JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[MennoSota]

... to prove Scripture does NOT say what you do.

Odd how you keep doing that.

Scripture says what it says.
You are rejecting what it says and replacing it with mythology.

 

[Arsenios]

I have no problem with the fact that Jesus was the first born of a family of at least seven siblings. The Bible names them as James, Joseph, Simon and Judas with sisters in the plural. Extra-biblical sources name his sisters as Miriam and Salome. It puzzles me that people have trouble with a normal Galilean first century Galilean family.

What is the role, in your understanding, of the witness of the Church for, say, the first four centuries of the Christian Faith?

Granted, there were many things Christians said that were sketchy at best, but in the consistent witness of all the early Churches...

In your understanding, does it have anything to do with anything at all??


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

What is the role, in your understanding, of the witness of the Church for, say, the first four centuries of the Christian Faith?

Granted, there were many things Christians said that were sketchy at best, but in the consistent witness of all the early Churches...

In your understanding, does it have anything to do with anything at all??


Arsenios

There are hundreds of years of silence before the Mary worship started.
Moreso...no formerly Jewish believers ever make such a claim. It's always mystical former pagans making a claim. They had zero knowledge of Mary, just mythical stories some former pagan made up.

 

[Andrew]

There are hundreds of years of silence before the Mary worship started.
Moreso...no formerly Jewish believers ever make such a claim. It's always mystical former pagans making a claim. They had zero knowledge of Mary, just mythical stories some former pagan made up.

You would think that if it was so important to recognize Mary in Holy worship the apostles would have mentioned it to the churches but we find not even one mention... apparently what isn't there suggests that it's there anyways because someone said so, just reading scripture for what it is however would suggest what the apostles clearly suggest that all are wretched and in need of a savior, Mary called Jesus her savior... having kids in wedlock with Joseph would not have been unGodly! why should she be shamed for having kids? Why isn't Joseph venerated as well if he was equally as celibate???

 

[MennoSota]

You would think that if it was so important to recognize Mary in Holy worship the apostles would have mentioned it to the churches but we find not even one mention... apparently what isn't there suggests that it's there anyways because someone said so, just reading scripture for what it is however would suggest what the apostles clearly suggest that all are wretched and in need of a savior, Mary called Jesus her savior... having kids in wedlock with Joseph would not have been unGodly! why should she be shamed for having kids? Why isn't Joseph venerated as well if he was equally as celibate???

Right.
What we have is former gentile pagans who once worshipped idols turning Mary into a larger than life character over a hundred years after her death. They wrote down their myth and then ignorant gentile Christians, who grew up with mysticism, latched on to it as the two prominent denominations perpetuated the myth.
There is nothing wrong or sinful with sex in the confines of God's command for marriage between one man and one woman. All the data we have in scripture points to Mary having many other children with her husband Joseph. It seems silly to try create a different scenario just because of mythology created later by churches.

 

[Josiah]

Scripture says what it says.

Right. And you prove it doesn't say what you do. Not at all. You just made it up and now ask God to agree with your mythology.

 

[Josiah]

r... having kids in wedlock with Joseph would not have been unGodly!

True, but how does that prove that Mary DID have more children?

I know SEVERAL couples who have no children.... and I doubt ANY of them believe that having kids in wedlock makes them ungodly.




.

 

[MennoSota]

Right. And you prove it doesn't say what you do. Not at all. You just made it up and now ask God to agree with your mythology.

Please, you always seek to twist scripture to fit your dogma. You do it with "household" and infant baptism and now you are doing it with Mary...despite the text indicating a clear birthing of more children than Jesus.
You seem to be bent on a desperate attempt to obscure what the Bible actually says so that you can insert doubt and thus justify your unsubstantiated church dogma.
The text says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. It connects Mary as the mother of them all.
I can only point you to the text. I cannot make you actually believe it.
Once again you show us that you don't practice Sola Scriptural.

 

[MennoSota]

True, but how does that prove that Mary DID have more children?

I know SEVERAL couples who have no children.... and I doubt ANY of them believe that having kids in wedlock makes them ungodly.




.

