Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[GodsGrace]

Why is it another thing when the contents will expand beyond the initial container?

By what mechanism is contact with sin deforming of the Savior's nature at any point of his existence? Seems to be the only pathway is if sin were to penetrate to his heart and any superficial interface with any human being, skin deep, has no impact whatsoever.

That's your opinion Wrangler.
I don't agree with it.

Who here said coming into contact with sin would deform the Savior's nature?
No one.

Who here said the sin would penetrate to His heart?
No one.

It's rather unfortunate that when the reformation took place....it was felt that it would be necessary to abandon some teachings of the CC which were true just for the purpose of attaining the belief of SOLA SCRIPTURA so as to deny the authority of the Pope and replace the magesterium with ONLY the bible....

which does not work well...

seeing as there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[GodsGrace]

Why would you rely on writings from 200 years after the event rather than eye witnesses to the event?

Why don't you read the ECFs and then come back and tell us all what you think about it?

Maybe John was right....
maybe not everything was written down.

Who do YOU believe more?

Some guy that made up different ideas 1,500 years after Jesus...
or
Those that were TAUGHT BY THE APOSTLES??

 

[Matthias]

Agreed 100%.

Then you should be able to give an example of something I’ve said that the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach.

 

[Wrangler]

That's your opinion Wrangler.

I asked questions. If you cannot answer them, that's on you.

 

[Wrangler]

Who here said coming into contact with sin would deform the Savior's nature?

Who here said the sin would penetrate to His heart?

Just trying to understand your claim that it is another thing if the container is sin. And these questions reveal the implications of your statement.

 

[Wrangler]

Why don't you read the ECFs and then come back and tell us all what you think about it?

Because I don't waste my time on less authoritatve references when higher authoritative references are available.

 

[Wrangler]

Maybe John was right....
maybe not everything was written down.

Not sure who is claiming everything was written down?

However, after 66 books, I trust the important things were identified. Why don't you?

 

[Lambano]

What is the stain for a married woman to have children?

Dunno, but Leviticus says that both husband and wife are unclean until evening if semen is released. Not because it is sinful, but because the wild thing sexual intercourse is a thing of This World.

So, best to do it just before sunset. I can add the Starland Vocal Band (Afternoon Delight) to the Troggs and Jimi Hendrix in the soundtrack for this thread.

Similarly, Leviticus 12:2-3 says the woman is unclean for a week after giving birth. Two weeks if she had a girl. (Now Mink57s blood will begin to boil.) Giving birth is a thing of This World also.

 

[GodsGrace]

Then you should be able to give an example of something I’ve said that the Catholic Church teaches that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach.

Can't remember everything you've said Matthias.
Do YOU want to make a list of everything you think the CC teaches and @asoul and I will go through it?
Or, I can by myself if he doesn't have time.

 

[Lambano]

It's one thing to deal with sinful humanity.
It's another thing to be conceived in a sinful container...for lack of a better word.

How so? The whole Kosmos is a sinful container.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not sure who is claiming everything was written down?

However, after 66 books, I trust the important things were identified. Why don't you?

Oh. I thought we were discussing the 27 books.
I believe the OT does refer to Mary but I feel the discussion should be in another thread.
If at all.

 

[GodsGrace]

Because I don't waste my time on less authoritatve references when higher authoritative references are available.

Apparently the NT isn't sufficient Wrangler.

Because there sure does seem to be A LOT of disagreement between us.

IF the NT were enough.....why are we here debating what verses mean??

 

[GodsGrace]

I asked questions. If you cannot answer them, that's on you.

Why would you want answers from someone that cannot even properly put a thesis as the reason for a thread?

I don't care to answer every one of your questions...or those of anyone that is here only to argue and not have a pleasant and civil conversation.

 

[Matthias]

Can't remember everything you've said Matthias.

Everything I’ve said I said quoting Catholic sources. The latest example being the article published by the Diocese of Tyler. I stand by what is written in the article.

