Who were the “brothers” of Jesus?

[Armour of God]

Your arguments are stupid. They prove nothing and I can't be bothered with them. You have your opinion I have mine

 

[Soul.og]

Your arguments are stupid. They prove nothing and I can't be bothered with them. You have your opinion I have mine

We can agree to disagree, but it’s worth noting that one "opinion" is backed by historical Greek usage and the text of the Gospels, while the other relies on insults and modern assumptions.

Labeling evidence "stupid" doesn't make it go away. Since you’re unable to provide rebuttals to the historical, linguistic, and textual points I've made about adelphos, the lack of a verse naming Mary’s other children, and marital sexual relations, there’s nothing left to discuss. All the best.

 

[Armour of God]

@Soul.og

Ok I'm awake now.
The stupid part of your argument now is by saying that Joseph never demanded to be loved.
To be loved and to love is what is expected when a couple get married.

Joseph married Mary wanting a normal marriage like every other man. By claiming that Mary didn't submit to her husband means that Mary was a bad wife and bad woman

 

[Soul.og]

@Soul.og

Ok I'm awake now.
The stupid part of your argument now is by saying that Joseph never demanded to be loved.
To be loved and to love is what is expected when a couple get married.

Joseph married Mary wanting a normal marriage like every other man. By claiming that Mary didn't submit to her husband means that Mary was a bad wife and bad woman

You’re arguing from a modern assumption about what a “normal man” wants, but Scripture describes Joseph as a just man (Matthew 1:19)—precisely because he put God’s plan and Mary’s honor above his own “rights.”

To call Mary a “bad wife” requires assuming Joseph was a “bad husband” who demanded sex despite the miraculous circumstances of Jesus’s birth. But Scripture says the opposite.

1. Paul explicitly rejects your definition of “submission”​

You’re using Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 to imply sexual obligation, but Paul actually addresses marital intimacy in 1 Corinthians 7:5, and he states:

• intimacy requires mutual consent
• abstinence is permitted
• neither spouse may demand sex
• both must agree

Your interpretation of “submit” is not only unsupported by Scripture—it is contradicted by Scripture.

If your reading contradicts Paul, then your reading is wrong.

2. Your argument is based on assumptions, not Scripture​

Your logic is:

1. “Wives submit.”
2. “Therefore Mary had sex.”
3. “Therefore she had other children.”

That is not exegesis. That is a chain of assumptions with zero textual support.

You still cannot produce:

• a verse where Joseph demands “normal” marital relations
• a verse saying Mary had sexual relations with Joseph
• a verse calling Mary a “bad wife”
• a verse identifying Jesus’s “brothers” as Mary’s sons
• a verse naming anyone besides Jesus as a “son of Mary”

You’re filling in silence with personal assumptions, not Scripture.

3. The text never calls Joseph, Simon, James, or Judas “sons of Mary”​

The Gospels list their names, but never call them Mary’s children.

Not once.

Meanwhile, the Greek word adelphos is used throughout Scripture for:

• cousins
• nephews
• fellow Israelites
• fellow believers

So appealing to “brothers” proves nothing about biological siblings.

Your submission argument is simply a distraction from the fact that the text does not support your claim.

4. You’re making moral accusations Scripture never makes​

You’re implying:

• Mary was a bad wife
• Joseph was deprived
• Abstinence is sinful
• Submission = sexual obligation

But Scripture never says any of this.

You’re projecting modern expectations onto ancient people and then treating your projection as scriptural truth.

That is not how scriptural interpretation works.

Conclusion​

Your argument relies on assumptions Scripture never makes. Mine relies on what Scripture actually says—and what it doesn’t say.

If you want to argue Mary had other children, you still need the one thing you haven’t produced:

a verse that says she did.

Until then, your position remains unsupported.

