MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

BreadOfLife said:

Really??
Simple history??

Here's some "simple history" that proves your comments wrong . . .

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
The 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. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
The 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; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he should desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Click to expand...

I couldn't read all of it.
WHERE does it say Peter was the first Pope?
And I'm sure you studied church history and know the meaning of Pope and why they were called PAPA etc etc.

If you really want to discuss this, it has to wait till tomorrow.
Almost midnight here.
But study the history FIRST....because I know I'm right.

GodsGrace said:

WHERE does it say Peter was the first Pope?

Click to expand...

In the annals of the Catholic church. Nowhere else. The Orthodox churches reject this notion altogether. And it is not found in the Bible.

GodsGrace said:

I couldn't read all of it.
WHERE does it say Peter was the first Pope?
And I'm sure you studied church history and know the meaning of Pope and why they were called PAPA etc etc.

If you really want to discuss this, it has to wait till tomorrow.
Almost midnight here.
But study the history FIRST....because I know I'm right.

Click to expand...

If you're arguing about the OFFICE of the Papacy, you are wrong - and the quotes I provided prove this.

If you are arguing about the WORD "Pope" - there is no official title of "Pope". It is simply a term of endearment that means "Papa" or "Father" and it developed over time.

His official title are:
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Jesus Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the Vatican City State
Servant of the servants of God

Irenaeus, writing in the middle of the 2nd century calls him the Bishop of Rome in his treatise, "Against Heresies".

Enoch111 said:

In the annals of the Catholic church. Nowhere else. The Orthodox churches reject this notion altogether. And it is not found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

No - in the annals of HISTORY, as I amply showed in the list of quotes from the Early Church in post #519 . . .

Enoch111 said:

In the annals of the Catholic church. Nowhere else. The Orthodox churches reject this notion altogether. And it is not found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

You're right.
The first Pope was named in maybe the 600's...can't remember exactly, but hundreds of years after Peter.

BreadOfLife said:

If you're arguing about the OFFICE of the Papacy, you are wrong - and the quotes I provided prove this.

If you are arguing about the WORD "Pope" - there is no official title of "Pope". It is simply a term of endearment that means "Papa" or "Father" and it developed over time.

His official title are:
Bishop of Rome
Vicar of Jesus Christ
Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
Primate of Italy
Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
Sovereign of the Vatican City State
Servant of the servants of God

Irenaeus, writing in the middle of the 2nd century calls him the Bishop of Rome in his treatise, "Against Heresies".

Click to expand...

OK BoL,,
We can agree on the above.
Once the CC gave the title of POPE to ONLY ONE BISHOP...the BISHOP OF ROME, in about 600 ? (can't remember) the church went back and gave that honorary title to ALL THE BISHOPS of ROME.

This is history.

There were 5 main areas of Christianity in the early church:
Rome
Antioch
Alexandria
Constantinople
Jerusalem

The bishops of these areas were the highest authority in the heiracrchy.
They became affectionately to be known as PAPA to DISTINGUISH them from all the other Bishops in all the other important areas.

In, I believe, 600 or so, the church decided to give a special title to the Bishop of Rome and make him the Head of the church. Thus,,,they thought to give ONLY HIM the title of PAPA...Pope.

Then the church went back retroactively and gave the title of POPE to all the bishops of Rome.

I think if we're clear, catholic history will be better able to be accepted.

JohnPaul said:

I do not think Jesus had siblings.

Click to expand...

GINOLJC, to all. it's good to think, but better to know.
Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". if the apostle would have said, "our brother James", ok, case closed. but he clearly specified which of the apostles he saw, the Lord's brother. this verse cleared up the matter for me as well as these verses.

Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

not just a firstborn, but a first born Son. if the scripture would have said, her only born son, ok there case closed. but it states her first born.

John 6:42 "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:56 "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

now a separation of brother in the faith, and those of the womb,
Matthew 12:46 "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

again another clear distinction, again another clear specifications of brethren of the womb, and brethren of the Faith. when the Lord Jesus pointed toward "HIS" disciples that's the separation.

hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

Marymog said:

Hi Jane,

That "institution" you speak of is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church of which the gates of hell will not prevail against (Matthew 16:18) soooooo I have no problem with leaving the "impression" upon you or any one else that I am shouting from the rooftops that I love the Church that Jesus established.

