they were Jesus' cousins. Mark's Gospel calls Jesus "the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3). Matthew names the women standing beneath the Cross, "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph; and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matthew 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that Matthew's "Mary the mother of James and Joseph" is John's "Mary the wife of Clopas". Incidentally, an eyebrow might be raised at John's statement above - did Mary actually have a "sister" also named Mary? Or is it more reasonable to assume that "sister" is used here exactly as "brother" is used in the Bible, to refer to a close relationship, such as sisters-in-law?

Indirect support for this view comes from Matthew 10:3, where Matthew refers to James as the son of Alphaeus. The Aramaic name Halfi could as easily be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas, or further Hellenized to Cleophas.

Late in the first century, Papias (a hearer of St. John, and a friend of Polycarp) wrote concerning the Marys in the Gospels: "(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene: These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt of the Lord's. Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John gives the name 'Mary of Cleophas', either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands."

The second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Cleophas was the brother of Joseph the foster-father of Jesus. Cleophas' son James was Joseph's nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was Joseph's stepson.

The historian Eusebius tells us of James, the "brother" of the Lord, who led the Jerusalem Church until his martyrdom, at which time James' brother Simeon, as the Lord's closest relative, took over the role of bishop. He also states that James and Simeon were cousins of Jesus.

Tradition

Oddly enough, the notion that Mary had other sons wasn't originally part of the Protestant Reformers' agenda. On the contrary, when the idea was breached to John Calvin, he responded in a sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, "There have been certain folk who wished to suggest from this passage, that the virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience."  Martin Luther and John Wesley, too, defended the belief in Mary's virginity. So there is nothing inherent in Protestantism that requires reading into Scripture a belief in other sons of Mary. It's a purely modern tradition.

Is it vital that we diagram Joseph and Mary's family tree? Of course not. What surprises me, though, is the vehemence with which some Protestants argue that Mary had other children. Perhaps it's a manifestation of Romophobia - whatever the Roman Catholics believe, the opposite must automatically be true. Or perhaps it could be that some today are offended by the idea of celibacy, seeing it as a denial of the value of Christian marriage. Yet Paul and even Jesus Himself agreed that it is better not to marry - even though a celibate life is certainly not for everyone (Matthew 19:10-12; 1 Corinthians 7:.

In my own journey to Orthodoxy, the virginity of Mary was not an issue. I had no good reason to oppose this belief: I lose nothing by agreeing with the historical belief of Christians from all ages; and I have no case for believing anything else (except the tradition of my former denomination); and now surprisingly enough I find myself in agreement on this question with Calvin, Luther, and Wesley.
 
 

[Heidi]

Matthew, 12:46-49. "While Jesus was talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.' He replied to him; "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."  Now THAT IS SCRIPTURAL. Not only is it clear that Jesus had brothers, but Jesus thought much less of his mother than the catholic church does! Again, the catholics are not only ignoring scripture but making it up as well! And they LOVE to see themselves as infallible. Pride at its worst.

[Nickolai]

read the article I posted and you'll see what those verses really say in Greek.

[Heidi]

And what do they say in Aramaic? Why do you think those verses were even put in the bible? What do you think the point of them was? Do you even know? Whoever wrote those words was making the point that a real brother is a brother in Christ. How would the people who translated those words even know that? Where did they get that? Just a guess? The point is that there is absolutely NO scripture that says Jesus had no brothers and Mary didn't have sex with Joseph. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Yet the catholic church is deciding they know better than the authors of the bible just like atheists do when they say that Jesus never existed. The doctrine of the catholic church is not scriptural, but man-made. You choose to worship the infallibility of men rather than Christ Himself. that is your choice. But yo'll find out when you die just how wrong you are.

[Nickolai]

And what do they say in Aramaic? Why do you think those verses were even put in the bible? What do you think the point of them was? Do you even know? Whoever wrote those words was making the point that a real brother is a brother in Christ. How would the people who translated those words even know that? Where did they get that? Just a guess? The point is that there is absolutely NO scripture that says Jesus had no brothers and Mary didn't have sex with Joseph. ABSOLUTELY NONE. Yet the catholic church is deciding they know better than the authors of the bible just like atheists do when they say that Jesus never existed. The doctrine of the catholic church is not scriptural, but man-made. You choose to worship the infallibility of men rather than Christ Himself. that is your choice. But yo'll find out when you die just how wrong you are.

OK, I didn't want to have to do this but, You know James the Brother of Jesus.  Here's what he has to say about her virginity.

This is an excerpt from the Liturgy written by him.  It is the Earliest known liturgy of the Early Church

"Only-begotten Son and Word of God, who, being immortal, accepted for our salvation to take flesh from the holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary, and without change became man; you were crucified, Christ God, by death trampling on death, being one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit: save us!"