 

[Armour of God]

You are arguing from a modern assumption of what a "normal man" wants, but Scripture describes Joseph as a "just man" (Matt.1:19) precisely because he put God’s plan and Mary’s honor above His own "rights"

A just man still expects his wife to love him

To call Mary a "bad wife" assumes Joseph was a "bad husband" who demanded sex despite the miraculous nature of Jesus's birth

Joseph was not a bad husband to expect his wife to love her. That is what is expected in a marriage

But 1 Cor. 7:5 explicitly says abstinence in marriage is permitted by "mutual consent" for spiritual purposes. If they both chose to dedicate their lives to raising the Son of God, they weren't "bad" spouses — they were perfectly obedient to God.

There is no way that Joseph married Mary and did not expect to be loved. That would be a dysfunction relationship. The bible tells women to submit to their husbands.

Ultimately, you are still using your personal feelings about marriage to fill in gaps where Scripture is silent. You still haven’t provided

I'm not using personal feelings, you are, im using facts. A man marries a woman and wants to love her. That is part of the marriage agreement. The gospel is not about Mary's sex life it's a about the life of Christ. No scripture is required only common sense and facts

If your argument depends on Joseph being unable to control himself or Mary being "bad" for serving God, then it’s based on human psychology, not the Word of God.

Mary is breaking the marriage contract by not submitting to her husband if you believe she remained a virgin.
Also you have no scripture to prove that Mary remained a virgin

 

[Armour of God]

By "love" you clearly mean "sex", but Scripture defines love as sacrificial service (Eph. 5:25), not a physical demand. Calling a marriage based on spiritual devotion "dysfunctional" is a modern secular opinion, not a scriptural one.

In 1 Cor. 7:5, Paul explicitly says that a husband and wife can abstain from sex for spiritual reasons by mutual consent. If Scripture allows for this, then by definition, it is not "dysfunctional". Joseph and Mary weren't a "normal couple" — they were the guardians of the Incarnate Word of God. To suggest Joseph would be "cheated" or Mary was a "bad wife" because they prioritized their unique mission over physical gratification ignores their total surrender to God.

Even the leading Protestant Reformers — who held the highest view of Scripture — disagreed with your "common sense" view. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all studied the same Greek and the same verses on submission, yet they all held that Mary remained a Virgin and that Her marriage to Joseph was holy and complete without further children. They understood that a "just man" like Joseph would prioritize God's miracle over his own "rights".

Ultimately, you admitted "no scripture is required" for your position. That is the definition of a human tradition.

If you have to say "no Scripture is required" to win an argument about Scripture, you’ve already lost it. I’ll stick with the scriptural text that allows for a much holier and more sacrificial marriage than the one you are describing. Specifically, I will continue to rely on:

· Matt. 1:19, which calls Joseph "just" for his obedience, not his demands

· 1 Cor. 7:5, which proves marital abstinence for spiritual purposes is scriptural



I haven't made a claim about perpetual virginity in this thread. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I haven't asked you to "disprove" a doctrine; I have asked you to prove your own claims using Scripture.

You claim that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations.

You claim that Mary would've been a "bad wife" if She didn't submit to demands of sexual relations by Her Spouse.

You claim that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Mary’s biological sons, despite having admitted you don't have a scriptural verse that says so.

You claim the Koine Greek adelphos strictly refers to biological siblings.

You've argued that "no scripture is required" and relied on your own definition of a "normal marriage".

As it stands, you have not presented the following:

· A verse where Joseph demands "normal" marital relations

· A verse that says Mary had sexual relations with Joseph

· A verse where Mary is called a "bad wife"

· A verse that says Jesus's “brothers” — Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas — were Mary’s sons

· A verse naming any other person as a "son of Mary"

· Evidence adelphos strictly refers to biological siblings

If your position were scriptural, you would be quoting verses instead of relying on your own idea of "common sense" and personal assumptions about Joseph’s expectations. Until you can provide a text that actually supports your claims, your arguments remains a human assumption, not a scriptural fact.

Since you've admitted you "can't be bothered" with the actual historical, linguistic, and textual evidence, I'll take that as your concession.

You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither of us is changing the opinion of the other. We must agree to disagree.

You say that Mary didn't love Joseph but Scripture tells us that Jesus had siblings. You have to twist that to suit your own narrative which is highly unlikely. There are other words for cousin, neighbour, etc in Greek.

