Biological children, none. Children by marriage (i.e. stepchildren) are still possible. Again, it’s a valid and ancient belief that Joseph was a widower and had children from a previous marriage.
My point was just that Luther didn’t actually completely remove them from the public eye, like many people seem to think. Just like the Catholic Church didn’t later add those books, like many Protestants seem to think.
Rom 8:22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
Phil 1:5 For your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now;
1 Tim 4:13 **Till **I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Gen 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.
“Until” does not necessarily mean something ceases to be the case afterward.
Rather, adding to scripture and twisting scripture is a very easy concept. Peter wrote of it almost 2,000 years ago. As we see constantly at CAF, this practice is still alive and well, if not exactly healthy.
To correct your inaccurate and agenda driven modification of God’s word: the bible says specifically that Joseph did not have relations with Mary. It does not say that he did. You should stick to scripture and not twist it.
Let’s see what the bible actually says:
28 [a] “And it shall come to pass afterward,
that I will pour out my spirit on all flesh;
your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your old men shall dream dreams,
and your young men shall see visions.
20 But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit"
We can argue if this is “proof”, but it most certainly is evidence.
Methinks you are blinded by the inaccuracies and untruths that *you have been taught *about the faith, and about the Catholic Church, which is the custodian of that faith. You have a responsibility to seek the truth. So far, it’s a fail.
Fine as it may be, based on the other scriptures, I have no such need of the step-children explanation. The Book of Tobit was very likely composed in Aramaic, as was Matthew. In that book, paternal figure Tobit had a relative named Raguel, of the same tribe of Naphtali. Tobit’s son, Tobias, was to marry Sarah (Raguel’s daughter), also a member of the Naphtali tribe - at most a second cousin. So, let’s see how Tobit deals with the brother and sister question:
12 “Beware, my son, of all immorality.[a] First of all take a wife from among the descendants of your fathers and do not marry a foreign woman, who is not of your father’s tribe; for we are the sons of the prophets. Remember, my son, that Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers of old, all took wives from among their brethren. They were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land. 13 So now, my son, love your brethren, and in your heart do not disdain your brethren and the sons and daughters of your people by refusing to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in pride there is ruin and great confusion; and in shiftlessness there is loss and great want, because shiftlessness is the mother of famine.
10 the angel said to the young man, “Brother, today we shall stay with Rag′uel. He is your relative, and he has an only daughter named Sarah. I will suggest that she be given to you in marriage
16 And Rag′uel called his wife Edna and said to her, “Sister, make up the other room, and take her into it.”
4 So he (Raguel) said to them, “Do you know our brother Tobit?” And they said, “Yes, we do.” And he asked them, “Is he in good health?” 5 They replied, “He is alive and in good health.” And Tobi′as said, “He is my father.”
4 When the door was shut and the two were alone, Tobi′as got up from the bed and said, “Sister, get up, and let us pray that the Lord may have mercy upon us.”
7 And now, O Lord, I am not taking this sister of mine because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that I may find mercy and may grow old together with her.”
The entire tribe of Naphtali were considered brothers and sisters. We know that Tobias and Sarah were NOT uteine brother and sister, yet they called each other so. Raguel even called his wife “sister”!
Regarding our “brother” bible Christian’s uninformed opinion: ignorance is only comfortable until the light of truth shines on it.
Valid points. But, nowhere near equal. The reformers held no council (indeed lacked the very authority) before segregating those books and declaring that seven books of God’s word are not God’s word. The declaration is a worse sin than the segregation.
As well, never mind the Catholic Church, I say - the Orthodox have also always held them to be scripture.
It may be simple, but it is incorrect. The “'until” used here doesn’t mean, “then later”.
The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, ‘Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.’ Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, ‘She was found to be with child before they came together,’ it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. – Martin Luther
We use the “idiom” that Luther speaks of and you relay from scripture even today. If I said that “Old Uncle Joe quit smoking at age 63, and didn’t smoke another cigarette until he died”, would it make sense to believe that he smoked another cigarette after he died?
=Razanir;11668824]The two things people always seem to get wrong about Lutheranism:
While, yes, Luther removed 7 books from canon, he still considered them worth reading. He just didn’t think they were divinely inspired (and probably disagreed with the theology a bit). It’s similar to the Catholic Church’s view on a few books like the Protoevangelium of James or the Didache. We still think they’re worth reading. We just don’t think they’re divinely inspired. For that matter, Luther actually treated deuterocanon BETTER than we treated a few apocryphal books. He still published them with his Bibles! It was only later reformers who removed them completely.
I don’t believe Luther thought he had the power to “remove” them from the canon. He was convinced that they were not the same level as the protocanonical books, but, as you mention, the very act of translation and inclusion of them clearly attests to the fact that, while he held his opinion, he intended it as just that.
From what I understand, the Lutheran definition of sola scriptura is different from that of most Protestants. Most Protestants define it as “The Bible is the only source for teaching. Oral tradition is not valid.” Lutherans (to the best of my knowledge) define it as “Oral tradition is also valid, but the Bible is a more important source.”
The “sola” simply means only as in the only final norm for doctrine is scripture. that’s why I, as a Lutheran can hold the position I do regarding the PV of the Blessed Virgin, while other Lutherans, for some reason, don’t.
There is one more thing to add to this, and that is the charge that the CC “added” the DC’s has no merit, as well. It had been the majority (not unanimous) view of the Fathers that they were canon, and the position is shared in the East as well. They have always been there.
Those who propose the innovation that Mary had later children really need to explain why Jesus charged St. John with taking care of her upon his death (while hanging on a cross, no less!). Such an action would have been a deadly insult tantamount to disowning and denouncing any other sons of Mary as unfit for that duty. Had that been the case, some commentary on it from Jesus own time would have survived discussing such an extraordinary action! Instead it was nearly unremarkable because a widow with no sons would otherwise be destitute in that society and era and needed a provider to survive. Jesus did what was necessary because there were no other children of Mary. Sure enough, stories from the apostolic times DO exist that St. John housed Mary in Ephesus while he was there.
Not to mention that those “brothers and sisters” were absent when Jesus remained behind in the temple. They must have been such losers that they were not invited to the wedding feast at Cana, and were also no-shows at the crucifixion. Total strangers, Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, had to do the burying!
Innovation is right! What has happened to bible Christianity? It seems to have lost its mind.
and? You did not respond to my point. Are you saying that, you, knowing the God was in Mary’s womb, could have had relations with her afterwards? The Scripture you quoted does NOT say that Joseph knew her afterwards…just that He did not know her before.
The very question of Christ having biological brothers seems so inappropriate in a Lutheran setting. I wonder if the pastor of the parish school was confronted on how this question could even be raised among Lutherans?