Do there neighbors say that they have multiple sons and daughters as Matthew 13 declares about Mary?

 

[MennoSota]

Right. And you prove it doesn't say what you do. Not at all. You just made it up and now ask God to agree with your mythology.

Here is what it says (my third time to quote this on this thread). Read it and admit you are wrong.
Matthew 13:55-56
Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

With every question asked, the rhetorical answer is...YES.

 

[Josiah]

Here is what it says Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?

And AGAIN, you prove yourself to be wrong, you DOCUMENT that the Bible does not say what you do.
Why do you PERSIST in shooting yourself in the foot?


The verse says that JESUS is the son of the carpenter. That JESUS is the son of Mary. And that James and Joseph and Simon and Judas are "brothers and sisters" of Jesus. Yup. Where does it say MARY is the mother of James and Joseph and his sisters which is your dogmatic positionc? WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? It does not, as everyone knows , as you are intent on PROVING

You insist on PROVING that your entire claim, your whole dogmatic position, it's NOT THERE, it's NOT STATED, you re just making it up. It's YOUR speculation, YOUR mythology, with NOTHING in Scripture that states it (as you keep PROVING, just to keep shoot yourself in the foot). Now, IF the words "brother and sister" meant "come from the same mother, born from the same womb" you might make a reasonable conclusion, but as everyone knows, it does not. In Greek, the term OFTEN means a step sibling or half-sibling, a cousin, any relative, anyone living in the same "oikos", even just one with whom we are SPIRITUALLY related but IN NO WAY biologically related. You are just making something up - inventing mythology - and then TRYING to make words mean something everyone on the planet KNOWS (including you) doesn't mean.

Keep quoting the verse. It verbatim PROVES your invention is not taught in Scripture. Or Tradition. Or history. Or anywhere.... it's just mythology you invented

It connects Mary as the mother of them all.

Anyone who can read KNOWS that is pure falsehood.

It says NOTHING about Mary being the mother of anyone except Jesus. Nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING. Try honesty. Try reading the words.

NOWHERE does it call anyone other than Jesus their mother. NO WHERE does it say she birthed them. NO WHERE does it same they came from the same womb as Jesus. NOTHING in the text connects them to Mary. And your position - "MARY is the birth mother of children other than Jesus" is NOT stated in this verse. At all. Your position is entirely ABSENT in the verse. You just make it up.





.

 

[psalms 91]

If I accept your logic then are you saying that as husband and wife they cheated? That seems to be the conclusion you infer

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=43]psalms 91[/MENTION]

If I accept your logic then are you saying that as husband and wife they cheated? That seems to be the conclusion you infer

I'm not sure who you are addressing, but if it is me...



I'm not "inferring" ANYTHING. I'm just noting the OBVIOUS: There is NOTHING in the Bible (including the verses MennoSota quotes) that states Mary had other children. It's true, in the past 300 years or so, there has arisen among a small number of Christians that speculation but there is NOTHING in the Bible that so states. MennoSota is obviously wrong when he dogmatically states otherwise (and IRONICALLY, he keeps verbatim proving himself wrong). The dogmatic declaration of MennoSota (and some other modern "Evangelicals") is "the Bible states that Mary had other children." This is simply a factual falsehood. Why MennoSota feels compelled to prove that, I don't know (he does this with many of his new inventions).


Not only does NOT the Bible EVER state that Mary had other children (if it did, surely MennoSota would quote it and at least ONE Christian in 1700 years would have noticed it)... but there's NOTHING from anywhere else, either. In the First Century - when some Apostles were still alive, when Mary was still alive, when many who knew Mary and Jesus were still alive - it was held that Mary had no other children, NO ONE is recorded as believing otherwise. The speculation that she had other children did not arise until the 18th Century. So, there is no Tradition, no history - as well as no Scripture - to support the speculation that She had other children. Nothing. It's just the reality.


