Brothers of Jesus

CaliforniaJosiah · Mar 15, 2012

Montalban said:
All we have is a minority Protestant viewpoint

... and the viewpoint of two denominations. BOTH entirely possible (unless the Angel lied to Mary). But that doesn't make EITHER true - much less a dogmatic fact of highest importance to all persons of earth, a greatest certainty of Truth and Fact, a matter impacting the eternal salvation of souls... it just makes both POSSIBLE viewpoints. Which is the position of every denomination on the planet.... except two (yours being one of them).

.

Montalban · Mar 15, 2012

CaliforniaJosiah said:
... and the viewpoint of two denominations..

RCC, EO, OO, Anglican don't make 'two denominations'. That's not including the views of Martin Luther, etc. who also believed in her being ever-virgin

Furthermore RCC and EO are the majority of Christians.

Further to that RCC and EO have been teaching it longer.

So aside from a few modern Protestants not believing in it, your post quite misrepresents the long held viewpoint of most Christians over the life of Christianity

SolomonVII · Mar 15, 2012

Kristos said:
This is simply a man-made tradition of protestantism.

There is no Protestant "tradition" involved here.

Or, Scripture, which all agree is God breathed, has expressed no opinion on the matter, other than the miraculous virginal birth of God Incarnate.

Catholics of all stripes take it upon themselves to mine the apocrypha in order to come up something more to their liking about perpetual virginity. I can only speculate as to the reasons why Mary's reproductive organs are so important to the Orthodox Catholic faith. Whatever reasons that there may have been, it has very little to do with anyone's lives these days. Other than that their church says so, what does Marys virginity have to do with anything? There does not seem to be any specific purpose to the teaching, not that people remember anyways.

Or, Jesus turned the purity laws up on their head with his comment about it is not what you put into your mouth that makes you dirty. When it comes to marriage, I think it is time that we find some kind of analogy in this that sees that spiritual purity is not at all incompatible with marital sexuality either.

Montalban · Mar 15, 2012

SolomonVII said:
There is no Protestant "tradition" involved here.

Sola scriptura is a Protestant tradition.

SolomonVII said:
Or, Scripture, which all agree is God breathed, has expressed no opinion on the matter, other than the miraculous virginal birth of God Incarnate.

There's the Protestnat tradition of arguing that if it's a tradition not in scripture, it's okay, but we'll argue against this one anyway.

Strong in Him · Mar 15, 2012

Standing Up said:
What was the very early view of these brothers?

Mt. 13:35 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Mk. 6:3 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.

Were they after the flesh (same mother, but different father)?

Were they cousins?

Were they step-brothers, sons of Joseph from a previous marriage?

I always thought they were children Mary had after Jesus.
As well as the verses you quoted, there are others which describe Jesus being visited by his mother and brothers, (Mark 3:31-32), and that the latter didn't accept his ministry (John 7:3-5). I always thought that that was why James became a, or the, leader in the Jerusalem church, (Acts 15:13) because he was Jesus' brother, (Gal 1:19.)

Joseph could have had children from a previous marriage - if it is correct that he was much older than Mary. These would have been much older, maybe middle aged, by the time of Jesus' ministry, whereas I get the sense that they were younger and still lived with Mary.

Could be wrong though.

Montalban · Mar 15, 2012

Strong in Him said:
I always thought they were children Mary had after Jesus.
As well as the verses you quoted, there are others which describe Jesus being visited by his mother and brothers, (Mark 3:31-32), and that the latter didn't accept his ministry (John 7:3-5). I always thought that that was why James became a, or the, leader in the Jerusalem church, (Acts 15:13) because he was Jesus' brother, (Gal 1:19.)

Joseph could have had children from a previous marriage - if it is correct that he was much older than Mary. These would have been much older, maybe middle aged, by the time of Jesus' ministry, whereas I get the sense that they were younger and still lived with Mary.

Could be wrong though.

As already noted the word used for brothers is adelphos which carries the meaning of a direct biological brother but also carries the meaning of more distant relatives.

When Jesus is on the cross he gives over his mother to the care of John, not any male relatives - who's duty would have been to look after her

Going Merry · Mar 15, 2012

Whether or not he had brothers is pretty irellevant when it comes to salvation.
If he did, cool.
If he did not, cool.

It only effects people who worship mary

SolomonVII · Mar 15, 2012

hl2 said:
Whether or not he had brothers is pretty irellevant when it comes to salvation.
If he did, cool.
If he did not, cool.

It only effects people who worship mary

You do have a point there. Sexualization of goddesses can lead to some very corrupt religious practices.
It is much better to des-exualize her in that regard.

SolomonVII · Mar 15, 2012

Montalban said:
Sola scriptura is a Protestant tradition.

There's the Protestnat tradition of arguing that if it's a tradition not in scripture, it's okay, but we'll argue against this one anyway.

