On a side note I don't think it makes that much of a difference one way or the other, I just thought it was good conversation. I hope that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but I don't really think it's a big deal if he did or didn't.

Considering about 15-20 years of Jesus' life is omitted from the Bible ("Jesus: The Missing Years" with apologies to John Prine), I don't find it impossible that what is missing contains elements such as the growth of Mary and Joseph's family. I do find it highly unlikely that Mary remained celibate.

 

And while I'm by no means a good, devout Catholic, that upbringing in the Church is what shapes my thinking. By no means do I think that the idea of Mary having children after Jesus somehow taints the view of her as a Holy woman.

 

There's an old tried and true phrase that writers go by: "It's not always what you put into a story that makes it great, but what you leave out."

 

It just seems all too convenient (and likely) to me that the Catholic Church edited out the intermittent period in Jesus' life in order to enhance the story, rather than drag it down with what they felt were unnecessary or uncomfortable details that didn't suit their image of how Jesus' life should be presented to the masses.

Considering about 15-20 years of Jesus' life is omitted from the Bible ("Jesus: The Missing Years" with apologies to John Prine), I don't find it impossible that what is missing contains elements such as the growth of Mary and Joseph's family. I do find it highly unlikely that Mary remained celibate.

 

And while I'm by no means a good, devout Catholic, that upbringing in the Church is what shapes my thinking. By no means do I think that the idea of Mary having children after Jesus somehow taints the view of her as a Holy woman.

 

There's an old tried and true phrase that writers go by: "It's not always what you put into a story that makes it great, but what you leave out."

 

It just seems all too convenient (and likely) to me that the Catholic Church edited out the intermittent period in Jesus' life in order to enhance the story, rather than drag it down with what they felt were unnecessary or uncomfortable details that didn't suit their image of how Jesus' life should be presented to the masses.

 

I think that puts it perfectly.

Considering about 15-20 years of Jesus' life is omitted from the Bible ("Jesus: The Missing Years" with apologies to John Prine), I don't find it impossible that what is missing contains elements such as the growth of Mary and Joseph's family. I do find it highly unlikely that Mary remained celibate.

 

And while I'm by no means a good, devout Catholic, that upbringing in the Church is what shapes my thinking. By no means do I think that the idea of Mary having children after Jesus somehow taints the view of her as a Holy woman.

 

There's an old tried and true phrase that writers go by: "It's not always what you put into a story that makes it great, but what you leave out."

 

It just seems all too convenient (and likely) to me that the Catholic Church edited out the intermittent period in Jesus' life in order to enhance the story, rather than drag it down with what they felt were unnecessary or uncomfortable details that didn't suit their image of how Jesus' life should be presented to the masses.

 

I think that puts it perfectly.

I don't think that Mary having children would have made her a less holy woman either....I just don't think it happened. That's not what was believed from Jesus's time and for the 1000+ years. As for the Catholic Church editing out parts of the Bible...I doubt that there is any evidence for that. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I just don't see that as a historical fact or likelihood.

I see no reason to think that Mary and Joseph would not have had children of their own.

I see no reason to think that Mary and Joseph would not have had children of their own.

The only reason that I can think of is that Mary took a vow of virginity and her marriage to Joseph was for legal protection. This is not in Scripture but was reported in the Protoevangelium of James. I'm not saying that this document is inspired Word of God, but there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts this specific claim. And if Mary was more than just a woman- she was the mother of God and the perfect model for all of us because of his subjugation (sp?) of her will to God's will- then I see no reason why she may have been different than a normal couple of the day. Mary was believed to have been a virgin for the remainder of her life for many, many centuries by many early Christians, and even key Protestant figures (such as Martin Luther and John Wesley), and I see no reason why it isn't true.

I don't think that Mary having children would have made her a less holy woman either....I just don't think it happened. That's not what was believed from Jesus's time and for the 1000+ years. As for the Catholic Church editing out parts of the Bible...I doubt that there is any evidence for that. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I just don't see that as a historical fact or likelihood.

