Brothers of Jesus?

[donadams]

All of this is true except your inference of only having given birth once. She did bring forth a son. She did call His name Jesus. There's nothing in the text to even suggest that she only bore one child except that Jesus would most certainly be her first born.

Not only does imply her offspring is singular but also Divine Lk 1:35

 

[donadams]

I beg to differ as the Scriptures have already been pointed out to you by hawkman. I do not know how it could have been more plainly and clearly expressed in the Scriptures.

Scripture says brothers of Jesus but never children of Mary!

 

[WIP]

Not only does imply her offspring is singular but also Divine Lk 1:35

Yes, the Holy One, the Son of God, will be divine. The only divine child will be her first born as the Holy Spirit will come upon her and she will conceive that divine child. Absolutely! No argument here. But, Luke 1:35 nor anywhere else in Scripture does it say that she will only have one child. You're conflating your own theology where it does not exist.

 

[WIP]

Scripture says brothers of Jesus but never children of Mary!

So what? That proves nothing.

 

[donadams]

I quoted from two Catholic bibles.

We are talking about Isa 7:14

KJV Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Nothing about until! Virgin forever!
Eve was a virgin but became the mother of all the living and is never called a virgin, Mary is cos it’s permanent, and our spiritual mother too! Jn 19:26-27 rev 12:17
Thanks​

 

[donadams]

Please provide the Scripture reference that says this. I want to see it for myself as I have never found it so maybe I've missed something.

Matt 5:8 Blessed are the pure of heart: for they shall see God.

 

[donadams]

No, that would not be possible, would it? Mary didn't die giving birth to Jesus. She continued to live for many years after that. This is supported in Scripture for we know she was present 33 years later at Jesus' crucifixion.

Did micha have children after her death!

 

[donadams]

Until means no sexual relations before that point. You have just validated what I've been telling you and showing you from Scripture, including Scripture from the Catholic Bibles.

It still don’t say they had sex

 

[WIP]

Time for me to shake off the dust and move on.

 

[donadams]

Yes, the Holy One, the Son of God, will be divine. The only divine child will be her first born as the Holy Spirit will come upon her and she will conceive that divine child. Absolutely! No argument here. But, Luke 1:35 nor anywhere else in Scripture does it say that she will only have one child. You're conflating your own theology where it does not exist.

See below

 

[donadams]

The holy church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles has always taught the perpetual virginity of Mary most holy even the so-called reformers!

Prominent Early Christian Testimonials w/ Scriptural References

I. "Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus (Clopas), who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus (Jude/Judas), and of one Joseph." (Papias of Hierapolis [c. 60–130 AD], Fragment of Papias, Frag. 10, cf. Jn. 19:25)

II. "...James, who is called the brother of the Lord ... as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord ... after ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic epistles" (cf. Jud. 1:1) and "...Mary who is described as the mother of James the Less was the wife of Alphaeus and sister of Mary the Lord's mother" (Jerome of Stridon [c. 347–420 CE], De Viris Illustribus, De Perpetua Uirginitate Beatae Mariae, cf. Jn. 19:25)

III. Eusebius of Caesarea [c. 260–340 AD] relates the following in his Historia Ecclesiastica:

James, the brother of the Lord, was the "...author of the first of the so-called catholic epistles" and that while it is disputed, "as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called catholic epistles," it is known they have been "...read publicly in very many churches." (Bk. I, ch. 23, cf. Jud. 1:1)

"James ... surnamed the Just ... bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord..." and "Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'" (Bk. II, ch. 1)

"...those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord ... with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh ... pronounced Symeon (Simon), the son of Clopas ... to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph." (Bk. III, ch. 11)

"Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ.'" (Bk. II, ch. 23)

"...the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" (Flavius Josephus [c. 37-100 CE], Antiquitates Iudaicae, Bk. XX, ch. 9)

"...James the Just bishop of Jerusalem" and "...but there were two Jameses: one called the Just ... thrown from the pinnacle of the temple ... and beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." (Bk. II, ch. 1) (Clement of Alexandria [c. 150–215 AD], Hypotyposes, Bk. VII, cf. Ac. 12:1-2)

"...James the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church ... called the Just ..." (Bk. II, ch. 23) and "after James the Just had suffered martyrdom ... Symeon (Simon), the son of the Lord's uncle, Clopas, was appointed the next bishop ... because he was a cousin of the Lord." (Bk. III, ch. 22) (Hegesippus [c. 110-180 AD], Hypomnemata)

Additional Scriptural Support

The aforementioned teaching that the mother of James, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas)
was Mary of Cleophas/Clopas (Alphaeus), Jesus's mother's sister (in-law), is supported by the following verses:

