JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[FredVB]

To summarize, Jesus lumped his brothers and his mother together. While we can't prove Jesus had brothers from the same mother to those who do not want to accept it, what basis in the Bible is there to doubt it? There is no such basis, it is a question only because of the traditional belief of those of certain churches that Mary was a perpetual virgin, which also has no basis from the Bible, and that belief is more linked to the belief in her as the Queen of Heaven. That Jesus speaks of them linked together with Mary his mother speaks enough to me, along with James speaking of himself as, and others knowing him as, the brother of the Lord.

Exactly.

End of discussion.

Nor can we prove whether Jesus was married or not. There are lots of hints but no solid proof either way.

The responses do not change anything for what I had said, they make my very point then. As there is no basis whatsoever in the Bible to say those that are called the brothers of Jesus in the Bible, with the mother of Jesus, are not really his brothers from that same mother, not only should it be an end of discussion on it, the claims that the brothers of Jesus are not the brothers of the same mother should not be tolerated either. It should be excluded unless there is basis from the Bible.

 

[RichWh1]

Well, since you insist that Scripture is the Authority and not the Tradition you perfectly echo, then all you need do is quote the verse that states, "Mary had other children." Or perhaps "Mary is the birth mother of ________ (insert some person other than Jesus).






Well, the verse calls Joseph His "father" does it not? SO, if these words can ONLY mean "biological parent" then this verse contradicts the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and the Divinity of Jesus.


Read this, my friend: It has has been SHOWN (with many Scriptures) the GREEK words used here for "brother" and "sister" do not only mean "came from the same womb; share the same biological mother." You don't need to study Greek (as I have a bit) to know that, just see howS Scripture itself uses the word, and you'll see it often (in fact usually) does not mean that. We know that there was no word for step-sibling or half-sibling so these could EQUALLY be such, children of Joseph but not Mary, that's EQUALLY possible via the words used. We also know that while there was a word for "cousin" it was almost never used, usually a "cousin" is simply called a "brother" or "sister" and so it is certianly possible that the meaning here is "cousins of," the words here could well mean that neither Joseph or Mary were their biological parents. The word also was used for an adopted child.... for ANYONE that happens to be living with the family.... even for persons with whom they are ENTIRELY UNRELATED biologically but share some key point in common (THE most common use of the word in the Bible). Friend: Your dogmatic assumption that "brother"and "sister" mean "Shares the womb of the mother" is wrong; your whole dogma is founded entirely on a falsehood. Now, is it THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE given the words used for these to have Mary as their biological mother? Yes, but it is inconclusive since the word would EQUALLY mean other things. And IF you insist the words here are meant biologically, then you have just destroyed the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth since you have made Joseph His biological father; to be consistent, you'd need to say "father" also MUST mean "biological parent" if you force the word "mother" mean that.

IF you actually hold Scripture as the Authority you claim it is, then this is what SHOULD matter to you: The Bible never says Mary had other children. The Bible never says that ANYONE other than Jesus had Mary as their biological mother.




.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Friend: Your dogmatic assumption that "brother"and "sister" mean "Shares the womb of the mother" is wrong; your whole dogma is founded entirely on a falsehood.

I never made an assumption that brother and sister mean share the same womb. Where did you get that idea?





Matthew 1:24-25 says “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus”
Notice that Joseph keep Mary a virgin until she gave birth to the Messiah.







Notice that Joseph did marry Mary. They did not have sex until Mary gave birth to the Messiah. That is what Scripture insinuates.

And IF you insist the words here are meant biologically, then you have just destroyed the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth since you have made Joseph His biological father

I have not made Joseph His biological father!! You are saying I did. You are assuming that I believe that. In fact, I do NOT insist that Joesph was his biological father!! Because the Messiah was to be born the SEED of the WOMAN. No man was involved and the Scripture says that.

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 1:24-25 says “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus”
Notice that Joseph keep Mary a virgin until she gave birth to the Messiah.

Doesn't say, "Mary gave birth to other children."