Now, the verse MennoSota quotes, might INFER (but not state, as claimed) something IF - IF - IF (big word there!) IF the words for "brother" and sister" meant "Share the same mother, came from the same womb." But as everyone knows, they do not. The verse he quotes states that Joseph is His father (NOTE: Jesus is not biologically related to Joseph AT ALL!!! "Father" here does NOT mean "biological", the word has NOTHING to do with biology here). And it says that Mary is His mother. NOWHERE does it say that Joseph and James are from the womb of Mary. It doesn't say it. And to DOGMATICALLY INSIST that it does state that is.... how to be nice about this.... well, you know. No, it is NOT a case that for over 1700 years, not one Christian never noticed that the verse says "Mary was the birth mother of Joseph and James as well as Jesus".... no.... it's a case of the verse not saying that. Reality matters.


In reality, the words "brother"and "sister" were VERY broad terms (as sometimes "father" - as here in this verse, Joseph had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with Jesus' birth, NONE of His DNA came from Joseph, yet he is called Jesus' "father") - and mother. See 1 Corinthians 15:6 for just one obvious example, no, St. Paul's mother did not bore over 500 boys. CHANGING the meaning of "brother" and "sister" to mean "Came from the womb of the same mother" is absurd and biblically impossible. We can't made new dogma by changing the known meaning of words. In reality, the word "brother" and "sister" USUALLY does not mean "from womb of the same mother" in koine Greek.


There's a couple of other things to consider: When Jesus is at the Temple at the age of 12, no siblings are mentioned. And when Jesus dies, He entrusts the care of His mother to whom? NEVER was a mother EVER - EVER - entrusted to anyone except the next closest male relative (if living); Jesus would have entrusted Mary to any other son of Mary (if living) - it would have been unheard of and an ENORMOUS disrespect and unimaginable "slam" to Joseph and James if they were sons of Mary to entrust Her to John (probably related to Mary, but MUCH more distantly than to a living son). Does ANY of this PROVE that Mary did not have other children. Absolutely not!! But it adds to the problems for this newly invented dogma of Mary having other children. As well as the reality that no one in the First Century thought She did.... no one until the 18th Century thought she did.... the Bible never says She did.


Now, Bill, I am NOT saying (especially dogmatically) that she did NOT have other children. The Bible is SILENT on that, therefore so am I. And BTW, so is every denomination (there is no dogma of "Mary had No Other Kids" OR "Mary Had Other Kids"). I don't know. Frankly, I don't care (another reason to not be dogmatic, insistent). BUT I DO note that no one ever thought she did until the 18th Century.... I'm NOT arguing She had other kids - I don't know. I'm saying we should not dogmatically state that She did, we should not make dogma here in the 21st Century out of pure speculation (and for reasons no one seems to know).


MennoSota (and others) invent a new dogma that Mary Had Other Children. Okay.... the "ball" is in their court to prove this true. "It kinda, sorta seems like it's probable cuz well usually married people have more than one kid and it's not wrong to have more than one kid" is not the confirmation of a new dogma. Perhaps you disagree, Bill. And the PERSISTENT, dogmatic statement, "The Bible states she had gobs more kids" is... well..... I want to be nice, but you know.

If I accept your logic then are you saying that as husband and wife they cheated? That seems to be the conclusion you infer

Again, Bill, I don't "infer" ANYTHING. And what I'm saying is what I said (just use the quote feature).

I don't know what "logic" you are referring to. But I don't accept that it's LOGICAL that if a wife doesn't have at least two children, then there is spousal "cheating" going on. I never said that and I don't hold that that is "logical."

Perhaps you are referring to a view I shared (but didn't state agreement with), the view since at least 90 AD, that Joseph was previously married and widowed, and that there were children from that marriage which he took with him into his new marriage with Mary? This was a very common opinion.... we find it for example in the Protoevangelium of James. No, it doesn't hold that it's "cheating" to have had children by a previous marriage ended by the death of one of the spouses. One spouse dying is not spousal cheating; nor is it spousal cheating for a widow or widower to remarry. Now, did I claim this to be true? No. Did I claim it as dogma? No. Did I claim it is stated in the Bible? No. I said this was a VERY early view of the matter. I never "inferred" anyone "cheating" on anyone.



I hope this helps, my friend!


- Josiah





.

 

[MennoSota]

And AGAIN, you prove yourself to be wrong, you DOCUMENT that the Bible does not say what you do.
Why do you PERSIST in shooting yourself in the foot?


