Mark 6:3 Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

[rjlaforteza]

It’s common for non-Catholics to insist that what Catholics believe contradicts Scripture. While some of what the Catholic Church teaches may be not be EXPLICITLY found in Scripture, this does not mean that it “contradicts”.

First off, we should define “contradict”.

Contradict = to assert the contrary or opposite of

So, just because something is not explicitly mentioned in Scripture doesn't mean it is contradicting it.

I've been asked to address several different issues, one being whether Mary had other children (which would disprove the Church's teach on Mary's perpetual virginity). So, here goes...

The following verse is often used to "prove" that Mary had other children:

Mark 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.

Notice one thing… Mark 6:3 says THE son of Mary, not “a” son… more on this verse below. Look at the following passages in Genesis:

Gen 14:14
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.

Gen 11:27
Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

In Gen 14:14, it says “brother” (some translations render this as kinsman). But in Gen 11:27, we already read that Lot was Abrams nephew. This is because there was no Hebrew word for nephew. Just like there wasn’t one for cousin, uncle, niece, aunt, etc. They had to use the word “brother”.

Check out the following verses:

Mark 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.

Matthew 27:55-56
And many women were there beholding afar off, which followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedees children.

According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was NOT the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus’ mother was standing at the foot of the cross.

John 19:25
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

Mark15:47
And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

Don’t you think Scripture would have said the mother of Jesus if they were referring to the same Mary?

Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. So, what is going on? One idea that is plausible is that James and Joses are Jesus’ cousins (or other kinsmen) but they are called “brothers” because the Jews didn’t have a separate word for close relatives. So, Scripture does NOT clearly or explicitly state that Mary had other children.

How about this passage:

Acts 1:14-15
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,

There were 120 people? Think about it... there were 11 apostles (at that time), Jesus’ mother (that makes 12 people), plus the women (approximately 3 but let’s even say a dozen or more just to be fair). That would mean Jesus had about 80 or 90 brothers! Clearly the use of the word "brothers" does not necessarily mean they were all brothers as we understand the term today.

Also, if Mary had any other sons, wouldn't Jesus have given his mother over to them to care for? In that day, it would have been highly offensive for Jesus to ask anyone other than his own brothers to look after their mother, yet this is what he did in his final moments...

John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.

On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person. It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow. This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
Labels: apologetics, church teaching, Mary

 

[precepts]

The virgin birth is a lie!

Like any other Jewish family, Joseph and Mary would have been married, Mary being a virgin bride, as scripture proves, bore Christ as their child in the flesh, the son of Mary and Joseph according to the flesh!

Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

There are many other verses that speak of Christ's brothers and sisters, but I think Paul says it best as to Christ being the son of Mary and Joseph!
As for the guy who liken his virgin wife to the Ark, this way, being the son physically of Joseph and Mary, there's no ever virgin needed according to the flesh.

 

[precepts]

rjlaforteza's

John 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

So, we can show that Scripture does not contradict the concept that Mary could have been a perpetual virgin… and it is, therefore, fair and logical to believe such a teaching.

Because that disciple took her to his own house from that day on doesn't mean he wasn't her son. You can't prove that he wasn't her son. Rom 1:1, declares it.



rjlaforteza's

On a side note about this topic... It’s logical to believe that anyone who carried Christ, the Son of God and Holiest of Holy, in her womb would not later defile that womb by conceiving a sinful person.

That's why it's a natural birth according to the flesh of David,


rjlaforteza

It was common in that day to be consecrated as a virgin and take on a spouse, who’s purpose was to protect that vow.

Now your making Joseph a ever virgin too which is against Christian teachings!

1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.



rjlaforteza

This is said about Mary in other ancient texts, which may also aid us in knowing the surrounding context of Scripture. But there is nothing in Scripture that states that Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin, so this Catholic teaching does not contradict Scripture, as some like to claim.
Labels: apologetics, church teaching, Mary

You obvioulsy don't know the written word.

 

[rjlaforteza]

Mary in the Reformation and Protestantism

Despite the Reformer's rejection of the veneration of Mary and other saints, most Protestants have shown a great deal of honor and respect for Mary. Martin Luther said Mary is "the highest woman," that "we can never honour her enough," that "the veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart" and that we should "wish that everyone know and respect her." John Calvin said, "It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor." Zwingli said, "I esteem immensely the Mother of God," and, "The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."