Matthew wrote nothing in English. I agree that the English word in the 21st century USUALLY (but not always) implies the situation changed. But your point falls when we realize Matthew did not write this in English or in the 21st Century. The Koine Greek word is "ews" Do a word study,the word in no way dogmatically states or remotely even implied that the situation ended at that time. It ONLY means Joseph kept her a virgin to that point, up to then, it says NOTHING, implies NOTHING after that - one way or the other. There's NOTHING remotely in the word that says a thing about after that, the Greek wording would be no different if they never had relations, it still would be "ews." You are imposing baseless eisegesis based on 21st Century English rather than first Century Greek.

And no, there is no verse that says Mary and Joseph married. In fact, early Christians did not believe they ever did, that's a fairly modern assumption. To this very day, the Orthodox Churches (roughly one quarter of all Christians) hold they NEVER married - because well, Greek Orthodox know Greek and know there's nothing in Greek that remotely states or implies they EVER did. Where is the verse that says, "And Mary and Joseph got married?" Maybe they did.... but there's no verse (and no Tradition) that says so.

How, I agree - there's nothing that states she did NOT have other children... and nothing that says they did not marry.... but then that's not the discussion, we're discussing your point that she DID have other children and they DID marry.

No, I never indicated that you stated Joseph is Jesus' biological father.



.

 

[RichWh1]

Doesn't say, "Mary gave birth to other children."

It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was their mother. John 7

Joseph kept her a virgin to that point, up to then, it says NOTHING, implies NOTHING after that

It implies that some relationship happened after the birth of Jesus, does it not? Joseph and Mary married and according to Hebrew tradition, a marriage is not consummated until there is intercourse.

"And Mary and Joseph got married?" Maybe they did.... but there's no verse (and no Tradition) that says so. And no, there is no verse that says Mary and Joseph married. In fact, early Christians did not believe they ever did, that's a fairly modern assumption

Matthew 1:24b. And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife,

I agree that Matthew wrote in Greek and Aramaic; some say that Matthew had written in Aramaic originally then it was translated into Koine Greek later.
I did study Greek and the Bible at Cairn Univ. So I am aware that English and Greek are not exact; that is why they are called translations. Experts in the language translate -- not word for word, but thought for thought.

 

[atpollard]

Doesn't say, "Mary gave birth to other children."

Semantics.

 

[Josiah]

It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary was their mother. John 7




It implies that some relationship happened after the birth of Jesus, does it not? Joseph and Mary married and according to Hebrew tradition, a marriage is not consummated until there is intercourse.

It does NOT say, "And Mary had other children." Remember, in koine Greek, the terms "Brother and sister" can also mean half-siblings, it can mean ANY relative or even a non-relative that lives in the same home, and in the Bible, the terms MOST OFTEN mean another who has faith in Christ (YOU are my brother). The word does NOT mean "Came from the same womb." You may personally feel that something is IMPLIED. That does not mean ergo it is stated.

No, nowhere in John 7 does it say that Mary had other children.



.

 

[JRT]

The responses do not change anything for what I had said, they make my very point then. As there is no basis whatsoever in the Bible to say those that are called the brothers of Jesus in the Bible, with the mother of Jesus, are not really his brothers from that same mother, not only should it be an end of discussion on it, the claims that the brothers of Jesus are not the brothers of the same mother should not be tolerated either. It should be excluded unless there is basis from the Bible.

There is no basis for the claim that Jesus was unmarried to be found in the Bible but there are a number of inconclusive hints that he was.

 

[FredVB]

There is no basis for the claim that Jesus was unmarried to be found in the Bible but there are a number of inconclusive hints that he was.

There is no basis found in the Bible to say that Jesus went to India, but there are people that might believe that he did go, so it is inconclusive. There is no basis found in the Bible to say that Jesus drove a car, but if Jesus wanted to he could have, so it is inconclusive. The Jesus that people would believe in is so subject to their expectations, that it matters less to them what is found in the Bible that Jesus did do and that he did say, because they can believe what is inconclusive, which the Bible doesn't show, about what they expect Jesus would do. I see this a whole lot of the time. This is even for things of such importance that the Bible could really have something showing those things, whatever they are.

If the Bible does not show James was not the brother of Jesus, should I believe he was not when he said he was?

 

[Josiah]

If the Bible does not show James was not the brother of Jesus, should I believe he was not when he said he was?