The verse says that JESUS is the son of the carpenter. That JESUS is the son of Mary. And that James and Joseph and Simon and Judas are "brothers and sisters" of Jesus. Yup. Where does it say MARY is the mother of James and Joseph and his sisters which is your dogmatic positionc? WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT? It does not, as everyone knows , as you are intent on PROVING

You insist on PROVING that your entire claim, your whole dogmatic position, it's NOT THERE, it's NOT STATED, you re just making it up. It's YOUR speculation, YOUR mythology, with NOTHING in Scripture that states it (as you keep PROVING, just to keep shoot yourself in the foot). Now, IF the words "brother and sister" meant "come from the same mother, born from the same womb" you might make a reasonable conclusion, but as everyone knows, it does not. In Greek, the term OFTEN means a step sibling or half-sibling, a cousin, any relative, anyone living in the same "oikos", even just one with whom we are SPIRITUALLY related but IN NO WAY biologically related. You are just making something up - inventing mythology - and then TRYING to make words mean something everyone on the planet KNOWS (including you) doesn't mean.

Keep quoting the verse. It verbatim PROVES your invention is not taught in Scripture. Or Tradition. Or history. Or anywhere.... it's just mythology you invented








Anyone who can read KNOWS that is pure falsehood.

It says NOTHING about Mary being the mother of anyone except Jesus. Nothing. NOTHING. NOTHING. Try honesty. Try reading the words.

NOWHERE does it call anyone other than Jesus their mother. NO WHERE does it say she birthed them. NO WHERE does it same they came from the same womb as Jesus. NOTHING in the text connects them to Mary. And your position - "MARY is the birth mother of children other than Jesus" is NOT stated in this verse. At all. Your position is entirely ABSENT in the verse. You just make it up.





.

So, since no one says your the father of children named Joe, Jerry and Jake, that means... definitively that you are not the father.
Your stubborn denial of what the verse expresses about Mary being the mother and Jesus having brothers and sisters makes you look silly.
You seem, at best, to be promoting Joseph as a polygamist and Mary as a person who raised Joseph's polygamous children because his other wife failed to raise them.
Shake my head, your logic escapes me.

 

[Josiah]

Your stubborn denial of what the verse expresses about Mary being the mother and Jesus having brothers and sisters makes you look silly.

Your persisting PROVING (verbatim, in black-in-white) that the text never states Mary is their mother is just another case of your shooting yourself in the foot, PROVING yourself wrong. You do that a lot with your invented dogmas.

 

[MennoSota]

Your persisting PROVING (verbatim, in black-in-white) that the text never states Mary is their mother is just another case of your shooting yourself in the foot, PROVING yourself wrong. You do that a lot with your invented dogmas.

Oh my goodness. Jesus never directly says he is God. Do you deny his deity?
Josiah, if you are able to deny Mary as the mother of other children, you should be able to deny Jesus is God.
The fact is you don't care what Matthew 13 clearly implies. This is because tradition trumps the Bible when push comes to shove.
Again, you prove that Sola Scriptura means nothing to you.

 

[Josiah]

The fact is you don't care what Matthew 13 clearly implies.

If YOU think it IMPLIES it, can't you just be HONEST and admit it's YOU (in contradiction with 2000 years of Christianity) who FEEL that it IMPLIES something that it does NOT state? Why not say the truth?

The REALITY is clear and obvious: The verse does NOT - N.O.T. - not at all - state what you FEEL it should state. Why the dishonesty? Why the fraud? Why the lies? Is THAT what you hold is the basis of a new Dogma? Fraud? Lies?

Now, if you want to entirely CHANGE everything you'd said for how many pages now... and now claim that YOU personally FEEL the Holy Spirit MEANT to say something but didn't ... okay, but be honest about that. AND PERMIT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME THING, OTHERS TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IS IMPLIED BUT NOT STATED! But you won't. You are hypercritical about this. Obviously. You LOVE to say, "But the Bible doesn't STATE that!" But then YOU make whole new dogma and EVENTUALLY are FORCED for admit, "But the Bible doesn't actually STATE that." It's called hypocrisy. It's called "double standard." It's called "deception."

