Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[KenEOTE]

Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances, but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.
Luke 2, 44

I doubt a twelve year old boy was holding on to his mother’s hand all the time. As Jesus, Mary, and Joseph travelled together with their relatives and acquaintances in a caravan, Jesus must have ran about and played with his cousins and friends, providing him the chance to slip away.

PAX

Right be even still a whole day passed and they didn’t realize their only child was missing? I have three kids and when we travel I know where they are and who they are with. I am just saying I have heard it argued the reason that he slipped away was that he was not the only one they were looking after.

I am just saying using that story as proof that they did not have other children is not probably the best one to use.

 

[KenEOTE]

Thinking that he was in the caravan, they journeyed for a day and looked for him among their relatives and acquaintances, but not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem to look for him.
Luke 2, 44

I doubt a twelve year old boy was holding on to his mother’s hand all the time. As Jesus, Mary, and Joseph travelled together with their relatives and acquaintances in a caravan, Jesus must have ran about and played with his cousins and friends, providing him the chance to slip away.

PAX

Another thought is Mary and Joseph knew who Jesus was. Wouldn’t knowing who he was how he was conceived have made them more protective of him? Unless of course they had younger children running around that they had to look after.

 

[Good_Fella]

Right be even still a whole day passed and they didn’t realize their only child was missing? I have three kids and when we travel I know where they are and who they are with. I am just saying I have heard it argued the reason that he slipped away was that he was not the only one they were looking after.

I am just saying using that story as proof that they did not have other children is not probably the best one to use.

Were you travelling in a caravan with other relatives and friends? But I agree that this verse is useless for either side in their arguments. I never refer to it myself.

 

[Good_Fella]

Another thought is Mary and Joseph knew who Jesus was. Wouldn’t knowing who he was how he was conceived have made them more protective of him? Unless of course they had younger children running around that they had to look after.

They were in a caravan among other relatives and friends, not walking by themselves on a street. Besides, how protective do you expect Mary and Joseph were? Do you think they never let Jesus out of the house to play with his friends when he was a boy? If so, our Lord must have had a morbid childhood. And knowing how he was conceived, they knew that Jesus could look after himself in his oneness with the Father.

 

[KenEOTE]

They were in a caravan among other relatives and friends, not walking by themselves on a street. Besides, how protective do you expect Mary and Joseph were? Do you think they never let Jesus out of the house to play with his friends when he was a boy? If so, our Lord must have had a morbid childhood. And knowing how he was conceived, they knew that Jesus could look after himself in his oneness with the Father.

Well then that baits the argument why did they go back to look for him and then why were they concerned. If they knew he could look after himself they did not need to go looking for him.

Also I have not been in a Caravan but have gone to festivals

 

[justasking4]

Right be even still a whole day passed and they didn’t realize their only child was missing? I have three kids and when we travel I know where they are and who they are with. I am just saying I have heard it argued the reason that he slipped away was that he was not the only one they were looking after.

I am just saying using that story as proof that they did not have other children is not probably the best one to use.

Its also possible that the other children were left at home instead of coming to the city. Its also possible that Mary had other children after Jesus was 12.

 

[guanophore]

Its also possible that the other children were left at home instead of coming to the city. Its also possible that Mary had other children after Jesus was 12.

Who do you suppose was caring for them? Could that be her sister Mary, the wife of Clopas, and mother of James and Joses?

Gosh, she must really have been on a breeding jag, if she did not start manufacturing those 100+ kids until after He was 12. :bigyikes:

letsee…that would still only give her 21 years to produce them, so that would have to be 9 per year…

 

[KenEOTE]

Who do you suppose was caring for them? Could that be her sister Mary, the wife of Clopas, and mother of James and Joses?

Gosh, she must really have been on a breeding jag, if she did not start manufacturing those 100+ kids until after He was 12. :bigyikes:

letsee…that would still only give her 21 years to produce them, so that would have to be 9 per year…

Who said she had 100 kids? I’ve never seen that. Ohhhh that is sarcasm. But the next thought is most people think she was 13 - 16 when she had Jesus. So if she did have more after Yeshua was 12 she would be 25 - 28 that isn’t that old.

