JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Josiah]

I agree in that the gospels are silent on marriage consumation or celibacy of miriam

Good. Then we are in agreement concerning what the Bible says.


I ONLY point out that Tradition is not silent. I don't remotely claim that Tradition is normative (certainly not equally with Scripture!) but for at least 1700 years, there was solid, ancient, absolutely universal faith that Mary never had sex or other children. A solid, ancient, universal tradition ... indeed, stronger Tradition than what Books are Scripture, stronger than the Trinity. Does that mean it's dogmatically true? Nope. Just means that's what all Christians believed for 1800 years (most still do).


But you are now correct. The Bible is SILENT. There's a good reason why those echoing this new liberal claim that Mary had lotsa sex and kids can't find a single verse that says that... it's not there. It's their new claim, it's not what the Bible says;.

a person can deduce

Well, one can ASSUME. You know what they say about the word "assume?" (LOL).

And I wonder.... why did NOT ONE PERSON "assume" that from 110 AD until about 1800 AD? Wouldn't people know more about first century Jewish marriage in 110 AD Israel than in 1800 Germany? Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, with whom Mary lived for decades, wouldn't he likely know more about this than some radical Liberal German Protestant who denied the Virgin Birth, denied the Resurrection, denied the accuracy of Scripture? Maybe not.

And one can assume that Jesus was married... almost all men were.... and the Bible never says He was not. So, you could ignore Tradition (which says He remained single) and assume He married (and thus by pure assumption, had lotsa sex and lotsa kids cuz most men did) but you would just be assuming... nothing more... nothing in Scripture says He was married, had sex or kids. We have solid ancient ecumenical tradition on that but not a word in Scripture. So, if we follow the rubric of we can just assume stuff, well.... that would be just as valid. Seems like a dangerous rubric.



Blessings to you and yours in this Easter season


Josiah



.

.

 

[pinacled]

Good. Then we are in agreement concerning what the Bible says.


I ONLY point out that Tradition is not silent. I don't remotely claim that Tradition is normative (certainly not equally with Scripture!) but for at least 1700 years, there was solid, ancient, absolutely universal faith that Mary never had sex or other children. A solid, ancient, universal tradition ... indeed, stronger Tradition than what Books are Scripture, stronger than the Trinity. Does that mean it's dogmatically true? Nope. Just means that's what all Christians believed for 1800 years (most still do).


But you are now correct. The Bible is SILENT. There's a good reason why those echoing this new liberal claim that Mary had lotsa sex and kids can't find a single verse that says that... it's not there. It's their new claim, it's not what the Bible says;.







Well, one can ASSUME. You know what they say about the word "assume?" (LOL).

And I wonder.... why did NOT ONE PERSON "assume" that from 110 AD until about 1800 AD? Wouldn't people know more about first century Jewish marriage in 110 AD Israel than in 1800 Germany? Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John, with whom Mary lived for decades, wouldn't he likely know more about this than some radical Liberal German Protestant who denied the Virgin Birth, denied the Resurrection, denied the accuracy of Scripture? Maybe not.

And one can assume that Jesus was married... almost all men were.... and the Bible never says He was not. So, you could ignore Tradition (which says He remained single) and assume He married (and thus by pure assumption, had lotsa sex and lotsa kids cuz most men did) but you would just be assuming... nothing more... nothing in Scripture says He was married, had sex or kids. We have solid ancient ecumenical tradition on that but not a word in Scripture. So, if we follow the rubric of we can just assume stuff, well.... that would be just as valid. Seems like a dangerous rubric.



Blessings to you and yours in this Easter season


Josiah



.

.

I'll ask once more that you cease from altering my post in your response.
Subtly manipulating my words as you have is disrespectful and very unchristian like.
Defaming my words is wrong

 

[Andrew]

I'll ask once more that you cease from altering my post in your response.
Subtly manipulating my words as you have is disrespectful and very unchristian like.
Defaming my words is wrong

Extracting a line even partially from a quote is permissable.

 

[pinacled]

Yair/Jude ch 1
[ 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.]

 

[Josiah]

Yair/Jude ch 1
[ 3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

What evidence do you have that Christians in the days of St.Paul believed that Mary had lots of sex and kids?

We have ZERO evidence.... nothing.... not one word..... for nearly 1800 years that any Christian in any place or time believed that Mary had lotsa sex and kids.... the evidence is exactly the opposite, that she did NOT.

As you've noted, the Bible is silent on this - no verse that states, "Mary had sex and kids after Jesus was born" and no verse that states, "Mary did not have sex and kids after Jesus was born." The reality that in 364 posts, no one could find either of those pretty much proves the point. It's just you seem to want to throw out some 1800 years of ancient, solid, universal/ecumenical tradition (going back to a disciple of St. John who cared for Mary) and instead to parrot a new invention of some radical liberals some 200 years ago who denied the Virgin Birth, denied the Resurrection, denied the reliability of Scripture - ungodly men who arose some 1800 late - and taught (for the first time) that Mary had sex and so lotsa kids (but who at least admitted the Bible never says Mary had sex or other kids - they just assumed she did, so she did).




