A Necessity - 4 Marian Doctrines

[JoeT]

I updated my post. The text does not tell us if Mary remained a virgin until Jesus was born or for the rest of her life. In Greek, the words don't make it clear. What we do know is that Gabriel did not instruct her or Jospeh to keep her a virgin. It would have been normal and natural for them to go on and have children of their own and to provide Jesus with siblings. To claim that Mary had to remain a virgin is making a supposition not taught in Scripture. As to why Jesus left Mary to John's care, the most likely reason is that at that time none of his siblings believed in him as Messiah. We know that eventually James and Jude came to believe. We don't know about his other siblings and how many there were. It was usually a son that would have cared for their widowed mother.

If you think His own family didn't believe Him then why do you? Is that because Jesus Christ is a nice guy with good vibes?

Mary was clearly one of the disciples and was traveling with them at least at times. Why would Jesus leave his believing mother in the care of an unbelieving son probably cut off from the disciples she had been in the company of? There is the suggestion that John may have been a cousin in which case he was related. Did not Jesus teach that to follow him you must be willing to give up sister and brother and mother and father? If his siblings (half-siblings) were unbelievers Jesus would be right to put his believing mother in the care of one of his closest disciples to keep her among the disciples. Keeping to Jewish tradition would not have been Jesus' concern. He turned many Jewish traditions on their heads. He would have prioritized Mary's spiritual care ahead of any Jewish expectations.If the sibling was a son of Mary's and didn't believe, being a demigod wouldn't the sibling create His own following?

Christ didn't turn away from His Jewish Tradition, He fulfilled it.

Bottom line...there is nothing in Scripture that proves Mary remained a virgin. There is nothing that disallows them to have other children. The RC Church assumed Mary's perpetual virginity based on other doctrines they were trying to build but Scripture itself does not prove their case. This is an example of RC tradition becoming dogma. Scripture itself does not prove she remained a virgin and allows for her to have other children. She was not commanded to remain a virgin nor was Joseph commanded to keep her a virgin. To teach she was "ever virgin" is speculation driven by a conclusion looking for support.

Well OK, there are no planes, trains, and automobiles in Scripture. Can I assume you're going to be on foot now? Well let us assume then that only a Protestant would have taken her after Christ's death as her own family seemed to disavow her according to you. Wouldn't Jesus' family know Him better?


JoeT

 

[prodromos]

As to why Jesus left Mary to John's care, the most likely reason is that at that time none of his siblings believed in him as Messiah.

You don't see a parallel between Joseph, the youngest (at the time) son of Jacob with his older brothers not believing his dreams, and Jesus with His older brothers not believing in Him? If Jesus was the eldest He would have had authority over His younger brothers, especially in the absence of Joseph their father, but they would have held Him in the highest esteem growing up with an older brother who treated them with the utmost respect, always gave the best advice and loved them unconditionally. The Scriptures do not reflect such a relationship.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If you think His own family didn't believe Him then why do you? Is that because Jesus Christ is a nice guy with good vibes?

Christ didn't turn away from His Jewish Tradition, He fulfilled it.


Well OK, there are no planes, trains, and automobiles in Scripture. Can I assume you're going to be on foot now? Well let us assume then that only a Protestant would have taken her after Christ's death as her own family seemed to disavow her according to you. Wouldn't Jesus' family know Him better?


JoeT

We have no description of Jesus' life prior to his reaching the age of 30. Just the one incident where he stayed behind in Jerusalem. We also know he did not perform his first miracle until the wedding at Cana. We don't know what his siblings knew or thought. Sometimes those closest to us have the hardest time believing. Why? Perhaps because they have seen us hunger, and get tired, and they see we are just like them. If they were not around to see his miracles, then they might not have believed the reports. How could their seemingly ordinary brother be the Son of God? Without witnessing his miracles firsthand that would have been a hard thing to believe. We know, however, that at least two of his half-brothers did come to faith eventually. I believe in Jesus because of the works he did and the words he spoke and the prophecies he fulfilled. I have the completed Word of God. They did not. While they may not have believed in him initially, we know in time some did, and perhaps all.