The thing I can’t get past is… One child to look after, yet they lose him. Are they bad parents or what? Yes he was twelve and yes they were in a caravan, but how do you lose one child if that is the only child you are looking after?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4173648]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Its also possible that the other children were left at home instead of coming to the city. Its also possible that Mary had other children after Jesus was 12.

guanophore;
Who do you suppose was caring for them? Could that be her sister Mary, the wife of Clopas, and mother of James and Joses?

Who knows. What i have demonstrated that there are more reasonable possiblities than thinking that Mary did not have other children of her own than to think that she never did which would go against OT teachings.

Gosh, she must really have been on a breeding jag, if she did not start manufacturing those 100+ kids until after He was 12. :bigyikes:

What 100+ kids are you referring to?

letsee…that would still only give her 21 years to produce them, so that would have to be 9 per year…

You might want to pick up a good book on human reproduction. You are again thoroughly confused…View attachment 4067

 

[guanophore]

Who knows. What i have demonstrated that there are more reasonable possiblities than thinking that Mary did not have other children of her own than to think that she never did which would go against OT teachings.

Oh, I agree that there are many reasonable possibilties and much speculation has been done. I have done a fair amount of it myself! However, it is not “thinking” that has brought us to this pass with you. We maintain that Mary had only one Child because this is the Apostolic Teaching.

It is not against The OT teaching to consecrate one’s life and sexuality to God. John the Baptist did the same thing, and is honored for his sacrifice. Jesus and St. Paul both teach the value of celibacy in offering ones sexuality to God.

What 100+ kids are you referring to?

You said that whereever Mary is mentioned along with the brothers of Jesus, it was obvious they were children of her womb.

Not only have I tried to show you that James and Joses belong to another Mary, but I have tried to show you that not all the uses of “Brethren” refer to womb siblings of Jesus.

Here Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned again with “his brothers” present.

Acts 1:12-15
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; 13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James. 14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and **Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. **

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty)…"

So, we have 11 Apostles (Matthias had not yet been chosen), Mary, some women (lets say 12 for the sake of discussion, and that makes the remainder 80-100 children of Mary, according to your reasoning.

She must have been prone to sextuplets? If she had a batch of six every year from the time He was 12 to the time of Pentecost…

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4173932]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Who knows. What i have demonstrated that there are more reasonable possiblities than thinking that Mary did not have other children of her own than to think that she never did which would go against OT teachings.

guanophore
Oh, I agree that there are many reasonable possibilties and much speculation has been done. I have done a fair amount of it myself! However, it is not “thinking” that has brought us to this pass with you. We maintain that Mary had only one Child because this is the Apostolic Teaching.

No apostle ever taught this. The only authentic apostles are found only in the NT and nowhere else. I guess you must believe that popes are apostles. Correct?

It is not against The OT teaching to consecrate one’s life and sexuality to God. John the Baptist did the same thing, and is honored for his sacrifice. Jesus and St. Paul both teach the value of celibacy in offering ones sexuality to God.

If you knew the OT well you would know that making such a vow to be perpetual virginity while married was never done.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4173932]
Originally Posted by justasking4
What 100+ kids are you referring to?

guanophore
You said that whereever Mary is mentioned along with the brothers of Jesus, it was obvious they were children of her womb.

In Matthew 13:55-56 would be true.

Not only have I tried to show you that James and Joses belong to another Mary, but I have tried to show you that not all the uses of “Brethren” refer to womb siblings of Jesus.

Here Mary, the mother of Jesus, is mentioned again with “his brothers” present.

Acts 1:12-15
12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away; 13 and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.

14 All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.

In verse 14 we can see again that Mary had other sons since they are mentioned as brothers of Jesus.

15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty)…"

So, we have 11 Apostles (Matthias had not yet been chosen), Mary, some women (lets say 12 for the sake of discussion, and that makes the remainder 80-100 children of Mary, according to your reasoning.

She must have been prone to sextuplets? If she had a batch of six every year from the time He was 12 to the time of Pentecost…

Did you say you attended seminary at one time and you can’t make a simple disctinction in these passages. View attachment 4071

Where in the passage does it say Mary is the mother of the 120?

 

[guanophore]

No apostle ever taught this. The only authentic apostles are found only in the NT and nowhere else.

Actually, there are a great many authentic apostles in heaven. There are many referenced in the NT, but the NT itself states that there were others that are not named.

Besides, since you have rejected the Apostolic Teachings that you cannot see in your bible, how would you know what they taught?

I guess you must believe that popes are apostles. Correct?