That is why I put in the "ors" If the methodology of SS is what you want to see as the equivalent of your Sacred Traditon, then that is up to you.

And if you want to continue to argue on the basis of myths and tales and apocrypha that have not been credited by any council as being fit to make dogma in the first place, that is up to you too.

It is interesting to note how eclectic and multi-sourced Islam and the Koran are too in that regard, how they sifted through the Talmud and the apocryphal Gospels of Abraham and Mary, and the Pwersian traditions as well, to likewise develop their own infallible, divinely dictated doctrine.

Scripture alone ensures that the message of Christ does not get corrupted in this way.

What is informative to note though, is that we are finally becoming fully aware of what Sacred Tradition truly means, what it actually involves. Like the Koran itself, it involves mining the apocrypha and the popular myths and legends of those times in order to adjust the faith left by the apostles to other traditions that falls outside of the authenticated Gospel of Christianity.

Thekla · Mar 15, 2012

hl2 said:
Whether or not he had brothers is pretty irellevant when it comes to salvation.
If he did, cool.
If he did not, cool.

It only effects people who worship mary

I personally don't know of anyone who worships Mary, nor any theology, nor any doctrine, nor any dogma that encourages or permits such a thing.

SolomonVII · Mar 15, 2012

Strong in Him said:
I always thought they were children Mary had after Jesus.
As well as the verses you quoted, there are others which describe Jesus being visited by his mother and brothers, (Mark 3:31-32), and that the latter didn't accept his ministry (John 7:3-5). I always thought that that was why James became a, or the, leader in the Jerusalem church, (Acts 15:13) because he was Jesus' brother, (Gal 1:19.)

Joseph could have had children from a previous marriage - if it is correct that he was much older than Mary. These would have been much older, maybe middle aged, by the time of Jesus' ministry, whereas I get the sense that they were younger and still lived with Mary.

Could be wrong though.

You could be right too.

Montalban · Mar 15, 2012

hl2 said:
Whether or not he had brothers is pretty irellevant when it comes to salvation.
If he did, cool.
If he did not, cool.

It only effects people who worship mary

And yet, if it doesn't matter, why are Protestants protest against it.

Eternally Optimistic · Mar 15, 2012

hl2 said:
Whether or not he had brothers is pretty irellevant when it comes to salvation.
If he did, cool.
If he did not, cool.

It only effects people who worship mary

lol....

God's Word · Mar 15, 2012

Well, since nobody brought this up yet on this thread, I'll do so now.

Psalm 69:8-9

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER'S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me."

Who is speaking here? Is it not JESUS CHRIST? It most certainly is.

John 2:13-17

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. AND HIS DISCIPLES REMEMBERED THAT IT WAS WAS WRITTEN, THE ZEAL OF THINE HOUSE HATH EATEN ME UP."

Romans 15:3

"For even Christ pleased not himself; but, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THE REPROACHES OF THEM THAT REPROACHED THEE FELL ON ME."

JESUS CHRIST is the One Who was eaten up with the zeal of His Father's house, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

JESUS CHRIST is the One upon Whom the reproaches of God fell, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

JESUS CHRIST is the One Who became an alien unto HIS MOTHER'S CHILDREN, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

Some will get it. Others? Well, they'll ignore such scriptural truths and cling to their anti-Biblical traditions. To each his/her own, I guess.

SolomonVII · Mar 15, 2012

Saint Joseph - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The canonical gospels created a problem: they stated clearly that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, and that Joseph was not his father; yet Joseph's paternity was essential to establish Jesus' Davidic descent, and he and Mary were so much husband and wife that only divorce could dissolve their union (Matthew 1:19).[39] The theological situation was complicated by the gospel references to Jesus' "brothers and sisters" (repeated in Paul, where James is called the "brother of Christ"), and by the fact that he was described unambiguously by John and Mark as "Joseph's son" and "the carpenter's son."[39] From the 2nd century to the 5th writers tried to explain how Jesus could be simultaneously the "son of God" as well as the "son of Joseph".[39]
The first to offer a solution was the apocryphal Protoevangelium of James, written about 150 AD. The original gospels never refer to Joseph's age, but James presents him as an old man chosen by lot (i.e., by God) to watch over the Virgin. Jesus' brothers are presented as Joseph's children by an earlier marriage, and his years and righteousness explain why he has not yet had sex with his wife: "I received her by lot as my wife, and she is not yet my wife, but she has conceived by the Holy Spirit."[40]
The Protoevangelium was extremely popular, but it leaves open the possibility that Joseph might have had relations with Mary after the birth of Jesus ("she is not yet my wife..."). A few centuries later the developing doctrine that Mary was a virgin not only at the time of the conception and birth of Christ, but throughout her life, meant that this possibility had to be excluded. The apocryphal History of Joseph the Carpenter, written in the 5th century and framed as a biography of Joseph dictated by Jesus, describes how Joseph, aged 90 (the Protoevangelium had not given Joseph a specific age), a widower with four sons and two daughters, is given charge of the twelve year old Mary, who then lives in his household raising his youngest son James the Less (the supposed author of the Protoevengelium) until she is ready to be married at age 14½. Joseph's death at the age of 111, attended by angels and asserting the perpetual virginity of Mary, takes up approximately half the story.[41]

This is the stuff or myths and legends and interesting tales to tell around the campfire, is it not?