.

 

[pinacled]

What evidence do you have that Christians in the days of St.Paul believed that Mary had lots of sex and kids?

We have ZERO evidence.... nothing.... not one word..... for nearly 1800 years that any Christian in any place or time believed that Mary had lotsa sex and kids.... the evidence is exactly the opposite, that she did NOT.

As you've noted, the Bible is silent on this - no verse that states, "Mary had sex and kids after Jesus was born" and no verse that states, "Mary did not have sex and kids after Jesus was born." The reality that in 364 posts, no one could find either of those pretty much proves the point. It's just you seem to want to throw out some 1800 years of ancient, solid, universal/ecumenical tradition (going back to a disciple of St. John who cared for Mary) and instead to parrot a new invention of some radical liberals some 200 years ago who denied the Virgin Birth, denied the Resurrection, denied the reliability of Scripture - ungodly men who arose some 1800 late (but who at least admitted the Bible never says Mary had sex or other kids - they just assumed she did, so she did).




.

Are you speaking as a catholic or Lutheran?

 

[Josiah]

Are you speaking as a catholic or Lutheran?

Neither.

I'm agreeing with you, the Bible does not state if Mary had sex or kids after Jesus was born.

And I'm noting that you are placing great emphasis on a new theory, coming from radical, extremely liberal Protestants around 200 years ago who invented the view you seem (at times) to defend. I'm ONLY noting that AT LEAST from 110 AD to about 1800 AD, there was solid, universal, ecumenical, 100% agreement and faith that Mary had neither sex or other kids. I have made it very clear that you are right, the BIBLE doesn't say she did or did not (just as it doesn't say if Jesus did or did not, just as it doesn't say what books are and are not Scripture) but TRADITION does - indeed, the historic/universal belief that Mary no sex or other kids is actually older and more solid than is the issue of what is and is not Scripture. You post Scriptures that denounce throwing out ancient faith and replacing it with new ideas, but brother, it seems to me that's exactly what you are doing.

My position is this: The Bible nowhere states whether Mary (or Jesus) ever had sex or kids. Just as it never says a lot of things we all accept. Just as it never says what is and is not Scripture. BUT we have solid evidence of what has been universally believed, right up to the time of the Apostles. We have very solid, very ancient, very universal belief. And we know that that was that Mary (and Jesus) had no sex or kids. Is that proof? No. Do we KNOW that's true? No. But we have that unchallenged, universally accepted faith.... and at least in koine Greek, nothing in the Bible (that Tradition declares) that makes every Christian who lived for 1800 years wrong. NEITHER position (history's or those radical German liberals) is confirmed by Scripture.... but one is confirmed by among the most solid tradition and faith in all of Christianity, the other a flat our contradiction.





.

 

[pinacled]

Neither.

I'm agreeing with you, the Bible does not state if Mary had sex or kids after Jesus was born.

And I'm noting that you are placing great emphasis on a new theory, coming from radical, extremely liberal Protestants around 200 years ago who invented the view you seem (at times) to defend. I'm ONLY noting that AT LEAST from 110 AD to about 1800 AD, there was solid, universal, ecumenical, 100% agreement and faith that Mary had neither sex or other kids. I have made it very clear that you are right, the BIBLE doesn't say she did or did not (just as it doesn't say if Jesus did or did not, just as it doesn't say what books are and are not Scripture) but TRADITION does - indeed, the historic/universal belief that Mary no sex or other kids is actually older and more solid than is the issue of what is and is not Scripture. You post Scriptures that denounce throwing out ancient faith and replacing it with new ideas, but brother, it seems to me that's exactly what you are doing.

My position is this: The Bible nowhere states whether Mary (or Jesus) ever had sex or kids. Just as it never says a lot of things we all accept. Just as it never says what is and is not Scripture. BUT we have solid evidence of what has been universally believed, right up to the time of the Apostles. We have very solid, very ancient, very universal belief. And we know that that was that Mary (and Jesus) had no sex or kids. Is that proof? No. Do we KNOW that's true? No. But we have that unchallenged, universally accepted faith.... and at least in koine Greek, nothing in the Bible (that Tradition declares) that makes every Christian who lived for 1800 years wrong. NEITHER position (history's or those radical German liberals) is confirmed by Scripture.... but one is confirmed by among the most solid tradition and faith in all of Christianity, the other a flat our contradiction.





.

You are reiterating Roman catholic teachings.

I've never heard of Lutherans teaching anything about perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[pinacled]

Neither.

I'm agreeing with you, the Bible does not state if Mary had sex or kids after Jesus was born.