"his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas" (Jn. 19:25)
"Mary, mother of James" (Mk. 16:1)
"Mary of James" (Lk. 24:10)
"Mary, mother of James and Joseph" (Matt. 27:56)
"Mary, mother of James the Less and Joseph" (Mk. 15:40)

If at the very least you agree "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 63 and the apostle "James" in Gal. 1:19 were the same,
consider the two of the twelve apostles named "James:"

Apostle James, son of Zebedee, whose brother [sibling] was Apostle John, and their mother is only known to have been the mother of "the sons of Zebedee." Thus it is indisputable that of the two this James-apostle doesn't correlate with the "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 4:21;20:20;27:56, Mk. 1:19;3:17;10:35, Lk. 5:10, Ac. 12:1-2)

Apostle James, son of Alphaeus, whose brothers [siblings] were Apostle Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) and Joseph. Thus it is indisputable that of the two this James-apostle correlates more with "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19. (Matt. 10:3, Mk. 3:18, Lk. 6:15-16, Ac. 1:13)

Summary

The scriptural verses and testimonials of prominent early Christians above together illustrate "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "Apostle James of Alphaeus," "James the Bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James were the same, and that he, Simon, Joseph, and Jude (Judas/Thaddeus) were sons of Joseph's brother [sibling], Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), and Mary of Joseph's sister-in-law, Mary of Cleophas/Clopas (Alphaeus), and thus Jesus's brothers, as in "kinsmen," specifically cousins!

 

[donadams]

Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55)

[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called “first-born”; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).


St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!

 

[donadams]

Time for me to shake off the dust and move on.

You not an apostle or bishop and don’t have such authority!

 

[Consecrated Life]

Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother? Perhaps the law of Moses requires a mother to be given to the next oldest son? Because he was an only Son!

I believe the reason in part is due to the fact that Mary was a believer, as was John, but we are told that Jesus's siblings did not come to belief until after He rose from the dead.
How long after His resurrection they came to belief is anyone's guess.
The point being that if you look at the condition of the disciples immediately after Jesus's execution they were basically in fear for their lives, in hiding.
Who knows what other believers were on an official hit list for the time being.
We know that they wanted to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus and he was a very close friend.
Can't be a much closer believer than Mary & she may have needed protecting, at least in the short term.
Protecting in a way that only another believer would understand.

Jhn 12:10
But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

 

[Free]

Lk 1:34 says no sex ever

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (ESV)

Mary is questioning how she will become pregnant since she was a virgin. What it does not say is that she would never have sex, if that's what you're implying.

Only Christ is born of Mary according to scripture!

Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Only one son!

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Lk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

Thee son of Mary! Singular!

Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary…

Singular!


Gen 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Seed: singular only one!

Matt 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Only christ is born of Mary according to scripture:

Matt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Only the Holy Ghost conceived in Mary according to scripture:

Lk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

A son singular

All of this rather misses the point that the entirety of Scripture either points to Christ or is explicitly about him; all of it is the fallacy of begging the question. The gospel has nothing to do with the rest of his family--his father, mother, brothers, or sisters. Only Jesus is the Saviour, not any of his siblings.

Lk 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.

A son singular not a family:

Lk 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Only the God-man is born of a Virgin-mother

Same as above.

Perpetual Virginity of Mary!

Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (apostolic Council of the Lateran, 649) with the jurisdictional authority of Peter and the apostles in holy council! Matt 16:18 18:18 Jn 20:21-23 eph 2:20 bound on earth bound in heaven!

Mary was a Jewish woman and Joseph was a Jewish man. Would they ignore the natural way of things and the most intimate aspect of their relationship? Do you think they would ignore the command that God gave Adam and Eve to "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth"? Would they ignore the Psalmist who says:

Psa 127:3 Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward.
Psa 127:4 Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth.
Psa 127:5 Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate. (ESV)

Not likely, to all three of those questions. The idea that Mary was a perpetual virgin is based in idolatry.

The Bible never says anyone is a biological child of Mary accept for Jesus Christ!

Firstly, because of the utmost importance to establish his humanity. Secondly, because it is of the utmost importance to establish Jesus's lineage through David. Thirdly, because the gospel is about him, not his family.

And the Bible says Her child is holy! And Her child is God!

Is 7:14 God provides a sign, a Virgin shall conceive and bear a son! (Singular, one son)

Again, begging the question. This verse is only speaking of Jesus because that is what is important, that he is born of a virgin. What it does not say is that she will not bear other children.

Brothers and sisters of Jesus?

They are not the children of Mary!