And if Mary never loved her husband then she is defying scripture that says women must submit to their husbands. You again have to assume that Joseph didn't want to love Mary which is obscene and highly unlikely again because he wouldn't have married her otherwise.

The likelihood of your claims are based on improbable assumptions which makes them highly unlikely

I believe that Mary was good and loved Joseph according to the demands of marriage and scripture. I believe they had children as the bible explicitly tells us that Jesus had siblings

 

[rvmb]

You have your opinion and I have mine. Neither of us is changing the opinion of the other. We must agree to disagree.

You say that Mary didn't love Joseph but Scripture tells us that Jesus had siblings. You have to twist that to suit your own narrative which is highly unlikely. There are other words for cousin, neighbour, etc in Greek.

And if Mary never loved her husband then she is defying scripture that says women must submit to their husbands. You again have to assume that Joseph didn't want to love Mary which is obscene and highly unlikely again because he wouldn't have married her otherwise.

The likelihood of your claims are based on improbable assumptions which makes them highly unlikely

I believe that Mary was good and loved Joseph according to the demands of marriage and scripture. I believe they had children as the bible explicitly tells us that Jesus had siblings

Matt 1:25 :-
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
soul relies 100% on a ridiculous interpretation of till/until which he 'thinks' confirms that Mary remained a virgin and so could not have had other children, GOOD LUCK AoG

 

[Armour of God]

Matt 1:25 :-
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
soul relies 100% on a ridiculous interpretation of till/until which he 'thinks' confirms that Mary remained a virgin and so could not have had other children, GOOD LUCK AoG

Yo be honest I'm tired of debating her with her outrageous assumptions. I'm ready to just say she has her opinion and I have mine and leave it at that.

Election this week in SA. I just did my vote early. I'm sick of Labour and Liberal and I voted One Nation. Iv been voting for them for a few years now and I'm not afraid to say it.

 

[rvmb]

Yo be honest I'm tired of debating her with her outrageous assumptions. I'm ready to just say she has her opinion and I have mine and leave it at that.

Election this week in SA. I just did my vote early. I'm sick of Labour and Liberal and I voted One Nation. Iv been voting for them for a few years now and I'm not afraid to say it.

AoG >>""Yo be honest I'm tired"" << IGNORE list works well :)
I'm lucky, when I moved home in 1992 I never updated to my current address & due to that have never had to vote.
Politics is like football, we all have our favorite team, mine is ABC, anyone but Collingwood

 

[Armour of God]

AoG >>""Yo be honest I'm tired"" << IGNORE list works well :)
I'm lucky, when I moved home in 1992 I never updated to my current address & due to that have never had to vote.
Politics is like football, we all have our favorite team, mine is ABC, anyone but Collingwood

Oh your so lucky. If it was up to me I wouldn't vote either but they give me a fine if I don't.

Regarding the footy everyone dislikes Collingwood lol. I go for the Hawks. Do you have a favourite team?

I don't like to put people on the ignore list. I prefer to either reach an agreement or just ignore them myself if they keep nagging me.

 

[Soul.og]

Does not Jesus being referred to as the "First born" Luke 2:7 kind of indicate there were more to follow from Marys womb? If not then why was it not stated as "only" son or child?

“Firstborn” (prototokos) in Luke 2:7 is a legal title, not a prediction of later children. In Scripture, firstborn means “the one who opens the womb” and carries covenant and inheritance rights—even if no other children ever follow (Exodus 13:2; 34:19).

The term does not imply a second‑born, third‑born, or any later children. It identifies status, not sequence.

Greek even has a word for “only child” (monogenes), and Luke uses it elsewhere—so he clearly knew the difference. But he uses firstborn here because he is connecting Jesus to the Old Testament laws of consecration, not commenting on Mary’s future fertility.

So no—“firstborn” does not imply Mary had more children. It identifies who Jesus is, not what Mary did afterward.

 

[TazzJazz]

Lets see what is really behind this.....

The statement that Joseph “did not know Her until She had given birth” .....

There you are..... until she had given birth. After that, Joseph did "know her."

 

[TazzJazz]

The word "until" in Matthew 1:25 doesn’t imply the opposite happened afterward. In scriptural Greek, heos hou only marks what happened before the birth, not what happened after. There are many examples in Scripture where "until" doesn’t mean a change took place later.

