Welcome to the forum.
2 Likes
I appreciate the post but I am not a bible scholar so a lot of what you said went whoosh over my head.
I dont really look to the bible for historical answers though you can certainly get clues, and I see the topic of Jesus having brothers and sisters more a historical question than a religious one.
It does not make any difference to my faith if Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus was born. I am sure Joseph would have been a bit miffed if she didnt.
3 Likes
That’s okay, you are by far the most engaging member, the most knowledgeable and spiritual person I have read replies from in this forum and enlighten us all with your ideas.
2 Likes
I think those kudos correctly belong at your feet! Still, I thank you.
1 Like
It may help to know a little bit about Biblical languages of that time. There was no word for “brother” or “sister”.
The more accurate translation of Matthew’s verse would have been, "We know his male kin James and Joseph, Simon and Judas. All his female kin live here."
‘Kin’ ranges well into step siblings, half-siblings, cousins near and far removed.
Mary’s perpetual virginity comes from Apostolic tradition. At that time and place, the virginity of a married woman would have been so out of the ordinary that it would have merited people gossiping about it, which may be how it became Apostolic tradition. A married woman’s virginity/celibacy was certainly no virtue in those times.
2 Likes
What is this for? Are we all not honorable guests here? Is this intended for someone?
Well, if you wanna get technical, some of “us” are brand new accounts on a probationary period. 
But, other than that, I consider @Nemesis a friend around here, and I joke with him accordingly. You seem oddly familiar too. lol
1 Like
This will forever be an obstacle for me. The Telephone Game as it’s called.
If I went back just 100 years here in America, walked up to someone, and said, “Hey, what’s up?” they’d look up at the sky, then at me like I’m some kind of jerk pulling a prank.
I know exactly where Atlantis is/was (western Africa, south of the Atlas Mountains, in modern day Mauritania). There are ancient maps that pinpoint it’s former location. There is textbook geological evidence of a massive flood within the last 12-14,000 years. If everyone still stuck with the words that survived since Plato’s time, they’d still be searching the Atlantic Ocean for a land that never existed.
Many books of the Bible are even older than Plato; by centuries, even millennia. Most of the languages any of this was originally written in don’t even exist anymore. That’s why I’ve always struggled against “fundamentalist” (for lack of a better word) interpretations.
I don’t get the Catholic religion and never will.
The Pope is just another guy no more special than you or I.
Calling a priest “father” is repulsive to me as I have one Father and that is God.
Jesus died for our sins so through Him we know that we are forgiven. Having a priest tell us we are forgiven assumes an authority they have no right to usurp from Jesus.
The Catholic church reminds me of exactly what Jesus loathed about the Pharisees.
1 Like
Wow! And I didn’t think you understood the Catholic religion! You have that part spot on. Most non-Catholics seem to see the Pope entirely differently from how Catholics see him.
Language again. Look up “Father” in our own dictionary and note all its different usages. One usage in Jesus time is that it meant a founder of a religious sect. The more precise translation of what Jesus said is,"Call no man ‘founder’ because all is founded by God. People who call themselves “Lutherans” are more out of line in this regard that people correctly addressing a spiritual adviser as “Father.”
No worries. Many non-Catholic denominations left Apostolic traditions/teachings in the 1500s, but it explains misunderstandings that arose during the past thousand years.
During his lifetime, before he died, much of Jesus’ ministry was assuring people, verbally telling people, “Sins are forgiven.” So, no usurping, simply obedience to Jesus’ commission that we proclaim the Good News. The Good News is, Sins are forgiven.
It appears you have no need to hear this and that’s okay. Some truly not only appreciate–but very much benefit–by someone telling them directly and personally, "Your sins are forgiven–just as Jesus did in his own time, and the Apostles did in their own time. The Catholic faith has retained this tradition down through all the years after Christ. It is not usurping anything from Christ, it is following faithfully in his steps.
1 Like
It reminds me of Jesus.
I’m sincerely glad that it does.
I have issues with any religion or individual for that matter that teaches, infers or distracts from anything but salvation comes through the blood of Christ.
I do not believe a priest should infer they have the authority to say a person is forgiven as only God, through Jesus can forgive a sin.
Clearly, you are a Christian within the Catholic church. I’m not so sure that all Catholics are Christians and that goes for the members of any denomination.
I tend to believe in churches that teach spirituality through the Word which is accessible to everyone, not rituals or that good works are a part of salvation. I don’t pray to Saints, nor to Mary. I believe that all people should be taught they have a direct line to God and they will be forgiven through Christ.
Having said that, if a church brings you to Christ then that is all that ultimately matters.
1 Like
Absolutely, because they do. That’s the Good News, after all!
There is no reason for Mary to have remained a virgin after Jesus’ birth.
I believe the reason that Mary had to be a virgin for Jesus has to do with blood. There is something about it that changed in Eden after the fall, and I believe that the taint of sin is carried by in the blood and has been passed down to every human since then EXCEPT for Jesus.
If we go back to Eden, we read that while God told Adam directly to not eat of the tree, he did not tell Eve directly. In fact, Adam was told before Eve was even created. It seems then,that Adam was told by God, and Adam passed the command down to his wife. In Genesis 3, the serpent approaches Eve and says " Yea, hath God said…". If we read what Eve said we find that she wasn’t quite accurate in her response. She said God forbade them to eat of the tree AND THEY COULDN’T TOUCH IT EITHER. This is not what God said.
When God confronted Adam and Eve, though he did “punish” Eve, and certainly death came upon her, the greatest part of the blame fell on Adam. God told him BECAUSE THOU HAS DONE THIS. This is confirmed in the New Testament in Romans 5:12 " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned"
The sin of the man (Adam) is given, not of the woman. Again, I believe blood is the medium by which our sin nature is passed from generation to generation.
It was necessary than for Jesus to be conceived without the taint of sin carried by every human father. The blood in women may also carry the taint of sin, but consider that the blood of the mother and developing child are completely separate. Women can have babies of completely different blood types. Mary’s tainted blood then, would never have mingled with Jesus’ perfect blood, which was necessary to atone for man’s sin.
Once Jesus was born, such separation was no longer necessary and since having children was the natural thing that was and is still done today. I don’t believe Joseph would have remained abstinent for the rest of his life. He would have wanted biological sons to carry his legacy as men do today.
Scripture indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters and the scholars who translated the early texts spoke Greek and Hebrew too and would have known all of the ways various words could have been used.
I don’t know why Catholic tradition insists on not only a perpetual virgin Mary, but a Mary who also is ascribed sinless?
Scripture doesn’t support those views.
1 Like
Cardinal Fulton Sheen (1895-1979)
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”
It is hard to patiently listen to people as they make up things “Catholic”. Easy to laugh, though.
I completely understand your position. I have been to Catholic churches and have had many Catholic friends. My impression comes from those experiences. I respect your beliefs but am sorry you feel the need to be dismissive. 
2 Likes
Interesting discussion, as a catholic I personally see the Pope as a figurehead, leader of the church. I do not think that just by ascending to Pope be somehow has a more direct link to God than anyone else. Nor is he chosen by God. If that was the case why bother having a vote. Humans make the decisions and with that come human biases and individual opinions.
For me the rituals of the mass are a sort of therapy: mediation, they allow me to enter into a state where I can pray and commune with god (pretty one sided communication if I am honest).
I also see confession as an early form of therapy. Confessing your sins does unburden you just as talking to someone else does. However I am convinced the early church used confession as a means of control. Who used to be one of the most influential figures in the village or small town. It was the priest and that priest knew everyones dirty little secrets.