Most Reformers rejected the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary, but some affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary and all accepted the Virgin Birth.

Since the Reformation, Protestants have tended to pay little attention to Mary, primarily in reaction against the excessive level of adoration they believe is relegated to her in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. But this may be beginning to change. In the summer of 2004, Christian History & Biography magazine (affiliated with the Protestant Christianity Today) dedicated an entire issue to Mary. Included were articles suggesting the value of making a larger place for her in Protestantism. {6} In December 2004, the Southern Baptist dean of an evangelical school in Alabama said:

I would like Protestants today, evangelicals today, to go back to the reformers. I don't think we have to become Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox believers to recover a truly Protestant, reformational, scriptural understanding of Mary. {7}
Professor Beverley Roberts Gaventa of Princeton Theological Seminary, whose writings have called for more Protestant emphasis of Mary agrees, pointing out:

What happens in the story is that Mary is chosen entirely by God's own initiative. This is a primary example of what Protestants emphasize as God's divine grace, God's initiative. {7}

 

[rjlaforteza]

One clear piece of scriptural evidence of this is John 19 when, from the cross, Jesus tells Mary that the beloved disciple is her son, and he tells the beloved disciple that Mary is his mother. If Mary had other children, this would have been against Jewish law. The Bible does say James is Jesus brother; yet Hebrew makes no distinction between “brother” and “cousin”. All it means is the closest blood relative.

The Catholic Catechism explains it this way:

Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary".158 They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159 (CCC 500)

157 Cf. Mk 3:31-35; 6:3; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19.
158 Mt 13:55; 28:1; cf. Mt 27:56.
159 Cf. Gen 13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc.

 

[precepts]

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
Rom 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Regardless of scripture, the anti christ teaching continues! Christ couldn't be of the seed of David according to the flesh if he wasn't the son of Joseph. That's the fact!

 

[rjlaforteza]

CATHOLIC TEACHINGS
REGARDING
THE BROTHERS OF JESUS

Did Jesus have biological brothers as some non-Catholics claim? Or is this just another attack on the Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary? Since the early days of the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary has been asserted and defended.

First of all, I will explain to you the Biblical meaning of the “brothers of Jesus.” In today’s society, as it was in the days of Jesus, the word “brother” had another meaning other than being a biological brother. The Natives of North America call each other “brothers”, although in most cases, they are not related. When watching television, we notice how the black people call each other “brothers,” although they are not related. The moslems in Canada often called each other “brothers” although they are not related. Prisoners call each other “bro” or “brothers” although they are not related. Members of religious groups call each other “brothers.” Even those who are involved in illegal drug activities, they call each other “brothers.” Yet none of these groups are really blood related to each other.

Why do these groups of people call each other “brothers?” It is because the word “brother” in these cases has a totally different meaning. The usage of the word “brother” in these cases has to do with association by culture, peers, race or religion. Some people like to emphasize that they belong to the same race. Equally, some like to emphasize that they belong to the same culture, a particular peer group or the same Church.

All of us, sometime in life, will experience being introduced as a “brother” or “sister” to someone. It might be because of the friendship between two persons or the manner in which one is introduced to a certain group. At the same time, one knows that truly, he is not the “brother” or “sister” of the other person.

It was the same in the Jewish culture. The Jewish people, not belonging to the gentile nations, made reference to each other as “brothers” and “sisters.” When introduced, this identified them as “one of them,” as a Jewish person. When something was written about the Jewish people, they were referred to as “brothers” as a means of saying they were Jewish.

To complicate the matter, the Hebrew language did not contain a word that meant “cousin.” Instead, the word “brother” was used for both, the words “brother” and “cousin.” When the Jewish scholars translated the early Church writings from Hebrew to Greek, they literally translated the word “brother” as “brother.” Since they were accustomed to the word that could mean either “brother” or “cousin,” they did not believe that it was necessary to define when it means “brother” or when it means “cousin.” Therefore, in instance where a reference might be made to a cousin of Jesus, the word “brother” was applied. While this person may have been a blood relative, he was not a biological brother.

Now, let us review the claim that James was the brother of Jesus. In Mark 15:40, we read, “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” It is clear from this verse that Mary, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Bible makes reference to more than one Mary.