For instance, 2 Samuel 6:23 says Michal had no children until the day of her death — which obviously doesn’t mean she had children after she died.

RE: Michal, of course, because after, it was impossible!
This is fruitless. Have a good day.

 

[Taken]

Was I wrong to say Mary is Jesus’ biological mother when Scripture explicitly says He was conceived in Her womb, is the fruit of Her womb, and that She gave birth to Him?

Disagree.

A biological mother gives birth to an offspring, After Her SEED (in her ovaries) is Fertilized by a male SEED of her KIND.
Called Conception.

Mary was A Human Kind of Being.
God is A Spiritual Being.
Gods SEED “did NOT” Fertilize Mary’s Seed.

God Sent HIS SEED to Mary’s Womb…
Not her Ovaries.


Gods SEED, IS Spirit, IS Power, IS Christ.
The BODY for Gods SEED, was “PREPARED” by God, for His Purpose.

God sending His SEED to … a specific Females Womb, ( in the Womb is Conceived, ie. Pregnant), not conception (fertilization).
Was for a Specific Purpose…

The Female;
…a Virgin.
…faithful.
…betrothed (engaged)
The Male;
…faithful.
…of the House of David’s genealogical Line.
…Mans Law, a descendant of king David.
…Gods Law, a descendent of king David.

Mans Law…Only a Lawful Descendant of king David Can BE King of ISRAEL.
Gods Law…Only a Lawful Descendent of king David Can Lawfully sit on king Davids Throne and Rule ISRAEL.

Both mans and Gods Law was Fulfilled, on the Day Jesus was delivered forth from Mary’s Womb.

The “Title and Position of King of ISRAEL” Lawfully already Belongs TO “Christ The Lord Jesus”.
The “Inheritance” of Abraham’s Promised Land” already Belongs TO “Christ the Lord Jesus”.

The Day, “of WHEN” He shall “Claim His Throne and His Inheritance” …
IS the “Mystery”…

With the Caveat…(teaching to manKIND)…
Do as Jesus Did…
Be Prepared… Long Before the Day Arrives For The Lord to Claim His Throne and Inheritance….
That you Be WITH Him, IN His and yours “inherited” Land /Kingdom.

FYI—-
Gods Inheritance IS … All Saved Souls and Quickened spirits (ie. Born again).

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

In biology:

• Men produce sperm.
• Women produce ova (eggs).

Calling a woman’s egg a “seed” is poetic, not scientific. The Bible uses “seed” metaphorically for descendants, but biology does not.

So the statement:

“A biological mother gives birth after her SEED is fertilized by a male SEED”

is scientifically wrong because women do not have seed.

• Fertilization happens in the fallopian tube, not the womb.
• The embryo then travels to the uterus and implants.

So their definition of conception is also inaccurate.


Biologically, a mother is the woman who:

• Provides the egg
• Provides the womb
• Gestates the child
• Gives birth

Mary fits all of these.

Even in the virgin birth narrative:

• Mary provides the egg
• Mary carries Jesus in her uterus
• Mary gives birth to him

Therefore, she is Jesus’s biological mother.

The absence of a human father does not change that.

Mary’s “egg”, Mary’s “seed”, called by whichever is not the POINT.

No part of Mary was “Fertilized” BY the SEED of God…WHO IS Christ!

Biologically,
Scientifically,
Christ the Lord Jesus…
has NO Father,
has NO Mother,
has NO Siblings,
has NO Children.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

You’re making two different claims at the same time, and they contradict both biology and Christian theology. Let me separate them clearly:

1. If you want to talk biology, then biology has rules​

Biologically:

• A child receives genetic material from the mother’s egg
• Pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus
• A woman who provides the egg, the womb, and the birth is the biological mother

If you claim Jesus had no biological mother, then you are no longer talking about biology at all.

You can’t say “biologically, scientifically, Jesus has no mother” while rejecting the basic definitions of biology and science.