Do YOU want to make a list of everything you think the CC teaches and @asoul and I will go through it?
Or, I can by myself if he doesn't have time.

I don’t want to put you to a lot of trouble. A single example (I just used the issue of Catholics being required to believe those things which are official dogmas of the Catholic Church) would be sufficient for me.

 

[GodsGrace]

How so? The whole Kosmos is a sinful container.

Sure.
But Mary was pure and holy in a way we're not.
What does holy mean?
She fits the bill better than any of us.

And, I do believe Protestantism should have more regard for the mother of Jesus.

Here are some more writings on Mary....

St. Gregory of Nyssa

It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)

[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)

St. Ambrose

. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)


What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity, II, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 374)

St. Epiphanius

Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion, 30, 31; Gambero, 127)

St. Jerome

‘There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.’ The rod is the mother of the Lord–simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself… Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39; cf. Gambero, p. 213: “whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord”)


Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos, 1, 16; Gambero, 212)


St. Augustine

We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin. Well, then, if, with this exception of the Virgin, we could only assemble together all the forementioned holy men and women, and ask them whether they lived without sin whilst they were in this life, what can we suppose would be their answer? (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, chapter 42 [XXXVI]; NPNF 1, Vol. V)

We do not deliver Mary to the devil by the condition of her birth; but for this reason, because this very condition is resolved by the grace of rebirth. (Opus Imperf. Contra Julianum, 4, 122; Graef, 99)

And so he created a Virgin, whom he had chosen to be his Mother . . . she, with pious faith, merited to receive the holy seed within her. He chose her, to be created from her. (De peccatorum meritis et remissione, 2, 24, 38; Gambero, 219)

St. Cyril of Alexandria

Hail, Mary Theotokos, Virgin-Mother, lightbearer, uncorrupt vessel . . . Hail Mary, you are the most precious creature in the whole world; hail, Mary, uncorrupt dove; hail, Mary, inextinguishable lamp; for from you was born the Sun of justice . . . Through you, every faithful soul achieves salvation. (Homily 11 at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus; Gambero, 243, 245)

I see the assembly of the saints, all zealously gathered together, invited by the holy Mother of God, Mary, ever-virgin . . . We hail you, O Mary Mother of God, venerable treasure of the entire world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of virginity, scepter of orthodoxy, imperishable temple, container of him who cannot be contained . . . Through you, the Holy Trinity is glorified; the precious Cross is celebrated and adored throughout the world; heaven exults, the angels and archangels rejoice, the demons are put to flight, the devil, the tempter, falls from heaven, the fallen creation is brought back to paradise, all creatures trapped in idolatry come to know of the truth. (Homily IV Preached at Ephesus Against Nestorius; Gambero, 247-248)


Theodotus

“Hail, O full of grace, the Lord is with you, you are blessed” (Lk 1:28), O most beautiful and most noble among women. The Lord is with you, O all-holy one, glorious and good. The Lord is with you, O worthy of praise, O incomparable, O more than glorious, all splendor, worthy of God, worthy of all blessedness . . . spouse of God, divinely nourished treasure. To you I announce neither a conception in wickedness nor a birth in sin; instead, I bring the joy that puts an end to Eve’s sorrow. To you I proclaim neither a trying pregnancy nor a painful delivery . . . Through you, Eve’s odious condition is ended; through you, abjection has been destroyed; through you, error is dissolved; through you, sorrow is abolished; through you, condemnation has been erased. Through you, Eve has been redeemed. (On the Mother of God and the Nativity; Gambero, 271)

A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns. (Homily VI, 11; O’Carroll, 339)


If iron, once joined to fire, immediately expels the impurities extraneous to its nature and swiftly acquires a likeness to the powerful flame that heats it, . . . how much more, in a superior way, did the Virgin burn when the divine fire (the Holy Spirit) rushed in? She was purified from earthly impurities, and from whatever might be against her nature, and was restored to her original beauty, so as to become inaccessible, untouchable, and irreconcilable to carnal things. (Homily 4, 6; Gambero, 264)

source: The Church Fathers Believed That Mary Is Sinless

 

[GodsGrace]

Everything I’ve said I said quoting Catholic sources. The latest example being the article published by the Diocese of Tyler. I stand by what is written in the article.


