Christians and marriage

there is perhaps another reason why Paul advised christians to 'Marry only in the Lord'

1Cor 7:12 If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; 13 and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to [his] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, YOUR children would really be unclean, but now they are holy

by marrying an outsider, we are in effect bringing a person into Gods family who may not deserve to be there. That sounds harsh i know, but what if the unbeliever is someone who has no respect for God? What if they deny that God exists? What if they speak negatively about God or your religion? That is something the christian will have to live with day in and day out....but not only the christian, God too will have to put up with that person because as the above scripture shows, God sanctifies themfor the sake of your children

To understand the implications, Imagine if your son or daughter chose to marry a person who is your enemy...and imagine that new family member continually harassing you or speaking badly to you or about you and you have to put up with it for the sake of your grandchildren. It would be a very difficult situation to be in and in some way that is the position we put God in if we marry a non believer.

Pegg said:

there is perhaps another reason why Paul advised christians to 'Marry only in the Lord'

1Cor 7:12 If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; 13 and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to [his] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, YOUR children would really be unclean, but now they are holy

by marrying an outsider, we are in effect bringing a person into Gods family who may not deserve to be there. That sounds harsh i know, but what if the unbeliever is someone who has no respect for God? What if they deny that God exists? What if they speak negatively about God or your religion? That is something the christian will have to live with day in and day out....but not only the christian, God too will have to put up with that person because as the above scripture shows, God sanctifies themfor the sake of your children

To understand the implications, Imagine if your son or daughter chose to marry a person who is your enemy...and imagine that new family member continually harassing you or speaking badly to you or about you and you have to put up with it for the sake of your grandchildren. It would be a very difficult situation to be in and in some way that is the position we put God in if we marry a non believer.

Click to expand...

You see what some foolish Christians today who believes there is nothing wrong with a Christian going outside the Church and marrying an unbeliever is this; those outside the Church were all pagans.....they all worship and offer sacrifices to some pagan god or gods. There were only two sets of people......those who believe in the true God and those who believe in false gods. So a Christians going outside the Church to seek a mate would be doing what Paul warned about in 2 Corinthians 6:14.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 (ESV)
[sup]14 [/sup]Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
[sup]15 [/sup]What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever?

Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 mention about taking a believing wife.

1 Corinthians 9:5 (KJV)
[sup]5 [/sup]Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Why would he use the word believing wife if a Christian can marry outside the Church? He could have just said a wife if it did not matter if it was ok to marry outside the Church.
There were no secular people like we have today and they expressed their belief in their god or the true God in every aspect of their life....work, home and were ever they go and everything that they do. So a Christian back then would automatically know that they should not and would not seek a relationship for a mate outside the Church. But some today try to walk the fence......they want to have one foot in the Church and the other in the world. But God has a solution for that........it’s called the great tribulation. And He is telling us even today to come out from those in the world.

Revelation 18:4 (ESV)
[sup]4 [/sup]Then I heard another voice from heaven saying, "Come out of her, my people, lest you take part in her sins, lest you share in her plagues;
There would be no need for God to say that if some are not doing what they should not be doing.

Pegg said:

there is perhaps another reason why Paul advised christians to 'Marry only in the Lord'

1Cor 7:12 If any brother has an unbelieving wife, and yet she is agreeable to dwelling with him, let him not leave her; 13 and a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and yet he is agreeable to dwelling with her, let her not leave her husband. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in relation to [his] wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in relation to the brother; otherwise, YOUR children would really be unclean, but now they are holy

by marrying an outsider, we are in effect bringing a person into Gods family who may not deserve to be there. That sounds harsh i know, but what if the unbeliever is someone who has no respect for God? What if they deny that God exists? What if they speak negatively about God or your religion? That is something the christian will have to live with day in and day out....but not only the christian, God too will have to put up with that person because as the above scripture shows, God sanctifies themfor the sake of your children

To understand the implications, Imagine if your son or daughter chose to marry a person who is your enemy...and imagine that new family member continually harassing you or speaking badly to you or about you and you have to put up with it for the sake of your grandchildren. It would be a very difficult situation to be in and in some way that is the position we put God in if we marry a non believer.