2. If you want to talk theology, then Christian theology also has rules​

Christian doctrine teaches:

• Jesus is eternally begotten of the Father in His divine nature
• Jesus is born of Mary in His human nature
• Jesus is “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus is “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)

If Mary contributed nothing biologically, then:

• Jesus is not descended from David
• Jesus is not “born of a woman”
• Jesus is not fully human

That position is not Christianity—it’s Docetism, the ancient heresy that Jesus only appeared to be human.

3. You can’t erase Mary’s motherhood by redefining words​

Saying:

“Mary’s egg or Mary’s seed is not the point”

…is simply avoiding the fact that your argument collapses if Mary contributed the egg.

And saying:

“Christ has no father, no mother”

…confuses His divine nature (eternal, uncreated) with His human nature (born, embodied).

Christian theology has always held both.

4. The core issue is simple​

Either:

A. Jesus was truly human​

—which requires a human mother, and Mary fulfills that role biologically and theologically.

or

B. Jesus had no human biology at all​

—which denies the Incarnation and contradicts Scripture.

You can choose A or B, but you can’t claim B and then call it “biologically” or “scientifically” true.

​

If you want to argue a theological point, make a theological argument. But once you invoke biology and science, you can’t redefine them to fit your conclusion.

God purposed in Himself How and When He would Reveal Himself to manKind.

Jesus is the Word of God.

Gods Word came forth out of His mouth.

God Prepared a Body for His Word and sent it to …A Virgin Womb…of a woman Betrothed to a man of the House of David.

God can NOT “reproduce” offsprings.
God “Declares” who is His Offspring.

Above the Heavens is Gods Estate.
The Heavens is Gods Throne and Kingdom.
The Earth has a barrier between Earth and Heaven.

God through His Word (Jesus) and His Power (Christ); is “preparing” Faithful Human men, for the day, the Barrier between Earth and Heaven is Opened… and Earth Becomes Adjoined in Gods Kingdom.

And…mankind (who is included, by Adoption,) shall ALL be Gods People, And The Whole Of God…Lord God Almighty…
Shall Be THEIR God.

There is WAS NO fertilization of Mary’s Seed, that occurred or was necessary For God to Send His Word (in the likeness AS A MAN), to offer and give men Salvation (before their Mortal Death).


Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

1. You’re mixing metaphors about God’s Word with biological claims about Jesus’ humanity.
Those are two different categories. Christian theology has always distinguished between the eternal Word and the biological reality of the Incarnation.
You can’t use poetic language about God’s Word to override the concrete claims Scripture makes about Jesus’ real human birth.


2. Your position reduces to this:

• Jesus is the Word of God
• God prepared a body
• Mary’s biology was irrelevant
• No fertilization occurred
• Jesus only appeared “in the likeness of a man”

That is not Christianity. That is Docetism or Gnosticism—the belief that Jesus only seemed human.

Christian doctrine teaches that the Word became flesh, not that the Word merely resembled flesh.
If Mary contributed nothing biologically, then Jesus was not actually human. That contradicts Scripture and the entire doctrine of the Incarnation.


3. Scripture explicitly teaches real biological descent.

• Jesus is “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4)
• Jesus is “made of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3)
• Jesus is “descended from David” (2 Timothy 2:8)
• Jesus is “in every respect made like His brothers” (Hebrews 2:17)

If Mary contributed nothing biologically, then:

• He is not “born of a woman”
• He is not “seed of David”
• He is not “descended from David”
• He is not “made like us in every respect”
• He is not human

Your view requires rejecting Paul, rejecting Hebrews, and rejecting the Gospels’ teaching that Jesus is truly human and truly descended from David.


4. You said: “God cannot reproduce offspring.” Christianity agrees—God does not sexually reproduce.

But Christianity also teaches:

• God can create a human nature
• God can unite that human nature to the divine Word
• God did so through Mary’s real biological contribution

The Incarnation is not God “reproducing.”
It is God taking on a real human nature through a real human mother.
Denying Mary’s biological role is denying the Incarnation itself.