Why do you only talk about your institution (your interpretation of scripture)? I think The Church is a better interpreter of Scripture than you and won't twist it....2 Peter 3:16

I put my faith in The Church which is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 timothy 3:15) and has the final authority to treat someone as a pagan or tax collector with the authority to bind or loosen (Matthew 18:17-18). Can you show me in Scripture where God gave any individual man that authority? Once you can show me in Scripture that Jesus didn't established an "institution" with authority I will join you and your ilk.

2nd time asking: If the CC is not synonymous with Christ's Church then which church is?

Bible study Mary

Click to expand...

The CC is the only church that can trace its roots back to Peter.
And I believe the Orthodox church too.
This is plain simple history.

The Protestant churches BROKE AWAY from the original church.

(isn't ILK a nasty word?)

GodsGrace said:

The CC is the only church that can trace its roots back to Peter.
And I believe the Orthodox church too.
This is plain simple history.

The Protestant churches BROKE AWAY from the original church.

(isn't ILK a nasty word?)

Click to expand...

Every single church/belief system out there claims to be Christ's original true church. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there.
Many churches also claim to be the literal structured one too. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there either.
Pointing to political dominance over men as prove of God's Righteousness makes no sense.
Pointing to disagreements between different Christian schools isn't remotely "proof" that any one position is right.
The "I'm just right and you're wrong" is probably the worse argument there could be out there.

As a person who's thoroughly honestly studied Catholicism (aka butt in their pews, studying their beliefs from their teachers for months), it is a strong Christian faith. But playing any of the other cads to "prove" it is... no. There's no need for that strong Christian faith to rely on such weak cards.

Granted, Catholicism is hardly unique for being one to have individuals therein to rely on weaker cards when in reality their collective teachings are a strong faith.

Jane_Doe22 said:

Every single church/belief system out there claims to be Christ's original true church. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there.
Many churches also claim to be the literal structured one too. Nothing is unique about Catholic's claims there either.
Pointing to political dominance over men as prove of God's Righteousness makes no sense.
Pointing to disagreements between different Christian schools isn't remotely "proof" that any one position is right.
The "I'm just right and you're wrong" is probably the worse argument there could be out there.

As a person who's thoroughly honestly studied Catholicism (aka butt in their pews, studying their beliefs from their teachers for months), it is a strong Christian faith. But playing any of the other cads to "prove" it is... no. There's no need for that strong Christian faith to rely on such weak cards.

Click to expand...

I understand you....
But forget about all that.
I'm talking about history.
One church MUST go back to the beginning.
If you think there's a break in the line of the catholic church
WHERE do you think it is?
I can't find it.

This has nothing to do with being right or wrong..I also don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, but history is history.

And that church does have some really nice teachings BTW.

GodsGrace said:

I understand you....
But forget about all that.
I'm talking about history.
One church MUST go back to the beginning.
If you think there's a break in the line of the catholic church
WHERE do you think it is?
I can't find it.

This has nothing to do with being right or wrong..I also don't agree with all Catholic doctrine, but history is history.

And that church does have some really nice teachings BTW.

Click to expand...

Highlighting a huge assumption here: that the Christian church is supposed to be a singular giant worldly institution, and that man's history (aka imperfect recounting of sinners being sinners) will prove the "truthfulness" of God we should look for such a political power.

And again, Catholics aren't unique in playing the "historical" card.

if someone wants to trace the roots of the RCC, it didn't start with Peter, Read the book of Romans, for it was the apostle Paul who establish the saint there in Rome into an orginized church, via long distance with a minister, a Bishop who helped them get organized.

PICJAG.

101G said:

GINOLJC, to all. it's good to think, but better to know.
Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". if the apostle would have said, "our brother James", ok, case closed. but he clearly specified which of the apostles he saw, the Lord's brother. this verse cleared up the matter for me as well as these verses.

Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

not just a firstborn, but a first born Son. if the scripture would have said, her only born son, ok there case closed. but it states her first born.

John 6:42 "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:56 "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

now a separation of brother in the faith, and those of the womb,
Matthew 12:46 "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

again another clear distinction, again another clear specifications of brethren of the womb, and brethren of the Faith. when the Lord Jesus pointed toward "HIS" disciples that's the separation.

hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Great points and verses

Jane_Doe22 said:

Highlighting a huge assumption here: that the Christian church is supposed to be a singular giant worldly institution, and that man's history (aka imperfect recounting of sinners being sinners) will prove the "truthfulness" of God we should look for such a political power.

And again, Catholics aren't unique in playing the "historical" card.

Click to expand...

I don't understand.
I DID NOT speak of a one-world religion which seems to be where you're going.

The reformation was necessary because the CC had gone so far off its original tracks...and a shame too. Men being men....the church became involved in secular affairs and this was not good for the church.

I don't know what you mean by the recounting of sinners being sinners.

Also, do you think there is ANY church that can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity?

101G said:

if someone wants to trace the roots of the RCC, it didn't start with Peter, Read the book of Romans, for it was the apostle Paul who establish the saint there in Rome into an orginized church, via long distance with a minister, a Bishop who helped them get organized.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

The roots of the catholic church started after the ascension of Jesus.
Peter was around way before Paul...by years.

What's the problem with accepting history?
Would you care to explain a little bit of history from about 27 AD to about ...
I don't know ... 200 AD?

101G said:

GINOLJC, to all. it's good to think, but better to know.
Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". if the apostle would have said, "our brother James", ok, case closed. but he clearly specified which of the apostles he saw, the Lord's brother. this verse cleared up the matter for me as well as these verses.

Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

not just a firstborn, but a first born Son. if the scripture would have said, her only born son, ok there case closed. but it states her first born.

John 6:42 "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Matthew 13:56 "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

now a separation of brother in the faith, and those of the womb,
Matthew 12:46 "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

again another clear distinction, again another clear specifications of brethren of the womb, and brethren of the Faith. when the Lord Jesus pointed toward "HIS" disciples that's the separation.

hoped that helped.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

I still don't believe Jesus had brothers or sisters in the biological sense.

@GodsGrace,

The Catholic Church I believe was the first true Church, just that along the way they strayed and became corrupt for their own profits and benefits.

firstthings1st. said:

Jesus had four brothers: James, Simon, Judas and Joseph. He had two sisters: Assia and Lydia.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not give the names of Jesus sisters. The Apocrypha was not accepted as Jewish Canon of scripture which is only what Jesus quoted. The Apocrypha was not considered God-breathed therefore, not reliable. may as well rely on the Readers Digest for info.

JohnPaul said:

I still don't believe Jesus had brothers or sisters in the biological sense.

@GodsGrace,

The Catholic Church I believe was the first true Church, just that along the way they strayed and became corrupt for their own profits and benefits.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
The original church was a good church.
It kept heresies from infesting Christianity, and there were plenty of those.
We could thank the CC for holding firm.

Of course, as you've stated, the church strayed...the reasons are many and complicated,,,but it did happen.

Man seems to bring corruption with himself wherever he goes.

GodsGrace said:

I couldn't agree more.
The original church was a good church.
It kept heresies from infesting Christianity, and there were plenty of those.
We could thank the CC for holding firm.

Of course, as you've stated, the church strayed...the reasons are many and complicated,,,but it did happen.

Man seems to bring corruption with himself wherever he goes.

Click to expand...

Couldn’t agree with you more sister GodsGrace, at least the Roman Catholic Church is still holding firm against homosexuality, I think one of the problems with the RCC, as a friend of mine once told me is that it was infiltrated by Christian hating Jews, not the original Christian Jews, to undermine it.

tzcho2 said:

The Bible does not give the names of Jesus sisters. The Apocrypha was not accepted as Jewish Canon of scripture which is only what Jesus quoted. The Apocrypha was not considered God-breathed therefore, not reliable. may as well rely on the Readers Digest for info.

Click to expand...

But will continue to search