AGAIN, the word used here in koine Greek does NOT mandate, "have the same biological mother." It could mean half-brother, it could mean cousin, it could mean any male relative, it could even mean a complete non-relative who happens to live in the same house, it could even mean non-relative with whom we share faith (YOU are my brother; WE are brothers). This last usage is the most common in the New Testament.

Yes, you can believe me when I say I'm your brother. But I did NOT say, "We came from the same womb."



.

 

[FredVB]

If the Bible does not show James was not the brother of Jesus, should I believe he was not when he said he was?

AGAIN, the word used here in koine Greek does NOT mandate, "have the same biological mother." It could mean half-brother, it could mean cousin, it could mean any male relative, it could even mean a complete non-relative who happens to live in the same house, it could even mean non-relative with whom we share faith (YOU are my brother; WE are brothers). This last usage is the most common in the New Testament.

Yes, you can believe me when I say I'm your brother. But I did NOT say, "We came from the same womb."



.

Even if you speak of a Greek word being used I am not believing that you have the grasp for speaking the Greek language at that time fluently. Though I don't either, I do know how to speak more than this english language. I am sure that a word used in more than one way was not left indistinguishably vague. Speakers who knew the word that could be used of siblings of the same parents and for cousins, and others, were not ignorant of the distinction, and knew the distinction was there. In the same way we understand, context would show which meaning would be meant, and the meaning would not be left vague. If you want the Bible to be vague, it will be vague for you. For me, the most direct understanding is what I can trust, allowing for other passages to help understanding one passage rightly. And there are no passages, in the immediate context or anywhere else, to show that the brothers are meant to be anything other than the actual siblings, where they are mentioned, even if the word could be used in other ways, which context could determine, so that Bible passages won't be vague to us unnecessarily. So as James is the brother of the Lord, as he said and as he was known to be in the time he was leading the church, I can trust it as there is nothing qualifying it to mean differently than that James is the actual sibling of Jesus, and as Jesus was born from Mary James was too, later on, and other siblings were too. Context is needed to show otherwise, unless we settle with scriptures being too vague for us to understand.

 

[Josiah]

, I do know how to speak more than this english language.

Jesus never spoke English.

There was no such language at the time.

Yes, IN MODERN ENGLISH (a language Jesus NEVER spoke), the word "brother" MAY mean "Came from the same womb" but it doesn't always. In the Bible, the word most often means "shares faith in Jesus Christ" NOT shares the same mother. So even if you ignore the original words and substitute instead modern English, your point still doesn't stand. But let's go with your idea that everyone in the Bible spoke modern English.... Let's look at just one (of many) verses where "brother" is used (the EXACT same word). Colossians 1:1-2. Do you hold that everyone in Colossi had the same mother as Paul? That Timothy had the same mother as did Paul?



.

 

[FredVB]

Jesus never spoke English.

There was no such language at the time.

Yes, IN MODERN ENGLISH (a language Jesus NEVER spoke), the word "brother" MAY mean "Came from the same womb" but it doesn't always. In the Bible, the word most often means "shares faith in Jesus Christ" NOT shares the same mother. So even if you ignore the original words and substitute instead modern English, your point still doesn't stand. But let's go with your idea that everyone in the Bible spoke modern English.... Let's look at just one (of many) verses where "brother" is used (the EXACT same word). Colossians 1:1-2. Do you hold that everyone in Colossi had the same mother as Paul? That Timothy had the same mother as did Paul?

This is irrelevant to the point I actually make. From what I know about languages, words meaning variable things not consistent with one another are defined by context, except in very poor writing or writing meant to be vague or confusing. Brother is a word used in various ways but primarily of one who is of the same parents. Sure, in the new testament of the Bible, after Mary and his brothers together came to see him and Jesus told those following him, "Here are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of God is my brother and my sister and mother." Before that there is no basis to conclude the brothers are not from the same mother coming to see Jesus, with no context for it, but for the sake of the other unsupported belief with nothing in the Bible suggesting it that Mary always remained a virgin even throughout her marriage. You would have to believe that in the language used in the Bible there is no distinction recognized for the word for brother and it could mean anyone at all, with no context needed, the original speakers could not recognize that distinction.

 

[Josiah]

Brother is a word used in various ways but primarily of one who is of the same parents.

