The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

[Deacon110]

Deacon110;3345695:

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.

John is referring to the church here plain and simple. The offspring of the church are Christians. Isn’t satan after us all? I think so.

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.

Well Gabriel, I seem to be doing just fine in my walk with Christ and my relationship with GOD praying directly to HIM. Matter of fact, when I was growing up in Roman Catholic school, I prayed the rosary all the time and asked for intercession from the saints and Mary. Then I fell away from my faith for like 20 years. Not because I didn’t believe, I just wasn’t living my Faith. Then I started praying to GOD directly just as Jesus taught us and the work HE has done in my life is nothing short of miraculous. If you ever have a few hours I would be more than happy to let you know what has happened in my life and it has GOD’s name all over it.

PEACE

 

[FCEGM]

. . .

1. 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.

There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if Joseph was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before? (There is more to it than them being observant Jews.)

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.) Under Jewish, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also.

Mary being pregnant by another (and this Other being God) would be enough to break the marriage contract between Joseph and his wife; at least as far as Joseph’s reproductive rights with her were concerned. Indeed, in the Jewish mindset (and this never seems to occur to a Protestant), if Joseph has subsequent children with Mary, there would always be a suspicion that these other children belonged to God as well, and that they were not Joseph’s true children (and so additional Incarnations of God???). IOW, if a womb is claimed by one father, a subsequent father may not claim it unless the first father presnted the woman with a decree of divorce - which is something that God never did. Thus, Mary was always at God’s disposal and never at Joseph’s disposal as a normal wife would be.

cf: cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm

See also:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

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

Neither; it’s that some folks’ understanding of both is corrupt.

 

[Lampo]

Gabriel of 12;3345889:

John is referring to the church here plain and simple. The offspring of the church are Christians.

You are fallible and could be wrong, correct?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Deacon110;3346060:

You are fallible and could be wrong, correct?

You better believe I am the worst of all sinners,I admit that I am fallable unlike some on this thread, but Iam not wrong in believing that those in Christ are of his body, Mary gave birth to the body of Jesus Christ. The bride of Christ is reffered to in the female context, Who married Mary in order to give birth to Jesus, (Isaiah 62:5) “As a young man marries a virgin, your builder shall marry you, And as a bridegroom rejoices in his bride so shall your God rejoice in you.”

[A misunderstanding belief in Mary leads to a misunderstanding of Jesus. Our Father Is “Abba” God, Mary is our Mother, Jesus in our brother, we are his brothers and sisters.In the new and everlasting covenant. Yes this refers to Johns Church that consumes the body and blood of Jesus Christ the Roman Catholic Church, to which ALL CHRISTIANS COME FROM, some are just disobedient to accept Mary as their Mother in heaven with her son Jesus.

Yes this is saying the Woman is the body of Jesus Christ on earth his Roman Catholic Church, it also references The Blessed Mother Mary, Mother Church who gives birth to all Christians in baptism through her son Jesus.Making us all her offspring, and bear witness to Jesus. There were no Deacon/Old Scholar churches at this time. it only references one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church. /QUOTE]

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12;3345889:

John is referring to the church here plain and simple. The offspring of the church are Christians. Isn’t satan after us all? I think so.

B]Well Deacon can you tell us which church John was referring to then. Was it the church you attend today non denominational? or another?

Well Gabriel, I seem to be doing just fine in my walk with Christ and my relationship with GOD praying directly to HIM. Matter of fact, when I was growing up in Roman Catholic school, I prayed the rosary all the time and asked for intercession from the saints and Mary. Then I fell away from my faith for like 20 years. Not because I didn’t believe, I just wasn’t living my Faith. Then I started praying to GOD directly just as Jesus taught us and the work HE has done in my life is nothing short of miraculous. If you ever have a few hours I would be more than happy to let you know what has happened in my life and it has GOD’s name all over it.