Jesus fulfilled the Law. He kept most traditions we know of but the focus of Scripture is not on his observance of Jewish tradition. We cannot assume Jesus had no siblings because he left Mary in John's care. It might have been unusual but then Jesus was unusual. We know Mary was among Jesus' disciples. She was with them many times. We have no record of his siblings being among his disciples. Would Jesus leave his mother in the care of a (not-yet) believing sibling who would take her away from the company of his followers (we don't know where each lived so we can't say what her future proximity to the disciples would have been but the disciples traveled a lot) or would he have left her in the care of one of his beloved disciples who he knew would care for her like his own mother and keep her in the company of the disciples? Would Jesus deny Mary the fellowship of the disciples simply to keep Jewish tradition? I believe he would have put Mary's spiritual care ahead of Jewish tradition. Jesus' whole ministry was turning much of Jewish tradition on its head. Soon his disciples would be eating unclean food and no longer observing all the traditional Jewish ceremonial laws. Scripture does not explicitly tell us what Jesus' reason was so I don't believe we can use it dogmatically one way or the other. We also don't know if Jesus spoke to his siblings and explained to them his intentions. We simply don't have the information.

You keep saying some Protestants believe Mary has 26 or 28 children. Perhaps some do but they would be in a minority. Scripture does not tell us how many siblings Jesus had. If I had to guess, I would research what a typical family size was in those days and go with that. We also know Joseph was not around by the time Jesus was 30 and had presumably died. We don't know when he died and if his age at death prevented him and Mary from having a typical amount of children. Given child mortality rates and just time, I don't see 26 or 28 children as possible. Certainly not likely. I would attribute such a number to one or two atypical opinions and not characterize Protestants as believing in such numbers. I wouldn't even mention it as it's so far from mainstream Protestant thinking.

If you want to believe Jesus was an only child, be my guest. Scripture does not make a definitive statement. It certainly suggests he had siblings but you can theorize other explanations if you want. I believe this is a case where Catholic dogma forced it to look for reasons to suggest Mary had no further children. Scripture does not definitively teach Mary was ever-virgin. Just like it does not teach she was immaculately conceived. These are the traditions of men and once believed required one to look back at Scripture for a way to justify those beliefs. I see nothing in Scripture that would prevent Mary and Joseph from having children after Jesus. I don't believe that would diminish Mary in any way. If Mary could (by Catholic doctrine) be conceived without original sin from parents who did have original sin, then why could not Jesus have been conceived without original sin despite a mother who did have it? If Mary could be preserved from original sin (as per Catholic doctrine) then why could not Jesus be preserved from it in the very same way? If original sin is passed through the fathers, then there is your answer. Either way, you cannot establish from Scripture that Mary was conceived without original sin nor can you prove she never sinned or remained a virgin for life. These are all Catholic traditions that you are free to believe but trying to prove them from Scripture is impossible.

 

[JoeT]

You keep saying some Protestants believe Mary has 26 or 28 children. Perhaps some do but they would be in a minority. Scripture does not tell us how many siblings Jesus had. If I had to guess, I would research what a typical family size was in those days and go with that. We also know Joseph was not around by the time Jesus was 30 and had presumably died. We don't know when he died and if his age at death prevented him and Mary from having a typical amount of children. Given child mortality rates and just time, I don't see 26 or 28 children as possible. Certainly not likely. I would attribute such a number to one or two atypical opinions and not characterize Protestants as believing in such numbers. I wouldn't even mention it as it's so far from mainstream Protestant thinking.

Let’s look at “Brother”, in Greek ἀδελφός (adelphos) According to Strong he gives the following definitions:

Lexicon :: Strong's G80 - adelphos

• a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
• having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
• any follower of an individual
• a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
• an associate in employment or office
• brethren in Christ
  • a. his brothers by blood
  • b. all men
  • c. apostles
  • d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

​

(Source: G80 - adelphos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv) )​

Were Cephas (Simon) and Andrew, called brothers, siblings of Jesus?
Were James and John, called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [cf. Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19-20, Mark 3:17, etc]
Were Matthew, Jude, and James (The Less) siblings of Jesus? [Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13]
Were James and Joseph (or Joses), called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56]
Were Bartholomew, Thomas, called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14.]
Was Judas, called brother, a sibling of Jesus?

