The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Righteousone]

I will as soon as you show me in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome…

Because not only is Paul writing to Peter in Scripture, I was there. I was in Rome in October and stood in the prison of Paul and Peter. I have seen the chains of St. Peter. I saw the etchings on the walls in the prison. I knelt at the tomb of St. Peter.
What do you think the Vatican is called?? St. Peter’s.
To explain this over and over to Protestants is very tiring…just like I said in my last thread about if you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it isn’t an apple. He’ll then say it’s a fruit and go on to say how there are many fruits then…oh, I give up…

 

[Pax]

I will as soon as you show me in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome…

Nice try…but you started the thread with a false set of assertions and you have to man up and face the music when people challenge you on the very topic and assertions that you presented.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Old Scholar…Did Jesus have cousins? Can you show me the word cousin in the the Bible? What word would have been used for one of Jesus’ cousins?

The Greek word for cousin is anepsios.

Cousin is used at least twice in Luke. Luke 1:36 and Luke 1:58 uses it and the Greek word here is Suggenes. Suggenes means kinsman, cousin, kinsfolk, and kin.

If the writer wanted to mention a “cousin,” most likely the word anepsios would be used. For another kinsfolk(or even as a cousin) the word “suggenes” would probably be used.

But Jesus had “brothers” and whether he had cousins or not is not related in Scripture. However if Mary had cousins, then Jesus would have had cousins as well. Example: If Mary and Elisabeth were first cousins, the Jesus and Elisabeth would be first cousins once removed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Because not only is Paul writing to Peter in Scripture, I was there. I was in Rome in October and stood in the prison of Paul and Peter. I have seen the chains of St. Peter. I saw the etchings on the walls in the prison. I knelt at the tomb of St. Peter.
What do you think the Vatican is called?? St. Peter’s.
To explain this over and over to Protestants is very tiring…just like I said in my last thread about if you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it isn’t an apple. He’ll then say it’s a fruit and go on to say how there are many fruits then…oh, I give up…

Fortunately Peter’s tomb has been found in Jerusalem and authenticated. The tomb in Rome is merely a fraudelent tomb. Excavations of the tomb in Rome showed it contained animal bones, not human.

 

[paarsurrey]

Originally Posted by Righteousone
Because not only is Paul writing to Peter in Scripture, I was there. I was in Rome in October and stood in the prison of Paul and Peter. I have seen the chains of St. Peter. I saw the etchings on the walls in the prison. I knelt at the tomb of St. Peter.
What do you think the Vatican is called?? St. Peter’s.
To explain this over and over to Protestants is very tiring…just like I said in my last thread about if you show a Protestant an apple, he’ll say it isn’t an apple. He’ll then say it’s a fruit and go on to say how there are many fruits then…oh, I give up…

Fortunately Peter’s tomb has been found in Jerusalem and authenticated. The tomb in Rome is merely a fraudelent tomb. Excavations of the tomb in Rome showed it contained animal bones, not human.

Hi

Would your please substantiate with a reference please.

Thanks

 

[Old_Scholar]

Nice try…but you started the thread with a false set of assertions and you have to man up and face the music when people challenge you on the very topic and assertions that you presented.

But I can show you Scripture that identifies the children of Joseph but you can’t show me Scripture that says Peter was ever in Rome.

Scriptures name the brothers and sisters of Jesus; Mary was the wife of Joseph, therefore any brothers and sisters of Jesus had to be children of Joseph. Else Mary sinned greatly by having children of another man.

Even if we believed the RCC’s false assumptions about the brothers and sisters of Jesus being children of an earlier marriage of Joseph, then the children would still be his children.

Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Is that enough Scripture for you?

Your turn…

 

[Old_Scholar]

I’m confused. There’s a lot of hoopla about how the Virgin Mary had children other than Jesus, but Scripture doesn’t specifically name a single person as a child of the Virgin Mary other than Jesus. The few who are mentioned by name as being brothers of the Lord, such as James, are shown to have parents other than Saint Joseph and the Virgin Mary.

So, in essence, the argument that the Virgin Mary had other children is entirely an argument from silence, which is fallacious.

The real bottom line here is this: the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture, and since at least the second-century commentators have said the so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were not the Virgin Mary’s children. The tradition that Jesus was the only child of the Virgin Mary is ancient, dating back to at least the lives of the second generation Christians who received teaching directly from the Apostles.

