Mary ever-virgin?

[mikeabele]

RyanL:

More Greek? Let’s look at some more scripture with *heos *in them: in 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “heos” the day of her death. There’s that darn Septuagint again! As for the firstborn argument, I thought I destroyed that already…

Read a little closer Ryan,
Catholic argument:

M

atthew 1:24-25, which reads, “When Joseph awoke, he did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took his wife into his home. He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.” The word “until” seems to indicate that after the birth of Jesus there were normal marital relations. However, the Greek word heos which is translated as until, does not imply that anything happened after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it. The point of the verse is that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. Another example of the word “until” being used this way is found in Luke 1:80. In reference to John the Baptist it states, “The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the desert until the day of his manifestation to Israel.” Does this mean that once he appeared publicly he left the desert? It might appear so, but we know that he was in the desert after that.
Ignored Answer:

Yes, the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 implies that Joseph knew his wife after the birth of Christ. The comparison with Luke 1:80 is misleading because the grammatical construction in different. In Luke 1:80 the Greek word heos is used alone whereas we have heos hou in Matthew 1:25.
“The Greek construction (heos hou or heos hotou) has only two major connotations in the New Testament. In a few instances it has the temporal meaning “while” (a meaning than can hardly be applied to the passage in question). The other meaning is “until,” and, without exception, implies a discontinuation of the action of the main clause. In the case of Matthew 1:25, it would mean that Joseph “had no union with [Mary] until she gave birth to a son [but then he did have union with her].”” (Swendsen E, Evangelical Answers, Reformation Press).

You ignored this because it so easily defeats your interpretation of these verses. You also left out the “hou” of your “heos hou” to make your statement “seem” correct. Please actually pay attention when reading these statements I post. Don’t just persist in posting the same tired defeated argument over and over, it isn’t productive.

The bottom line for me and most of those who draw their authority from the Bible is that a plain reading of all the verses cited previously do not lead a rational person to believe that

a) the brothers mentioned are anything other than blood brothers of some sort, specifically of the same mother. If the brothers are not of the same mother as Jesus, then Mary mentioned is not really Jesus’ mother. Such is the conclusion of the whole “brothers” argument

b) That Mary had a vow of virginity, that Joseph never knew his wife in the NORMAL God-designed sense.

c) That Mary is the “ark of the covenant” or other such non-sense including Revelation 11-12.

Just a side note: Which one is Mary, the ark or the woman? They’re both mentioned within one or two verses, yet I am told that Mary is the “ark”(Rev 11) and the “woman”(Rev 12).

d) That Joseph would be defiling Mary or God by enjoying his act of marriage and bearing children of his own.

e) That Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born, the language and context actually denote just the opposite.

I am done with this topic. I want to thank everyone for their responses, some quite interesting and entertaining ones at that. I can see from the responses to my answers that only Holy Spirit working within a person can make them see the “plain” truth. I wish you all well.

God bless
Mike

 

[Church_Militant]

mikeabele said:

Please actually pay attention when reading these statements I post. Don’t just persist in posting the same tired defeated argument over and over, it isn’t productive.

Now isn’t that the post callin’ the kettle black How many times do we say the same thing to guys like him…

 

[CatholicCid]

Quote:
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

If I said to you, “God be with you until we meet again.” does this mean that once we met again that I don’t want God to be with you?

Let me quote an answers because I am to lazy to put it in my own words.

Quote:
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

Quote:
Not only that, but to say otherwise is to totally ignore and go against the Jewish culture of the time. It would have been very odd for a Jewish couple to not continue to procreate - children are seen as a blessing from God.

I have a couple of points that I want to make in regard to your argument. First, Mary was not the average Jewish girl. She is the mother of our Lord. The second thing is that there was at least one sect within Judaism that practice celibacy at that time, the Essenes. There is also some evidence in the Bible that Mary did have a vow to remain a virgin.

If you look at Luke 1:34, Mary says something strange to the angel Gabriel. She says, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”. This is a weird statement. If an angel told a soon to be bride that she was going to have a son, it would be no surprise or mystery. Babies usually come after you get married. But Mary said, “How can this be”. The only way to make sense of this is if Mary had a vow of virginity. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was more than an engagement. Joseph even was going to get a divorce from Mary when he found that she was with child.

