Mary and Joseph

[Alithis]

St Ignatius and St Polycarp were writing letters while various apostles were still alive. St Ignatius was a personal student of the Apostle John and met Christ (he was 3rd Bishop of Antioch).

And lol that you think I'm "told" these things. As a protestant I studied the Church Father's critically but realized the evidence was in favor of them and converted.

Sorry the opinions of those men youve veen told this is that about is not inspired scripture and has no significance whatso ever.

 

[Alithis]

True, but if you just read the text as a normal human being reading a story, what conclusions would you come to if you didn't have any concepts of Marian theology overlaying your vision?

• They didn't come together until the child was born.
• No other children mentioned in the birth narratives, 12 year old scene, etc.
• Brother's and sisters mentioned
• Jesus calling those who do the father's will his brothers, sisters, and mother
• James the brother of the Lord

Would you think "Joseph and Mary NEVER came together" and those must be step-siblings from a previous marriage?"

If they never came together then they were never husband and wife and you make the messenger and message of God a lie.

Come lets get real ..the Only reason any of this doxtrine on mary ,which is Not from the Bible, exists, is because men..seek to justify worshipping the created being.
Yeh yeh not worship ..venerate.. Oh my it means the same thing .

You will stand before God with your arguments.
Not me .

 

[Mountainmike]

Go ahead and demonstrate then.

There is no supporting evidence is a start.
And plenty that disagrees.

From scripture Luke 1:34 proves it:
Mary was betrothed which is not engaged in our sense, it means actually married pending husband setting up a home. The angel speaks of future conception, so she was not pregnant at the time.
So when she says to the angel "how can this be" : It was blindingly obvious how it could be if she intended normal marital relations , so her statement indicates an intention of perpetual virginity or it would have been no surprise at all to her!
How else is it possible to reconcile her statement?

That is not a surprise culturally amongst the devout of the time. Some essenes of that era certainly did practice celibacy in marriage , there are writings surviving.

"brother" is not a word restricted to sibling

A brother would have looked after Mary after Jeus death, instead it was John

"mother of james" in not mother of jesus lesser or greater. Check out the "marys"

The protoevangelium speaks of sons of joseph by another wife.

The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin. If you do not trust him, you cannot trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity
It is not just a catholic thing.

Need I go on?

In fact the entire church believed it until a few after the reformationists of which you are clearly one.. They Decided they knew better... as Luther said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

YET YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!!!!!!!!! Other than believing your interpretation of scripture and pure invention of history trumps everyone else.

And there is another problem. Sola scriptura is provable bunk from history, logic and scripture!

As I said, I suggest you study it.
To discover more about Mary a fascinating book "mary of nazareth" Hesseman - traces her in the archeological records.

 

[prodromos]

Actually, the fact that they were not there to console their grieving mother says a lot about His brothers and sisters. Also they mocked Jesus and didnt' accept Him as the Messiah. So there is a lot about their character to explain why Jesus entrusted Mary to John.

How quickly you disparage the character of the sons of a man the gospels describe as a "just man". Their attitudes are just as easily explained by their having no blood relationship with Mary, being grown children of another woman, and Jesus being their celebrity little brother.

They did not believe Jesus, in fact, there is a mocking, ridiculing sarcastic tone in their statements above. It is very similar to Satan trying to tempt Jesus to perform a miracle by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple.

I don't find any of the above in the Gospel account, once again you disparage the sons of a man of very good character. What I find in the account is consistent with older brothers trying to direct their celebrity little brother. It is not at all consistent with younger brothers who have grown up in the shadow of the perfect man. Older brothers have a huge impact on their younger siblings, and Christ could not have been less than the most awesome big brother ever. Look at the impact He had on His disciples in just a few years, yet you expect us to believe a lifetime of growing up with Christ as your eldest brother produced people of such miserable character as you suggest?

