Over 250 Protestant Leaders Sign 'Reforming Catholic Confession' on Essentials of Christian Faith

[Wannano]

If this is your understanding then I can see why you make those statements. In the same way a Protestant who sees the RCC as the whore of Babylon makes his statements. Neither one is right in my thinking…at least I hope and pray it is not.

 

[James817]

You do know they could have been stepbrothers and stepsisters. In John 7, Jesus’s brothers advise Him to go to Jerusalem. These same dudes go to restrain Him in Mark. In Jewish culture, younger people were advised to listen to their elders. So in that time period, according to your understanding, brothers at the least twelve years younger than Jesus went to restrain Him. This would make them look bad, not Him.

 

[hope]

Please say exactly what you disagreewith. Except for the comments on Luther I don’t see anything that is incorrect.

 

[steve-b]

A couple of things here: #1 we do not know who exactly asked this question. Jesus was in the town synagogue teaching. It was his wise sayings and apparent miracles that brought about the question of His identity. I’m sure the town gossip was already primed.

This was not an ordinary man. why not? his wisdom and his mighty works tell us this.

It may be that Joseph was already dead for whatever reason,
I don’t think anyone knows. But Jesus’ home town was trying to piece together how this son of a carpenter had such wise sayings and miraculous works.

So they clearly started to examine Him and His immediate family, to which they obviously rejected once they understood all that was at stake. To say they were examining His distant relatives as proof to one’s common origin, is a stretch. It would make no sense to argue from the standpoint of immediate family if only His mother was immediate. It actually weakens the argument.

When the Greek counterpart for the word “brother” is employed, there is no drifting. The Greek word for cousin on the other hand is the word syngenes’ and it can also be translated, Kin, Kinsfolk, Kinsman. The Holman translation also uses the word relative.

But that is not the word employed in Matthew 13:55.

#2 If the holy Spirit wanted to convey this narrow truth, (that Mary had no other Children) and he wanted to secure it as a truth in every generation, He could have easily employed the Greek word syngenes’. Anyone in history is welcome to give their opinion including those you’ve mentioned. But none of them rise to the authority of holy scripture.

After naming Christ’ family members and realizing they were a common family, then they became “offended.” Why? He had to be all human but nothing more! After all His immediate family, the ones located at His home, are all with us.

snip for space
Matt. 13:55

The word used in Mt 13:55 from the Greek NT is adelphos

See the definition. It’s rather broad

Adelphos Meaning - Greek Lexicon | New Testament (NAS)

cousin isn’t one of the options. But a whole bunch of other options are there. Which goes along with

Rev12: It’s Mary being spoken of here
"17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman,[c] and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, “children” σπέρματος = http://biblehub.com/text/revelation/12-17.htm those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. "

You gonna say all those children came from her womb too?

Listen tg,

I’m sure this isn’t the first time you’ve talked on this subject.

One child was born of Mary. From her womb. Jesus the Christ, 2nd person of the blessed Trinity. Period dot end of sentence.

 

[tgGodsway]

We both know that there is no original manuscript in Aramaic just as there isn’t one in Greek. Scholars debate from bias and sheer opinion from both sides. In my view the Greek side has a better argument. But that is neither here or there.

I personally believe Matthew wrote it in Greek because this was the most popular and circulated language of his day and consistent with the other books of the N.T.

 

[adf417]

We both know that there is no original manuscript in Aramaic just as there isn’t one in Greek. …

This is one of the best reasons the Church that Jesus started must be visible for those seeking Him, and anyone can reconize it if they want to.

Peace!!!

 

[James817]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[hope]

Even so the point is the same they would not have used the word cousin since it wasn’t in their culture.

 

[tgGodsway]

Ahh. I see the distinction more clearly in the Mark 6:4 passage where the word relative is employed. Jesus rebukes them. Rebukes who? You say that the word relative covers all of them including the brothers and sisters. But the key word here is the word AND. The relatives AND the members of his home, those that were just listed at the beginning of the narrative. I didn’t realize that Matthew didn’t use the word relative at all in his narrative. That makes sense. Therefore there is no continuity in your argument. Matthew and Mark are not saying the same thing on this narrow argument about relatives. Ok

 

[hope]

No I did not say that relative covers all of them. The Greek word uses is (suggenes (1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman)
So what it is saying is there is no honor in His home town, His countryman and His own Family. Note that Jesus is called The son not a son of Mary. Each of the named “brothers” are shown to have mother’s other than Mary so they are not the sons of Mary. How are they brothers of Jesus? They are either step brothers or cousins because Mary is not their mother. I have this point before but you seem to ignore it ,
I have a question for you.
If Jesus were to enter your home , sit down and have a meal with you. After He left, how would you treat the chair He sat on, the plate He used, the silverware and glass. Would you just wash them, put them away. Would you just dust the chair off and use it for another guest. Or would you keep them separate because God had used them.
Joseph in scripture is said to be a righteous man. How could a righteous man approach where God had been? What happened to the man who touched the Ark to stop it from falling?

