James, Brother of Jesus?

[planten]

I was telling you that your points about Peter make no sense.
**Explain your problem **with the way Scripture speaks of Peter.

elvisman, that is the problem. I feel that the scriptrure (bible) does not speak good of Peter. Did you also note that or not? If you did not note that then it will be some one’s job to show all of that to you from bibleNT.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman, that is the problem. I feel that the scriptrure (bible) does not speak good of Peter. Did you also note that or not? If you did not note that then it will be some one’s job to show all of that to you from bibleNT.

This is because you simply don’t understand the redemptive message of the Gospel.

**Whatever Peter was or how he behaved changed drastically after he was instilled with the Holy Spirit after Pentecost. **It shows that the power of the Holy Spirit can transcend ALL human frailty.

This, however has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[jakasaki]

"Brethren of the Lord"

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth.

They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.”

The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Continued…

 

[jakasaki]

… continued from above…

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.”

But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives.

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has.

Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins).

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife.

Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51).

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21).

This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27).

The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

***Link above has more information for those who wish to read it… ***

 

[planten]

**jakasaki, you have given some good reasons for the open general use of the word brother. Brother may be used in different ways. That is correct.

But what about the word “Son”. Could that also be an open use word and could be used for some one who is not a real son at all. Because Jesus is called the son of god. Could we understand that as symbolic only and not as a real son?

Could the word “son” be used for some one who is not a real son at all??.**

 

[freedomwriter]

"Brethren of the Lord"

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth.

They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as “the brethren of the Lord.”

The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Continued…

In the NT the word adelphos for brother is used as a literal blood brother. It is never used for cousin. Every example in the NT for brother is also used as an immediate family member.

 

[freedomwriter]

… continued from above…

No Word for Cousin

Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.”

But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives.

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has.

Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use adelphos in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins).

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife.

Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51).

Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).

Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21).

This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27).

The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

***Link above has more information for those who wish to read it… ***

The reason Jesus gave Mary to John at the cross was because his brothers were not believers.

 

[elvisman]

The reason Jesus gave Mary to John at the cross was because his brothers were not believers.

Wrong.
Not only would this be against the deep Jewish family traditions - you are supposing that Mary wouldn’t have been able to survive unless John protected her.
God would have protected Mary if she had spent the rest of her life with a pack of wolves. The fact is that he had no uterine brothers or sisters.

Besides, Jesus’ James, son of Clopas (Alphaeus) and the “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is said to have been born again after the resurrection. Ummmm - don’t you think God would have known that?
The plain fact is that he wasn’t Jesus’ uterine brother.

 

[Bill_Pick]

**As far as we know, james was the real brother of Jesus. Jesus had sisters too. It is all mentioned in the bible. It is no use taking the word “brother” in the wider sense. The word “son” is also being taken in a special sense. Why is that? Why the word “Son” is not being taken in the real sense? It appears there is no sense except the desire of the church.

The purpose is just to avoid few problems. The church wants the world to take special meanings of everything according to their wishes to their own advantage. While at the same time the Catholics try to take bad meanings of things in other’s faiths.

About Peter also, I am unhappy that person is not mentioned very well in bible. Is he not the same person in whose name the church was built and he was called the Rock. **

Thank you for all your opinion ,but you have no fact and all of what you say is noy Christian and we are not talking about Peter,please try to stay with the thread

 

[Bill_Pick]

** tobeinatorstark, you want examples from bible? I had written the following:**

Please point out what needs examples or quotes. At one place in bibleNT, he is said to be a dull minded person (as said by Jesus himslef). At the other place, Peter is said to have cursed the Lord Jesus three times. It all goes against the good status of Peter, the Rock. The Rock on which the church was built.

You may have missed this or maybe you do not write the paper

A couple of years ago a huge archeological discovery gave the world the “James Ossuary” which said “…James brother of Jesus.” It was in Newsweek magazine and the Evangelical press covered the find extensively as proof that Catholics were wrong about Mary’s perpetual virginity. The person who discovered the ossuary, Oded Golan, was arrested July 21, 2003 and appeared the next day in court, where police revealed forging equipment – stencils, stones and yet-to-be-completed forgeries – they said were found in his home, according to the Associated Press. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) found him to be part an extensive forgery ring that has sold millions of dollars of artifacts to museums. Since then news of the ossuary has quietly

 

[freedomwriter]

Wrong.
Not only would this be against the deep Jewish family traditions - you are supposing that Mary wouldn’t have been able to survive unless John protected her.
God would have protected Mary if she had spent the rest of her life with a pack of wolves. The fact is that he had no uterine brothers or sisters.