Only if YOU personally, individually, now in 2019, FEEL is "implied." And say, "I personally, individually, currently, FEEL is IMPLIED" rather than lying and saying "it says." Honestly goes a long way. And brother, how any one FEELS something is IMPLIED is hardly the basis for inventing a new dogma that contradicts 2000 years of Christian faith and practice; what makes YOUR feelings at the moment "trump" every Christian who ever lived for 1700 years? Why just YOU? Are YOUR feelings at the moment the definition of Truth? Wow. The egoism of it all... the EXTREME individualism of your rubric.

Again, you prove that Sola Scriptura means nothing to you.

The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case, as you are determined to verbatim PROVE at every single turn, with every new dogma you invent. It is YOU who could care less what Scripture STATES and DOES NOT STATE. You care only for one thing: If YOU now personally feel Scripture IMPLIES something you want it to IMPLY. Your profound disrespect for Scripture ASTOUNDS me, you not only could care less what Scripture says AND DOES NOT SAY, you don't even notice. YOU...DON"T.... EVEN.... NOTICE..... Or care. At all. This will anger you... but I so wish you would stand back and THINK about this.


You SO OFTEN - at every new dogma you invent or defend - CONSTANTLY state, "The Bible SAYS" and then you PROVE - P.R.O.V.E. - you document, in verbatim words, DOCUMENT, that you lied. Frankly, it makes your apologetics a JOKE. At every turn, at every newly invented dogma you choose to defend, you PROVE - 0ver and 0ver - Scripture dpes NOT say what you dogmatically and perpetually INSIST it STATES. I lament this because you are right about much (especially Monergism); it's why I invited you here . But when you stay "Scripture says" and then perpetually PROVE you told an out-right falsehood, well..... you destroy all credibility. And you do this OVER and OVER and OVER. On virtually everything. This is a classic example.


Sola Scriptura is NOT, "MY feelings about what Scripture IMPLIES to me today" Sola Scriptura is that the WORDS (the literal black-and-white WORDS on the page, NOT invisible "implied" words NOT there) are the final rule and norm for the arbitration of debated dogmas among us. Sola Scriptura means your newly invented dogma is NOT confirmed; NO WHERE do the words of the Bible STATE that Mary DID have other children besides Jesus and DID NOT have just Jesus. You keep noting Sola Scriptura but MEANING "What I now FEEL Scripture SHOULD say but after really, really pressed for days will admit it does NOT."



.

 

[JRT]

It is very interesting to me to note that Paul makes no mention of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus except to mention that it was "according to the flesh". Here we have a strong inference that the birth was perfectly natural. The next author Mark does not both to mention the birth at all in spite of its miraculous nature. The first mention of the birth comes about 50 years after the crucifixion in Matthew. The birth is mentioned also in Luke a few years later but his account contradicts Matthew in quite a few aspects. The final author, John, makes no mention of the birth even though he must have been aware of Matthew and Luke. All of this suggests to me that the virgin birth is a later developing interpretation of the life of Jesus. Another bible story of a similar nature is that of Judas.

 

[MennoSota]

If YOU think it IMPLIES it, can't you just be HONEST and admit it's YOU (in contradiction with 2000 years of Christianity) who FEEL that it IMPLIES something that it does NOT state? Why not say the truth?

The REALITY is clear and obvious: The verse does NOT - N.O.T. - not at all - state what you FEEL it should state. Why the dishonesty? Why the fraud? Why the lies? Is THAT what you hold is the basis of a new Dogma? Fraud? Lies?

Now, if you want to entirely CHANGE everything you'd said for how many pages now... and now claim that YOU personally FEEL the Holy Spirit MEANT to say something but didn't ... okay, but be honest about that. AND PERMIT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME THING, OTHERS TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IS IMPLIED BUT NOT STATED! But you won't. You are hypercritical about this. Obviously. You LOVE to say, "But the Bible doesn't STATE that!" But then YOU make whole new dogma and EVENTUALLY are FORCED for admit, "But the Bible doesn't actually STATE that." It's called hypocrisy. It's called "double standard." It's called "deception."