 

The evidence is that there is nothing in the Bible discussing the 20 missing years. Or did He just cease to exist during that period?

The evidence is that there is nothing in the Bible discussing the 20 missing years. Or did He just cease to exist during that period?

All I'm saying is that I can't imagine the Catholic Church specifically deleting a large portion of the Bible. Absolutely Jesus still existed. Perhaps it was just not written about. I'm not going to pretend to know all the answers, but I'm not going to assume the pseudo-conspiracy theory that you perhaps suscribe to.

All I'm saying is that I can't imagine the Catholic Church specifically deleting a large portion of the Bible. Absolutely Jesus still existed. Perhaps it was just not written about. I'm not going to pretend to know all the answers, but I'm not going to assume the pseudo-conspiracy theory that you perhaps suscribe to.

 

Historic evidence shows us that many books were left out of the bible. Of the many of these you can find, some just weren't well like enough and some had meanings that differed from what the Church thought was right.

 

For instance

1. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas includes stories about Jesus' childhood, one of which has a young Jesus causes a young boy to wither up and die.

2. The letter of Clement- stories about Jesus and the apostles.

3. The Life of Adam and Eve- provides more "incite" about creation, including Jealous Angels.

4. The Protavagelion of James- provides us with a history of Mary throughout her life.

5. Apocolypse of Peter suggest that the end of days may not be true.

 

Not saying any of these are true, but they were left out.

Historic evidence shows us that many books were left out of the bible. Of the many of these you can find, some just weren't well like enough and some had meanings that differed from what the Church thought was right.

 

For instance

1. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas includes stories about Jesus' childhood, one of which has a young Jesus causes a young boy to wither up and die.

2. The letter of Clement- stories about Jesus and the apostles.

3. The Life of Adam and Eve- provides more "incite" about creation, including Jealous Angels.

4. The Protavagelion of James- provides us with a history of Mary throughout her life.

5. Apocolypse of Peter suggest that the end of days may not be true.

 

Not saying any of these are true, but they were left out.

There is no doubt that certain books were left out of the Bible. What I'm talking about is the Catholic Church removing specific parts of Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and removing it- there is no evidence of that.

 

There is also no doubt that to be a Christian takes a tremendous amount of faith. We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in that belief we also need to believe that the Catholic Church's leaders were inspired by God to decide which books were divine truth.

 

And if it isn't obvious, as an admirer of secular philosophy, I have real problems with accepting things that don't make sense to me, so having faith can be tough for me. But every belief system out there- atheism very much included- requires a lot of faith.

There is no doubt that certain books were left out of the Bible. What I'm talking about is the Catholic Church removing specific parts of Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and removing it- there is no evidence of that.

 

There is also no doubt that to be a Christian takes a tremendous amount of faith. We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in that belief we also need to believe that the Catholic Church's leaders were inspired by God to decide which books were divine truth.

 

And if it isn't obvious, as an admirer of secular philosophy, I have real problems with accepting things that don't make sense to me, so having faith can be tough for me. But every belief system out there- atheism very much included- requires a lot of faith.

 

I agree with a lot of this, but if they left some books out who is to say they didn't edit the bible around a little bit?

I don't think the church, Catholic or any other, willfully censored stories of Jesus' life.

 

However, this idea of perpetual virginity, and by default Jesus "brothers" not really being brothers, sounds more like a doctrine that was formulated independent of the Bible and then the apologetics went to work and proved that it was possible, not probable, rather than a doctrine explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

JMO

 

I don't buy it. I'm sure there's more than this you could "prove" as possible based on the Bible's silence on a topic...doesn't make it true. Possible doesn't equal probable or plausible.

There is no doubt that certain books were left out of the Bible. What I'm talking about is the Catholic Church removing specific parts of Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and removing it- there is no evidence of that.

 

There is also no doubt that to be a Christian takes a tremendous amount of faith. We believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but in that belief we also need to believe that the Catholic Church's leaders were inspired by God to decide which books were divine truth.