Fast forward 1500 or so years, and we still have the Catholic Church, the various Orthodox churches, as well as luminaries such as Martin Luther and John Calvin all maintaining that the Virgin Mary had no children other than Jesus.

So, who seems more authoritative: the Church, the Orthodox, Luther, and Calvin (among others), or some self-proclaimed “Old Scholar”?

For me (as well as the overwhelming majority of Christians for the past nineteen or so centuries), the answer is self-evidently not in favor of some pseudonym.

– Mark L. Chance.

You have made the claim that second century writers have declared that brothers and sisters of Jesus were not children of Mary.

Please list those writers and their writings…

 

[Old_Scholar]

Hi

Would your please substantiate with a reference please.

Thanks

Here are several sites. Please read them and don’t just dismiss them. They have been authenticated and one of them even quotes the pope and his reaction to finding the tomb in Jerusalem.

You can read all about it here:

biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm

and here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter’s_tomb

With pictures here:

and here:
jesus-is-savior.com/Miscellaneous/peters_tomb.htm

And here:

leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

and at this Catholic site:

prorege-forum.com/messages/877.html

and here:

scribd.com/doc/87116/SINKING-SAND

 

[paarsurrey]

Here are several sites. Please read them and don’t just dismiss them. They have been authenticated and one of them even quotes the pope and his reaction to finding the tomb in Jerusalem.
You can read all about it here:
biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm
and here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter’s_tomb
With pictures here:
and here:
jesus-is-savior.com/Miscellaneous/peters_tomb.htm
And here:
leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html
and at this Catholic site:
prorege-forum.com/messages/877.html
and here:
scribd.com/doc/87116/SINKING-SAND

Hi

Thank you for providing the information. I have read it. It is amazing, really. I think Catholics should, in my opinion, update their religious concepts accordingly.

Thanks and regards

 

[teadough]

Old Scholar;3344468]But I can show you Scripture that identifies the children of Joseph but you can’t show me Scripture that says Peter was ever in Rome.

below is a cut and paste from a link I posted earlier. If you disagree with the below statement it is because your interpretations of the Bible comes somewhat new sources in regards to what most protestants believe “Babylon” stands for.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from “Babylon” which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that “Babylon” meant Rome. Rome was the “great city” of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

 

[Righteousone]

Here are several sites. Please read them and don’t just dismiss them. They have been authenticated and one of them even quotes the pope and his reaction to finding the tomb in Jerusalem.

You can read all about it here:

biblebelievers.org.au/nl373.htm

and here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter’s_tomb

With pictures here:

and here:
jesus-is-savior.com/Miscellaneous/peters_tomb.htm

And here:

leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html

and at this Catholic site:

prorege-forum.com/messages/877.html

and here:

scribd.com/doc/87116/SINKING-SAND

This site claims in the Protestant bible, Peter is in Jerusalem.
When I stood in the prison cell in Rome and I saw the etchings on the wall, the chains of St. Peter, I am convinced.
Anyone can write anything. And anyone can claim anything.
St. Peter is buried at St. Peter’s and that’s that.
You just want to say something that isn’t so to discredit my beautiful Catholic faith. As if your trying to prove something toyourself.

 

[Orionthehunter]

But I can show you Scripture that identifies the children of Joseph but you can’t show me Scripture that says Peter was ever in Rome.
COLOR]
Old Scholar, do you realize how stuped this statement is? History didn’t stop when the books of the Bible were finished. If this is the standard, how can I prove to you that Martin Luther existed? It isn’t in scripture.

With regards to this debate, there is alot of different suppositions and interpretations. You believe that the references of brothers and sisters indicates that Jesus had brothers. Even if one were to concede your supposition is plausible, you don’t know if they are step brothers (sons of Joseph from another marriage) or half brothers (sons of Mary).

Most people applying standards of scholarship would state their opinion but conclude with “the historical record is not clear on this point.”

You instead argue with an attitude of clarity that the written record doesn’t give you. This in and of itself is to make your moniker a misnomer.

More importantly, as one who claims to ascribe to the Bible as the source of Truth, a qualification is demanded. You are adding your interpretation beyond what the written Scipture tells you. This is especially egregious because neither Luke nor John (who are known to have spent significant time with Mary) felt it important to describe these “brothers and sisters” as sons or daughters of Mary or Joseph as is done often in Scripture. This should at minimum give you pause.

 

[guanophore]

If Joseph felt unworthy then why does Matthew say he did not want to put Mary to shame??? What shame is there in the Holy Spirit?? That completely makes no sense considering how just of a man Joseph was.