**I] have no doubt about what God can do lets give him praise for that. ThatS fine you have faith in God, Our Mother doesnt mind, maybe you grew up?, Our Mother is here to help her children who dont know Jesus, thats one reason she intercedes for us all, She brings the savior of the world to us, she gives us her son, and her son Jesus gives her back to us. John 19:26 When Jesus saw his MOTHER and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his MOTHER , WOMAN, BEHOLD YOUR SON. Then he said to the disciple, “BEHOLD , YOUR MOTHER.”

Tell me Deacon do you know when Grace is upon you. When you do remember God calls her full of Grace.

PEACE******

 

[elvisman]

**Hello?? Old “Scholar”?? **

---

A****re you out there??

---

Can you PLEASE answer post #176??

---

You can run - but you can’t hide . . .

 

[teadough]

Hello?? Old “Scholar”??

---

A****re you out there??

---

**Can you PLEASE **answer post #176??

---

You can run - but you can’t hide . . .

I am sure Old Scholar has a life and can’t be on the forums 24/7. Plus, for every 2 questions he throws out
he get bombarded with about 20 from 8 different people at once.

Old scholar is good people in my book:thumbsup:

PS-can you chill with all the CAPSLOCK-SHOUTING and harsh colored letters. Thanks

 

[Pax]

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.

I’ve read the propaganda on this topic and I don’t buy it.

 

[Pax]

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…

All of what you have asserted has been refuted. Try thinking in terms of Jewish speach and culture of the times. Understand the usages in Aramaic that have already been explained to you numerous times. Try getting a grip on the fact that the Catholic Church has had the scriptures in her possession from day one, and that the Catholic Church has always been aware of the languages and translations between Aramaic and Greek. Be aware that the Church would know whether or not the use of adelphos in Greek has a wide range of meaning, which it does, and that if the sacred authors intended the understanding that you suggest that the Church would have been aware of it from the get go. Be aware that if the Church knew from the beginning that you position was the correct one, than that would be the position that the Church would hold today. Be aware that your position has “never” been taught by the Church at anytime.

You are simply wrong about this and all of your arguments have already been soundly refuted. You simply won’t let go of your preconceived ideas which are based on a shallow understanding of the original languages and usages of the times. This is unfortunate.

 

[Deacon110]

There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if Joseph was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before? (There is more to it than them being observant Jews.)

It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus.

No this would just mean they were married. Having sex during eirusin just confirms that you are now married. Mary turning up pregnant later would have implied it was Josephs.

Unfortunately this overall, while correct in some areas, is incorrect in many others. Opisso is making an interpretation based on some major assumptions. Having sex during the period of eirusin may not have been forbidden but it certainly was frowned upon and meant that you were married which eliminated divorce as an option. Given Mary and Joseph’s strict adherence to Jewish customs I would say it’s safe to assume they weren’t having sex. And given Joseph was contemplating divorce after learning Mary was pregnant was revealing enough for the Jewish reader and need no further clarification sex had not happened between the couple up to this point. The fact that it’s addressed much later in verse 25 after Gabriel’s visit demonstrates Matthew had different intentions for his message.

Mary’s perpetual virginity was never based on GOD not allowing her to have sex with Joseph but the fact that she supposedly took her vow to GOD as outlined in Numbers 30. Based on Matthew’s account he never mentions the impact of Mary turning up pregnant as being in violation of her vow which would result in a major sin. It’s focused that she was betrothed to Joseph and turned up pregnant implying she was either raped or committed adultery. With regard to GOD sending Joseph a decree, he did just that when HE sent Gabriel to Joseph and told him not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife. Why tell him not to be afraid if he couldn’t have normal marital relations with her?

What further refutes this is looking at the original Greek text in verse Matthew 1:25. Matthew is writing the Greek in the future tense when he writes Joseph knew her not. Matthew was fully expecting Joseph to know Mary (have sex) at a future time. I’m sure Matthew would be intimately more aware of what was happening here than Opisso. If Matthew was merely clarifying that Joseph did not have sex with Mary prior to the birth of Jesus he would have written this is the past tense. This is where the knowledge of the Greek comes in handy. Given that it is written in the future tense means Matthew understood that the couple would “know” one another after some point in time. Since it could not be at the point of chuppah it would be after Jesus was born.

