"If" Jesus had blood brothers & sisters, then...

[rev_kevin]

The sources were cited in the article he copied and pasted. He just copied and pasted the entire page, including the sources.

What in the ---- do you have against me? You report me and stock me to see what violations you can find. Now I’m not the only one who copies and pastes here on this forum, but you want to pick on me for some reason. I would PM you about this but you want it aired publicly. Are you going to report this because its not on topic.

 

[rev_kevin]

When anyone has a firstborn chirld, thats just a fact. has nothing to do with if they had other children.

How can one be first if there is not a second? They would be a ONLY.

 

[guanophore]

James, the brother of the Lord, was an Apostle. They are mentioned in the NT but they are not the focus of the NT. As far as the ECF, here is Hegesippus, the earliest Christian historian from around the year 130-150 AD.

It is good you are reading the ECF;s Rightly.

You will study yourself home sooner or later.

How is the new rendering of the scriptures better than the ancient faith still held in the East?

“I have heard from someone that certain people dare to say of Mary that after she bore the Savior she had sexual relations with a man. I am not surprised. The ignorance of those who have no exact knowledge of the sacred scripures and who have not applied themselves to the histories turns from one thing to another and distracts the one who wishes to trace something of the truth with his own mind” (Epiphanius, Panarion, 78:7:1; 374 AD)

“It helps us to understand the terms first-born and only-begotten when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her first-born son”; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever and immaculate virgin.”(Didimus the Blind, The Trinity, 3:4; c. 381 AD)

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to apporve virginity rather than to impose it. And He wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom He took upon Himself the form of a slave” (Augustine, Holy Virginity, 4:4; 401 AD)

I note that those who read the scriptures apart from the Apostolic faith and concluded that Mary was not ever virgin are not highly esteemed for their scholarship.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

How can one be first if there is not a second? They would be a ONLY.

Take it up with the Jewish people, Rev. THEY were the ones who instituted (see Exodus above) the concept that the FIRST to open the womb was consecrated to the Lord. Whether he was the ONLY one or whether he had one, two, three, or thirty more after. . .

They didn’t say, “Oh and BTW, if the family never has any more children, please change the title of ‘first born’ to ‘onlyborn’.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What in the ---- do you have against me? You report me and stock me to see what violations you can find. Now I’m not the only one who copies and pastes here on this forum, but you want to pick on me for some reason. I would PM you about this but you want it aired publicly. Are you going to report this because its not on topic.

I have nothing against you rev kevin. I do, however, have something against the anti-Catholic material you repeatedly post over and over. You use material from CARM, which is extremely anti-Catholic. I communicated with moderators on their forums that told me they didn’t consider Catholics to be Christians. Is this how you feel?

Using anti-Catholic websites, copying and pasting entire articles or using copyrighted materials as your own is against forum rules. I have no qualms about reporting the violations in cases like this. I have already told you once, I am not ‘s t a l k i n g’ you.

Be honest and discuss using your own words and not the copy and pastes from anti-Catholic sources.

 

[PRmerger]

How can one be first if there is not a second? They would be a ONLY.

In Exodus, when parents were to consecrate their firstborn child, did they have to wait until they had a second child?

Or, even if he were an ONLY child would they be bound to the law?

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 13:2[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[guanophore]

The sources were cited in the article he copied and pasted. He just copied and pasted the entire page, including the sources.

On another thread, he copied and pasted without them, so this is an improvement.

 

[guanophore]

A lot.

I will accept that you are not willing to go into details with this, and you are not obligated to share anything personal.

But, one can see why it is so important for you to ignore scholarship that does not agree with your preconceived notions, and the testimony of history.

You do realize, don’t you, that the Orthodox have no love lost on “Rome”?

If this were some sort of Roman Catholic invention, they would not be espousing it. They hold it because they got it from the Apsotels also.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

On another thread, he copied and pasted without them, so this is an improvement.

I’m surprised he still copies and pastes after the Satanic website incident.

It has appearances of searching for ‘snippets’ of anti-Catholic material and jumping all over it in a rush to post it here, before actually reading it.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Jesus had siblings according to scripture. Not what someone thinks scripture says, but what it actually says.

Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Matthew 13:55
Matthew 13:56
John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:19

 

[guanophore]

How can one be first if there is not a second? They would be a ONLY.

C’mon, rev kev, man up. Address the Scripture that was provided to you. You pride yourself on being so bible based, here is your chance to shine!

What did God command about the child that opens the womb?

When was the commandment to be fulfilled? Was the couple to wait and see if that sheep, goat, or wife had another offspring?
Ex 4:21-23
22 And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘Thus says the LORD, Israel is my first-born son, 23 and I say to you, “Let my son go that he may serve me”; if you refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay your first-born son.’"

Did God have another nation, besides Israel?

 

[PRmerger]

A lot.

This speaks volumes.

Much sacrifice is required in order to follow Christ. There is no other way. :sad_yes:

But, if you stay in your comfortable religion, one that does not have any doctrines that you may, at some level, disagree with, then I submit to you that you are in a religion you’ve created in your own image, rather than God’s.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

In Exodus, when parents were to consecrate their firstborn child, did they have to wait until they had a second child?