[Heidi]

If that's taken from the liturgy of the church I can see why it contradicts the bible. There's a reason it wasn't canonized.

[Nickolai]

If that's taken from the liturgy of the church I can see why it contradicts the bible. There's a reason it wasn't canonized.

It's taken from something written by James, the brother of Jesus.

You wanna tell me where it's wrong?

[Ben5]

You sound like the Jews who say that Jesus cannot be the Messiah because the Jews scripture says that the Messiah is born form a woman who is Ever-Virgin.

[His_child]

Well, I just ried to access the open website on catholicism and found out that i am not authorized to do so.! This is just an information page where listings of anything dealing with catholicism is open to the public. Any one of you could access that page, PROVIDED you believe in the infallibilty of the pope. I'm beginning to be truly frightened. I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Where is this coming from?

You are welcome to come to my website and learn about Catholicism.  I also offer to teach you anything you want to know.  There are no secrets.

Did Mary die and then go to heaven?

Or did Mary, go to heaven alive?

Brother Love

     <))><

The Church hasn't stated one way or the other.

According to the Catholic church, Mary ascended into Heaven.

Was Mary a sinner?

[Heidi]

You do NOT see the contradiction in your post, Nickolai. How can the BROTHER of Jesus say this his mother was a virgin? It's absolutely impossible! If Mary was a virgin all her life, then how was James born? That's why that statement is completely bogus and was not canonized. For some reason, you have a hard time seeing through false teaching.

[C C]

   If the whole point of knowing that Christ died for Our sins, is so that we can know that in Him we are complete and this Truth is supposed to set us free, then all this extra stuff is just fluff.

I'm not saying that The Catholic church is responsible for all the fluff that keeps us from focusing on the fact that we complete in Him, but in this thread, the whole point is that the Catholic Church makes it hard for everyone to grasp "Hey, we're complete.  All we need is God to love us.  God is the only one that can take away the meanness and the bitterness and the strife."

Think about it.  If in Him we are complete, then what do we have to have all the striving for?  There's no need for competition, and honor, and glory, and power.  We don't need any of that.  If we don't have to chase after these things of the world, we not only live in peace but we are free to serve God.

If in Him we are complete, we don't have to keep up with our neighbor.  We don't have to covet our neighbors stuff, his car, his job, his money, his wife, his values, anything that our neighbor shows off to us to try to make us feel like we're incomplete, we don't have to accept that.  

If in Him we are complete, we don't have to wake up and worry.  We don't have to be tied down to the things of this world that enslave us.  We don't NEED people to pat us on the head and pat us on the back and say, "good going." Or "wow, you're great" or "look how handsome you are"  we don't need that.  

If in Him we are complete and we know it and feel it in our our hearts, then we can examine the things of this world and see that they have no value.  And they really don't have value.

If in Him we are complete and we know it, then of course we need food and clothing and shelter, but we wouldn't hord it.  If we have anything that anyone, our neighbor, the homeless, some stranger we would share it.  We wouldn't have to have the things of this world.  We wouldn't have to have a bank account and a huge savings.  We could look around and see and say, "wow, did you notice those people over there living in poverty, and I have all this extra.  I better share."

If in Him we are complete and we know it in our heart and feel it, then giving up AAAAAAAALLLLLLLL that we have to follow the Lord would make all the sense in the world.

If all of a sudden, everyone in the whole world that calls themselves Christians suddenly realized this, there would be no more hunger.  And if we lived our lives the way we're supposed to, there could be no more war.  Why would people need to fight each other if they all agreed that in God we are complete.

But no, we can't focus on whether or not we are complete in Him, because in order to figure it out we've got to read massive amounts of volumes and all those volumes combined aren't trying to make people understand that in God they are complete.

In God you are complete.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  If you can't do that, then first, have no other God's before God.  Second, don't take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.  Third, don't make unto thee any graven images. Fourth, remember the Sabboth day to keep it holy.  Fifth, honor thy father and they mother.  Six, do not kill.  Seventh, do not commit adultry.  Eighth do not steal.  Nine do not bear false witness Ten don't covet your neighbors stuff.  

Clearly, these are things that just about anyone in the world would agree, they wouldn't want people to do these things to them.  Everyone wants their kids to honor them.  Nobody wants to be murdered.  Nobody wants someone to sleep with their mate who they love and adore.  Nobody wants someone to steal from them.  Nobody wants people to tell them lies that hurts them in anyway.  Nobody wants to sit around feeling incomplete because they don't have what their neighbor has.  