 

[hope]

I thought this was useful from the foot notes of the NAB

28 [54] After the Sermon on the Mount the crowds are in admiring astonishment at Jesus’ teaching (⇒ Matthew 7:28); here the astonishment is of those who take offense at him. Familiarity with his background and family leads them to regard him as pretentious. Matthew modifies his Marcan source (⇒ Matthew 6:1-6). Jesus is not the carpenter but the carpenter’s son (⇒ Matthew 13:55), “and among his own kin” is omitted (⇒ Matthew 13:57), he did not work many mighty deeds in face of such unbelief (⇒ Matthew 13:58) rather than the Marcan “… he was not able to perform any mighty deed there” (⇒ Matthew 6:5), and there is no mention of his amazement at his townspeople’s lack of faith

 

[tgGodsway]

Each of the named “brothers” are shown to have mother’s other than Mary so they are not the sons of Mary.

I almost do not believe what I’ve just read. Talk about spin. … wow… first of all, you have not justified your point that each of the other sons (Mt. 13:55) have shown to be the sons of another Mary. The names of these four sons were very common in their culture, as was the name Mary, and we do not have last names.

Matt. 13:55 must be interpreted at face value rather than a subjective inference. It is true that Mary’s sister was also called Mary the wife of Clopas It is true that the scripture names three of her sons, but does not suggest there were more than three. AND, only two had the same name as what is listed in the passage in question: James (the younger) and Jose. The third son is named Salome, (Mk. 15:40.)
The names of the four sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, are consistently named in other passages and called his “brothers.” The names are never switched out or add to. It is a stretch to imply that his brothers may be from another mother. (no joke intended.) We read in Matt. 12:46, “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, HIS mother and HIS brothers stood outside…” We must read it at face value seeing that there is nothing in the passage that would steer us away from the plane meaning.
How about John 2:12, "After this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brothers and his disciples, and they stayed there a few days. "

John 7:3, "So his brothers said to him, 'leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. " Face value here too.

Here’s another one: Acts 1:14, “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers.”
By this time his brothers were converted and followed Him.

Here’s one more, 1st. Cor. 9:5, "Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

In all of these cases we do not have the right to impose an idea that is not explicitly expressed, such as the word brothers can mean other relatives or cousins. The Greek word for brother in each of these passages is deliberate.

If the holy Spirit wanted to convey something other, He would have easily done so. But he did not.

Jesus had half brothers and at least two sisters. Catholic tradition is simply wrong about it. Why is it so hard to accept scripture over tradition?

 

[7_Sorrows]

If Mary is a perpetual virgin, Jesus can only have half-brothers or half-sisters, perhaps cousins referred to as brothers or friends referred to as his brothers. Mary was a virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ.

 

[hope]

I posted this before and you did not look at try now.

On the Ever-Virginity

We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56 ; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters. This is the case also in Greek and Slavic languages and cultures to this day, so we do not have to speculate about it. This is a fact we know very well from our own families and lives. We have a perfect example of this in the Old Testament Scripture. The word used to describe the relationship between Lot and Abraham at Genesis 14:16 is “adelphi” in the original Greek, which can only be translated as “brother” in English. Nevertheless, we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. The Greek word “adelphos” and “adelphi” are only attempts to translate an unknown Aramaic word - and no one has any idea what the actual word was which is rendered in Greek and English as “brothers” or “brethren”.

If the holy Spirit wanted to convey something other, He would have easily done so. But he did not.

this is mere opinion that is not backed up.
We have the fact that brother did not mean just a blood brother.
No one but Jesus is called Mary’s son
The ones mentioned as brothers treat Jesus as a younger brother
The named brothers had other mothers
Jesus provided for Mary to be cared for by John. If she had other sons, this would not have been necessary
Holy Spirit has spoken loudly if you have ears to hear.
Scripture is also Tradition that is written down. Why is it so hard to accept Peter I will build my Church on you and I will give you the keys to loosen and bind.

 

[Reuben_J]

Jesus had half brothers and at least two sisters. Catholic tradition is simply wrong about it. Why is it so hard to accept scripture over tradition?

Catholic’s Tradition is more than two thousand years, starting from the apostles, unlike Protestant’s tradition.

Scripture is actually a Tradition and Catholic’s Tradition only know what is in the scripture, and not something postulated in the last five hundred years as in the case of modern Christians who are unable or do not want to refer to those ancient Traditions because they would have to choice but to refer to the Catholic Tradition.

In any case, two thousand years of tradition and understanding of the scripture handed down uninterrupted along the centuries would have more credibility that the tradition of the recent Protestantism.