Are all these were called "brother(s)" of Jesus. What about all the brothers and sisters of the Lord carried around by St. Paul?[Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5]

'Adelphos' is used 400 or more times in the King James' Greek with covering all the various meanings. Consequently, to validate 'brothers' of Jesus in scripture we need a lot more than 'adelphos' to hear an individual is ‘called’ brother. If Mary is to issue fourth the Messiah according to prophecy which of the 26, or so, sons and daughters is a divine person. It's because Jesus didn't have bothers or half-brothers.

There is no one in Scripture that I'm aware of that is called son or daughter of Joseph and Mary other than Jesus. Can we not draw a logical conclusion, Jesus Christ was the first and only son?

O'brother where art thou?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Let’s look at “Brother”, in Greek ἀδελφός (adelphos) According to Strong he gives the following definitions:

Lexicon :: Strong's G80 - adelphos

• a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
• having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
• any follower of an individual
• a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
• an associate in employment or office
• brethren in Christ
  • a. his brothers by blood
  • b. all men
  • c. apostles
  • d. Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

​

(Source: G80 - adelphos - Strong's Greek Lexicon (kjv) )​

Were Cephas (Simon) and Andrew, called brothers, siblings of Jesus?
Were James and John, called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [cf. Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19-20, Mark 3:17, etc]
Were Matthew, Jude, and James (The Less) siblings of Jesus? [Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13]
Were James and Joseph (or Joses), called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [Mark 15:40; Matthew 27:56]
Were Bartholomew, Thomas, called brothers, siblings of Jesus? [John 1:43-51; Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14.]
Was Judas, called brother, a sibling of Jesus?

Are all these were called "brother(s)" of Jesus. What about all the brothers and sisters of the Lord carried around by St. Paul?[Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:5]

'Adelphos' is used 400 or more times in the King James' Greek with covering all the various meanings. Consequently, to validate 'brothers' of Jesus in scripture we need a lot more than 'adelphos' to hear an individual is ‘called’ brother. If Mary is to issue fourth the Messiah according to prophecy which of the 26, or so, sons and daughters is a divine person. It's because Jesus didn't have bothers or half-brothers.

There is no one in Scripture that I'm aware of that is called son or daughter of Joseph and Mary other than Jesus. Can we not draw a logical conclusion, Jesus Christ was the first and only son?

O'brother where art thou?

JoeT

In Mark, a crowd asks of Jesus, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are his sisters here with us?” (6:3). In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you,” Jesus famously rejects them: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). And John writes that after Jesus performed his first miracles in Cana, “he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days” (2:12). (Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?)

Greek has a specific word for "cousin" and it was not used. Its true adelphos can mean other things but we have multiple mentions of Jesus' siblings and in every case, they are with Mary. Why would Jesus' cousins be constantly with Mary? You might say because she was a widow but Mary was often with the disciples in which case they would have cared for her and she would not have needed to gather a group of Jesus' cousins around her. The natural reading of the text would lead one to conclude Jesus had half-siblings. In Galatians 1:9, James is called the Lord's brother. Why wasn't the word for cousin used?

The Greek word for cousin is syngenēs. It is used, for example, of Mary's cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). It is also used of Mary's cousins sharing in her joy (Luke 1:58). The word doesn't refer to a male or female cousin. It is not gender-specific. If it was used of Elizabeth, why was it not used of those you suggest might have actually been Jesus' cousins? The most you can conclude, is that adelphos could possibly have been used of cousins even though there is a more precise word for cousin. You cannot conclude it did refer to cousins.

Once again you refer to "26 or so" siblings which is not a common Protestant assumption about how many siblings Jesus may have had. I think you keep using that number to make is seem preposterous and it would be except it's not the accepted view of the vast majority of Protestants! Prophecy told us a virgin would give birth to the Messiah and we know from the NT that Mary was a virgin. It says Jesus was her firstborn. So there is no confusion about which of Mary's male children would be the Messiah. It had to be her firstborn. Her and Joseph having additional children would not cast that into doubt.

In conclusion, you cannot argue from the Greek wording that Jesus did not have half-siblings. The wording allows for that possibility. To conclude otherwise, as the Catholic church has done, is to force a meaning on Scripture that is not clear in Scripture. The RC church is trying to take advantage of some non-specific wording to dogmatically conclude Jesus was an only child. One could just as easily conclude he had half-siblings as the text leaves us as a strong possibility and the most natural reading of the text. Only someone who has already concluded Jesus did not have siblings would look for justifications to suggest otherwise.

