I could have sworn her and joseph had other children a while after jesus?

am I right?

Yes.

thank you, you don't have any idea what book of the Bible its in do you?

Hi. I'm Jesus. This is my brother Darryl and this is my other brother Darryl.

Jesus had a brother, Milton, who left the family. There's only so much "Why can't you be more like your brother?" one can take from a Jewish mother.

Matthew 12
45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

Jesus' Mother and Brothers

46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[1]

Luke 8
18Therefore consider carefully how you listen. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has will be taken from him."

Jesus' Mother and Brothers

19Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

John 2

11This, the first of his miraculous signs, Jesus performed in Cana of Galilee. He thus revealed his glory, and his disciples put their faith in him.

Jesus Clears the Temple

12After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

ever noticed how catholics always like to change the bible around and make a bunch of rules that really just result in money for their church.

Clean_cut's scriptures are the main ones.

James, the author of the Book of James, was one of Jesus' brothers.

Or, perhaps we should say, half-brothers.  They had different Fathers. [:D]

Actually, what I've noticed is that many Catholics are good people that are trying to know God.  

The catholic church may teach wrong doctrine, but the people are not to blame.  They are only searching for an understanding of God.

It was James' burial box (of bones) that was recently discovered that has the archelogical community all in-fighting amongst themseleves over authenticity.

My personal favorite "adaptation" is the one undertaken by anti-alcohol preachers, who go to great lengths to explain that when Jesus is spoken of as making or drinking wine, the liquid in question wasn't really wine, but grape juice. Oddly enough, these people are often otherwise word-for-word literalists.

Good point.  Wine means....wine.

As an old preacher I knew once told me, "There are a lot of Baptists that sure wish Jesus had chosen some other miracle for his first one."

Of course, He had a reason to use this one.  Want to guess why?

Okay, OP, I'll bite...

Why?

Your humble student awaits.... [;)]

I thought that Mary was Jesus's ol' lady....

An interesting subject as if Joseph was not the firstborn of John then the lineage from:

Adam->Noah->Abraham->David->Joseph(Jesus)->->->goes on.

Really makes me wonder who is out there representing this lineage now.

John? [>:/]

should have said catholic church.

I find it hard to understand a religion that uses "middlemen" in order to speak to God.

I enjoy a one on one relationship!

WRONG MARY...and it cant be proven anyways. But it is a interesting theory.

John 2


Water Turned to Wine


Jesus' First Miracle at Cana
1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. 3And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, "They have no wine."
4Jesus said to her, "Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come."
5His mother said to the servants, "Whatever He says to you, do it."
6Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. 7Jesus said to them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 8And He said to them, "Draw some out now, and take it to the master of the feast." And they took it. 9When the master of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom. 10And he said to him, [b]"Every man at the beginning sets out the good wine, and when the guests have well drunk, then the inferior. You have kept the good wine until now!"[/b]
11This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
12After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days.

For those who may not know the primary issues most Protestants have with the Catholic Church, I provide the following:

- The eternal virginity of Mary
- The near-deification of Mary
- The Assumption of Mary
- The incident at Fatima calling for the world to be dedicated to Mary's Immaculate Heart
- The concept of Purgatory
- That Salvation can only come through the Church
- That you must confess your sins to a priest
- The editing of the Ten Commandments
- The use of saints as intercessors to Christ
- The absolute authority of the Pope
- The use of tradition in addition to Scripture

I'm sure I've missed a few, but that's enough for now...

I add my support to OP's statement differentiating between the Church and Catholics in general, seeing as I was once a Catholic, and still consider it my home Church.

I like that quote, Eric. [:D]

Let's search the scriptures...

What was the first miracle that Moses did to free the Israelites?

[b]Exodus 7:17   Thus saith the LORD, In this thou shalt know that I am the LORD: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.[/b]

God turned water into blood.  Let's leave that one for a second and look at:

[b]John 2:6   And there were set there six waterpots of stone, [red]after the manner of the purifying of the Jews[/red], containing two or three firkins apiece.[/b]

The Jews used the water in the pots for purifying themselves.  It cleansed them from sin and uncleanness.  It was required before they could associate with one another.

[b]7   Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
8   And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it.[/b]

Jesus used these same waterpots and this same water for His miracle.

[b]9   When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom,
10   And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.
11   This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.[/b]

I believe that Jesus was teaching them (although they wouldn't understand for some time) that the old way of purfying themselves was passed away.  There was a new way.

Let's look at:

[b]Matthew 26:27   And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28   For [red]this is my blood of the new testament[/red], which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
29   But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.[/b]

The new way was Jesus' blood.  Now the blood of our Savior will cleanse us from sin.

Isn't this Book great!

And I bet that wine was the best ever tasted.  I can't wait to drink it with you in Glory.