Click to expand...

Hello Pegg. You are very wise. We are indeed called into God's family, which is why Christ sent His Apostles into the world. True love always involves suffering. Jesus suffered because He truly loved us. And we are called to be like Him. We were the enemies as our sins killed Christ on the cross; yet, He voluntarily gave up His life because of His love for us. There is so much power in love because God is love. A person marries not because the other person is non-Christian. They are able to look beyond that just as Christ looked beyond our sinful behavior and our pagan beliefs. He saw us worthy to be saved despite the many sins we committed. He saw us worthy to be saved despite that we were the Gentiles. God is not just a Christian God. He is the God of all mankind. God calls everyone to Him (Romans 9:24).

Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.

As disciples of Christ, we are called to spread the good news to the non-Christians so that they would also come to know Christ. However, the spreading of the good news should always start in our own family first. If there are any members in our family who are non-Christians through relation or through marriage, they can come to know God and be sanctified by Him through the believing members. After all, Christ went to the House of Israel first and then sent His Apostles into the world of the Gentiles so that they could come into God's family.

Selene said:

Romans 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also.

As disciples of Christ, we are called to spread the good news to the non-Christians so that they would also come to know Christ. However, the spreading of the good news should always start in our own family first. If there are any members in our family who are non-Christians through relation or through marriage, they can come to know God and be sanctified by Him through the believing members. After all, Christ went to the House of Israel first and then sent His Apostles into the world of the Gentiles so that they could come into God's family.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that in the case of Jesus none of His biological sisters and only one of His biological brothers after He ascended believed in Him.

Buzzfruit said:

It is interesting that in the case of Jesus none of His biological sisters and only one of His biological brothers after He ascended believed in Him.

Click to expand...

And where does it say that in the Bible?

Selene said:

And where does it say that in the Bible?

Click to expand...

John 7:1-8 (KJV)
[sup]1 [/sup]After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
[sup]2 [/sup]Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
[sup]3 [/sup]His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
[sup]4 [/sup]For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
[sup]5 [/sup]For neither did his brethren believe in him.
[sup]6 [/sup]Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
[sup]7 [/sup]The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
[sup]8 [/sup]Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.


The Lord's brother became one of the apostles

Galatians 1:19 (ASV)
[sup]19 [/sup]But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


Now, according to what I have read some say he was one of Jesus' biological brothers others say he was a cousin. So other than him, there is no record that anyone else of Jesus' family became a believer.
Remember Jesus said a prophet has no honor among his own Country.

John 4:44 (KJV)
[sup]44 [/sup]For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

Buzzfruit said:

John 7:1-8 (KJV)
[sup]1 [/sup]After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
[sup]2 [/sup]Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand.
[sup]3 [/sup]His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
[sup]4 [/sup]For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
[sup]5 [/sup]For neither did his brethren believe in him.
[sup]6 [/sup]Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
[sup]7 [/sup]The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
[sup]8 [/sup]Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.




The Lord's brother became one of the apostles

Galatians 1:19 (ASV)
[sup]19 [/sup]But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.


Now, according to what I have read some say he was one of Jesus' biological brothers others say he was a cousin. So other than him, there is no record that anyone else of Jesus' family became a believer.
Remember Jesus said a prophet has no honor among his own Country.

John 4:44 (KJV)
[sup]44 [/sup]For Jesus himself testified, that a prophet hath no honour in his own country.

Click to expand...

HELLO???? This is what you stated:

It is interesting that in the case of Jesus none of His biological sisters and only one of His biological brothers after He ascended believed in Him.

Click to expand...

All the biblical verses you quoted occurred BEFORE He even died. Do you not know that AFTER His death and resurrection more than 500 people saw Him and believed in Him (1 Corinthians 15:6)? They believed in Him because that was AFTER His death. So, how do you know that his brothers and sisters were not counted among those 500?