No, popes, as well as bishops, priests, and deacons are all part of the Apostolic succession. they are all charged with the duty to preserve the Apostles’ teaching. the fact that there are so many of them is one way that the true teaching survives, even when some go astray.

If you knew the OT well you would know that making such a vow to be perpetual virginity while married was never done.

No, ja4, I just understand the instructions on vows and marriage in Numbers differently than you.

In the olden days, there were no “single” women except prostitutes. A woman was considered “property”, and was the responsibility of the male relatives. This is why Jesus said that whoever divorces a woman forces her to commit adultery. There was no way that she could survive on her own - she had to be taken in by another man.

When a woman made a vow of chastity, this had to be approved either by her father, or her husband.

 

[justasking4]

Actually, there are a great many authentic apostles in heaven. There are many referenced in the NT, but the NT itself states that there were others that are not named.

Besides, since you have rejected the Apostolic Teachings that you cannot see in your bible, how would you know what they taught?

No, popes, as well as bishops, priests, and deacons are all part of the Apostolic succession. they are all charged with the duty to preserve the Apostles’ teaching. the fact that there are so many of them is one way that the true teaching survives, even when some go astray.

No, ja4, I just understand the instructions on vows and marriage in Numbers differently than you.

In the olden days, there were no “single” women except prostitutes. A woman was considered “property”, and was the responsibility of the male relatives. This is why Jesus said that whoever divorces a woman forces her to commit adultery. There was no way that she could survive on her own - she had to be taken in by another man.

When a woman made a vow of chastity, this had to be approved either by her father, or her husband.

Are there any examples of a specific married woman in the OT taking a vow of perpetual chastity in the OT?

 

[guanophore]

In Matthew 13:55-56 would be true.

It would be true so long as you can exclude the scriptural evidence that states these children belong to another Mary. Mary, the mother of James and Joses mentioned in this passage, is identified else where as a “sister” of the Mother of Jesus. Don’t you think it is unlikely that a family would name two daughters “Mary”?

In verse 14 we can see again that Mary had other sons since they are mentioned as brothers of Jesus.

yes! about 80-100 of them are mentioned in Acts! This is why I say for your interpretation to be correct, she needed to have this many sets of septuplets every year!

And we thought we invented fertility in this century!

Did you say you attended seminary at one time and you can’t make a simple disctinction in these passages.

Where in the passage does it say Mary is the mother of the 120?

Not 120. It says there were 120 present in all. There were 11 Apostles, Mary, and some of the women that followed Jesus. That is probably at least 20-24. So there were not more than 100 brothers of Jesus there.

Using your rule, that when Mary is mentioned along with the brothers of Jesus, we can see that she must have been breeding like a rabbit.

Or, perhaps she popped kids out like those gremlins did in the movie. when they got wet, didn’t babies pop out their back? Maybe when she bathed they sprang forth!

 

[guanophore]

Are there any examples of a specific married woman in the OT taking a vow of perpetual chastity in the OT?

I am not sure. God made Hosea marry a prostitute, and I am not sure that marriage was ever consumated.

A girl that had made a vow of virginity was given to a man who already had a family, another wife, or was not interested in having relations for whatever reason. Such a man was a custodian and protector. Marriage was the legal means by which this was accomplished.

 

[hawkeye]

I don’t believe He did, and John a grown man didn’t even know it, and Mary must have had alzheimer’s since she didn’t know John all this time.

Oh what a shame, he went from childhood to being a man without Mary realizing who he was, very hard to swallow.

 

[KenEOTE]

I don’t believe He did, and John a grown man didn’t even know it, and Mary must have had alzheimer’s since she didn’t know John all this time.

Oh what a shame, he went from childhood to being a man without Mary realizing who he was, very hard to swallow.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[guanophore]

I don’t believe He did, and John a grown man didn’t even know it, and Mary must have had alzheimer’s since she didn’t know John all this time.

Oh what a shame, he went from childhood to being a man without Mary realizing who he was, very hard to swallow.

Please use the “quote” button on the bottom right of the post, so we know what you are talking about.

 

[hawkeye]

Please use the “quote” button on the bottom right of the post, so we know what you are talking about.

Holy smoke I guess you two are afflicted too, Jesus told Mary to behold her son, and John to behold his mother.

Still with me ? lol, they mustn’t have known eachother…ok ok I give up you win. anybody ?