This is one of 2 points in your list that calls my "Protestantism" into question. Ppl on this board ask each other for prayer all the time. Most of the prayers offered in response (i.e., intercessory prayers) end with some variation of "in Jesus' Name." Lazarus in Heaven was able to look down and see and hear the rich man in Hell; presumably ppl in Heaven can see and hear us, too. If we ask each other to pray for us, why shouldn't we ask ppl we're sure are in Heaven to do the same? I appreciate the danger of hagiolatry, but if you know what you're doing, I don't see that asking brothers gone to glory for intercessory prayer could at worst be more than useless.



That's divergent point 2. Given that the very question of what writings are Scripture is a matter of tradition handed down from the early church councils, I find it hard to imagine reaching a full understanding of Scripture [as I so clearly have . . . NOT] without reference to tradition. "What did the church fathers believe about that?" is a very important question to me, because even if I read Greek & Hebrew, I'm nowhere near as smart as (fill in you own favorites) Augustine, Aquinas, Athanasius, or whoever. Now, I would never regard as matter of faith anything deriving [i]solely[/i] from tradition unsupported by Scripture, but, when you get right down toit, it is only tradition that tells us that the "Jerusalem" of Jesus' time is even on the same continent as the "Jerusalem" of today. It happens to be sound and unassailable tradition, but like all history, it is just tradition.

O_P, that was a beautiful and brilliant display of reasoning and erudition. When I get there, as soon as I can take my eyes off Him, I'll look you up.

I'm not certain if it's considered sinful. I'm afraid my knowledge of the Scriptures doesn't go that far. In general I agree with you. For example, I often "pray" to my late mother for guidance and so forth. I do it more out of a "Okay, mom, what do I do now?" than with any feeling that she is divine (she isn't).

I think your point of asking others to pray for you is valid, and I look forward to replies from the "usual suspects". [:D]

One thing I believe WILL be an issue though, is the whole "patron saint of (fill in the blank)", or praying to a saint to intercede with Christ of your behalf. Equally, I look forward to the answers.



I don't think it's the tradition you're referring to. It is, rather, Church tradition that has been generated by the Church and then deemed essential to Salvation. Most of the sacraments are examples, if I remember correctly.

Thanks.  That may take a while, for both of us. [:D]

Same here. Just be forwarned, however, that it will likely take me a few million years to get my eyes off Him, so keep the wine cellar well-stocked! [;)]

Well, yes Zaphod: Joseph(edited and corrected).
If Jesus was the son of God and Joseph knew not Mary, then it stands to reason that Jesus was not truly the firstborn of Joseph who carried the firstborn lineage I laid out above. IIRC Jesus had two brothers, the oldest of which was James. He would be the bearer of the firstborn lineage ongoing from Adam and hence said lineage might exist today. IOW, the crucifixion of Jesus would not have put an end to this lineage.
Geez, seems like sometimes I am the only one thinking about this stuff.

Hi!  My name is Joe and I'm a Roman Catholic.



In the interest of a Catholic Apologist view I would highly recommend that you take a look at this website [url=http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp]Brethren of the Lord[/url]

It explains the Catholic position quite well.  In essence, if fundementalist protestants wish to lean on the Bible for proof, then there isn't a whole lot in the Bible to support "Mary's other kids".  

Between interpretation of the original Aramaic, the centuries of "whispering down the lane" rewrites and the advent of (relatively recent) new denominations with personalized, self-derived credos, its tough to take as "gospel" assertations which discount thousands of years of belief.

And yes. I do accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior.  And I have a personal relationship with Him, within the catholic (in the universal definition of catholic - ie. Christian) as well as the Catholic Christian communities.

I used to hate religious "arguments" but what is always heartening is that there are at least people who are Christian enough to give a damn and talk about their faith.  I doubt even all the apostles agreed on everything!  Although I would like to see them tackle the whole 7.62x51 vs 5.56 debate.

Bay (the Catholic) Eagle

If there are those who are interested in what the Catholic Church believes and why then please read: [url]http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp[/url].

The link is to a web page maintained by Catholic Answers, an organization founded by Karl Keating, a former Protestant minister (can't remember which denomination), who while doing some in depth biblical research came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church seemed to be correct about a few things that he had always thought were not so.  Mr. Keating eventually converted to Catholicism and has devoted much time and effort to Catholic apologetics.

I hate religous infighting between Christians and try to keep discussions civil.  With Mr. Keatings help I have at least been able to show fellow Christians that there is more than simply Papal whims behind Catholic doctrine, whether or not you choose to agree with it.

If you are interested, read the link.  If you aren't converted on the spot, you may at least come away with a greater appreciation of why we weirdo Catholics believe certain things.

Don't sweat it. I believe that if you can recite the Nicene Creed (with either "Catholic [like my church] or "Christian" [like the church I was raised in]) in that near-end phrase, we are co-religionists.