1. In MODERN ENGLISH. But Luke did not pin this in modern English.


2. Nope, in Koine Greek, the word MOST OFTEN did not mean "having the same mother." It's not even the case in the NT.


3. Even if your claim had merit, it would not prove that thus Mary bore other children - only that it's POSSIBLE she did. I don't deny that possibility - given the words of the NT - but it's also possible she did NOT - given the words of the NT. Just because it is more LIKELY that Jesus was born on a weekday does not mean ergo He was not born on a weekend.


4. Again.... very early tradition says Joseph had children from a previous marriage.... there is no word for "half brother" or "step brother" in koine Greek, if you had a sibling from only one parent (even if such is not your biological parent), such would be called 'brother' or 'sister" since there was no other word available. While the Bible does not say these were "half brothers" there's also no way it COULD use a title for such since none existed.

r unsupported belief with nothing in the Bible suggesting it that Mary always remained a virgin even throughout her marriage.

1. You are rebuking an apologetic identical to your own because you too are making a case out of an ASSUMPTION that the Bible does not say.... you PRESUME "brother" here means "came from the same womb" whereas most Christians PRESUME it does not mean that. BOTH apologetics are entirely based on a PRESUMPTION. Difference: This traditional view has better linguistic support, TYPICALLY in koine Greek, the word does NOT mean "shares the same mother." The presumption of the traditionalists is more solid than that of a small minority of Christians in the past 200 years.


2. VERY early (by the year 110 AD) Christians believed Mary had no other children. They likely got this view from people who lived before them, perhaps people who knew Mary, who knew the Apostles, perhaps who knew Jesus. In any case, we have no evidence of any Christians who held that she did have other children. Your theory has no "legs" - no "roots" - no history. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and beyond, all held to the view that she had no other children. Your theory is remarkably new. Only with the past couple of centuries, within the tiny new movement of "Evangelicalism" has this theory sprung..... and as you show, with not one word of Scripture that so states.


3. I never said Mary had no other children. I said the Bible NEVER says that she did.... or that she did not. (And frankly, I can't see why it matters).




A blessed Christmas to you and yours...


- Josiah




.

 

[FredVB]

1. In MODERN ENGLISH. But Luke did not pin this in modern English.


2. Nope, in Koine Greek, the word MOST OFTEN did not mean "having the same mother." It's not even the case in the NT.


3. Even if your claim had merit, it would not prove that thus Mary bore other children - only that it's POSSIBLE she did. I don't deny that possibility - given the words of the NT - but it's also possible she did NOT - given the words of the NT. Just because it is more LIKELY that Jesus was born on a weekday does not mean ergo He was not born on a weekend.


4. Again.... very early tradition says Joseph had children from a previous marriage.... there is no word for "half brother" or "step brother" in koine Greek, if you had a sibling from only one parent (even if such is not your biological parent), such would be called 'brother' or 'sister" since there was no other word available. While the Bible does not say these were "half brothers" there's also no way it COULD use a title for such since none existed.




1. You are rebuking an apologetic identical to your own because you too are making a case out of an ASSUMPTION that the Bible does not say.... you PRESUME "brother" here means "came from the same womb" whereas most Christians PRESUME it does not mean that. BOTH apologetics are entirely based on a PRESUMPTION. Difference: This traditional view has better linguistic support, TYPICALLY in koine Greek, the word does NOT mean "shares the same mother." The presumption of the traditionalists is more solid than that of a small minority of Christians in the past 200 years.


2. VERY early (by the year 110 AD) Christians believed Mary had no other children. They likely got this view from people who lived before them, perhaps people who knew Mary, who knew the Apostles, perhaps who knew Jesus. In any case, we have no evidence of any Christians who held that she did have other children. Your theory has no "legs" - no "roots" - no history. Luther, Calvin, Wesley and beyond, all held to the view that she had no other children. Your theory is remarkably new. Only with the past couple of centuries, within the tiny new movement of "Evangelicalism" has this theory sprung..... and as you show, with not one word of Scripture that so states.


3. I never said Mary had no other children. I said the Bible NEVER says that she did.... or that she did not. (And frankly, I can't see why it matters).

"1" is irrelevant, find any language you know that context would not be used.

"2" is irrelevant, because context would be used to not leave something that would be ambiguous that way.