And I'm noting that you are placing great emphasis on a new theory, coming from radical, extremely liberal Protestants around 200 years ago who invented the view you seem (at times) to defend. I'm ONLY noting that AT LEAST from 110 AD to about 1800 AD, there was solid, universal, ecumenical, 100% agreement and faith that Mary had neither sex or other kids. I have made it very clear that you are right, the BIBLE doesn't say she did or did not (just as it doesn't say if Jesus did or did not, just as it doesn't say what books are and are not Scripture) but TRADITION does - indeed, the historic/universal belief that Mary no sex or other kids is actually older and more solid than is the issue of what is and is not Scripture. You post Scriptures that denounce throwing out ancient faith and replacing it with new ideas, but brother, it seems to me that's exactly what you are doing.

My position is this: The Bible nowhere states whether Mary (or Jesus) ever had sex or kids. Just as it never says a lot of things we all accept. Just as it never says what is and is not Scripture. BUT we have solid evidence of what has been universally believed, right up to the time of the Apostles. We have very solid, very ancient, very universal belief. And we know that that was that Mary (and Jesus) had no sex or kids. Is that proof? No. Do we KNOW that's true? No. But we have that unchallenged, universally accepted faith.... and at least in koine Greek, nothing in the Bible (that Tradition declares) that makes every Christian who lived for 1800 years wrong. NEITHER position (history's or those radical German liberals) is confirmed by Scripture.... but one is confirmed by among the most solid tradition and faith in all of Christianity, the other a flat our contradiction.





.

[ I'm ONLY noting that AT LEAST from 110 AD to about 1800 AD, there was solid, universal, ecumenical, 100% agreement and faith that Mary had neither sex or other kids.]

I have a question about the above bracketed statement.

Where did you derive this opinion from?

 

[Josiah]

You are reiterating Roman catholic teachings.

You seem to be dodging every point.....

It's important to READ what is said.


My position is this: The Bible nowhere states whether Mary (or Jesus) ever had sex or kids. Just as it never says a lot of things we all accept. Just as it never says what is and is not Scripture. BUT we have very solid, very ancient, very universal belief. And we know that that was that Mary (and Jesus) had no sex or kids. Is that proof? No. Do we KNOW that's true? No. But we have that unchallenged, universally accepted faith.... and at least in koine Greek, nothing in the Bible (that Tradition declares) that makes every Christian who lived for 1800 years wrong. NEITHER position (history's or those radical German liberals) is confirmed by Scripture.... but one is confirmed by among the most solid tradition and faith in all of Christianity, the other a flat our contradiction.

I've never heard of Lutherans teaching anything about perpetual virginity of Mary.

EVERY Christian until about 200 years ago accepted this AS TRADITION - the ancient, universal/ecumenical, belief of Christians. Much the same as the issue of what is or is not Scripture (the Bible of course never states this) and a whole lot of other things you likely hold (such as Jesus never married or had any kids - something the Bible never says). All Eastern Orthodox accepted this... all Catholics.... all Anglicans.... all Lutherans.... all Presbyterians.... all Methodists.... all Reformed. Luther accepted this.) Calvin accepted this. Wesley accepted this. Sorry... but the REALITY is the Bible doesn't say if Mary did OR did not have sex.... did OR did not have other kids (just as it say nothing about the same issue with Jesus, just as in the case of what is and is not a part of the Bible) - you and I seem to agree on that, and it seems undeniable since no one yet (in some 2000 years) has found that verse that says what they do. BUT there is very ancient (at lezst from AD) belief.... very solid, very ancient, very ecumenical/universal... and nothing in the Bible (although maybe implied in some modern translation) that proves all those Christians for 2000 are wrong. Brother, this was NOT a Catholic or Lutheran or Orthdox or Reformed or Episcopalian or Presbyterian or Methodist issue for 180 years. It's NOT dogma among them.... it IS an acknowlegment of ancient, universal faith. Just as when we accept that Matthew is Scripture.




.

 

[pinacled]

for the readers.

"Universal" is code for "Catholic"

 

[atpollard]

The scripture doesn't reveal that our Messiah Yeshua had biological siblings from miriam.

Context/PaRDeS: is a key.
And there is level beyond the sod of exegesis.

Blessings Always

While potentially true, every Greek scholar that has ever translated the New Testament has chosen a word meaning “brother” rather than a word meaning “kinsmen”, so they must have thought that “brother” was implied by the grammar and context.

Matthew 12:46 [VUL] 46 adhuc eo loquente ad turbas ecce mater eius et fratres stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei

• still talking to the crowd, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him
• fratres = brothers

 

[pinacled]

While potentially true, every Greek scholar that has ever translated the New Testament has chosen a word meaning “brother” rather than a word meaning “kinsmen”, so they must have thought that “brother” was implied by the grammar and context.