 

[prodromos]

Sorry the opinions of those men youve veen told this is that about is not inspired scripture and has no significance whatso ever.

They were leaders in the Church who had been taught by the Apostle John and both were martyred for their faith in Christ. Their opinion holds a lot more weight than yours.
So if their opinion has no significance, think how little yours has.

 

[prodromos]

They didn't come together until the child was born.

All Matthew intends to convey is that Jesus' birth was not the result of conjugal relations, and he does so in very concise and efficient use of the language. I don't believe it was ever his intention to relate any information about the private details of Joseph and Mary's relationship since it has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel.

No other children mentioned in the birth narratives, 12 year old scene, etc.

Since they were all grown up and probably older than Mary, there is no reason why they would be mentioned.

Brothers and sisters mentioned

Any children of Joseph would be Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Jesus calling those who do the father's will his brothers, sisters, and mother

I don't know how you think this relates. Mary certainly did the will of His Father par excellence.

James the brother of the Lord

Son of Joseph. Jesus is legal son of Joseph, therefore brothers.

Would you think "Joseph and Mary NEVER came together" and those must be step-siblings from a previous marriage?"

The early Christians didn't read the Bible in a vacuum, in fact most didn't read it at all, they heard it read to them in the liturgy. The early Christians had a continuity with the community in which Mary and Jesus' brothers and sisters lived. They knew them, or they knew people who knew them, so there was never any confusion about these details. It is only when people read the Gospels outside of that context that they come up with the ideas that have been presented. They aren't even reading them in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a post reformation tradition that rejects anything perceived as 'Roman Catholic'.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

There is no supporting evidence is a start.
And plenty that disagrees.

From scripture Luke 1:34 proves it:
Mary was betrothed which is not engaged in our sense, it means actually married pending husband setting up a home. The angel speaks of future conception, so she was not pregnant at the time.
So when she says to the angel "how can this be" : It was blindingly obvious how it could be if she intended normal marital relations , so her statement indicates an intention of perpetual virginity or it would have been no surprise at all to her!
How else is it possible to reconcile her statement?

That is not a surprise culturally amongst the devout of the time. Some essenes of that era certainly did practice celibacy in marriage , there are writings surviving.

"brother" is not a word restricted to sibling

A brother would have looked after Mary after Jeus death, instead it was John

"mother of james" in not mother of jesus lesser or greater. Check out the "marys"

The protoevangelium speaks of sons of joseph by another wife.

The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin. If you do not trust him, you cannot trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity
It is not just a catholic thing.

Need I go on?

In fact the entire church believed it until a few after the reformationists of which you are clearly one.. They Decided they knew better... as Luther said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"

YET YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!!!!!!!!! Other than believing your interpretation of scripture and pure invention of history trumps everyone else.

And there is another problem. Sola scriptura is provable bunk from history, logic and scripture!

As I said, I suggest you study it.
To discover more about Mary a fascinating book "mary of nazareth" Hesseman - traces her in the archeological records.

Mary had news that she should be the Messiiah's mother. For the angel's words permitted no other interpretation. She asks for an explanation. She knew only of nature's course by which children are born, and which presupposes two parents. She knew herself to be a pure virgin.

The angel rises to a chant. God would set aside nature's course. The Spirit would exert an influence which would produce a child without defilement, from the flesh and blood of the virgin only. No human father would be present, nor would there be any intercourse. The Spirit would come upon her, overshadow her, and so the child which would be born would be God's Son.

Mary's faith's remarkable. It transcends human sense and experience.

Mary here has no example in all creatures on earth to which she could hold and thus strengthen herself. She's there all alone, who contrary to human reason should bear and become a mother. So she was obliged to abandon everything and cling to the Word alone which the angel proclaimed to her from God.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Sorry the opinions of those men youve veen told this is that about is not inspired scripture and has no significance whatso ever.

Just because their words aren't scripture doesn't mean they aren't inspired. I'm sorry you disobey scripture for the sake of your personal beliefs.

