JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Josiah]

[Jewish custom allowed that they be considered as husband and wife, though the marriage had not yet been consummated. The point is being made that Joseph and Mary had experienced no sexual contact with each other, as verse 18 “before they came together”]

Yes, in 3 verses in Matthew Chapter One, the terms "husband" and "wife" are used - along with the term "betrothed" (roughly, "engaged"). And all of these times was BEFORE Jesus was born and when there was NO consummation, NO sexual relations and thus NOT a full marriage, not consummated. The term here is NOT being used in the sense that is typical of these English words. This does NOT say they were "one flesh", it does NOT say they were married in that sense.

You chose to quote a Catholic website, and you confirm what I stated earlier, the Tradition of the West is that they were "married" but that it was never consummated, they shared a house but not a bed, they were "married" only in that very limited sense. Not "one flesh." The Tradition of the East is that they were not married in any sense but indeed shared the same house (not bed) and in roles of parent. The distinction makes little difference. You are simply noting that (like "brother") the terms YOU FEEL "imply" much actually don't at all say what you insist they do.


I'll ask again:

Where is the verse that says they got married (ie, sex.... consummation.... "one flesh")?

Where is the verse that says Mary had other children?


We know what Tradition says..... we know that about 200 years ago, some very radical liberals who denied the truthfulness of Scripture, the Virgin Birth and taught that Christianity if "full of myths" invented your theory. But the Bible is SILENT. Yes, the words "husband" and "wife" are used 3 times (all when Mary and Joseph had consummated NOTHING) but the words were simply interchangable with "betrothed" and does NOT mean marriage in the full sense. And yes, "brother" CAN mean have the same mother - but it actually rarely means that in the koine Greek, MOST of the time the word did not refer to persons to shared ANY biological parent (you and I are brothers). You are pumping a LOT into ENGLISH words in an ENGLISH translation as "IMPLIED" to a modern English reader. But it's not in the text. The Bible doesn't say what you do. Tradition doesn't either/




.

 

[pinacled]

Yes, in 3 verses in Matthew Chapter One, the terms "husband" and "wife" are used - along with the term "betrothed" (roughly, "engaged"). And all of these times was BEFORE Jesus was born and when there was NO consummation, NO sexual relations and thus NOT a full marriage, not consummated. The term here is NOT being used in the sense that is typical of these English words. This does NOT say they were "one flesh", it does NOT say they were married in that sense.

You chose to quote a Catholic website, and you confirm what I stated earlier, the Tradition of the West is that they were "married" but that it was never consummated, they shared a house but not a bed, they were "married" only in that very limited sense. Not "one flesh." The Tradition of the East is that they were not married in any sense but indeed shared the same house (not bed) and in roles of parent. The distinction makes little difference. You are simply noting that (like "brother") the terms YOU FEEL "imply" much actually don't at all say what you insist they do.


I'll ask again:

Where is the verse that says they got married (ie, sex.... consummation.... "one flesh")?

Where is the verse that says Mary had other children?


We know what Tradition says..... we know that about 200 years ago, some very radical liberals who denied the truthfulness of Scripture, the Virgin Birth and taught that Christianity if "full of myths" invented your theory. But the Bible is SILENT. Yes, the words "husband" and "wife" are used 3 times (all when Mary and Joseph had consummated NOTHING) but the words were simply interchangable with "betrothed" and does NOT mean marriage in the full sense. And yes, "brother" CAN mean have the same mother - but it actually rarely means that in the koine Greek, MOST of the time the word did not refer to persons to shared ANY biological parent (you and I are brothers). You are pumping a LOT into ENGLISH words in an ENGLISH translation as "IMPLIED" to a modern English reader. But it's not in the text. The Bible doesn't say what you do. Tradition doesn't either/




.

Though there are similarities between assumption and implications.
What is conveyed is a comprehensive message.
The pretense use of husband wife implies a direct understanding of complete marriage at a later time.

Matthew 13:55
[ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?]