5. Your view leads to a non‑human Jesus.

You claim:

• God prepared a body
• God placed it in Mary’s womb
• Mary contributed nothing
• Jesus was only “in the likeness of a man”

That means:

• Jesus only appeared human
• His body was not derived from humanity
• He is not related to David
• He is not related to Mary
• He is not actually human

That is textbook Docetism.

If Jesus’ body was not derived from Mary, then He is not human.
If He is not human, He cannot redeem humanity.
Your view unintentionally collapses the entire doctrine of salvation.


6. The core issue remains unchanged:

Either:​

A. Jesus is truly human​

—which requires a real human mother who contributes real human biology.

or​

B. Jesus only appeared human​

—which every branch of Christianity rejects as heresy.

There is no third option.

If you want to argue a non‑Christian metaphysics, that’s your choice.
But it’s not “biological,” and it’s not Christian theology.

Already addressed.

• God prepared a body
• God placed it in Mary’s womb
• Mary contributed nothing
• Jesus was only “in the likeness of a man”

Correct.

[*]He is not related to David
[*]He is not related to Mary

Yes…Lawfully Related.
No….Biologically Related.

That means:

• Jesus only appeared human
• His body was not derived from humanity
• He is not actually human

Correct.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

You haven’t addressed the actual issue. You’ve restated your belief, but you haven’t answered the contradiction I pointed out:

• If Jesus had no biological mother, your claim is not biological.
• If Jesus had no human ancestry, your claim is not Christian theology.

You’re free to hold your view, but it doesn’t match either biology or historic Christian doctrine.

The points I raised about biology and Christian theology remain unanswered. If you ever want to engage those directly, I’m open to it.

Humans were literally “created” out of their Intended Habitat…Earth.

Gods Word literally came forth out from Gods Mouth.

God purposed in Himself…
To send His Word, in a Body, God Prepared in the likeness AS a man, Gave that Body a Name, Gave that Body an express place to be Revealed (born), (Judea), Gave that Body certified (by mans law) LEGALLY named surrogate Parents of the LEGAL (Gods Law and mans Law) linage of King David, and LEGAL citizenship (Nazareth / Nazarene) of such Chosen surrogate Parents Abode.

Sent TO Earth, To “Accomplish” Teaching, Preaching, (to Lost Jews), and ANY other, Jew or Gentile, Willing TO Hear His Teaching.

To “Accomplish” HIS Prepared Body, of Flesh and Blood…being Given Unto Death…
For a sacrifice OF the long-standing Jewish Tradition of a Sacrificial Lambs Death For Passover Remembrance of Gods Works …
(Liberty from Bondage)
AND… the Blood For Remembrance of Gods offering …(of Forgiveness.)

John 8:
[23] And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Gen 3:
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Humans are From out of their Habitat…Earth.
The Earth…AND Humans have the SAME Minerals and Nutrients.

The Earths…Minerals and Nutrients continue to “resupply” Humans with “Minerals and Nutrients”, that “sustains” a Humans Natural LIFE (Blood).

One Part of Spiritual Life of man, IS Given a man, at his Birth… Called A Soul. It’s Life is Gods Breath.
It gives the mans BODY… an activation (of sorts, in simply language)… the MEANS to communicate.

The Natural spirit of man, is the Truth in his Heart. Individual men…
Hear, ponder, think, (with their MINDS), weighing Logical conclusions, believe this, reject that, change their Minds… Repeat, over and over…

Their Hearts thoughts…hear, learn, listen, review, and land on a Truth…that is NOT shaken “by mindful Logic”…

When such TRUTH, is regarding their “Creator and Maker”… their “god”… whatever to them, it IS…
That IS their Natural Spirit ( ie their True Truth in their Heart.

Whatever “god” they profess in Truth…
God Almighty IS Just, Faithful, True…
And Shall Give (by His Power, to Every manKIND of Being…
his OWN desire be Kept unto that man.)
* With or Without… God Almighty… men shall have God Almighty secure their Heartful spirits Beliefs.

The Whole of God…
Is His Body, Soul, Spirit.
He is the Creator AND Maker.
Without Beginning or Ending.

The Whole of manKIND…
Is his body, soul, spirit.
He is the Created and Made Being…
With a beginning and natural Ending.
Some shall be risen up, MADE to experience a NEW eternal Beginning, with No Ending.

