MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[Aunty Jane]

Again, the rest of my post (#3), because thus far you've only quoted and addressed one short sentence from it (#5), which I responded to (#6).

Again....what is the point? Let me just ask you......if you get 99% wrong on your exams at a University, will you get the degree in the subject that you have spent time studying?

All the things the RCC has wrong is not going to make the 1% you may have right, mean diddly....and the 1% is pure conjecture anyway. The RCC manufactured its own doctrines, which is obvious to anyone who has studied the Bible....no defence you offer for any of it will stand up to scrutiny.

After Christ left the earth, his apostles continued his work until they expired. This allowed time for the Christian Scriptures to be written, the last of which was penned by the Apostle John with his Revelation and his last three letters. Please understand that there is nothing written after their death that is contained in Scripture. Not a word in the Bible was written by a member of the Catholic church.

Sadly the foretold apostasy took over the church as Jesus and his apostles said it would, and it was beginning to make inroads whilst they were still alive, towards the end of the first century.....so this defection from the truth of God’s word is ancient.

“The church” became exactly what Judaism did......by the time of Christ, the worship of the true God had been corrupted by wicked men who assumed leadership over God’s people. God had not even sent a prophet to Israel for 300 years, not because he didn’t care about his people, but because the corrupt leadership were incorrigible. They never listened and repented.

Any Bible student can see from the Scriptures that Jesus castigated those wicked men at every opportunity, whilst searching for the “lost sheep” among his people. Why were those people “lost”? Because the leaders of the Jewish people were ignoring them and failing in their duty of care for God’s sheep.

Those “lost sheep” had to separate from that apostate religious system that had become a hypocritical sham!
The RCC has emulated their despicable example because the same enemy has sown “weeds” in that church system that spread out into the whole world. By the 4th century, the rot had well and truly set in and the time was ripe for the take over of the church completely. Roman Catholicism was a fusion of pagan Roman sun worship and apostate Christianity.....mandated by a pagan Roman Emperor.

The worship of the sun is as evident today as it was back then....
Their “holy day” supposedly the Sabbath was now on “Sunday”...a day already set aside to honour the sun.

St Peter’s Square is not a square at all, but covered by a Babylonian sun wheel, repleat with an obelisk that was imported from Egypt. This obelisk was associated with the worship of the sun god Ra.

Here they are hiding in plain sight.....

The monstrance used in the Catholic Mass is in the shape of the sun as is the wafer it contains.....Jesus broke the bread, so that it was no particular shape when he held the Last Supper.
Where did the shape come from? It was already very familiar to the pagan inhabitants of the Roman Empire.

Please wake up and see what you are part of.....God and his Christ have never set foot in your church.
Their presence and corrupting influence in the world are plain to see......if you are not blinded. (2 Cor 4:3-4)

 

[Sabé]

Again....what is the point?

The obvious point is that you asserted I was assuming things in post #3, and as it stands, that is a baseless assertion, because I presented evidence. If you quote the rest of my post (#3) and successfully refute the evidence I've presented that I argue shows and support that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of Jesus's uncle and His wife Mary (the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, Mary, cf. Jn. 19:25), then you'll have a well-founded claim.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The obvious point is that you asserted I was assuming things in post #3, and as it stands, that is presently a baseless assertion. But, if you quote the rest of my post and successfully refute the evidence I've presented that I argue shows and support that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of Jesus's uncle and His wife Mary (the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, Mary, cf. Jn. 19:25), then you'll have a well-founded claim.

The very fact that Matthew confirms that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus was born, proves that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin and the fact that Jesus had a normal human birth would have destroyed her virginity anyway....so all that other stuff doesn’t matter.....it is all pure conjecture anyway. Just because the word “can” be used to describe a cousin or other relative doesn’t mean it did, There is no valid reason why Mary and Joseph weren’t a normal married Jewish couple who went on to have a tribe of kids....at least 6. Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters, none of whom became believers until after his death and resurrection, prompting Jesus to say what he did. (Mark 6:4)

There is nothing to prove except that your denial is astounding in the face of what you have already been shown.
Apparently you are so indoctrinated that nothing will penetrate....at least we tried...I cannot imagine what more evidence you need other than what the Bible actually says, rather than the suggestions made by your church to say otherwise. They have an agenda that you seem to be oblivious to. That is sad.

 

[Sabé]

The very fact that Matthew confirms that Mary and Joseph had normal marital relations after Jesus was born, proves that Mary wasn’t a perpetual virgin and the fact that Jesus had a normal human birth would have destroyed her virginity anyway....

