JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[Josiah]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]

Calvin seemed to have found it possible for Mary to remain a virgin but that the scripture is inconclusive on the matter.

Exactly the identical position to Luther.... And the Anglican Church.
The point applies even more to the topic here: Whether Mary had other children.


The key thing in your post is, "THE SCRIPTURE IS INCONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER." Ah.... let that soak in to us all. So when people (as in this thread) state, "The Bible clearly states Mary had other children".... "The Bible says these are the children specifically of MARY" Calvin would disagree, would he not? As would Luther. It's called honesty. It's called humility. It's called making Scripture the ultimate authority. BTW, Luther said "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." John Wesley said, "We must be bold where Scripture is clear and silent where it is not." Perhaps there's some wisdom there?


Now, Luther was more embracing of ancient, ecumenical Tradition than most of the Protestants that followed him; he welcomed people to voice that Mary had no other chilldren - as long as they did not do so dogmaticallty, and as long as they admitted this is their chosen Tradition. It's .... interesting.... for me (as now Lutheran) to see SO many Protestants ranting against Tradition and then embracing it dogmatically in a way that would make Cathollics blush, even doing what Catholics tipically don't: Insisting that SCRIPTURE STATES IT when everyone who can read sees it does not (but these Protestants CLAIM what they dogmatically teach IS what the Bible says, so if they teach it - the Bible MUST teach it too, then make the mistake of quoting Scripture and proving themselves wrong about that). Jesus' "log/speck" thing at times comes to mind.....


Andrew, as a staffer here, perhaps you can see that often discussions get nowhere. Perhaps if you read post 152, you can understand one possible reason. There is at times a lack of h0nesty and humility.... there is at times a demand for two different rule books (one for self, the opposite rules for everyone else), and at times some Protestants (because of their embrace of Scripture as Authority and often a distain for Tradition) will dogmatically SHOUT (endlessly!) "The BIBLE says" then prove it does not, it's the Tradition they echo that says it. Andrew, I'm NOT by any means disallowing Tradition in our discussions (that's some other Protestants here - the ones that use it most of all).... just don't lie about that. And don't insist others cannot do what they do (often, most of all). And for heaven's sake, don't insist "The Bible says" and then shoot self in the foot by proving it does not. See my point? Ah, I think this is one reason why discussions so often just don't get anywhere.



-Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

Scripture says Mary had kids!

What does ‘mother and brothers ‘ indicate to you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe she did but I wouldn't bet on it, there really is no importance either way, let's say she was a perpetual virgin.. the bible most certainly does not declare such dogma nor does it support an anti-dogma dogma that she gave birth to many children, they could have been adopted for all we know but the authors of these writings obviously had no interest to reveal who the children were (even though they most likely knew who they were)

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]





Exactly the identical position to Luther.... And the Anglican Church.
The point applies even more to the topic here: Whether Mary had other children.


The key thing in your post is, "THE SCRIPTURE IS INCONCLUSIVE ON THE MATTER." Ah.... let that soak in to us all. So when people (as in this thread) state, "The Bible clearly states Mary had other children".... "The Bible says these are the children specifically of MARY" Calvin would disagree, would he not? As would Luther. It's called honesty. It's called humility. It's called making Scripture the ultimate authority. BTW, Luther said "Humility is the foundation of all sound theology." John Wesley said, "We must be bold where Scripture is clear and silent where it is not." Perhaps there's some wisdom there?


Now, Luther was more embracing of ancient, ecumenical Tradition than most of the Protestants that followed him; he welcomed people to voice that Mary had no other chilldren - as long as they did not do so dogmaticallty, and as long as they admitted this is their chosen Tradition. It's .... interesting.... for me (as now Lutheran) to see SO many Protestants ranting against Tradition and then embracing it dogmatically in a way that would make Cathollics blush, even doing what Catholics tipically don't: Insisting that SCRIPTURE STATES IT when everyone who can read sees it does not (but these Protestants CLAIM what they dogmatically teach IS what the Bible says, so if they teach it - the Bible MUST teach it too, then make the mistake of quoting Scripture and proving themselves wrong about that). Jesus' "log/speck" thing at times comes to mind.....


Andrew, as a staffer here, perhaps you can see that often discussions get nowhere. Perhaps if you read post 152, you can understand one possible reason. There is at times a lack of h0nesty and humility.... there is at times a demand for two different rule books (one for self, the opposite rules for everyone else), and at times some Protestants (because of their embrace of Scripture as Authority and often a distain for Tradition) will dogmatically SHOUT (endlessly!) "The BIBLE says" then prove it does not, it's the Tradition they echo that says it. Andrew, I'm NOT by any means disallowing Tradition in our discussions (that's some other Protestants here - the ones that use it most of all).... just don't lie about that. And don't insist others cannot do what they do (often, most of all). And for heaven's sake, don't insist "The Bible says" and then shoot self in the foot by proving it does not. See my point? Ah, I think this is one reason why discussions so often just don't get anywhere.



-Josiah



.

