Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[Prieldedi]

Third, at the cross Salome (Mark 15:40) is the sister of Jesus’ mother (Mary) (John 19:25-27) & the mother of Zebedee’s sons (Matthew 27:55-56). Zebedee’s sons are James & John (Mark 10:35). However, James & John are never paired in Scripture as ‘brothers’ of Simon & Judas (Jude). So, this ‘James’ is ‘not’ the same ‘James’ in Matthew 13:54-57.

How do you come up with Salome as the sister of the Virgin Mary? Salome is the mother of James the Great and John, her husband is Zebedee, but she is not the sister of the Virgin Mary. “The other Mary” is the one described as the “sister” of the Virgin Mary in John 19:25, not Salome.

Look at the following passage: “He went on from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John in a boat with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. Jesus called them.” Matthew 4:21

If, according to you, Salome is the sister of the Virgin Mary, how come Matthew didn’t describe James and John as Jesus “brothers” (for lack of the word cousin)? Why didn’t he mention right there that James and John were the sons of His mother’s sister? Mark, Luke and John are also silent about this relationship you have discovered. Why did the Gospel writers (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) recognize only one of the James as a relative of Jesus if, according to you, both were VERY close blood relatives to the Lord? A “brother” and a “first cousin” are indeed VERY VERY close.

Let me correct your conclusions. Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 describe the same event: women looking from afar at the crucifixion. Matthew mentions “Mary Magdalene”, “Mary the mother of James and Joses”, and “the mother of Zebedees children” who is not identified by name. However, Mark 15:40 identifies the three women by name: “Mary Magdalene”, “Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses”, and “Salome”. Salome is not listed in this passage as a child of “Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses” as others believe, making her one of the “sisters” of Jesus. In order to have her listed as a child of this Mary, and thus as a sister of James and Joses, this is how the narration should have been:

“Mary the mother of James the Less, Joses AND OF Salome”.

From Matthew an Mark we conclude there were three women in that scenario, both name two of them, “Mary Magdalene” and “Mary the mother of James and Joses”. Mark names the third (“Salome”) while Matthew calls her “the mother of Zebedee children”.

Third, since the ‘James’ who is the ‘son of Mary & Zebedee’ & since the ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the sons of ‘Mary & Alphaeus (Clopas)’ are NOT the same ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the brothers of Simon & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57, then these ‘brothers’ in this verse are sons of Mary & Joseph, & are Jesus’ half-brothers.

The wife of Zebedee is not Mary, she’s Salome as explained before.

You come up with too many sets of brothers named “James” and “Joses”. Your conclusion that “James & Joses (Joseph) who are the sons of ‘Mary & Alphaeus (Clopas)’ are NOT the same ‘James & Joses (Joseph)’ who are the brothers of Simon & Judas (Jude)” is baseless and wrong. How many “James”, “Joses”, “Judes”, “Judas”, “Simons” and “Marys” can we end up with applying your “pairing” logic? With as many as you want, which is what you’ve done.

I can see you reading about the Kennedy brothers. To you Joe, John, Robert and Edward are not the same brothers as Joe, “Jack”, “Bobby” and Edward. If you read “John and Robert” in an article they must be another set of “John and Robert” Kennedy because they were not “paired” with Joe and Edward. Ted Kennedy by itself would be a fith Kennedy to you. See why your pairing is flawed?

Fourth, in Matthew 12:46-50, Jesus compares His ‘believing brothers’ by pointing to his disciples INSIDE, with His ‘non-believing brothers’ OUTSIDE (compare to John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8).

Psalm 69:8 does not refers to Jesus biological mother, it refers to His homeland where his brothers, “the Jews”, didn’t recognize Him as the Messiah. Tell me when and where James, Joses, Judas and Simon “insulted God” as well as Jesus (v. 10); when and where did they “made a laughingstock” of Jesus (v. 12); when and where did they “scorned” Him (v. 11); when and where they became “enemies” of Jesus (v. 19); when and where did they give Him “poison for food and vinegar to drink” (v. 22). This Psalm is a prophesy of Jesus being rejected by the Jews (not by His relatives), and of His death at the Cross at the hands of the Romans. “Vinegar to drink”? Isn’t that what He was offered at the cross when He said “I’m thirsty”?

James, Joses, Judas and Simon are “disciples” of Jesus. They are four of the twelve chosen by Him. The question is, were they in the group he pointed at who were INSIDE, or in the group looking for Him OUTSIDE? Since they are disciples they were INSIDE. Why are you sure the four of them were OUTSIDE? The “brothers” OUTSIDE were other relatives of Jesus. His extended family is not known completely, those relatives (“brothers”) not named in the NT were the ones looking for Him.

Continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

Fifth, Jesus makes a distinction between His brothers & His BELIEVING disciples (John 2:12).

Ten verses earlier John 2:2 says: “Jesus was also invited to the wedding with his disciples.” James, Joses, Judas and Simon ARE DISCIPLES and “brothers” of Jesus. Why didn’t John make the distinction he makes in verse 12 right here in Verse 2? He didn’t because the “brothers” of verse 12 are the other relatives of Jesus as explained before. James, Joses, Judas and Simon are part of the group called DISCIPLES, whom Jesus called Apostles.

