/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

Protector of Christ and Mary; an exemplar of Obedience in his duty to God.

eternal tfw no gf definitely us

This better not be a cuck joke

>>543730

He had four children at least: James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Source: Matthew 13:55.

>>543743

They were from his first marriage not mary IIRC

Young Joseph>Old Joseph tbqh

>>543780

groan

>>543751

scripture reference?

>>543790

Can you tell us where we can find is scripture: "These were Joseph's sons, apart from Jesus:"?

>>543790

There is none for both Joseph and Mary were long-life virgins John 19:26-27

>>543812

wtf are you talking about, those verses only speak about John becoming caretaker for Mary after Christ instructed him to do so. And Church Tradition has always said that he was a widower and a father of several children.

>>543835

If Mary was mother of step-mother of any of so called "Brethren of Lord" Christ would not bestow his own Mother to his disciple and call them Mother and Son.

>>543854

if you recall the sin of Mary, it was to go along with Jesus's brethren and try to bring him home - saying he was beside himself, or as we would say 'mad'

this indicates that like every other prophet, Christ wasn't 'respected in his home', especially by those who had know him best; his family

but it further evidences that none of his brethren believed in Him

so it's natural that The Lord's dying act was to entrust the care of his mother to someone who was not only his disciple, but who was actually 'there' at the foot of the cross

what else would you expect from the One who kept the Law perfectly, and honoured His mother and Father

>>543706

>Saints

I want pagans off of this board, now.

>>543897

>if you recall the sin of Mary

What now?

>it was to go along with Jesus's brethren and try to bring him home - saying he was beside himself, or as we would say 'mad'

This alone proves that Mary would not have been mother of the "brethren" for Christ as firstborn and no younger sibling have power over older save God's privilege.

>this indicates that like every other prophet, Christ wasn't 'respected in his home', especially by those who had know him best; his family

Are you saying that Mother of God, who stood at Cross and intercede for first miracle, the one that without pains bore Son of God did not believe in him? Are you mad, my man?

>but it further evidences that none of his brethren believed in Him

>so it's natural that The Lord's dying act was to entrust the care of his mother to someone who was not only his disciple, but who was actually 'there' at the foot of the cross

If Mary was mother or stepmother of brethren of Lord then no entrusting would need to take place in th first place, for it would go automatic.

Also, with your vain toung, you said alredy, against faith that Mary was suposedly with his breathen in sin and unbelief. So then it would not be any blockade to this automatic entrusting if Mary was mother of them.

>what else would you expect from the One who kept the Law perfectly, and honoured His mother and Father

To not causing others to break the Law for you make him making null for his brethren commandment to Honor Parents. This of course is not the case, for Mary was Virgin as even Calvin, your forefather belived.

>>543935

>What now?

for the moment let's put aside the question of whether the 'brothers of the Lord' were his cousins/kinsfolk/extended family - focusing instead on what His mother and his brethren actually do, namely; say amongst themselves that Jesus was beside Himself, and sought to bring Him home

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.”

- Mark 3:21

the next we see of them is a few verses later while Jesus is in heated dispute with the Pharisees who are saying that His miracles were being done by the power of Baalzebub, for which He condemns them for committing the Unforgivable Sin of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit

And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

- Mark 3:31

so we take from this that Christ's mother's and brothers have heard the greatest religious scholars around them speaking of Him as having an 'unclean spirit' - and His mother and brothers seek to drag Him back home, away from the ministry that He was predestined to perform from before the foundation of the world

now lemme ask you something; can we agree that Christ's mother had seen the Arch-Angel Gabriel herald His birth – she had known she carried a child though having never known a man – she had uttered the Magnificat as inspired by the Holy Spirit upon the greeting of her cousin Elizabeth whom carried John – she had witnessed the Shepherd's visitation and heard their account of the Host of Angels filling the sky proclaiming His birth – she had been visited by the Magi whose appearance had so troubled the people that all of Jerusalem were speaking of them, even receiving an audience with Herod who sent them on to Bethlehem after his scribes scoured the Scripture to see where the Messiah must be born - she had been warned through Joseph's dream that they must escape to Egypt, and in following her husband, knew that she had escaped the massacre of all the children 2yrs old and younger in Bethlehem – she had visited the Temple for the time of purification and heard Simeon who had been promised to see the Messiah before he died say to her "Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign that is opposed (and a sword will pierce through your own soul also), so that thoughts from many hearts may be revealed.” and at the same time she had heard the words of the prophetess Anna who proclaimed to everyone in the Temple that this child was 'the redemption of Israel' – she had become seperated from Jesus around the age of 12 years old after one of their yearly visits to the Temple, and with Joseph had discovered Him astonishing the most learned teachers of Israel by His questions*, and on admonishing Him for treating them so received the innocent reply of a child asking 'why were you looking for me, didn't you know I must be in my Father's house?', yet not understanding the meaning of this, like many other things here listed; she 'treasured them up in her heart'**?