Quote:
Notice the contrast: someone notices Jesus’s mother and brothers outisde, but when they point this out to Jesus, he says that the disciples are his mother and brothers. Therefore, we can clearly see that by “brothers” the text indicates both Jesus’ biological and spiritual families.

“Brothers” means “brothers” just as “sisters” means “sisters,” “mother” means “mother,” and “father” means “father”. There is zero reason to believe that “brothers,” when referring to Jesus, means “cousins” or only “spiritual brothers”. As such there is no biblical foundation whatsoever to support the notion that Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born. In fact, it all points directly to the contrary.

In the Aramaic and also in Hebrew there is not a word for cousin so the term brother was used. This usage of the word brother for cousin was carried over into the Greek because their primary culture was Hebrew not Greek. A lot of Hebrew idioms were translated literally into the Greek, especially in the gospel of Mathew, so this is not something that is far fetched. It could also be that Joseph was married before he was betrothed to Mary and had children with a former, deceased, wife. Joseph then became a widow and married Mary. So this could also explain Jesus’ brothers.

 

[Zooey]

mikeabele:

It is Revelation, singular. The short answer is Rev 12 is about, pay attention I’ll say this slowly, I-S-R-A-E-L. See:
1And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of** twelve stars:** 2And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6And** the woman fled into the wilderness**, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a** thousand two hundred and threescore days**.
Note Mary is of one tribe, Israel contains 12 tribes. Do the math.
God bless Mike

Mike, I have underlined v. 5 in the above scripture…You say that this refers to Israel. Please show us where in scripture are we told that Israel will “rule all nations”-- with or without a “rod of iron”. I think that you nwill find that the Child of Mary is the Ruler. And that this is His mother, the Virgin Mary.
God bless.

 

[Zooey]

mikeabele:

The bottom line for me and most of those who draw their authority from the Bible is that a plain reading of all the verses cited previously do not lead a rational person to believe that
a) the brothers mentioned are anything other than blood brothers of some sort, specifically of the same mother. If the brothers are not of the same mother as Jesus, then Mary mentioned is not really Jesus’ mother. Such is the conclusion of the whole “brothers” argument
b) That Mary had a vow of virginity, that Joseph never knew his wife in the NORMAL God-designed sense.
c) That Mary is the “ark of the covenant” or other such non-sense including Revelation 11-12.
d) That Joseph would be defiling Mary or God by enjoying his act of marriage and bearing children of his own.
e) That Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born, the language and context actually denote just the opposite.
God bless Mike

Dear Mike, I would ask you to check the actual teaching of the Protestant reformers,( as well as their following teachers), as they interpreted this scripture exactly as the Catholic Church does, for centuries. **This was based on the scriptures. **As late as the 1950s, this was still the teaching in the Methodist tradition. The interpretation you are giving is an innovation of very recent vintage. I hope that you will do the research, & see that this is a fact.
God bless.

 

[RyanL]

Mike,
I’m sorry you can’t see the truth of this matter. Please only say, “it’s not clear that she had other children”, as I don’t think Jesus would care for comments about His mother having children with two different fathers. **Even if **you don’t believe it, please don’t defame the name of Mary - just give her the benefit of the doubt. Jesus will appreciate it, I assure you (even if you’re right, but especially if you’re wrong).

mikeabele:

The bottom line for me and most of those who draw their authority from the Bible …

Like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli?..wait, they ALL disagree and think you don’t know your Biblical exegesis! And that’s what PROTESTANTS have to say!!

mikeabele:

…is that a plain reading of all the verses cited previously do not lead a rational person to believe that

a) the brothers mentioned are anything other than blood brothers of some sort, specifically of the same mother. If the brothers are not of the same mother as Jesus, then Mary mentioned is not really Jesus’ mother. Such is the conclusion of the whole “brothers” argument

Again…you have admitted that “brothers” does NOT mean “brothers” in this context. Even **YOU **admitted that they are, at best, half-brothers (and you still haven’t given a solid reason for believing this *over *step-brothers).

mikeabele:

b) That Mary had a vow of virginity, that Joseph never knew his wife in the NORMAL God-designed sense.