Besides, Jesus’ James, son of Clopas (Alphaeus) and the “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is said to have been born again after the resurrection. Ummmm - don’t you think God would have known that?
The plain fact is that he wasn’t Jesus’ uterine brother.

Right, the fact that Jesus commended his mother to John at the cross doesn’t mean that he had no brothers but only that they were not present, so he could not turn the responsibility over to them. Again Jesus’ brothers were not believers at this time John 7:5, so it was important that mary be left in good spiritual hands

 

[elvisman]

Right, the fact that Jesus commended his mother to John at the cross doesn’t mean that he had no brothers but only that they were not present, so he could not turn the responsibility over to them. Again Jesus’ brothers were not believers at this time John 7:5, so it was important that mary be left in good spiritual hands

**IF Jesus had brothers - which he didn’t - he wouldn’t have had to make any declaration on the cross about who would take the reins. The responsibility would have passed onto them - period. It would have been an unthinkable insult to give her to somebody else.

This is by far, the weakest argument that non-Catholics like yourself make when attempting to prove that Jesus had uterine siblings.

This thread is about whther James was the uterine brother of Jesus. So far - neither you nor anybody else has proven it. On the contrary - it has been disproven with scripture and an understanding of the Septuagint use of the words adelphos and adelphoi.

Go back and read all of the posts where this was explained . . .

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There are references that James is referred to as the brother of Jesus. Is this intended to mean the Literal brother? As in the child of Mary? What is your understanding?

The Catholic Church has testimony from the bible, St. Jerome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Protestant reformers themselves believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary before, during and after giving birth to her Son Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 "Joseph had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she had borne a son. When compared to Jesus quoting from Matthew 28:20 (Jesus states), “I am with you always until the end of the age”. Biblical Scholars have translated “until” from the first century definition of “until” to “as to”, meaning Jesus will be with us until the end of the world and beyond the end of the world forever; Just as from Matthew 1:25 is defined from a first century Christian mindset to mean "Joseph had no marital relations with Mary until and beyond the time she gave birth to Jesus.

Trying to force 19Th century literal language into the ancient text of scripture will always lead to multiple confused biblical interpretations, instead of how the author intended from the author’s original language and mindset. This may explain why Protestants and non catholics have many diverse biblical interpretations of the bible, without anyone authority to hold them accountable for their multiple interpretations of the same text.

The two brothers referred to Jesus named James and Joseph Mt.13:56-57 are later identified as the sons of another woman in Mt.27:56 possibly Mary’s relative or sister?

Jesus gave Mary to his disciple John, who took her into his home. If Jesus would had done this having blood brothers from Mary would of been an insult, and left the early Jews a reason for not converting to Christianity, by debunking Jesus insult to his family from his dieing breath. But as we know from the Gospel’s many of the Jews converted to “The Way” later to be known as the Catholic Church.

 

[SyCarl]

The Catholic Church has testimony from the bible, St. Jerome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Protestant reformers themselves believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary before, during and after giving birth to her Son Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 "Joseph had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she had borne a son. When compared to Jesus quoting from Matthew 28:20 (Jesus states), “I am with you always until the end of the age”. Biblical Scholars have translated “until” from the first century definition of “until” to “as to”, meaning Jesus will be with us until the end of the world and beyond the end of the world forever; Just as from Matthew 1:25 is defined from a first century Christian mindset to mean "Joseph had no marital relations with Mary until and beyond the time she gave birth to Jesus.

Trying to force 19Th century literal language into the ancient text of scripture will always lead to multiple confused biblical interpretations, instead of how the author intended from the author’s original language and mindset. This may explain why Protestants and non catholics have many diverse biblical interpretations of the bible, without anyone authority to hold them accountable for their multiple interpretations of the same text.