Only if YOU personally, individually, now in 2019, FEEL is "implied." And say, "I personally, individually, currently, FEEL is IMPLIED" rather than lying and saying "it says." Honestly goes a long way. And brother, how any one FEELS something is IMPLIED is hardly the basis for inventing a new dogma that contradicts 2000 years of Christian faith and practice; what makes YOUR feelings at the moment "trump" every Christian who ever lived for 1700 years? Why just YOU? Are YOUR feelings at the moment the definition of Truth? Wow. The egoism of it all... the EXTREME individualism of your rubric.







The EXACT OPPOSITE is the case, as you are determined to verbatim PROVE at every single turn, with every new dogma you invent. It is YOU who could care less what Scripture STATES and DOES NOT STATE. You care only for one thing: If YOU now personally feel Scripture IMPLIES something you want it to IMPLY. Your profound disrespect for Scripture ASTOUNDS me, you not only could care less what Scripture says AND DOES NOT SAY, you don't even notice. YOU...DON"T.... EVEN.... NOTICE..... Or care. At all. This will anger you... but I so wish you would stand back and THINK about this.


You SO OFTEN - at every new dogma you invent or defend - CONSTANTLY state, "The Bible SAYS" and then you PROVE - P.R.O.V.E. - you document, in verbatim words, DOCUMENT, that you lied. Frankly, it makes your apologetics a JOKE. At every turn, at every newly invented dogma you choose to defend, you PROVE - 0ver and 0ver - Scripture dpes NOT say what you dogmatically and perpetually INSIST it STATES. I lament this because you are right about much (especially Monergism); it's why I invited you here . But when you stay "Scripture says" and then perpetually PROVE you told an out-right falsehood, well..... you destroy all credibility. And you do this OVER and OVER and OVER. On virtually everything. This is a classic example.


Sola Scriptura is NOT, "MY feelings about what Scripture IMPLIES to me today" Sola Scriptura is that the WORDS (the literal black-and-white WORDS on the page, NOT invisible "implied" words NOT there) are the final rule and norm for the arbitration of debated dogmas among us. Sola Scriptura means your newly invented dogma is NOT confirmed; NO WHERE do the words of the Bible STATE that Mary DID have other children besides Jesus and DID NOT have just Jesus. You keep noting Sola Scriptura but MEANING "What I now FEEL Scripture SHOULD say but after really, really pressed for days will admit it does NOT."



.

I see what it says. The people in Nazareth bring up Mary as Jesus mother and then speak of his brothers and sisters...never once speaking of a different mother.

You are free to believe ignorant former gentile pagans who lived hundreds of years after Jesus who created a myth and perpetuated it in their churches.
I will believe what the Bible shares.
Eventually we will both be in heaven and you'll be wrong.

 

[Arsenios]

It is very interesting to me to note that Paul makes no mention of the circumstances surrounding the birth of Jesus except to mention that it was "according to the flesh". Here we have a strong inference that the birth was perfectly natural.

The inference is that He was birthed in the flesh of a woman without a father... Paul was not a witness to the early years of the origins of this Faith... So he would not have a great deal to say about, for instance, the virgin birth, or the Angel Gabriel's encounter with Mariam, etc...

The next author Mark does not both to mention the birth at all in spite of its miraculous nature.

This is where the early history comes in handy - I don't know it, but normally people speak from what they know first hand...

The first mention of the birth comes about 50 years after the crucifixion in Matthew.

That would seem about right - AFTER Her repose... Prior to that, silence...

The birth is mentioned also in Luke a few years later but his account contradicts Matthew in quite a few aspects.

First hand accounts will often do so...

The final author, John, makes no mention of the birth even though he must have been aware of Matthew and Luke.

Two things here - He may have been satisfier with the earlier accounts...

And She stayed with him, and probably told him a lot more than ever was written...

All of this suggests to me that the virgin birth is a later developing interpretation of the life of Jesus.

Reducing it to a Biblical Fable??

Another bible story of a similar nature is that of Judas.

Are you normally cynical?

Or is this scholastic cynicism only?


Arsenios