shall i assume we are talking about the same Mary, here?

well if so, are we talking about the same Christ Jesus who is Very God from Very God, the Second Person of the Trinity Who humbling Himself for a time, shed off the royal robes of Glory afforded to Him by right, and taking on the form of a slave became a man who lived a perfect life, and died a perfect death; fulfilling the Law and everything said of the Messiah by the Prophets, and in His few brief years of Ministry was tested in every way yet succumbed not to Sin, and only did what The Father directed Him to do; being the foreordained from Eternity, 'Lamb Who was Slain from before the foundation of the World'?

and was it this same Jesus who knowing he must go to Jerusalem to die - for that was always the decreed will of God - who rejected St.Peter's rebuke for stating His destination, saying 'Get thee behind me Satan'; so affording us a glimpse into the depth of Human evil when rejecting the Truth of God?

and yet you don't think that Mary sinned when she capitulated to the decision of Christ's brethren, even her seeming assent to their desire to seize Him and return Him home, being a repudiation of Christ's calling, and moreover; a tear on the heart-strings of Our Lord, and much worse; an outright blaspheming of His Holy Spirit?

then i would suggest it is you who is mad, not i

~

* a style of argumentation that was borrowed by the greeks who accredited it to Socrates

** likely only grasping them after the Resurrection and so recounting them to Luke

*' blaspheme means to speak evil, give a false report, or bear false witness - we would liken it to 'slander' or giving a false testimony in court

>>544056

This is not a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Christ is not so dramatically comparing those within and without salvation. However, sin itself being committed or Mary being in need of Christ is a position that can be readily accepted. St. John Chrysostom on Matthew 12:46-49:

>"But He saith, who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" And this He said, not as being ashamed of His mother, nor denying her that bare Him; for if He had been ashamed of her, He would not have passed through that womb; but as declaring that she hath no advantage from this, unless she do all that is required to be done. For in fact that which she had essayed to do, was of superfluous vanity; in that she wanted to show the people that she hath power and authority over her Son, imagining not as yet anything great concerning Him

An afternoon of research will reveal that many of the Fathers were privy to this sort of thinking. To defend the papal bull Ineffabilis Deus, though, is another matter entirely.

>>543712

I will ask for forgiveness for having laughed at this

>>544056

>so we take from this that Christ's mother's and brothers have heard the greatest religious scholars around them speaking of Him as having an 'unclean spirit' - and His mother and brothers seek to drag Him back home, away from the ministry that He was predestined to perform from before the foundation of the world

I rather see here Brothers of Lord, as John tell us in John 7:5, being unbelievers while his Mother was here only to save his Son from shame or/and wanted to feed him, for Christ was human and hunger he felt for Christ would not make himself Mother that breakes law.

>now lemme ask you something; (…)

Yes. That's facts. Do they have anything to do with discussion other than being cheap rhetoric trick to add matter but not substance to your post? No.

>well if so,(…)

Yes. That's facts. Do they have anything to do with discussion other than being cheap rhetoric trick to add matter but not substance to your post? No.

>and yet you don't think that Mary sinned when she capitulated to the decision of Christ's brethren, even her seeming assent to their desire to seize Him and return Him home, being a repudiation of Christ's calling, and moreover; a tear on the heart-strings of Our Lord, and much worse; an outright blaspheming of His Holy Spirit?

I don't think that for that assertions are blashermous to Christ. For first you say:

>Mary capitulated to the decision of Christ's brethren

Yet it's not the case, for one should agree with them to capitulate to them. Yet Mary did not do it for She knew and obeyed him even before his ministry began, See Gospel of John about Wedding at Cana.

Then you say:

>even her seeming assent to their desire to seize Him and return Him home

Yet it's not the case, for she was the one who started his ministry, see above.

> being a repudiation of Christ's calling

Yet it's not the case, for one she started this calling see above, for two she stood even unto Cross with her Son and for three if Mary have here sined so did Christ when he cried "Father, if you are willing, please take this cup of suffering away from me."

>and moreover; a tear on the heart-strings of Our Lord

Yet it's not the case for about Virgin it is said "you are altogether beautiful, my darling, and there is no blemish in you"

But you say even more:

>an outright blaspheming of His Holy Spirit?

And by doing that you blashermed Christ. For you spoke Evil about Him and his Mother (And "parents are the pride of their children."). For you gave a false report and beared a false witness by slendering Him and His mother.

Lucky for you, it's not blasphemy against Holy Ghost but it's close, my ignrant friend.

>>543706

>/ourguy/

justification for this claim, please