Speculative theology at it's finest!
I personally enjoy these types of threads because I get challenged and have to really look into something I probably never would have before. At first I was (and still am) very against Mary worship and so I took on the other side, now I just want to step out of the circle all together because it makes no lick of difference whether she had other children or not.. my first reaction was always "oh cool, Jesus had brothers" but I'm also very aware of theological rabbit holes like this and this time I'm just going to file this debate under "who cares/irrelevant" lol

 

[Josiah]

Scripture says Mary had kids!

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

What does ‘mother and brothers ‘ indicate to you?

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


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

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




.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

[RichWh1]

Didn’t answer my question. Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

Speculative theology at it's finest!

EXACTLY!!!!!


So absurd for people to SHOUT very dogmatically that she had other children OR did not. It is pure speculation, pure conjecture. And it doesn't even matter.


What we have is many echoing one of the two main TRADITIONS on this. But not being honest about that.
What we have is many SHOUTING "The Bible says" then (ironically) shooting themselves in the foot by PROVING it does not.
What we have is many insisting on two opposite play books - one for self, the other for everyone else.

We actually could LEARN the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this.... the destructive nature of insisting on two different playing fields.... and why it makes discussions virtually impossible. Or not.

Now, there is an important point (avoided by all) about the interplay of Bible and Tradition but no Protestant dares go there (I have a whole thread on it; check it out) because they won't be honest about the Traditions they hold and echo (well, Catholics often aren't either).



Blessings


- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Didn’t answer my question.

READ post 164.






.

 

[RichWh1]

READ post 164.






.

So if brother can mean cousin then mother can mean aunt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

So if brother can mean cousin then mother can mean aunt.

.... you are catching on.


"Father" and "Mother" are common words in koine Greek, and they do not necessarily mean "birth parent." IF your assumption was right that that's what they mean, then you just destroyed the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus and the Virgin Birth of Jesus because the verse calls Joseph His father. But the words MAY (and often do) have non-biological meanings....

And the words "brother" and "sister" can EQUALLY mean "step-sibling" or cousin or adopted child or one living with the family or even a complete NON RELATIVE who happens to share something in common (FRIEND, THATS BY FAR THE MOST COMMON USAGE OF THE WORDS IN THE BIBLE)! You are TRYING to insist "Brother" and "sister" must mean "share the same biological mother" but your whole premise is factually wrong. They EQUALLY could be step-siblings, cousins and a host of other possibilities. You are TRYING to insist the words in the text can only be biological - without realizing that if you are right about that, you've just made Joseph the biological father of Jesus (and destroyed the dogma of the Divinity of Jesus and Virgin Birth of Jesus). Again, COULD the words "brother" and "sister" mean "share the same birth mother?" YES, but they equally could mean other things. It's inconclusive. It is simply factually wrong to say "The Bible says Mary had other children because of the words in this text." Honesty counts my friend. As Andrew noted above, what we have here is pure speculation, pure conjecture. What we have is folks parroting two Traditions, not simply stating what the Bible does.





.

 

[RichWh1]

So Mary was the aunt of Jesus. Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

So Mary was the aunt of Jesus. Got it.

Friend, it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a discussion if you don't READ what is posted to you. It's critical to READ THE WORDS.


It's dishonest to imply I said Mary was Jesus' aunt when I not only NEVER said that but affirmed that she is Jesus' biological mother.


If you don't want a discussion..... if you don't care what others think..... if you demand your view to be unaccountable.... then the thing to do is not post in the thread. It's kind of rude to ask another a question if you aren't going to READ the response and are going to make up stuff never said. Come on, my friend. We're all better than this (or at least we should be).




[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION] Is there another reason why our discussions are often fruitless?

 

[RichWh1]

So who was there? His mother and brothers or his aunt and cousins? Honest question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

. [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] your inbox is full!

 

[Josiah]

. [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] your inbox is full!

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION], tell Romanos; he recently greatly increased its size and I've only had a handful of PM's since. Something must be amiss. I'm sure he can fix it.



.

 

[Josiah]

So who was there? His mother and brothers or his aunt and cousins? Honest question.

You missed my point. I invite you to please read posts 152, 154, 159 and 164. Please. Read the whole posts, read the words. It's fruitless (and brings up the issue of spamming) if I'm simply posting exactly the same thing, because it previously hadn't been read.


You don't seem to want to accept that the text isn't definitive, isn't conclusive.... Maybe you want to FORCE some answer into the text, but I'm going with your insistence: that we look at the text (void of Traditions) and read the words. Again (staff, forgive me) you WANT the words "brother" and "sister" to be required to mean "from the same womb, have the same biological mother." ALL I'm pointing out is that's far from certain, the words do not mean only that (or in the Bible, USUALLY that). They can EQUALLY mean step-sibling, cousin or a HOST of other things; in fact USUALLY in the Bible and in secular use, the term does NOT mean a biological relative AT ALL. You can't limit it's meaning to "has the same mother." It can EQUALLY mean other things.