And by the way, the word "brethren" does not indicate His brothers. The Greek word for Brethren is "adelphos" which also means countrymen. See the weblink below:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G80&t=KJV

Selene said:

HELLO???? This is what you stated:



All the biblical verses you quoted occurred BEFORE He even died.

Click to expand...

Including this one?

Galatians 1:19

Selene said:

Do you not know that AFTER His death and resurrection more than 500 people saw Him and believed in Him (1 Corinthians 15:6)? They believed in Him because that was AFTER His death. So, how do you know that his brothers and sisters were not counted among those 500?

Click to expand...

And you believe that all of Jesus brothers and sisters were among them?

Selene said:

And by the way, the word "brethren" does not indicate His brothers. The Greek word for Brethren is "adelphos" which also means countrymen. See the weblink below:

http://www.bluelette...rongs=G80&t=KJV

Click to expand...

It more than indicate it. It’s the first one on the list at the link you post.


Greek Word: ἀδελφός
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Pronunciation:ad-el-fos'
Root: from <G1> (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb)
Cross Reference: TDNT - 1:144,22
Part of Speech: n m
Vine's Words: Brother, Brethren, Brotherhood, Brotherly



from <G1> (a) (as a connective particle) and delphus (the womb); a brother (literal or figurative) near or remote [much like <H1> ('ab)] :- brother.
— Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

No scripture in the Bible tell us that all of Jesus' brothers and sisters believed after He rose, except possible one and some scholars don't agree that it was Jesus' brother. They are suggesting that it was one of His cousins.

treeberry said:

Prentis, I'm also married so I understand

Selene, you keep talking about all these emotional things like love but in reality love can only take you so far in a marriage...note that in scripture it is a husband who is commanded to love his wife and wives are commanded to submit and obey to their husbands. We are commanded to do these things because they are difficult. God must have known that it would be easier for wives to love their husbands first and more difficult to submit and obey.

Click to expand...

Treeberry, love is not easy at all. The Bible says that husbands must love their wives AS Christ loves the Church. How did Christ love the Church? He loved the Church by giving up His life for her. Thus, a husband must love his wife by also giving up his life for her. That is how a man is told to love his wife......to give up his entire life for her. As for the wife, the Bible says that wives must be subject to the husbands in the same way as the Lord is subject to God. And how did Christ made himself subject to God? By following God's will. And what was God's will to Christ? God's will to Christ is for Christ to give up His life for us. So, in other words, the Bible is actually telling the wife to ALLOW the man to love her.

Buzzfruit said:

Including this one?

Galatians 1:19

Click to expand...

Yes, including this one. James is not the biological brother of Jesus. Look at the two verses below:

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

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

According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was not the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus' mother was standing at the foot of the cross. Therefore, the James mentioned in Galatians was never Jesus' biological brother. The word "brethren" used in the biblical verses that YOU provided either meant countrymen, cousins, or close relatives, but not biological brother.

Selene said:

Yes, including this one. James is not the biological brother of Jesus. Look at the two verses below:

Mark 6:3
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

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

According to Mark 6:3, didn't it say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus and was also the mother of James and Joses? But Matthew 27 says that a different Mary is the mother of James and Joses. Well, we know that this Mary (mother of James and Joses) was not the mother of Jesus because it says she was looking on from afar and Jesus' mother was standing at the foot of the cross. Therefore, the James mentioned in Galatians was never Jesus' biological brother. The word "brethren" used in the biblical verses that YOU provided either meant countrymen, cousins, or close relatives, but not biological brother.

Click to expand...

I'll let Adam Clark's Commentary and Barnes' Notes on the New Testament respond to that.

