T
Teneas
Guest
Look at Matt 27: 56 Wrong Mary
- Status
J
jericho777
Guest
Hi TeneasLook at Matt 27: 56 Wrong Mary
I take it you’re referring to the usage of the words brothers and sisters. Are you thinking it is more of a relative sort of thing not as siblings. That would be a pretty vague interpretation. The writers chose the words carefully and correctly. The context bears this out. In Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. If Luke had called Elizabeth Marys’ sister would you say it mean relative in the sense you want it to mean. I don’t think so. The word usage is appropriate.
J
jericho777
Guest
Oh I’m sorry I missunderstood your point .Look at Matt 27: 56 Wrong Mary
Mt 13:55-56 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us?
Mat 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons
I’m not understanding your point, are you saying they are one in the same?
D
Dokimas
Guest
Who were Zebedee’s sons?
J
jericho777
Guest
The quote reads “Mary the mother of James and Joses(Joseph), and the mother of Zebedee’s sons”
James and John
W
wmscott
Guest
This is just another thread where a Catholic asserts what the CC teaches regarding the Blessed Mother, and it is no time at all before those who fail to see or comprehend the greatness of God start to weigh in. Those who deny the Blessed Mother and what the CC teaches about her are just putting limits on God because through their stubborn pride or out of pure ignorance, they cant either grasp the fact that God can do anything outside the accepted norm of human experience. They are quick to rely on their own personal fallible interpretations of Sacred Scripture, citing verses, and key in on a word or two to prove their point. They get so dialed in on it and cant see the forest for the trees.
So let me ask you nay sayers, do you think it is beyond the power of God to allow a person to be conceived without the stain of original sin, live a sinless life, give birth to Christ, and remain a virgin there after?
So let me ask you nay sayers, do you think it is beyond the power of God to allow a person to be conceived without the stain of original sin, live a sinless life, give birth to Christ, and remain a virgin there after?
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, “Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO’SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?” (Note! Only the ‘carpenter’ is called ‘THE Son of Mary’, not ‘A Son of Mary’) Some people refer to these verses as ‘proof’, that Mary had other children. See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5.
Let us examine this more closely, using your bible…
The word: ‘Brethren’…appears over 530 times in the Bible.
‘Brother’…appears over 350 times.
‘Brothers’…appears only once, in Num 36:11.
‘Sister’…appears over 100 times.
‘Sisters’…appears over 15 times.
BRETHREN: This is a plural word for ‘brother’ as shown in dictionaries.
T
Teneas
Guest
No, I am saying that same Mary talked about in your scripture is clearly shown to be another Mary in the scripture I posted. It names her same children, although I admit, minus two that were named in…wait…here you go:
Matt 13: 55-56
55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?” 56." Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"
Now, take a look at the one I gave you:
Matt 27: 56
“Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
If this was indeed Christ’s mother, why was she not named as such in this scripture? Why was she merely referred to as a mother of the other two men, James and Joseph?
Do with it what you will, I recognize that most won’t ever change their mind, but I am here to represent the Catholic interpretation of scripture, teachings and traditions.
K
Kantaram88
Guest
I tried checking for this quote in the NIV, but was unable, could you tell me where it is?
J
jericho777
Guest
Are you saying Mat 13:55-56 in not Mary the mother of Jesus?No, I am saying that same Mary talked about in your scripture is clearly shown to be another Mary in the scripture I posted. It names her same children, although I admit, minus two that were named in…wait…here you go:
Matt 13: 55-56
55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?” 56." Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"
Now, take a look at the one I gave you:
Matt 27: 56
“Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
If this was indeed Christ’s mother, why was she not named as such in this scripture? Why was she merely referred to as a mother of the other two men, James and Joseph?
Do with it what you will, I recognize that most won’t ever change their mind, but I am here to represent the Catholic interpretation of scripture, teachings and traditions.
I did not say Mat 27 :56 was Jesus’ mother
J
jericho777
Guest
Hi Bill,
Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5. Wow I missed those, those are great! I would say that further strengthens the argument that Jesus had had flesh and blood siblings because 4 more times the writers had the oppourtunity to clarify they were not actual siblings but more of a cousin and did not. We have a total of 8 verses that specifically say Jesus had real brothers and sisters. Every time they are mentioned in conjunction with Jesus they are specifically called brothers and sisters. There are 0 verses in the bible that mention Jesus’ brothers and sisters as relatives. The bible only refers to John the Baptist as his cousin. Why didn’t they just call them relatives ( Luke 1:36)if they were nothing more than that?
I go back to what I said earlier “I take it you’re referring to the usage of the words brothers and sisters. Are you thinking it is more of a relative sort of thing not as siblings. That would be a pretty vague interpretation. The writers chose the words carefully and correctly. The context bears this out. In Luke 1:36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. If Luke had called Elizabeth Marys sister would you say it meant relative in the sense you want it to mean. I don’t think so. The word usage is appropriate.”
Elizabeth is the only relative of Mary in the Bible and she had only one son. So which relative are they from. It seems like they are always around. Don’t they have their own place to live? Elizabeth did not live close either she lived a distance away.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Thank You for your post but I do not answer any questions one that does not list there religion in ther profile
J
jericho777
Guest
I didn’t think it would let me fit that many letters. Does that help?
D
Dokimas
Guest
The NT calls them brothers and uses the same Greek word as in the verses you quoted. Thank you for responding to my question. I’ve raised this point before several times and no one I’ve seen has commented until you. Thakns again.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
Did you try,you have a lot there now.its as long as my post is now
D
Dokimas
Guest
Mt 13:57 So they were offended at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
D
Dokimas
Guest
Don’t look now, Bill, but in post #87 you already did answer Jericho.
J
jericho777
Guest
Originally I didn’t try going past the size of the box. I was OK with the shorter version I thought it spoke to what I believed. Sorry for the misunderstanding
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
All is OK
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
its OK
- Status