I don’t want to put you to a lot of trouble. A single example (I just used the issue of Catholics being required to believe those things which are official dogmas of the Catholic Church) would be sufficient for me.

Catholics ARE REQUIRED to believe Dogma.

What I'm saying is that not all of them do and they're still considered Catholic.

The OFFICIAL TEACHING of the CC is that all its members MUST BELIEVE every dogma.

Not every doctrine is a dogma....but once it makes dogma status...it must be believed.

This is why I don't define myself as Catholic.
Although, by some rather liberal priests, it would be fine for me to do so.

 

[Matthias]

Catholics ARE REQUIRED to believe Dogma.

That is my understanding of what Catholicism teaches. No one who understands what Catholicism teaches should have an issue with that. You don’t. I don’t. That leaves asoul.

What I'm saying is that not all of them do and they're still considered Catholic.

Why are they considered Catholics if they don’t believe what Catholics are required to believe?

The OFFICIAL TEACHING of the CC is that all its members MUST BELIEVE every dogma.

Not every doctrine is a dogma....but once it makes dogma status...it must be believed.

That’s what I’ve said.

This is why I don't define myself as Catholic.
Although, by some rather liberal priests, it would be fine for me to do so.

 

[Matthias]

This is why I don't define myself as Catholic.
Although, by some rather liberal priests, it would be fine for me to do so.

I don’t define myself as Catholic: not because I don’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches but because I do understand what the Catholic Church teaches.

The issue isn’t understanding. The issue is believing.

Try this:

“Matthias understands what the Catholic Church teaches but he doesn’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches is true.”

Substantially true, but even that would only be a partially correct statement. I can identify things the Catholic Church teaches that I fully agree with.

 

[GodsGrace]

That is my understanding of what Catholicism teaches. No one who understands what Catholicism teaches should have an issue with that. You don’t. I don’t. That leaves asoul.




Why are they considered Catholics if they don’t believe what Catholics are required to believe?

Great question.
There could be different answers....I've never spoken about this to any priest in any great length..
I'll tell you what one said to me ... a traditional priest, about 10 years or more ago.

I asked him....what if someone doesn't believe a dogma?
He said to pray about it.
What else could they say? "You're anathemized"?!
Should they be ex-communicated?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that obstinate denial is a sin.
So,,, we don't make it be obstinate! We pray about it.

Plus,,,different priests believe differently in the sense of being more conservative or less conservative.
Other than that,,,,I have no other idea.


CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”1

That’s what I’ve said.

 

[Wrangler]

Apparently the NT isn't sufficient Wrangler.

Because there sure does seem to be A LOT of disagreement between us.

IF the NT were enough.....why are we here debating what verses mean??

Circular Reasoning.

1. You are taking something that is NOT the NT as a higher authority than what the NT says, i.e.., subordinating something of higher authority to something of lower authority.
2. Because of this, we disagree.
3. From this, you conclude the NT is insufficient.

Frankly, I don't care if we agree or not. Agreement is not the standard by which I live. What God's word says is the standard by which I live.

Having said that, I fully recognize the book is a general guide on how to live. It is certainly not the authority on modern specifics, like how to go from Boston to Miami, how many calories in peanut butter, the density of osmium, who the President is, what time is it, etc.

On the subject matter contained, I deny the claim there is a better reference. There may be corroborating references. There may be references that contradict the authoritative reference. Still, I rely on the authoritative reference and not less authoritative references. If we disagree, so be it.