What, exactly, was NORMAL about an angel visiting a girl, a virgin having a baby, an angel visiting her betrothed, and them bearing GOD IN THE FLESH?!? Why would you think “normality” would follow?!?

mikeabele:

c) That Mary is the “ark of the covenant” or other such non-sense including Revelation 11-12.

Just a side note: Which one is Mary, the ark or the woman? They’re both mentioned within one or two verses, yet I am told that Mary is the “ark”(Rev 11) and the “woman”(Rev 12).

Non-sense? No logical argument denying it, just slander? I truly thought better of you than this… And Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. That’s why John tied them together like he did - to make that obvious!

mikeabele:

d) That Joseph would be defiling Mary or God by enjoying his act of marriage and bearing children of his own.

Right…sleeping with the spouse of the Holy Spirit is a good thing?!? Again, you have made no attempt at presenting a logical argument to refute the Midrash and OT citations that have been provided, only shot back slanderous charges of blasphemy on our part.

mikeabele:

e) That Mary remained a virgin after Christ was born, the language and context actually denote just the opposite.

Again - not so. This is what we *were *establishing…

mikeabele:

I am done with this topic. I want to thank everyone for their responses, some quite interesting and entertaining ones at that. I can see from the responses to my answers that only Holy Spirit working within a person can make them see the “plain” truth. I wish you all well.

I’m sorry you’re done with this. I thought you were a little more open-minded about things…

May our Blessed Mother bring you to her heart and cover you with her love,
RyanL

 

[Pax]

Mike,

You are drawing errant conclusions concerning the “brothers and sisters of the Lord.” You insist that they are uterine siblings of Jesus without overcoming the substantive reasons we have offered for not doing so. You have mocked the historical evidence that supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity. You presume a great deal in saying that an older teaching isn’t necessarily correct. The problem you face, in this situation, is that it isn’t simply an older teaching. It is the “constant” teaching of the Christian Church.

Starting with scripture, which is the earliest documentation available, we have demonstrated that the teaching is proper. The earliest non-biblical Christian document that supports the teaching is the Proto-evangelium of James which was written somewhere around 100 to 125 AD. The early Church Fathers Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Epiphanius, and St. Basil all attest to the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity. The teaching was also affirmed by later Fathers and by several Popes and Church Councils. Finally, the Fathers of the Reformation Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli also affirmed the teaching and they all relied on scripture.

You brush all of this off as if it is nothing, and you claim that we don’t have the Holy Spirit. This is pretty absurd and bigoted to say the least.

You’ve made a ridiculous claim that anytime brothers and sisters are named in the NT that they are always uterine siblings. Please explain how Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas[John 19:25] are referred to as sisters when it is obvious that they are not. It is absurd to assume that two daughters of the same parents were given the same name, “Mary.” Your argument totally lacks foundation and completely fails in light of this verse.

The term brother when refering to Jesus must be understood to mean kinsmen. Nowhere in the NT or in any other source of early Church tradition is there ever any mention of children by Mary. Mary had but one child, and that child is our savior, Jesus Christ. This is something you need to think about.

There is one other thing that I would recommend concerning all of this. Try viewing the two positions from the following perspective. Which is the holier and more sublime view and thus gives the greater glory and honor to almighty God. Clearly, it is the Catholic view. In light of this, you should be more circumspect when attacking the teaching of the Perpetual Virginity of the Mother of Jesus our Savior. Whatever you deny about Mary detracts from our understanding of our Trinitarian God. Mary’s soul magnifies the Lord.

 

[DaveD]

Mike,

I have looked over this entire post and have not seen one time where you demonstrated why your argument should hold more intellectual authority and respect than that of St. Jerome. You have been asked to comment on this at least twice.

St. Jerome spoke Greek from birth, was a master of Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic. He even knew Chaldaic enough to earn him a degree in one of our universities. He translated and transcribed the entire Bible letter for letter. He lived in Bethlehem and used the resources in and around that area to aid in his studies.

