The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Gabriel_of_12]

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?

Great Work Pax, wow, you convinced me, I dont think our OP read all that you wrote and understood it, if he did he is a genius. or ? if he accepts my challenge here and the moderaters allow it to remain here, can I quick reference your facts you listed, Thanks bro.

Peace.

 

[Pax]

There is no law against repeating the truth.

 

[st_lucy]

I’m not sure you read what I posted but if you did you certainly didn’t understand it.

As for Mary at the cross, none of her children were present, they were all hiding somewhere with Peter, shamed at Christ’s death.

The brothers and sisters did not believe in Christ at that time. It was only after the resurrection that James became a believer and became the first bishop of Jerusalem, the first Christian church.

Apparently you didn’t really read Pax’s post, so here is the answer for your post above.

Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the Cross: “among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Matt. 27:56); “There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and
Salome” (Mark 15:40).

Then look at what John says: “But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of
Clopas, and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the Crucifixion, we see that
the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Cleophas. So far so good.

An argument against this, though, is that James is elsewhere (Matt. 10:3) described as the son of Alphaeus, which would mean
this Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Cleophas and Alphaeus. But Alphaeus and Cleophas (Clopas in Greek) are
the same person, since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek either as Alphaeus or as Clopas. Another
possibility is that Alphaeus took a Greek name similar to his Jewish name, the way that Saul took the name Paul.

So it’s probable that James is the son of Mary and Cleophas. The
second-century historian Hegesippus explains that Cleophas
was the brother of Joseph, the foster-father of Jesus. James would thus be Joseph’s nephew and a cousin of Jesus, who was
Joseph’s putative son.

Upon your reply please try not to twist the bible to fit your own thoughts, lets try to make this a productive thread.

 

[Cairisti]

The only major religion that claims perpetual virginity for Mary is the Roman Catholic Church. They dogmatically maintain that after Christ was born, Mary continued her virginity the rest of her life and had no other children.

This directly contradicts Scripture as I hope to be able to show.

Tell that to the Orthodox. They too believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. (And in her Assumption too, btw.)

 

[kell0618]

Hello!

Are other believers considered by you to be your brothers and sisters in Christ?

Why would Jesus have given Mary, His mother, to John if she had other children who most certainly would have taken her in?

Peace be with you,

Kelly

**The Scriptures name brothers and mentions sisters of Jesus. In several places, the brothers are mentioned and James is often identified as James, the brother of the Lord.

Of course this brings up another question. The RCC teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived, gave birth as a virgin, remained a virgin and was assumed into heaven. So whether Mary remained a virgin or bore more children is of utmost importance to all the faiths; because other claims rise from this situation; what is the truth? Where will we find the truth?

In my opinion this subject should be explained quite simply with Scripture, since Scripture devotes so many verses to it. To find out whether a claim is valid or not, we must go to Scripture.

The only major religion that claims perpetual virginity for Mary is the Roman Catholic Church. They dogmatically maintain that after Christ was born, Mary continued her virginity the rest of her life and had no other children.

This directly contradicts Scripture as I hope to be able to show.

First of all, the Bible never tells us anything about Joseph other than he was betrothed to Mary, a young virgin. So if any assumption at all is made about Joseph, we need to assume he was a young male betrothed to a young girl. There is no other reason to believe otherwise, according to Scripture.

Personally with so much validation by Scripture of Christ’s family, I don’t see why it was ever brought up at all. I believe it is a fabrication that started with someone who wanted Mary to have remained a virgin and then started looking for a way to explain that premise.

I’ll start with Matthew because the best place to start is with Scripture and Matthew mentions brothers and sisters of Christ.

Christ has been preaching and comes to His own country and preaches in the Synagogues. The people there were surprised because they recognized Jesus as one of their own and questioned why He knew so much. We learned in the Old Testament that a prophet was not respected by his own people.**

Matthew 13:54 “And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

**This identifies James and Joses as Jesus’ brothers, identifies Christ as the son of Joseph and identifies Mary as His mother.

Roman Catholics like to make the claim that the brothers mentioned here are “cousins” and not really brothers. They say there was no word for cousin but they are in error. Nowhere in Scripture does it even indicate that these were not brothers of Jesus.