It’s like me saying I’m not going to work until 12pm. A reader of that sentence would expect me to be at work after 12pm. That’s a little different than if I wrote in the past tense that I had not worked up until 12pm.

Also we have to look at the use of the words Adelphos/Adelphoi. In some places in the Gospels these words are used in the possessive tense meaning that when Jesus Adelphos/Adelphoi were referred to, that specifically meant they had to be blood relatives either from the Mother, Father, or both. Since Joseph was not Jesus biological Father any sons or daughters he had prior could not be Adelphos/Adelphoi to Jesus. So they would have had to be Mary’s. This differs from the use of the words Adelphos/Adelphoi more universally to refer to cousins, step-brothers, or me saying you and I are Adelphos/Adelphoi in Christ. No relationship at all. Finally the word Desposyni that appears in Mark 3:21 was a word used to refer to the blood relatives of Jesus and was well known through the first century and a half. When Mark referes to Jesus Desposyni in 3:21 he later clarifies who they are in 3:31 when they arrive to retrieve HIM from the house where he was preaching. It was Jesus Mother and Brothers. Remember they thought HE was out of HIS mind. Just one final point, the perpetual virginity of Mary did not resonate until the 4th century. So this was not an early church belief.

As I said above some teachings just get corrupted.

PEACE

 

[Deacon110]

I’ve read the propaganda on this topic and I don’t buy it.

Actually it’s not the tomb that’s in Jerusalem, it’s supposedly the ossuary. That could make sense given that Peter’s family was in Jerusalem. He was probably buried in the tomb in Rome but then when the body decayed the bones could have been taken to Jerusalem and buried under the Mount of Olives where Jesus prayed. This would actually be a very fitting place for Peter’s bones. I’ve read that the bones in the tomb in Rome are animal bones.

I’m definitely no expert on this one so who the heck knows? Just like the supposed ossuary that had Jesus written on it last year that was featured on the discovery channel. So many of those ossuaries seem to be forgeries it’s hard to know what’s real and not real.

 

[Pax]

…

…

Just one final point, the perpetual virginity of Mary did not resonate until the 4th century. So this was not an early church belief.

As I said above some teachings just get corrupted.

PEACE

As you might expect…I disagree with your entire post…I believe all of it has been answered.

This last part, however, has not been covered. Please note that Christianity has always been “conservative.” The early Church was extremely protective and highly responsive to heresy. The resonance of what you speak is indicative that the teachings were there but simply not articulated in most writings because of the greater concerns of heresies centered on Jesus. There are earlier writings on Mary that are highly indicative of the later articulated teachings. Tim Staples has a marvelous teaching series on CD that explains all of this in detail. It is quite enlightening and I would recommend it. I am not in a position to regurgitate Staples presentation, quotes, or the sources and authors because I don’t have it written down. Like I said, it’s recorded on CD’s.

Anyway, if the teachings on Mary were not consistent with the Churches teachings there would have been a holy outcry of heresy. Nothing like that ever happened. This is a significant sign in support of the validity of the teaching. Moreover, the attacks against the teachings on Mary are modern, post-reformation errors. Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all believed in the teachings. It wasn’t until quite a bit later that the attacks began.

Your last line is correct but not for the reasons you think.

Some teachings do get corrupted…but not by the Church established by Jesus himself. If the Catholic Church taught corrupt teachings then Jesus’s promises to His Church are either a lie or a failure. In either case, the questions then arise as to the other claims made by our Savior, including those that He made concerning the Son of God and being one in being with the Father.

 

[Old_Scholar]

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”.

You are in error here. Peter was really in Babylon. The reference of calling Rome Babylon in Revelation is in the future, not in those times or these. There is nothing at all to show Peter was not in Babylon. He said that is where he was and there is no reason to not believe him. That’s just another “twisting of the Scriptures” to try and support the belief that he was the first bishop of Rome but it isn’t Biblical. Babylon was a city in the time of Peter and that is where he was—he said so himself.

**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.

I have already answered this one—did you miss it?

