JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[pinacled]

[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

Steer clear of strongs

 

[Josiah]

The scripture plainly states that yeshua(jesus) is the First born.

Yes. It is s phrase meaning "the one who opened the womb" and has certain cultural/economic/legal aspects. The term does NOT mean or imply that others followed.

To claim that mary had other children carrys the burden of proof that her womb was shared with other siblings.

I agree. If people are to insist Mary had other children, the "burden of -proof" is on them to substantiate that. If they claim the BIBLE says that, then they need to quote where the Bible says that.

To be called brothers and sisters has nothing to do with a physical womb.
Roman's 8:17

Correct. The word for "brother" in Koine Greek CAN mean "shares the same biological mother" but USUALLY does not. Most often, it means someone with whom we share something important (such as faith, being a child of God, being a "brother in Christ"). But it can mean a step brother, a half brother, a cousin, a brother-in-law or even a totally unrelated person who shares the same house. But the most common use is for an entirely unrelated person (biologically) who shares something critical. You are my brother in Christ.




.

 

[atpollard]

Steer clear of strongs

That was not Strong’s. It only referenced the ID # from Strong’s to identify the Greek Word being discussed.

 

[FredVB]

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.

Oh look. I said Jesus may have driven a car. Now I have basis. There is nothing in the Bible showing he did not. There is then no basis to say he did not.


I see the same reasoning.

 

[Josiah]

Jesus may have driven a car. There is nothing in the Bible showing he did not. I see the same reasoning.

The "problem" is when it is said Mary DID have other children... then show they have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, in the Bible, in history, in Tradition that remotely supports that dogmatic statement.


Yes, I agree, she MAY have had other children. And I like your comparison of that guess to one that Mary MAY have driven a Honda.


The reality remains: While the Bible never says She did or did not have other children (or did or did not drive a Honda), we do have VERY early and VERY universal belief that She did not. The guess that She did have other children did not come into play until about 200 years ago and still is a guess of a small minority of Christians. The Bible supports neither guess, but Tradition is entirely on one side, that she did not. Just the reality.





.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

Mary did not remain a virgin. Being a wife to Joseph as they are made one flesh, the scripture testify Joseph knew her after the birth of Jesus.

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. ~ KJV

Then you have this announcement.

Matthew 12:6 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. ~ KJV

Then you have this reference to His family by unbelievers that knew Him & His family.

Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 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. 4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. ~ KJV

If you consider the warning to flee to Egypt, no other children were mentioned.

Matthew 2:13 And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. 14 When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt: 15 And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son. ~ KJV

If you consider the time when they were taxed before Jesus was born, no other children were mentioned.

Luke 2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) 3 And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. 4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. 6 And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn...... 16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. 17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. ~ KJV

There were no other children of Joseph from another wife. Joseph knew his wife after Jesus was born & He had brothers & sisters. Those who strain against it are probably scholars educated by sources believing Mary remained a virgin & yet somehow was a good wife to Joseph? The whole point of marriage is building a family. If God wanted Mary to remain a virgin, He would not have made them one flesh.

 

[Josiah]

Mary did not remain a virgin.

And the verse that states that is.....

the scripture testify Joseph knew her after the birth of Jesus.

Nope. Never says that. The Greek says he did not know her BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus but says NOTHING - not one word - about AFTER that. The Greek word ONLY looks backward, it states or suggests or implies NOTHING after that. "My grandmother could not drive before I was born." True. Now, did she drive after that?

Matthew 12:6 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. ~ KJV

Then you have this reference to His family

1. Where is the verse that says Mary had other children?

2. Yes, it says Jesus had "brethren" but know that the Greek word here does NOT necessarily mean "sharing the same biological mother." Indeed, MOST of the time the word did not mean that. You and I are bothers. All Christians are brethren.

Mark 6:2 And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands? 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. 4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. ~ KJV

1. Where is the verse that says Mary had other children? It specifically says that Jesus is the son of MARY. Yup. Where does it say that James, Joses, Juda and Simon are sons of MARY? Quote the verse that states these are children of Mary.

2. Yes, it says Jesus had "brethren" but know that the Greek word here does NOT necessarily mean "sharing the same biological mother." Indeed, MOST of the time the word did not mean that. You and I are bothers. All Christians are brethren.