But for the EO, it is liturgy.
The apocrypha is great, isn't it?
Scripture made to order to fit the needs of the dogma du jour.

But it could be true...
The test of faith that Paul leaves us with though, is the evidence of things unseen. The evidence presented here are unsanctioned later writings that have nothing to do with the apostles, but are useful to support the emerging doctrine of virginity nevertheless.

Thekla · Mar 15, 2012

God's Word said:
Well, since nobody brought this up yet on this thread, I'll do so now.

Psalm 69:8-9

"I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto MY MOTHER'S CHILDREN. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me."

Who is speaking here? Is it not JESUS CHRIST? It most certainly is.

John 2:13-17

"And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise. AND HIS DISCIPLES REMEMBERED THAT IT WAS WAS WRITTEN, THE ZEAL OF THINE HOUSE HATH EATEN ME UP."

Romans 15:3

"For even Christ pleased not himself; but, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THE REPROACHES OF THEM THAT REPROACHED THEE FELL ON ME."

JESUS CHRIST is the One Who was eaten up with the zeal of His Father's house, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

JESUS CHRIST is the One upon Whom the reproaches of God fell, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

JESUS CHRIST is the One Who became an alien unto HIS MOTHER'S CHILDREN, as prophesied in Psalm 69.

Some will get it. Others? Well, they'll ignore such scriptural truths and cling to their anti-Biblical traditions. To each his/her own, I guess.

Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, is considered the "mother" of the children of Israel; to this day, the Jews refer to her as such.

(See her prayer recorded in Jeremiah, and God's answer to her).

Thekla · Mar 15, 2012

Here, as confirmation on Rachel as the mother of the children of Israel:

Mother Rachel's Yahrtzeit - Torah.org

Montalban · Mar 15, 2012

God's Word said:
Well, since nobody brought this up yet on this thread, I'll do so now.

People have done so previously on other threads.

If this is all literally about Jesus, then what folly did Jesus speak (as per vers 5 of Psalm 69)?

Psalm 69:5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.

God's Word · Mar 15, 2012

Thekla said:
Here, as confirmation on Rachel as the mother of the children of Israel:

Mother Rachel's Yahrtzeit - Torah.org

You call this "confirmation"? "Confirmation" from whom? Christ rejecters? Sorry, but their opinions mean nothing to me in relation to truth. Additionally, scripture states that "Jerusalem which is above is free, WHICH IS THE MOTHER OF US ALL" (Galatians 4:26).

NOT Rachel...

NOT Mary...

JERUSALEM WHICH IS ABOVE.

I'll stick with the scriptural account. Thanks.

God's Word · Mar 15, 2012

Montalban said:
God's Word said:

Well, since nobody brought this up yet on this thread, I'll do so now.

Click to expand...

People have done so previously on other threads.

If this is all literally about Jesus, then what folly did Jesus speak (as per vers 5 of Psalm 69)?

Psalm 69:5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.

First of all, there's no shortage of "commentators" (those who write commentaries) who believe that it is only IMPUTED "foolishness" and "sins/guiltiness" that is being spoken of here. Again, the reproaches of God fell upon the One being spoken of, but He was genuinely not guilty of any such reproaches Himself. Anyhow, whether or not the entire Psalm literally speaks of Christ or not, portions of it most certainly do. In what I already cited, the One speaking explains why He has become an alien unto HIS MOTHER'S CHILDREN when He says "for" or "because". IOW, He gives the reasons for such alienation. Also, there are certainly other parts of this Psalm which point directly to Jesus Christ. Here are a couple of them, as attested by the New Testament scriptures:

Psalm 69:4

"THEY THAT HATE ME WITHOUT A CAUSE are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away."

Compared with:

John 15:23-25

"He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. BUT THIS COMETH TO PASS, THAT THE WORD MIGHT BE FULFILLED THAT IS WRITTEN IN THEIR LAW, THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE."

There's also this:

Psalm 69:21

"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

Compared to:

Matthew 27:34

"THEY GAVE HIM VINEGAR TO DRINK MINGLED WITH GALL: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink."

Brothers of Jesus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Great is thy faithfulness

Well-Known Member

‏‏‏‏ ‏‏‏‏

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Thekla

Guest

Thekla

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads