The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Old_Scholar]

**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.

 

[Pax]

I made a copy of the following and can’t remember the source. I apologize for not being able to give the acknowledgment. Anyway, this should answer your contentions.

“Brethren of the Lord”

When Catholics call Mary the “Blessed Virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants use the
term “virgin” in reference to Mary, they mean she was a virgin only until the birth of Jesus. They believe that she and Joseph
later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the
Lord."What gives rise to the disagreement are biblical verses
that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; 7:1, 5; 7:10; Acts 1:14). Let’s examine a few of them: “While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him” (Matt. 12:46). “Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” (Mark 6:3). “For
even his brothers did not believe in him” (John 7:5). “All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the
women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers” (Acts 1:14). “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a
wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, the first thing to noteis that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a very 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 the term “brother” had a very 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”), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by
marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26;
Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Aran, 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 (1Chron. 23:21-22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives, as in the above examples. Sometimes they
meant kinsman (Deut. 23:7, Neh. 5:7, Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kings
10:13-14).

No Word for Cousin

Why this ambiguous usage? Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a
special word meaning “cousin.” Speakers of those languages used either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as
“the son of the sister of my father.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews naturally enough took to using “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up to use 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 favored 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 just 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.

At the Annunciation, 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 earliest days of the Church, as the Fathers interpreted
this passage of the Bible, we see that Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of life-long virginity, even in
marriage (this was not common, by any means, but neither was it unheard of). If she had not taken such a vow, the question
would make no sense at all. We know that some first century Jews took such vows (for example, the Essenes, the authors of
the Dead Sea Scrolls), and Mary’s question indicates that she had done so.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont.

Mary knew the facts of life–she 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 only 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.” The Greek expression implies he is her only
son. 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.

There is another point, perhaps a little harder for moderns, or at least Westerners, to grasp. It is that 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 never 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 Judaea 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. “When
Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, 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 to his own home” (John 19:26-27).
Now 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.

Fundamentalist arguments

Fundamentalists are insistent nevertheless that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most
commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]and he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into
English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary
afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be
called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born” and “fourth-born,”
and so on? The problem is that they are using a narrow modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible
was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action
did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous
meanings result.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she
had children after her death? Or how about the raven that Noah released from the ark? The bird “went to and fro until the
waters were dried up from the earth” (Gen. 8:7). In fact, as the story progresses, we see that the raven never returned at all.

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present
day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either. Or how about this: “And they went up to
mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain till they had returned in peace” (1 Macc. 5:54 ). Does this mean the soldiers were slain after they returned from battle?

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

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows
ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12).
Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait
until a second son was born before they could call their first the
“first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was
termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died
during the birth of her “first-born.”

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such
marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family,
and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child! The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we
expect its members to act as would the members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice on the part of Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of
the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of early Christian Church. Consider
the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of
the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to
comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world."At
length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual
Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such
as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in
disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of
Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage
(who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings.
One work, known as the Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers
to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I
have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4: 8-9).

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.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question–they might even be relatives more distantly removed–but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

I’ve read the New Testament several times, and I’ve never seen any implication that Mary had other children.

The references to the “brethren” or “brothers” of Jesus, in context, seem to imply that they were just close followers of Jesus. I’ve never paint a picture in my mind, when reading the New Testament, that they are children of Mary.

If Mary did have other children, why did Jesus - dying on the cross - ask St John to look after her?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Mary’s viriginity also speaks of St Joseph’s character. He knew she was the spouse of God, and upheld his duty as being a protector of the holy family.

But I suppose, Protestants don’t give a hoot about St Joseph.

 

[MH84]

**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. **

Why would Matthew refer to Mary as the mother of James and Joses if she was the mother of Jesus? Jesus was right there, but the author still referred to that Mary as being the mother of other men. Why would Matthew do that?

**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.

If I was to tell someone that I would love them until I die, would that mean I would stop loving them after I die?