 

[tgGodsway]

We know for certain that James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, for the Scripture identifies them, as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56 ; Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the “son of Alphaeus”, in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3 ; Mark 3:18 ; Luke 6:15 ; Acts 1:13). The relationship between these “brethren” (including “sisters”) must be seen in the context of Hebrew-Aramaic tradition, according to which even cousins were called brothers and sisters.

Hope, if you want to read Matt. 13:55 on an inference you go ahead. James, Jose, Simon and Judas were very common names much like the name John is today. The fact that we do not have last names to specifically point us in the right direction, leaves a simple solution to trust the holy Spirit who compelled Matthew to write the word “brothers” from it’s Greek counterpart in Mt. 13:55 and the word sisters the same, rather than the word relatives or cousins from it’s Greek counterpart. Obviously Matthew believed his gospel would go far beyond his own culture, so a deliberate attempt to communicate outside those boundaries was used.

Secondly, seeing that the word “brother” in other New Testament passages always seems to mean “brother” and nothing more, is another indication that there is no Hebrew-Aramaic tradition used in the New Testament, or at least in Matthew 13:55.

But I am okay if you want to lean more on tradition than inspired scripture.

Blessings to you.

 

[JonNC]

But I am okay if you want to lean more on tradition than inspired scripture.

Where does inspired scripture say Mary had other children?

As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah [cf. Isaiah 7:14], wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man. The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” pp. 211-13) -Luther

 

[tgGodsway]

Tradition has nothing to do with what the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write. Believe His word and quit looking for ways to discredit what is obvious in scripture.

 

[hope]

I read it according to the customs of the day. If you don’t than you are missing much of what is being said. Take the waiting for the bridegroom. If you do know the marriage customs you miss what Jesus is saying. For that matter you believe that Mary wasn’t married to Joseph but just engaged if you don’t understand how the Jews viewed engagement. If you don’t know about how wine was made and used you come up with those who say Jesus drank grape juice. If you don’t understand that Jesus would have to provide for His mother because she would be left without support than you cannot understand that Jesus was an only child. If you don’t realize that families were not nuclear but were made up of grandparents parents children cousins than you cannot understand what brother means. Jesus was asked “Then Peter came and said to Him, ‘Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?’ Jesus said to him, ‘I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven’” (Matthew 18:21,22). Do you really believe that he is asking about the son of his mother? It would be the plain reading. If you want to ignore all of scripture that is to bad.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay you want to keep talking about this. I have said on this web site, even recently, if the plain sense does not make sense, you should look for a figure of speech. A metaphor, and Idiom, a simile etc. A custom or a known tradition may play a role in the interpretation and can sheds light on the passage but must be validated. (More on that in a moment.)

Context, many times will determine how you will make your interpretation. In the example you just gave about how many times Peter should forgive his “brother,” context may determine who he meant when he was talking about his brother.

In that particular case, that question was not answered. Peter may have had his blood brother in mind or may have had a brother in the faith or a family member in mind. The passage doesn’t answer that specific question. Therefore since the bible is silent on this narrow question, I would contend it is a mistake to impose an answer anyway based on some outside source. A rule of interpretation is: be silent where the bible is silent and speak where the bible speaks.

As I mentioned on this site recently, Mark 6:3 and following is crucial to answering the “brother” question. Mark also list his four brothers and at least two sisters. But Jesus response refuted your idea that these four men were relatives or cousins. Jesus said, "A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives, and his own household. (6:4)

Contained in Mark’s version are all of the variables in one place where Matthew leaves out the word “relatives.”

Jesus told us, he was not welcome in three distinct places: (1) His hometown, (2) among his relatives, AND… IN HIS OWN HOUSE."

This last part of the answer makes sense since the Greek word for brothers and sisters meant exactly that. a blood brother and sister. If everyone present were only “relatives,” the passage would have to read something like this:

“A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his RELATIVES who live in his own house.”

But that is not the case. A distinction is made between relatives AND, those of his own house. The implication is that those who lived in his house were the same ones listed by the men in the synagogue.
Secondly, I’ve heard the argument that the word firstborn doesn’t mean first of more sons born. But actually it does. A firstborn son, always receives a double portion of the inheritance. An only son is a different story. Matthew’s gospel was written well beyond the birth of Jesus’s brothers. He understood Jesus to be the first of at least four… This is the face value evidence found in scripture.

Reading a custom into the interpretation would be believable if the Greek counterparts were able to justify it. The holy Spirit did not use the Greek word for relatives or cousin when he said the word BROTHER. And, how this word is also used in other New Testament passages doesn’t surprise anyone. It means exactly what is says.

It’s time to get a grip to what inspired scripture actually says and hold it up higher than the traditions of men. This is what Jesus taught us to do.