Jesus’ Siblings in scripture

[jericho777]

jericho777:

Something for you all to consider. Yes the Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic however the NT is written in Greek. Just as in Hebrew there is no word specifically for virgin Isaiah 7:14 the Greek LXX translates it as specifically as virgin. Now consider Jeremiah 32:8 where the author is conveying cousin by saying “his uncle son” even though there is no Hebrew word for cousin we can say cousin. Since there is a way to be specific about a “cousin” relationship why weren’t they conveyed in this manner if indeed they were cousins? To me it’s plain they were indeed actual brothers and sisters. 8 Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, ‘Please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.

Rev 12:17
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[c] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

Obviously, “offspring” aka children, aka sons and daughters, is NOT meant literally from Mary’s womb.

So …

The woman in the context presented is Israel not Mary.

 

[po18guy]

This thread, like almost all others, has become nothing more than entrenched positions and meaningless argumentation.

Life is too short.

Zero historical or any other evidence of any “children of Mary” aside from Jesus.

None.

A simple lesson: Aside from “thesaurus”, show a word in any dictionary which has only one meaning.

Can’t.

The KJV has 805,000 words, each with at least two meanings. Words in combination provide a third or fourth meaning.

Bible alone is utter and complete nonsense.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

jericho777:

Something for you all to consider. Yes the Jews spoke Hebrew and Aramaic however the NT is written in Greek. Just as in Hebrew there is no word specifically for virgin Isaiah 7:14 the Greek LXX translates it as specifically as virgin. Now consider Jeremiah 32:8 where the author is conveying cousin by saying “his uncle son” even though there is no Hebrew word for cousin we can say cousin. Since there is a way to be specific about a “cousin” relationship why weren’t they conveyed in this manner if indeed they were cousins? To me it’s plain they were indeed actual brothers and sisters. 8 Then Hanamel my uncle’s son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the Lord, and said to me, ‘Please buy my field that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin; for the right of inheritance is yours, and the redemption yours; buy it for yourself.’ Then I knew that this was the word of the Lord.

Rev 12:17
17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[c] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

Obviously, “offspring” aka children, aka sons and daughters, is NOT meant literally from Mary’s womb.

So …

The woman in the context presented is Israel not Mary.

On the contrary, Re: footnote [a] Mary can’t be eliminated

Rev 12:

17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[a] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus.

• Footnote:
  [a] Mary, the mother of the Messiah, must also be included in the meaning.

Further examples

 

[Dan_Defender]

James, Joses, Jude, and Simon are therefore, Jesus’ cousins.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[jericho777]

This is a future event during the tribulation. How can Satan make war with Mary on the earth if she is in heaven? This takes place over a 3-1/2 year period of time also. None of this has ever taken place in the past during her earthly life.

 

[Writer_for_God]

Also know that when Jesus was on the Cross He gave His mother to John to take care of her. If He had siblings this would have been the ultimate insult to them, as it was customary for the other children to take care of the mother. I remember listening to something on Catholic Radio that Jewish people would know this, that it would be an insult to give His mother to a non-sibling if He had siblings.

 

[steve-b]

This is a future event during the tribulation. How can Satan make war with Mary on the earth if she is in heaven? This takes place over a 3-1/2 year period of time also. None of this has ever taken place in the past during her earthly life.

What religion are you?

 

[somecanadian]

And this is exactly why we must examine all Scripture in context not just one verse on its own. This along with other information in Scripture shows us that Jesus was, indeed, Mary’s only child.

 

[guanophore]

I see the strength of scripture for believers in a much stronger light than Catholics view it as.

I don’t think so. The difference is that we are not limited ONLY to the strength of Scripture. We have the piece that shows us how to interpret what is written accurately.

Sacred Tradition leads to scripture being regarded as the lesser.

Only in the minds of those who espouse SS, because they don’t realize that Sacred Tradition is the Word of God.

I want to know what scripture really means and am willing to move in that direction.

The passion for the Scripture exhibited in our separated brethren should inspire more Catholics to dive into the pages! Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.

Not all past church leaders hold to modern views about Mary.

No, but these views about Mary are not “modern” either. They were passed to us by those who knew her personally.

Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary must have been a sinner because she stated “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

She needed a savior. He saved her. That does not mean she was not immaculate. Adam and Eve were also created without sin.

 

[guanophore]

Reasoning with the evidences at hand leads me to conclude Mary had real children. I feel some Catholics feel uneasy because they see the same thing as I but are afraid of eternal judgment if they were to think otherwise.

This makes it sound like the “evidence at hand” cannot include anything that supports the Catholic view.

No, the only Catholics who think they will suffer eternal judgement for thinking are very neurotic, in addition to being poorly catechized. Of course Catholics read the same thing in Scripture you do, we just understand it differently.

The woman in the context presented is Israel not Mary.

As in most apocalyptic literature, it is multivalent. It can be seen as Israel, as well as Mary, and also the early Church.

Catholics understand that Mary is the new Eve, so we interpret what we read in that light. But one need not take an either/or perspective.