To conclude, I want to present some logical facts that clearly indicate that Jesus could not have had brothers. These are:

1) If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that the descendants from Jesus’s mother would be proud of it? And accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful place as descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!

2) The Catholic Church has always proclaimed that Mary was ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of Mary.

3) If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew where it states, "All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophoet: 'Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,' which means, 'God is with us.'" [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognized as being the Messiah.

4) In the Gospel of John, we read, "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, 'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home." [Jn. 19:26-27]

If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary, into the hands of the Apostle John.

5) In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. "The angel said to her, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'" [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.

6) In Mark 6:3, we read, "'Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?' And they were offense at him." Notice here that there is only one reference to "the son of Mary," that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.

Knowing that Jesus had no biological brothers, we can speculate regarding the status of his brothers. They could have members of Jesus' religious group. The could have been cousins. They could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary. Or, if Joseph had fathered children from a previous marriage and was a widower, then the brothers would actually be half-brothers of Jesus. While all of these speculations are possible, they do not contradict the fact that Jesus had no biological brothers who shared Mary and Joseph as parents. Those who claim otherwise, they have failed to thoroughly study the facts that are found in the Holy Bible.

 

[rjlaforteza]

My non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ, why, in your opinion, would Jesus entrust the care of His mother Mary to John, if Jesus had brothers and sisters?

John 19:

Standing by the cross of Jesus were his blessed mother Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, Woman, behold, your son. Then he said to the disciple, "Behold, your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.

If this does NOT confirm that Mary had no other children who could care for her, necessitating the need for Jesus to entrust her care to one of his disciples, then could someone please elaborate? If Mary had several sons and daughters who could have, and would have, according to Jewish custom, been entrusted with Mary's care, then why was John necessary? It would have been the responsibility of Jesus' brothers and sisters to be the caretakers of their beloved widowed mother.

 

[rjlaforteza]

There is no verse in the bible that states Jesus’ Mother had children other than Jesus himself nor is there one that names someone besides Jesus as "son of Mary". In several passages, there are references to Jesus’ brothers. It is often argued that the term “brother” may refer to “cousins” as there was no word in Aramaic to distinguish the difference between brother, cousin and/or close relative. James and Joseph, two of the four men listed as Jesus’ brothers in MT 13:55 were actually his cousins, sons of his Mother’s sister who was named Mary wife of Cleophas. Cross-reference Jn 19:25 with Mt 13:55.

Lk 2: 22—51, Jesus was taken to the temple as a child and was feared lost but in the retelling of this incident there is no mention of brothers or sister. It would have been strange for Mary or Joseph not to have taken their other children on the trip if they had had any.

Furthermore, in Jn 7: 3-5, according to Jewish tradition it would have been considered scandalous or inappropriate for Jesus’ supposed brothers to reprimand him because they would have had to have been younger then Jesus, yet no mention of this is made in the passage. Younger brothers were not alowed to correct or reproof their older brother. It is more than likely the term brother here did not refer to younger siblings. There is no real evidence that Jesus had blood siblings that would have been obligated to care for His mother after his death.

 

[precepts]

I've heard all the excuses, Christ was the son of Mary and Joseph according to the flesh. The virgin birth is a antichrist lie made up for the worship of the image "Diana" as Mary.

Another fact that's hidden in scriptures is that Mary's sister, Mary, was also married to a greek named Joseph (Alpheus), and they (the two families) each had five sons with the same names. There were two James', two Johns, two Simons, two Judas', and two Thomas', all related. And hidden in these set of twins is the song of Solomon. By the way, the meaning of Judas is breast/praise. That's the facts!

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool me on this one! This is your Divinci Code!

Mat 12:42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon [is] here.

Whom were the sons of Zebedee, sons of thunder? And most importantly, who was Joshua the son of Josedec crowned high priest and king after the Babylonian captivity?

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of [them of] the captivity, [even] of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

 

[xfisherman]

Regardless of scripture, the anti christ teaching continues! Christ couldn't be of the seed of David according to the flesh if he wasn't the son of Joseph. That's the fact!

Agree with you there,the Roman Catholic church which are teaching all these false Marian stuff is so they can justify their praying to Mary,see the link...

Marian Prayers of the Catholic Church.