And, what about THE SISTERS? Why were they left out of verse 12?

Sixth, in Acts 1:13-14, Luke names the remaining 11 disciples along with Jesus’ brothers, who are with Mary & the women. Collectively, they are all ‘part’ of the ‘120 brethren’ at Pentecost.

Acts 1:13 has all the Apostles listed in the Gospels minus Judas Iscariot. Verse 14 is a repetition of verse 13. Verse 13 names the 11 Apostles. Verse 14 starts “All of these together”, which is a repetition of the names of v. 13 without saying them again. The brothers of verse 14 denotes the relation (not “blood brothers” though) of Jesus and some of His Apostles, similar to Galatians 1:19 (James [the Lesser], “the brother of the Lord”).

Seventh, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Jesus appears to Cephas (aka: Peter) & then to ‘The 12’ (Disciples)(v.5), then Jesus appears to James, then to all the apostles (v.7). ‘Apostles’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ because ‘apostles’ simply mean ‘messengers’ or ‘sent ones,’ & can refer to people other than ‘The 12,’ such as Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:14). Therefore, since this ‘James’ does not refer to ‘The 12,’ but ‘another James,’ then this ‘James’ is the brother of Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude) in Matthew 13:54-57.

Why do you conclude that “The 12” are disciples, as opposed to the Twelve Apostles? When talking about “the twelve” the NT refers to one group of men, the ones Jesus chose: Peter, John, James the Great, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Lesser, Simon, Judas Thadeus and Judas Iscariot. These verses confirm this:

“These are the names of THE TWELVE APOSTLES: first Simon, called Peter, and his brother Andrew…” Matthew 10:2-4

“So he appointed TWELVE to be with him; and HE CALLED THEM APOSTLES. He wanted to send them out to preach…” Mark 3:14-19

“When day came, he called his disciples to him and CHOSE TWELVE of them WHOM HE CALLED APOSTLES:” Luke 6:13-16

Why would Jesus appear before Peter/Cephas who is one of THE TWELVE, and then appear to twelve who are not THE TWELVE? The Gospels mention Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene first but Paul leaves out this event in 1 Corinthians 15. In John’s Gospel Jesus appearance to Peter was when Peter was fishing along with “Thomas who was called the Twin, Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee and two other disciples” (John 21:2), but in Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 15 Jesus appeared to Peter/Cephas alone. The Gospels do not record an appearance of Jesus before another set of twelve men who were not the Apostles.

Then, how could Jesus appear to “The 12” after His resurrection, if there were ELEVEN left after Judas death? When Jesus appeared to them after His resurrection the Apostles had not replaced Judas. Matthias was chosen after Jesus “was taken up before their eyes and a cloud hid him from their sight” (Acts 1:9). Who was the TWELFTH? Mark is clear there were ELEVEN left:

“Later Jesus showed himself to the ELEVEN while they were at table. He reproached them for their unbelief and stubbornness in refusing to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.” Mark 16:14

“The ELEVEN went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs which accompanied them.” Mark 16:20

As for the “James” of 1 Corinthians 15:7, how do you know this James is not the “other” James, the brother of John? The fact is that HE IS James the Great, one of the three closest Apostles to Jesus: Peter, John and his brother James. It is logic to think that Jesus having appeared to Cephas did the same with James the Great, another of the closest. I have a question for you: Did Jesus appear to His own Mother after his resurrection?

Eighth, these ‘brothers’ in Matthew 13:54-57 aren’t Jesus’ cousins, because the Greek words for ‘cousins’ (‘synggenes’ & ‘anepsios’) used in Luke 1:36 & Colossians 4:10 are not used in Matthew 13:54-57, or anywhere else by Jesus to give us the impression that His ‘brothers’ in this verse are actually His cousins.

It is necessary to repeat it: the words “cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law” did not exist in the languages Aramaic and Hebrew. All these relationships are called in the Bible with one word: “brother” or “sister”.

Even though the Greek language has words for “cousin, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, brother-in-law”, the translators from the original language to the Greek used the literal translation of the words used in the original language: “brother(s)” and “sister(s)”. This does not mean that they are stating as fact that every time the word brother appears it means blood brother. But if you believe it means “blood brother”, then Jesus had more than 500 blood brothers and sisters (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Continues…

 

[Prieldedi]

Ninth, the Greek word for ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ (adelphos & adelphe) can mean LITERAL blood brothers & sisters, such as James the BROTHER (adelphos) of John, & Martha & Mary the SISTERS (adelphe) of Lazarus.

The translators from the original language to the Greek used the literal translation of the words used in the original language: “brother(s)” and “sister(s)”. They knew, as all Christianity knew for more than 16 centuries that “brothers/sisters” does not mean “blood brothers/sisters” always.

Tenth, Paul names James as ‘the Lord’s brother’ (Galatians 1:19), who is with the other 2 ‘Pillars’ of the Church – Cephas (Peter) & John (Galatians 2:9). This ‘James’ is the brother of Jude (Jude 1:1), who wrote the Epistle of Jude. This ‘James’ went on to write the Epistle of James (James 1:1). This ‘James’ was the leader of the Jerusalem Church (Acts 15:13), but was not James, the brother of John, because he was already martyred (Acts 12:2). Therefore, this ‘James & Jude (Judas)’ are the same ‘James & Judas (Jude)’ in Matthew 13:54-57, who were also brothers of Joses (Joseph) & Simon, & half-brothers of Jesus.