False, for two reasons:

I. Your belief that Matthew and Luke said Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse and other children, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus) were His siblings, just as my having shown that they weren't His siblings, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin. In other words, you can still believe and argue that Joseph and Mary had children together, all I've done is show that those four weren't their children.

II. The idea that an "intact" hymen proves virginity is a myth. A hymen is a flexible tissue that can stretch, tear, or change over time for many reasons other than penetrative sex, including physical activity, tampon use, or medical exams. Some people are also born without a hymen.

We can discuss the perpetual virginity of Mary in another thread. This thread is about the identity of Jesus's four brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus). Again, you asserted that I was assuming things in post #3, and as it stands, that is a baseless assertion, because I presented evidence. If you quote the rest of my post (#3) and successfully refute the evidence I've presented that I argue shows and support that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of His uncle and his wife Mary (the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, Mary, cf. Jn. 19:25), then you'll have a well-founded claim.

 

[Aunty Jane]

then you'll have a well-founded claim.

@Sabé it is you who don’t have a well founded claim.

You don’t seem to appreciate that there is no biblical foundation or mention for the perpetual virginity of Mary.....no logical reason to even suggest such a thing. Only the RCC needs that to be true in order to venerate someone that the Bible hardly mentions.

Mother goddess worship is ancient, predating Christianity....and it was carried over into Catholic worship.
Your statues and images of Jesus’ mother are themselves against God’s law on idolatry.

 

[Sabé]

You don’t seem to appreciate that there is no biblical foundation or mention for the perpetual virginity of Mary....

You don't seem to understand that the perpetual virginity of Mary and the identity of Jesus's brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), are two different subjects, because my showing they weren't Joseph and Mary's children, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, nor prove that She and Joseph never had children at all, just as your presenting evidence for why you believe Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings.

Therefore, again, this thread is about the identity of Jesus's four brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), not the perpetual virginity of Mary. You assert that those four were Jesus's siblings, but as it stands, that is a baseless assertion, because you haven't presented evidence for why, nor attempted to address my arguments for why they were actually the sons of Jesus's uncle and his wife. If you quote the rest of my post (#3) and successfully refute the evidence I've presented that I argue shows and support that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of His uncle and his wife Mary (the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, Mary, cf. Jn. 19:25)

 

[Aunty Jane]

You don't seem to understand that the perpetual virginity of Mary and the identity of Jesus's brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), are two different subjects, because my showing they weren't Joseph and Mary's children, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, nor prove that She and Joseph never had children at all, just as your presenting evidence for why you believe Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings.

Therefore, again, this thread is about the identity of Jesus's four brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), not the perpetual virginity of Mary. You assert that those four were Jesus's siblings, but as it stands, that is a baseless assertion, because you haven't presented evidence for why, nor attempted to address my arguments for why they were actually the sons of Jesus's uncle and his wife. If you quote the rest of my post (#3) and successfully refute the evidence I've presented that I argue shows and support that Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of His uncle and his wife Mary (the sister-in-law of Jesus's Mother, Mary, cf. Jn. 19:25)

I’m sorry, but in the big scheme of things...what does it matter?
All that matters is that Mary had Jesus and that Mary and Joseph assumed marital relations once that was accomplished. Matthew says so in unambiguous terms.

Matt 1:24-25 New Catholic Bible....
“When Joseph rose from sleep, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him. He took Mary into his home as his wife, but he engaged in no marital relations with her UNTIL she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.”
There goes your perpetual virginity....so what does it matter if she did or didn’t have children after Jesus?
The agenda behind the whole issue for Catholic people is its adopted mother goddess worship.

Mary does not have the status in Scripture that your church has given her....it’s a man made adoption from paganism, so long ago that no one raised in your church thinks it can’t be true.
I really do not understand why you keep flogging this dead horse.....

 

[Sabé]

I’m sorry, but in the big scheme of things...what does it matter?

The truth matters. Defending your assertion that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings matters. Do you not care about wanting to believe the truth regarding Jesus's four brothers? Yes or no?

All that matters is that Mary had Jesus and that Mary and Joseph assumed marital relations once that was accomplished. Matthew says so in unambiguous terms.

He doesn't but that's a conversation for in a thread about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Aunty Jane]

The truth matters. Defending your assertion about me assuming things matters. Do you not care about wanting to believe what's true regarding Jesus's four brothers? Do you not care about trying to defend your assertion about me?

