The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Old_Scholar]

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

But you have to put these in the proper context. This was a different time and a different language. I don’t believe this disproves Jesus had no brothers or sisters since the Scriptures say He did.

In Hebrew there was no word for cousin at that time and brother was used quite often. But in the Old Testament whenever the term brother was used for another relative, the writers took care to explain that there was another relation than brother. When reading the OT, one only has to read the context and will know when it refers to a true brother or a cousin or another relative.

However the New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek language has a word for cousin so when “adelphos” is used, it always means a real brother. It has no other meaning.

God did not choose to have the New Testament written in Aramaic or Hebrew, He chose Greek, otherwise we would have it in some other language.

Since Greek does have a word for cousin, “anepsios”, and it is used in Col 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul certainly knew the word for “cousin” but did not apply it to James, the Lord’s brother, in Gal 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they also knew the word for cousin and could have easily used it. They didn’t use it because it was inaccurate. These were Jesus’ real brothers. There is no other explanation. Who else could they be when those living in the community where they all grew up recognized them and called them brothers and sisters. It is unlikely that the writers would want to cause confusion.

This is just a word being used and it is designed to hide the truth.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Why do Protestants believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters? They will believe just about anything…why not start another denomination and call it “The B and S church”.

They believe it because Scripture states explicitly that it is so.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I admit that you don’t say you believe it. But, this is a way to make at attack by innuendo hoping that it grows into a “fact.”

Why are we having a debate w/ someone who thinks that the bones which the Church asserts are Peter’s are animal bones and that we are relying on anti-Catholic books as the source for Papal quotes? Sheesh, even if you believed the Church was going to lie, don’t you think that they’d at least use human bones. This is w/o a doubt the stupidest assertion I’ve ever seen on CAF and I’ve seen a few!!!

This is not scholarship. This is not intellectual. This is nothing more than lying. As Christ said, Satan is a Liar and to shake the dust from your sandals.

You need to open your mind and read a little more and in addition, keep up with the news. There is ample evidence to prove this.

 

[Old_Scholar]

This is a lot of nonsense. Everything you claimed in your original post was subsequently shot down using scripture and the necessary linguistic elements that are required to understand what is going on. You are simply in denial.

You can deny it all you want, fact is that you have **not **refuted it with Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar,
I’ve been praying for your family. How is the sick grandchild? Update please.

Thank you for asking. There have been 2 deaths so far in her district from Mersa. We are still hoping and praying. She has 10 more days in the Hosp. to take the special antibiotics(there are only two left that will stop this thing) and of course we expect the best but so far not much encouragement from the Drs. Or at least, none of them have told us she is out of danger.

I (and my family) appreciate your prayers…MGB

 

[Old_Scholar]

Sure, if Mary wasn’t the spouse of the Holy Spirit. But she was. And St Joseph knew that. He was a righteous man (Mt 1:19).

Uhhhhh…Actually Mary married Joseph. The Holy Spirit doesn’t have a spouse. He is a God and Gods don’t have spouses…

 

[Old_Scholar]

I have an opinion concerning the problems that non-Catholics have in understanding scripture particularly as it applies to the issue raised by the OP. I want to preface my statements by pointing out that my criticisms are not meant to be uncharitable. Please accept what I am about to say in the spirit in which it is intended.

Scripture is not simple prose. Scripture is something much larger and meaningful than any other ancient or modern narrative. Scripture is the inspired and holy word of God. It is God speaking to us in the language of men. This last point is extremely important. Our infinite God cannot be fully appreciated or understood by finite man. Without divine revelation there is very little that man can know or understand about God. Even with divine revelation we are as Paul says, “seeing through a glass dimly.”

Scripture is not like simple prose no matter how sophisticated the vocabulary. One must appreciate, study, and understand scripture as a grand and immense cosmic tapestry. Every thread, color, and hue of the divine word has meaning and helps to form a picture of God’s plan of creation, redemption, and salvation. Other clues given to us by God’s creation of the universe help us to appreciate His power, love, glory, and absolute perfect holiness.

IMHO most non-Catholic disagreements with the Church’s understanding of scripture fail to take this approach to understanding the word of God. This thread is a perfect example of this shortcoming. Those that fail to see and appreciate the Catholic position on this thread are simply thinking in human and carnal terms rather than in God’s terms.