"3" Jesus would not have brothers from Joseph, God the heavenly Father is the father to Jesus. His brothers would only be from his mother. James still is identified, and identified himself, as the brother of the Lord. With no qualifier, there is no basis to think he is brother to Jesus in another way, as he led the church with that understanding. I do believe (okay, not with proof, but my belief) that they saw the resemblance.

"4" as pointed out Jesus would not have a half brother. Either a brother was had from his mother, or a "brother" was not related to him that way, as Joseph was not.

"1" no way is any language deliberately that vague. I believe neither is God.

"2" AD 110 is really late for basis of what to believe in addition to the Bible. I would choose what is known right in that generation. Apostles, especially John, knew circumstances well, but wrote nothing about any of this being otherwise, where things would be cleared up if otherwise if they had.

"3" it matters because others claim to know.

 

[RichWh1]

AGAIN, the word used here in koine Greek does NOT mandate, "have the same biological mother." It could mean half-brother, it could mean cousin, it could mean any male relative, it could even mean a complete non-relative who happens to live in the same house, it could even mean non-relative with whom we share faith (YOU are my brother; WE are brothers). This last usage is the most common in the New Testament.

Yes, you can believe me when I say I'm your brother. But I did NOT say, "We came from the same womb."



.

It can also mean the opposite, that Jesus was not the only son Mary had. Half brothers could have either the same father and different mother or vise versa. Since Jesus was born of God His mother is Mary and step father was Joseph.
This does not mean that Joseph had other sons or that Mary didn’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

It can also mean the opposite, that Jesus was not the only son Mary had. Half brothers could have either the same father and different mother or vise versa. Since Jesus was born of God His mother is Mary and step father was Joseph.
This does not mean that Joseph had other sons or that Mary didn’t.

YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Jesus was the only child of Mary. No one denies that (indeed, the overwhelming majority of Christmas hold to that; 100% of them before a couple of centuries ago).

And YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Mary had several other children after Jesus (and about 200 years ago, a tiny minority of Christians began to hold to that).

But POSSIBLE does not equal certain. When one insists on either view, they are simply noting that either position is POSSIBLE. When one condemns the other was wrong/heretical/unbiblical - they are simply condemning themselves because neither view is certain, neither view is textually wrong or right. One has a very, very strong weight of ancient, ecumenical tradition behind it - the other is a very new opinion of a tiny minority of Christians, but both are opinions as to which POSSIBILITY is the case.




And again, the word for "brother" in koine Greek does NOT at all mandate comes from the same mother. In common usage, it generally does NOT mean that. In the Bible, the word most often means "shares faith in Jesus Christ" NOT shares the same mother. Let's look at just one (of many) verses where "brother" is used (the EXACT same word). Colossians 1:1-2. Does this verse mean that everyone in Colossi had the same mother as Paul? That Timothy had the same mother as did Paul? If not, then it is absurd to argue the word means "came from the same mother; it CAN mean that (although not a common usage of the word) but it may NOT mean that (as it usually does not).

.

 

[FredVB]

YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Jesus was the only child of Mary. No one denies that (indeed, the overwhelming majority of Christmas hold to that; 100% of them before a couple of centuries ago).

And YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Mary had several other children after Jesus (and about 200 years ago, a tiny minority of Christians began to hold to that).

But POSSIBLE does not equal certain. When one insists on either view, they are simply noting that either position is POSSIBLE. When one condemns the other was wrong/heretical/unbiblical - they are simply condemning themselves because neither view is certain, neither view is textually wrong or right. One has a very, very strong weight of ancient, ecumenical tradition behind it - the other is a very new opinion of a tiny minority of Christians, but both are opinions as to which POSSIBILITY is the case.

And again, the word for "brother" in koine Greek does NOT at all mandate comes from the same mother. In common usage, it generally does NOT mean that. In the Bible, the word most often means "shares faith in Jesus Christ" NOT shares the same mother. Let's look at just one (of many) verses where "brother" is used (the EXACT same word). Colossians 1:1-2. Does this verse mean that everyone in Colossi had the same mother as Paul? That Timothy had the same mother as did Paul? If not, then it is absurd to argue the word means "came from the same mother; it CAN mean that (although not a common usage of the word) but it may NOT mean that (as it usually does not).