 

[rjlaforteza]

There is no verse in the bible that states Jesus’ Mother had children other than Jesus himself nor is there one that names someone besides Jesus as "son of Mary". In several passages, there are references to Jesus’ brothers. It is often argued that the term “brother” may refer to “cousins” as there was no word in Aramaic to distinguish the difference between brother, cousin and/or close relative. James and Joseph, two of the four men listed as Jesus’ brothers in MT 13:55 were actually his cousins, sons of his Mother’s sister who was named Mary wife of Cleophas. Cross-reference Jn 19:25 with Mt 13:55.

Lk 2: 22—51, Jesus was taken to the temple as a child and was feared lost but in the retelling of this incident there is no mention of brothers or sister. It would have been strange for Mary or Joseph not to have taken their other children on the trip if they had had any.

Furthermore, in Jn 7: 3-5, according to Jewish tradition it would have been considered scandalous or inappropriate for Jesus’ supposed brothers to reprimand him because they would have had to have been younger then Jesus, yet no mention of this is made in the passage. Younger brothers were not alowed to correct or reproof their older brother. It is more than likely the term brother here did not refer to younger siblings. There is no real evidence that Jesus had blood siblings that would have been obligated to care for His mother after his death.

 

[rjlaforteza]

As to Jesus seeing to the well being of his mother, how short sighted do you think Jesus was in regard to the care of his mother? Jesus was the perfect loving son and would not have left the care of his dear mother to chance. He knew what was going to happen and that his apostles would abandon Him. He was always very careful with his actions and the timing of them. Prior to being betrayed, He may have made arrangements for her care within his community of disciples or apostles. If he had had brothers or sisters, he would have placed her in their care before his death instead of one of his disciples. Even if his supposed siblings had rejected Him (as a poster above stated), it wouldn’t have meant that they would have rejected their mother for Jewish tradition demanded that they honor their father and mother.

Jesus knew what he was doing when he made his declaration on the cross (John 19: 26-27). Note how he calls Mary, “Women” as he did at the wedding of Cana (Jn 2:4). This was not a sign of disrespect but a reference to Mary as “the woman” that was referred to in Gn 3:15. Jesus had a specific intent when he made his declaration on the cross aside from the obvious. He didn’t just recall in a moment of lucidness, Oh sorry mom, I almost forgot about you. Let’s see, which of my disciples are still around. Hey John, I need a favor…. Take care of my mom. No, To Mary he said, “Women there is your son” and to his disciple he stated “this is your mother.” Who was a disciple of Jesus? Those people who followed Jesus’ teachings. Who are his disciples today? Those people who follow him and form part of the church he founded. More than just establishing who was to care for his mother (which he had probably already spoken to John about) this was a telling gesture, here Jesus is placing all of his disciples under the care of His mother and then giving her to us (his followers) as our Mother to care for and take into our homes. That is why Mary watches over her children (the church) and why we are called to seek, honor, and venerate The Virgin Mary and call her our mother. How wonderful and great Jesus is. He thought of everything.

 

[rjlaforteza]

If the Blessed Virgin Mary is not virgin, then is Virgin Mary used only by God the Father and nothing anymore and she useless anymore no more importance. Take note she conceived Jesus in the womb, how can he bring the Son of God if She is a sinner. Can She conceived the son of God if she had an original sin, is God the Father decision Good that He used the Blessed Virgin Mary and after that its no more, it is useless if God chosen is non sense. Is that God the Father the purpose, the plan which He uses Blessed Virgin Mary. Is that the purpose of God the Father that a non sense mother of a living Christ is only used by God the Father and nothing more than she is an evil. Is that God wants that Jesus who came from the womb of Virgin Mary, that Virgin Mary is all about evil, sometimes you call friend of satan, an ordinary person only. Is that God the Father wants his purpose why He bring Son and used only an ordinary person, a friend of satan.

 

[xfisherman]

If the Blessed Virgin Mary is not virgin, then is Virgin Mary used only by God the Father and nothing anymore and she useless anymore no more importance.
You ask God,nobody else know the answer.

Take note she conceived Jesus in the womb, how can he bring the Son of God if She is a sinner.
Is it written??

She conceived the son of God if she had an original sin, is God the Father decision Good that He used the Blessed Virgin Mary and after that its no more, it is useless if God chosen is non sense.
You ask God.