3. Until about 200 years ago, no one suggested these were children of MARY. Indeed, the earliest reference to this issue comes from around the year 100. It's not from a book in our Bible but it is from a book about Mary and Joseph and Jesus. And it states that these were children of JOSEPH from an earlier marriage, thus "step-brothers" of Jesus. In koine Greek, there is no word for step-brother, they were just called "brother" so if this early belief is true, the only word available to the author would be "brother". You are ASSUMING a meaning of the word here.... one it does not necessarily mean, indeed one it usually did NOT mean, namely, share the same biological mother.

There were no other children of Joseph from another wife.

Where does the Bible say that?

Joseph knew his wife after Jesus was born

Where does the Bible say that?

The word "until" in koine Greek ONLY means to that point. It means, suggests and implies NOTHING after that.


You are making big ASSUMPTIONS.... based on possible meanings of modern English words. No one in first Century Israel spoke or read 21st Century English. You have nothing to support your bold (and very new) claims.



.

 

[Pilgrim]

And the verse that states that is.....





Nope. Never says that. The Greek says he did not know her BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus but says NOTHING - not one word - about AFTER that. The Greek word ONLY looks backward, it states or suggests or implies NOTHING after that. "My grandmother could not drive before I was born." True. Now, did she drive after that?






1. Where is the verse that says Mary had other children?

2. Yes, it says Jesus had "brethren" but know that the Greek word here does NOT necessarily mean "sharing the same biological mother." Indeed, MOST of the time the word did not mean that. You and I are bothers. All Christians are brethren.






1. Where is the verse that says Mary had other children? It specifically says that Jesus is the son of MARY. Yup. Where does it say that James, Joses, Juda and Simon are sons of MARY? Quote the verse that states these are children of Mary.

2. Yes, it says Jesus had "brethren" but know that the Greek word here does NOT necessarily mean "sharing the same biological mother." Indeed, MOST of the time the word did not mean that. You and I are bothers. All Christians are brethren.

3. Until about 200 years ago, no one suggested these were children of MARY. Indeed, the earliest reference to this issue comes from around the year 100. It's not from a book in our Bible but it is from a book about Mary and Joseph and Jesus. And it states that these were children of JOSEPH from an earlier marriage, thus "step-brothers" of Jesus. In koine Greek, there is no word for step-brother, they were just called "brother" so if this early belief is true, the only word available to the author would be "brother". You are ASSUMING a meaning of the word here.... one it does not necessarily mean, indeed one it usually did NOT mean, namely, share the same biological mother.






Where does the Bible say that?




Where does the Bible say that?

The word "until" in koine Greek ONLY means to that point. It means, suggests and implies NOTHING after that.


You are making big ASSUMPTIONS.... based on possible meanings of modern English words. No one in first Century Israel spoke or read 21st Century English. You have nothing to support your bold (and very new) claims.



.

One more time. Look for that little word " till ".

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. ~ KJV

 

[Josiah]

One more time. Look for that little word " till ".

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. ~ KJV

I note again how you can give not one Scripture that remotely states ANY of the new, wild theories you present here as fact. See posts 205 and 207


AGAIN, in Matthew 1:25, you are substituting one possible implication of a MODERN ENGLISH WORD for the word in the text.


The word is "eos" and it only looks backwards, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the future; it does not look forward (as the modern ENGLISH word you find in a translation MAY). What the verse is saying is that Joseph did not have relations with Mary in all the time before Jesus was born (thus emphasis on the virgin birth); the verse says absolutely nothing - nothing at all - about whether they shared intimacies AFTER that (much less, that resulted in a child being born). Again, no one in the First Century spoke or wrote modern English so founding bold new theories based on one possible implication of a MODERN ENGLISH WORD retroactively applied is absurd. Now, there IS a koine Greek word for "until" that MAY in rare cases imply a changed situation, but that's not the word Matthew used in Matthew 1:25.



- Josiah




.

 

[Pilgrim]

The "problem" is when it is said Mary DID have other children... then show they have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, in the Bible, in history, in Tradition that remotely supports that dogmatic statement.


Yes, I agree, she MAY have had other children. And I like your comparison of that guess to one that Mary MAY have driven a Honda.