But there is another verse in Matthew that makes no mention of brother at all but identifies Mary as the mother of James and Joses.**

Matthew 27:55 “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56) Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”

**This clearly identifies Mary as the mother of James and Joses.

There should be no doubt about Jesus’ family.

Scripture also tells us that after Joseph and Mary were married and Christ was born, Joseph knew his wife. We all know that is Biblical talk for having intercourse.

We go again to Matthew for the Scripture.**

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This tells us that Joseph did not "know" his wife until after Christ was born. He married her because it says he took her for his wife. Being a good young Jewish family, there is no reason to believe that they did not behave as a young normal married couple would behave and raise a family. This was the way of God and surely they respected that.

Jesus had brothers and sisters but the Bible does not name the sisters.

 

[CTA1967]

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?

While we’re talking about “doctrines that are not in Scripture”, why don’t you do a search of “faith only” in the Bible? Here’s the KJV: biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=2&version=9

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

And it might help your case a bit if you refuted Pax’s posts point by point. There were many things that you did not address.

 

[guanophore]

** The Scriptures name brothers and mentions sisters of Jesus. In several places, the brothers are mentioned and James is often identified as James, the brother of the Lord.**

There are a number of errors in this post, and I will take them one at a time.
Old Scholar;3325334:

Of course this brings up another question. The RCC teaches that Mary was immaculately conceived, gave birth as a virgin, remained a virgin and was assumed into heaven. So whether Mary remained a virgin or bore more children is of utmost importance to all the faiths; because other claims rise from this situation; what is the truth? Where will we find the truth?

On what grounds is this of the “utmost importance”? I guess I am confused by your unscriptural attitude on this matter.

In my opinion this subject should be explained quite simply with Scripture, since Scripture devotes so many verses to it. To find out whether a claim is valid or not, we must go to Scripture.

Starting out on a sandy foundation will not avail much. There is much of our faith that is not in the scripture, and the scriptures themselves state that they do not contain everything. The reason this is a point of controversy is that scripture is is not clear on the matter.

The only major religion that claims perpetual virginity for Mary is the Roman Catholic Church. They dogmatically maintain that after Christ was born, Mary continued her virginity the rest of her life and had no other children.

This statement reflects an ignorance of History of the church. First of all, all of the 22 Rites in the Catholic Church affirm this Teaching as recieved from the Apostles, not just the Roman Rite. Secondly, this is a doctrine we share with the Orthodox Church, who have no love lost on Roman Primacy. In fact, the Tradition that James was an older stepbrother of Jesus came first from the Eastern Churches where he lived and ministered, long before there was a Church in Rome!

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/12/code221206_450x382.jpg

This directly contradicts Scripture as I hope to be able to show.

First of all, the Bible never tells us anything about Joseph other than he was betrothed to Mary, a young virgin. So if any assumption at all is made about Joseph, we need to assume he was a young male betrothed to a young girl. There is no other reason to believe otherwise, according to Scripture.

The Church produced the scriptures, and nothing that she teaches contradicts them. See the problem you get into when you separate them from the Sacred Tradition which produced them?

Personally with so much validation by Scripture of Christ’s family, I don’t see why it was ever brought up at all. I believe it is a fabrication that started with someone who wanted Mary to have remained a virgin and then started looking for a way to explain that premise.

It is part of the “new gospel” that emerged along with a number of other “new” doctrines when believers rejected the Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

I’ll start with Matthew because the best place to start is with Scripture and Matthew mentions brothers and sisters of Christ.

Matthew 13:54 “And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

This identifies James and Joses as Jesus’ brothers, identifies Christ as the son of Joseph and identifies Mary as His mother.

Roman Catholics like to make the claim that the brothers mentioned here are “cousins” and not really brothers. They say there was no word for cousin but they are in error. Nowhere in Scripture does it even indicate that these were not brothers of Jesus.

Again, it is not a 'Roman" thing, so if you just want to take pot shots at the “Roman Church” you will have to find other subject mattter. I will also challenge you to take this thought to an Orthodox forum, and see how far you get.

