JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[MennoSota]

Did Jesus have any brothers? Hmmm.....I know: what do the Scriptures say?

(1) 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.
(2) Matthew 13:55-56 - Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
(3) Mark 3:31-32 - There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
(4) Galatians 1:19 - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

*re-reads the scripture verses above* Now, I will readily admit to not being the sharpest tool in the Christian toolshed, but a cursory reading of the verses above should answer the question at hand: to wit, yes, Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord & Saviour, did indeed have several brothers.

Hey man, you're an all-star...
I agree, this seems pretty self-explanatory. Not sure why this is a controversy at all.

 

[MennoSota]

By THAT standard, my Dear, YOUR mother was a virgin, and just not a perpetual one...

If the Blessed Virgin had marital relations, she was not a virgin...

Your argument is that She is a FORMER virgin...

IF She is a FORMER virgin, then she is not a virgin, you see...

Christ was born of a virgin, you see...

And not of a FORMER virgin...


Arsenios

What? Sorry, I gotta rewind this again. What?

 

[MennoSota]

God Bless your Mom!

The Blessed Virgin was also a virgin AFTER she was married...

Says so right there in Holy Writ!

Nowhere does it say in Scripture that the Blessed Virgin ever became the FORMER virgin...

You are right - Scripture does not tout Her ever-virginity...

Christ calls Her Gune - Woman...

The Name EVE means WOMAN...

Thank-you for manning up to the truth of Scriptural silence regarding Jesus' brothers and sisters...


Arsenios

LOL, this argument is funny.
It seems, to keep Mary an asexual person you must turn Joseph into a polygamist.

 

[RichWh1]

EQUALLY, it never states that Mary LOST her virginity. NEVER does it say "Mary had lotsa kids." It ONLY says she bore Jesus. It NEVER says she bore any other. If you care what Scripture does NOT say, then ... well... it NEVER states she had other children.






Where does it state she did?

And can you prove that every case of marital intimacies results in the birth of a child? Can you prove that EVERY consummated marriage results in the birth of children?







EXACTLY!!!! The Bible is SILENT on this. Unlike some Protestants today who parrot the invention of a few radically liberal Protestants in the 18th Century, parroting their invented tradition - which having nothing in Scripture that states what they do.







BINGO!

I see you do the same thing with the Scriptures that you do with my posts! Take them out of context to make your own pretext!

If the Bible is silent on the matter why do you read into it? Saying Mary was ever virgin is saying what Scripture does not say!!

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25 — NASB

This is where it states that Mary and Joseph consummated the marriage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

If the Bible is silent on the matter why do you read into it? Saying Mary was ever virgin is saying what Scripture does not say!!

Friend,

Clearly I've NEVER remotely said or even implied that Mary was a perpetual virgin.... I've ONLY stated the historic reality to those who confuse the two views: the belief that Mary had no other children PREDATES the view that Mary was a perpetual virgin by centuries (it by no means flows from it or is dependent on it) AND that it's possible for one who does share maritial intimacies yet not have children (a point that - to date - no one here at CH agrees with, or at least none has stated an agreement).

As I have stated, my position is we don't know if she had other children or not..... and those yelling "the Bible SAYS.... " (either that she did or did not) are simply not being fully honest.

And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Matthew 1:24-25 — NASB

1. The Lord never commanded Joseph to make Mary his wife. He had divine PERMISSION but not divine COMMAND.

2. The word "until" in koine Greek does not mean or imply that there were no cases of marital intimacies AFTER that. I agree the modern English word carries that IMPLICATION (not statement!) but not the Greek. And it's irrelevant; this thread is NOT about whether Mary remained a virgin. That's a separate much later view. Unless one can biologically prove that every case of marital intimacies results in the birth of a child specifically mentioned in the Bible, then it does not dogmatically mandate that if Mary did not remain a virgin, she would had other children and we would know this because the Bible would record this.

This is where it states that Mary and Joseph consummated the marriage.

As I posted, it does not. Although that's not the issue of this thread. There are threads on the PVM (insiI've posted my views on THAT other issue in those); this one is about whether we dogmatically know if Mary had other chidlren, as some here have insisted, "The Bible STATES that she did." I'm disagreeing.




.