 

[Archivist]

True, but if you just read the text as a normal human being reading a story, what conclusions would you come to if you didn't have any concepts of Marian theology overlaying your vision?

• They didn't come together until the child was born.
• No other children mentioned in the birth narratives, 12 year old scene, etc.
• Brother's and sisters mentioned
• Jesus calling those who do the father's will his brothers, sisters, and mother
• James the brother of the Lord

Would you think "Joseph and Mary NEVER came together" and those must be step-siblings from a previous marriage?"

No, and I actually never said that Joseph and Mary never came together. However, as indicated earlier in this thread there are early writings indicating that the siblings indicated in scripture were children from Joseph's earlier marriage. Without other evidence I give them credence.

At the same time as a Lutheran I believe that Mary was blessed to be chosen by God to be mother of the Son of God, but she wasn’t sinless or otherwise holy and she was not necessarily perpetually a virgin.

 

[Mountainmike]

Meanwhile what I said is true.

The only way Mary's words make sense is if she intended perpetual virginity.

Mary had news that she should be the Messiiah's mother. For the angel's words permitted no other interpretation. She asks for an explanation. She knew only of nature's course by which children are born, and which presupposes two parents. She knew herself to be a pure virgin.

The angel rises to a chant. God would set aside nature's course. The Spirit would exert an influence which would produce a child without defilement, from the flesh and blood of the virgin only. No human father would be present, nor would there be any intercourse. The Spirit would come upon her, overshadow her, and so the child which would be born would be God's Son.

Mary's faith's remarkable. It transcends human sense and experience.

Mary here has no example in all creatures on earth to which she could hold and thus strengthen herself. She's there all alone, who contrary to human reason should bear and become a mother. So she was obliged to abandon everything and cling to the Word alone which the angel proclaimed to her from God.

 

[Alithis]

They were leaders in the Church who had been taught by the Apostle John and both were martyred for their faith in Christ. Their opinion holds a lot more weight than yours.
So if their opinion has no significance, think how little yours has.

That in itelf is pure tradition ..
Amd i assure you.the apostles did not teach perpetual virginity or mary veneration ( the word means worship)in any form..
And to even suggest so is to suggest an outright lie.
The apostles would be outraged at even the implication.

In short.. What your saying is a load of rubbish .the apostles taught no man Any such thing.

Its exatly the same hogwash as the infancy gospel of james book. An utter fabrication teaching " another Gosple (one in which mary later becomes another mediator. -which is a lie that opposes all scripture)
Paul announces a curse on any who did that.

 

[Alithis]

Meanwhile what I said is true.

The only way Mary's words make sense is if she intended perpetual virginity.

Thats Rubbish.

 

[Der Alte]

Sorry the opinions of those men youve veen told this is that about is not inspired scripture and has no significance whatsoever.

Which invalidates anything and everything you say about scripture. Your opinions about scripture are not inspired scripture and has no significance whatsoever.

 

[prodromos]

That in itelf is pure tradition ..
Amd i assure you.the apostles did not teach perpetual virginity or mary veneration ( the word means worship)in any form..
And to even suggest so is to suggest an outright lie.
The apostles would be outraged at even the implication.

In short.. What your saying is a load of rubbish .the apostles taught no man Any such thing.

Its exatly the same hogwash as the infancy gospel of james book. An utter fabrication teaching " another Gosple (one in which mary later becomes another mediator. -which is a lie that opposes all scripture)
Paul announces a curse on any who did that.

Another non-inspired, insignificant post, based on a post reformation tradition.

 

[Der Alte]

That is not a surprise culturally amongst the devout of the time. Some essenes of that era certainly did practice celibacy in marriage , there are writings surviving.

"brother" is not a word restricted to sibling.

As a matter of fact adelphos, the Greek word translated "brother" is in fact restricted to sibling.