The reality remains: While the Bible never says She did or did not have other children (or did or did not drive a Honda), we do have VERY early and VERY universal belief that She did not. The guess that She did have other children did not come into play until about 200 years ago and still is a guess of a small minority of Christians. The Bible supports neither guess, but Tradition is entirely on one side, that she did not. Just the reality.

Why is it that you lean more towards outside of what the Bible plainly says rather than more towards what is written in regards to Jesus having brothers & sisters?

 

[Pilgrim]

I note again how you can give not one Scripture that remotely states ANY of the new, wild theories you present here as fact. See posts 205 and 207


AGAIN, in Matthew 1:25, you are substituting one possible implication of a MODERN ENGLISH WORD for the word in the text.


The word is "eos" and it only looks backwards, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the future; it does not look forward (as the modern ENGLISH word you find in a translation MAY). What the verse is saying is that Joseph did not have relations with Mary in all the time before Jesus was born (thus emphasis on the virgin birth); the verse says absolutely nothing - nothing at all - about whether they shared intimacies AFTER that (much less, that resulted in a child being born). Again, no one in the First Century spoke or wrote modern English so founding bold new theories based on one possible implication of a MODERN ENGLISH WORD retroactively applied is absurd. Now, there IS a koine Greek word for "until" that MAY in rare cases imply a changed situation, but that's not the word Matthew used in Matthew 1:25.



- Josiah

Again, you go outside of what is plainly written, trying to deny a word as if that is not really the meaning of that verse.

Let's be real. Marriage is about building the family's name. Joseph can very well put Mary away quietly & she would have lived her life as a "virgin", but God told him to marry her, thus they become one flesh.

As important that some believers seem to emphasize that she remained a virgin, no angel nor word of God instructed her to remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus, and yet we have scripture saying Joseph knew her not until after the birth of Jesus. Remove "until" from that verse, it loses all meaning for why the 2 subjects were even mentioned.

Joseph was ready to put Mary away quietly because she was with child which he knew was not his. Joseph wanted to build a family of his own & he wasn't going to share his family with a seed not his own until the Lord told him that it was His Child & to go ahead to marry her, thus giving Joseph permission to marry in order to have children by Mary after the birth of Jesus. And Joseph did knew her afterwards.

What the notion of Mary remaining a virgin, ought to be seen as a nightmare for Joseph, let alone a mockery of God marrying the 2 to be one flesh in building a family together. I do not see God going back on His word & He certainly did not say otherwise for the exception.

Like it or not, Mary was a good wife to Joseph in bringing him sons & daughters after Jesus. Believers should consider what the scripture is really about; testifying of Jesus so sinners will come to Him for life & for believers to keep coming to Him in living that reconciled relationship with God thru Jesus Christ.

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. ~ KJV

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. KJV

John 10:1Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. KJV

2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. 18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. KJV

John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. ~ KJV

The whole point of exalting Mary as a perpetual virgin is to take their eyes off of the Bridegroom, but only the Lord can reveal that to you.

For so great a Friend that is God, no other substitute is warranting our attention. I believe Mary had her sole attention on Jesus. So should every other believer that has been saved by Jesus Christ. What better relationship with God other than by the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ?

 

[Josiah]

Again, you go outside of what is plainly written

No. I'm going by what is written in the text. You are ignoring what Matthew by inspiration actually wrote, substituting a MODERN ENGLISH WORD in your fave translation, then giving that your spin as to what that modern English word MAY mean.

God told him to marry her, thus they become one flesh.

No. An Angel said he need not be afraid to take her as his wife. There's no indication that Joseph did, although western Tradition says he did (Eastern Tradition does not opinion that).

no angel nor word of God instructed her to remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus

True. And no angel told her to have sex after Jesus was born.

, and yet we have scripture saying Joseph knew her not until after the birth of Jesus. Remove "until" from that verse, it loses all meaning for why the 2 subjects were even mentioned.

The verse, in the original, says she was a virgin at the time of our Lord's birth. Why does Matthew tell us that? He doesn't say, but most opinion to stress the point of a VIRGIN BIRTH.... it was a point of prophecy that the Messiah would be born of a virgin and Matthew is very focused on showing that Jesus fulfills prophecy. But there was no prophecy that the Messiah's mother would have lotsa sex thereafter, ONLY that she would be a virgin at his birth. And that's what the text says.

