The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar and Deacon , are we clear on the word Until sirs. I would like to honestly know your interpretation of the word "Know used in the context of “Until”

NO response indicates a Yield to the agreed argument that it does** NOT MEAN MARY will have sex or had sex with Joseph.**

I see now that if you agreed this text Matthew 1:25 does not indicate what so ever that Sex had occured or is going to occur, Mary Remaining a Virgin from this text. thank you in advance.

Now on to the brothers of Jesus.

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

If Joseph had not had sexual relations with Mary, then what would have been the purpose of writing that verse at all? If he was never going to have sex with her, it would have said that Joseph allowed Mary to remain a virgin for life. But that would not have been performing the marriage duty as a good Jew is supposed to. Exodus spells it out nicely.

Joseph, being the man that he was would not have had sex with Mary while she was pregnant because of what the angel had said. That verse shows that he did have sex with her afterwards. So do the other children.

 

[RevDrNorth]

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

If Joseph had not had sexual relations with Mary, then what would have been the purpose of writing that verse at all? If he was never going to have sex with her, it would have said that Joseph allowed Mary to remain a virgin for life. But that would not have been performing the marriage duty as a good Jew is supposed to. Exodus spells it out nicely.

Joseph, being the man that he was would not have had sex with Mary while she was pregnant because of what the angel had said. That verse shows that he did have sex with her afterwards. So do the other children.

It does not really show that he had sex with her. Scripture seems to support otherwise.

i) It would make no sense, be highly insulting, and be against custom for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after (see John 19:27) had Mary had sons and daughters by Joseph. Evidently she was alone and Jesus gave her to John to care for.

ii) When Jesus was 12, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph having brothers and sisters in the sense of children form Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:44). Kinsfolk yes…brothers and sister…no.

iii) The “Joseph knew her not until” issue. Quite clearly eos and others words do not mean limited but often unlimited. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus says he his with us “until the end of the world”. Obviously, this does not mean finite and that Jesus is only with us until that point and then we are on our own. Similarly, knew her “until” does not mean that Joseph then began to have sex with Mary To argue he did means to also force that meaning on Jesus’ words and to assume that until means that when the end comes Jesus will cease to be with us. It seems clear that the verse can mean that Joseph did not ever “know” Mary in the sense of having sexual relations with her.

There seems to be good scriptural and logical support for Mary having remained a virgin and not having other biological children.

 

[Zooey]

Protestants don’t believe Mary was the spouse of God either. .

What am I?? Chopped liver?? Of course Mary was the spouse of the Holy Spirit!
"Deacon110:

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

[sign1]
Piffle.
**Pshaw.
Pfui!!
**[/sign1]

That old chestnut you just dragged out, is not only OT, it’s a pile of 3-day-old carp.

Yes but that just meant they were engaged although I was told it actually did mean they were married. With no sex though.

Now usually the betrothed period for Jews at this time was 1 year. The reason was because mariages were pre-arranged. After 1 year the couple was allowed to engage in marital relations with the intent to have children but they could not have sex during that one year period while betrothed. This allowed them to divorce if the arrangement did not work out. If the bride was unfaithful she could be punished for adultery. This is why Matthew states that Joseph was going to divorce her quietly and bring no shame to her and her family. Or as some interpretations say, put her away privately. Same thing. Legally Joseph could have pressed charges against Mary and she literally could have been stoned to death. A Rabbi actually explained this pretty well to me.

Now Mary and Joseph were betrothed for several months before Mary became pregnant with Jesus. Considering she would have delivered around 9 months or so that would have pushed past the 1 year mark for legally having “sex” by say 2-3 months give or take. So in this light it makes sense that Matthew says he did not “know” her until Jesus was born.

OK, Sola Scriptura , show me the chapter & verse for all the parts I have underlined above…

…(still waiting…)

Obviously they weren’t going to have sex when she was 7-8 months pregnant with Jesus. If she took a vow of virginity then this piece of scripture makes no sense at all. This is what I need help with. When I asked the Rabbi he agreed and said he always believed Mary resumed a normal marital life with Joseph.