When St. Jerome was first presented with Helvidius’ question of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin he was so apalled that he had to be convinced to dignify it with a response. Even then, he thought it was the most unscholarly impious thing he had ever heard given the fact that it was a question about the Mother of God that anyone who knew the Lord should have known well enough not to think such a thing!

Please read his letter on the perpetual virginity in the link below and demonstrate to us why your argument holds more weight than that of St. Jerome who never had to deal with the paltry translation problems of an english bible that you have been quoting from since he was fully aware of all of the technicalities of the languages involved, because he had the manuscripts in his possesion and was fully fluent in all associated languages. If not you condem your argument to nothing more than obnoxious banter that we can logically feel no remorse about brushing aside.

cin.org/users/james/files/helvidiu.htm

 

[mikeabele]

Pax:

Please explain how Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas[John 19:25] are referred to as sisters when it is obvious that they are not.

John 19:25
25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother(woman 1), and his mother’s sister(woman 2), Mary the wife of Cleophas(woman 3), and Mary Magdalene(woman 4).

80****ἀδελφός adelphos /ad·el·fos/] n m. From 1 (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); TDNT 1:144; TDNTA 22; GK 81; 346 occurrences; AV translates as “brother” 346 times. 1 a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother. 2 having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman. 3 any fellow or man. 4 a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection. 5 an associate in employment or office. 6 brethren in Christ. 6a his brothers by blood. 6b all men. 6c apostles. 6d Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place.

**BROTHER, BRETHREN, BROTHERHOOD, BROTHERLY **

adelphos (ἀδελφός, 80) denotes “a brother, or near kinsman”; in the plural, “a community based on identity of origin or life.” It is used of:—

(1) male children of the same parents, Matt, 1:2; 14:3; (2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5; (3) **male children of the same mother, *Matt. 13:55; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19; (4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Rom. 9:3. With “men” (aner, “male”), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Acts 2:29, 37, etc.; (5) any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matt. 5:22; 7:3; (6) persons united by a common interest, Matt. 5:47; (7) persons united by a common calling, Rev. 22:9; (8) mankind, Matt. 25:40; Heb. 2:17; (9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt. 28:10; John 20:17; (10) believers, apart from sex, Matt. 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 19:10 (the word “sisters” is used of believers, only in 1 Tim. 5:2); (11) believers, with aner, “male,” prefixed, and with “or sister” added, 1 Cor. 7:14 (rv), 15; Jas. 2:15, male as distinct from female, Acts 1:16; 15:7, 13, but not 6:3. * From Notes on Thessolonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 32.

Notes: (1) Associated words are adelphotes, primarily, “a brotherly relation,” and so, the community possessed of this relation, “a brotherhood,” 1 Pet. 2:17 (see 5:9, marg.).¶; philadelphos, (phileo, “to love,” and adelphos), “fond of one’s brethren,” 1 Pet. 3:8; “loving as brethren,” rv.¶; philadelphia, “brotherly love,” Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; “love of the brethren,” 1 Pet. 1:22 and 2 Pet. 1:7, rv.¶; pseudadelphos, “false brethren,” 2 Cor. 11:26; Gal. 2:4.¶

(2) In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, the rv has “son,” for kjv, “brother.”

(3) In Acts 13:1, for suntrophos, see bring, B, Note (6).

The primary meaning for the word “brother” used in Scripture is a child of shared parentage of one or both parents. What context would suggest one of the other meanings in the “problem” passages for you?

 

[TNT]

mikeabele:

…The last words spoken by Mary are “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye.”(John 2:5)

Which is, as far as I can see, the most perfect one-sentence summary of the Gospel ever stated.

I have but** it appeals to many extra-biblical sources**(…
** check out purely Biblical sources**:

OK, tell me from your so-called “purely Biblical sources:” where it says there are to be 27, NOT 26, NOT 25, NOT 28, but EXACTLY 27 NT BOOKS.
If you succeed in this, I’ll join your sect, or whatever you call it. BTW, what DO you call it? ie What is the name on the building where you “worship”?