PLEASE respond. Don’t run again.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Actually it’s not the tomb that’s in Jerusalem, it’s supposedly the ossuary. That could make sense given that Peter’s family was in Jerusalem. He was probably buried in the tomb in Rome but then when the body decayed the bones could have been taken to Jerusalem and buried under the Mount of Olives where Jesus prayed. This would actually be a very fitting place for Peter’s bones. I’ve read that the bones in the tomb in Rome are animal bones.

I’m definitely no expert on this one so who the heck knows? Just like the supposed ossuary that had Jesus written on it last year that was featured on the discovery channel. So many of those ossuaries seem to be forgeries it’s hard to know what’s real and not real.

**Deacon, actually they did find the ossuary in a tomb on Mt. Scopus. They analyzed the dirt still on the ossuary and proved where it came from.

Check your local library for a book called “The brother of Jesus” by Herschel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. It is about the ossuary and there has been a considerable amount of investigation of where it came from, the authenticity of the ossuary, etc. It has been claimed to be a forgery but the book covers the authentication and the process by which it was authenticated. Even the pope admitted it was authentic and made a statement about it quoted in this book. It’s easy enought to check out. All the dates, etc. have been authenticated and this book gives the process. It has been proven, even tho some did not believe it at first.**

 

[Old_Scholar]

All of what you have asserted has been refuted. Try thinking in terms of Jewish speach and culture of the times. Understand the usages in Aramaic that have already been explained to you numerous times. Try getting a grip on the fact that the Catholic Church has had the scriptures in her possession from day one, and that the Catholic Church has always been aware of the languages and translations between Aramaic and Greek. Be aware that the Church would know whether or not the use of adelphos in Greek has a wide range of meaning, which it does, and that if the sacred authors intended the understanding that you suggest that the Church would have been aware of it from the get go. Be aware that if the Church knew from the beginning that you position was the correct one, than that would be the position that the Church would hold today. Be aware that your position has “never” been taught by the Church at anytime.

You are simply wrong about this and all of your arguments have already been soundly refuted. You simply won’t let go of your preconceived ideas which are based on a shallow understanding of the original languages and usages of the times. This is unfortunate.

You have not refuted my arguments with Scripture. You are still using assumptions, maybes, probablies, etc. in order to try and refute it. You have no Scriptures that refute what I posted. I’m sure you have been taught differently thatn what I say but that doesn’t make it so. Even the RCC says it has to be supported by Scripture to be true.

 

[Lampo]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Righteousone]

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

 

[paarsurrey]

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

Hi

Well I am not a Protestant. We could rephrase the sentence; Why do Catholic believe that Jesus did not have brothers and sisters? What is wrong with that? If god could have father and mother, there is no harm if he has brothers and sisters and wife and children as well, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary

Thanks

 

[elvisman]

I am sure Old Scholar has a life and can’t be on the forums 24/7. Plus, for every 2 questions he throws out
he get bombarded with about 20 from 8 different people at once.

Old scholar is good people in my book:thumbsup:

PS-can you chill with all the CAPSLOCK-SHOUTING and harsh colored letters. Thanks

That’s what happens when you make outlandish attacks about the Catholic Church on a Catholic forum - you get bombarded.
I’m sure Old Scolar is a nice guy, but rather than calling him “good people”, I would say he’s “confused people”.

**PS - Nobody’s shouting - I like colors. When I shout - I use exclamation points!! **

 

[Orionthehunter]

From Deacon: I’ve read that the bones in the tomb in Rome are animal bones.

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

**Deacon, actually they did find the ossuary in a tomb on Mt. Scopus. They analyzed the dirt still on the ossuary and proved where it came from.

Check your local library for a book called “The brother of Jesus” by Herschel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. It is about the ossuary and there has been a considerable amount of investigation of where it came from, the authenticity of the ossuary, etc. It has been claimed to be a forgery but the book covers the authentication and the process by which it was authenticated. Even the pope admitted it was authentic and made a statement about it quoted in this book. It’s easy enought to check out. All the dates, etc. have been authenticated and this book gives the process. It has been proven, even tho some did not believe it at first.**

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.

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

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