Jesus....His brothers and sisters?

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Batjacboy:

Here’s a brief summary of Fredrick’s misleading claim about Matthew 1:25:

It was not my claim at all. I posted a QUOTE

because I was asked to in a PM. I even said it was only for interested Protestants.

Nothing available for public viewing on these forums is only for interested Protestants.

 

[nuit3]

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
For Mary and Joseph to not have sex would be going against God’s Word. When you are married your body is no longer your own, and so for them not to have consumed their marriage would be wrong. For they could deprive each other for a short time, but not for their whole marriage.
Jesus did not marry and thus that is why he did not have sex. but when we marry our bodies belong to our spouses and are their for their and our pleasure.
So For Joseph and Mary to have sex and yet never have a child seems highly unlikely

5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

 

[nuit3]

Also were in the BIBLE does it say that Mary and Joseph never had any children (other than Jesus)?

 

[DianJo]

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
For Mary and Joseph to not have sex would be going against God’s Word. When you are married your body is no longer your own, and so for them not to have consumed their marriage would be wrong. For they could deprive each other for a short time, but not for their whole marriage.
Jesus did not marry and thus that is why he did not have sex. but when we marry our bodies belong to our spouses and are their for their and our pleasure.
So For Joseph and Mary to have sex and yet never have a child seems highly unlikely

5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

You are clearly not familiar with Jewish practices. When the “average” jewish couple were married then your premise would apply. Mary and Joseph did not, in any way have an average marriage.

Mary, this virgin, was carrying the Son of God. She and Joseph knew full well she was carrying the Son of God. In Jewish custom, when a woman was “overshadowed”, this meant marital relations - it was marriage speak. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and was therefore considered the “spouse of the Holy Spirit.” In jewish law, when a woman has relations with a man, then she belonged to him alone. Therefore, Joseph understood that she belonged to the Holy Spirit alone and she was not his to “have.”
He understood his place, by revelation of an angel, he was to be the guardian of the Son of God and Spouse of the Holy Spirit.

Mary and Joseph, in no way, had a typical jewish marriage, therefore, you cannot apply the standard you stated above and you certainly cannot apply their marriage to 21st centruy standards. They were both consecrated to God and when something or someone is consecrated to God, they cannot be “used” for anything else - only for service to God.

 

[Mike_D30]

This may have been said already but If Jesus had other brothers and sisters, why did Jesus leave his Mother, Mary, in the care of the disciple whom he loved (John)? Wouldn’t Mary go to the care of one of Jesus brothers? Where were Jesus brothers when Jesus was dying on the cross and their mother was suffering? Would they not be there to comfort her, and help remove their brothers body?

Mary’s perpetual virginity goes back much further than when the Catholic Chruch declared it dogma. Some of the earlist writings we have of the Church are clear on Mary’s virginity.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Fredricks:

For any Protestant interested

On the other hand the expression, first-born son, in Luke 2:7, implies that Mary had other and younger children, and Matt. 1:25, implies that what was true before the birth of Christ was not after. Common sense will indicate that if Mary continued a virgin, Matthew would have chosen different language."

My younger brother, Andrew, is my mother’s first born son. She had no more children after he was born.

As for Mattew 1:25, in the last verse of Mattew’s gospel, Jesus promises “to be with us untill the end of the world.” Will Jesus not be with us after the end of the world?

 

[Tom]

Tom:

I find it interesting that, Mt and Lk approach the annunciation (of the birth of Jesus) from different perspectives. Mt, Chap 1 addresses the annunciation from Joseph’s side, while Lk Chap 1 addresses it from Mary’s. I think this is very significant when viewed from the OT book of Numbers.
We know Mary is a young teenager engaged to be married to Joseph. We know they are both good and pious Jews. We know Mary has knowledge of how children are conceived (I know not man). We know that at that time it was not unusual for engaged couples to have sexual relations, actually being engaged was considered a part of being married. We also know that Mary and Joseph did not yet have sexual relations. The question we must ask ourselves is, did Mary and Joseph intend to have sexual relations after their marriage? Now before you go ballistic, it was not uncommon to dedicate yourself to God, actually if we read Numbers chaps 27-30 we’ll find there were even laws concerning these vows (of perpetual virginity).
When we read the rendering in Lk, the angel greets her and tells her she shall (in the future) conceive in her womb and bare a son. Sounds simple enough doesn’t it? Put yourself in Mary’s place. So, I’m engaged to Joseph, we will marry, and have a child, it will be a son. Any question? Shouldn’t be “if” we intended to have sexual relations after marriage. “If” we didn’t intend to have sexual relations after our marriage then we’d ask “how shall this be”?
The question “how shall this be"? makes absolutely no sense if they intended to have sexual relations, remember she knew “how”. So why did she ask “how shall this be”?
Her response is in context to the announcement of a future occurrence, her future virginity, not her current virginity. To imply she was speaking of her present virginity is to take her words out of context.

 

[MarcoPolo]

For any Protestant interested

"While Mary had a sister (John 19:25), there is no evidence that she was named Mary;

The mistake made in the above quote is that the other Mary could be married to a brother of the Virgin Mary.

 

[scylla]

Mark 6:3
“Where did this man get these things?” they asked. “What’s this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

Matthew 13:55
"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Ok, here are their proof texts,

A quick and easy way to refute these proof texts are just to point that these were people who were speaking against Jesus.
Since they were denying Jesus as Lord and obviously were wrong why should we base belief on their particular words. We might as well also mimick the thief who was mocking Jesus to save Himself off the cross.

