JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Doug]

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.

 

[NewCreation435]

what's your point?

 

[Josiah]

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.

Ok....

But it's unfounded that "brother" means "Mary's child."

In koine Greek, "brother" and "sister" are VERY loose, generic terms and by no means are limited to biological siblings. And the term is often used for a step or half brother/sister. These verses CANNOT be used to prove Mary had other children; one may hold they IMPLY such or PROBABLY indicate such (both going too far) but don't prove anything.

Reality: The Bible is silent on whether Mary had any other children. But there is Tradition, from as early as the late First Century, that she did not... and that the siblings mentioned are children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Does Tradition prove anything? No, but it does show the views of very early Christians... early enough to have EASILY named children of Mary. Frankly, I don't think we know from the Bible or history if May had any other children.... and I can't for the life of me image why it matters, BUT I know very early Christians believed she did not (and they'd know better than me). BTW, this has NOTHING to do with whether She had intimate relationships with Joseph - the subject of a Dogma.

 

[Arsenios]

Here is another clear case of scripture showing that Jesus had brothers.

Jesus had sisters too...

He was the youngest child in the family...

This is called camouflage...

And it worked...

Indeed it is working to this day for many Protestants...

So if Christ is your Brother, does that make Mariam your Mother?


Arsenios

 

[Doug]

Ok....

But it's unfounded that "brother" means "Mary's child."

In koine Greek, "brother" and "sister" are VERY loose, generic terms and by no means are limited to biological siblings. And the term is often used for a step or half brother/sister. These verses CANNOT be used to prove Mary had other children; one may hold they IMPLY such or PROBABLY indicate such (both going too far) but don't prove anything.

Reality: The Bible is silent on whether Mary had any other children. But there is Tradition, from as early as the late First Century, that she did not... and that the siblings mentioned are children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Does Tradition prove anything? No, but it does show the views of very early Christians... early enough to have EASILY named children of Mary. Frankly, I don't think we know from the Bible or history if May had any other children.... and I can't for the life of me image why it matters, BUT I know very early Christians believed she did not (and they'd know better than me). BTW, this has NOTHING to do with whether She had intimate relationships with Joseph - the subject of a Dogma.

Hello
I could find nothing in scripture to uphold Mary being the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, but tradition is not upheld by scripture either.

 

[Doug]

what's your point?

Hello
Simply sharing and commenting on scripture for what it is worth

 

[Josiah]

Hello
I could find nothing in scripture to uphold Mary being the mother of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, but tradition is not upheld by scripture either.

Agreed.

 

[Michael]

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.

Yes, indeed the Scripture declares that Jesus had brothers & sisters born of Mary. We see this clearly in the Gospels -

"While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.” - Matt 12:46-50

These were physical siblings born in the flesh. Now, God has called others to become "brothers of Christ Jesus" and "sons of God" in the spiritual, eternal, divine sense. (Rom 8:29, Heb 2:10-12). But man, we'll open up a whole can of worms here if I pursue this further!

 

[MennoSota]

Ok....

But it's unfounded that "brother" means "Mary's child."

In koine Greek, "brother" and "sister" are VERY loose, generic terms and by no means are limited to biological siblings. And the term is often used for a step or half brother/sister. These verses CANNOT be used to prove Mary had other children; one may hold they IMPLY such or PROBABLY indicate such (both going too far) but don't prove anything.

Reality: The Bible is silent on whether Mary had any other children. But there is Tradition, from as early as the late First Century, that she did not... and that the siblings mentioned are children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Does Tradition prove anything? No, but it does show the views of very early Christians... early enough to have EASILY named children of Mary. Frankly, I don't think we know from the Bible or history if May had any other children.... and I can't for the life of me image why it matters, BUT I know very early Christians believed she did not (and they'd know better than me). BTW, this has NOTHING to do with whether She had intimate relationships with Joseph - the subject of a Dogma.

