Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[Matthias]

Again, I will after you compare the two versions in post #315 with what's in The Ante Nicene Church Fathers book, so let me know. Are you going to?

Yes, but there is no need for you to wait for me to do that. I am posting many excerpts from the Epistles of Ignatius which support my assertion that his letters have been tampered with.

 

[Matthias]

The Christian (Catholic) Church. Protestantism doesn't go back over two thousand years.

You must not have read his book. The Catholic Church is in there.

He has some amazing quotes from those whom you claim as your own.

 

[LuxMundy]

Yes [...]

I'll wait until you do then.

 

[LuxMundy]

You must not have read his book. The Catholic Church is in there.

Over two thousand years of history of the Christian (Catholic) Church is in that one book?

 

[Matthias]

I'll wait until you do then.

That’s fine. In the meantime, I will post more examples from the long and short versions of his letters.

 

[LuxMundy]

That’s fine.

When will you?

 

[Matthias]

Over two thousand years of history of the Christian (Catholic) Church is in that one book?

I provided a link for your convenience (and for the convenience of others.) Check the Table of Contents. It doesn’t cover 2000 years because it was written and published in the 19th century.

 

[LuxMundy]

In the meantime, I will post more examples from the long and short versions of his letters.

Well, if you want me to read them, you first have to compare post #315, so why not just do that first?

 

[Matthias]

When will you?

I don’t know, but I will.

 

[LuxMundy]

It doesn’t cover 2000 years because it was written and published in the 19th century.

The Christian (Catholic) Church has existed for over two thousand years, and thus they have all the history over that time, so best to go to them.

 

[Matthias]

Well, if you want me to read them, you first have to compare post #315, so why not just do that first?

Will you read them after I compare post #315 with The Ante Nicene Church Fathers that I’m quoting from?

 

[Matthias]

The Christian (Catholic) Church covers the history of over two thousand years, so best to go to them.

It wont go further back than Schaff does.

 

[LuxMundy]

It wont go further back than Schaff does.

The Christian (Catholic) Church has existed for over two thousand years, all the way back to Jesus, and so that Church is the best source for its history.

 

[Matthias]

An example from Ignatius’ Epitle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 3.

Short version.

”Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ].”

***

Long version.

”Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you. I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, and becoming worthy of Jesus Christ, may obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of Christ. Brethren, be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell. For it is obligatory neither to separate from the godly, nor to associate with the ungodly. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of the family. For says [the Scripture], ‘Thine eye shall not spare him.’ You ought therefore to ‘hate those that hate God, and to waste away [with grief] on account of His enemies.’ I do not mean that you should beat them or persecute them, as do the Gentiles ‘that know not the Lord God;’ but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them, while yet you admonish them, and exhort them to repentance, if it may be may they will hear, if it may be they will submit themselves. For our God is a lover of mankind, and ‘will have all men to be saved, and to cone to the knowledge of the truth.’ Wherefore ‘He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;’ of whose kindness the Lord, wishing us also to be imitators, says, ‘Be ye perfect, even as also your Father that is in heaven is perfect.’”

Whoever wrote the long version made some interesting changes and had much mire to say than the person who wrote the short version of the letter.

 

[Matthias]

The Christian (Catholic) Church has existed for over two thousand years, all the way back to Jesus...

The Christian Church has existed since a Jew founded it. It began as a sect of and within Judaism. The Roman Catholic Church did not begin as a sect of and within Judaism.

Theodosius, not Constantine, is the emperor who established what we now call orthodoxy as the official and only Christian religion.

(Schaff has a remarkable quote in his History Of The Christian Church from Gregory of Nazianzus - you’ll surely recognize the name, most Protestant’s won’t - from 380.)

A.D. 381 is the monumental date which every Christian should be intimately acquainted with.

, and so that Church is the best source for its history.

P.S.

I just finished reading this book about a month ago. Excellent. I highly recommend it.

Amazon.com

 

[Bladerunner]

Yea it was. I recommend reading the history of the Christian (Catholic) Church.