Matthew 12:46 [VUL] 46 adhuc eo loquente ad turbas ecce mater eius et fratres stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei

• still talking to the crowd, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him
• fratres = brothers

Is "fratres"= to or likened to brethren?
Male only?

 

[atpollard]

Is "fratres"= to or likened to brethren?
Male only?

My Latin is not that sharp, but here is the Spanish translation:

Matthew 12:46 [RVR60] 46 Mientras él aún hablaba a la gente, he aquí su madre y sus hermanos estaban afuera, y le querían hablar.

hermanos = male brothers plural
(not “primos” = male cousins)
(not “parientes” = family members)

 

[pinacled]

My Latin is not that sharp, but here is the Spanish translation:

Matthew 12:46 [RVR60] 46 Mientras él aún hablaba a la gente, he aquí su madre y sus hermanos estaban afuera, y le querían hablar.

hermanos = male brothers plural
(not “primos” = male cousins)
(not “parientes” = family members)

That's latin.
Not greek.

 

[atpollard]

That's latin.
Not greek.

see post #372 (you seem to have lost track of the point that I was making).

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 12:46 [VUL] 46 adhuc eo loquente ad turbas ecce mater eius et fratres stabant foris quaerentes loqui ei

• still talking to the crowd, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him
• fratres = brothers

Brother, the verse was not written in Latin. It was written in koine Greek.


Let's see how the word is used in the NT...
Prove that in each case, "Brother" means "share the same biological mother"
In each case, the word is the Greek "adelphos"

Matthew 12:49-50

Matthew 5:22-24

Matthew 7:3-5

Matthew 18:15, 21, 35

Acts 22:13

1 Corinthians 1:1

1 Corinthians 5:11

1 Corinthians 8:11,13

1 Corinthians 16:12

2 Corinthians 1:1

2 Corinthians 2:13

Ephesians 6;21

Philippians 2:25

Philemon 16

1 Peter 3:12

2 Peter 3:15

Revelation 1:19


Brother, there are many, many more. In all the above, is the meaning obviously, "share the same biological mother?" Indeed, this word is very common in the NT and very, very rarely does it apply to people who share ANY biological parent. In secular Greek, soldiers called each other "brother." The word adelphos CAN mean "shares the same biological mother" but FAR MORE OFTEN in koine Greek (and in the Bible) it does not indicate sharing either parent.



.

 

[atpollard]

Brother, the verse was not written in Latin. It was written in koine Greek.

See post #376.

 

[Lanman87]

And I wonder.... why did NOT ONE PERSON "assume" that from 110 AD until about 1800 AD?

What is the reference that someone call Mary an "ever virgin" circa 110? You may have put it in the thread somewhere but this thread is now 19 pages long so it would probably be quicker just to repost/relink the source.

 

[Josiah]

atpollard,


The word we're discussing in the Bible is not some LATIN word (the Bible was not written in Latin) nor in some Japanese or Danish or English or Latin TRANSLATION.

Brother, the word in the verse you reference is adelphos. The word can mean full brother (sharing both parents) half-brother (sharing one parent), cousin, any male relative, a male living the same household, anyone with whom there is a bond or commonality (a fellow townsman, a fellow countryman, a fellow soldier, a fellow believer). It even can refer to a female of any of those (while it typically does mean male, it doesn't always).

You see to note that some ENGLISH word you find in some ENGLISH translation says "brethern" There is no such word in Greek. And we should not base dogmatic statements on a word we might find in a Japanese translation.... Ever heard the expression "Something got lost in the translation?" Well, it's just as easy for something to be gained in a translation, some meaning or implication NOT applying to the original word.


Let's see how the word adelphos is used in the NT...
Prove that in each case, "Brother" just means "share the same biological mother"

In each case, the word below is the Greek "adelphos"

Matthew 12:49-50

Matthew 5:22-24

Matthew 7:3-5

Matthew 18:15, 21, 35

Acts 22:13

1 Corinthians 1:1

1 Corinthians 5:11

1 Corinthians 8:11,13

1 Corinthians 16:12

2 Corinthians 1:1

2 Corinthians 2:13

Ephesians 6;21

Philippians 2:25

Philemon 16

1 Peter 3:12

2 Peter 3:15

Revelation 1:19

Brother, prove that the word "adelphos" means "shares the same mother". If that's not the meaning, then there goes your point that those 4 men MUST be children of Mary because the word "adelphos" is applied to them.

Brother, there are many, many more. In all the above, is the meaning obviously, "share the same biological mother?" Indeed, this word is very common in the NT and very, very rarely does it apply to people who share ANY biological parent. In secular Greek, soldiers called each other "brother." The word adelphos CAN mean "shares the same biological mother" but FAR MORE OFTEN in koine Greek (and in the Bible) it does not indicate sharing either parent.



.