A brother would have looked after Mary after Jeus death, instead it was John
"mother of james" in not mother of jesus lesser or greater. Check out the "marys"
The protoevangelium speaks of sons of joseph by another wife.
The early fathers speak of perpetual virginity eg Origin (long before Nicea and the councils that decided creed and your new testament) and also even those fathers (eg anasthasius) speak of ever virgin. If you do not trust him, you cannot trust the creed or indeed the new testament. It did not drop out of the sky. It was decided by such as him in councils of the time..
Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also believed in perpterual virginity

It is not just a catholic thing.
Need I go on?
In fact the entire church believed it until a few after the reformationists of which you are clearly one.. They Decided they knew better... as Luther said "every milkmaid now has their own doctrine"
YET YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE AT ALL!!!!!!!!! Other than believing your interpretation of scripture and pure invention of history trumps everyone else.
And there is another problem. Sola scriptura is provable bunk from history, logic and scripture!
As I said, I suggest you study it.
To discover more about Mary a fascinating book "mary of nazareth" Hesseman - traces her in the archeological records.

Here is the full definition of adelphos from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. "Cousin" is not one of the definitions. James was not Jesus' cousin but a male from the same womb as Jesus.

ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ​

(Hom. [ἀδελφεός]+; accord. to B-D-F §13; Schwyzer I 555; Mlt-H. II 58; PKatz, TLZ 83, ’58, 315f vocative ἄδελφε should be accented on the antepenult in Ac 9:17; 21:20 contrary to the practice of the editions; also GPt 2:5.)​