Is 7:14 a virgin shall conceive and bear a son!
(One son, singular)

Again, begging the question.

James is the son of zebedee, and the other James is the son of Alpheus not Joseph!
Matt 10:2-3

In Hebrew culture any close relative can be called brother or sister, lot was called Abraham’s brother but was his nephew.

Gen 12:5 and Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son..

Gen 13:8 And Abram said unto Lot, Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen and thy herdsmen; for we are Brothers.

The 12 sons of Jacob are brothers but all are not the children of Leah and all are not the children of Rachel! They had 4 mother’s, These may be brothers but they are simply not the children of One mother and the brothers of Jesus are not the children of Mary!

Brothers of Jesus Not the children of Mary!

Matthew 13:55
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mk 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;

Matthew 27:56
Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

Acts 4:36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

(Cannot be Mary’s child, Mary was of the tribe of Judah and the royal house of David the king!) Lk 1:32-33

Is Mary the mother of James?
If you mean the Blessed Virgin Mary then no. Her sister-in-law, Mary of Clopas, was the wife of Alphaeus (St. Joseph's brother), and mother of Simon, Joseph, and the apostles Judas Thaddeus, and James (the Less, brother of the Lord): Jesus' cousins.

The "sisters" of Jesus refer to women disciples

Salome, or Mary Salome, was the wife of Zebedee, and mother of apostles John (the beloved), and James (the greater).

Regarding Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3, two of the four "brethren" are James and Judas of Alphaeus (cf. Mat. 10:2-3, Lk. 6:15-16, Act. 1:13). The third, Joseph, is identified in Mk. 15:40 as the brother of James of Alphaeus. The fourth, Simon, is identified in Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 as the brother of Joseph, James, and Judas of Alphaeus. Therefore, all four are were the sons of Alphaeus, not St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It's not a good argument to appeal to names that were likely quite popular. Be careful in making connections where there are none.

When Jesus was twelve they went up to Jerusalem, the holy family, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Where are the brothers and sisters?

Why should the story mention them, when it is entirely about Jesus? Joseph and Mary are not even named. Notice that there was a group of relatives and acquaintances, a group that was large enough that they traveled for a whole day before noticing that Jesus wasn't among them.

It could also be that his brothers and sisters simply weren't among those who went. It is probably significant that Luke mentions Jesus was twelve years old. It was possible that his parents were begging his religious instruction in public worship and such. Given that Jesus was the oldest of his siblings, this is instruction that his parents would begin with him. So, there would be no reason for his siblings to be there.

Jesus on the cross gives His mother to John, why? Why not James or a brother? Perhaps the law of Moses requires a mother to be given to the next oldest son? Because he was an only Son!
Only begotten of the Father, only begotten of the Mother.

And why didn't Jesus give Mary to a cousin? There could be any number of reasons that Jesus gave Mary to his most beloved disciple, not the least of which would be to show that they are a part of a larger family:

Mat 12:46 While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him.
Mat 12:48 But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”
Mat 12:49 And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!
Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” (ESV)

It could be that only John dared to be there, while Jesus's brothers all stayed far away. To say that it was because he was an only Son is, once again, to beg the question.

First born does not imply a second born. An only child is still first born!

First born doesn't imply that there never was or will be a second, third, or fourth born. Regardless of the number of siblings, the first born is always the first born.

 

[donadams]

Based on idolatry?
The church forbids idolatry!
Only God may be worshipped!

The church has always believed and taught the doctrines of Mary!
Includes the so-called reformers

Thanks

 

[jasonc]

You not an apostle or bishop and don’t have such authority!

Really so those who we witness do that don't want to hear ,just continue berating and trespass?

Btw you quote Calvin and Wesley.the laters who disciples were quite anti Catholic .I am studying eschatology under Adam Clarke who was in that Wesleyan church .the whore of Babylon is romanist church in his view .

 

[jasonc]

Saints in Methodism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Free]

Based on idolatry?
The church forbids idolatry!
Only God may be worshipped!

It might forbid it but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t practice it.

The church has always believed and taught the doctrines of Mary!
Includes the so-called reformers

Thanks

That doesn’t mean they were right about it. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture and defies a common sense understanding of human nature, Jewish belief, and God’s command.

 

[jasonc]

It might forbid it but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t practice it.


That doesn’t mean they were right about it. It has absolutely no basis in Scripture and defies a common sense understanding of human nature, Jewish belief, and God’s command.

I add that sex in marriage doesn't not could it ever defile the woman .

The idea of Mary being pure as they put it afterwards implies she was defiled if she did have kids .

God choose a virgin because of the curse placed on the Davidic line .