This is a future event during the tribulation. How can Satan make war with Mary on the earth if she is in heaven? This takes place over a 3-1/2 year period of time also. None of this has ever taken place in the past during her earthly life.

You are reading this with your tribulation glasses.

Do you know how long the Holy Family was in Egypt?

 

[deMontfort]

jericho777:

This is a future event during the tribulation. How can Satan make war with Mary on the earth if she is in heaven? This takes place over a 3-1/2 year period of time also. None of this has ever taken place in the past during her earthly life.

What religion are you?

One that subscribes to Dispensationalism…

 

[Fauken]

Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary must have been a sinner because she stated “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

Where is that St. Thomas Aquinas quote from?

 

[BartholomewB]

The Koine Greek for brother αδελφοσ (adelphos) literally means from the same womb,

The dictionaries show this as the root meaning of adelphos, but as far as I can see the word delphys isn’t found anywhere in the Bible, either in the Septuagint or the NT. Two Greek words are used for “womb” – usually koilia and less often metra. Never delphys, though.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/δελφύς#Ancient_Greek

 

[steve-b]

I see the strength of scripture for believers in a much stronger light than Catholics view it as.

Re: scripture, the Catholic Church gave the world the scriptures in general and the NT in particular.

The NT was written in, by, for the Church the writers of scripture were already in. The Catholic Church

From the Greek translation (links are operable)
Acts 9:31 the church throughout all ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης τῆς
ἐκκλησία = church ,
καθ’ = according to ,
ὅλης = whole / all / complete / universal ,
τῆς = the ,
= the Kataholos Church = the Catholic Church.

AND

Before the canon of 73 books was complete, it went through development. For example, in ~170 a.d.
Muratorian Canon read through the explanation.

The final canon of 73 books wasn’t complete till the council of Rome in 382.

jericho777:

Sacred Tradition leads to scripture being regarded as the lesser.

Wrong

The Church defines 3 categories of authority, in this order

1. Scripture
2. Tradition
3. the ongoing teaching authority of the Catholic Church

NONE are alone
.

jericho777:

When the Torah was written it was the standard everything else was measured against. The word Torah means instruction. I want to know what scripture really means and am willing to move in that direction.

Jews who accepted Jesus followed the Septuagint…and 46 books.

Jews who did NOT accept Jesus have 39 books. That’s what Protestants accept.

Jericho777:

The bible can be understood and known. It was written for our benefit. Romans 15:4
Not all past church leaders hold to modern views about Mary.

Romans was written to the Church of Rome. The same Church today, pope Francis is over, and is the 266th successor to St Peter whose see was Rome and died in Rome, and is buried under the altar of St Peter’s in Rome.

Jericho777:

Augustine of Hippo: “He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother.

“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.” Augustine, Nature and Grace 4, 36 {A.D.415}.

jericho777:

Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, …

Re: Aquinas and Mary

jericho777:

Clement of Alexandria: “The word, Jesus Christ, alone was born without sin.”

Consider this

 

[po18guy]

If it weren’t so anti-intellectual, and anti-scriptural, I would see the “Marian children” as, at most, perversely amusing. Since the belief attacks the mother whom Jesus created for Himself, it cannot have the Holy Spirit as its source.

So why does it appear? It has no effect on our salvation, so why? Hardened hearts and gullible souls have been incited to it. Those who simply want to justify their dividing the Body of Christ - a pure desire to oppose Christ’s Church.

That, friends, is of the evil one.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The word Torah means instruction.

The usual translation of Torah is “Law”. “Instruction” is talmud.

I didn’t say that. That was @jericho777 who said that in his opening statement

 

[BartholomewB]

Yes, I’m sorry about that. I spotted my mistake, which is why I deleted my post.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, I’m sorry about that. I spotted my mistake, which is why I deleted my post.

 

[Gorgias]

Augustine of Hippo: “He, Christ, alone being made a man but remaining God never had any sin nor did He take on flesh of sin, though He took flesh of the sin of His mother.

You might want to quote in context, rather than proof-texting. This line is from Augustine’s On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and here’s the context of that line:
St Augustine:

He, therefore, alone having become man, but still continuing to be God, never had any sin, nor did he assume a flesh of sin, though born of a maternal flesh of sin. For what He then took of flesh, He either cleansed in order to take it, or cleansed by taking it. His virgin mother, therefore, whose conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh (in other words, not by the excitement of carnal concupiscence), but who merited by her faith that the holy seed should be framed within her, He formed in order to choose her, and chose in order to be formed from her. How much more needful, then, is it for sinful flesh to be baptized in order to escape the judgment, when the flesh which was untainted by sin was baptized to set an example for imitation?

Notice that Augustine says that Mary’s “conception was not according to the law of sinful flesh” and mentions that Mary’s flesh “was untainted by sin.”

Thomas Aquinas: “Only a sinner needs a Savior, and Mary must have been a sinner because she stated “My spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

This sounds like a paraphrase. Can you cite the source, please?

Clement of Alexandria: “The word, Jesus Christ, alone was born without sin.”

Please cite the source that this quote comes from. I’d love to have the chance to review its context.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Those offspring are the spiritual children of Mary or the Church which is the Mystical Body of Christ.