Were the brothers in Matthew 13:55 Mary's sons?

[Sigma]

And still you are trying to make some deal out of me saying, the brothers of Jesus is what the topic is about what matters.

Again, at one point during our discussion of Jesus's brothers, you claimed that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin (post #166), to which I said:

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin (post #174).

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[Illuminator]

And still you are trying to make some deal out of me saying, the brothers of Jesus is what the topic is about what matters. Rather than Elizabeth being Mary's cousin.

Jesus had no biological brothers; that is a belief you hold as a result of subjective liberalism. I'll repost what you have not addressed:

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary is written by a respected Protestant scholar that you claim has a Catholic bias. Does Strong's concordance also have a Catholic bias? Sigma keeps flooding you with objective non-Catholic sources generally accepted by everyone and you don't like it. English didn't exist until centuries after the Bible was finalized, so your demand for English translations is absurd. Try citing Webster's dictionary for "brother" and "until", which you haven't done, but repeatedly demand English translations.



That is your response to:

Sigma has demolished your man made traditions in detail, so you react with an emotional flaming zinger with a misleading photo with no context, irrelevant to the discussion.
You reject the teachings of all the early reformers, reject Greek dictionaries, deny the overwhelming evidence presented by Sigma and make airhead accusations of "catholic cult" in typical arrogant fundie cult fashion.

Here's a sample of your intelligent remarks:
"Your whole statement is illegitimate, along with the cat a holic cult that do the devils deeds."
I like this one:
"I don't have to look in a dictionary."
Yet you demand English translations. Then I went with the only translation you accept, the LEB Bible:
Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Luke 22:32 (LEB)
but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew, or Mary had to be pregnant for 90 consecutive years.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 (LEB)
For I could wish myself to be accursed from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my fellow countrymen according to the flesh,
– Paul uses “brethren” and “my fellow countrymen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob his “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

I think your understanding of the LEB is incorrect, as well as your abuse of English.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Mary and Joseph did not have a "normal marital relationship".

Who said? Where will I find that in God’s word?

You really can’t handle any suggestion the your church may have invented all this stuff about Mary to adopt their own “mother goddess” so common in false religion, but missing entirely from Jewish belief. Israel’s excursions into false worship are well documented and it’s clear from the words of Jesus and his apostles that Christianity would suffer the same fate, corrupted by the same evil entity….a clever deceiver.…a counterfeiter.

Jesus was born a Jew and he was called “Joseph the carpenter’s son” because because it was obviously not common knowledge as to his true origins……He presented himself for baptism to John the Baptist (whose birth was also a miracle of God) to take up his role as Messiah. He then became Jesus the Christ or the one anointed to be king of God’s kingdom…..their savior.

An angel of God came to Mary to say He would like Her to conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, the long-anticipated Messiah, who was also God Incarnate.

It was Gabriel who came to Mary and told her of her choosing…….why Mary? Why not? She was the ideal candidate because God was going to produce his Messiah through a descendant of Abraham. He also had to be of the tribe of Judah, so Mary had to have the qualifications, as well as the circumstances in order for a virgin to produce a child in a nation where sex before marriage was against God’s law.

Mary was also a very spiritual woman, being well versed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus is God incarnate….your church made that one up as well.

And, She said yes. An angel of God came to Joseph to tell him to not be afraid to keep his wife who was pregnant with the Messiah, and from that moment of deciding to not divorce her, he knew his life's mission was to care for the Mother of the Messiah and God Incarnate... That's not a "normal Jewish household"

No, that is not what the angel said. Mary and Joseph were betrothed, not married at the time of Gabriel’s announcement. The angel said not to be afraid to take Mary “as his wife” because she had not been unfaithful to him, but had been chosen to give birth to the promised Messiah.

The reason why Joseph was going to divorce her (betrothals back then were like an engagement, but binding) was because she was found to be pregnant before their marriage. To break a betrothal, one had to basically get a divorce even though a marriage was not consummated until the groom took his new wife to her new home…..sometimes it was an addition to his family’s home, or in a new home altogether, depending on their finances. There was no formal ceremony, although the rich could afford a marriage feast for family and friends to celebrate. A broom simply went to the home of his bride who was all dressed up in her finished clothes and he escorted her to her new home with well-wishers along the road observing the occasion. (Witnesses to the marriage) After the marriage was consummated it was customary for the bride to produce proof that she was no longer a virgin.

For all intents and purposes, Jesus was just a normal child growing up in a typical Jewish family. He demonstrated an ability to absorb knowledge as he astounded the Jewish teachers as a 12 year old at the temple, but nowhere does the Bible indicate that he had any supernatural abilities until his baptism when his first miracle thereafter, was turning water into fine wine.

He was 100% human, but without sin. His mother as not, as she offered a sin offering at the temple after Jesus birth according to God’s law.