No,I never said that Mary was Jesus' aunt (come on!). I said the BIBLE STATES that Mary is Jesus' mother (indeed, also in the verse here in question). It STATES that. But does it state that Mary is the mother of James, Jude, Joseph and whatever the other person's name is? NO, it does not. It gives ONE as a child of Mary, no other. It's simply a falsehood to state that this verse (or any other verse) states that Mary had other children; the Bible ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY names Jesus as a biological child of Mary. That's the reality. The verse says that Joseph is Jesus' father, but we know he is not His BIOLOGICAL Father (or uncle or cousin- I never posted any such thing) - but the writer is using this term in a NON-BIOLOGICAL sense. The premise that these terms must mean biological OBVIOUSLY isn't the case.

Again, going by the WORDS here, is it POSSIBLE that Mary had these 6 other children? YES (as I've said too many times already), the words CAN mean that. But it's not conclusive, it's not definitive, because the EXACT SAME WORDS could EQUALLY mean step-siblings or cousins or even just persons living in the same home or being raised by Joseph and Mary ("Father" in this verse ONLY means he's the adult male raising Jesus). The words here no more prove these are children of Mary than it does these are cousins or step siblings of Jesus or even not related to Jesus AT ALL. It COULD mean what the Tradition you echo says.... but it EQUALLY could mean something quite different.

Friend, not every question has a definitive answer. And IMO, it is dishonest to insist "The Bible states" when it does not. Hypocritical to insist, "I may suggest MY chosen Tradition but all others are disallowed to do the same." Anyone my speculate.... but let's call it what it is, and not insist the Bible states it when it is obvious to all that it does not.


Please, my friend, please read posts 152, 154, 159, 164. IF you then still have "honest questions" I'm very happy to respond. But please don't ignore the conversation others are trying to have with you, and substitute things everyone knows they NEVER remotely said.




.

 

[RichWh1]

You missed my point. I invite you to please read post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[/QUOTE]

Your post doesn’t answer my question. It spoke to the meaning of the words and not to who those people were outside when Jesus was told his mother and brothers were there


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

.


Let's summerize....


1. The Bible obviously does not say if Mary had other children. It ONLY states that Jesus is a child of Mary. ONLY Jesus is stated to be a biological child of Mary. Everyone here has documented this. Does the Bible state, "Oh, and she also bore some others?" Nope. Does it state, "And she bore no others?" Nope. Many here have proven this.


2. For over 1700 years, it was the nearly universal Tradition (dating back to the First Century when perhaps Mary was still alive and when any other children would be alive) that Mary had no other children. This view predates the one that Mary was a perpetual virgin by centuries and is not dependent upon it. But this Tradition is NOT stated in Scripture. Thus it can be said this was the historic/ecumenical view AND there's nothing in Scripture that makes it problemmatic (see point #1) BUT it is unconfirmed by Scripture. It cannot be said that Scripture states this. Some people echo this Tradition.


3. In the 18th Century, another Tradition was formed, by very liberal Protestants who denied the Virgin Birth and the Divinity of Jesus. They opinioned that Mary had lots of sex and kids. There's nothing in Scripture that makes this view problemmatic BUT it is not confirmed by Scripture (see point #1), it cannot be said that Scripture teaches this (but no Christian for 1700 + years noticed it). Some people echo this Tradition.


4. Some misuse some of the koine Greek words in the various texts brought up. In neither Greek or English does the word "brother" or "sister" mean "Comes from the same womb, has the same biological mother." Indeed, in Greek, the word USUALLY does NOT mean that. In koine Greek, word is very, very general and non-specific (rather like our English word "fellow"). It was documented with Scripture that the word can mean step-sibling, half-sibling, cousin....even a adopted person or just someone living under the authority of the same adults... even entirely UNRELATED persons who happen to share a common thing (the way the word is USUALLY, MOST OFTEN used in Scripture AND in ancient Greek socieity). It is simply false to argue that the word "brother" must mean "shares the same mother." It EQUALLY could mean a host of other things. The same is true of the word "until." While in ENGLISH there is a common connotation that this will reverse in the future, that meaning doesn't exist in koine Greek. Scriptures were given to show that the Bible NEVER uses the word in that sense. While it is credible to interpret these verses the way some Modern Evangelicals do, it is EQUALLY credible to interpret them in very different ways the words are simply inconclusive, based on the text (stripped of EITHER Tradition being imposed), the words simply do not indicate if Jesus had or did not have siblings.


5. IMO, Andrew made the correct conclusion: The Bible simply does not say..... and it doesn't matter anyway. I honestly have NO CLUE why some modern Evangelicals are SO driven, SO passionate to prove Mary had other children (but clearly, they are..... sometimes obsessed with this).... and I don't rebuke them for holding to a Tradition (however late), as long as they admit it's TRADITION.... but it is simply false to state (as they often do), "SCRIPTURE states Mary had other children" "The BIBLE clearly states these are children of Mary." It's just false. And ironically, some are persistent to PROVE Scripture never says that.




MY position on this has consistently been this: We don't know. It doesn't matter.




.

 

[FredVB]

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.

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

 

[Josiah]

we can't prove Jesus had brothers from the same mother

Exactly.

End of discussion.



.

 

[JRT]

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