Edited for punctuation.

Catholic (with a capital C) usually refers to the Roman Catholic.  The term catholic church as used  in "one holy catholic and apostolic" church usually refers to churches that recognize apostolic succession.  These include  Roman Catholic Church, including the Armenian Catholic Church; the Chaldean Catholic Patriarchate; and the Melkite-Greek Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch; which are Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the Igréja Católica Apostólica Brasileria; the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht (Oud Katholicke Kerk van Nederland); and the Order of Corporate Reunion. The lines from the Orthodox Tradition come from the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow through the Syrian Orthodox Mission to North America; the Apostolic See of Saint Peter at Antioch through the Malankara (Malabar) Orthodox Church of India; and the Apostolic See of Saint Mark the Evangelist at Alexandria through the Greek Orthodox Church and the Iglésia Ortodóxa Apostólica Costaricense; as well as the Greek Orthodox See of New Justiniana and all Cyprus. The line from the Anglican Tradition comes from the See of Saint Augustine at Canterbury (The Church of England, the Episcopal Church of the United States; and the Iglésia Filipina Independiente.   Lutherans??

One of the things I never liked about the Catholic Church was it's non-acceptance of other religion's communion traditions.  If you don't believe that communion bread and wine is the actual body and blood of Christ, you are not acccepted at the communion table by the Catholic Church.  So, if you are a Baptisit or Methodist or whatever, you may not join others in communion while visiting.  I certainly understand the churches feelings that other groups view the sacrement differently, but to deny someone the opportunity to worship alongside one another and coexist has always bothered me.  (Probably because it has affected my family.  I am Catholic (due to marriage and local church, but was raised Methodist and so my father is Methodist)  My father is one of the most religious (in a positive, good way) people I know, and to see him not allowed to take communion hurts both him and myself.)

Would it really matter in the long run if Mary has other children other then jesus from a religius perspective. I say no it wouldmt since Christianity is about Jesus as the lord and saivour.

Thats probably because we are all thinking of Joseph, not [i] John[/i].   Otherwise, who is the John that you are talking about???

Quick correction to my previous post.  Karl Keating runs Catholic answers.  Scott Hahn was the Protestant minister who became Catholic.  It was books and tapes by Mr. Hahn that I had read to help me explain Catholicsism to Protestants.

I was under the impression that all the Bibles we read in English (i.e. NIV)  have many translations that are not exact to the original Hebrew Text.  Catholic or not, many denominations  use the Good Book for  raising funds to further establish their cause. Its a necessary evil.  Look at all those TV evangalists (i.e. the best one was Rev. Ike...Place your money like this into the envelope and send it to me...) Remember him?

By the way, whos going to pay for heating the building during the winter months, printing flyers, and all other necessities used to run a congregation?  Places of worship have to raise money in order for a place to exist so that people can come together.  

A little Catholic bashing perhaps? :)

Jesus was a Jew, never claimed to be another religion. There is thought to MaryMAgdeline being his wife and they had 3 children, Tamar a girl, Jesus and Joseph, Also Jesus had brothers and sisters, James being the most famous.
 Remember his father Joseph was wealthy and with jewish custom, he had more than one wife and many children.

Sorry, but that is the biggest bunch of non-facts I've seen in a while.

Jesus was indeed a Jew.  He had brothers and sisters.  Everything else in your post is wrong.

Joesph was very poor, not rich.  Jews did not have multiple wives at this time in history.  Jesus was never married.

Maybe you're talking about a different Jesus than me.  I'm sure that's it.

I know what you mean.  Kinda like "This is My Body."  How much more clear could it be?

[;)]
Scott

Welll.....you should say "Roman Catholic church."  

Technically....

"catholic" means "according to the whole."  To put it another way, "universal."

fwiw
Scott

Regarding the blessed mother of Our Lord, let me say this:

What kind of a cad would go peering under the sheets of the marriage bed of Joseph and Mary?

Think about that....

And then think about this: Is it pertinent to my salvation, to the completed work of Christ, whether or not there were siblings?

It's hard for me to find good reason to get into debate over the original question.  It's "adiaphora."  Pious opinion.

Scott

Ever notice how some Protestants wallow in ignorance…

The KING JAMES bible is the base for many modern Protestants texts. The KING JAMES bible is a translation built upon KING JAME’S personal bigotry and bias in which he had changed many of the original meanings to suit himself. He added a bunch of rules to suit him. On what authority was this retranslation based… Henry the VIII’s need to divorce and murder his wifes.

Catholic texts tends too much closer to the original  than most Protestants text but if you want the best translation I guess you would have to go back to the original Greek.

And another one:

"Is this not the carpenter, the Son of Mary, and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" And they were offended at Him."  Mark 6:3

Of course, the Catholic answer is no, that was a different Jesus.