 

[RichWh1]

You are in denial! The word ‘until’ means exactly what it states! The koine Gk does support the marriage and consummation of that marriage!!
In Luke 1 the angel told Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So this shows that they were married!!
Matthew 1 tells us that they did not have sexual relations before Mary gave birth to Jesus

Stop denying what Scripture says


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

You are denial! The word ‘until’ means exactly what it states! The koine Gk does support the marriage and consummation of that marriage!!

Nope.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary ever got married.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph consummated anything.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that ANYONE other than Jesus came from the womb of Jesus.


As for "until" in Greek, you can research it yourself but the word does not mean and carries NO connotation that "after this, it ceased." You can also just see how the Bible itself uses the word, but it is NEVER used to mean "after this, this ended." See 1 Corinthians 15:25 (will Jesus STILL reign?) See 1 Timothy 4:13 (should they STOP doing all this as soon as Paul arrives?), Revelation 2:25 (must they abandon the truth when he arrives?). The word doesn't mean or imply what your position demands that it does.

In Luke 1 the angel told Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So this shows that they were married!!

Obviously not.


As I noted, the Bible states that Joseph had divine PERMISSION to marry, but it NEVER states that he did. Permission does not equal diogmatic action.

Matthew 1 tells us that they did not have sexual relations before Mary gave birth to Jesus

Correct. But it says NOTHING about Mary EVER having sexual relations.


But you seem to have the wrong thread. This thread is not about a MUCH LATER view that Mary was a perpetual virgin, it's about whether Mary had other children. Unless you are able to biologically prove (as dogma) that EVERY act of sexual intimacy results in the birth of a child, then it is irrelevant to state (with ZERO biblical support) that Mary had sex ERGO proves she had other children. '

BTW, there is no offiial teaching in ANY denomination that Mary and Joseph married (in the sense you mean it); in the WEST, it is a common OPINION (since the Middle Ages anyway) and in the East, the opposite is common OPINION but nowhere is there an official teaching on this point: Good reason, the Bible never says and it just doesn't matter. YES, everyone agrees they had divine permission to marry but there is no divine command and NO RECORD WHATSOEVER that they ever did. Nor is there any ancient Tradition on this point so there is NO BASIS for any official teaching on that. But that's irrelevant to this thread (unless you will dogmatically prove that every instance of marital intimacy results in the birth of a child; good luck with that)







.

 

[Josiah]

You are denial! The word ‘until’ means exactly what it states! The koine Gk does support the marriage and consummation of that marriage!!

Nope.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary ever got married.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph consummated anything.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that ANYONE other than Jesus came from the womb of Mary.

In Luke 1 the angel told Joseph to not be afraid to take Mary as his wife. So this shows that they were married!!

Obviously not. As I noted, the Bible states that Joseph had divine PERMISSION to marry, but it NEVER states that he did. Permission does not equal diogmatic action.

Matthew 1 tells us that they did not have sexual relations before Mary gave birth to Jesus

Correct. But it says NOTHING about Mary EVER having sexual relations.

But you seem to have the wrong thread. This thread is not about a MUCH LATER view that Mary was a perpetual virgin, it's about whether Mary had other children. Unless you are able to biologically prove (as dogma) that EVERY act of sexual intimacy results in the birth of a child, then it is irrelevant to state (with ZERO biblical support) that Mary had sex ERGO proves she had other children. '

BTW, there is no offiial teaching in ANY denomination that Mary and Joseph married (in the sense you mean it); in the WEST, it is a common OPINION (since the Middle Ages anyway) and in the East, the opposite is common OPINION but nowhere is there an official teaching on this point: Good reason, the Bible never says and it just doesn't matter. YES, everyone agrees they had divine permission to marry but there is no divine command and NO RECORD WHATSOEVER that they ever did. Nor is there any ancient Tradition on this point so there is NO BASIS for any official teaching on that. But that's irrelevant to this thread (unless you will dogmatically prove that every instance of marital intimacy results in the birth of a child; good luck with that)
Stop denying what Scripture says




.

 

[RichWh1]

So Josiah you are following the teaching of the PVM , which is a man made doctrine, not supported by Scripture!!

Does Scripture need to say that they got married and went on honeymoon for you to accept the fact they did marry? and Scripture suggests that much!?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arsenios]

You are denial!

A.

 

[RichWh1]

A.