“James” in Galatians 2:9 IS NOT the same James of Galatians 1:19. The James you link with Joses, Judas and Simon is the James of Galatians 1:19, “the brother of the Lord”, who is not James the brother of John as you say, so he is the son of Alpheus by virtue of him being the other APOSTLE named James: Matthew 10:3, Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, Luke 24:10, John 19:25. St. Paul tells us in other words in Galatians 1:18-19 that he went to Jerusalem for fifteen days to see Peter and saw ONLY TWO APOSTLES. One was Peter and the other was JAMES, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD. James of Galatians 1:19, “the brother of the Lord” is AN APOSTLE and his father is Alpheus, not St. Joseph.

But “James” of Galatians 2:9 is James the Great. The “Pillars” you mention are Peter and the sons of Zebedee, the trio named in Galatians 2:9, which is the same trio Jesus ask to go with Him in Matthew 26:37, “He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be filled with anguish and distress.” Their names (Peter, John, and James the Great) appear together in these verses too: Matthew 17:1, Mark 1:29, Mark 5:37, Mark 9:2, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28. If not convinced look at this:

“And he allowed no one to follow him except PETER, JAMES AND JOHN, the brother of James.” Mark 5:37

The Four Gospels mention the name James 29 times, 19 refer to James the Great, 10 to James the Lesser. Not once in the Gospels is there a verse in which Jesus is alone with any of His “brothers”, not a single passage.

So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).

You’re right, the Word of the Lord cannot be wrong, however we cannot say the same for the reader of the Word of the Lord, YOU, as it’s clear you are wrong. The Church can’t be wrong: “From now on the Helper, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, WILL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS AND REMIND YOU OF ALL THAT I HAVE TOLD YOU” (John 14:26). You know not everything Jesus said is in the Bible, but the Church knows everything Jesus told His Apostles. Why do we know that? “Heaven and earth will pass away, BUT MY WORDS WILL NOT PASS AWAY” (Matthew 24:35). They have not passed away, right? They are not in the Bible, right? And you don’t have them, right?

The word UNTIL refers to certain conditions in a period of time before a given moment, it doesn’t imply the conditions changed after that given moment. UNTIL makes reference to the past, not the future. “Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTO [until] the day of her death” (2 Samuel 6:23). Did she have a child after she died?

One last point to your comment about the 6 children you say the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had:

Do you know what the meaning of virgin was 2000 years ago in Palestine? Not the one you are used to in today’s world: a woman that has had no sex intercourse. Back then it meant a woman that had decided NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN, a woman that had chosen NOT TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, a woman who had decided to DEDICATE HER ENTIRE LIFE TO GOD and not to a man. That was a virgin. That’s what Mary had decided for herself. That’s why she asks the angel:

“How can this be if I AM A VIRGIN?” (Luke 1:34)

She’s telling the angel “I belong to God, not to any man”. The angel tells her “You shall conceive and bear a son” (v. 31). She understand that when the angel tells Her She will have a child it’s in THE FUTURE. But Her reaction is to ask: “HOW CAN THIS BE?” If she was a woman thinking of having a family, Her question would have been: “WHEN WILL THAT BE, this year, next year?” Only a woman who had thought of devoting Her entire life to God and God alone would have asked “HOW CAN THIS BE?”.

Finally, a woman with 7 or more children (5 boys including Jesus and at least 2 girls) would have been the best argument for the Sanhedrin against Jesus, 7 children was the best ammunition you could give Annas and Caifas to destroy Jesus as the son of a virgin. Since the Messiah was to be born of a virgin and here was Jesus with a mother who also bore 6 siblings, it was a matter for the Sanhedrin to point to this fact and just say, “Who can deny that Jesus is just ONE MORE OF THE SONS OF JOSEPH AND MARY?” The Sanhedrin didn’t argue this for one reason and one reason alone: THEY KNEW HIM AS AN ONLY SON.

 

[Patavium]

One last point to your comment about the 6 children you say the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had:

Do you know what the meaning of virgin was 2000 years ago in Palestine? Not the one you are used to in today’s world: a woman that has had no sex intercourse. Back then it meant a woman that had decided NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN, a woman that had chosen NOT TO HAVE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, a woman who had decided to DEDICATE HER ENTIRE LIFE TO GOD and not to a man. That was a virgin. That’s what Mary had decided for herself. That’s why she asks the angel:

“How can this be if I AM A VIRGIN?” (Luke 1:34)

She’s telling the angel “I belong to God, not to any man”. The angel tells her “You shall conceive and bear a son” (v. 31). She understand that when the angel tells Her She will have a child it’s in THE FUTURE. But Her reaction is to ask: “HOW CAN THIS BE?” If she was a woman thinking of having a family, Her question would have been: “WHEN WILL THAT BE, this year, next year?” Only a woman who had thought of devoting Her entire life to God and God alone would have asked “HOW CAN THIS BE?”.