 

[JoeT]

In Mark, a crowd asks of Jesus, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are his sisters here with us?” (6:3). In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you,” Jesus famously rejects them: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). And John writes that after Jesus performed his first miracles in Cana, “he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days” (2:12). (Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?)

Let’s look at Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him." [Mark 6:3].

1. “Is not this the carpenter”; a reference to Jesus Christ who now controls His segregate father’s estate, which would have included the trade of carpentry. Jesus Christ is the Master of the house.
2. “the son of Mary”; not a normal identification unless Joseph was dead. Mary would be a widow a socio-economic status - a rather low one. A piece of information we can use in another argument at the foot of the cross.
3. “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon”: those with this Mary is the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. If it’s not the carpenter who is their brother then this Mary is not mother of Jesus, who is she? Matthew 13:55 has a very similar list, “brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:" (In some translations Mark uses “Jose” instead of Matthew’s “Joseph”, both come from the Hebrew “Yoshef” and as such are one and the same person.
4. “are not also his sisters here with us”: This would suggest that the sisters were unexpected perhaps lived in another village.

Elsewhere in scripture, at the foot of the cross we find a “Mary” who is mother of, “James”, “Joseph (Jose)”, and “Salome” [Cf. Mark 15:40] In Mark 16:1 we find “Mary the mother of James, and Salome”. This would be the same "Mary" that is mother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon. This Mary is beginning to attract attention. St. John however sheds a bit of light on this conspicuous Mary; “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." [John 19:25]. Cleophas is the wife of Mary sister of Mary, Jesus Christ's mother.

We can draw the following conclusions with conviction. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are brothers whose mother is Mary. Mary is clearly identified as the sister of the mother of Jesus whose husband is Cleophas or Clopas depending on the translation. James and Joseph are disciples, while Jude and Simon are family of Jesus Christ.

Consequently, Scripture identifies the spiritual brethren, James and Joses and Judas and Simon and their mother and father, the sister of Mary whose name is also Mary who is married to Cleopas. Thus these individuals are not blood related siblings. We can include the obvious absence of a direct statement of parental relationship such as, "Joseph and Mary the mother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon". Jesus Christ was the only Son of Mary and Joseph.

It was Jesus and His brethren that were "scandalized".

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Let’s look at Mark 6:3: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him." [Mark 6:3].

1. “Is not this the carpenter”; a reference to Jesus Christ who now controls His segregate father’s estate, which would have included the trade of carpentry. Jesus Christ is the Master of the house.
2. “the son of Mary”; not a normal identification unless Joseph was dead. Mary would be a widow a socio-economic status - a rather low one. A piece of information we can use in another argument at the foot of the cross.
3. “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon”: those with this Mary is the brother of James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon. If it’s not the carpenter who is their brother then this Mary is not mother of Jesus, who is she? Matthew 13:55 has a very similar list, “brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:" (In some translations Mark uses “Jose” instead of Matthew’s “Joseph”, both come from the Hebrew “Yoshef” and as such are one and the same person.
4. “are not also his sisters here with us”: This would suggest that the sisters were unexpected perhaps lived in another village.

Elsewhere in scripture, at the foot of the cross we find a “Mary” who is mother of, “James”, “Joseph (Jose)”, and “Salome” [Cf. Mark 15:40] In Mark 16:1 we find “Mary the mother of James, and Salome”. This would be the same "Mary" that is mother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon. This Mary is beginning to attract attention. St. John however sheds a bit of light on this conspicuous Mary; “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen." [John 19:25]. Cleophas is the wife of Mary sister of Mary, Jesus Christ's mother.

We can draw the following conclusions with conviction. James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are brothers whose mother is Mary. Mary is clearly identified as the sister of the mother of Jesus whose husband is Cleophas or Clopas depending on the translation. James and Joseph are disciples, while Jude and Simon are family of Jesus Christ.

Consequently, Scripture identifies the spiritual brethren, James and Joses and Judas and Simon and their mother and father, the sister of Mary whose name is also Mary who is married to Cleopas. Thus these individuals are not blood related siblings. We can include the obvious absence of a direct statement of parental relationship such as, "Joseph and Mary the mother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon". Jesus Christ was the only Son of Mary and Joseph.

It was Jesus and His brethren that were "scandalized".

JoeT

6 Jesus went out from there and *came into His hometown; and His disciples *followed Him. 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He wondered at their unbelief.