The commandments tell us to “honor” our mothers and fathers. The Hebrew word used here is kaw-bode`(phonetic). This word means to honor and to glorify. Jesus was the perfect Jew, the perfect man, the holiest of all men, and the only son of God. Jesus honors and glorifies his mother in ways that we cannot honor and glorify our own mothers. Most importantly, the mother of Jesus was predestined and set apart for her role in salvation history just as Isaiah, Moses, Elijah, Abraham, and others were chosen and set apart.

Mary’s role is greater than all of these. She was to bear in her womb, as the new Ark of the Covenant, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. As such, she was set apart for all time. Like the Ark, she could not be touched by others in any way that would defile or diminish the unique role to which she was predestined. To think otherwise is to think carnally rather than godly. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the scriptures. To think carnally will always lead one to a weakened and inadequate human understanding of the word.

What would give greater honor and glory to God? What would be the greater sign and testimony to the the divine nature of Jesus who is the only son of God? Would it be the perpetual virginity of the spouse of the Holy Spirit or the speculative and less holy view that Mary had other children by Joseph? We believe that the evidence by way of scripture and linguistics easily supports the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity. We believe the historical data argues in favor of the perpetual virginity of Mary by the constant teaching of the Catholic Church as testified to by very ancient writings of respected Church fathers. We believe that even if the evidence was equal between the two views, that the decision of the Church should be trusted. We also believe that if the evidence was such that the conclusion could go either way that the determining factor for a non-Catholic should be the conclusion that is the most godly and holy. We believe that any earthly and carnal approach will inevitably fall short of the beauty and glory that is contained in the cosmic tapestry that is God’s plan for salvation.

We believe that a denial of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on man’s weakened intellect and tendency toward carnal understandings. This is not the godly view that is based upon looking to the greater glory and honor of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Please pray and think about this idea…it is not meant to be an insult…it is meant to help us all lift our eyes heavenward, and to see by the light of grace and scripture the beauty, glory, and perfection that is God. Everything that is associated with God is brought into perfection. Look for the holiness and perfection that is God and you will begin to see the truth of what the Church teaches.

What you say is fine and admirable but the claims you make are a little far out.

Since the Scriptures tell us Jesus had brothers and sisters and refers to the first bishop of the church (James) as the Lord’s brother, more than once; and since there was no claim that Mary remained a virgin for the first two hundred years, why would one want to corrupt and mistranslate Scripture to try and prove they didn’t exist and that Mary remained a virgin?

John was the caretaker of Mary and was with her until either she or he died. Why would he not be proud to tell us of her? Why would the other writers not tell us of her and instead, mention there were brothers and sisters???

Mary certainly was special and blessed. Scripture tells us that because she was chosen to bear our Christ—but to try and put her on a pedestal because of it does not make sense.

Why did Jesus not tell us of such a thing? Why did Jesus only call her mother at the cross and always referred to her as “woman”? He never showed her any special respect, not even as much as we would show out mothers today. Why is that?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Prove it. Show me where - in scripture - that Babylon is not code for Rome when St. Peter wrote his epistles. Show me – with Scripture - that the first Christians were not being persecuted.

Actually you have it backwards. You are the one saying Peter was using a code word for Rome. Peter says he was in Babylon. Therefore it is up to you to prove it was not Babylon, not up to me to prove it was. Get real!

**Also - are you saying that extra-biblical resources, such as the **Early Church Fathers are lies and not trustworthy?? Because there are GOBS of quotes from them that talk about Peter being in Rome.

Here is your chance to post those quotes from the early church fathers that say Peter was in Rome…We will wait for you to look them up. By the way, don’t bother quoting anything past the first two centuries.

**If the Bible is all you trust, do you believe that **George Washington led the Colonial army to victory against the British? It can’t be true. It’s not in the Bible.

How about Marie Antoinette. Was she beheaded? It can’t be true. It’s not in the Bible.

**Your arguments are **weak because you twist Scripture to mean what you want it to say and you disqualify ANY OTHER historical text that proves the Catholic point.
**I realize that it’s a **waste of time arguing with you but the anticipation of reading your response is quite entertaining. Too bad it’s usually erroneous.

It doesn’t say we put men on the moon either. You’re being ridiculous now.