I’ll start with Matthew because the best place to start is with Scripture and Matthew mentions brothers and sisters of Christ.

Christ has been preaching and comes to His own country and preaches in the Synagogues. The people there were surprised because they recognized Jesus as one of their own and questioned why He knew so much. We learned in the Old Testament that a prophet was not respected by his own people.

Matthew 13:54 “And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55) Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?”

This identifies James and Joses as Jesus’ brothers, identifies Christ as the son of Joseph and identifies Mary as His mother.

Roman Catholics like to make the claim that the brothers mentioned here are “cousins” and not really brothers. They say there was no word for cousin but they are in error. Nowhere in Scripture does it even indicate that these were not brothers of Jesus.

There is no doubt that the mother of James and Joses’ is named Mary. It is not just “Romans” that make this claim. A study of history will clearly show that the gospel of Matt. was written first in Aramaic, which does not have a separate word for brothers.

But there is another verse in Matthew that makes no mention of brother at all but identifies Mary as the mother of James and Joses.

Matthew 27:55 “And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56) Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.

This clearly identifies Mary as the mother of James and Joses

One of the problems in this is that we are previously told that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is at the foot of the cross with John, not “far off”. We are also told elsewhere that the mother of James and Joses (Mary) is the wife of Alphaeus/Clopas.

Scripture also tells us that after Joseph and Mary were married and Christ was born, Joseph knew his wife. We all know that is Biblical talk for having intercourse.

We go again to Matthew for the Scripture.

No. what scripture tells us is that he did not know her up until the time she had Jesus. This issue is covered in the library.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I hope we didnt throw our brother Old Scholar too much of pearl to contemplate on, the facts already presented have already refuted his claim, of the blessed Virgin Mary’s virginity. Darn, I haven’t even gotten the chance to reveal the prophetic side of our Blessed Mothers perpetual virginity. I will wait for his rebuttle to the already hard to refute facts presented.

 

[Deacon110]

I’m sorry to hear that you feel this way about the truth. It seems odd that there is only one recorded case prior to the Reformation of anyone trying to teach that which you believe. That person happened to be Hellvidius who was thoroughly refuted by Jerome in the 4th century. The constant teaching of Christianity should give you pause. Perhaps it is you that is twisting scripture without knowing it.

PAX I noticed that in your argument and the arguments of others they always focus on the word “until”. How about let’s focus on the word know or knew.

What does it mean then that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born? Please tell me how he knew her. He already took her as his wife so how else could he know her?

Also If you read the Infancy Gospel of James, which is endorsed by the Catholic church, Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel when he tells her she will conceive and have a child is, how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex. So then roll forward to Matthew, his gospel says Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born. I know the use of the greek word for brother can be universal but the relatives of Jesus referred to in the bible uses the word desposyni meaning literally belonging to the Lord. It was a word used to reference Jesus blood relatives.

What documentation do we have that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt so everyone will understand. Otherwise to argue her perpetual virginity reverts back to interpretation of scripture and we know where that goes. Just looking for some honest help.

PEACE

 

[geezerbob]

Given that the Roman Catholic church would not allow the average person to read the Bible was always suspicious to me. So potentially more people would have argued this perpetual virginity thing if they could have read the Bible. With that said again I ask you to explain the use of the word KNOW in these circumstances and not to focus on the word “until” like you did.

PEACE

I don’t want to derail this thread, but false statements such as the one bolded above demand a response. You apparently have been misinformed. If you think not, please provide some sort of documentation for this statement. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

PAX I noticed that in your argument and the arguments of others they always focus on the word “until”. How about let’s focus on the word know or knew.

What does it mean then that Joseph did not “know” Mary until after Jesus was born? Please tell me how he knew her. He already took her as his wife so how else could he know her?

Also If you read the Infancy Gospel of James, which is endorsed by the Catholic church, Mary’s response to the Angel Gabriel when he tells her she will conceive and have a child is, how is this possible I do not “KNOW” a man. Saying I do not KNOW means I have not had sex. So then roll forward to Matthew, his gospel says Joseph did not KNOW Mary until after Jesus was born.