And He was going around the villages teaching.

Jesus was visiting the synagogue in Nazareth, the town he grew up in. This was his home synagogue where he no doubt spent every Sabbath for his entire life up to that time (minus the time in Egypt). These were his neighbors and townspeople, the people he grew up around. Some of them had known him since he was a child. Now he shows up and teaches with authority and with reports of miracles. Many of them could not accept this. How could this son of a carpenter whose family we know now be performing miracles and teaching with authority? He’s just a carpenter! He never was trained as a Rabbi. If he had miraculous powers why did we never see him perform a miracle? So they “took offense” at Jesus. In verses 5 and 6 we learn that due to their unbelief, Jesus could do no miracle there except heal a few sick people. The skeptics were no doubt expecting him to produce some miracle to prove to them he was capable of such things. Their profound lack of faith prevented Jesus from giving them such a miracle. Jesus never performed miracles for show or on demand. Later, the Pharisees demanded a miracle from him as proof of his claims and he would not give them one.

In Mark 6:3a, Jesus “the carpenter” is the subject of the sentence. He is established as a carpenter and the son of Mary. Jesus is still the subject when it says “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon.” These are not identified as brothers of some Mary or someone with some Mary, but of Jesus.

You claim it is a different Mary. Let’s go along with that but name her Miriam. Now would this make sense?

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Miriam, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us?

NO! The context makes it clear that the reason for their unbelief was because they knew him, his mother, and his brothers and sisters. They had known him as a child. How could he possibly be performing miracles and teaching the people? I think the phrase, “Are not his sisters here with us” meant that his sisters still lived in Nazareth. In other words, this is the son of a carpenter, we know his mother, his brothers, and his sisters who still live here. He couldn’t possibly be off performing miracles! If so, then he should perform one here in his hometown to prove it to us! It would lose so much meaning if instead, Jesus was there with another Mary and her brothers (or sons). The context makes it clear this was Jesus’ family as one would expect as not all would have left Nazareth.

Just as we have 3 women named Mary, so could children's names be the same. You can't conclude that because another Mary had two sons whose names overlapped Jesus' brothers that they must be the other Mary's sons. They had common names back then just like we do today. I am named Bob. You know how many Bobs there are out there! My brother's name is Bill. Another rare name.

You really have to twist the obvious context of the verse to suppose Jesus is there with a different Mary and her brothers or sons. This is an example of isigesis or reading a meaning into the text rather than out of it. You are starting with the presupposition that Jesus had no siblings and now are trying to find a way to explain this story without this being his mother, his brothers, and his sisters. Your explanation is forced and contrived. It does not fit the context. Your doctrine won't allow you to accept the obvious interpretation of the passage.

 

[JoeT]

6 Jesus went out from there and *came into His hometown; and His disciples *followed Him. 2 When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him. 4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives and in his own household.” 5 And He could do no miracle there except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. 6 And He wondered at their unbelief.

And He was going around the villages teaching.

Jesus was visiting the synagogue in Nazareth, the town he grew up in. This was his home synagogue where he no doubt spent every Sabbath for his entire life up to that time (minus the time in Egypt). These were his neighbors and townspeople, the people he grew up around. Some of them had known him since he was a child. Now he shows up and teaches with authority and with reports of miracles. Many of them could not accept this. How could this son of a carpenter whose family we know now be performing miracles and teaching with authority? He’s just a carpenter! He never was trained as a Rabbi. If he had miraculous powers why did we never see him perform a miracle? So they “took offense” at Jesus. In verses 5 and 6 we learn that due to their unbelief, Jesus could do no miracle there except heal a few sick people. The skeptics were no doubt expecting him to produce some miracle to prove to them he was capable of such things. Their profound lack of faith prevented Jesus from giving them such a miracle. Jesus never performed miracles for show or on demand. Later, the Pharisees demanded a miracle from him as proof of his claims and he would not give them one.

In Mark 6:3a, Jesus “the carpenter” is the subject of the sentence. He is established as a carpenter and the son of Mary. Jesus is still the subject when it says “the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon.” These are not identified as brothers of some Mary or someone with some Mary, but of Jesus.

You claim it is a different Mary. Let’s go along with that but name her Miriam. Now would this make sense?

Is not this the carpenter, the son of Miriam, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not his sisters here with us?