The two brothers referred to Jesus named James and Joseph Mt.13:56-57 are later identified as the sons of another woman in Mt.27:56 possibly Mary’s relative or sister?

Jesus gave Mary to his disciple John, who took her into his home. If Jesus would had done this having blood brothers from Mary would of been an insult, and left the early Jews a reason for not converting to Christianity, by debunking Jesus insult to his family from his dieing breath. But as we know from the Gospel’s many of the Jews converted to “The Way” later to be known as the Catholic Church.

I do not object to anyone who believes Mary was ever-virgin. However to me there are enough references to Jesus’ brothers by 5 New Testament writers that I do not think that it should be a required dogma. This is on top of the references to keeping Mary a virgin until Jesus’ birth and Jesus being her first born son. Catholic defenses that brother can mean other close relatives does not prove that it does mean that. The strongest argument from Scripture in favour of perpetual virginity is her question at the Annunciation as to how it could be since she was a virgin. If she knew that she was going to be married and have normal relations with Joseph, why would she raise this concern since it would appear obvious how she would become pregnant. In face of the other evidence though this is not enough to convince me since it could just be a device to emphasize her virginity at Jesus’ conception.

Jesus’ leaving Mary to the care of John does not present a problem to me as we are told that His brothers did not believe in Him at the time. In addition, Jesus had already told us that whoever did His Father’s will was His brother, making John His brother in that way.

 

[freedomwriter]

I do not object to anyone who believes Mary was ever-virgin. However to me there are enough references to Jesus’ brother by 5 New Testament writers that I do not think that it should be a required dogma. This is on top of the references to keeping Mary a virgin until Jesus’ birth and Jesus being her first born son. Catholic defenses that brother can mean other close relatives does not prove that it does mean that. The strongest argument from Scripture in favour of perpetual virginity is her question at the Annunciation as to how it could be since she was a virgin. If she knew that she was going to be married and have normal relations with Joseph, why would she raise this concern since it would appear obvious how she would become pregnant. In face of the other evidence though this is not enough to convince me since it could just be a device to emphasize her virginity at Jesus’ conception.

Jesus’ leaving Mary to the care of John does not present a problem to me as we are told that His brothers did not believe in Him at the time. In addition, Jesus had already told us that whoever did His Father’s will was His brother, making John His brother in that way.

Amen Brother

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I do not object to anyone who believes Mary was ever-virgin. However to me there are enough references to Jesus’ brother by 5 New Testament writers that I do not think that it should be a required dogma. This is on top of the references to keeping Mary a virgin until Jesus’ birth and Jesus being her first born son. Catholic defenses that brother can mean other close relatives does not prove that it does mean that. The strongest argument from Scripture in favour of perpetual virginity is her question at the Annunciation as to how it could be since she was a virgin. If she knew that she was going to be married and have normal relations with Joseph, why would she raise this concern since it would appear obvious how she would become pregnant. In face of the other evidence though this is not enough to convince me since it could just be a device to emphasize her virginity at Jesus’ conception.

Jesus’ leaving Mary to the care of John does not present a problem to me as we are told that His brothers did not believe in Him at the time. In addition, Jesus had already told us that whoever did His Father’s will was His brother, making John His brother in that way.

You have just confirmed a 19th century biblical interpretation of Jesus brothers, your personal interpretation does not exist from biblical interpretations from antiquity. I rest my case.

Although you mentioned the “Rosary Mystery of the Annunciation”. Mary was troubled at what sort of greeting Gabriel made to her. Then to give a defense of her Perpetual virginity, that according to small tradition reveals that Mary took the Nazarene Vow to God to remain a Virgin all of her life devoted to God’s service. Scripture touches on this when Mary and Joseph presented Jesus in the temple and fulfilled the Law. Mary responded to Gabriel without being accursed as did Zechariah for doubting, for Gabriel knew what Mary was defending her perpetual virginity Nazarene Vow (where she resided) to God. That is why Mary was not joyful to hear of a child birth because she was betrothed to Joseph, instead Mary became troubled of breaking her Virginity Vow to God. But Gabriel revealed to her “The Holy Spirit will overshadow you”, thus Mary remained a Virgin, and rejoiced in God her savior who made her a maiden and remained a virgin always, that is why Mary in her canticle states “The Mighty One has done great things for me and holy is his name” and from Luke 1:48… “behold, from now on ALL AGES will call me blessed”.