The rabbi?? If he’s a rabbi, then he doesn’t believe in the New Testament at all. (or, if he does, he isn’t a rabbi)…

If Joseph was truly just protecting her virginity then why was he divorcing her?

Because he had a kind heart, and didn’t want to see a young woman shamed, even killed. Even if he no longer wanted to marry her.

It doesn’t add up.

PEACE

It does, if we assume that Joseph was a gentleman. Which is, I would say, a reasonably fair assumption…

 

[1234]

**

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?

**

It was commonplace in antiquity, particularly among the Greeks, to attribute special circumstances to the conception of heroes. Portents, gods conceiving the great man, gods being present at the conception, miraculous circumstances of all kinds for Plato and Alexander the Great, among others. Also astral portents at the birth of the god-child. The children were also often prodigies early in life, like the infant Hercules. The accounts of the conception and birth of Jesus date from Luke, one of the later gospels, writing in Greek for Greeks, and attributing to Jesus the credentials of their own gods.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

**Yes you have sir, and none of the ones you listed are not used in the same context with the word “Until” thus disproving your interpretation to mean a sexual act has happened or is going to happen. With the word Know and Until, again means It never happened up to the birth of Jesus Period sir. **

If Joseph had not had sexual relations with Mary, then what would have been the purpose of writing that verse at all?

Now the purpose for writing this verse this way, is to prove she was a virgin, giving birth to Jesus, a prophecy being fulfilled. It can also pertain to Sacred Tradition that Mary kept her Nazarite Vow, being from Nazareth. To anyone reading this in the first century.

If he was never going to have sex with her, it would have said that Joseph allowed Mary to remain a virgin for life.

**Old Scholar, we cant dictate 2000 years later how they were supposed to record such an event, Scripture does not have to do what you or I say it has to do, this is what we got. Scripture is silent, let it be silent, **

But that would not have been performing the marriage duty as a good Jew is supposed to. Exodus spells it out nicely.

Joseph, being the man that he was would not have had sex with Mary while she was pregnant because of what the angel had said. That verse shows that he did have sex with her afterwards. So do the other children.

**Sir, Joseph was a righteous man Matthew 1:19.
He respected Mary’s Vow of chasity for the remainder of their marriage. The verse sir does not say he had sex with Mary, nor does it imply such a thing. It only implies it never happened up to the birth of Jesus, and then silence. You have the right to your opinion, the fact still remains Mary remained a virgin.

Old Scholar, I accept your opinion, but it does not change 2000 years of Christianity that she remained a Virgin all her life. You stand alone sir on your opinion, Can you name any christian in history to agree with you that Mary had sexual intercourse with Joseph? please educate me, Old Scholar.

Peace be with you**

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

-Here is a text using the same content as used in Matthew 1:25 He had no relations (did not know) with her until she bore a son.

The parallel text: 2 Samuel 6:23 "Michal was childless until the day of her death"

So did Michal have children after she died. I hope you agree that she did not, same with Mary she did not have sex before, during, or after Jesus was born.

You see Old Scholar you cant use Matthew 1: 25 to discredit Mary’s Virginity, it does not state she is going to have sex, nor if sex ever occurred…

 

[Deacon110]

OK, Sola Scriptura , show me the chapter & verse for all the parts I have underlined above…

Who said anything about sola scripture? I think a Rabbi would have pretty intimate knowledge of the Jewish laws of that time. Believing in the NT has nothing to do with interpreting the meaning. Are you that ignorant?:banghead:

…(still waiting…)

The rabbi?? If he’s a rabbi, then he doesn’t believe in the New Testament at all. (or, if he does, he isn’t a rabbi)…

Take a valium if you’re that impatient. So by your logic a Rabbi cannot be a Rabbi if he doesn’t believe in the NT. Hmm well Jesus was a Rabbi and he was the NT. Matter of fact he’s the whole Bible. So the absolute minute a Rabbi believes in the NT his wealth of knowledge ceases to exist and his interpretations must conform to the RC.