NO! The context makes it clear that the reason for their unbelief was because they knew him, his mother, and his brothers and sisters. They had known him as a child. How could he possibly be performing miracles and teaching the people? I think the phrase, “Are not his sisters here with us” meant that his sisters still lived in Nazareth. In other words, this is the son of a carpenter, we know his mother, his brothers, and his sisters who still live here. He couldn’t possibly be off performing miracles! If so, then he should perform one here in his hometown to prove it to us! It would lose so much meaning if instead, Jesus was there with another Mary and her brothers (or sons). The context makes it clear this was Jesus’ family as one would expect as not all would have left Nazareth.

Just as we have 3 women named Mary, so could children's names be the same. You can't conclude that because another Mary had two sons whose names overlapped Jesus' brothers that they must be the other Mary's sons. They had common names back then just like we do today. I am named Bob. You know how many Bobs there are out there! My brother's name is Bill. Another rare name.

You really have to twist the obvious context of the verse to suppose Jesus is there with a different Mary and her brothers or sons. This is an example of isigesis or reading a meaning into the text rather than out of it. You are starting with the presupposition that Jesus had no siblings and now are trying to find a way to explain this story without this being his mother, his brothers, and his sisters. Your explanation is forced and contrived. It does not fit the context. Your doctrine won't allow you to accept the obvious interpretation of the passage.

And you don't find it coincidental that several sets of brothers, each numbering 4, identified with the same mother, floating around Scripture at the same time as Jesus Christ.

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

And you don't find it coincidental that several sets of brothers, each numbering 4, identified with the same mother, floating around Scripture at the same time as Jesus Christ.

JoeT

Where do you get several sets of brothers each numbering four identified with the same mother?

There are six women named Mary in the NT (some say 7):

1. Mary the mother of Jesus with sons James, Joses, Judas, and Simon plus daughters.
2. Mary wife of Clopas with sons James (also referred to as James the Younger), Joseph (Joses), and daughter Salome.
3. Mary Magdalene
4. Mary of Bethany who was a sister of Lazarus
5. Mary the mother of John Mark
6. Mary of Rome mentioned in Romans 16:6

The only Marys with overlapping son's names are Mary (Jesus' mother) and her sister Mary wife of Clopas. Mary of Clopas is never said to be the mother of Judas or Simon. I do not see several sets of 4 brothers. Some names were very common such as Mary. Among the apostles, we find two men named James neither of which was James the son of Mary (Jesus' mother). So we have at least 3 men named James. John was also a common name.

For more detail, I would refer anyone to this: How Many Marys Are In the Bible? (Compare Them All) | Christianity FAQ

 

[bbbbbbb]

In Mark, a crowd asks of Jesus, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are his sisters here with us?” (6:3). In Luke, when Jesus is told by a crowd gathered to hear him speak, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you,” Jesus famously rejects them: “My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (8:19-21). And John writes that after Jesus performed his first miracles in Cana, “he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days” (2:12). (Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?)

Greek has a specific word for "cousin" and it was not used. Its true adelphos can mean other things but we have multiple mentions of Jesus' siblings and in every case, they are with Mary. Why would Jesus' cousins be constantly with Mary? You might say because she was a widow but Mary was often with the disciples in which case they would have cared for her and she would not have needed to gather a group of Jesus' cousins around her. The natural reading of the text would lead one to conclude Jesus had half-siblings. In Galatians 1:9, James is called the Lord's brother. Why wasn't the word for cousin used?

The Greek word for cousin is syngenēs. It is used, for example, of Mary's cousin Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). It is also used of Mary's cousins sharing in her joy (Luke 1:58). The word doesn't refer to a male or female cousin. It is not gender-specific. If it was used of Elizabeth, why was it not used of those you suggest might have actually been Jesus' cousins? The most you can conclude, is that adelphos could possibly have been used of cousins even though there is a more precise word for cousin. You cannot conclude it did refer to cousins.

Once again you refer to "26 or so" siblings which is not a common Protestant assumption about how many siblings Jesus may have had. I think you keep using that number to make is seem preposterous and it would be except it's not the accepted view of the vast majority of Protestants! Prophecy told us a virgin would give birth to the Messiah and we know from the NT that Mary was a virgin. It says Jesus was her firstborn. So there is no confusion about which of Mary's male children would be the Messiah. It had to be her firstborn. Her and Joseph having additional children would not cast that into doubt.

