Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
That's the Kool-Aid of the Manichean heresy that leads to spiritual death. But don't worry, we have The Antidote.
Was Mary sinless?
- Thread starter TonyChanYT
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Genealogical evidence shows that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and thus were His cousins, not half-siblings.
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
St. Joseph was the husband of Mary in the common usage of the idea of marriage. (this is no common marriage.)
The pious custom of referring to the Holy Spirit as the spouse of Mary is a symbolic expression of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the virgin birth of Jesus. It is not meant in a literal manner but rather in terms of Mary’s singular devotion to God and unique relationship to the Trinity. It is similar to how religious sisters sometimes refer to Jesus as their spouse.
Scripture contains several examples of a mystical spousal relationship:
- For your Maker is your husband, the LORD of hosts is his name . . . (Isaiah 54:5).
- . . . as the bridegroom rejoices over the bride, so shall your God rejoice over you (Isaiah 62:5).
- . . . my covenant which they broke, though I was their husband, says the LORD (Jeremiah 31:32).
- I feel a divine jealousy for you, for I betrothed you to Christ to present you as a pure bride to her one husband (2 Cor. 11:2).
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Do you really only apply these things to your own teachings? Why in heaven’s name would anyone ever think that Mary and Joseph remained celebate?
There was not a single reason why Mary had to remain a virgin after Jesus was born….the only reason is to perpetuate to ever virgin mother goddess who was worshipped in Babylon and who’s titles were transferred to Mary. Where do you think “Queen of Heaven“ comes from.
Jeremiah 7: 16-20…
Under the heading, “Abuses in Worship.“ The New Catholic Bibles says…
”For your part, Jeremiah, do not intercede for this people, do not raise a plea or a prayer on their behalf, and do not intercede with me, for I will not listen to you. Do you not observe what they are doing in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather up the wood, their fathers light the fire, and the women knead dough to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And to arouse my anger, they pour out drink offerings to other gods. But am I the one whom they hurt? asks the Lord. Is it not rather themselves, to their own shame? Therefore, says the Lord God, my anger and wrath will pour forth on this place, on man and beast, on the trees of the field and the fruits of the earth, and burn without being quenched.” (NCB)
Mother goddesses are ancient…in many pagan cultures…..
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
No, you only support what YOU personally interpret what the Bible says, in opposition to the Bible. Big difference!
See 2 Peter 1:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
And, yet, this is what all of Protestantism is based upon. Someone's personal interpretation of Scripture, as you've just demonstrated.
That's why there are so many doctrinally contradicting, man-made Protestant denominations (thousands!) today. For example, the Baptists claim that infant Baptism is invalid. Lutherans claim it is valid. Both groups read the same Bible and claim to be lead in their interpretation of the Bible by the same Holy Spirit, but come up with opposite conclusions. Both cannot be correct.
It was the Catholic Church that wrote the New Testament. It was the Catholic Church that decided the canon of the Bible in the late fourth century. IF you trust the Catholic Church to tell you which books belong in the Bible,especially the New Testament, why wouldn't you trust her to tell you what it meant?
See 1 Tim 3:15 where St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth." Historically, the ONLY Church in existence when he wrote this was the Catholic Church. Or do you disagree with St. Paul?
The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament? Peter Paul and the rest were all Catholics? I thought the Catholic Church rose in 325 A.D?
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Just because the bible references Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” (Matthew 13:54-56 and Mark 6:3) doesn’t mean these individuals are Jesus’ blood brothers and sisters (coming from the same womb). If the usage of the word “brother” (Greek–adelphos) always meant a literal brother, then we would have to say Lot was Abraham’s sibling since the Greek version of Genesis 14:12-14 uses adelphos to describe Lot’s relation to Abraham. But we know this is not the case because Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Furthermore, Luke uses adelphos when Ananias calls Paul “brother” in Acts 9:17 but that doesn’t mean Ananias and Paul came from the same womb.
Therefore, the conclusion, “Jesus had blood brothers,” doesn’t follow from the premise, “the bible says Jesus had brothers.” The same reasoning would apply to the usage of sisters.
So what did Matthew and Mark mean? One explanation is that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (the assumption being Joseph was a widower), which would make these individuals Jesus’ stepbrothers and stepsisters. This was a view common around the time of St. Jerome.
It’s also possible, however, that they were cousins of Jesus. This seems to be a plausible explanation because Matthew refers to these “brothers” of Jesus as being the sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56, whom John refers to as “Mary wife of Clopas” and the “sister” of Jesus’ mother in John 19:25. Whether John is using “sister” in the literal or more general sense, the relation this Mary has with Jesus’ mother would make the “brothers” of the Lord his cousins.
To preface, the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφός'' (adelphos), or “brother,” has the following definitions: "fellow-countryman," "disciple/follower," "one of the same faith," and "kinsman/kinswoman, or relative," e.g., sibling, cousin, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, etc. In the plural (ἀδελφοί;adelphoi), it regularly refers to men and women.
In Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (adelphoi), or “brothers.” The context shows that the applicable definition is "kinsman, or relative." In Gal. 1:19, Paul calls a man named "James" Jesus's "ἀδελφός" (adelphos), or "brother," and the context shows that the applicable definition is "kinsman, or relative" as well. Therefore, we can deduce that the James's in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In the same verse, Paul indicates that James is one of the Twelve, and only one of the two named "James" of the twelve apostles, and their known siblings, correspond with Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3:
Apostle James (the Great) and Apostle John of Zebedee
(Matt. 4:21, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2)
Apostle James (the Less), Apostle Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and Joseph of Alphaeus
(Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Mk. 15:40, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)
__________________________________________
The following scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies provide genealogical evidence to prove that the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus, and their siblings, were the brothers (kinsmen/relatives) of Jesus:
Two accounts of the same scene:
"Mary the mother of James" (Mk. 16:1)
"Mary the mother of James" (Lk. 24:10)
Three accounts of the same scene:
"Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James (the Less) and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Salome)" (Matt. 27:56)
"Mary Magdalene, Mary (Mary of Clopas/Cleophas) the mother of James the Less and Joseph, and Salome (the mother of the sons of Zebedee)" (Mk. 15:40)
"His (Jesus's) Mother, His (Jesus's) Mother's sister Mary the wife of Clopas/Cleophas (the mother of the James the Less and Joseph), and Mary Magdalene" (Jn. 19:25)
I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragments of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)
II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)
III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:
"James, the brother of the Lord, was "...the author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)
"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)
"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (Bk. III, ch. 11)
"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)
"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)
"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)
"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)
__________________________________________
Summary
The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources,
even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively proves the following:
- Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 were the sons of Jesus's uncle, Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and his wife Mary of Clopas (Cleophas/Alphaeus), and thus His cousins
- James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 were the apostles James and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas)
- James in Matt. 13:55/Mk.6:3 was "James the Less" (Mk. 15:40), "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19), "James the Just," "James the bishop of Jerusalem" (Ac. 15:13-21), and "James the author of the Epistle of James" (Jas. 1)
[Note: This in and of itself does not prove that Mary of Joseph is a perpetual Virgin.]
Last edited:
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
Yes, they were all Catholic. And, no, the Catholic Church wasn't founded in 325 A.D. It was in existence from the beginning.
The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter and a student of St. John (the Apostle), was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about.
It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf
Jude Thaddeus
Active Member
Which is the purest form of "reformism" that you claim to over-ride with your private opinions.
Have you never heard of Google? Historical ignorance is one thing, historical falsehoods is another.
CATHOLIC: Originated from the Greek word KATAHOLOS, which was later Latinized into Catholicus, Catholic in English.
It means 'Universal', which in itself means, 'of or relating to, or affecting the entire world and ALL peoples therein'. It means, ALL encompassing, comprehensibly broad, general, and containing ALL that is neccessary. In summation, it means ALL people in ALL places, having ALL that is necessary, and for ALL time.
In Matthew 28:19-20, "Go, therefore and make disciples of ALL nations...teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you; And behold, I am with you ALL days, even unto the consummation of the world." That is a statement of Universality, Kataholos, Catholicus, Catholic.
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
"proclaimed (KATAnggeletai) in the whole universe (en HOLO to kosmo)” (Rom. 1:8)
Thus the word KATAHOLOS or Catholic in English originated from Scriptures - Romans 1:8
"So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Sama'ria (the known world at the time) had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit it was multiplied." [Acts 9:31 RSV]
There the words "church throughout all" is translated from the Greek words "Ecclesia kata holis" But it was after Ignatius that the term Catholic Church became used more and more to designate the true church, and probably used before that.
I presented 2 scriptural references clearly indicating the universality (Catholic) of the Christian Church.
"And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled"
(Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).Here is what Church Fathers had to say. In every case the word "Catholic” is used. Notice the dates, as they span over a century before 325 A.D.
Ignatius, Letter to the Smyrneans 106AD;
Martyrdom of St. Polycarp 155AD;
Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis 202AD;
Cyprian, Unity of the Catholic Church 251AD;
Cyprian, Letter to Florentius, 254AD
"Christian is my name, and Catholic my surname. The one designates me, while the other makes me specific. Thus am I attested and set apart... When we are called Catholics it is by this appellation that our people are kept apart from any heretical name."
Saint Pacian of Barcelona, Letter to Sympronian, 375 A.D.This quote does not apply to Protestants because there were no Protestants in 375 A.D.
Really?
The RCC was the first protestant movement, which protested Acts 2:38.
The "protestants" today are merely her modern anti -Acts 2:38 daughters.
What is "Catholic trickery?" How is quoting scriptural verses and early Christian testimonies that refute your belief "Catholic trickery?"
Last edited:
The RCC is the mother of protestants, protesting obedience to Acts 2:38.
Anyone that disobeys Acts 2:38 is a member of her network.
They all oppose baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sins.
Their other doctrines that divide them really don't divide them at all.
They can argue any other theological idea but are still lost as their opponent.
None of these folks have been qualified for the remission of sins.
Catholic trickery is debunking a scripture with commentary.(making it say something it does not).
You just did it.
I didn't make people from thousands of years ago say anything. I quoted Scripture and early Christian testimonies, which collectively debunk your belief.
Last edited:
Similar threads