 

[pinacled]

Yes, in 3 verses in Matthew Chapter One, the terms "husband" and "wife" are used - along with the term "betrothed" (roughly, "engaged"). And all of these times was BEFORE Jesus was born and when there was NO consummation, NO sexual relations and thus NOT a full marriage, not consummated. The term here is NOT being used in the sense that is typical of these English words. This does NOT say they were "one flesh", it does NOT say they were married in that sense.

You chose to quote a Catholic website, and you confirm what I stated earlier, the Tradition of the West is that they were "married" but that it was never consummated, they shared a house but not a bed, they were "married" only in that very limited sense. Not "one flesh." The Tradition of the East is that they were not married in any sense but indeed shared the same house (not bed) and in roles of parent. The distinction makes little difference. You are simply noting that (like "brother") the terms YOU FEEL "imply" much actually don't at all say what you insist they do.


I'll ask again:

Where is the verse that says they got married (ie, sex.... consummation.... "one flesh")?

Where is the verse that says Mary had other children?


We know what Tradition says..... we know that about 200 years ago, some very radical liberals who denied the truthfulness of Scripture, the Virgin Birth and taught that Christianity if "full of myths" invented your theory. But the Bible is SILENT. Yes, the words "husband" and "wife" are used 3 times (all when Mary and Joseph had consummated NOTHING) but the words were simply interchangable with "betrothed" and does NOT mean marriage in the full sense. And yes, "brother" CAN mean have the same mother - but it actually rarely means that in the koine Greek, MOST of the time the word did not refer to persons to shared ANY biological parent (you and I are brothers). You are pumping a LOT into ENGLISH words in an ENGLISH translation as "IMPLIED" to a modern English reader. But it's not in the text. The Bible doesn't say what you do. Tradition doesn't either/




.

East(greco) and West(roman) tradition has nothing to do with the source I cited.

"before they came together"
Implies they had in a future tense

 

[pinacled]

Though there are similarities between assumption and implications.
What is conveyed is a comprehensive message.
The pretense use of husband wife implies a direct understanding of a complete marriage at a later time.

Matthew 13:55
[ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?]

As is stated in the above brackets.
It is plausible that yosef had children from a previous marriage and was legally divorced.

According to Torah

And it is also plausible that myriam had children later after Yeshua.
The details are hidden in a rez form of PaRDeS with exegesis.
Note the number of brothers and their names!

Blessed be The Holy One

 

[pinacled]

That has nothing to do with the OP. I have no interest in taking this thread even further off topic.

Do you see now origen?

 

[pinacled]

That has nothing to do with the OP. I have no interest in taking this thread even further off topic.

Grading the Qualities of Pearls | Winterson

A buying guide to the different qualities of the pearl, how pearls are graded using the GIA's Pearl Description System and what to look out for when buying pearl jewellery.

www.winterson.co.uk

"Test the spirits"

 

[Josiah]

implies ....

Perhaps.... personally to you.... as you substitute modern English words in an English tome... But it's NOT what Scripture states. By saying "Implies" you are simply noting the Bible does NOT say it, you personally feel it's IMPLIED by an English word in your English translation.

There is no verse that says Mary and Joseph married - in the sense of a full, consummated, "one flesh" union. Yeah, before Jesus was born... when Mary was a VIRGIN (and thus not consummated anything with anyone) the English says "husband" and "wife" a few times but that does not mean they were married in the usual sense.

There is no verse that says Mary had other children. A word in ENGLISH may IMPLY something to YOU but the word doesn't mean what you feel it might "imply." You have no verse that says Mary had other children, my brother.

Matthew 13:55
[ “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?]

Yup, brother. Where does it say these are children of Mary? It doesn't. You keep proving that, my brother.

"before they came together" Implies they had in a future tense

Perhaps... maybe in modern English... but no one in the First Century spoke or wrote English. The Greek word does NOT imply that.

And, with all due respect, what you feel is IMPLIED by some English word is entirely irrelevant to anything.




.

 

[pinacled]

Perhaps.... personally to you.... as you substitute modern English words in an English tome... But it's NOT what Scripture states. By saying "Implies" you are simply noting the Bible does NOT say it, you personally feel it's IMPLIED by an English word in your English translation.