God, is Not the Created.
Not his Body, Soul, Spirit, Word, Power….
He IS a Spirit and Has Spirits (He Gives to men, As a part of an ongoing process … of MAKING his Creations new Creatures “IN His Likeness”.).

No… Jesus is NOT a human, Created or Made out of The Earth.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

1. Category Error: Creation vs. Incarnation
Adam’s creation and Jesus’ birth belong to different categories.

• Adam was created.
• Jesus was born.

Scripture explicitly says Jesus is “born of a woman” (Galatians 4:4) and “seed of David according to the flesh” (Romans 1:3).
Appealing to Adam’s creation does not address this and does not resolve the contradiction in your position.

Adam was “Created AND Made”
Adam was “Created / Formed / …
Formed by the hand of God “from out of the Earth.”
Adam was “Made” Alive…
Made Alive “by receiving a Soul with Gods breath of Life”.

He, God sent forth His Word from out of His Mouth.
Gods Word Was Not “Created”…
Gods Word Was “SENT”…
Gods Word Was “MADE”…in the likeness “AS” a Man.
Gods Word Was Instructed to man…
“To be Called, By the Name JESUS.”

I have spoken in “my words”…
You had opportunity to look up in Scripture, To See, If Scripture Verifies, what I said.

* You didn’t.
* You neither said you looked, but couldn’t Find Any Verifying Scriptures.
* You neither ASKED me to show you in Scripture.

* You did respond with “Your” accusatory words… and Thus was satisfied “you stand correct”.

Gods Word is IN God, Came forth out from God, yet Remains IN God.
Gods Word has, Like God Himself, no Beginning.
Gods Word, coming forth out of His Mouth…
Is A Revealing of His TRUTH.

Who SEES, the Effect of Gods Word, His TRUTH, coming Forth out of His Mouth?

In the Beginning… it Was Angel-KIND of Beings.
After Adam was “Created and Made”…
It was man-KIND of beings.
After Adam and Eve, pro-CREATED, from Adams SEED Offsprings…

* God “formed” their offspring Body’s…(in secret)
* According to the Flesh of manKIND…
(9 months)… an offspring, created in secret (unseen)… was Delivered forth (from secrecy)… and SEEN, by Adam and Eve…called by the Term…Born.

* God “made” them to be Alive with His Gift of a “soul with His breath of Life”.

According to the flesh… IS Not Copulation, (engaging in Sex…fertilizing an Egg)
According to the flesh…IS the Period of Time the (unseen potential offspring is IN the Females womb).

Humans, is a 9 month period of time. Rendering, 9 months of expectation and preparation time.

Animals, have differing periods of expectation and preparation time, according to “their flesh”…
Goat- 5 months
Horse- 11 months
Squirrel- 5 weeks

If you do not understand “words /terms”…
Understanding the Big Picture will be a problem for you.

AS does NOT mean IS.
CREATE does NOT mean MADE.
AND is a conjunction expecting additional important information.

If you Simply accuse, rather than VERIFY, you will also have a problem landing on the “Spiritual Understanding of Gods Truth superseding Mans Carnal Minded Truths”.

If you can NOT find Verification for what I say…
Copy precisely “A” comment I said and ASK for Scriptural Verification, that you looked for and could not find.

Not my “Requirement” to Look up every Verifying Scripture For You.

Glory to God…Creator AND Maker.


Taken

 

[Wrangler]

1. Category Error: Creation vs. Incarnation

Seems to me that you are arguing just to be argumentative.

You are using private definitions for:

• “born”
• “seed”
• “flesh”
• “made”
• “according to the flesh”

Your definitions do not match:

• normal language,
• scriptural usage,
• Christian theology, or
• biological categories.

Seems that you are projecting what you, yourself, are guilty of. Just what is your basic objection to the thread's OP of Jesus having brothers and Mary having children after her first born son? The text is not specific enough?

You deny having an agenda but obviously you do. What theological significance do you put on this topic? Honestly, the obsession some people have with a married, 1st century, Jewish, teenager's sex life seems blatantly IDOLATROUS.