Finally, a woman with 7 or more children (5 boys including Jesus and at least 2 girls) would have been the best argument for the Sanhedrin against Jesus, 7 children was the best ammunition you could give Annas and Caifas to destroy Jesus as the son of a virgin. Since the Messiah was to be born of a virgin and here was Jesus with a mother who also bore 6 siblings, it was a matter for the Sanhedrin to point to this fact and just say,** “Who can deny that Jesus is just ONE MORE OF THE SONS OF JOSEPH AND MARY?” The Sanhedrin didn’t argue this for one reason and one reason alone: THEY KNEW HIM AS AN ONLY SON**.

Great defense!

:clapping:

 

[jochoa]

Brilliant work all around Prieldedi! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, insight, and reasoning! You have definitely helped educate me!

 

[YADA]

Actually, if you read the Bible verses I provided, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, you’ll see that not only was John, the disciple that Jesus loved, who He entrusted His mother to, you’ll find that John was Jesus’ cousin. So, John was not ‘unrelated’ to Mary, but rather, John was Mary’s nephew. Jesus entrusted His mother to John, because His half-brothers did not believe Him (John 7:3-5; c.f. - Psalm 69:8 - an OT prophecy that tells us the Messiah’s mother would have CHILDREN - plural). Jesus willed that His mother would be cared by not only a family member, but also a believer.

But what you are saying is to only read the passages you have "pre - selected" in isolation and without the context of the entire God Breathed Word … and make a family tree that proves the point that you - not God - not our Lord - want to prove … … and then you dictate that other passages that provide clear identifications on the parentage [ie they are not the children of Mary and Joseph] of these people is to be ignored …and ignored on your authority …

SO I ask - who made you the Scipture Pope? - Who made you the person who dictates that some scripture - though Inspired - can be ignored, that the early Christians can be ignored, that the Church through the ages can be ignored … but your testimony is true - just look at the passages in yoru original post - no other passages - and make a diagram …

and we all are to proclaim …

HooRah … you are amazing BornAgainRN:bowdown: … no one ever saw this until you brought this to our attention

… Sorry - I challenge you to look at the passages provided to you in addition to the passages you listed - and you make a diagram of what the*** totality*** of the Word of God gives testimony to …

FOr me … I will read and study the Scriptures myself and also stay with 2000 years of Christian belief

 

[Prieldedi]

Great defense!

:clapping:

Brilliant work all around Prieldedi! Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, insight, and reasoning! You have definitely helped educate me!

Thank you, but the credit goes to my Catholic teachers and to many posters I have read here at CAF in the past few years. I have learned a lot since I started reading these threads and it took me several years to decide to register as a member, which I did in 2009.

The internet has a lot of Catholic websites that explain to all Christians what the Church teaches and why. Our parish priests have too many people to care for, so they can’t be our in depth teachers in these issues at the same time. They would be glad to be our teachers but other callings demand their time. We must understand and appreciate the great work they do in their communities and it would be unfair to blame them for our shortcomings in our knowledge of our Church.

Again, thank you and God bless you and all who gather here at CAF.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Supporting the Biblical belief that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters with Scripture is not using ad hominems. The fact that you won’t bother to look into the Scriptures yourself for the evidence, but instead adhere to ‘the traditions of men’ (Matthew 15:3) shows who your authority is.

 

[BornAgainRN]

SO I ask - who made you the Scipture Pope? - Who made you the person who dictates that some scripture - though Inspired - can be ignored, that the early Christians can be ignored, that the Church through the ages can be ignored … but your testimony is true - just look at the passages in yoru original post - no other passages - and make a diagram

I’m not ‘Scripture Pope,’ nor I am dictating what to believe or telling people to ignore Scripture. The problem is that the Catholic church confuses who the various James’, Mary’s, etc. are, in order support the tradition that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Mary needed to be a virgin to fulfill OT prophecy, & to prove that He was the promised Messiah by His birth being miraculous - being born of a virgin. Everything else is merely invented by the Church. Instead of the Catholic church using Scripture to correct it’s theology about Mary, the church starts with the theology (borrowed from the false infancy ‘gospel’ of James) & ‘personally’ interprets Scripture to support its theology. The first method is Biblical, which is what I am doing, the second is not, which is what the Catholic church has done.

FOr me … I will read and study the Scriptures myself and also stay with 2000 years of Christian belief

The same ‘belief’ that said the earth was the center of the universe & every else revolved around it, & that they based this on the Bible. The same belief that made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. The same belief that said that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven prior to Vatican II, but afterwards said you can be of another religion that rejects Christ, & still go to Heaven based on your works. The same belief that taught limbo was a real place, but now says it just a ‘theory,’ despite Scripture saying that ALL babies go to Heaven if they die, regardless if they’ve been baptized or not. No thanks. I’ll stick to what God’s Word actually says - Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters.

 

[JustaServant]

Supporting the Biblical belief that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters with Scripture is not using ad hominems. The fact that you won’t bother to look into the Scriptures yourself for the evidence, but instead adhere to ‘the traditions of men’ (Matthew 15:3) shows who your authority is.

RN
Every single verse you cited WAS answered if you bothered to read the posts. But instead you wish to adhere to the ‘traditions of men’ (your preacher).