Look at

Ps 110: 1 The LORD says to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Mary is the symbol, model, and personification of the Catholic Church. I think it’s natural that Protestants who want to attack the Catholic Church would automatically - albeit unknowingly - attack the doctrines regarding Mary.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s “first-born” unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows
ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2, Num. 3:12).
Under the Mosaic Law, it was the “first-born” son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait
until a second son was born before they could call their first the
“first-born”? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was
termed the “first-born” even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage. This usage is illustrated by a funerary inscription discovered in Egypt. The inscription refers to a woman who died
during the birth of her “first-born.”

The Holy Family

Fundamentalists say it would have been repugnant for Mary and Joseph to enter a marriage and remain celibate. They call such
marriages “unnatural” arrangements. Certainly they were unusual, but not as unusual as having the Son of God in one’s family,
and not nearly as unusual as having a virgin give birth to a child! The Holy Family was neither an average family nor should we
expect its members to act as would the members of an average family.

The circumstances demanded sacrifice on the part of Mary and Joseph. This was a special family, set aside for the nurturing of
the Son of God. No greater dignity could be given to marriage than that.

Backing up the testimony of Scripture regarding Mary’s perpetual virginity is the testimony of early Christian Church. Consider
the controversy between Jerome and Helvidius, writing around 380. Helvidius first brought up the notion that the “brothers of
the Lord” were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus’ birth. The great Scripture scholar Jerome at first declined to
comment on Helvidius’ remarks because they were a "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world."At
length, though, Jerome’s friends convinced him to write a reply, which turned out to be his treatise called On the Perpetual
Virginity of the Blessed Mary. He used not only the scriptural arguments given above, but cited earlier Christian writers, such
as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply, and his theory remained in
disrepute and was unheard of until more recent times.

So, if it is established that the “brethren of the Lord” were not Jesus’ brothers or half-brothers through Mary, who were they?

Prior to the time of Jerome, the standard theory was that they were Jesus’ “brothers” who were sons of Joseph though not of
Mary. According to this view, Joseph was a widower at the time he married Mary. He had children from his first marriage
(who would be older than Jesus, explaining their attitude toward him). This is mentioned in a number of early Christian writings.
One work, known as the Protoevangelium of James (A.D. 125) records that Joseph was selected from a group of widowers
to serve as the husband/protector of Mary, who was a virgin consecrated to God. When he was chosen, Joseph objected: “I
have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl” (4: 8-9).

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.

This identification of the “brethren of the Lord” as Jesus’ first cousins is open to legitimate question–they might even be relatives more distantly removed–but our inability to determine for certain their exact status strictly on the basis of the biblical evidence (or lack of it, in this case) says nothing at all about the main point, which is that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed Virgin Mary’s children.

You certainly went to a long dissertation of how Scripture can be twisted in order to get it to say what you want it to. That’s exactly what this writer did.

Unfortunately I do not have time to refute it all right now but it is easily refuted. What I already posted refutes most all of it anyhow. I can show you many more Scriptures that prove my contention as well.

Later…

 

[Old_Scholar]

I’ve read the New Testament several times, and I’ve never seen any implication that Mary had other children.

The references to the “brethren” or “brothers” of Jesus, in context, seem to imply that they were just close followers of Jesus. I’ve never paint a picture in my mind, when reading the New Testament, that they are children of Mary.

If Mary did have other children, why did Jesus - dying on the cross - ask St John to look after her?

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.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mary’s viriginity also speaks of St Joseph’s character. He knew she was the spouse of God, and upheld his duty as being a protector of the holy family.

But I suppose, Protestants don’t give a hoot about St Joseph.

Protestants don’t believe Mary was the spouse of God either. Your beliefs about Joseph are unfounded and not provable by Scripture.

 

[Old_Scholar]

MH 84

Why would Matthew refer to Mary as the mother of James and Joses if she was the mother of Jesus? Jesus was right there, but the author still referred to that Mary as being the mother of other men. Why would Matthew do that?

I guess you didn’t read Matthew when he identified Mary as mother of Jesus???

And the later verse in Matthew was right after Christ had died on the cross. Christ was dead and now the Jews referred to Mary as the mother of James and Joses. It was the way they identified people in that time.

