Brothers and Sisters?

OSV.com ^ | 05-01-17 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

Rose, via email

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

[af_vet_1981]

I just want to know, if you have been born again from above, ala John 3? If not, why not? No one enters Heaven, except he be born again.

When you do say that the Apostles were born again from above, ala John 3? If not, why not?

Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.
And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

And he spake this parable unto them, saying,
What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?
And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.
Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

And he said, A certain man had two sons:
And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living.
And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him.
And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee,
And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants.
And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.
But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:
And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:
For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.
Now his elder son was in the field: and as he came and drew nigh to the house, he heard musick and dancing.
And he called one of the servants, and asked what these things meant.
And he said unto him, Thy brother is come; and thy father hath killed the fatted calf, because he hath received him safe and sound.
And he was angry, and would not go in: therefore came his father out, and intreated him.
And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Luke, Catholic chapter fifteen, in its entirety,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Is Jesus God?”

If you don’t know the answer, I’m sending you for remedial training!

[ealgeone]

Same arguments used by Catholics and easily refuted much as we’re doing tonight.

[Elsie]

Where did John D Lee fit into this lovely little equation? 👎

Mister Fall Guy??

---

 

 

"I am a true believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young.

 I do not care who hears it. It is my last word - it is so.

 I believe he is lead­ing the people astray, downward to destruction.

 But I believe in the gospel that was taught in its purity by Joseph Smith, in former days.

 I have my reasons for it.

 

"I studied to make this man's [Brigham Young] will my pleasure for thirty years.

See, now, what I have come to this day!

 

"I have been sacrificed in a cowardly, dastardly manner." (Lee enun­ciated this sentence with marked emphasis.)

 

 

Excerpted from -->  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/leeexecution.html

[af_vet_1981]

Same arguments used by Catholics for almost twenty centuries and still standing despite what you’re doing tonight.

The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

The Eastern Church, that actually lived in Greek, in concert with the Western Church, which also knew Greek, uphold this. It is only modern religious movements that imagine they refute it.

[ealgeone]

Neither you nor Mrs D have answered by original question.

In reading about the history of this issue, you know as well as I, that it is not a settled issue...nor was it settled back in the day.

To allow the Catholic their position tortures the language and disrupts any semantic logic in reading these passages.

As I've said before...if the RCC believed the other writings that contain stories of Joseph having other children, Mary making vows of perpetual virginity, etc....all they had to do was make them part of the canon at Trent.

That they didn't is very telling.

Perhaps you can enlighten us as to why the RCC didn't. No one else seems to be able to.

[Elsie]

The reference was to Joseph Smith. He was under Protestant/Evangelical influence from the Second Great Awakening. He wrote about it.

He wrote a LOT of stuff!

---

Mormonism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Joseph Smith, Jr. has strange doctrines regarding marriage (polygamy accepted in early days) believes in God the mother (who has conceived multitudes of spirit children) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a living, breathing Mormon, instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9)- good works, water baptism and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture

Catholicism claims itself to uniquely be "the Church" claims a unique and authoritative priesthood, thereby denying the royal priesthood of all believers adds to the Holy Bible (with sacred tradition) accepts multiple satanic visions as being from God undermines the power of Jesus' blood by its view of personal suffering for the expiation of sins sings praise songs about Mary has strange doctrines regarding marriage (celibacy still practiced among its clergy) believes in the mother of God (who is the sinless Queen of Heaven) claims the head of their group speaks infallibly at times redefines "saint" to mean a physically dead Catholic who was afterwards "canonized," instead of a bible-defined child of God accepts and spreads "another gospel" (Gal. 1:8,9) - good works, the sacraments, Mary and church membership professes itself as Christian; Jesus as God, Savior, Lord and Son of God; Jesus' atoning death and resurrection doctrines are sending hundreds of millions to Hell and they need to be openly refuted with Scripture teaches and practices bowing before and kissing statues WORSHIPS the consecrated communion wafer as God claims Mary is their life, sweetness, hope and most gracious advocate (as revealed in the Rosary) claims Mary was raised bodily into Heaven claims they get to Jesus by first going to Mary

http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/catholicmormon.htm  

---

ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.

http://mormon2catholic.wordpress.com/2006/01/28/catholics-make-good-mormons-but-do-mormons-make-good-catholics/

 

 

 

[Elsie]

He wrote a LOT of stuff!

---

"I Will Be a Second Mohammed"

In the heat of the Missouri 'Mormon War' of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim,

           "I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was "the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword". So shall it eventually be with us: "Joseph Smith or the Sword!" [1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking and troubling parallels. Consider the following.

• Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

• Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

• Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new spin.   In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters, but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to 'correct' the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the 'Inspired Version'  in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is 'correcting' it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

• As a part of their new scriptural 'spin', both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible by name.

• Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. "I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book." [3]

• Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet's own superior revelation.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered 'infidels', pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

• Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

• Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed's followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, look to Ali ibn Abi lib, whom they consider Divinely appointed, as the rightful successor to Muhammad, and the first imam. (Ali was the cousin and son-in-law of the Islamic prophet Muhammad). Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith's followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith's own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

• Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

"I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." [4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith's claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.

---

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230-231. Fawn Brodie's footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57-59, 97-129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8-9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6-7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408-409.

[Elsie]

One?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=mollys+nipple&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=f41a3d31bb5a447fb7ff60642df47f47&cc=US&setlang=en-US

[Elsie]

I know; you inserted yourself in a thread and I explained it to you.

Isn't that what threads are DESIGNED for?

I can talk to myself at HOME!

[Elsie]

AMEN

[Elsie]

There is no mention of other "children of Mary," "sons of Mary," or "daughters of Mary."

Then why does Rome want us ALL to be?

[ealgeone]

40One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, “We have found the Messiah” (which translated means Christ). John 1:40-41 NASB

Perhaps Andrew and Simon really weren't "brother" brothers. Just cousins hanging. Maybe even just good buddies. Who knows?

Perhaps Simon was related to someone else from another marriage. /sacr

I mean really, with the logic of the Catholic all bets are off. /sacr

[Mercat]

Why glorify instead of “magnify”?

[ealgeone]

I do because I enjoy intelligent conversation!

[Mercat]

It would also be useful to discuss what was said to her, by both her Son and Gabriel. It’s my bedtime though.

[Elsie]

MaTTHEW 10:35-37

35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me;

Airing some dirty laundry here?

[Elsie]

The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

Well; the angel talked to John again and had him write to 7 more catholic churches in ASIA that were teaching Mary's perpetual virginity and John wrote II Revelation; telling them to QUIT!.

But; for some unknown reason; Rome failed to include THAT book when it assembled the rest of the bible..

[af_vet_1981]

The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.

The Eastern Church, that actually lived in Greek, in concert with the Western Church, which also knew Greek, uphold this. It is only modern religious movements that imagine they refute it.

[ealgeone]

The Eastern Church, that actually lived in Greek, in concert with the Western Church, which also knew Greek, uphold this. It is only modern religious movements that imagine they refute it.

Sorry...not buying it. The link you gave are the same arguments used by Catholics.

The history of this issue is not as rock solid as you want it to be.