① a male from the same womb as the reference pers., brother, Mt 1:2, 11; 4:18, 21 al.; τὸν ἀ. τ. ἴδιον J 1:41 (s. Jos., Ant. 11, 300). Of Jesus’ brothers (passages like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6 do not establish the mng. ‘cousin’ for ἀ.; they only show that in rendering the Hebr. אָח ἀ. is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masc. relatives of various degrees. The case of ἀδελφή [q.v. 1] is similar Gen 24:59f; Tob 8:4, 7 [cp. 7:15]; Jos., Ant. 1, 211 [ἀδελφή = ἀδελφοῦ παῖς]. Sim. M. Ant., who [1, 14, 1] uses ἀ. for his brother-in-law Severus; the same use is found occas. in the pap: JCollins, TS 5, ’44, 484–94; s. VTscherikover HTR ’42, 25–44) Mt 12:46f; 13:55; Mk 3:31f; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5. James ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Gal 1:19. The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1, 47 ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐκείνου κ. ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί; Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy 713, 21f [97 A.D.] ἀδελφοῖς μου Διοδώρῳ κ. Θαΐδι; schol. on Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5, 9] δύο ἐγένοντο ἀδελφοί, Φάλαγξ μὲν ἄρσην, θήλεια δὲ Ἀράχνη τοὔνομα. The θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί, a married couple consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the Ptolemies: OGI 50, 2 [III B.C.] and pap [Mitt-Wilck. I/1, 99; I/2, 103–7, III B.C.]). In all these cases only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there are also passages in which ἀδελφοί means brothers and sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses (Polyb. 10, 18, 15 ποιήσεσθαι πρόνοιαν ὡς ἰδίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ τέκνων; Epict. 1, 12, 20 ἀδ. beside γονεῖς, τέκνα, γείτονες; 1, 22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich 214, 12 [296 A.D.] οἱ ἀδελφοί σου seems to be even more general=‘your relatives’). Hence there is no doubt that in Lk 21:16 ἀδελφοί=brothers and sisters, but there is some room for uncertainty in the case of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus in Mt 12:46f; Mk 3:31; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14.
② a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate fig. ext. of 1.
ⓐ one who shares beliefs (for an associated duality, s. Did., Gen. 127, 6 ἀ. ἐστι τοῦ φαινομένου ἔξω ἀνθρώπου ὁ κρυπτὸς καὶ ἐν διανοίᾳ ἄνθρωπος=brother to the man as he appears from without is the man who is hidden in thought): Jesus calls everyone who is devoted to him brother Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35, esp. his disciples Mt 28:10; J 20:17. Hence gener. for those in such spiritual communion Mt 25:40; Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23), 17 al. Of a relationship w. a woman other than that of husband Hs 9, 11, 3 al.; 2 Cl 12:5.—Of the members of a relig. community (PParis 20 [II B.C.] al. of the hermits at the Serapeum in Memphis; UPZ 162 I, 20 [117 B.C.] ἀδελφοὶ οἱ τὰς λειτουργίας ἐν ταῖς νεκρίαις παρεχόμενοι; IG XIV, 956 B, 11f. ἀ.=member of the ἱερὰ ξυστικὴ σύνοδος; IPontEux II, 449f εἰσποιητοὶ ἀ. σεβόμενοι θεὸν Ὕψιστον [Ltzm. ZWT 55, 1913, 121]. Mystery pap [III A.D.]: APF 13, ’39, 212. Essenes in Jos., Bell. 2, 122. Vett. Val. 172, 31; Cleopatra ln. 94. See GMilligan 1908 on 1 Th 1:4; Ltzm. Hdb. on Ro 1:13 [lit.]; Dssm. B 82f, 140 [BS 87f, 142]; Nägeli 38; Cumont3 276). Hence used by Christians in their relations w. each other Ro 8:29, 1 Cor 5:11; Eph 6:23; 1 Ti 6:2; Ac 6:3; 9:30; 10:23; Rv 1:9; 12:10; IEph 10:3; ISm 12:1 al. So esp. w. proper names (for ἀδ. in a figurative sense used with a name, cp. the address of a letter PMich 162 verso [II A.D.] ἀπὸ Ἀπλωναρίου ἀδελφοῦ) to indicate membership in the Christian community Ro 16:23; 1 Cor 1:1; 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; 1 Th 3:2; Phlm 1; 1 Pt 5:12; 2 Pt 3:15; AcPl Ha 1, 30 al. Completely ἀδελφὸς ἐν κυρίῳ Phil 1:14. Oft. in direct address 1 Cl 1:1 (cod. A); 4:7; 13:1; 33:1; 2 Cl 20:2 al.; B 2:10; 3:6 al.; IRo 6:2; Hv 2, 4, 1; 3, 1, 1; 4; AcPl Ha 7, 4; 8, 21; AcPlCor 1:16. ἀδελφοί μου B 4:14; 5:5; 6:15; IEph 16:1; ἄνδρες ἀ. Ac 1:16 (rabb. par. in EStauffer, TLZ 77, ’52, 202); 15:7, 13; 1 Cl 14:1; 37:1; 43:4; 62:1. To interpret ἀ. in Ac 15:23 as ‘colleague’ (e.g. PGaechter, Petrus u. seine Zeit, ’58, 141f) is speculative; and the interpretation of ἀ. in 3J 5 and 10 as itinerant preachers (AKragerud, D. Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, ’59, 105) is based entirely on the context.
ⓑ a compatriot (cp. Pla., Menex. 239a ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι, μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες ἀδελφοὶ φύντες; Lev 10:4; Dt 15:3, 12; 17:15 al.; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2, 79f ‘ἀ.’ τὸν ὁμόφυλον εἶπεν he termed a compatriot ‘brother’; Jos., Ant. 10, 201; 7, 371 after 1 Ch 28:2) Ac 2:29; 3:17, 22 (Dt 18:15); 7:2, 23 (Ex 2:11), 25f al.; Ro 9:3.
ⓒ without ref. to a common nationality or faith neighbor (of an intimate friend X., An. 7, 2, 25; 38. Specif. in the sense ‘neighbor’ Gen 9:5; Lev 19:17 al.) Mt 5:22ff; 7:3ff; 18:15, 21, 35; Lk 6:41f; 17:3; B 19:4; Hm 2:2 al.
ⓓ Form of address used by a king to persons in very high position (OGI 138, 3; 168, 26; 36 [both II B.C.]; Jos., Ant. 13, 45; 126) Herod says ἀδελφὲ Πιλᾶτε GPt 2:5.—JO’Callaghan, El vocativo sing. de ἀδελφός, Biblica 52, ’71, 217–25.—B. 107. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 18–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