 Luke 1: 34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?" 12 35 and the angel said to her in reply, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.  37 for nothing will be impossible for God." 38 Mary said, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word?" Then the angel departed from her.
  (vs.34, how can this be, since I have no relations with a man?) The Nazarene Vow between the husband and Maiden or Father and Maiden. Zechariah got cursed for doubting the angel Gabriel, Mary did not get cursed because she stated she knew no man, and made a Nazarene vow to remain a virgin. Samson and John the Baptist also took a Nazarene vow. 
 Numbers 30: 4-17 "When a woman, while still a maiden in her father's house, makes a vow to the LORD, or binds herself to a pledge, 5 if her father learns of her vow or the pledge to which she bound herself and says nothing to her about it, then any vow or any pledge she has made remains valid. 7 "If she marries while under a vow or under a rash pledge to which she bound herself, 8 and her husband learns of it, yet says nothing to her that day about it, then the vow or pledge she had made remains valid.14 "Any vow or any pledge that she makes under oath to mortify herself, her husband can either allow to remain valid or render null and void. 17 These are the statutes which the LORD prescribed through Moses concerning the relationship between a husband and his wife, as well as between a father and his daughter while she is still a maiden in her father's house.

From this tradition scripture does well to inform the world that “Joseph was a RIGHTEOUS man” (Mat.1:19) In remaining loyal to Mary’s virginity and vow to God.

Here is a scripture foretelling Mary’s virginity remains intact while giving Birth to Jesus and that the curse of child pains did not come upon her, thus making her “The immaculate conception”.
Isaiah 66: 7 Before she comes to labor, she gives birth; Before the pains come upon her, she safely delivers a male child. 8 Who ever heard of such a thing, or saw the like? 9 Shall I bring a mother to the point of birth, and yet not let her child be born? says the LORD; Or shall I who allow her to conceive, yet close her womb? says your God. 10 Rejoice with Jerusalem and be glad because of her, all you who love her; Exult, exult with her,

“Amen”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Jesus’ leaving Mary to the care of John does not present a problem to me as we are told that His brothers did not believe in Him at the time. In addition, Jesus had already told us that whoever did His Father’s will was His brother, making John His brother in that way.

If your interpretation were to hold up; The brothers of Jesus would have sinned greatly because of Jesus act from the cross. By his unbelieving brothers dishonoring their Mother Mary breaking a commandment of God before the Jewish community and leaving Jesus a false prophet. But it did not happen as you interpret these scriptures. The Catholic interpretation from antiquity validates Jesus perfect sinless life.

 

[freedomwriter]

The Catholic Church has testimony from the bible, St. Jerome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr and Protestant reformers themselves believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary before, during and after giving birth to her Son Jesus.

Matthew 1:25 "Joseph had no marital relations with her (Mary) until she had borne a son. When compared to Jesus quoting from Matthew 28:20 (Jesus states), “I am with you always until the end of the age”. Biblical Scholars have translated “until” from the first century definition of “until” to “as to”, meaning Jesus will be with us until the end of the world and beyond the end of the world forever; Just as from Matthew 1:25 is defined from a first century Christian mindset to mean "Joseph had no marital relations with Mary until and beyond the time she gave birth to Jesus.

Trying to force 19Th century literal language into the ancient text of scripture will always lead to multiple confused biblical interpretations, instead of how the author intended from the author’s original language and mindset. This may explain why Protestants and non catholics have many diverse biblical interpretations of the bible, without anyone authority to hold them accountable for their multiple interpretations of the same text.

The two brothers referred to Jesus named James and Joseph Mt.13:56-57 are later identified as the sons of another woman in Mt.27:56 possibly Mary’s relative or sister?

Jesus gave Mary to his disciple John, who took her into his home. If Jesus would had done this having blood brothers from Mary would of been an insult, and left the early Jews a reason for not converting to Christianity, by debunking Jesus insult to his family from his dieing breath. But as we know from the Gospel’s many of the Jews converted to “The Way” later to be known as the Catholic Church.