“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.”

 

[JustaServant]

The same ‘belief’ that said the earth was the center of the universe & every else revolved around it, & that they based this on the Bible. The same belief that made it illegal to translate the Bible into English. The same belief that said that you had to be Catholic to go to Heaven prior to Vatican II, but afterwards said you can be of another religion that rejects Christ, & still go to Heaven based on your works. The same belief that taught limbo was a real place, but now says it just a ‘theory,’ despite Scripture saying that ALL babies go to Heaven if they die, regardless if they’ve been baptized or not. No thanks. I’ll stick to what God’s Word actually says - Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters.

Someone be lyin’ to you dude.

Let me ask you this question, and I want you to seriously consider it because this question ate away at me when I was lost in fundamentalism:
This new found faith of yours, is it more about what you are against? Or what you are for?
Is your church about what they are against? Or what they are for?
Don’t give a quick answer. Just allow the questions to sit there and ponder them. Or “muse” them, a word lost in our generation.

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

 

[BornAgainRN]

Ok…WAY too many posts to read through.

My first thought on reading the OP’s post was: “This is not really the point of the Gospels…is it?”

Second…there is no word for cousin…so the same word could mean brother (literal) or cousin(literal)…How does one know? Answer: ORAL TRADITION and the teaching of the the Church instituted by Christ. period

*2 Peter1:20

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,*

Ann…the point is to show where a Christian’s authority lies. For Christians, the Word of God is sufficient & doesn’t have to be added to. For others, God’s Word isn’t enough, & Jesus’ finished work on the cross isn’t enough.

Also, there is a Greek word for cousin (anepsios). It’s used in Colossians 4:2 to describe Barnabas’ relationship to Mark, who is literally his cousin. In Matthew 12:46-50 & Matthew 13:54-57 when describing Jesus’ family, if His ‘brothers’ & ‘sisters’ meant Jesus’ cousins, the Gospel writers would have used the word ‘anepsios’ instead of ‘adelphos.’ If you use the argument that the word ‘brother’ could mean ‘cousin,’ then everywhere the Greek word ‘adelphos’ is used, then to be consistent, you would have to assume that James the ‘brother’ (adelphos) of John ‘could’ be his cousin, & Martha the ‘sister’ (adelphe) of Mary & Lazarus ‘could’ be their cousin. However, Catholics who believe that James is the ‘actual’ blood brother of John, & Martha is the ‘actual’ blood sister of Mary & Lazarus, won’t even acknowledge the possibility that James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, & His sisters could be Jesus’ ‘actual’ blood brothers (adelphos) & ‘actual’ blood sisters (adelphe). It is this refusal to acknowledge & consider the possibility that that is who they are, but they would rather adhere to the traditions of men (Matthew) & ‘personally interpret’ Scripture for themselves (2 Peter 1:20).

 

[JustaServant]

Ann…the point is to show where a Christian’s authority lies. For Christians, the Word of God is sufficient & doesn’t have to be added to. For others, God’s Word isn’t enough, & Jesus’ finished work on the cross isn’t enough.

Ahh, the classic separating of “Christian” from “Catholic”. Who told you Catholics are not Christians and do not adhere to the Bible?

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

 

[BornAgainRN]

Someone be lyin’ to you dude.

Let me ask you this question, and I want you to seriously consider it because this question ate away at me when I was lost in fundamentalism:
This new found faith of yours, is it more about what you are against? Or what you are for?
Is your church about what they are against? Or what they are for?
Don’t give a quick answer. Just allow the questions to sit there and ponder them. Or “muse” them, a word lost in our generation.

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

I’ll answer that with one quote directly from Jesus Himself:

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)

I am ‘for’ Jesus - the Way, the Truth, & the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father, except through HIM (John 14:6). The side I am on is JESUS’. If I’m on His side, them I’m automatically AGAINST everyone else. My desire is to see the Catholic church ‘come home’ to Jesus, but this can only happen if they abandon some their religious beliefs & traditions that are not only NOT Biblical in origin, but also NOT even CATHOLIC in origin, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is supported by the Infancy false ‘gospel’ of James - NOT God’s Holy Word.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Ahh, the classic separating of “Christian” from “Catholic”. Who told you Catholics are not Christians and do not adhere to the Bible?

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

I didn’t say Catholics are not Christians. YOU made that assumption & put those words in my mouth. I said for the CHRISTIAN, God’s Word is enough, but for EVERYONE else, God’s Word has to be added to. If a Catholic puts their faith in Jesus Christ based on what Jesus said & did in Scripture alone & that when Jesus died on the cross & He said ‘It is finished!’ & trusts that His death was sufficient for the payment of their sins, then that Catholic is a genuine Christian. But, if a person (Catholic OR noncatholic) doesn’t believe that Jesus’ finished work on the cross wasn’t enough, then they are not a true believer in Jesus Christ. Jesus’ work on the cross was enough for me, & my allegiance & faith to Him is demonstrated BY my works (James 2:19). So, yes, a Catholic ‘may’ or 'may not’be a Christian, just as a noncatholic ‘may’ or ‘may not’ be a Christian based on their belief on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement, which is demonstrated by their works.