I don’t think the early church fathers were intimately aware of Mary’s sexual practices since they didn’t know her personally. If you have documentation that can prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt then I ask you to present it. Otherwise to argue her perpetual virginity reverts back to interpretation of scripture.

Given that the Roman Catholic church would not allow the average person to read the Bible was always suspicious to me. So potentially more people would have argued this perpetual virginity thing if they could have read the Bible. With that said again I ask you to explain the use of the word KNOW in these circumstances and not to focus on the word “until” like you did.

PEACE

I’ll take this, if you don’t mind, eh, Pax?

You went to the Annunciation. Let’s look at that first. Gabriel said that Mary “will concieve.” Future tense. Mary asks how this could occur, since she knows not man. The only way this question could possibly make sense is if Mary had taken a vow of virginity, and thus was shocked when the angel told her that she would have a son. If you like, I can send you a link to a thread where this idea is explained completely several times over.

 

[Deacon110]

No. what scripture tells us is that he did not know her up until the time she had Jesus. This issue is covered in the library.

Actually you stand slightly corrected.:

This is taken right from the Holy Bible:

Matthew 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It doesn’t say up until. Actually that would make sense because that would then mean they hadn’t had sex up until that point. But how about after??

It still comes back to the word Knew. Reading Jerome’s explanation makes no sense because he also focuses on the word “till”.

I’m not trying to argue either way. Just want the argument to make sense.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

I’ll take this, if you don’t mind, eh, Pax?

You went to the Annunciation. Let’s look at that first. Gabriel said that Mary “will concieve.” Future tense. Mary asks how this could occur, since she knows not man. The only way this question could possibly make sense is if Mary had taken a vow of virginity, and thus was shocked when the angel told her that she would have a son. If you like, I can send you a link to a thread where this idea is explained completely several times over.

I’ve seen that argument made before too. That makes no sense either. Of course Mary is going to be puzzled. Her and Joseph were not married. Earlier in the scripture we read that before Mary and Joseph came together verse 18 of Matthew Joseph found her with child. So when Mary hears from Gabriel that she will conceive a child, that implies pretty quickly. Even though in the future, she’s still not married at this point and hadn’t had sex. It’s after Joseph sees her with a child that he plans to put her away privately verse 19 Matthew.

Then Joseph gets the visit from the Angel and does what’s commanded of him and takes Mary as his wife. But knows her not till. It still comes back to the word know.

How about leave it to Pax eh?? Since he’s the one I asked.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

I don’t want to derail this thread, but false statements such as the one bolded above demand a response. You apparently have been misinformed. If you think not, please provide some sort of documentation for this statement. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you.

Then don’t derail it. In the middle ages it was off limits.

 

[st_lucy]

Then don’t derail it. In the middle ages it was off limits.

Please provide some proof for this statement.

 

[Deacon110]

Please provide some proof for this statement.

Take it to another thread.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ahem.
In the “Middle Ages”, due to a particular heresy (the Albigensians), a ‘heretical’ Bible WAS off limits (these people having taken the Bible and altered it to reflect their heretical views).

Let me ask you something, deacon. If somebody came along and took your Bible, cut out several books, changed the words in the remaining ones so that they ‘supported’ one particular point of view, added in words that had never been there before, and then started handing it around to the children in your town and called it “The Holy Bible”–would you let YOUR CHILDREN read THAT BIBLE and would you CALL that book 'The Bible?"

OR. . .would you take away that Bible, and insist that your children read the “real” Bible?

Please let us know. Because that is PRECISELY the situation that the Church faced which led them to call upon that ‘doctored up’ 12th century ‘Bible’ being ‘forbidden.’

So if you think the Church was wrong to do that, I presume that you would be absolutely ‘okay’ with having your children read that ‘Bible’ I spoke of above. . .the one that somebody ‘changed’–instead of the Bible you know is ‘true’.

Right?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

As per your request, Deacon, it has been ‘taken to another thread’. . .right here. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3327503#post3327503

 

[geezerbob]

Then don’t derail it. In the middle ages it was off limits.

That’s a snooty remark since you’re the one who introduced this falsehood into the discussion in the first place. The other thread is now open and we’re anxiously awaiting your “proof.”