Galatians 1:19

James the Lord's brother—Dr. Paley observes: There were at Jerusalem two apostles, or at least two eminent members of the Church, of the name of James. This is distinctly inferred from the Acts of the Apostles, Acts 12:2, where the historian relates the death of James, the brother of John; and yet, in Acts 15:13-21, and in Acts 21:18, he records a speech delivered by James in the assembly of the apostles and elders. In this place JAMES, the Lord 's brother, is mentioned thus to distinguish him from JAMES the brother of John. Some think there were three of this name:—
1. JAMES, our Lord's brother, or cousin, as some will have it;
2. JAMES, the son of Alphaeus; and
3. JAMES, the son of Zebedee. But the two former names belong to the same person.
— Adam Clarke's Commentary


Save James the Lord's brother. That the James here referred to was an apostle is clear. The whole construction of the sentence demands this supposition. In the list of the apostles in Matthew 10:2,3, two of this name are mentioned, James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, and James the son of Alphaeus. From the Acts of the Apostles it is clear that there were two of this name in Jerusalem. Of these, James the brother of John was slain by Herod, Acts 12:2 and the other continued to reside in Jerusalem, Acts 15:13, 21:13. This latter James was called James the Less, Mark 15:40 to distinguish him from the other James, probably because he was the younger. It is probable that this was the James referred to here, as it is evident from the Acts of the Apostles that he was a prominent man among the apostles in Jerusalem. Commentators have not been agreed as to what is meant by his being the brother of the Lord Jesus. Doddridge understands it as meaning that he was "the near kinsman" or cousin-german to Jesus; for he was, says he, the son of Alphaeus and Mary, the sister of the virgin; and if there were but two of this name, this opinion is undoubtedly correct. In the Apostolical Constitutions (see Rosenmuller) three of this name are mentioned as apostles or eminent men in Jerusalem; and hence many have supposed that one of them was the son of Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus. It is said Matthew 13:55 that the brothers of Jesus were James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas; and it is remarkable that three of the apostles bear the same names—James the son of Alphaeus, Simon Zelotes, and Judas, John 14:22. It is indeed possible, as Bloomfield remarks, that three brothers of our Lord and three of his apostles might bear the same names, and yet be different persons; but such a coincidence would be very remarkable, and not easily explained. But if it were not so, then the James here was the son of Alphaeus, and consequently a cousin of the Lord Jesus. The word brother may, according to Scripture usage, be understood as denoting a near kinsman. See Schleusner (Lex. 2) on the word αδελφος. After all, however, it is not quite certain who is intended. Some have supposed that neither of the apostles of the name of James is intended, but another James who was the son of Mary the mother of Jesus. See Koppe, in loc. But it is clear, I think, that one of the apostles is intended. Why James is particularly mentioned here is unknown. As, however, he was a prominent man in Jerusalem, Paul would naturally seek his acquaintance. It is possible that the other apostles were absent from Jerusalem during the fifteen days when he was there.
— Barnes' Notes on the New Testament

Buzzfruit said:

I'll let Adam Clark's Commentary and Barnes' Notes on the New Testament respond to that.

Click to expand...

Why? You can't respond to it yourself that you need someone to help you with it? As I said, there is no evidence showing that James is Jesus' biological brother. If he truely had a brother, Jesus would not have given His Apostle John to take care of His mother Mary. According to Hebrew custom, the oldest son is supposed to take care of the mother. And if the oldest cannot take care of the mother, then it would be the second oldest son. Jesus was Mary's oldest son, but because He was dying at the cross, He could not care for His mother. As He was dying at the cross, Jesus said to St. John, "Behold your mother." After that St. John took Mary in to take care of her. The fact that Jesus gave His mother to the Apostle John to take care of is evidence that Jesus did not have any younger brothers. In Hebrew culture, it would be an insult for Jesus to give His mother to the Apostle John to take care of if he actually had a younger brother.