 

[JustaServant]

I’ll answer that with one quote directly from Jesus Himself:

“He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)

I am ‘for’ Jesus - the Way, the Truth, & the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father, except through HIM (John 14:6). The side I am on is JESUS’. If I’m on His side, them I’m automatically AGAINST everyone else. My desire is to see the Catholic church ‘come home’ to Jesus, but this can only happen if they abandon some their religious beliefs & traditions that are not only NOT Biblical in origin, but also NOT even CATHOLIC in origin, like the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is supported by the Infancy false ‘gospel’ of James - NOT God’s Holy Word.

Yeah, I figured that would be your answer. Much zeal, little wisdom.
You have been indoctrinated with lies my young friend. Lies from the father of lies. Your words are words of hate, not love. What does the Bible you clutch say about His own? That they would love one another. Where is the love in your posts? Where is the guiding, gentle leading of the Holy Spirit?
Your questions have been answered. Whether you accept it or not is immaterial.
But your words reveal your faith is not in Jesus, but in yourself and what you are against.

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

 

[BornAgainRN]

Matthew 1:24-25: And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife. And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn (Gk. prototokon) son: and he called his name Jesus. (Douay-Rheims)

A surface reading of these passages seems problematic. If Jesus had “brothers” and “sisters,” would not Mary have had other children? If Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn,” would there not be at least a second-born? And if “he knew her not till,” did he not then “know her” at some point?

The Greek word for ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 is ‘heos’ which means ‘up to the completion of an event.’ The event that Matthew is referring to is the birth of Jesus:

“but kept her a virgin UNTIL (up to the completion of an event) she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.”

Although the Greek word ‘until’ has different meanings in the Bible, it is because they are based on DIFFERENT Greek words for ‘until,’ like 1 Corinthians 15:25 (‘achri’), Philippians 1:10 (‘eis’), 1 Timothy 6:14 (‘mechri’), which all don’t mean ‘up to a completion of an event,’ but rather ‘unto, or up to an event, & then continues.’ However, the Greek word for ‘until’ in Matthew 1:25 (‘heos’) means ‘up to a completion of an event, & then STOPS,’ such as Acts 23:12:

“When it was day, the Jews formed a conspiracy and bound themselves under an oath, saying that they would neither eat nor drink UNTIL (‘heos’) they had killed Paul.”

Had the Jews been successful in killing Paul, they would have started eating & drinking again. Another ward, the ‘completion of the event’ would have been life of Paul, just like the ‘completion of the event’ that ended Mary’s virginity was the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25).

We’ll begin with Matthew 13:55-56.

First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.

Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.

Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the twelve.”

But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:

The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the “brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,” we find “James and Joseph” mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that “James and Joseph” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers.

But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

When Matthew writes that Joseph ‘knew her not,’ or ‘kept her a virgin,’ this means Joseph did not ‘know’ Mary INTIMATELY, or sexually, as a husband ‘knows’ his wife UNTIL (‘heos’) she gave birth to Jesus, such as in the Old Testament when a husband ‘knew’ his wife intimately, or sexually. ‘Knowing her’ does not mean ‘being familiar.’ This is reflected in Matthew 1:18:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been ‘BETROTHED’ to Joseph, ‘BEFORE’ they ‘CAME TOGETHER’ she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”

A ‘betrothal’ (‘mnesteuo’) was more seriously binding than an engagement. Mary & Joseph were ‘legally’ married, otherwise, Joseph would have simply left Mary, rather than considering a divorce. But instead of calling it ‘married,’ the betrothal period was a time period that the couple hadn’t ‘conjugated’ the marriage yet:

The Greek word for ‘came together’ (‘synerchomai’) means ‘conjugal cohabitation.’ So, Matthew is saying that while Mary was pregnant with Jesus & betrothed to Joseph, they hadn’t ‘conjugated’ their marriage…yet.

The Greek word for ‘before’ (‘prin’) means 'formerly (to an event). The ‘event’ that kept Mary a virgin ‘before’ or ‘formerly’ they ‘came together,’ or ‘conjugated’ their marriage was the birth of Jesus.

So, going strictly by the Greek, Matthew 1:18 reads:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been ‘betrothed’ (legally married, but not intimately joined) to Joseph, ‘before’ (former to the event of the birth of Jesus) they ‘came together’ (‘conjugally cohabitated’) she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.”

This is supported by Matthew 1:25, that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph no longer kept Mary a virgin, by ‘conjugating’ their marriage, & Mary was no longer a virgin.

 

[BornAgainRN]

Since, most people here aren’t taking the initiative to actually take the time to actually READ the Bible verses, but rather base their understanding of the Bible from what their Catechism tells them about the state of Mary’s virginity, & whether Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters or not, I’ll go ahead & make this as simple as I can - again using GOD’S HOLY WORD, which CANNOT be wrong, so we can be assured & KNOW that what it says is true. But, please bear with me to the very end, before passing judgment:

Matthew 13:54-57 describes 4 of Jesus’ ‘brothers’ (adelphos) - James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas (Jude), & at least 2 of Jesus’ ‘sisters’ (adelphe). Since ‘adelphos’ & ‘adelphe’ can mean either LITERAL blood brothers & sisters, like James & John, & Martha & Mary, or have other meanings, like referring to Jesus’ disciples or ‘spiritual’ believing brothers, we have to look to other passages to find out who all these James’, Joseph’s, Judas,’ & Mary’s are.