Sorry, but Matthew did not speak or write modern English... and thus never wrote "until" or "till." He COULD have used a word that at least COULD imply a changed situation afterward, but he did not, he used a Greek word that does NOT mean or imply or suggest some changed situation; the word he chose to use by divine inspiration ONLY looks back, it does NOT look forward. He used a word that does NOT mean or imply or remotely suggest that she lost her virginity after Jesus was born. He COULD have used a word that MIGHT imply that but he did not.

Joseph wanted to build a family of his own

Quote the verse that states that. Good luck.

, Mary was a good wife to Joseph in bringing him sons & daughters after Jesus.

As you keep proving, you have NOT ONE WORD from Scripture that says that.

You have not one word from ANY believer until about 250 years ago who opinioned as you do. Nearly all still don't.

You have NOTHING to support your many bold new opinions in this regard. Just a LOT of assumptions and the POSSIBLE spin of some MODERN ENGLISH WORDS that Matthew never pinned (or knew).





.

 

[Pilgrim]

No. I'm going by what is written in the text. You are ignoring what Matthew by inspiration actually wrote, substituting a MODERN ENGLISH WORD in your fave translation, then giving that your spin as to what that modern English word MAY mean.

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. ~ KJV

What is the point of mentioning the bold portion of this verse after taking her as his wife other than to say he had not sex with her until Jesus was born?

So let's look at the Greek word from which the modern word "until" or till as it is written in the KJV came from.

ewV or heos is defined as "of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):--even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s)."

So why don't you provide from your Bible version & prove that the Greek word ewV or heos is not in there.

As it is, the KJV "till" came from ewV or heos. The why it is there is because of verse 24 when Joseph took Mary as his wife to be one flesh.

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. ~ KJV

Jesus said that about what God has done when He has married a man & a woman together. That is what marriage is for; building a family.

So why joined the two together if He puts them asunder? Is God evil? No. But the source of this teaching is. Discern that with Him or agree to disagree.

I do not see how your Bible version can ignore that Greek text for the purpose of clarifying what had happened after Joseph took Mary as his wife other than to prove that Jesus was not of his seed. That is the whole point of Matthew 1:24-25 but only God can help you see that.

 

[Josiah]

Why is it that you lean more towards outside of what the Bible plainly says rather than more towards what is written in regards to Jesus having brothers & sisters?

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. ~ KJV

Yup. NOTHING about Mary ever having had sex..... NOTHING about Mary having other children.

You are just substituting the word in the text with one you find in an ENGLISH TRANSLATION (evidently unaware that Matthew did not know English) and then you appointing you to decide what is meant by a word Matthew never pinned. Absurd way to do theology.

The word Matthew used is GREEK. Specifically KOINE Greek. It means "to that time." It does NOT mean, "after that. the opposite was true." I agree, the ENGLISH word from the translation you reference COULD IMPLY a change, but Matthew didn't use any modern English word, he used a koine GREEK word, and that word does NOT carry that implication. He COULD have used a Greek word that MAY imply some change afterward, but he didn't use that word, he used the word that does NOT imply some change.


You have made huge, new claims..... and presented NOTHING to support them as true. NOTHING.; Just quotes from an ENGLISH TRANSLATION (ignoring that Matthew never knew English), then appointing yourself to spin those words as you think necessary to meet your assumptions; never mind that the words Matthew used don't have the implications you impose on them. Note the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Note that the NT was written NOT in modern English.




.

 

[FredVB]

The "problem" is when it is said Mary DID have other children... then show they have NOTHING, absolutely nothing whatsoever, in the Bible, in history, in Tradition that remotely supports that dogmatic statement.

Yes, I agree, she MAY have had other children. And I like your comparison of that guess to one that Mary MAY have driven a Honda.

The reality remains: While the Bible never says She did or did not have other children (or did or did not drive a Honda), we do have VERY early and VERY universal belief that She did not. The guess that She did have other children did not come into play until about 200 years ago and still is a guess of a small minority of Christians. The Bible supports neither guess, but Tradition is entirely on one side, that she did not. Just the reality.