Kinda like implying "household" means infant baptism...(going to far) but don't prove anything.
Matthew 13 is pretty clear.
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?

 

[Arsenios]

Kinda like implying "household" means infant baptism...(going to far) but don't prove anything.
Matthew 13 is pretty clear.
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?

This proves the deception worked, because Christ was most assuredly on a covert mission to save mankind from its enemies...

"Is not this the carpenter’s son?"

Because, you see, Jesus was most assuredly N-O-T the carpenter's son...

Neither was He related by blood to ANY of His brothers and sisters...

The deception was complete...

It was so good that He was unable to work many Signs in His Own town!

It was so good that Hades received Him when He died on the Cross...

And had no idea that He would bind and harrow it...

Not for nuttin' did He muzzle demons wanting to announce him...

And they DID want Him exposed...

And eventually He was...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

This proves the deception worked, because Christ was most assuredly on a covert mission to save mankind from its enemies...

"Is not this the carpenter’s son?"

Because, you see, Jesus was most assuredly N-O-T the carpenter's son...

Neither was He related by blood to ANY of His brothers and sisters...

The deception was complete...

It was so good that He was unable to work many Signs in His Own town!

It was so good that Hades received Him when He died on the Cross...

And had no idea that He would bind and harrow it...

Not for nuttin' did He muzzle demons wanting to announce him...

And they DID want Him exposed...

And eventually He was...


Arsenios

The deception?

Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them. No deception necessary. People recognized it.

 

[Arsenios]

The deception?

Remember the Israeli spies the prostitute protected...

That was the figure/type - Christ the fulfillment...

Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them. No deception necessary. People recognized it.

Yes, the deception succeeded:

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?

It was the "marriage" that made Joseph's sons and daughters the sisters and brothers of our Lord...
And indeed His Mother is CALLED Mary - Although Jesus is only recorded as calling her Woman [gune]...
But what you and I know...
And what His neighbors did not know...
Is that Jesus is NOT the Son of Joseph the Carpenter...

THAT was the deception...

And it worked...

As this passage of Holy Scripture clearly attests...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Remember the Israeli spies the prostitute protected...

That was the figure/type - Christ the fulfillment...



Yes, the deception succeeded:

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?

It was the "marriage" that made Joseph's sons and daughters the sisters and brothers of our Lord...
And indeed His Mother is CALLED Mary - Although Jesus is only recorded as calling her Woman [gune]...
But what you and I know...
And what His neighbors did not know...
Is that Jesus is NOT the Son of Joseph the Carpenter...

THAT was the deception...

And it worked...

As this passage of Holy Scripture clearly attests...


Arsenios

First, the promise was given and perpetuated from Genesis 3 onward. No deception, just a stumbling block (like scripture tells us).
Second, the deception by Rahab is by no means a type of Christ. Your imagination is running wild.

 

[Josiah]

Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them. No deception necessary. People recognized it.

Pure fantasy. You have NOTHING in Scripture or tradition or anywhere for this dogmatic statement, NOTHING. Not only do you show ZERO interest in Scripture but in ANYTHING but your wild, pure imagination. Bad way to create dogma, bad basis to split Christians.

 

[MennoSota]

Pure fantasy. You have NOTHING in Scripture or tradition or anywhere for this dogmatic statement, NOTHING. Not only do you show ZERO interest in Scripture but in ANYTHING but your wild, pure imagination. Bad way to create dogma, bad basis to split Christians.

I have more than your fantasy that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not Mary's children. All the data suggests they are her offspring. Just read the text, Josiah.
Second, your own words condemn you and your concept of infant baptism from the word "household" in Acts 16.
So, your refusal to accept scripture for what it ACTUALLY says is entirely your problem.

 

[Josiah]

Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them.

.

Pure fantasy. You have NOTHING in Scripture or tradition or anywhere for this dogmatic statement, NOTHING. Not only do you show ZERO interest in Scripture but in ANYTHING but your wild, pure imagination. Bad way to create dogma

.