While you’re at it, **show me **where in Scripture it mentions that Joseph was the father of these “brothers of the Lord”?
**I mean, since you claim that the Bible is **“so explicit” about this, I’d like to see where it says this. You have not shown this yet.

I have quoted, numerous times, the Scriptures that name brothers and speak of sisters of Jesus. We all know Mary was the mother of Jesus and she was married to Joseph. So where did those children come from except from Mary and Joseph? Don’t say they were children of a previous marriage of Joseph because that can’t be substantiated either. Joseph and Mary were about the same age and there is no reason to believe Joseph had been married. You can’t claim they were “cousins” either because the Greek word for brother is specific and can’t mean cousins.

There again, you are making the claim that is not supported by Scripture so the burden of proof is up to you. Oh you can make your assumptions, claim implication, use a few maybes and so on but we have definitive Scripture that states that Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers—how much more do you want?

 

[Old_Scholar]

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. It is a modernist distortion. The term (lit. “Those from His side”) almost certainly refers to Peter and the other disciples, i.e., those who were literally in the house with Him. It cannot refer to His “mother and brothers,” since they do not show up until later.

More modernism. The Greek term (“exeste”) does not refer to insanity at all. More correctly, it means “overwrought” or “overwhelmed” - “beside Himself.” The image is one of Jesus being overworked by ministering to those He was healing, to the point where He could not relax and was becoming an apparent danger to Himself because of it. In the Gospel context, Jesus is being depicted as overwhelmed with love for the people, i.e., giving of Himself to them to the point of personal harm or death (Sound familiar?). It’s a literary foreshadowing of His Sacrifice. But, this totally selfless love is perceived by the scribes as demonic possession.

And, again, there is no evidence that Jesus’ mother or His brothers were even there to witness it. The expression “those from His side” (hoi par autou") is referring to the “family” of His proto-Church (i.e., His disciples and the other members of Peter’s household), who Jesus will later contrast with His biological relatives in verse 33-35. This alone shows that the people who try to seize Him in v. 21 (“those from His side”) are different from His mother and brothers, who do not appear until v. 31, and are contrasted with this new, eschatological Family of Jesus (the Church) in verses 33-35. This is obvious to anyone who reads the passage maturely and comprehensively.

Sorry, again, you are not knowledgeable on the subject – consider:

Origen - A.D. 232

Origen does’t explicitly say what you are suggesting and besides, Origen was writing in the 3rd century and many of his writings were declared anathema by the church. How can we trust what he wroter anyhow?

Hippolytus of Rome --A.D. 217

This doesn’t say what you want it to. It merely refers to Mary as a virgin. We all believe she was a virgin when conceived with Jesus. By the way, this is another 3rd century quote.

Ireneaus of Lyon - A.D. 180

Neither is Irenaeus saying that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

Ignatius of Antioch - A.D. 107

Nor does Ignatius.

The Protoevangelium of James --A.D. 100

You have the date wrong on this one and we don’t even have any idea who wrote it. Besides if we wanted to believe that writing, then we have to scrap the whole birth of Jesus as told in the Gospels. It also tells a very unbelievable story about a person putting a finger inside Mary to determine if she was still a virgin and places an angel by her side. This is ridiculous and just shows why it is not inspired and was not considered Scripture and excluded from the canon as well. It claims to be written by James but James had been dead many, many years when it was written. If anyone believes this, they would believe anything.
Note: The Protoevangelium of James (an apocryphal work, but accepted as Scripture by many ancient Christians) was written as a defense of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This was as early as A.D. 100. The work is as old as the Gospel of John.

 

[Old_Scholar]

FCEGM,

Nicely done…a careful and thorough analysis of the points made by others.

Now I know why you and teadough are so easy to please.

 

[BamaRider]

Scholar sez-

Mary certainly was special and blessed. Scripture tells us that because she was chosen to bear our Christ—but to try and put her on a pedestal because of it does not make sense.

Well, actually, I find it just the opposite. NOT putting her on a pedestal is the action that makes no sense, given the fact she gave birth to Jesus Christ.

This is being argued by folks alot smarter than me, so I’m prolly outta my league, but what you’re telling me the is Lady who was called out, and picked by God to bear his Son, is not special enough to be placed on a pedestal?

 

[Lampo]

But you have to put these in the proper context. This was a different time and a different language. I don’t believe this disproves Jesus had no brothers or sisters since the Scriptures say He did.