Selene said:

Why? You can't respond to it yourself that you need someone to help you with it? As I said, there is no evidence showing that James is Jesus' biological brother. If he truely had a brother, Jesus would not have given His Apostle John to take care of His mother Mary. According to Hebrew custom, the oldest son is supposed to take care of the mother. And if the oldest cannot take care of the mother, then it would be the second oldest son. Jesus was Mary's oldest son, but because He was dying at the cross, He could not care for His mother. As He was dying at the cross, Jesus said to St. John, "Behold your mother." After that St. John took Mary in to take care of her. The fact that Jesus gave His mother to the Apostle John to take care of is evidence that Jesus did not have any younger brothers. In Hebrew culture, it would be an insult for Jesus to give His mother to the Apostle John to take care of if he actually had a younger brother.

Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that Jesus was an only child? Jesus did not only had one brother, He had several brothers and sisters.

Matthew 13:55-56 (Darby)
[sup]55 [/sup]Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
[sup]56 [/sup]And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this [man] all these things?

Jesus was Mary's first child

Luke 2:7 (Darby)
[sup]7 [/sup]and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Matthew 1:25 (YLT)
[sup]25 [/sup]and did not know her till she brought forth her son--the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.


The fact that in Luke 2:7 and Matthew 1:25 says that Jesus was Mary's first born son is proof that Jesus had at least one younger sibling. Matthew 13:55-56 tells us Jesus had four younger brothers. It does not tell us how many sisters He had but one could speculate that He had at least two.

Buzzfruit said:

So what you are saying is that Jesus was an only child? Jesus did not only had one brother, He had several brothers and sisters.

Click to expand...

And where is the evidence showing that He at least had one brother? Even the commentary that you provided doesn't even say for certain that James is Jesus' brother.

And all this.....just because I say that one should allow non-Christian members of one's own family to know Christ and be sanctified by Him before going outside the family.


We are indeed called into God's family, which is why Christ sent His Apostles into the world. True love always involves suffering. Jesus suffered because He truly loved us. And we are called to be like Him. We were the enemies as our sins killed Christ on the cross; yet, He voluntarily gave up His life because of His love for us. There is so much power in love because God is love. A person marries not because the other person is non-Christian. They are able to look beyond that just as Christ looked beyond our sinful behavior and our pagan beliefs. He saw us worthy to be saved despite the many sins we committed. He saw us worthy to be saved despite that we were the Gentiles. God is not just a Christian God. He is the God of all mankind. God calls everyone to Him.

Selene said:

And where is the evidence showing that He at least had one brother? Even the commentary that you provided doesn't even say for certain that James is Jesus' brother.

And all this.....just because I say that one should allow non-Christian members of one's own family to know Christ and be sanctified by Him before going outside the family.


We are indeed called into God's family, which is why Christ sent His Apostles into the world. True love always involves suffering. Jesus suffered because He truly loved us. And we are called to be like Him. We were the enemies as our sins killed Christ on the cross; yet, He voluntarily gave up His life because of His love for us. There is so much power in love because God is love. A person marries not because the other person is non-Christian. They are able to look beyond that just as Christ looked beyond our sinful behavior and our pagan beliefs. He saw us worthy to be saved despite the many sins we committed. He saw us worthy to be saved despite that we were the Gentiles. God is not just a Christian God. He is the God of all mankind. God calls everyone to Him.

Click to expand...

Go back and read post #74......I have added a few more scriptures. You will see that is what the scriptures tell us.

Buzzfruit said:

Matthew 13:55-56 (Darby)
[sup]55 [/sup]Is not this the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas?
[sup]56 [/sup]And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then has this [man] all these things?

Click to expand...

I already refuted this one back in post #71. And I even showed you the Greek word for "brethren."

Luke 2:7 (Darby)
[sup]7 [/sup]and she brought forth her first-born son, and wrapped him up in swaddling-clothes and laid him in the manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Matthew 1:25 (YLT)
[sup]25 [/sup]and did not know her till she brought forth her son--the first-born, and he called his name Jesus.

Click to expand...

Here is another thing you don't understand. You are using modern day words to mean the same thing as the Biblical words. The word "first-born" also does not mean the first child to be born among other siblings.. In Hebrew language and culture, "first-born" means the opening of the womb, and that is all. It does not mean that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23 and Exodus 13:2-12.