Catholic scholar Ott admits that there is no direct reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity in any text of scripture. Matt 1:25 seems to imply that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time he was crucified. Mary in 27:56 was the wife of cleophas Jn 19:25 I believe the cousin of Mary. Where do you get that the way became the catholic church. Please provide scripture

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Catholic scholar Ott admits that there is no direct reference to Mary’s perpetual virginity in any text of scripture. Matt 1:25 seems to imply that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Remember that Jesus’ brothers were not believers at the time he was crucified. Mary in 27:56 was the wife of cleophas Jn 19:25 I believe the cousin of Mary. Where do you get that the way became the catholic church. Please provide scripture

Again, your interpretation is a new 19th century interpretation of Matt.1:25 goes against every recorded Christian and Jewish interpretation of “brothers” and the word “until” from both Hebrew and Aramaic translations, not to mention your interpretation goes against your own founders of Protestantism.

True there is not one scripture that states as you would like it to say in the 21st century mindset that Mary remained a virgin all her life. But reading the New Testament hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament as Jesus revealed to his disciples on the road to Emmaus see Luke 24; Jesus revealed all the scriptures that pertained to him.

This leads to the next topic you raised which is called The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I present to you the scripture that support this from Apostolic Oral and written Tradition “All of the New Testament” gives witness to the One Holy Apostolic Catholic faith. You see; through these apostolic biblical interpretations handed down from Jesus to his apostles to the early disciples and Church fathers who all gave witness and testimony to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is written in our profession of faith “The Creed” which comes from the apostles.

Our Christian doctrinal Catholic faith is based from the memoirs of the New Testament. Again, your probably looking in scripture where it has every Catholic Christian that ever lived in order to get a 21st biblical interpretation of it, that is not happening. You need Jesus, Apostles, early Saints, Martyrs, Popes who gave testimony and witness of the Catholic church being built upon Peter.

Our first four Catholic Popes are recorded in the New Testament; Peter (67 ad), Linus(67-76), Anacletus(76-88 and Clement (88-97). Do you want the scriptures revealing our Catholic first Popes, or Apostolic Catholic faith from scripture supported by Oral and Written Apostolic Tradition? Or I should just present to you the New Testament, of which the Catholic church canonized the bible for you and I and the world.

 

[freedomwriter]

Again, your interpretation is a new 19th century interpretation of Matt.1:25 goes against every recorded Christian and Jewish interpretation of “brothers” and the word “until” from both Hebrew and Aramaic translations, not to mention your interpretation goes against your own founders of Protestantism.

True there is not one scripture that states as you would like it to say in the 21st century mindset that Mary remained a virgin all her life. But reading the New Testament hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament revealed in the New Testament as Jesus revealed to his disciples on the road to Emmaus see Luke 24; Jesus revealed all the scriptures that pertained to him.

This leads to the next topic you raised which is called The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I present to you the scripture that support this from Apostolic Oral and written Tradition “All of the New Testament” gives witness to the One Holy Apostolic Catholic faith. You see; through these apostolic biblical interpretations handed down from Jesus to his apostles to the early disciples and Church fathers who all gave witness and testimony to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is written in our profession of faith “The Creed” which comes from the apostles.

Our Christian doctrinal Catholic faith is based from the memoirs of the New Testament. Again, your probably looking in scripture where it has every Catholic Christian that ever lived in order to get a 21st biblical interpretation of it, that is not happening. You need Jesus, Apostles, early Saints, Martyrs, Popes who gave testimony and witness of the Catholic church being built upon Peter.

Our first four Catholic Popes are recorded in the New Testament; Peter (67 ad), Linus(67-76), Anacletus(76-88 and Clement (88-97). Do you want the scriptures revealing our Catholic first Popes, or Apostolic Catholic faith from scripture supported by Oral and Written Apostolic Tradition? Or I should just present to you the New Testament, of which the Catholic church canonized the bible for you and I and the world.

Please provide scripture to support your statement. I mean anyone can say their church was started by Christ. You showed one scripture and even that doesn’t support what the perpetual virginity of mary. Surely if what you say is true then there should be something in the scriptures to imply to your statements.