In Hebrew there was no word for cousin at that time and brother was used quite often. But in the Old Testament whenever the term brother was used for another relative, the writers took care to explain that there was another relation than brother. When reading the OT, one only has to read the context and will know when it refers to a true brother or a cousin or another relative.

However the New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek language has a word for cousin so when “adelphos” is used, it always means a real brother. It has no other meaning.

God did not choose to have the New Testament written in Aramaic or Hebrew, He chose Greek, otherwise we would have it in some other language.

Since Greek does have a word for cousin, “anepsios”, and it is used in Col 4:10 to describe the relationship between Barnabas and Mark. Paul certainly knew the word for “cousin” but did not apply it to James, the Lord’s brother, in Gal 1:19. Matthew and Luke also wrote their gospels in Greek, and they also knew the word for cousin and could have easily used it. They didn’t use it because it was inaccurate. These were Jesus’ real brothers. There is no other explanation. Who else could they be when those living in the community where they all grew up recognized them and called them brothers and sisters. It is unlikely that the writers would want to cause confusion.

This is just a word being used and it is designed to hide the truth.

Although both Greek and English have a word for cousin, Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus, does not. Hence the words brothers and sisters are used. These terms can also be used to refer to friends. Observe how Jesus himself uses the word “brothers” in Matthew 28:10 and see what happens in verse 16: “Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me’…The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had ordered them.” Were the disciples His siblings? Of course not!

A comparison of the three gospel accounts of the women at the foot of the cross demonstrates that James and Joseph, two of the named brothers, are the sons of Mary and Cleophas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25). This Mary is obviously not the mother of Jesus, as she is mentioned in addition to her. Another obvious reason is the fact that Jesus’ mother was married to a man named Joseph, not Cleophas.

In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called “THE” son of Mary not “A” son of Mary. Elsewhere, Mary is called the mother of Jesus, but never the mother of anybody else. Even Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli taught that Mary remained a virgin. They believed that it was the clear teaching of Scripture.

In Luke 1:30-35, we find the following: “Then the angel said to her, ‘Behold you will conceive in your womb and bear a Son, and you shall name Him Jesus.’… But Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?’ 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.’” Mary’s statement would make no sense at all unless she intended to remain a virgin. The angel said; “you will conceive” not you have conceived. Surely Mary knew the facts of life. If she were to conceive, her normal thought would have been that at some future time she would have relations with a man. Her protest could only have meant that she was a virgin and that she would like to keep it that way. The angel’s reply is an assurance that such would be the case. Mary’s point becomes even more obvious when you consider the fact that she was already betrothed to Joseph.

Additional evidence can be found at the foot of the cross. In John 19:26-27 we find: “When Jesus saw His mother and the disciple there whom He loved, He said to His mother, ‘Woman, behold your son.’ Then He said to the disciple, ‘Behold your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.” If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

 

[Lampo]

However the New Testament was written in Greek and the Greek language has a word for cousin so when “adelphos” is used, it always means a real brother. It has no other meaning.

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).

 

[Lampo]

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.

 

[teadough]

Now I know why you and teadough are so easy to please.

By your statements on the majority of threads I think it would be safe to say that you have a deep resentment toward Catholicism. I think it is really clear that this resentment stems from something outside of Catholic theology. One thing for sure is you,like many others, have this idea that you are going to live in some democratic heaven where you have some say. Authority is the root cause of your view towards Catholicism.

You said in another thread that your church is directly rooted from the early Church. What church are you a part of. Please,for the love of Jesus, don’t say “non-denominational” . I am pretty sure you are not that type of protestant. We hear all the time that someone isn’t protestant but “non-denominational”. there is no such thing. Just by classifying onself as “non-denmination” makes them a denomination considering there are thousands of “non-denominational” churches who protest the Catholic Church teachings.

 

[Pax]

…
…

Mary certainly was special and blessed. Scripture tells us that because she was chosen to bear our Christ—but to try and put her on a pedestal because of it does not make sense.

Why did Jesus not tell us of such a thing? Why did Jesus only call her mother at the cross and always referred to her as “woman”? He never showed her any special respect, not even as much as we would show out mothers today. Why is that?

This is another display of scriptural ignorance on your part. The use of “woman” by Jesus in reference to his mother does not mean what you think it does. You are obviously unable to read scripture as a whole, understand semitic idioms, or see and apply the parallels that occur in the OT and NT as they apply to the mother of Jesus.