The thing is that I, and I believe others, are not just bringing up that Mary did have other children. It is an expected response when they hear it declared that Mary did not have children after Jesus and was remaining a virgin perpetually through her marriage, which is part of the mariology belief system that includes her ascension into heaven and her reign as queen of heaven, all without basis in the Bible, and that requires the interpretation that Jesus's brothers who come with his mother Mary are not really his brothers but of another relationship instead, which interpretation is not otherwise required, and it would be expected that there would be more on the Bible to determine it was otherwise if it was, to not have that a vague statement.

 

[Josiah]

The thing is that I, and I believe others, are not just bringing up that Mary did have other children. It is an expected response when they hear it declared that Mary did not have children after Jesus and was remaining a virgin perpetually through her marriage, which is part of the mariology belief system that includes her ascension into heaven and her reign as queen of heaven, all without basis in the Bible, and that requires the interpretation that Jesus's brothers who come with his mother Mary are not really his brothers but of another relationship instead, which interpretation is not otherwise required, and it would be expected that there would be more on the Bible to determine it was otherwise if it was, to not have that a vague statement.

1. The perpetual virginity of Mary is dogma in one denomination - the Catholic Church, but is very, very established teaching in all the Eastern Orthodox churches. It was taught by John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and the Anglican Church. There were none denying this until the past 200 years or so. It IS very ancient, ecumenical belief... with nothing in the Bible that contradicts it or even suggests otherwise, although I agree with you there's nothing that specifically STATES so. Much like the universal belief that Jesus was unmarried, the Bible never remotely says that but we believe that.


2. The theory that Jesus had other brothers is different than the PVM. Obviously, IF She was a virgin always then she had no other children, but the opposite is not true. It's possible to have sexual relations but have no children (I know may couples where such is the case).


3. There is nothing in the Bible or in Tradition that remotely indicates that Mary had other children. The word for "brother" used in the texts you reference does NOT mean "shared the same womb, have the same mother." Indeed, MOST of the time in koine Greek AND in the Bible, it does NOT mean that. And remember, there was no word in koine Greek for step-brother so if the ancient tradition is true that these are children of Joseph, there would be only one word available to say "step-brother" and that's "brother."


4. I agree: IF Mary had other children, how weird it would that the Bible never says that. But that alone proves nothing.





.

 

[pinacled]

Yup. NOTHING about Mary ever having had sex..... NOTHING about Mary having other children.

You are just substituting the word in the text with one you find in an ENGLISH TRANSLATION (evidently unaware that Matthew did not know English) and then you appointing you to decide what is meant by a word Matthew never pinned. Absurd way to do theology.

The word Matthew used is GREEK. Specifically KOINE Greek. It means "to that time." It does NOT mean, "after that. the opposite was true." I agree, the ENGLISH word from the translation you reference COULD IMPLY a change, but Matthew didn't use any modern English word, he used a koine GREEK word, and that word does NOT carry that implication. He COULD have used a Greek word that MAY imply some change afterward, but he didn't use that word, he used the word that does NOT imply some change.


You have made huge, new claims..... and presented NOTHING to support them as true. NOTHING.; Just quotes from an ENGLISH TRANSLATION (ignoring that Matthew never knew English), then appointing yourself to spin those words as you think necessary to meet your assumptions; never mind that the words Matthew used don't have the implications you impose on them. Note the difference between exegesis and eisegesis. Note that the NT was written NOT in modern English.




.

[ "Yup. NOTHING about Mary ever having had sex...."]

The above bracketed statement is incorrect.

Until implies that marriage was consummated after Yeshua was born.
8 yammin(days) after his birth.

To say that yosef never consummated the marriage defies The Law of God.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465162/jewish/The-Jewish-Marriage-Ceremony.htm

Excerpt; in parenthesis with additions in brackets to help understand halacha.
Yeshua would have been born on either a yom shishi(6th day) or shabbat(7th day). And consummation would occur the following yom a week after the birth of Yeshua.