You claimed that Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

Anyone reading the Bible knows that when Jesus was lost in the temple and his mother and stepfather Joseph went looking for Him, there was no indication that other siblings existed. When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary". In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Selene said:

I already refuted this one back in post #71. And I even showed you the Greek word for "brethren."

Click to expand...

That is what you think.

Selene said:

Here is another thing you don't understand. You are using modern day words to mean the same thing as the Biblical words. The word "first-born" also does not mean the first child to be born among other siblings.. In Hebrew language and culture, "first-born" means the opening of the womb, and that is all. It does not mean that other children were born afterwards. This is evident from Luke 2:23 and Exodus 13:2-12.

Click to expand...

You are very mistaken.....you are using different scriptures to refute the scripture that plainly said that Jesus was Mary's first born. And you are assuming that opening of the womb means an only child. But it does not mean that. It means what it says. A women can have other children after the one that opened the womb.

Selene said:

You claimed that Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.

Anyone reading the Bible knows that when Jesus was lost in the temple and his mother and stepfather Joseph went looking for Him, there was no indication that other siblings existed. When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary". In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Click to expand...

Here is what the firstborn means in Luke 2:7 in the Greek.

Luke 2:7 (KJV)
[sup]7 [/sup]And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.




Firstborn

Greek Strong's Number: 4416

Greek Word: &pi;ρωτότοκος
Transliteration: prōtotokos
Root: from <G4413> and the alternate of <G5088>
Cross Reference: TDNT - 6:871,965
Part of Speech: adj
Vine's Words: First-begotten, Firstborn



from <G4413> (protos) and the alternate of <G5088> (tikto); first-born (usually as noun, literal or figurative) :- firstbegotten (-born).
— Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary

Buzzfruit said:

That is what you think.

Click to expand...

Actually, that is what I did.

You are very mistaken.....you are using different scriptures to refute the scripture that plainly said that Jesus was Mary's first born. And you are assuming that opening of the womb means an only child. But it does not mean that. It means what it says. A women can have other children after the one that opened the womb.

Click to expand...

I never said that she couldn't have more children. I stated "The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage." I also noticed that you had nothing to say about what I stated about the child Jesus being lost in the temple at 12 years old. When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "THE son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not "A son of Mary". Others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

I have refuted everything you have said. Here is another example showing that Jesus did not have biological brothers:


If Jesus did have brothers, this is the oddest response ever by Mary Magdalene:

John 20:16-18. Jesus said to her, Mary. She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, Rabboni! (which means Teacher). Jesus said to her,Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God. Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and she told them that He had said these things to her.

If Jesus really had brothers, then Mary Magdalene disobeyed one of His last instructions to her. Clearly she was a very close disciple and would have known whether or not Jesus actually had brothers. And furthermore, John in writing this passage acts as if Mary did exactly the right thing he does not explain why she went to the apostles rather than Christs brothers.

This passage is the clearest example that Jesus did not have brothers. He did have cousins, nephews, etc. and He had disciples that he considered His brethren.

Selene said:

Actually, that is what I did.




I never said that she couldn't have more children.

Click to expand...

I did not use the word couldn't.

Selene said:

I stated "

Click to expand...

Selene said:

The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage."

Click to expand...

There is nowhere in the Bible where the word first born means an only child. Nowhere in the Greek where the word prōtotokos means an only child.

Selene said:

I also noticed that you had nothing to say about what I stated about the child Jesus being lost in the temple at 12 years old. When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family. Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as "THE son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not "A son of Mary". Others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ "brethren." If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.

Click to expand...

So you have completely ignored what the Greek Strong's says that the word prōtotokos means and put your own meaning to it. This is one of the problems with a lot of Christians on these forums. When they can't explain or don't understand something they ignore it or twist the meaning.

&pi;ρωτότοκος - prōtotokos = first-born:- firstbegotten

There is nothing in the Greek word prōtotokos that would suggest that it means an only child. On the contrary, it tells us that Mary had at least one other child after Jesus.