Or, even if he were an ONLY child would they be bound to the law?

[bibledrb]Exodus 13:2[/bibledrb]

They’d be bound. The consecration of the male child who ‘opened the womb’ was at 40 days after birth in the time of Christ.

Some people just seem to be caught up on the (false) idea that you can’t have a ‘first’ if you don’t have a second.

When I was expecting for the first time I heard a lot of comments like,

“Oh you’re expecting your FIRST child”

“What are your plans for your FIRST child”. . .

Etc. etc.

I didn’t have people coming up saying,

“Oh congratulations you’re expecting your only child!”

Now my sister, OTOH, had the same comments when she was expecting her first.

SHE had that child. . .and no others.

According to Rev Kev, even though I had my first child in exactly the same ‘way’, under the same circumstances, only my DAUGHTER can be called a ‘firstborn’ because I had more children.

But my sister didn’t HAVE a firstborn child, she had an ONLYborn child.

Strange, isn’t it?

What’s even stranger is that under JEWISH law since my first child was a girl, and my second a boy, I didn’t HAVE a ‘firstborn SON’.

But my sister, who had a son, and no others, didn’t get a firstborn son (though under Jewish law she did). According to RevKev, she had an ‘onlyborn son’.

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus had siblings according to scripture. Not what someone thinks scripture says, but what it actually says.

Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Matthew 13:55
Matthew 13:56
John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:19

Perhaps they were siblings. Perhaps not.

Whoever they were, they weren’t children of Mary.

[SIGN1]There is no Bible verse that describes anyone as the “son of Mary”, except Jesus.[/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

But my sister, who had a son, and no others, didn’t get a firstborn son (though under Jewish law she did). According to RevKev, she had an ‘onlyborn son’.

Interesting and curious, indeed!

Is “onlyborn” a Biblical term? :coffeeread:

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus had siblings according to scripture. Not what someone thinks scripture says, but what it actually says.

Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Matthew 13:55
Matthew 13:56
John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:19

The Early Church Fathers on
Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

Origen

The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

Hilary of Poitiers

If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, “Woman, behold your son,” and to John, “Behold your mother” [John 19:26-27], as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).

Athanasius

Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that He took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary (Discourses against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).

Epiphanius

We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).

Jerome

But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).

Didymus the Blind

It helps us to understand the terms “firstborn” and “only begotten” when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin “until she brought forth her firstborn son” [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin" (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).

The Protoevangelium of James

 

[Nicea325]

James, the brother of the Lord, was an Apostle. They are mentioned in the NT but they are not the focus of the NT. As far as the ECF, here is Hegesippus, the earliest Christian historian from around the year 130-150 AD.

James, the brother of the Lord, was an Apostle. They are mentioned in the NT but they are not the focus of the NT. As far as the ECF, here is Hegesippus, the earliest Christian historian from around the year 130-150 AD.

WRONG! The James argument is as old as dirt. Show me where scripture states James’ mother is Mary? The term brother/brethen is also another debunked issue.

Quote:
James, the Lord’s brother, succeeds to the government of the Church, in conjunction with the apostles. He has been universally called the Just, from the days of the Lord down to the present time. For many bore the name of James; but this one was holy from his mother’s womb

And was Hegesippus writing the above to PROVE Mary had other children? To whom was he trying to convince James was Jesus blood brother?

Quote:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done

Okay…and?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Jesus had siblings according to scripture. Not what someone thinks scripture says, but what it actually says.

Matthew 12:46
Luke 8:19
Mark 3:31
Matthew 13:55
Matthew 13:56
John 7:1-10
Acts 1:14
Galatians 1:19

Yeah. Funny thing about that. “mother and brethren” (and of course, brethren did not have to mean simply 'blood brother" and then that Matthew one.

Notice how it says, "Is this not the son of the Carpenter? Is not his mother Mary? AND HIS BRETHREN James, Joses. . .

Now isn’t this kind of 'queer"? Why does it say “HIS mother Mary” and then list 'brethren"?

Why doesn’t it say, “Hey, isn’t that kid ONE OF Joseph and Mary’s SONS?”

Note that the Scripture itself does not link "the carpenter’ AND Mary. IOW, even Scripture itself does not refer to Jesus as “the son of JOSEPH AND MARY”.

And note that Scripture does not link MARY with anybody other than JESUS.

There is nothing in SCRIPTURE ITSELF to indicate that Mary was the mother of ANYBODY BUT JESUS. Including the ABOVE Scripture. If the brethren were the sons of MARY, why is she not listed as their mother?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rev kevin
How can one be first if there is not a second? They would be a ONLY.

Are you KIDDING ME? Jesus was not an American or from the West,we are discussing the Jewish customs and beliefs Rev Kev. You impose way to many modern notions to the Scriptures and to the ancient Jews,typical of many Baptists.

 

[Nicea325]

If someone has only one child how can that child be called the firstborn? That child would be the only child born. Saying firstborn implies she has other children.

Common sence would tell you that the firstborn would open the womb but it does not suggest a only child.

Yeah if you are an American living in the 21st century,but NOT in the ancient Jewish culture. Time to learn the Jewish culture and the meaning of the terms Rev Kev.