In conclusion, you cannot argue from the Greek wording that Jesus did not have half-siblings. The wording allows for that possibility. To conclude otherwise, as the Catholic church has done, is to force a meaning on Scripture that is not clear in Scripture. The RC church is trying to take advantage of some non-specific wording to dogmatically conclude Jesus was an only child. One could just as easily conclude he had half-siblings as the text leaves us as a strong possibility and the most natural reading of the text. Only someone who has already concluded Jesus did not have siblings would look for justifications to suggest otherwise.

Of course, there is a specific rationale for this absurd insistence that Mary could not have had other children. It is simply the idea that sexual intercourse under any and all circumstances is inherently sinful. Thus, for Mary to have engaged in sexual intercourse and to have borne additional children would have marked her out as being deeply human and deeply sinful. Thus, the RCC wishes to think that Mary made some sort of vow of perpetual virginity to prove to everyone for all time that she could not and would not sin against God Almighty by engaging in marital intercourse.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Of course, there is a specific rationale for this absurd insistence that Mary could not have had other children. It is simply the idea that sexual intercourse under any and all circumstances is inherently sinful. Thus, for Mary to have engaged in sexual intercourse and to have borne additional children would have marked her out as being deeply human and deeply sinful. Thus, the RCC wishes to think that Mary made some sort of vow of perpetual virginity to prove to everyone for all time that she could not and would not sin against God Almighty by engaging in marital intercourse.

Or they say her womb is sacred since it bore the Son of God and could not be demeaned by sexual intercourse and bearing a normal child. Yet God ordained children and calls them a blessing. Mary has a sacred heart and a sacred womb. Anything to make her an object of worship.

 

[prodromos]

Of course, there is a specific rationale for this absurd insistence that Mary could not have had other children. It is simply the idea that sexual intercourse under any and all circumstances is inherently sinful. Thus, for Mary to have engaged in sexual intercourse and to have borne additional children would have marked her out as being deeply human and deeply sinful. Thus, the RCC wishes to think that Mary made some sort of vow of perpetual virginity to prove to everyone for all time that she could not and would not sin against God Almighty by engaging in marital intercourse.

As an Eastern Orthodox, my response to your claim is "there is no spoon"

 

[JoeT]

Of course, there is a specific rationale for this absurd insistence that Mary could not have had other children. It is simply the idea that sexual intercourse under any and all circumstances is inherently sinful. Thus, for Mary to have engaged in sexual intercourse and to have borne additional children would have marked her out as being deeply human and deeply sinful. Thus, the RCC wishes to think that Mary made some sort of vow of perpetual virginity to prove to everyone for all time that she could not and would not sin against God Almighty by engaging in marital intercourse.

If you believe as Luther, man is a pile of dung and grace covers it like a white blanket of snow, then you will believe God took up residence in a pile of dung.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

If you believe as Luther, man is a pile of dung and grace covers it like a white blanket of snow, then you will believe God took up residence in a pile of dung.

JoeT

Thank you for your curious response which does not address my post. In case you are curious, I am not a Lutheran.

 

[JoeT]

Thank you for your curious response which does not address my post. In case you are curious, I am not a Lutheran.

Then you understood it, I wasn't attempting to address your post.

JoeT

 

[bbbbbbb]

Then you understood it, I wasn't attempting to address your post.

JoeT

Then, please do not bother to hit the reply button if you do not intend to reply to my posts.

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

If you believe as Luther, man is a pile of dung and grace covers it like a white blanket of snow, then you will believe God took up residence in a pile of dung.

JoeT

Compared to the holiness of God, we are all dung. However, by God's grace through saving faith we can live godly lives and I believe Mary was one such person. Not sinless but a righteous woman. Luther used colorful language to express his disgust with his sin and the sinful condition of man. The Apostle Paul called himself the chief of sinners. It is a natural response when we grasp the holiness of God to see ourselves as dirt in comparison. Yet, God in His mercy became a man born of a sinful woman though not born with original sin. He became our representative and took on our sins on the cross and paid for them with his blood. He became one of us, though without sin, so he could bear the penalty for our sins.