PEACE

Because Joseph knew how the community would take it. Jesus was the son “as was supposed” of Joseph. But Joseph would have trusted that God has a plan for Mary, and he was not worthy to be part of it. A public divorce would only signal the community that she was guilty of fornication, which he did not want to do.

 

[guanophore]

I think the scripture plainly states that they had normal marital relations. Now I have to ask you. Why is this so bad?? We know how GOD feels about marriage and having children. It would seem more logical then that Mary and Joseph would have continued this tradition given their obvious respect for GOD.

This is true, except that God’s plan for Mary is not based on what was “natural” or “logical”. Rather, it is based on Divine Revelation. That revelation clearly shows that persons and things placed in sacred service are to be considered holy (dedicated) and are not to be returned to secular (regular) use. This applies to holy vessels. God clearly intended Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant, and that is why she appears in heaven in the book of Revelation in the same scene where John “saw the Ark”. We have only to look at how the Ark of God was treated to understand that God’s purpose for Mary was not the usual married life.

But it seems people are afraid to make the jump that Mary could have had normal marital relations with Joseph therefore having more children. Notice I say could have. It’s almost like it’s disrespectful and this I don’t get.

The disrespect is not related to sex or marriage, but to the profanation of consecration.

Think of how righteous Mary is by hearing the command of GOD and obeying. In Luke after hearing Jesus preach, a woman from the crowd yells blessed is the womb from which you came and the breasts from which you nursed. Jesus reply is blessed rather are those who hear the will of GOD and obey. So obviously Jesus places a premium on obeying GOD and not who Mary is as a person.

A better translation of this is “blessed more rather” or “blessed even more”. Jesus is here venerating his mother not just for her motherhood (which is a blessing too) but even more for her reception and obedience of the word. Her attitude of “be it done to me according to your word” is a lifestyle that we must all emulate. Jesus did place a premium on Mary as a person, and thisi blessing is not “either or” rather, it is “both/and”. Mary is held up as and example because of her obedience. It was this obedience that resulted in her motherhood, so the two are not separated from one another.

But given the role model she was and is, it would make sense that GOD would give her more children to raise.

PEACE

Exactly! That is why He gave her to the Church. She has God’s blessing to participate in the mothering of ALL of us!

 

[guanophore]

Is it me, your profile says you are Catholic. Why then do you question about Mary, the Blessed Mother? Shouldn’t you know as a Catholic she was a virgin and bore no children but Christ?

He is not Catholic. He may want to think he is, but a Catholic accepts the Teaching of the Church. He is rejecting 2000 years of faith, thinking that his reasoning is better. This is not the behavior of a Catholic. That is protestant behavior.

And the world was flat according to some peolpe but Christopher columbus, who was Catholic discovered it wasn’t.

The shape of the world was not communicted to us by way of divine revleation, either, as were the doctrines of Mary.

 

[elvisman]

I will as soon as you show me in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the Bishop of Rome…

That is a cop-out because it was never the issue on this thread.
HOWEVER, since you asked, here you go:

---

1 Peter 5:13, St. Peter gives a greeting, using the code name for Rome (as in Rev 14:8), which is “Babylon”.

NOW, it’s your turn.
Can you show me where in Scripture it mentions that Joseph was the father of these “brothers of the Lord”?
I mean, since you claim that the Bible is "so explicit" about this, I’d like to see where it says this.

PLEASE respond. Don’t run again.

 

[Deacon110]

Because Joseph knew how the community would take it. Jesus was the son “as was supposed” of Joseph. But Joseph would have trusted that God has a plan for Mary, and he was not worthy to be part of it. A public divorce would only signal the community that she was guilty of fornication, which he did not want to do.

This is a really bad argument. No offense but that simply is not the tone of the scripture. You’ll never convince me that Joseph would have given Mary a divorce if he knew that she conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. That argument has never even beed made by the RCC. They have always tried to explain the use of the word “until” in Matthew 1:25 trying to prove by other scriptural examples that the use of the word “until” merely implied up until that point.

The Angel clearly tells Joseph not to fear taking Mary as his wife. For that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. This is clear evidence that the Angel is letting Joseph know that the baby is from GOD and not some other man. That’s the whole tone of this story, that Mary was betrothed to a man from the house of David and turned up pregnant thereby cheating on him.