Thanks for pointing out the typo. I corrected it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

As for "until" in Greek, you can research it yourself but the word does not mean and carries NO connotation that "after this, it ceased." You can also just see how the Bible itself uses the word, but it is NEVER used to mean "after this, this ended." See 1 Corinthians 15:25 (will Jesus STILL reign?) See 1 Timothy 4:13 (should they STOP doing all this as soon as Paul arrives?), Revelation 2:25 (must they abandon the truth when he arrives?). The word doesn't mean or imply what your position demands that it does.


.

So Josiah you are following the teaching of the PVM

Nope.


This thread is not about the MUCH LATER separate view of the PVM. READ the title of the thread. It's about whether Mary had other children.


The opinion that Mary and Joseph married is IRRELEVANT to our discussion, and is NOWHERE stated in the Bible - one way or the other.

The opinion that when an angel gives permission, ergo it is a dogmatic fact such happened is IRRELEVANT to this discussion and is nowhere stated in the Bible.

The opinion that Mary and Joseph consummated something is IRRELEVANT to this discussion, and NOWHERE does the Bible state that either EVER consummated ANYTHING.

The dogma (first invented in the 18th Century by liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus) that Mary had lotsa children is NOWHERE stated ANYWHERE in the Bible; it ONLY states that Jesus did.

The TRADITION (documented to the First Century and universal until the above liberal Protestants) that Mary had no other children is NOWHERE stated ANYWHERE in the Bible, it ONLY states she bore Jesus.



The koine Greek word for "brother" does NOT mean "came from the same womb; has the same birth mother." Indeed, it was NOT used that way most of the time. And there is no word in koine Greek for step-brother or half-brother, so if these were children of Jospeh from an earlier marriage (as very ancient Tradition says, but I do not) , then the text uses the ONLY word available to speak of them, "Brother." And as I showed you (did you read it?), the Greek word translated as "until" does NOT mean (or even remotely imply) "the opposite is true after this." It does not mean that eventually she had marital relations; you are basing a position on YOUR 21st century American concept of the English word "until" but the koine Greek word used 2000 years ago did not mean or imply what you feel the English word used in an English translation MAY mean. You can see this from Scripture itsef, as I noted. See post 127

is a man made doctrine, not supported by Scripture!!

That Mary and Joseph married is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That Mary and Joseph consummated anything is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That Mary and Joseph had lotsa sex is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That if Mary had sex, ERGO it is DOGMA that she had lotsa kids is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER says that (nor does biology).

Yeah..... some radical liberal Protestants in the 18th Century first invented the theory that Mary and Joseph had lotsa sex and kids, but the Bible NEVER says that, THEY did (and some parrot this late tradition)

Yeah.... it became universally accepted within the First Century (when perhaps Mary was still alive) that she had no other children, but the Bible NEVER states that, it's just universal and very, very ancient Traditon that is dogma nowhere.



- Josiah




PS IF you want to discuss the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, there are other threads on that. Unless you can give biological proof that every act of marital intimacy results in a child, your obvious rejected of the PVM is entirely IRRELEVANT to this discussion and thread. Even if you could quote the verse "Mary had lots and lots of sex," it would not prove that she had other children without that biological proof.




.

 

[user1234]

Jesus had 4 brothers named in scripture, and at least 2 sisters (not named). The ppl that knew them also knew that Mary was their Mother and her husband Joseph was their Father (and even assumed Joseph was Jesus' Father, (as He had yet to be fully revealed or understood to be the one born of a virgin prophesied about).
A plain reading of God's Word makes it pretty clear. Why do some ppl try to look for ways to distort or pervert God's Word and cause doubt on it? (And in this case, they make a perversion of Jesus' family as well). It's rather sick, or like a sickness or obsession for some. It's sad. Their contemporaries and the writers of scripture knew that Jesus had a normal human family (all things considered, He IS the Messiah of Israel and the Lord and Saviour of all, afterall) of brothers and sisters, with a married mother and father, as well as He had aunts and uncles and cousins, etc.
If some religionists want to come along afterwards and concoct lies and distortions to create manmade traditions and doctrines of devils, shame on them.

 

[MennoSota]

A.

Clearly you are awake or you would not have responded.

Why do you think Joseph was a polygamist? Do you support polygamy as a family structure? Do you think polygamy is promoted as Godly in the Bible?

 

[MennoSota]

Nope.


This thread is not about the MUCH LATER separate view of the PVM. READ the title of the thread. It's about whether Mary had other children.


The opinion that Mary and Joseph married is IRRELEVANT to our discussion, and is NOWHERE stated in the Bible - one way or the other.