 

[JoeT]

Compared to the holiness of God, we are all dung. However, by God's grace through saving faith we can live godly lives and I believe Mary was one such person. Not sinless but a righteous woman. Luther used colorful language to express his disgust with his sin and the sinful condition of man. The Apostle Paul called himself the chief of sinners. It is a natural response when we grasp the holiness of God to see ourselves as dirt in comparison. Yet, God in His mercy became a man born of a sinful woman though not born with original sin. He became our representative and took on our sins on the cross and paid for them with his blood. He became one of us, though without sin, so he could bear the penalty for our sins.

Where's the logic? Isn't righteousness being right with God. Did I miss something? Does sin not corrupt therefore sin does not make one UNjust?

And, you read this illogical precept into your understanding of Scripture.

"Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust. I give thanks who hath strengthened me, even to Christ Jesus our Lord, for that he hath counted me faithful, putting me in the ministry; Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious. But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief."[1 Timothy 1:11-15]​

St. Paul is saying that God's grace strengthened him and who once was a blasphemer, persecutor, and contumelious (arogence and contempt). Well, gee willikers, when sin is forgiven, is it not washed away? Do you still hold St. Paul's sins against him? When this is being said to Timothy was Jesus still holding these sins against him?

JoeT

 

[NotUrAvgGuy]

Where's the logic? Isn't righteousness being right with God. Did I miss something? Does sin not corrupt therefore sin does not make one UNjust?

And, you read this illogical precept into your understanding of Scripture.

"Which is according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which hath been committed to my trust. I give thanks who hath strengthened me, even to Christ Jesus our Lord, for that he hath counted me faithful, putting me in the ministry; Who before was a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and contumelious. But I obtained the mercy of God, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. Now the grace of our Lord hath abounded exceedingly with faith and love, which is in Christ Jesus. A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief."[1 Timothy 1:11-15]​

St. Paul is saying that God's grace strengthened him and who once was a blasphemer, persecutor, and contumelious (arogence and contempt). Well, gee willikers, when sin is forgiven, is it not washed away? Do you still hold St. Paul's sins against him? When this is being said to Timothy was Jesus still holding these sins against him?

JoeT

The moment we believe, we are forgiven and made righteous by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Yet, we are still sinners.

Romans 7
14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Paul describes our condition as forgiven sinners. In the eyes of God, we are righteous due to the righteousness of Christ. In our flesh, we still sin and struggle with sin. When the Bible says someone was a righteous man, that does not mean a sinless man. It means someone of faith who has a good reputation and walks with God. Abraham was a righteous man yet nowhere is he described as never sinning. David sinned in some very bad ways yet was called a man after God's own heart. It is in the sense of Abraham and David I call Mary a righteous woman.

So no, Jesus was not holding Paul's sins against him. That's what it means to be forgiven. The Bible does not teach that we stop sinning after we believe. The process of sanctification should lead us to sin less and less but we never reach sinlessness in this life. By the sheer grace of God, we are forgiven and given the righteousness of Christ. God cannot let sin dwell in His presence but we have been washed in the blood of Christ and made righteous by Him. We are made right with God through Jesus Christ. We cannot be righteous on our own.

 

[JoeT]

The moment we believe, we are forgiven and made righteous by the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. Yet, we are still sinners.

Romans 7
14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.

21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Paul describes our condition as forgiven sinners. In the eyes of God, we are righteous due to the righteousness of Christ. In our flesh, we still sin and struggle with sin. When the Bible says someone was a righteous man, that does not mean a sinless man. It means someone of faith who has a good reputation and walks with God. Abraham was a righteous man yet nowhere is he described as never sinning. David sinned in some very bad ways yet was called a man after God's own heart. It is in the sense of Abraham and David I call Mary a righteous woman.

So no, Jesus was not holding Paul's sins against him. That's what it means to be forgiven. The Bible does not teach that we stop sinning after we believe. The process of sanctification should lead us to sin less and less but we never reach sinlessness in this life. By the sheer grace of God, we are forgiven and given the righteousness of Christ. God cannot let sin dwell in His presence but we have been washed in the blood of Christ and made righteous by Him. We are made right with God through Jesus Christ. We cannot be righteous on our own.

You never quite got around to what happens when you sins are forgiven? Which begs the question, how are they forgiven? In your previous post you said righteousness resided with sin. Explain how that happens. How does the Holy Spirit enter into you if your full of dung? Does your God reside in dung?

JoeT