Rest assured Joseph had no clue that this baby was from the Holy Spirit.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

This is true, except that God’s plan for Mary is not based on what was “natural” or “logical”. Rather, it is based on Divine Revelation. That revelation clearly shows that persons and things placed in sacred service are to be considered holy (dedicated) and are not to be returned to secular (regular) use. This applies to holy vessels. God clearly intended Mary to be the Ark of the New Covenant, and that is why she appears in heaven in the book of Revelation in the same scene where John “saw the Ark”. We have only to look at how the Ark of God was treated to understand that God’s purpose for Mary was not the usual married life.

If you are referencing Revelations 11, those events have already happened. Those are not future events. This simply gives the revelation of Jesus being born and being supreme ruler of all nations. Notice how it mentions Jesus being taken up to GOD and to HIS throne. That would be as Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father now. These things have already happened. Mary has nothing to do with what happens to us in the future as our salvation is purely dependent on Jesus alone and GOD’s grace.

As far as things being placed in sacred service not being returned to secular use, you couldn’t be more incorrect. Abraham was placed into sacred service. He still had an affair with Hagar to have a son before having one with Sarah. David was placed into sacred service, he committed adultery, commissioned the murder of Bathsheeba’s husband Uriah and was still considered a man after GOD’s own heart. Solomon was place into sacred service, was given more wisdom than anyone who ever lived as a gift from GOD upon request, and was chosen to build the temple. He proceeded to have what 700 plus wives. They clearly had their secular lives merged into their sacred lives. I can give you plenty of other examples.

The disrespect is not related to sex or marriage, but to the profanation of consecration.

This doesn’t even make any sense. The consecration of what??

A better translation of this is “blessed more rather” or “blessed even more”. Jesus is here venerating his mother not just for her motherhood (which is a blessing too) but even more for her reception and obedience of the word. Her attitude of “be it done to me according to your word” is a lifestyle that we must all emulate. Jesus did place a premium on Mary as a person, and thisi blessing is not “either or” rather, it is “both/and”. Mary is held up as and example because of her obedience. It was this obedience that resulted in her motherhood, so the two are not separated from one another.

You really need to go back and read scripture. The words blessed more or more blessed don’t even appear. The clear message of the text again is not who Mary was as a person but the fact that she did the will of GOD. I quote from Luke 11 using douay rheims:

27 And it came to pass, as he spoke these things, a certain woman from the crowd, lifting up her voice, said to him: Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it.

Notice the use of the word they which in greek here is plural. This is not a singular conotation but rather a reference to anyone who hears the word of GOD and obeys. You need to stop adding your own words. Jesus clearly is not referencing Mary singularly here. I listened to a RC apologist give an interpretation of this very verse a few weeks ago. He stated clearly what I said. That Jesus wasn’t talking about Mary as a person. He was stressing the point of obeying GOD.

We see this also in Mark 3:21 and 3:31. Jesus family (desposyni) which means blood relatives of the Lord, go out to get HIM when he started to preach to a large crowd. Why? They thought he was out HIS mind. Or as douay rheims states, he has gone mad. Then in Mark 3:31 when HIS desposyni arrive we see them identified as HIS mother (Mary) and HIS brothers. Hmm. Why would Mary think Jesus is out of HIS mind or gone mad?

Then look at the sequence from there. This is a direct quote from douay rheims:

Mark 3:31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. 33 And answering them, he said: Who is my mother and my brethren? 34 And looking round about on them who sat about him, he saith: Behold my mother and my brethren. 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, he is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Now Jesus clearly looks around the room, then says behold my mother and bretheren; whosoever shall do the will of God etc. etc. So Jesus clearly is not referring to Mary or HIS brothers here but the people that are listening to HIM. Perhaps he was disappointed that Mary and his brothers thought he had gone mad and was making a point that they should have been there listening to HIM as well.

Exactly! That is why He gave her to the Church. She has God’s blessing to participate in the mothering of ALL of us!

How is Mary mothering us all. I never pray to her for interecession because I don’t believe in doing it. I pray directly to GOD. So for me I don’t see her as my spiritual mother. I see her as a great role model along with other Biblical heroes. We have no clue what our life will be like in Heaven and how Mary will figure into that if at all.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

How is Mary mothering us all.

Revelations 12:17 Then the dragon became angry with THE WOMAN and went off to wage war against the REST OF HER OFFSPRING, THOSE WHO KEEP GOD’S COMMANDMENTS AND BEAR WITNESS TO JESUS.

DEACON QUOTE FOLLOWS:
I never pray to her for interecession because I don’t believe in doing it. I pray directly to GOD. So for me I don’t see her as my spiritual mother.