Because he had a kind heart, and didn’t want to see a young woman shamed, even killed. Even if he no longer wanted to marry her.

Why would he no longer want to marry her if all he was doing was protecting her virginity? Again your logic is jumping into 6 inches of water from 50 feet in the air.

It does, if we assume that Joseph was a gentleman. Which is, I would say, a reasonably fair assumption…

Yes he was a gentlemen. He thought she cheated on him and instead of pressing charges he decided to do it quietly until Gabriel gave him the truth. Then he took her as his wife but didn’t engage in sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Jesus birth came after the 1 year waiting period for jewish couples to engage in marital relations. Was Joseph going to have sex with Mary while carrying Jesus?? NO. If he was only protecting her virginity then why would Matthew even write this verse?? It’s not necessary. He wouldn’t need to KNOW her if they weren’t going to have sex.

 

[Deacon110]

It does not really show that he had sex with her. Scripture seems to support otherwise.

i) It would make no sense, be highly insulting, and be against custom for Jesus to have given Mary to John to look after (see John 19:27) had Mary had sons and daughters by Joseph. Evidently she was alone and Jesus gave her to John to care for.

Well if HIS brothers weren’t believers then it would make sense.

ii) When Jesus was 12, no mention is made of Mary and Joseph having brothers and sisters in the sense of children form Mary and Joseph (Luke 2:44). Kinsfolk yes…brothers and sister…no.

But it doesn’t say there wasn’t. You’re making an assumption.

44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day’s journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him.

Could it be that part of the group referred to here included brothers and sisters?

iii) The “Joseph knew her not until” issue. Quite clearly eos and others words do not mean limited but often unlimited. In Matthew 28:20, Jesus says he his with us “until the end of the world”. Obviously, this does not mean finite and that Jesus is only with us until that point and then we are on our own.

Right and no one would dispute that. We’re not talking about the use of until and this argument that keeps focusing on the word until goes no where.

Similarly, knew her “until” does not mean that Joseph then began to have sex with Mary To argue he did means to also force that meaning on Jesus’ words and to assume that until means that when the end comes Jesus will cease to be with us.

That’s such a thin argument. It’s not forcing anything. It’s applying the use of the word KNOW in this verse alone. Your implication is that we have to interpret the meaning of “until” the same way every single time. It makes perfect sense that they would wait until Jesus is born to start having sex.

It seems clear that the verse can mean that Joseph did not ever “know” Mary in the sense of having sexual relations with her.

But it doesn’t say that. It says he didn’t know her until Jesus was born. So at some point he knew her. Knew meaning sex. How else would he have gotten to know her? If she was a perpetual virgin then why does Matthew write this verse at all? What is he trying to clarify for the reader??

There seems to be good scriptural and logical support for Mary having remained a virgin and not having other biological children.

Actually there’s more scriptural support for her not remaining a virgin and having children. The problem is you’re trying to explain that brothers and sisters don’t mean brothers and sisters. And that the word know in reference to a man knowing a woman doesn’t mean sex because that then would force the meaning of until in that verse to apply to every statement ever made by man, woman or Jesus.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

=Gabriel of 12;3332165]=Old Scholar;3331056]I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

Yes and you confirmed my point. What you are trying to suggest though is that this is the only case in the entire Bible that uses the phrase of man knowing woman that has no sexual connotation at all. Can you show me another example of this?? Show me one other piece of scriptue that states man knowing woman without sexual connotations.

**Yes you have sir, and none of the ones you listed are not used in the same context with the word “Until” thus disproving your interpretation to mean a sexual act has happened or is going to happen. With the word Know and Until, again means It never happened up to the birth of Jesus Period sir. **

And again that’s not what the verse states. The words “up to” are not used here. That implies a present state. Did not know her until applies to a future condition. A future time that Joseph would know Mary. Again the word know means sex plain and simple. How else does he need to get to know her? And I still revert back to my challenge above. Show me scriptural support of a man knowing a woman that does not apply to sex at all.