Have you taken time to really meditate on that??? Have you really thought about why Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are called "the Holy Family"???

It is apparent that you have done no research outside of your very limited “Catholic” understanding of events.
Where will I find mention of Mary Joseph and Jesus as “the holy family”? Don’t tell me…let me guess…..

Have you really thought about why Mary found favor with God and wanted Her, of ALL other "normal" Jewish women, to bear and raise the Messiah who was God Incarnate???

As he was in no way God incarnate, and no scripture says so, Mary found favor with God for the reasons already outlined.

If it wasn’t Mary, it would have been some other devout Jewish virgin, betrothed to a man who had not yet had relations with her. God had to bring his son into the world as a sinless human and Mary was his choice.

Also, Mary was already the wife of Joseph when she was told by the angel that God wanted Her to conceive a child, and if she was a "normal Jewess" who already was having or planned to have sexual intercourse with Her spouse, Joseph, the first thing She said wouldn't done is ask, "How will this be possible, since I know not man?" which means "I don't have sexual intercourse, so how can I conceive a child?" Have you really thought about that???

Oh good grief….you are so making things up….read your Bible and allow it to tell its own story.
She was not married to Joseph at the time she became pregnant, which is why she could ask Gabriel how it was possible to be pregnant if she was having no sexual relations with a man. Gabriel then explained that the child was not a product of natural intercourse, but a product of Holy Spirit. She had broken no law of God in his conception.

Obviously not, because all you care about is arguing that "normal Jews Joseph and Mary, the parents of the Messiah who was God Incarnate, had sex and other kids." Shallow, no depth.

Go and do some real research and stop repeating the same rubbish as if we haven’t heard you a hundred times already. You are convincing no one…..give it up. You can believe whatever you wish….

 

[Augustin56]

I have heard all the “explanations” as to why Mary was a perpetual virgin, but never WHY this question was ever raised in the first place. Since there is not the slightest inference that Mary and Joseph DID NOT have a normal marital relationship, which included children of their own, (as was expected in a normal Jewish household, as children were seen as a blessing from God) why would anyone assume that Mary and Joseph were married but never consummated their marriage? There is no scriptural reason at all.

When examining what the Bible record has to say about Mary, we see the scarcity of comment concerning her. Only one mention is made of her outside the Gospels. Neither the apostle Paul, nor the apostle Peter, nor Judas, the servant of Jesus, nor James, the brother of Jesus, make so much as one single mention of her in all their inspired writings. Mary is conspicuous by her absence.

Only the Catholic reverence for Mary, who is elevated above her son in many ways, would have raised this issue in the first place. This is nothing more than ancient mother goddess worship in disguise.
Where did the mother goddesses come from? NOT the Bible. Mary’s status is founded solely upon the traditions and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Ancient mother goddess worship (practiced in Egypt and other false religious cultures around the world; some long before the birth of Christ,) was adopted by your church and inflicted on the ignorant masses (no pun intended) down through centuries of indoctrination, when no one could read a Bible and no one could question the teachings of the church without fear of being viewed as a heretic, and becoming the victim of it’s dire consequences.

The old saying is true....’tell a lie long enough and often enough, and it becomes the truth’.
It is exclusively a “Catholic” truth, rejected by those who accept only what the scriptures (God’s word) say.

You will never convince a non-Catholic of something that has NO scriptural basis whatsoever, unless they never do any research of their own, and are swayed emotionally by the statue of the pretty lady with the baby. (Exodus 20:4-6)
Even her titles “Our Lady” and “Queen of Heaven” are taken straight out of that paganism. Mary is not called any of these titles in the Bible. How can you not know this?

Because this is not a Bible teaching in any way, I will continue to reject any notion that Mary was anything other than what the Bible said she was...the one God chose to be ”the mother of Jesus” who at his baptism, became the “Christ”. A wonderful woman, no doubt....but not anything close to what the RCC has made her.

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Christ, ..was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him... "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. (Sermons on John, chapters 1-4.1537-39).
He, Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb.. .This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. (Ibid.)
God says... "Mary's Son is My only Son." Thus Mary is the Mother of God. (Ibid.).
God did not derive his divinity from Mary; but it does not follow that it is therefore wrong to say that God was born of Mary, that God is Mary's Son, and that Mary is God's mother...She is the true mother of God and bearer of God...Mary suckled God, rocked God to sleep, prepared broth and soup for God, etc. For God and man are one person, one Christ, one Son, one Jesus. not two Christs. . .just as your son is not two sons...even though he has two natures, body and soul, the body from you, the soul from God alone. (On the Councils and the Church, 1539).

 

[BeyondET]

Again, at one point during our discussion of Jesus's brothers, you claimed that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin (post #166), to which I said:

Yes I shouldn't of brought it up, it's another topic.

 

[Illuminator]

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Subjective liberals don't care about important Protestant founders. That makes them true Protestants. We accept, on faith, what has been consistently passed down for 2000 years. Subjective liberals don't care about the general consensus of the Early Church Fathers so they dismiss or ignore them because they contradict deified opinions.

And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age.”
Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?”
Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

“Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed.”
Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

Subjective liberals have nothing to do with the 2nd century Church, and Athanasius was not a subjective liberal.

 

[BeyondET]

Jesus had no biological brothers; that is a belief you hold as a result of subjective liberalism. I'll repost what you have not addressed:

Bill Mounce's Greek Dictionary is written by a respected Protestant scholar that you claim has a Catholic bias. Does Strong's concordance also have a Catholic bias? Sigma keeps flooding you with objective non-Catholic sources generally accepted by everyone and you don't like it. English didn't exist until centuries after the Bible was finalized, so your demand for English translations is absurd. Try citing Webster's dictionary for "brother" and "until", which you haven't done, but repeatedly demand English translations.



That is your response to:

Here's a sample of your intelligent remarks:
"Your whole statement is illegitimate, along with the cat a holic cult that do the devils deeds."
I like this one:
"I don't have to look in a dictionary."
Yet you demand English translations. Then I went with the only translation you accept, the LEB Bible:
Luke 22:32 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Luke 22:32 (LEB)
but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail. And you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew, or Mary had to be pregnant for 90 consecutive years.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 – these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 (LEB)
For I could wish myself to be accursed from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my fellow countrymen according to the flesh,
– Paul uses “brethren” and “my fellow countrymen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 – Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 – Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos”) . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 – Laban calls Jacob his “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 – here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 – King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 – Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 – these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

I think your understanding of the LEB is incorrect, as well as your abuse of English.

Liberalism not a chance, even Jesus used His own family members, for a figurative statement about doing God's will.

He certainly didn't say who does the Will of God is My cousins and mother. He included His sisters as well.

Are you going to say Jesus meant cousins? Probably

Matthew 12
46 While Jesus was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to Him. 47 Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.”

48 But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49 Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.

50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Sigma]

Yes I shouldn't of brought it up, it's another topic.

You claimed Elizabeth was called Mary's cousin because you thought it showed Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. So, I replied with the following:

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin (post #174).

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

Acts 1:12-15 – the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew, or Mary had to be pregnant for 90 consecutive years.

So you think all those brothers were His biological siblings.

Ok brother!

 

[BeyondET]

You claimed Elizabeth was called Mary's cousin So, I replied with the following:

Yes I know and I shouldn't have, something has tickled your ear.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):

Last time I looked, “the book of Luther” was not in the Christian scriptures. Luther was a Catholic Priest who did not want to start a revolution, but to take “the Catholic Church” to task over its departure from what he knew was in the scriptures from his Catholic training. Their conduct had reached a stage where his conscience could not permit him to remain silent. He risked his life doing that. And it changed the course of history.....it reduced the power of the church over the common people, by exposing them as hypocritical frauds....just as Jesus did with the Pharisees. And it gave the people access to God’s word to read for themselves.

Did it unite Christians? We all know that “Christianity” is more divided now than ever before. The devil knows how to create confusion, so how can we know what is true and what is not? It is God who reveals it. (John 6:44, 65)

Like Protestantism, Luther held to what he had been taught in his Catholic training.....he retained a lot of rubbish that had no foundation in scripture. His attitude towards Mary was not well founded in the Bible but he was taught that she was more than God said she was. It is an emotional attachment to Mary that holds her place in Catholic hearts...it has nothing to do with how Mary is spoken about in scripture.

Protestants at least eliminated all the obvious departures from scriptural truth, Mariolatry, the immaculate conception, purgatory, limbo, a pope as a supposed successor of Peter, etc, but unfortunately they took too much of their mother’s dirty laundry with them...retaining beliefs about Jesus that are not supported in the scriptures, still promoting hellfire and immortality of the soul....none of which is taught in the Bible. Christendom departed from the monotheism of the Jewish religion by creating a Godhead. Not three gods but God in three parts, who could talk to one another, and be in different places all at the same time......I find no such god in the Bible.

If you examine all false religions, you will find the same core of beliefs...multiplicities of gods, a hell of eternal fiery torment, and a conscious part of man that departs from the body at death to go to one of two opposite destinations...heaven or hell. The Jews were never taught about such things, but the pagans already had them up for adoption apparently.

You can protest all you wish but the truth is that the “weeds” of Jesus’ parable were sown by the devil, very early in church history.....and the “wheat” are in the world but, in these “last days”, separate from the divided mess that is Christendom, who all have at their core the same lies in a counterfeit “Christianity” that will be rejected by Christ when his judgment is visited on all of us. It is not your god who will judge you. It is the one appointed by the true God, whom Jesus serves and has served for his whole existence. (Acts 4:27; Matthew 7:21-23) To whom is he saying “I never knew you!”? “Never” means “not ever”.