If I was to tell someone that I would love them until I die, would that mean I would stop loving them after I die?

Yes that would be true. But if you said “I will not love you until we are married,” then that would be a separate statement altogether wouldn’t it?

Does this mean (according to your logic) that Jesus won’t be at the right hand of the Father after He puts His enemies under His feet?

Christ will certainly be there until He comes to destroy Satan.

Actually Henry says it much better than I can:

“Glorious things are here spoken of Christ. Not only he should be superior to all the kings of the earth, but he then existed in glory as the eternal Son of God. Sitting is a resting posture: after services and sufferings, to give law, to give judgment. It is a remaining posture: he sits like a king for ever. All his enemies are now in a chain, but not yet made his footstool. And his kingdom, being set up, shall be kept up in the world, in despite of all the powers of darkness. Christ’s people are a willing people.”

 

[Theodora]

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.

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

Where did you get this information from?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Mary is the symbol, model, and personification of the Catholic Church. I think it’s natural that Protestants who want to attack the Catholic Church would automatically - albeit unknowingly - attack the doctrines regarding Mary.

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?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

You certainly went to a long dissertation of how Scripture can be twisted in order to get it to say what you want it to. That’s exactly what this writer did.

Unfortunately I do not have time to refute it all right now but it is easily refuted. What I already posted refutes most all of it anyhow. I can show you many more Scriptures that prove my contention as well.

Later…

At your leisure…

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

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?

Seems to me like an attack on the Church right here.

 

[PaulJason]

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?

The Church teaches that doctrine does not contradict scripture. Doctrine does not have to be supported by scripture, it just so happen that it is.

 

[Pax]

You certainly went to a long dissertation of how Scripture can be twisted in order to get it to say what you want it to. That’s exactly what this writer did.

Unfortunately I do not have time to refute it all right now but it is easily refuted. What I already posted refutes most all of it anyhow. I can show you many more Scriptures that prove my contention as well.

Later…

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.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

First of all old scholar, you not a practicing Catholic who cannot explain catholic teaching, no.1, no 2, you are not sharing your protestant belief here about the Blessed virgin Mary, you are trying to discredit Catholic doctrine about Mary. This thread may belong in another forum,.Now that said, if the Moderaters allow this thread to continue, get ready for some exciting revelations about the Blessed virgin Mary

A few items before I begin to answer your doubt about blessed Mary’s perpetual virginity. If you follow scripture and hold to it as your authority,and obey it. I would ask you read luke 1:48, Catholics call Mary blessed according to scripture, do you?

The following are the 4 Roman Catholic doctrine on the Blessed Virgin Mary. I state these so as not to detract from Catholic Doctrine.

1. Blessed Virgin Mary is Mother of God (Jesus, the Word of God made flesh)
2. Her Perpetual Virginity (She remained a Virgin throughout her entire life)
   3.Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul
3. Mary was Immaculately concieved. (born without original sin)

Now, from which protestant denomination do acclaim to your authority? I should inform you, if you come from Martin luther camp, Martin believed in Mary’s perpetual Virginity, If you come from Calvin camp, Calvinist founder believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, if you come from Zwingly camp, Zwingly believed in the perpetual virginity of the blessed virgiln Mary.

I must inform you also I will show how 2000 years of Christianity unchanged believed in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The reason I stated above is because you are in a non catholic forum thread, you may get heat from non catholics who believe in her perpetual virginity and not hold to Catholic doctrine. So as not to confuse the threads, of each posts with each other.

Now the sources I will be using are the Holy bible NIV, King James, NAVARA, St Jerome Commentary, quotes from the 1st century all the way until the protestant reformers themselves.And the Tora, Cathechism of the Catholic Church, the old testament prophets who prophescised about Mary’s virginity, King David prophetic Psalms, and Isaiah.
not to mention 2000 years of Christian belief on the Perpetual Virginity.

Look very foward to revealing the mysteries to you Peace be with you.

 

[Pax]

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?

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?