Matthew 27:55-56 describe three out of the 4 women at Golgotha, who were ‘looking at a distance,’ but not at the cross yet: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James & Joseph, & the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

Mark 15:40 describe these same 3 women, just slightly different: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less & Joseph, & Salome.

John 19:25-27 describe all 4 women who ‘stood by the cross’: Jesus’ mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, & Mary Magdalene.

Mary, the wife of Clopas is the same as Mary, the mother of James the Less (Mark 16:1) & Joseph (Mark 16:46). Clopas (Greek: “my exchanges”) is another name for Alphaeus (Greek: “changing”), just as Cephas is another name for Peter, which both mean ‘Stone.’

Salome is the wife of Zebedee’s sons (Mark 10:35), the mother of James & John (Matthew 20:20).

So, we have 2 family units: 1) Salome, Zebedee, James, & John. 2) The ‘Other’ Mary, Alphaeus (Clopas), James, & Joseph. Salome is referred to as the mother of Zebedee’s sons, and James is referred to as the ‘brother’ (‘adelphos’) of John. It is clear they are all a nuclear, BLOOD related family. Likewise, the ‘other’ Mary is referred to as the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus) & the mother of James & Joseph, and James is referred to as the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3). Again, it is clear that this, too, is a nuclear, BLOOD related family.

James, the brother (‘adelphos’) of John, is one of ‘The 12,’ & James, the brother (‘adelphos’) of Joseph, is also one of ‘The 12.’ Now, consider 1 Corinthians 15:5-8:

“and that He [Jesus] appeared to CEPHAS, then to THE TWELVE. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to JAMES, then to ALL the APOSTLES, and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me [Paul] also.”

“The Twelve” includes James, the brother of John (sons of Zebedee), & James, the brother of Joseph (sons of Alphaeus). Then, Jesus appeared to James, and ALL the apostles. This last ‘James’ is NOT the one of ‘The 12.’ This is a separate ‘James,’ who is an apostle, but NOT one of ‘The 12.’ ‘Apostle’ means ‘messenger’ or ‘sent one’ & is used to describe specific ‘apostles’ of the Church, who are NOT part of ‘The 12,’ like Barnabas & Paul (Acts 14:14). THIS ‘James’ is a ‘non-12’ apostle, who Jesus singled out to appear to AFTER He appeared to Peter & ‘The 12.’ This ‘James’ is the leader of the Jerusalem Church in Acts 15:13:

"After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.”

THIS ‘James’ could not be James, the brother of John, because THAT ‘James’ was beheaded already (Acts 12:12). There is also no evidence from Scripture that THIS ‘James,’ is James, the son of Alphaeus, because aside from his name, & his relationship to his brother Joseph, his parents Alphaeus & the ‘other’ Mary, & his mention in the lists of ‘The 12,’ THAT ‘James’ is not mentioned anywhere else in Scripture. In fact, when he is listed in ‘The 12,’ he is always listed amongst the ‘bottom 4’ of ‘The 12.’ The lack of mention of his name, what he said, activities in Scripture, & his ‘rank’ amongst the rest of the apostles, shows that he didn’t have as prominent of a role as the other ‘12’, such as Peter, John, & the ‘other’ James. So, the fact that the ‘third James’ mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:7 is named SPECIFICALLY apart from ‘The 12’ in verse 5, shows that THIS ‘James’ is not only NOT part of the 12, but also a significant part of the Church, & the ‘James’’ mentioned in Acts 15:13, as the leader of the Jerusalem Church. THIS ‘James’ is the same ‘James’ mentioned in Matthew 13:55:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers (‘adelphos’), JAMES and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Just as James & John were BLOOD brothers (‘adelphos’) & one nuclear BLOOD family unit, and James & Joseph were also BLOOD brothers (‘adelphos’) & one nuclear BLOOD family unit, in order to be consistent with Scripture & the Greek language, there is no logical reason to believe that the ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) of Jesus - JAMES, Joseph, Simon, & Judas, as well has Jesus’ sisters (‘adelphe’) (Matthew 13:56) are anything other than Jesus’ actual BLOOD half-brothers & half-BLOOD sister. If a person insists that they are Jesus’ cousins (‘anepsios’), then to be consistent, you have to say that about the relationship between James & John, and between James & Joseph, too.

Scripture also makes a distinction between Jesus’ 12 disciples & His brothers (‘adelphos’) (Acts 1:13-14), who ‘collectively’ with ‘The 12,’ the women, & Mary, the mother of Jesus, make up the 120 ‘brethren’ (Acts 1:15). Scripture also makes a distinction between Jesus’ brothers (‘adelphos’) & His disciples in John 2:12. Also, keep in mind, Jesus’ brothers didn’t believe in Him while He was alive:

“Therefore His [Jesus] brothers (‘adelphos’) said to Him, “Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing”…For not even His brothers (‘adelphos’) were BELIEVING in Him.” (John 7:3,5). These ‘brothers’ are distinct from Jesus’ disciples. Also, if these ‘brothers’ were Jesus’ ‘believing’ brothers, then why does it say they DIDN’T BELIEVE in Him? The answer comes from an Old Testament Messianic Psalm, which not only identifies the coming Messiah, but also that His mother would have CHILDREN:

"Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from MY BROTHERS And an alien to MY MOTHER’S SONS. For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:7-9)

Jesus quoted v.9 when He cleansed the Temple in John 2:17:

“His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘ZEAL FOR YOUR HOUSE WILL CONSUME ME.’”