 

[Alithis]

No, and I actually never said that Joseph and Mary never came together. However, as indicated earlier in this thread there are early writings indicating that the siblings indicated in scripture were children from Joseph's earlier marriage. Without other evidence I give them credence.

Another non-inspired, insignificant post, based on a post reformation tradition.

Lol sure..
Interesting isn't it.. Its why i stick to scripture.
Not waffle from rumour which disagrees witj direct unambiguious scripture.

You see we KNOW what the apostle taught by what they wrote
So someone trying to say ..n..no this guy said the apostles directly taught him something that is oppisite to everything they wrote.
Leaves two possible conclusions..
The person who said that is a liar
Or the apostles lied.

Im going to go with the apostles telling the truth

 

[Alithis]

As a matter of fact adelphos, the Greek word translated "brother" is in fact restricted to sibling.

Here is the full definition of adelphos from Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, Danker, one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. "Cousin" is not one of the definitions. James was not Jesus' cousin but a male from the same womb as Jesus.

ἀδελφός, οῦ, ὁ
(Hom. [ἀδελφεός]+; accord. to B-D-F §13; Schwyzer I 555; Mlt-H. II 58; PKatz, TLZ 83, ’58, 315f vocative ἄδελφε should be accented on the antepenult in Ac 9:17; 21:20 contrary to the practice of the editions; also GPt 2:5.)
① a male from the same womb as the reference pers., brother, Mt 1:2, 11; 4:18, 21 al.; τὸν ἀ. τ. ἴδιον J 1:41 (s. Jos., Ant. 11, 300). Of Jesus’ brothers (passages like Gen 13:8; 14:14; 24:48; 29:12; Lev 10:4; 1 Ch 9:6 do not establish the mng. ‘cousin’ for ἀ.; they only show that in rendering the Hebr. אָח ἀ. is used loosely in isolated cases to designate masc. relatives of various degrees. The case of ἀδελφή [q.v. 1] is similar Gen 24:59f; Tob 8:4, 7 [cp. 7:15]; Jos., Ant. 1, 211 [ἀδελφή = ἀδελφοῦ παῖς]. Sim. M. Ant., who [1, 14, 1] uses ἀ. for his brother-in-law Severus; the same use is found occas. in the pap: JCollins, TS 5, ’44, 484–94; s. VTscherikover HTR ’42, 25–44) Mt 12:46f; 13:55; Mk 3:31f; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14; 1 Cor 9:5. James ὁ ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίου Gal 1:19. The pl. can also mean brothers and sisters (Eur., El. 536; Andoc. 1, 47 ἡ μήτηρ ἡ ἐκείνου κ. ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐμὸς ἀδελφοί; Anton. Diog. 3 [Erot. Gr. I 233, 23; 26 Hercher]; POxy 713, 21f [97 A.D.] ἀδελφοῖς μου Διοδώρῳ κ. Θαΐδι; schol. on Nicander, Ther. 11 [p. 5, 9] δύο ἐγένοντο ἀδελφοί, Φάλαγξ μὲν ἄρσην, θήλεια δὲ Ἀράχνη τοὔνομα. The θεοὶ Ἀδελφοί, a married couple consisting of brother and sister on the throne of the Ptolemies: OGI 50, 2 [III B.C.] and pap [Mitt-Wilck. I/1, 99; I/2, 103–7, III B.C.]). In all these cases only one brother and one sister are involved. Yet there are also passages in which ἀδελφοί means brothers and sisters, and in whatever sequence the writer chooses (Polyb. 10, 18, 15 ποιήσεσθαι πρόνοιαν ὡς ἰδίων ἀδελφῶν καὶ τέκνων; Epict. 1, 12, 20 ἀδ. beside γονεῖς, τέκνα, γείτονες; 1, 22, 10; 4, 1, 111; Artem. 3, 31; Ptolem., Apotel. 3, 6; Diog. L. 7, 108; 120; 10, 18. In PMich 214, 12 [296 A.D.] οἱ ἀδελφοί σου seems to be even more general=‘your relatives’). Hence there is no doubt that in Lk 21:16 ἀδελφοί=brothers and sisters, but there is some room for uncertainty in the case of the ἀδελφοί of Jesus in Mt 12:46f; Mk 3:31; J 2:12; 7:3, 5; Ac 1:14.