Now the purpose for writing this verse this way, is to prove she was a virgin, giving birth to Jesus, a prophecy being fulfilled. It can also pertain to Sacred Tradition that Mary kept her Nazarite Vow, being from Nazareth. To anyone reading this in the first century.

But again that’s not what this verse implies. If she was keeping her vow then why does Matthew write this? What is Joseph getting to KNOW about Mary after Jesus is born???

**Old Scholar, we cant dictate 2000 years later how they were supposed to record such an event, Scripture does not have to do what you or I say it has to do, this is what we got. Scripture is silent, let it be silent, **

Good point. Scripture states that Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born. Your problem is using what another person believed about her to override what the Bible is clearly stating.

Sir, Joseph was a righteous man Matthew 1:19.He respected Mary’s Vow of chasity for the remainder of their marriage. The verse sir does not say he had sex with Mary, nor does it imply such a thing. It only implies it never happened up to the birth of Jesus, and then silence. You have the right to your opinion, the fact still remains Mary remained a virgin.

Above you said to be silent where the Bible is silent. Now you’re violating your own rules by adding the words up until which clearly are not there and have never been there.:banghead:

Old Scholar, I accept your opinion, but it does not change 2000 years of Christianity that she remained a Virgin all her life. You stand alone sir on your opinion, Can you name any christian in history to agree with you that Mary had sexual intercourse with Joseph? please educate me, Old Scholar.

To say that would be to imply they were in the bedroom at all times. Tell me one person that had intimate knowledge of Mary and Joseph’s sexual practices?

Peace be with you

And to you too

 

[elvisman]

Hey, Old “Scholar” -
Were you planning on addressing PAX’s post on the matter (below)?
OR, were you just planning on engaging in more hit-and-run tactics? That always seems to be the pattern with you. First, you post your outlandish claims against the Catholic Church - then, when somebody proves you wrong, you run.
How about answering the following?

The most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four “brethren” who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James’ mother was named Mary. 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.

 

[Deacon110]

Old Scholar;3331056:

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

-Here is a text using the same content as used in Matthew 1:25 He had no relations (did not know) with her until

she bore a son.

Yes and that is confirmation of my point.

The parallel text: 2 Samuel 6:23 "Michal was childless until

the day of her death"

That’s not parallel text. This has nothing to do with the word know. This is only interpreting the use of the word “until” by itself. It is absent the word know. This is where the argument falls off the proverbial 10,000 foot cliff.

The meaning of 2 Samuel 6:23 is obviously that Michal remained childless her entire life. Until her death meant the end of her life. So the proper thought-based translation is:

“So Michal, daughter of Saul, remained childless thoughout her entire life.”

So did Michal have children after she died. I hope you agree that she did not, same with Mary she did not have sex before, during, or after Jesus was born.

No as stated above it meant she was childless her entire life. A different use of the word until.

You see Old Scholar you cant use Matthew 1: 25 to discredit Mary’s Virginity, it does not state she is going to have sex, nor if sex ever occurred…

Again, KNOW UNTIL Jesus was born. This means something was going to happen after Jesus was born. Unlike 2 Samuel until death meant it never happened. We have to look at the content and tense of the statement.

Look at it this way. Joseph and Mary were not allowed to have sex during the betrothed period of 1 year. So saying Joseph did not know Mary until the betrothed period was over implies that something is going to happen in the future. Unlike Saul which says nothing happened at all during Michal’s life. In the case of Mary and Joseph, the birth of Jesus pushed past the one year point that Joseph legally could have sex with Mary. So the use of the word “until” there implies something is going to happen. We can’t make a statement that the use of the word until gets defined the same way everytime.

That would be like saying I’m fasting until 12pm. Does that mean I’m never going to eat?? No. It means I’m not going to eat until after 12pm. If I say I’m fasting until the day I die, that doesn’t mean I’m going to eat after I die. It means I’m not going to eat while I live. Can you see the major difference here and why your interpretation makes no sense. You’re locking in the use of the word until to mean something will never happen.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar;3331056:

I have previously given Scriptures to substantiate the common usage of the word “know” or “Knew” and how it is used in Scripture. It was used precisely to mean sexual relations when used in that context.