What assertions about you? My assertions were about your church and it’s ridiculous doctrines....what you wish to believe is entirely up to you.,

He doesn't but that's a conversation for in a thread about the perpetual virginity of Mary.

You don’t see the correlation between the two issues?

Why haggle about whether Jesus had siblings or cousins as if it matters in the big picture. What possible difference could it make?

It only matters if you are trying to prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that her marriage to Jeosph was a sham. There is no biblical reason for the question in the first place.

 

[Sabé]

You don’t see the correlation between the two issues?

You don't seem to understand that the perpetual virginity of Mary and the identity of Jesus's brothers, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus), are two different subjects, because my showing they weren't Joseph and Mary's children, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, nor prove that She and Joseph never had children at all, just as your presenting evidence for why you believe Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse, in and of itself, doesn't prove that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings. In other words, you can still argue and believe that Joseph and Mary had children together, all I've done is show that those four weren't their children. If you want to defend your belief that they were, then you need to address my evidence for why they weren't. Or, you can accept that they weren't, and try to find and identify who actually were their children.

Why haggle about whether Jesus had siblings or cousins as if it matters in the big picture. What possible difference could it make?

The truth matters. Defending your assertion that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings matters. Do you not care about wanting to believe the truth regarding Jesus's four brothers? Yes or no?

 

[Aunty Jane]

The truth matters. Defending your assertion that Jesus's four brothers were His siblings matters. Do you not care about wanting to believe the truth regarding Jesus's four brothers? Yes or no?

The truth is that there are bigger fish to fry.....in the big scheme of things, it does not matter one iota if Jesus had siblings or not...that is an issue only for your church....and only for one reason....to justify the notion that Joesph and Mary were in a sham marriage and that they could not have more children because Mary had to be a perpetual virgin....which is something that the Bible never mentions....and something Matthew clearly states, that they had normal marital relations after Jesus was born....they had no reason not to.

When you step outside of Scripture, you end up in rabbit holes that lead nowhere...like this one.
There are way more important issues as I’ve already addressed with no comment from yourself about any of them.

There was a valid reason for the Reformation because it was a Catholic priest who protested about the failure of his church to uphold its place as shepherds of the flock. They were hopelessly corrupted by the power they assumed even over the monarchs who ruled their nations....and he took them to task at great risk to himself. But it was God’s time to give the Scriptures back to the people so that they could see for themselves how corrupt the church had become and how many doctrines were man made rather than God directed. History was repeating. (Matt 15:7-9)

This is not to say that the Reformation was in any way a restoration of true Christianity because, in leaving the mother church, they took a great deal of her dirty laundry with them, creating a crop of weeds that just made the diamond harder to find in a continually mounting pile of broken glass.

Confusion works well for the devil......give people too many choices and they just give up.
But God is also at work in all that confusion, leading his sheep to the truth despite the fact that it would make them targets of scorn and hatred. (John 15: 18-21)
The narrow road that leads to life is the road less travelled.....(Matt 7:13-14)

 

[Sabé]

The truth is that there are bigger fish to fry.....in the big scheme of things, it does not matter one iota if Jesus had siblings or not...

That's just a poor excuse to mask your inability to refute the evidence in post #3 that shows Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus) weren't Jesus's siblings, because if you could've you would've.

 

[Aunty Jane]

That's just a poor excuse to mask your inability to refute the evidence in post #3 that shows Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus) weren't Jesus's siblings, because if you could've you would've.

It is not an issue for anyone but the Catholic church......the reasons for which are obvious to everyone but you apparently......you so busy being right, that you have lost sight of the more important things.....
Jesus described it as “straining at gnats whilst gulping down camels”.....I hope you understand what he meant...

 

[Sabé]

It is not an issue for anyone but the Catholic church......the reasons for which are obvious to everyone but you apparently......you so busy being right, that you have lost sight of the more important things.....
Jesus described it as “straining at gnats whilst gulping down camels”.....I hope you understand what he meant...

More excuses to mask your inability to refute the evidence in post #3 that shows Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus) weren't Jesus's siblings, because if you could've you would've.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Believe whatever you wish.....you will anyway. I’m done on this ridiculous thread.

Refer back to post #21....

 

[Sabé]

I’m done on this ridiculous thread.

What's ridiculous is your thinking that you can't just be honest with me. You don't have to make excuses. We both know that you can't refute the evidence in post #3 that shows Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Thaddeus) weren't Jesus's siblings, because if you could've you would've. The reason you can't is because the truth can't be refuted, it's not a poor reflection on you, and I would never make you feel like it is.