The opinion that when an angel gives permission, ergo it is a dogmatic fact such happened is IRRELEVANT to this discussion and is nowhere stated in the Bible.

The opinion that Mary and Joseph consummated something is IRRELEVANT to this discussion, and NOWHERE does the Bible state that either EVER consummated ANYTHING.

The dogma (first invented in the 18th Century by liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus) that Mary had lotsa children is NOWHERE stated ANYWHERE in the Bible; it ONLY states that Jesus did.

The TRADITION (documented to the First Century and universal until the above liberal Protestants) that Mary had no other children is NOWHERE stated ANYWHERE in the Bible, it ONLY states she bore Jesus.



The koine Greek word for "brother" does NOT mean "came from the same womb; has the same birth mother." Indeed, it was NOT used that way most of the time. And there is no word in koine Greek for step-brother or half-brother, so if these were children of Jospeh from an earlier marriage (as very ancient Tradition says, but I do not) , then the text uses the ONLY word available to speak of them, "Brother." And as I showed you (did you read it?), the Greek word translated as "until" does NOT mean (or even remotely imply) "the opposite is true after this." It does not mean that eventually she had marital relations; you are basing a position on YOUR 21st century American concept of the English word "until" but the koine Greek word used 2000 years ago did not mean or imply what you feel the English word used in an English translation MAY mean. You can see this from Scripture itsef, as I noted. See post 127







That Mary and Joseph married is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That Mary and Joseph consummated anything is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That Mary and Joseph had lotsa sex is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER states that.

That if Mary had sex, ERGO it is DOGMA that she had lotsa kids is a HUMAN OPINION (doctrine nowhere), the Bible NEVER says that (nor does biology).

Yeah..... some radical liberal Protestants in the 18th Century first invented the theory that Mary and Joseph had lotsa sex and kids, but the Bible NEVER says that, THEY did (and some parrot this late tradition)

Yeah.... it became universally accepted within the First Century (when perhaps Mary was still alive) that she had no other children, but the Bible NEVER states that, it's just universal and very, very ancient Traditon that is dogma nowhere.



- Josiah




PS IF you want to discuss the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, there are other threads on that. Unless you can give biological proof that every act of marital intimacy results in a child, your obvious rejected of the PVM is entirely IRRELEVANT to this discussion and thread. Even if you could quote the verse "Mary had lots and lots of sex," it would not prove that she had other children without that biological proof.




.

LOL, You dig a deeper hole...

 

[Josiah]

Jesus had 4 brothers named in scripture, and at least 2 sisters (not named).

The problem with your position is that the word "brother" and "sister" in koine Greek does NOT mean or imply "came from the same womb; has the same mother." Indeed, MOST of the time the word does not mean that. And remember: there was no word in koine Greek (or in Hebrew) for half-sibling or step-sibling or even adopted sibling, these could ONLY be called "brother" or "sister" because words did not exist to refer to them otherwise. And while there was a word for "cousin" it was RARELY used, generally a cousin was simply called "brother" or "sister." These eterms could even mean any relative or anyone living in the same household (even if ENTIRELY unrelated). And the terms were often used for one with whom we have a SPIRITUAL or emotional relationship (YOU are my brother in Christ).


It was the universal opinion of Christians since the First Century (when Mary was still alive) that these were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. NO we have NOTHING in Sripture that states that, just as we have NOTHING in Scripture that says they are children of Mary. BUT IF the universal opinion of all until a few extremely liberal Protestants came along in the 18th Century is true (IF), then there would be NO WAY to refer to them other than by the words used in the text, "Brothers". They technically would be HALF brothers (since the Bible refers to Joseph as His father, although technically that's not true - "father" and "mother" ALSO did not necessarily mean biologically!) but there is no word in Koine Greek for HALF brother, no such term existed.

The ppl that knew them also knew that Mary was their Mother

Quote any verses that even share the personal OPINION (even a potentially errant one) that Mary was the mother of anyone other than Jesus.... You cannot find such a verse in Scripture or anywhere at all until the 18th Century.

If some religionists want to come along afterwards and concoct lies and distortions to create manmade traditions and doctrines of devils, shame on them.

I agree. The Bible is SILENT on the issue of whether Mary had other children. But in the 18th Century, along came a few radically liberal Protestants who denied the virgin birth of Jesus (and the divinity of Jesus) and insisted that Mary had lotsa sex and children. This new tradition they invented is not taught in Scripture but at least this part of it is parroted today, IRONICALLY by some Protestants who CLAIM to go by the Bible while PROVING they can't find a single verse that states Mary had other children.