-Here is a text using the same content as used in Matthew 1:25 He had no relations (did not know) with her until

she bore a son.

The parallel text: 2 Samuel 6:23 "Michal was childless until the day of her death"

So did Michal have children after she died. I hope you agree that she did not, same with Mary she did not have sex before, during, or after Jesus was born.

You see Old Scholar you cant use Matthew 1: 25 to discredit Mary’s Virginity, it does not state she is going to have sex, nor if sex ever occurred…

Kinda hard to have children when you’re dead! And why do you call this a “parallel” text?The context, time and place is entirely different.

 

[Old_Scholar]

I thought I had answered all the legitimate questions…

Hey, Old “Scholar” -
Were you planning on addressing PAX’s post on the matter (below)?
OR, were you just planning on engaging in more hit-and-run tactics? That always seems to be the pattern with you. First, you post your outlandish claims against the Catholic Church - then, when somebody proves you wrong, you run.
How about answering the following?

It’s hard to answer such statements when they contain so many words such as:

suggested
it may be
unknown
probably
sometimes
could be

When you distort the Scriptures that much, it is difficult to answer but give me time and I will answer specifically those points you pointed out.

Right now I have a grandchild just hospitalized with Mersa and I need to go there. Later…

 

[heisenburg]

I am curious… as has been mentioned there is the POSSIBILITY that scripture could be talking about close acquaintances, and cousins…

However, I would like to delve into this from a different perspective…

Assume for one moment that scripture means brother and sister directly, though as mentioned, this is debatable…

1. Why is there no one in history, no matter how close you get to Christ claiming to be his sibling? You can find absolutely no record of it in either Christian, or non Christian sources. Though Christ was sin free, the number of siblings implied would have been enough to were atleast one would have fallen to the sin of Pride, using his ‘status’ to advance himself…
2. Minimum number of siblings - If Mary was “ok’ed” to have other kids, how many is a minimum… Well, for starters, it appears that the two had at least a decent relationship. There is no indication from scripture or other, that Mary and Joseph were ‘distant’ from each other… So, how many kids are possible…

Assume for a moment Joseph died immediately after they found Jesus in the temple, 12 years old… Assuming 1 child every two years is not too hard… 9 months gestation, 1.25 years to re-impregnate. Under normal relations, this should be possible… Assume worst case morality, 33% (worse than anything today) that would mean Jesus had a minimum of 4 brothers and sister. by the time they found Jesus in the temple.

However, there is no mention of this in scripture… It simply says Mary and Joseph took, and returned… no mention of any other kids just the three…

Again, this plays into the fact that there is no other mention of any siblings outside of scripture…

1. Well, all the kids could have died… if you do the math, there is only ~.5% percent chance of that… less than one percent… Not likely…
2. Mary/Joseph could have become sterile… Which means no other kids

Again, no matter how you look at it… historically, there is absolutely no evidence of any other children. I know a lack of evidence does not prove it, but it does cast doubt… Show me a separate Historical source, either Christian or secular, that talks about siblings, and I will consider, but they don’t exist.

There fore, you have three possibilites

1. Your understanding is flawed and scripture speaks not of blood brothers and sister, but of cousins and close friends
2. All siblings died… possible, but Highly unlikely…
3. The existed, but nothing written about them… again, possible, but even more unlikely than they all died
4. Conspericy… Catholic Church buried all evidence…

You choose…

But look at the evidence

In Christ

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Deacon, I wish you stop confusing my statements with others, my comments are the only ones in bold print. You find my statements conflicting because you are reading my commentary into another persons statement, to whom I am responding in bold print.