Is that God the Father the purpose, the plan which He uses Blessed Virgin Mary. Is that the purpose of God the Father that a non sense mother of a living Christ is only used by God the Father and nothing more than she is an evil.
Ask God
Is that God wants that Jesus who came from the womb of Virgin Mary, that Virgin Mary is all about evil, sometimes you call friend of satan, an ordinary person only. Is that God the Father wants his purpose why He bring Son and used only an ordinary person, a friend of satan.

Again ask God.
So many questions why not ask God,the Apostles wrote down all we need to know,check it out in the Bible

 

[rjlaforteza]

Is God the Father really do that with a purpose? Is that God the Father entrusted to Virgin Mary to give birth to His Son and yet He choose She is a sinful and friend of Satan? How can he?

Ask God, Why?

 

[precepts]

rjlaforteza, since you can't accept the facts, you must be a propagandist. Who is Joshua the son of Josedech?

Zec 6:9 And the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,
Zec 6:10 Take of [them of] the captivity, [even] of Heldai, of Tobijah, and of Jedaiah, which are come from Babylon, and come thou the same day, and go into the house of Josiah the son of Zephaniah;
Zec 6:11 Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set [them] upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;
Zec 6:12 And speak unto him, saying, Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name [is] The BRANCH; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD:
Zec 6:13 Even he shall build the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.

 

[xfisherman]

Is God the Father really do that with a purpose? Is that God the Father entrusted to Virgin Mary to give birth to His Son and yet He choose She is a sinful and friend of Satan? How can he?

Ask God, Why?

The answer to all your questions is in the Bible,study it.You might learn something there.

2Th 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering to him.
2Th 2:2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
2Th 2:5 Remember ye not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
2Th 2:6 And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now restraineth will restrain, until he be taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the spirit of his mouth, and will destroy with the brightness of his coming:
2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
2Th 2:11 And for this cause God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
2Th 2:12 That they all may be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[rjlaforteza]

In the first pages of the Book of Genesis, immediately after the narration of the creation and the fall of our first parents, we are told what the history of humanity will be: a battle between the reign of God and the reign of darkness, a great battle between grace and sin. However, also revealed to us is the promise of salvation given by God the Father who, in His great love for humanity, immediately offers a Savior after the fall. Together with the figure of the Savior, we find the figure of a Woman who will crush the head of serpent. To her, the promise of triumph is also given because, in a singular and particular way, she participates in the battle and, thus, will also participate in the triumph.

God told the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head while you will strike at his heel” (Gen 3:15).

Who is the woman here referring in the book of Genesis.

 

[FirenWater]

1 - The Proto-Evangel of James is a non-canonical book that presents a more detailed account of Mary & Joseph. In short, Joseph was a elderly widower who marries her after the death of her parents. Jesus' half-brothers and sisters are from an earlier marriage of Joseph.

I know some folks disagree with this, but I cannot tell (but only so far as it pertains to the "ever virginity" of Mary) which might basically have us to glory in her flesh. But I dont disagree at all that these are Jesus half brothers anyway (or either way for that matter) because they certainly were not fathered as Jesus was no matter how one looks at it. Whether of a previous marraige of Joseph, or whether after Jesus was born, he is shown as the firstborn which opened her womb.

Though, in some way (from what I gathered here on CF at various times) Mary is considered the Ark of the covenant as well correct?

Because its written of the ark of the covenant... And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the LORD, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the LORD: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

Whereas Mary (if the ark of the covenant) says... " behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed"

And likewise we see a certain woman doing just that as shown here...

Luke 11:27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.

And she was met with his response...

Luke 11:28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

Thats sorta an odd response for blessing the womb (of which was Mary's) that bore him (as is done today) and the paps he has sucked (hers, just the same).

But if she had gotten it right (in doing so, or even the expression) I would think he would have responded (in effect) and bless are thee (also) for as my mother has declared (in calling her blessed) thou hast done (depart in peace) or something to that effect. But Jesus doesnt appear to respond (as perhaps as anticipated) to the certain woman (who might have meant well) in lifting her voice up (in that manner) even in accord with Marys saying.

Is there a reason given (that I am not aware of) for this? Im curious. Its good to learn the reasons given, so from there (go forward) then to assume on someones part.

Thanks

God bless