 

[Deacon110]

I have and I’m waiting for you response from post #147.

Missed that one. Hard to keep up.

Here’s your reply:

1 Tim. 3:15 - “But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.”

So you’re implying that since we disagree we should go to the church? Now here’s the 64 million dollar question. Since the church has many denominations which one do you go to? Obviously we reach a stalemate here. But consider this:

Re-read Matthew 1 very carefully and if you do keep these thoughts in mind.

1. The virgin birth story is presented by Matthew as the story of a woman who is betrothed to a man from the house of David.
2. When she is found to be with child the impact of that event is not that she violated a sacred vow she took before GOD for perptual virginity. Matthew never presents it this way. Matthew presents the impact of the event as Mary being betrothed to Joseph (which means they cannot have sex for 1 year) and then turning up with child before the end of that 1 year meaning she committed adultery.
3. If she had violated her vow to the Lord Matthew would have presented it that way, describing the implication of her being pregnant as a major sin committed against GOD. This was a serious sin if she took a vow and then had sex. Matthew would surely have something to say about it as well as the other Gospels.
4. Joseph is planning to give her a divorce which was his legal right given the circumstances. He could have pressed charges and possibly had her stoned. Again this is the focus of the story. Mary’s potential violation of the betrothed contract. Not her violation of a sacred vow. It simply is not presented that way.
5. When the Angel addresses Joseph, he tells Joseph to take Mary as his wife and clarifies that the baby is not from another man but from GOD HIMSELF.
6. When Joseph takes Mary as his wife, Matthew tells us that they didn’t have sex until after Jesus was born. Now here again you say “until” only clarifies that they were not having sex up until that point. So I have to ask you. Why do we need the clarification of sex if Mary had taken a sacred vow?? Answer: We don’t. It’s the most irrevelant fact there could be. If Mary had **not **taken the vow, then again why does Matthew have to clarify they weren’t having sex up until that time? Answer: He doesn’t. Under the terms of the betrothed contract they were not allowed to. So no clarification is needed either way. This was Helvidius’s argument to Jerome. So then why did Matthew write it if he wasn’t applying it to future actions. You also have to study the way the greek is written here. The greek is written as a future tense regarding sex meaning sex that WILL take place. Not that sex hasn’t taken place. If you do Greek Bible study you will see this.
7. If you understand strict Jewish law regarding this then you will know that at the end of the betrothed period, there is a take home ceremnoy where the man takes the woman to live with him. Throughout the year when they are betrothed they are not living together and are not allowed to visit in private. Given that Joseph and Mary held strict to Jewish law we have no reason to think they would violate the betrothed contract.
8. When Joseph takes Mary as his wife in Matthew verse 24, this means Joseph took Mary home to live with him and was then allowed to have sex. But ahh they can’t why? Because she is still pregnant with Jesus. Strict Jews don’t have sex while the wife is pregnant. So then Matthew let’s us know they waited until Jesus was born. To anyone familiar with Jewish law, this story makes complete sense.

Now we have to think about something here. If Mary did in fact take a vow of perpetual virginity to GOD, then the belief she stayed a virgin would be a solid belief. Given that Matthew presents it the opposite way then we have to raise the questions:

1. Is the Gospel of Matthew unreliable? Did someone tamper with that part of the story in an attempt to create controversey? If that’s the case then we have to bring into question his whole Gospel questioning the accuracy of the virgin birth, the details of Jesus, the resurrection etc. etc. We would also have to question the true guidance of the Holy Spirit in selecting Matthew as a canonical Gospel. If that’s the case then the whole NT might as well be called into question.

OR

1. Is this perpetual virginity a corrupt teaching? Did someone ascribe this status to Mary because of their personal beliefs? Remember how prominent Greek philosophy was in these days. All Greek GODS just about were virgin births to mothers who had purity as the common denominator. Perhaps someone had trouble believing Mary, who gave birth to the greatest person to ever walk the earth, was just a simple poor strict young Jew chosen by GOD to do something mircaculous. Also keep in mind this belief didn’t really gain traction until around the 4th century.

But we see this all the time in the Bible. The people GOD chooses to do HIS work are not special people by any means. To the contrary they are ordinary sinful people that you would least expect to do the things they do. David is such a great example. He did some of the worst things yet he kept turning to GOD resulting in GOD calling him a man after HIS own heart.

So do you believe the Bible is corrupt? Or is it just possible the teaching is corrupt?

PEACE