Is that what you want to hear? Yes, it is possible that Jesus would be the only child Mary ever conceived and bore, who is one condemning here? Is it credible? It is with traditions appealed to for holding to that as the actual case. There is nothing biblically for that position. Biblically there is mention of the brothers of Jesus coming to Jesus with the mother, and James is referred to as his brother, and Jude, another of the brothers mentioned, again the brother of James, no basis from anything biblically to show they would not brothers biologically. And brothers mentioned having other meaning than the biological sense expected is contextually about believers in Christ, after Jesus Christ came, lived in testimony and suffered and died and rose again, and later ascended to heaven, with God's Spirit yet to come on the fellowship of his followers. Saying this has no dependence on views of any in the past 200 years, when more believers were literate and could see for themselves what is stated in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

There is nothing biblically for that position.

As I've been noting....

The BIBLE does NOT say that Mary had other children. Insisting that it does is wrong.
The BIBLE does NOT say that Mary did NOT have other children. Insisting that it does is wrong.

Now....
...there is at least 1950 years of universal, ecumenical tradition that says she did not.
...there is about 200 years of a tiny minority of Christians who suddenly theorize that she did.

The difference is not in what the Bible says or does not say. NO position on this is stated in the Bible. The difference is in what Christians have believed. Does this matter? Well, do you hold that Jesus was married (Bible says not one word about that)?



Now... if you can present the Scripture that says, "Mary had lotsa babies" then quote it. But all you've been presenting is a bunch of OPINIONS about what YOU personally think might be IMPLIED by an ENGLISH word no one in Jesus' time ever said.




.

 

[atpollard]

[Gal 1:19 NASB] 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother.[G80]

STRONGS NT 80: ἀδελφός
ἀδελφός, -οῦ, ὁ (from α copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) [from Homer down];
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 [but WH only in marginal reading]; Matthew 13:55f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels [cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f]), nor cousins, the children of Alphæus or Cleophas [i. e. Clopas] and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine [cf. Bp. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.]), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:22, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 [only in R G]; Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱὸν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱὸν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles.
See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. [Cf. B. D. under the word Brother; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55.] - Thayer's Greek Lexicon

 

[pinacled]

YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Jesus was the only child of Mary. No one denies that (indeed, the overwhelming majority of Christmas hold to that; 100% of them before a couple of centuries ago).

And YES, textually, it is POSSIBLE that Mary had several other children after Jesus (and about 200 years ago, a tiny minority of Christians began to hold to that).

But POSSIBLE does not equal certain. When one insists on either view, they are simply noting that either position is POSSIBLE. When one condemns the other was wrong/heretical/unbiblical - they are simply condemning themselves because neither view is certain, neither view is textually wrong or right. One has a very, very strong weight of ancient, ecumenical tradition behind it - the other is a very new opinion of a tiny minority of Christians, but both are opinions as to which POSSIBILITY is the case.




And again, the word for "brother" in koine Greek does NOT at all mandate comes from the same mother. In common usage, it generally does NOT mean that. In the Bible, the word most often means "shares faith in Jesus Christ" NOT shares the same mother. Let's look at just one (of many) verses where "brother" is used (the EXACT same word). Colossians 1:1-2. Does this verse mean that everyone in Colossi had the same mother as Paul? That Timothy had the same mother as did Paul? If not, then it is absurd to argue the word means "came from the same mother; it CAN mean that (although not a common usage of the word) but it may NOT mean that (as it usually does not).

.

Literacy?

The scripture plainly states that yeshua(jesus) is the First born.
And a wise servant of the Lord prophecied of myriams soul in relation to her suffering.
Luke 2:35

Beyond the plain words spoken, the sod and beyond reveal a truth in the heart.

To claim that mary had other children carrys the burden of proof that her womb was shared with other siblings.
Something of which is contrary to Salvation.
And promoted as a conflict in a womb similar to rivkahs trouble.
When a son or daughter is born again they do not share the same physical womb as yeshua had.
No.
To be born again involves a spiritual aspect of inheritance.
To be called brothers and sisters has nothing to do with a physical womb.
Roman's 8:17

As has been testified.

What Does the Bible Say About Being Born Again?

Bible verses about Being Born Again

www.openbible.info