All will reap what they have sown....hearts will tell Jesus who loves the truth, and who loves the lies. (2 Thess 2:9-12)
Jesus has the “few”......satan has the “many” (Matthew 7:13-14)

 

[Sigma]

You claimed Elizabeth was called Mary's cousin because you thought it showed Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. So, I replied with the following:

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin (post #174).

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

You claimed Elizabeth was called Mary's cousin because you thought it showed Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. So, I replied with the following:

No not at all, I was using it to show when someone in scripture is a cousin they present it as such. Like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.

You totally misunderstood why I brought up Mary's cousin Elizabeth, if that's what you think I meant.

 

[Sigma]

...I was using it to show when someone in scripture is a cousin they present it as such. Like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.

I know, why is why I had to inform you there's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic.

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin in post #174.

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 of the Twelve were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he had he had to have been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone, but if you continue to repeat it as true, then I'll continue to challenge you to refute the evidence to the contrary in this post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'd attempt to try. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and that he and apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus. So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?

The answer is here, and in short, there I've shown that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James in Gal. 1:19, and the apostle James of Alphaeus, etc., were the same person, and that he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (who I've also shown was the apostle Judas of Alphaeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousins. And, they were called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, and because the information I provided in the previously cited link shows they were His family, specifically cousins, that's why its definition "a near kinsman, or relative", which can and has been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousin, applies.​

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

That's why I had to inform you there's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

You mentioned the same words for Jesus brothers yet why is it not cousin in that account.

Below jesus uses His own family members as figurative.

Matthew 12
50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Sigma]

...I was using it to show when someone in scripture is a cousin they present it as such. Like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.

That's why I had to inform you there's multiple words in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic.

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin in post #174.

You mentioned the same words for Jesus brothers yet why is it not cousin in that account.

The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 of the Twelve were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he had he had to have been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone, but if you continue to repeat it as true, then I'll continue to challenge you to refute the evidence to the contrary in this post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'd attempt to try. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and that he and apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus. So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?

The answer is here, and in short, there I've shown that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James in Gal. 1:19, and the apostle James of Alphaeus, etc., were the same person, and that he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (who I've also shown was the apostle Judas of Alphaeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousins. And, they were called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, and because the information I provided in the previously cited link shows they were His family, specifically cousins, that's why its definition "a near kinsman, or relative", which can and has been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousin, applies.​

 

[BeyondET]

That's why I had to inform you there's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios),

show me your interpretation of this verse?

Matthew 12
50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.

 

[Sigma]

...I was using it to show when someone in scripture is a cousin they present it as such. Like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.

That's why I had to inform you there's multiple words in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic.

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin in post #174.

​

show me your interpretation of this verse?

Matthew 12
50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.

In Matt. 12:50, Jesus is obviously not saying that whoever does the will of His Father in Heaven is biologically related to Him.

The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 of the Twelve were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he had he had to have been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone, but if you continue to repeat it as true, then I'll continue to challenge you to refute the evidence to the contrary in this post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'd attempt to try. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and that he and apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus. So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?

The answer is here, and in short, there I've shown that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James in Gal. 1:19, and the apostle James of Alphaeus, etc., were the same person, and that he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (who I've also shown was the apostle Judas of Alphaeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousins. And, they were called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, and because the information I provided in the previously cited link shows they were His family, specifically cousins, that's why its definition "a near kinsman, or relative", which can and has been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousin, applies.​

 

[BeyondET]

In Matt. 12:50, Jesus is obviously not saying that whoever does the will of His Father in Heaven is biologically related to Him.

Indeed, He is speaking of His earthly brother and sister and mother as an example. He certainly wouldn't use them figuratively if He had none.

 

[Sigma]

...I was using it to show when someone in scripture is a cousin they present it as such. Like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin.

That's why I had to inform you there's multiple words in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic.

How convenient that after I said the above you said it doesn't really matter that Elizabeth was Mary's cousin in post #174.

Indeed, He is speaking of His earthly brother and sister and mother as an example. He certainly wouldn't use them figuratively if He had none.

If that were true, then try and refute this:

The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 of the Twelve were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he had he had to have been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone, but if you continue to repeat it as true, then I'll continue to challenge you to refute the evidence to the contrary in this post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'd attempt to try. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and that he and apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus. So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?

The answer is here, and in short, there I've shown that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James in Gal. 1:19, and the apostle James of Alphaeus, etc., were the same person, and that he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (who I've also shown was the apostle Judas of Alphaeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousins. And, they were called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, and because the information I provided in the previously cited link shows they were His family, specifically cousins, that's why its definition "a near kinsman, or relative", which can and has been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousin, applies.