There is no verse that says Mary and Joseph married - in the sense of a full, consummated, "one flesh" union. Yeah, before Jesus was born... when Mary was a VIRGIN (and thus not consummated anything with anyone) the English says "husband" and "wife" a few times but that does not mean they were married in the usual sense.

There is no verse that says Mary had other children. A word in ENGLISH may IMPLY something to YOU but the word doesn't mean what you feel it might "imply." You have no verse that says Mary had other children, my brother.





Yup, brother. Where does it say these are children of Mary? It doesn't. You keep proving that, my brother.




Perhaps... maybe in modern English... but no one in the First Century spoke or wrote English. The Greek word does NOT imply that.

And, with all due respect, what you feel is IMPLIED by some English word is entirely irrelevant to anything.




.

How then are you and others in this thread able to communicate beside english king josiah?

I already asked you to show the greek defintion concerning marriage which you ignored along with other ques.
Repetition has no authority over The Torah.
Aim and fire at a sheild all you like.

You've been recorded claiming that the english language has no binding in marriage.
I can only assume you mean that The Almighty doesn't speak, know, or recognize the english language.
Instead only greco/roman terms apply to contextual conversations.

You've fired accusations at a few posters here.
And the why is apparent.

Anger/frustration

 

[pinacled]

Perhaps.... personally to you.... as you substitute modern English words in an English tome... But it's NOT what Scripture states. By saying "Implies" you are simply noting the Bible does NOT say it, you personally feel it's IMPLIED by an English word in your English translation.

There is no verse that says Mary and Joseph married - in the sense of a full, consummated, "one flesh" union. Yeah, before Jesus was born... when Mary was a VIRGIN (and thus not consummated anything with anyone) the English says "husband" and "wife" a few times but that does not mean they were married in the usual sense.

There is no verse that says Mary had other children. A word in ENGLISH may IMPLY something to YOU but the word doesn't mean what you feel it might "imply." You have no verse that says Mary had other children, my brother.





Yup, brother. Where does it say these are children of Mary? It doesn't. You keep proving that, my brother.




Perhaps... maybe in modern English... but no one in the First Century spoke or wrote English. The Greek word does NOT imply that.

And, with all due respect, what you feel is IMPLIED by some English word is entirely irrelevant to anything.




.

Respect is lacking in your manners.
I asked a specific question about dinah and shechem and you declined with deflection.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

That has nothing to do with the OP. I have no interest in taking this thread even further off topic.

Are you prepared to test?
Are you prepared for spiritual warfare?

If so,
Consider the union of a man and woman such as shechem and dinah to be consential in lashon hakodesh.

With eyes given you will see the motive of dinah's brothers.
To unbind a marriage.
Make their sister a widow and plausible children orphans.
A cruelty beyond an act of war.

Blessings Always

 

[Origen]

Are you prepared to test?
Are you prepared for spiritual warfare?

You need not wonder or worry about me one way or the other.

 

[pinacled]

You need not wonder or worry about me one way or the other.

Ah,
You're ticklish behind the ears

 

[pinacled]

John 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

7:2 Now the Jew's feast of tabernacles was at hand.

7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.

7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.

Here is another clear case of scripture showing that Jesus had brothers. The brethren could not be disciples because they are differentiated in the text in John 7:3. In John 7:5 brethren could not mean a disciple because they did not believe in him.

If He had brothers.

Would their names be significant?

 

[Origen]

Ah,
You're ticklish behind the ears

Not at all. I am simply uninterested.

 

[pinacled]

Not at all. I am simply uninterested.

Yet you posted

 

[pinacled]

Not at all. I am simply uninterested.

Do you have an interest in studying the 4 brothers names further?

 

[Origen]

Do you have an interest in studying the 4 brothers names further?

No

 

[pinacled]

No

1 corinthians
The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor.]

Seems to me that 12 oxen facing 4 directions have signifigance

 

[pinacled]

No

Truth is a pearl

 

[Origen]

Yet you posted

Sure do. When they are topics I find interesting.