As a Christian I base my faith upon people who were faithful and followed Jesus not those who speak against and deny Him.
I might as well base my faith off atheists as that is what someone who denies God is.

This is like Jack Chick denying confession because people spoke against Jesus saying “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”
So if Joe M. Lucifer says that Jesus wasn’t God but just a man should I follow his doctrine? Follow the naysayers?
That is what they ask you to do.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[BBoy]

CA has a piece on their website specifically about this subject.

 

[auhsoj88]

The expression “heos” which is translated from the Greek as “until” is used in the Bible elsewhere:

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus.

Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”. If Fredericks analysis is correct, imagine what that means regarding these passages:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until) Jesus is with us until the end of the world but after that He is not.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until), Anna was a widow until she was 84. After that, she was not a widow.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

According to Fredericks interpretation of “heos” (until), Jesus is saying to take a seat at His hand until after He has made until your enemies are your footstool. So, what happens after enemies are your footstool?

Here are more examples of the same “until” which refers to the Virgin in Matt. 1:25:

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.
Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

www.scripturecatholic.com

This Christmas, I am going to stop eating until I get full.

Does anybody think I am going to starve myself to death afterward?

In Christ!

 

[auhsoj88]

Nowwhere in scripture do we see the phrase “Sons of Mary”, plural, as in “Sons of Zebedee (Sp?)”, denoting siblings of one parent. Instead we see, Jesus, (single) Son of Mary, followed by “his brothers”, or his Mother and his brothers, but always in this context.

These “brothers” of Jesus are never connected directly to Mary! NEVER!

Why? Because they werent her sons.

If Mary had other sons, then why isn’t there such a phrase in scriptures?? Again, its always “Son of Mary” followed by his brothers.

In Christ!

 

[Strider]

Somebody asked where in the BIBLE does it say Mary didn’t have any other sons.
Follow the bouncing ball:

Mt 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son. Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his bretheren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

1. Jesus had a brother named James

Gal 1:18,19 Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
2) James, the Lord’s brother, is an apostle

Lk 6:13 - 16 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, 15and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor
3) There are two apostles named James

Mk 3:17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder
4) James the brother of John is not the brother of Jesus. His father is Zebedee

Above, in Lk 15, we see that the other apostle named James is the son of Alpheus.
5) Neither apostle named James is the brother of the Lord.

Disprove one, disprove all, but to be extra sure, refer again to Mt 13:55 above.; It mentions a brother of the Lord named Judas.
Acts 1:13…and Judas, the son of James

1. Judas (Jude Thaddeus) was not the brother of the Lord

Also see Jude 1:1 Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…

So a little detective work disproves, from SCRIPTURE, that James the brother of the Lord was not a son of Mary and therefore not a uterine brother of Jesus. Add this to the SCRIPTURAL evidence listed above and see that the Lord had no brothers who were sons of Mary, but he has billions of brothers.
Jn 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”
Notice, our Lord does not say, “John, behold your mother.” In this way, John represents all of us. If Mary is our mother, Jesus is our brother!

 

[Red_Wolf]

Just to confuse things a bit. James the Just is frequently called the brother of our Lord. But Jude is called the brother of James. Both James the taller and John were the sons of Mary’s sister, but they are not called the brothers of our Lord. Any thoughts?

Some people see the Mary and John commission as making Mary the Mother of the Church. But, as far as we know, he was her nearest male blood relative and destined to live a very long time.

 

[queenofpeace]

Somebody asked where in the BIBLE does it say Mary didn’t have any other sons.
Follow the bouncing ball:

Mt 13:55 Is this not the carpenter’s son. Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his bretheren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

1. Jesus had a brother named James

Gal 1:18,19 Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.
2) James, the Lord’s brother, is an apostle

Lk 6:13 - 16 And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, 15and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor
3) There are two apostles named James

Mk 3:17 James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder
4) James the brother of John is not the brother of Jesus. His father is Zebedee

Above, in Lk 15, we see that the other apostle named James is the son of Alpheus.
5) Neither apostle named James is the brother of the Lord.

Disprove one, disprove all, but to be extra sure, refer again to Mt 13:55 above.; It mentions a brother of the Lord named Judas.
Acts 1:13…and Judas, the son of James

1. Judas (Jude Thaddeus) was not the brother of the Lord

Also see Jude 1:1 Judas, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James…

So a little detective work disproves, from SCRIPTURE, that James the brother of the Lord was not a son of Mary and therefore not a uterine brother of Jesus. Add this to the SCRIPTURAL evidence listed above and see that the Lord had no brothers who were sons of Mary, but he has billions of brothers.
Jn 19:26 When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”
Notice, our Lord does not say, “John, behold your mother.” In this way, John represents all of us. If Mary is our mother, Jesus is our brother!

This is great math!!! My n-catholic friends specially the “born against” will surely love this!

 

[water]

Jesus also call us all his brothers and sisters, does that mean our biological mother is Mary?

When are people going to stop saying that Virgin Mary had more than one son?

 

[Giovanni]

As I see it, Jesus our Lord was concieved by the Holy Spirit.
So, technically that makes Mary the bride of the Holy Spirit, right?
In saying that, how could she be married again, if not by the will of God, to a righteous godly man, for the sole purpose so as not to have this very young single mother stoned to death, because she had concieved a child outside of marriage.
Thus she was and always will be the bride of the Holy Spirit who gave birth to the Son of God, and Him alone.
I think that makes sense, anythihg else, pteuii.