Mary was a perpetually a virgin, although some heretics say that Jesus repudiated Mary because, after his own birth, she bore Joseph’s children. But Joseph’s children were not Mary’s. Origen Homilies on Luke
I disagree. Contrary evidence arose because of ignorance of the culture. When Jesus gave Mary into the protection of John. They did not understand the significance because they did not understand Jewish law. Likewise when Jesus is given advice from these relatives it is not understood that only older relative would do so. .
I think that is a weak argument. Jesus would have gone against the culture if it waa the right thing to do.
Indeed, Jesus is the Rock of offense, a stumbling block, of just what is spirit and truth, even in relationships, pitting brother against brother etc…
He puts a heavy premium for not walking in spirit and truth, even the loss of privelege of caring for your mother. Though later repenting (His brethren), like David, the consequence of sin may still be there to bare. And who knows, the consequence of sin, loss of guardianship of one’s mother, may have led such brethren to finally repent of such sin, and believe in the Holy One, their brother.
But, these indeed are “curiosities”.
So now we know his brethren were not only cousins, but all older ?..ok totally possible
If I recall they really were making fun of Jesus one time , the other time Mary was with them.
Agree that the church became quite gentile, and most writers we refer to are gentile. The admonition is two pronged: one to understand their spiritual roots (Judaism), and two, to discount or lay aside their pagan roots. One must discern why after normal curiosity, one would want to lean one way or another on the issue at hand, remembering that what one seeks they shall find in these grey areas, of curiosity.
Your statement would have been stronger if you would have pointed out that Jesus went against culture when His apostles ate grain on Sunday, or didn’t wash before their meals. It would have been outstanding if you had pointed out the reason Jesus would go against the law or the culture as He did in the example I gave… But there was no reason for Jesus to insult His relatives but every reason to provide for His mother. Of the two arguments:
Jesus went against culture if it was the right thing to do. Nothing in Scripture points to it was the right thing to do.
Jesus providing for His mothers welfare shows He was an only child the stronger of the two is the second.
3: So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.4 No one works in secret if he wants to be known publicly. If you do these things, manifest yourself to the world.”
It doesn’t seem like making fun to me. But let us say it was, it still wouldn’t be done by a younger to an older sibling.
Degrees of heresy
Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a pont of faith clearly defined by the Chruch is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima , that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea , that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens ; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heres
Odd because that is who you say they are.
It really comes down to whether you think blood ties is thicker than spiritual ties . Catholics have heard this before from P’s on this, they just don’t buy it.
“He who does the will of my Father is my brother , my mother.” is not irrelevant.
Tell me , if you had a choice between leaving your child/parent, grieving from spiritual persecution, to the care of a loving sibling who was anti Catholic, or a dear family friend, also loving, but a strong fruitful Catholic, whom would the Lord impress on you to leave your child/parent with ?
do you think they were sincere ?..they certainly did not believe, so how could it be a genuine concern for His ministry. I would have to double check , but i thought they spoke “tongue in cheek”, even sarcastic.
lol…like lawyer talk…cover all the bases…like rule # 1 , that a certain person can never be wrong, and rule #2 , if said person is wrong, refer to prop #1
not sure what you mean
Your are using your today’s reasoning. Jesus being God knew that James would become a leader so your anachronistic reasoning dies. Jesus would not have ignored the law without specifying why. No explanation is given because it was obvious why. They knew only those who are 2000 years removed and unfamiliar with the law would make such observations.
As I said, it doesn’t matter to the main point that they would have been older not younger.
You said it was not heresy unless formally declared to be heresy with which I don’t agree. I forgot to say that this was in the Catholic Encyclopedic. I disagree with your assessment as well. It simply states that
1st degree Clearly defined as heresy
If it is not clearly defined it approaches heresy
If it does not directly contradict it is erroneous theology
If it can not be demonstrated to oppose the faith than it is an suspected opinion.
Your claim is that Mary and Joseph had children. You said it does not call them the sons of Joseph. All it says is that they are the brothers of Jesus after saying that Mary was His mother. Matthew calls Jesus the son of a carpenter and we know that isn’t true.