In order to get the last five right, the first five have to be in place so folks don't start making up a whole bunch of rules that detract us from the way to be loved and show people loved listed in the ten commandments.  

And the big deal is that SOMEONE HAS distracted us from these simple things that if we all focused on them with our whole hearts, the whole world would be at peace.  

Since we are so busy striving because we don't focus on those last five that would create world peace, then we have to admit AHA!!!  We have other Gods!!  

It would seem like we'd do much better if we got rid of the whole Bible except those words about the commandments and the laws.  But we can't do that because we NEED to know WHO our Lord is.  We need a relationship with Him in order to feel and know that we are complete.  Hence, we need all the histories of the ancient isrealites and see their relationship to the Lord.  We don't look at those men in the Bible to find out how to be because they were all imperfect.  We look at those men in the Bible that were inperfect so we can see that our Lord continued to stay with them for the most part despite their imperfections.  


But just let The Popes keep piling it on and putting it on and adding it on billions of volumes and pretty soon no one will know Who in the universe their God is or that we can communicate with Him ourselves.  We'll completely distract ourselve from how to love our neighbor by and be in relationship with our God by living our rules and saying vain repitions.  Then, without the relationship with our God, we find ourselves feeling incomplete because we don't have the stuff our neighbor has.  Since we feel so incomplete, then we might we tempted to start lieing about who we ourselves are and who our neighbor is, so that we can draw a picture of what we want people to see so that wont see that truth that we are incomplete.  Then we'll just start thinking of coniving ways to con stuff out of our neighbors --- marketing--- to make them feel even more incomplete. all that's bearing false witness against a neighbor.  But it gets worse.  When we can't con them out of their stuff, then we might be tempted to just steal it.  And then, have sex with their significant other, or anyone that will have us because we need to feel complete, we'll sleep with anything.  And then that gets everyone's tempers flaired up and they start killing each other.  And the striving gets so bad that pretty soon people forget all about taking care of their parents.  WWWWWWWHHHHHHHYYYYYYYYYY  

BECAUSE OTHER GODS LEAVE US INCOMPLETE--if we feel incomplete then we start thinking we need the things of this world and we aren't very neighborly in our efforts to get them.  These days we learn in college how to get our neighbor to feel incomplete.  We learn in college how to get our neighbor to work for us so we can benefit off the labor of our neighbor.  And nobody thinks its wrong.  Apparently, we've all be going after other Gods.  One of them is the Pope.  The other is The Almighty dollar.  The sad thing is that folks that come in pushing the name of the Pope are really after The Almighty Dollar!!!

[Nickolai]

You do NOT see the contradiction in your post, Nickolai. How can the BROTHER of Jesus say this his mother was a virgin? It's absolutely impossible! If Mary was a virgin all her life, then how was James born? That's why that statement is completely bogus and was not canonized. For some reason, you have a hard time seeing through false teaching.

He was a son of Joseph's But since the word in greek used at the time (Adelphos) means all close relatives he can still be called brother without litlerally being a full blood brother

[Heidi]

Then you completely missed the point of the passage I quoted. The whole reason it was in there is that the disciples were referring to the blood brothers and mother of Jesus to which Jesus alluded that blood brothers do not count. Only Christian brothers. If the disciples already knew that then Jesus wouldn't have needed to make that distinction! The disciples had no previous clue that everyone was Jesus's brother or they would have simply called Jesus's brother and mother by name. But they specifically called them His brothers and mother.They only saw blood relatives as true brothers which proves that Jesus had blood relatives. There is NO evidence, ZERO, that Joseph had children from a previous marriage or by adlutery. Again, the church is making up stories that are not scriptural which is what David Koresh and all cult leaders do. You are trying to fit the gospel into church doctrine instead of fitting church doctrine into the gospel. That only proves that you worship the church more than Christ.

[one in christ]

Heide,
Praise God!!!! You should be full of joy that you were banned!!!! The RC Religion is full of blasphemy and error. There are probably a FEW true believers in their ranks as they do preach Christ, but the entire religious system is full of error.

To begin with, its foundation is completely wrong. I am making reference to Peter's confession, petra, petros, and the Church. It goes on to add such absurdities and non-scriptural teachings as the veneration of Mary, transubstantiation, baptismal regeneration, lent and other such nonsense, Papal infallibility, purgatory, prayers for the dead, nuns, and celibacy (Its always cheaper to have to house and have insurance for only one person).

You should be thrilled at being banned as it means that you are being persecuted for righteousness sake. Now, someone will probably come along, take a portion of what I posted, and attempt an attack mw since what I have posted is truth. I hope they do and I can then celebrate with you.

Grace and peace X,

aw

amen to that all of that is just a way to make money and takes attention from god  to things that dont matter