I don't care about the History of the catholic church, I already know most of it..What I do know that Peter was never in History shown to be in Rome. The RCC is a false gospel.

 

[Marymog]

I don't care about the History of the catholic church, I already know most of it..What I do know that Peter was never in History shown to be in Rome. The RCC is a false gospel.

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

 

[Bladerunner]

Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200), noted of Rome, “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

It is funny you ask..Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria wrote their pieces around 160-170AD, Yet Peter was long dead during the half of the first century. 50-60 AD. The Church RCC did not come into being until Constantine Married the Church and State in 250AD.....I guess the church stole the Line from Jesus about He would build His Church on this Rock..Of, course the Rock He was speaking of was of Himself. "The Rock" and Yes, Peter was married (Mark 1:30), why listen to Tertullian when one can get it straight from God's own Word.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The word adelphos is broad enough to embrace cousins. Have you considered that?

It could be considered if first of all, this was not a happily married Jewish couple who viewed having children as a blessing from God, therefore Jews usually had large families.

Psalm 127:3-5….
”Behold, children are a gift of the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them”. (NASB)
Is there a scriptural reason that Joseph and Mary would not have expected to have a large family also?

The second point, we would have to ask why Joseph and Mary as a married couple couldnt have had a normal sexual relationship that produced more children. Was there ever stated in the Bible that there was some sort of impediment to this God ordained marriage having more children? This couple would have been viewed as odd among their contemporaries, especially since it says that Joseph did not have relations with Mary “until“ after she had given birth to Jesus. He respected her virginal state as a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesy. (Matt 1: 22-25)

So only the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (a necessity in the ancient mother goddess worship that they adopted) is an impediment to her having more children…..the Bible does not say that at all. There is no valid scriptural reason why the “brethren” mentioned at Matt 13:54-56 cannot be his half siblings, since his father is identified as “the carpenter”, and Mary as his mother.

As a third point…..as to Jesus giving the care of Mary over to the apostle John before his death, the Scriptures indicate that Mary was a widow at this time and as the firstborn son, it was Jesus’ responsibility to care for his widowed mother. Since his siblings had not yet accepted him as Messiah, Jesus was making sure that his mother was cared for spiritually as a priority. His siblings became believers only after his resurrection.

 

[Marymog]

It is funny you ask..Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria wrote their pieces around 160-170AD, Yet Peter was long dead during the half of the first century. 50-60 AD. The Church RCC did not come into being until Constantine Married the Church and State in 250AD.....I guess the church stole the Line from Jesus about He would build His Church on this Rock..Of, course the Rock He was speaking of was of Himself. "The Rock" and Yes, Peter was married (Mark 1:30), why listen to Tertullian when one can get it straight from God's own Word.

1. I didn't "ask" anything. I quoted your own Christian history.
2. The Church came "into being" in NT times (Matthew 16:18, 18:17 1 Timothy 3:15). I, Marymog, found that Church that Jesus started. You are still searching for it and you deny it.
3. I quoted the earliest records Christianity has of Peter being in Rome. I accept Christian history. You and your ilk deny Christian history to your own demise.
4. Constantine was emperor from 306-337 so your 250AD is wrong...A simple mistake on your part of which I understand.
5. YOUR 20th century Protestant men have taught you that Peter was not called "rock". Historically Christianity has always taught that Peter was the rock that Jesus built The Church upon: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: ..... 18 I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church;

Clement of Alexandria
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian​

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]). “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

I could quote MANY Protestant theologians that say that Peter was The Rock upon which Jesus built his Church......Just like Scripture says. But since you deny your own Christian History and accept the teachings of your 20th Century Protestant men there is nothing I can say that will convince you and your teachers are wrong about your own Christian History and don't know how to read very basic Scripture!

With that said I wish you well in your 20th Century Christianity. I and my ilk will adhere to the NT and the teachings of men who lived closest to the times of Christ.....not the men who live in the 20th century.