And the way Jesus’ brothers (“His mother’s SONS”) ‘dishonored Him, & estranged Him’ was when they didn’t believe Him (John 7:5), UNTIL Jesus’ appeared to his half-brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7) & then His other half-brothers BEFORE they were at Pentecost, at which time they were with the rest of the BELIEVING ‘brethren’ (Acts 1:13).

So, going back to Matthew 13:54-57, look at v.55-56:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers (‘adelphos’) James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters (‘adelphe’), are they not all with us? Where then did this man get all these things?”

So, just as it’s clear that Salome, Zebedee, James, & John are a nuclear BLOOD related family, & the ‘other’ Mary, Alphaeus (Clopas), James, & Joseph are also a nuclear BLOOD related family, it should also be clear that Mary, Joseph, Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, & His sisters are also a nuclear BLOOD related family…in the SAME way. Also, notice that one of Jesus’ ‘brothers’ is named Joseph. Just like today, in Jesus’ time, it was custom to name a son after the father, just like Zacharias’ family originally wanted to name John the Baptist after his father (Luke 1:59). Likewise, Jesus’ half-brother, Joseph, was named after HIS father.

Lastly, in Matthew 12:46-50, His ‘brothers’ (‘adelphos’) with Mary, the BLOOD mother of Jesus, who are OUTSIDE, are Jesus’ UNBELIEVING half-brothers, while His ‘brothers’ INSIDE are Jesus’ BELIEVING disciples.

There are a lot of other passages I could use for support, but this should be enough for anyone who truly trusts that God can & has revealed to us in His Holy ‘God-breathed’ Word, that Jesus did indeed have half-brothers & half-sisters. But, it takes a lot of time, discipline, patience, & most importantly - faith in trusting that God can reveal to us the truth, without having to depend on what HUMAN, fallible, religious leaders believe about the ‘perpetual’ state of Mary’s virginity. Fallible men who are capable of being wrong, but it takes objectivity & a desire to want to know the truth by looking to God’s Word.

However, if you want me to actually draw a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, because you aren’t convinced from these passages that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters, then let me know.

May God bless you all in His Holy Name,

In Christ,
Steve.

 

[Boulder257]

Yeah, I figured that would be your answer. Much zeal, little wisdom.
You have been indoctrinated with lies my young friend. Lies from the father of lies. Your words are words of hate, not love. What does the Bible you clutch say about His own? That they would love one another. Where is the love in your posts? Where is the guiding, gentle leading of the Holy Spirit?
Your questions have been answered. Whether you accept it or not is immaterial.
But your words reveal your faith is not in Jesus, but in yourself and what you are against.

***“When you’re seven years old and you run away from home, it’s a lot of fun at 12 noon. But by 6pm it’s not fun anymore, you want to return home.” ***

Yep. Once his “mission” became clear and it was obvious this wasn’t in the spirit of love or charity I realized this wasn’t a discussion worth having anymore. Not sure why I clicked this post…but I assure you it’s the last time I visit.

Peace to each of you.

 

[Pheonix]

The fact that you won’t bother to look into the Scriptures yourself for the evidence, but instead adhere to ‘the traditions of men’ (Matthew 15:3) shows who your authority is.

First, we HAVE been looking at the verses you’ve given us! How can you tell we have not? After all, we’ve given you argument after argument as to why your OP DOES NOT disprove Mary being Ever-Virgin. It is you who is choosing to ignore the scriptural arguments we’re setting before you. You have yet to do two things:

1. Explain why your conclusions and interpretations of the verses in your OP are correct. Until you do this, your OP’s so-called “family tree” proves nothing.
2. As I just said, we’ve provided you with argument after argument as to why Mary was indeed Ever-Virgin, as well as why the conclusions and interpretations in your OP are false. You have yet to refute ANY of them. You just keep side-stepping the arguments put forth by saying “draw out the family tree and see it for yourself.” Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Unless you actually refute our arguments, the members currently participating in this thread will be forced to conclude you cannot actually support your view.

Second, I trust the authority of the Catholic Church, who was given this authority by Jesus Christ Himself when He founded the Catholic Church in 33 C. E. on St. Peter when He proclaimed Peter to be the rock on which He would build His Church, and who wrote the New Testament and compiled the entire piece of literature we call the Bible.

Third, the idea that Mary was not a virgin for her entire life is a relatively new belief. It came into existence sometime after the Reformation, as the original Reformers believed Mart was indeed Ever-Virgin. Mary’s Perpetual Virginity dates back to 33 C. E. So, my money is on the relatively new belief being the “tradition of man” to which you are clinging to.