② a pers. viewed as a brother in terms of a close affinity, brother, fellow member, member, associate fig. ext. of 1.
ⓐ one who shares beliefs (for an associated duality, s. Did., Gen. 127, 6 ἀ. ἐστι τοῦ φαινομένου ἔξω ἀνθρώπου ὁ κρυπτὸς καὶ ἐν διανοίᾳ ἄνθρωπος=brother to the man as he appears from without is the man who is hidden in thought): Jesus calls everyone who is devoted to him brother Mt 12:50; Mk 3:35, esp. his disciples Mt 28:10; J 20:17. Hence gener. for those in such spiritual communion Mt 25:40; Hb 2:12 (Ps 21:23), 17 al. Of a relationship w. a woman other than that of husband Hs 9, 11, 3 al.; 2 Cl 12:5.—Of the members of a relig. community (PParis 20 [II B.C.] al. of the hermits at the Serapeum in Memphis; UPZ 162 I, 20 [117 B.C.] ἀδελφοὶ οἱ τὰς λειτουργίας ἐν ταῖς νεκρίαις παρεχόμενοι; IG XIV, 956 B, 11f. ἀ.=member of the ἱερὰ ξυστικὴ σύνοδος; IPontEux II, 449f εἰσποιητοὶ ἀ. σεβόμενοι θεὸν Ὕψιστον [Ltzm. ZWT 55, 1913, 121]. Mystery pap [III A.D.]: APF 13, ’39, 212. Essenes in Jos., Bell. 2, 122. Vett. Val. 172, 31; Cleopatra ln. 94. See GMilligan 1908 on 1 Th 1:4; Ltzm. Hdb. on Ro 1:13 [lit.]; Dssm. B 82f, 140 [BS 87f, 142]; Nägeli 38; Cumont3 276). Hence used by Christians in their relations w. each other Ro 8:29, 1 Cor 5:11; Eph 6:23; 1 Ti 6:2; Ac 6:3; 9:30; 10:23; Rv 1:9; 12:10; IEph 10:3; ISm 12:1 al. So esp. w. proper names (for ἀδ. in a figurative sense used with a name, cp. the address of a letter PMich 162 verso [II A.D.] ἀπὸ Ἀπλωναρίου ἀδελφοῦ) to indicate membership in the Christian community Ro 16:23; 1 Cor 1:1; 16:12; 2 Cor 1:1; Phil 2:25; Col 1:1; 4:7, 9; 1 Th 3:2; Phlm 1; 1 Pt 5:12; 2 Pt 3:15; AcPl Ha 1, 30 al. Completely ἀδελφὸς ἐν κυρίῳ Phil 1:14. Oft. in direct address 1 Cl 1:1 (cod. A); 4:7; 13:1; 33:1; 2 Cl 20:2 al.; B 2:10; 3:6 al.; IRo 6:2; Hv 2, 4, 1; 3, 1, 1; 4; AcPl Ha 7, 4; 8, 21; AcPlCor 1:16. ἀδελφοί μου B 4:14; 5:5; 6:15; IEph 16:1; ἄνδρες ἀ. Ac 1:16 (rabb. par. in EStauffer, TLZ 77, ’52, 202); 15:7, 13; 1 Cl 14:1; 37:1; 43:4; 62:1. To interpret ἀ. in Ac 15:23 as ‘colleague’ (e.g. PGaechter, Petrus u. seine Zeit, ’58, 141f) is speculative; and the interpretation of ἀ. in 3J 5 and 10 as itinerant preachers (AKragerud, D. Lieblingsjünger im Johannesevangelium, ’59, 105) is based entirely on the context.
ⓑ a compatriot (cp. Pla., Menex. 239a ἡμεῖς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἡμέτεροι, μιᾶς μητρὸς πάντες ἀδελφοὶ φύντες; Lev 10:4; Dt 15:3, 12; 17:15 al.; Philo, Spec. Leg. 2, 79f ‘ἀ.’ τὸν ὁμόφυλον εἶπεν he termed a compatriot ‘brother’; Jos., Ant. 10, 201; 7, 371 after 1 Ch 28:2) Ac 2:29; 3:17, 22 (Dt 18:15); 7:2, 23 (Ex 2:11), 25f al.; Ro 9:3.
ⓒ without ref. to a common nationality or faith neighbor (of an intimate friend X., An. 7, 2, 25; 38. Specif. in the sense ‘neighbor’ Gen 9:5; Lev 19:17 al.) Mt 5:22ff; 7:3ff; 18:15, 21, 35; Lk 6:41f; 17:3; B 19:4; Hm 2:2 al.
ⓓ Form of address used by a king to persons in very high position (OGI 138, 3; 168, 26; 36 [both II B.C.]; Jos., Ant. 13, 45; 126) Herod says ἀδελφὲ Πιλᾶτε GPt 2:5.—JO’Callaghan, El vocativo sing. de ἀδελφός, Biblica 52, ’71, 217–25.—B. 107. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 18–19). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.​