"The reasons for combining the two[yammin(days) instead of one yom(day)] ceremonies offer interesting insights into the moral concern of the Rabbis, the history of the period, and the economic plight of the Jews of the Middle Ages. Rashi, the classic commentator, offers the simple explanation that the costs were too burdensome. The families would be shamed if they could not afford a sumptuous all-day banquet in honor of the betrothal, and still another banquet in celebration of the nuptials. Putting the ceremonies together eliminated the need for two banquets. This also helps to explain the ancient custom of holding the betrothal on Friday afternoon. The Shabbat dinner of Friday night doubled as the betrothal celebration, and the nuptials were held on Saturday night after sundown."

 

[Josiah]

[ "Yup. NOTHING about Mary ever having had sex...."]

The above bracketed statement is incorrect.

Until implies that marriage was consummated after Yeshua was born.

"Implies" does not mean "states."

And only in ENGLISH. But this verse was not written in English (no verse in the Bible was; English didn't exist when the Bible was written).

You are ignoring the Greek text..... replacing it with something you found in an ENGLISH translation..... then noting that in modern English the word at times IMPLIES something... then insisting that must be the case. It's called eisegesis - and a really, really bad case of it since it's not even eisegesis of the text but of an English translation of the text.

To say that yosef never consummated the marriage defies The Law of God.

1. Where does the Bible state they got married? Yes, you may indicated the angel might have given permission for such but that doesn't prove it happened.

2. No, the Law does NOT mandate that a couple consumate anything, only that it's not "marriage" without that.

3. Even IF you quoted the verse that says "Joseph married Mary".... and even if you quoted the verse that states "Joseph consummated the marriage" that would not prove that Mary had other children unless you could prove that every case of sexual intercourse results in a child. I know of MANY couples who (I assume) have lots of sex but no children. I'm not aware of any biological mandate that sex MUST, ALWAYS, by NECESSITY, result in children. Your position seems to require this.



Remember, I'm the one indicating that we don't KNOW if Mary ever had sex or other children..... you are the one insisted she did. I'm standing on at least 1700 years of universal Christian belief, you seem to be standing on what you think might be IMPLIED by an English word you found in an English translation, a word no one in the First Century ever said or wrote... while the Greek word being translated in your translation does NOT imply that.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.



- Josiah





.

 

[pinacled]

"Implies" does not mean "states."

And only in ENGLISH. But this verse was not written in English (no verse in the Bible was; English didn't exist when the Bible was written).

You are ignoring the Greek text..... replacing it with something you found in an ENGLISH translation..... then noting that in modern English the word at times IMPLIES something... then insisting that must be the case. It's called eisegesis - and a really, really bad case of it since it's not even eisegesis of the text but of an English translation of the text.







1. Where does the Bible state they got married? Yes, you may indicated the angel might have given permission for such but that doesn't prove it happened.

2. No, the Law does NOT mandate that a couple consumate anything, only that it's not "marriage" without that.

3. Even IF you quoted the verse that says "Joseph married Mary".... and even if you quoted the verse that states "Joseph consummated the marriage" that would not prove that Mary had other children unless you could prove that every case of sexual intercourse results in a child. I know of MANY couples who (I assume) have lots of sex but no children. I'm not aware of any biological mandate that sex MUST, ALWAYS, by NECESSITY, result in children. Your position seems to require this.



Remember, I'm the one indicating that we don't KNOW if Mary ever had sex or other children..... you are the one insisted she did. I'm standing on at least 1700 years of universal Christian belief, you seem to be standing on what you think might be IMPLIED by an English word you found in an English translation, a word no one in the First Century ever said or wrote... while the Greek word being translated in your translation does NOT imply that.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.



- Josiah





.

What does the greek state?


I only indicated consummation is a given in marriage.
Never did I mention children born besides Yeshua

 

[Origen]

What does the greek state?


I only indicated consummation is a given in marriage.
Never did I mention children born besides Yeshua

Do not let the Greek thing bother you. The truth is N.T.\Greek scholars have argued both sides of this issue. For every scholar, anyone can provide, who claims it does not support the idea Mary had other children, another scholar can be provide who claims that it does support the view.

What one has to do is weight the evidence. If you thinks the balance of the evidence tips one way or the other, then you are justified in holding that view. No one must have 100% certainty to hold a position. However, if you think there is not enough evidence to make an informed choice, that too is a viable option.

The reality is whatever one's tradition\view is it will mostly likely be predicated upon the authority given to later church insights on this matter.