The REALITY is this: The Bible simply never states if Mary had other children. It doesn't say, one way or the other. I can't imagine for the life of me why it matters, anyway. Yes, the very ancient and universal opinion for over 1700 years is that she did not, but the Bible does not confirm that. Yes, it is the invented theory of a few radically liberal Protestants in the 18th Century that she did, but the Bible does not confirm this.





.

 

[RichWh1]

Josiah,
Are you a student of the Koine Greek? Or are you just taking the word of others who are?
What about the words ‘ sister, mother, ?
If you’re not a student of the language you cannot speak with authority on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Josiah,Are you a student of the Koine Greek?

As a matter of fact, I am studying biblical Greek.


How about you? Your whole position is that the word "brother" must mean "shares the same mother, came from the same womb." Okay. Unless this is THE meaning of the word, your apologetic falls. The word is very common in the NT, can you even prove that every case in the NT clearly means, "came from the same womb?" Since your whole apologetic depends on the word "brother" meaning "shares the same mother" are you an authority on koine Greek? Try reading the following (even in an English translation) and see if even you feel the word (SAME as in this verse) must mean, "came from the same womb, shares the same biological mother." Matthew 5:47, Acts 3:22, Hebrews 2:12, Acts 9:30, Acts 11:29, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 1:1, Matthew 5:22-24, Matthew 7:5, Hebrews 2:17, Acts 6:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 IDENTICAL word for "brother". Does the NT prove the word must mean "came from the same womb, shares the same biological mother"?




.

 

[RichWh1]

As a matter of fact, I am studying biblical Greek. How about you?

Excellent! Yes, I studied the New Testament Koine Greek at University (Cairn)
I also studied Biblical Hebrew as well as the epistles, gospels, and OT History.

We can agree the word αδελφός does not always have the meaning of brother, as it can relate to any blood relative

You have to admit that saying Mary was definitely not the mother of James and Jude is mere conjecture.

Your whole position is that the word "brother" must mean "shares the same mother, came from the same womb." Okay. Unless this is THE meaning of the word, your apologetic falls.

The word can mean. brother or as I showed, a blood relative.(male)

What about the words mother, sister, father?

The word is very common in the NT, can you even prove that every case in the NT clearly means, "came from the same womb?" Since your whole apologetic depends on the word "brother" meaning "shares the same mother" are you an authority on koine Greek? Try reading the following (even in an English translation) and see if even you feel the word (SAME as in this verse) must mean, "came from the same womb, shares the same biological mother." Matthew 5:47, Acts 3:22, Hebrews 2:12, Acts 9:30, Acts 11:29, 1 Corinthians 5:11, 1 Corinthians 1:1, Matthew 5:22-24, Matthew 7:5, Hebrews 2:17, Acts 6:3, 1 Thessalonians 5:1 IDENTICAL word for "brother". Does the NT prove the word must mean "came from the same womb, shares the same biological mother"?

It doesn’t prove or disprove anything however it is an evidence that Mary had other children besides Jesus


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael]

Jesus had 4 brothers named in scripture, and at least 2 sisters (not named). The ppl that knew them also knew that Mary was their Mother and her husband Joseph was their Father (and even assumed Joseph was Jesus' Father, (as He had yet to be fully revealed or understood to be the one born of a virgin prophesied about).
A plain reading of God's Word makes it pretty clear. Why do some ppl try to look for ways to distort or pervert God's Word and cause doubt on it? (And in this case, they make a perversion of Jesus' family as well). It's rather sick, or like a sickness or obsession for some. It's sad. Their contemporaries and the writers of scripture knew that Jesus had a normal human family (all things considered, He IS the Messiah of Israel and the Lord and Saviour of all, afterall) of brothers and sisters, with a married mother and father, as well as He had aunts and uncles and cousins, etc.
If some religionists want to come along afterwards and concoct lies and distortions to create manmade traditions and doctrines of devils, shame on them.

Amen. Good post. You are absolutely correct!

John 6:42, Matt 12:46-47, Matt 13:55-56, John 2:12 and Acts 1:14 are crystal clear on this.

It is very hard for some to accept that Jesus was not a physical being before the baby in Bethlehem, or that He had a human nature just like ours. For then it would make us accountable for our choices, deeds and behavior in this life.