Sir, I have concluded you refuse to accept truth that is put in front of you. When proven to you, you outright disagree, just to disagree with the facts put before you., with out given proof for your disagreement, all you have offered is your own opinion of what scripture states, Now I dont know if your not understanding or maybe, you are to prejudiced against the teachings of the Catholic church, and refuse to accept what ever she teaches ,even when she gives you the facts. And you dispute 2000 years of Christian belief, because you say that is not what scripture states. Maybe you should, seek confirmation of her Virginty from your protestant fathers, Martin Luther, Calvin or Zwingly, ask there teachings why they believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, Hear it from your Protestant founders. Then come back to the Catholic Church and get confirmation from the 2000 year history of her Perpetual Virginity.

Recommend you get a understanding of the word Until used in sacred scripture. See Pax’s definition, I already mentioned this to you before we moved on…, you wont accept the Truth, I cant help you, so I will pray for you.

May God keep you, and enlighten you with his truth.

 

[ralphinal]

I am sure that Pax hit on this point, but I might have missed it. Remember when the brothers of Jesus were telling him to leave the area? John 7:3-5. Now, we are not living in that era or culture, so this does not seem strange to us. However, we must see it as it was.

Let us start with the assumption that Joseph was dead. Now, if Jesus was the first born, then he was head of the household. If he had other siblings, as younger children, they would not have questioned his choices. It was not done or accepted. Sorry. Now, if he had OLDER siblings, they could have told him what to do with no issues. Now, it is possible that Jesus, like Esau, sold or denied his birthright, but that does not seem likely, as his MOther stayed with him and followed his instructions to live on with John. No, he could not have had younger siblings for that verse to work. In other words, the younger children of Mary and Joseph would not have to believe in Jesus to follow the laws and norms of the culture.

this website has good information.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3334068:

Kinda hard to have children when you’re dead! And why do you call this a “parallel” text?The context, time and place is entirely different.

**That is my point, she did not have children until her death. The parallel is the word used Until in Matthew 1:25.
This is not saying Michal did not have children until (but she had kids after her death) her death.
The parallel in Matthew’s gospel, is Mary did not have sexual relations up to the birth of Jesus. Stop thats it, dont add Mary is going to have sex with Joseph, that is not stated here. Let scripture remain silent, dont add your own intentions of they may or should of done. Scripture does not say that. You cannot use this scripture to defend your opinion of Mary having sex with Joseph, scripture does not say that here, your going to need to try somewhere else. Dont you think, in 2000 years, a theologian or scholar would have figured this argument of yours out and raised it, but they dont, because they understand what the word Until is stating. To move on to the word know, you got have the scholary understanding of the word until being used in this text.

May the peace of the Lord, enlighten your understanding, and give you open heart to recieve knowledge of him.**

 

[elvisman]

Gabriel of 12;3334068:

Kinda hard to have children when you’re dead! And why do you call this a “parallel” text?The context, time and place is entirely different.

Acts 2:34-35:

For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’

---

Does this mean that he will no longer sit at the Father’s right hand AFTER he makes his enemies his “footstool”??
Response, please . . .

---

 

[Deacon110]

I am curious… as has been mentioned there is the POSSIBILITY that scripture could be talking about close acquaintances, and cousins…

However, I would like to delve into this from a different perspective…

Assume for one moment that scripture means brother and sister directly, though as mentioned, this is debatable…

1. Why is there no one in history, no matter how close you get to Christ claiming to be his sibling? You can find absolutely no record of it in either Christian, or non Christian sources. Though Christ was sin free, the number of siblings implied would have been enough to were atleast one would have fallen to the sin of Pride, using his ‘status’ to advance himself…
2. Minimum number of siblings - If Mary was “ok’ed” to have other kids, how many is a minimum… Well, for starters, it appears that the two had at least a decent relationship. There is no indication from scripture or other, that Mary and Joseph were ‘distant’ from each other… So, how many kids are possible…

Assume for a moment Joseph died immediately after they found Jesus in the temple, 12 years old… Assuming 1 child every two years is not too hard… 9 months gestation, 1.25 years to re-impregnate. Under normal relations, this should be possible… Assume worst case morality, 33% (worse than anything today) that would mean Jesus had a minimum of 4 brothers and sister. by the time they found Jesus in the temple.