I did a search, I found a bunch of people talking about ‘full of grace’, the Bible only calls Jesus ‘full of grace’. The words in Luke 1 actually mean “highly favoured” and “accepted” as in Eph 1:6. Mary is not the source of grace, as some would claim.

Infallible interpretor are we? You are and the St Jerome is NOT? Say it ain’t so!

Luke learned from The Holy Spirit

Really? Talk about "extra-biblical !! If we could only get Luke to tell us that.

Luke 1:2-4. According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: 3 It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.

So, where does it say “Holy spirit told me so” ??

** Mary did not teach him according to Scripture**,

My my, was Mary an “eyewitness” or NOT??

HUH?, Mary is praising the Lord for being her savior(only sinners need a Savior). Note Mary points to Christ, not herself.

That’s a Catholic statement if I ever heard one. Keep that as your first True Catholic commentary.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

mikeabele:

It might be this weekend, but my brother is getting married so I will be very busy. Please be patient, I want to make sure I touch on each and every issue.

Thanks,
Mike

Welcome back!

How bout my post #92. I know the post is extreme and simple minded, but I’m still interested in your opinion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Well then,
Anyone here have a guess as to which son Mikabele would call Joseph’s firstborn of Mary? Since Jesus was adopted, Joseph’s hypothetical son by Mary would have primacy to the throne. Jesus would appear to be prince, and the ‘brother’ would be heir to the throne of David.

Just curious.

INRI

 

[Zooey]

That’s right!! Joseph was the one with the legal right to the throne! So, if Mary & Joseph had had a son, he–not Jesus–would have been the legal heir…Very good point!!

 

[mikeabele]

Zooey:

That’s right!! Joseph was the one with the legal right to the throne! So, if Mary & Joseph had had a son, he–not Jesus–would have been the legal heir…Very good point!!

Matthew 22:29
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Psalm 110:1
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mark 12:35-37
35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David? 36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 37 David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

… and whence is he then his son?

EXACTLY the point. IF Joseph DID have a son by Mary, that son would have the throne.

Jesus was not Joseph’s son by sexual intercourse – he was not literally Davids Son.
Jesus had only an adoptive (stepson) claim on the throne of David.

Remember Isaac and Ishmael?
Ishmael was a half-son of the marriage, because he was not son of Sarah.

Ishmael lost, because Abraham had a son by his true-wife.
Isaac was the son of BOTH Abraham and Sarah.

Just so, If there was a son by Mary and Joseph, this son would a greater claim on the throne. Especially since the throne was inherited from Joseph.

I don’t think Joseph would have risked God’s anger.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

The power of God is AMAZING, a woman has no Y-chromasome,
yet Jesus is -->son<-- of David by a woman only. Truly AMAZING!!!

 

[Zooey]

mikeabele:

Matthew 22:29

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Psalm 110:1
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Mark 12:35-37
35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?36For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.37David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is hethen his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
Am I the only person who does not have a clue as to what this has to do with the topic??? (I mean, I get the part that Mike doesn’t think I know the Bible…I freely admit that a lot of people know it a lot better than me…)
Ah, well… one of life’s little mysteries…

 

[Zooey]

Huiou Theou:

The power of God is AMAZING, a woman has no Y-chromasome,yet Jesus is -->son<-- of David by a woman only. Truly AMAZING!!!

Wow! Big wow!!! I never even considered the genes/chromosomes of it!! Thanks, this is super!!

 

[TNT]

Mikeabele:

.
Psalm 110:1
1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Mark 12:35-37
35 And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?36For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool…

Matt 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 25
Till, Until, does not necessarily prove *anything *in the future in the Jewish dialects:

“Till she brought forth her firstborn son”… From these words Helvidius and other heretics most impiously inferred that the blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Christ; but St. Jerome shews, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8. 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return any more. Also Isaias 46. 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be: Also in the first book of Machabees 5. 54, And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace. That is, not one was slain before or after they had returned. God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right hand till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued? Yea and for all eternity.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Oh dear!

You don’t think Mikeabele thinks that Jesus will LOSE his throne after the world is conquered do you? I had never thought of that!
I mean, does Jesus brother get the Job then? which one?

Oh NO!

at19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
Mat19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

which one?