Moreover, you have made up your mind and are now expecting us to leave you alone and not confuse you with the facts.

 

[MariaG]

This is another display of scriptural ignorance on your part. The use of “woman” by Jesus in reference to his mother does not mean what you think it does. You are obviously unable to read scripture as a whole, understand semitic idioms, or see and apply the parallels that occur in the OT and NT as they apply to the mother of Jesus.

Moreover, you have made up your mind and are now expecting us to leave you alone and not confuse you with the facts.

:extrahappy: Oh, Oh, I know this one! :extrahappy: And an awesome understanding of scripture, led by the Holy Spirit, given to faithful men!

But I guess the answer to why Christ called Mary “woman” is a new thread:crying:

 

[Pax]

Old Scholar,

Early on in this thread you made this remark which you essentially repeated a couple of more times in the course of this discussion.

No one is attacking Mary or the Catholic Church. What is being questioned is the teaching of the church. It seems no one can give a good answer as to why the church wants to ignore Scripture and create doctrines that are not in Scripture. Even today the Catholic Church teaches that all their doctrines must be supported by Scripture but then teaches those that they cannot support with Scripture. Why?

I then replied with this in post #20

You made similar remarks on another thread and everyone of your accusations were soundly refuted. Even though you were given a polite and courteous intellectual, biblical, and doctrinal spanking you still insisted that none of your questions were answered. Are you trying that same kind of tactic on this thread?

Now, after more than 230 replies to your original post, I can only say that I am disappointed by you again, and have thus had to point out that my worst fears have been realized. I do not mean to be uncharitable when I say this, but you are unreasonable and seemingly unteachable. I hold no ill will toward you…go in peace and love the Lord.

 

[Pax]

Now I know why you and teadough are so easy to please.

Yes, and you will be pleased by no one except yourself. Now doesn’t that make everyone feel better?

 

[elvisman]

Actually you have it backwards. You are the one saying Peter was using a code word for Rome. Peter says he was in Babylon. Therefore it is up to you to prove it was not Babylon, not up to me to prove it was. Get real!

I have NO problem proving that with extra-biblical texts. Yhe problems is that YOU don’t accept anything unless it’s from Scripture - which is ridiculous.

Here is your chance to post those quotes from the early church fathers that say Peter was in Rome…We will wait for you to look them up. By the way, don’t bother quoting anything past the first two centuries.

Why? After the first 2 centuries they were liars??
Get real, pal. YOU live 2 thousand years after the resurrection. Why would I take YOUR word over the ECFs?

It doesn’t say we put men on the moon either. You’re being ridiculous now.

No - just showing you that the bible isn’t the ONLY place to find truth.

I have quoted, numerous times, the Scriptures that name brothers and speak of sisters of Jesus. We all know Mary was the mother of Jesus and she was married to Joseph. So where did those children come from except from Mary and Joseph? Don’t say they were children of a previous marriage of Joseph because that can’t be substantiated either. Joseph and Mary were about the same age and there is no reason to believe Joseph had been married. You can’t claim they were “cousins” either because the Greek word for brother is specific and can’t mean cousins.

Ahh - but you haven’t answered my original question about Joseph being the father of these “brothers of the Lord”. That’s because you CAN’T. Prove that to me and we can have some rational discourse.
Oh, and by the way - I never used the argument about them being Joseph’s children from a previous marriage so don’t put words in my mouth.

There again, you are making the claim that is not supported by Scripture so the burden of proof is up to you. Oh you can make your assumptions, claim implication, use a few maybes and so on but we have definitive Scripture that states that Jesus had brothers and sisters and names the brothers—how much more do you want?

Which claim did I make? How much more do I want? I want YOU to show me where they they were Mary’s (Jesus’ mother) children.
The scriptures CLEARLY state that they were NOT. They were the children of “Mary”, wife of Cleopas/Alphaeus, so the burden of proof is on YOU.

John 19:25
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala."

---

Your problem is that you continually change the rules of discourse.
When somebody proves you wrong with Scripture - THEY have misinterpreted it.
When somebody proves you wrong with writings from the Early Church - that’s not trustworthy because it’s not written specifically in Scripture.
THAT is why your arguments do not hold water.