However, there is no mention of this in scripture… It simply says Mary and Joseph took, and returned… no mention of any other kids just the three…

Again, this plays into the fact that there is no other mention of any siblings outside of scripture…

1. Well, all the kids could have died… if you do the math, there is only ~.5% percent chance of that… less than one percent… Not likely…
2. Mary/Joseph could have become sterile… Which means no other kids

Again, no matter how you look at it… historically, there is absolutely no evidence of any other children. I know a lack of evidence does not prove it, but it does cast doubt… Show me a separate Historical source, either Christian or secular, that talks about siblings, and I will consider, but they don’t exist.

There fore, you have three possibilites

1. Your understanding is flawed and scripture speaks not of blood brothers and sister, but of cousins and close friends
2. All siblings died… possible, but Highly unlikely…
3. The existed, but nothing written about them… again, possible, but even more unlikely than they all died
4. Conspericy… Catholic Church buried all evidence…

You choose…

But look at the evidence

In Christ

This is actually a great topic. Conspiracy? Ahh, no. Is the RCC making money by making this declaration. Obviously not and this makes no
sense. Is it possible they all died? Yes given that Rome completely destroyed Jerusalem. Is it likely they all died? We may not know in our lifetime. But given the Apostles were all martyred with the exception of John and looking at the persecutions of Rome against Christians, I would say it’s more likely they did all die. This makes more sense given they were Jesus descendants. Who better to kill to squash Christianity and get rid of the Jesus legacy than HIS own family.

Saying there is no documentation is not unlikely as you say. But probably very likely because of the expense of writing materials. And because HIS descendants could have gone into hiding. If there was documentation though, then it too could easily have been destroyed. As a matter of fact what documentation do we have regarding that time other than the Bible and some from early Jewish writers like Josephus. But Josephus and many other early Jewish writers don’t even mention Jesus let lone HIS family. Matter of fact, outside the Bible what writings have any lengthy information about Jesus? Answer, hardly any. This has been Christianity’s battle for a long time and a major argument of non-believers. They basically say, aside from the Bible show me Jesus. Were they destroyed too? Never exist??

Not many Biblical manuscripts were found in Jerusalem and the only reason we were so lucky to have any is because of the wide circulation. So your arguments really fall apart pretty easily when considering these things. If early writings outside the Bible barely contain information about Jesus, then why would we expect to have a gluttony of writings about HIS family. Look at Mary. We have nothing on her outside the Bible. And the Bible itself barely talks about Mary. We know Joseph had children from another marriage based on the claims of the RCC. Where is the documentation on them?

A very likely explanation is that HIS family was probably on the run just as the Apostles were at one time. Many if not all were killed just like the Apostles except John. Documentation if it existed was probably scarce. Any records that existed most likely were destroyed when Rome invaded Jerusalem. Given this, I wouldn’t so it’s a reach of any means to think Mary had other children. No one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt either way. So we’re basically left with the text from the Bible which suggests they had sex after Jesus was born. Some of the brothers can be attributed to other people but not all. Matter of fact the word used for Jesus family in Mark 3:21 and 31 is desposynos which means blood relatives. This is when Mary and Jesus brothers went to get HIM from preaching saying they thought HE was out of HIS mind. 3:21 21 And when his family (desposynos)heard it, they went out to seize him, for they were saying, “He is out of his mind.” Later in 3:31 when they arrive, someone says your mother and brothers are here. So obviously desposynos from 3:21 was referring to Mary and HIS brothers.

PEACE

 

[elvisman]

I thought I had answered all the legitimate questions…

It’s hard to answer such statements when they contain so many words such as:

suggested
it may be
unknown
probably
sometimes
could be

When you distort the Scriptures that much, it is difficult to answer but give me time and I will answer specifically those points you pointed out.

Right now I have a grandchild just hospitalized with Mersa and I need to go there. Later…

Then answer the main points - namely the fact that the passages state that the mother of “James the younger and of Joses, and Salome” was NOT the same as Mary, the mother of the Lord.

PS - I sincerely hope and pray that your grandchild is healed and suffers as little as possible. I will say a prayer for him/her tonight.