I certainly appreciate your efforts..
We know mary and joseph were married ..did what man and wife do and then had more children .. ( children are a blessing from the lord.. She as a person was blessed)

Its all very plain and obvious truth in scripture.
The problem is... Some really have no interest in truth.

 

[Archivist]

Lol sure..
Interesting isn't it.. Its why i stick to scripture.
Not waffle from rumour which disagrees witj direct unambiguious scripture.

You see we KNOW what the apostle taught by what they wrote
So someone trying to say ..n..no this guy said the apostles directly taught him something that is oppisite to everything they wrote.
Leaves two possible conclusions..
The person who said that is a liar
Or the apostles lied.

Im going to go with the apostles telling the truth

Except there was no distinction at the time between a brother and a step-brother, nor had a determination been made as to what was Scripture.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<Al>Lol sure..
Interesting isn't it.. Its why i stick to scripture.
Not waffle from rumour which disagrees witj direct unambiguious scripture.
You see we KNOW what the apostle taught by what they wrote
So someone trying to say ..n..no this guy said the apostles directly taught him something that is oppisite to everything they wrote.
Leaves two possible conclusions..
The person who said that is a liar
Or the apostles lied.
Im going to go with the apostles telling the truth <Al>

end

The problem with this argument is the ECF did not write anything which contradicted scripture. Some ECF did contradict what some folks 2000 years later wrongly claim that the scriptures say. Who would know better what the NT writers meant? The native Greek speaking ECF, some of whom knew the NT writers, or some folks today, 2000 years later, who could not parse a Greek verb if their lives depended on it.

 

[Alithis]

Except there was no distinction at the time between a brother and a step-brother, nor had a determination been made as to what was Scripture.

Haha.. But a wife has always been a wife.
Your just playing words games because the simple truth does not match a preferred denominational theology aimed at genersting a created being.
..take it up God
Its him we answer to... Not me