 

And if it isn't obvious, as an admirer of secular philosophy, I have real problems with accepting things that don't make sense to me, so having faith can be tough for me. But every belief system out there- atheism very much included- requires a lot of faith.

 

There were good reasons for the letters that were chosen for our Bible, and good reasons for the ones that weren't. But, again, there is disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on that issue as well...:ohbrother:

I don't think that Mary having children would have made her a less holy woman either....I just don't think it happened. That's not what was believed from Jesus's time and for the 1000+ years. As for the Catholic Church editing out parts of the Bible...I doubt that there is any evidence for that. You are entitled to your own beliefs, I just don't see that as a historical fact or likelihood.

 

Mary having children nullifies an entire Catholic doctrine by default...can you believe Mary had children and be Catholic?

 

I've stated it before, but the veneration of Mary is the single biggest disagreement I have with the doctrine of the Catholic church.

 

But, it basically boils down to one thing. Sola Scriptura. Protestants abide by it, Catholics don't. Thus, you have an irreconcilable difference, because we (Protestants) refuse to accept any doctrine that cannot be supported in the 66 books that make up our Bible. For starters, Catholics have 7 more books in the Bible that we don't view as canon. On top of that, they place church tradition and the magisterium right up there with scripture. Another idea that Protestants reject (see Sola Scriptura).

 

There's no way to bridge that gap. Catholics can defend their doctrine with things they hold in high authority (tradition, etc.). Protestants won't accept anything but scripture, thus extra-biblical defenses hold no sway with them.

 

I enjoy these discussions, and hope not to offend anyone. But, ultimately, the majority of Catholic vs. Protestant debates have Sola Scriptura at the root. Thus, there can be no compromise or agreement on the issues.

I don't buy it. I'm sure there's more than this you could "prove" as possible based on the Bible's silence on a topic...doesn't make it true. Possible doesn't equal probable or plausible.

 

Mary having children nullifies an entire Catholic doctrine by default...can you believe Mary had children and be Catholic?

 

I've stated it before, but the veneration of Mary is the single biggest disagreement I have with the doctrine of the Catholic church.

 

But, it basically boils down to one thing. Sola Scriptura. Protestants abide by it, Catholics don't. Thus, you have an irreconcilable difference, because we (Protestants) refuse to accept any doctrine that cannot be supported in the 66 books that make up our Bible. For starters, Catholics have 7 more books in the Bible that we don't view as canon. On top of that, they place church tradition and the magisterium right up there with scripture. Another idea that Protestants reject (see Sola Scriptura).

 

There's no way to bridge that gap. Catholics can defend their doctrine with things they hold in high authority (tradition, etc.). Protestants won't accept anything but scripture, thus extra-biblical defenses hold no sway with them.

 

I enjoy these discussions, and hope not to offend anyone. But, ultimately, the majority of Catholic vs. Protestant debates have Sola Scriptura at the root. Thus, there can be no compromise or agreement on the issues.

Catholics here will hate me for saying it, but I don't believe you can be a good Catholic and believe Mary had kids. (Yes, I'm an elitist, I am not the judge of who is a good or bad Catholic, etc. etc.) To clarify, what I am saying is that having kids after Jesus is not inherently sinful in and of itself. However, since that is contrary to what happened, and contrary to what the Church teaches, then you can't believe it. Does that make any sense?

 

The Bible's silence on issues leaves it up to us to determine the truth. This issue, I feel, is adequately discussed in other historical documents, even though they may not be Scriptural canon. I think it is a bit logically disingenuous to, with knowledge that the Greek words for "brother" and "sister" don't translate directly into our meanings, just take the English translation at face value and ignore all other historical sources since they are not Scripture.

 

But either way, you are 100% correct that, with every other debate we have, Sola Scriptura is the root of it. But even if I don't convince you or you don't convince me, at least we are presented with both arguments? Plus, while I recognize that (because of the Sola Scriptura issue) I'm not going to change your mind, I only typed this post out so I could have the last word and seemingly win this one