All the data suggests they are her offspring. Just read the text, Josiah.

You prove you have NOTHING.

You have bsolutely NOTHING whatsoever to support your dogmatic statement, "Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them."

NOTHING in Scripture. NOTHING in history. NOTHING in Tradition. NOTHING except your own wild, baseless, pure imagination. And THAT'S what you use for such dogmatic, divisive statements. You TALK so much about "Scripture ONLY" and "proof" yet evidence that NONE of that has anything to do with anything, you just make stuff up - and declare it dogmatically. Or at least that is OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLE here. Come on, brother.... Your refusal to accept scripture for what it ACTUALLY says and does not say is entirely your problem, as this AGAIN (yet again) reveals.

 

[Arsenios]

First, the promise was given and perpetuated from Genesis 3 onward. No deception, just a stumbling block (like scripture tells us).
Second, the deception by Rahab is by no means a type of Christ. Your imagination is running wild.

Deceiving deceivers is a good thing...

"Let them fall according to their own devices!"

Just as "He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword..."

Rahab wasn't, but the spies were...

Agents of God...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Can you hear Paul?

"As deceiving, yet true!"

Do you know where that comes from?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Deceiving deceivers is a good thing...

You implied that Mary did not have other children..... MennoSota strongly rebuked that by declaring that the Bible never states that.

He then dogmatically stated that Mary had other children.... and notes that the Bible never states that.

All he is doing is rebuking his own self; he is showing he does EXACTLY what he accuses you of - just much worse.

He does this a lot.

IMO, he's only deceiving himself. I suspect everyone else sees it.


IMO, there is nothing in the Bible about Mary giving birth to others. It doesn't say She did, it doesn't say She did not. IF we accept MennoSota's DEMAND that we say NOTHING that is not stated in the Bible, then he'd insist we say NOTHING about this since Scripture says nothing about this.... but he does the exact opposite showing that his rule is actually "Scripture doesn't matter for zip, my imagination is all that matters." IMO, there is no basis for dogma here - one way or the other.

THAT SAID, IF one accepts early, clear Tradition (which MennoSota CLAIMS he does not, he only accepts the Calvinist Tradition that he personally agrees with), then it is undeniable that there is very strong, very early Tradition that Mary did not have other children. IMO, I'd hesitate to make dogma out of that but IMO that IS something to consider.... and some do.

 

[MennoSota]

You prove you have NOTHING.

You have bsolutely NOTHING whatsoever to support your dogmatic statement, "Mary and Joseph had children. Mary gave birth to all of them."

NOTHING in Scripture. NOTHING in history. NOTHING in Tradition. NOTHING except your own wild, baseless, pure imagination. And THAT'S what you use for such dogmatic, divisive statements. You TALK so much about "Scripture ONLY" and "proof" yet evidence that NONE of that has anything to do with anything, you just make stuff up - and declare it dogmatically. Or at least that is OBVIOUSLY and UNDENIABLE here. Come on, brother.... Your refusal to accept scripture for what it ACTUALLY says and does not say is entirely your problem, as this AGAIN (yet again) reveals.

What does the text actually say, Josiah? THAT is what we have to go on.
If you desire to create a fantasy myth with ZERO substantive evidence and stake your opinion on such a claim...you are free to do so. Just realize that any person who reads the actual Bible will find your claims completely ludicrous.
Now, the text says what the text says. I choose to ACTUALLY believe what it says and not attempt to skirt around it with revisionist thinking.
I am NOT the one creating a DOGMA. That is entirely...YOU!!!
I am reading the text and believing what God tells us. It is that simple.
Your attempt to avoid what the Bible says and then tell me I have created a dogma by believing the actual text is just mind-boggling. It's like listening to someone argue for a flat Earth despite all the scientific data proving them wrong. Stop being like a flat earther when dealing with what the Bible very clearly tells us.