MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

tzcho2 said:
WHY on earth would the Bible talk about Jesus mother having SEX??? The bible mentions Jesus had siblings in several scriptures.
And, Guess what? The bible is not about His mother.

The bible never mentions that Jesus had siblings - OR that Mary had "other children".

READ post #21 and address those points - or simply admit that you aren't equipped to do so . . .

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

101G said:
why is Mary is still called a virgin. not any more, scripture, Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS".

firstborn here is indicating another son was born unto her.

so Mary is no longer a virgin.

PICJAG.

More ignorance regarding Jewish culture . . .

The term "Firstborn" doesn't indicate that other children came later.
This term simply means, "The one who opened his mother's womb" (Exod 13:2).

READ your Bible before posting . . .

Pearl · May 9, 2019

Marymog said:
Your teaching, that you adopted from the Reformers of the Reformers, says Mary had children. Using Scripture name those children and/or show me the passage that says she had children.

Patient Mary

Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

But Mary you will not accept a word of that so why did I bother? Seems like you just like to argue.

Pearl · May 9, 2019

Can I ask @Marymog , why would Mary not have a normal marriage? What would be the RCC's thoughts behind that?

Marymog · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
Show me a passage that says she didn't.

You gave up already.....

Since none of her children are EVER named and there is NOT ONE mention of her having other children, except Jesus, then silence of Scripture is evidence.

+2 for Mary.......

zero for Pearl

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
Jesus’ brothers are mentioned in several Bible verses. Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31 say that Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see Him. The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:56). In John 7:1-10, His brothers go on to the festival while Jesus stays behind. In Acts 1:14, His brothers and mother are described as praying with the disciples. Galatians 1:19 mentions that James was Jesus’ brother. The most natural conclusion of these passages is to interpret that Jesus had actual blood half-siblings.

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph's being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?

There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.

But Mary you will not accept a word of that so why did I bother? Seems like you just like to argue.

The Use of Brothers (Adelphoi) in the New Testament

Cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
41 (12%)

Cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
47 (14%)

Cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:
256 time (74%)

Total occurrences of "Adelphos" and Adelphe":
344 (100%)

The plain fact of the matter is that the overwhelming usage of the word “Adelphos” and all its variations in the New Testament points to relationships that are NOT uterine siblings.

Marymog · May 9, 2019

marks said:
I accept the 2000 year old teaching of Scripture, and we all need to be certain that what our pastors tell us agrees with Scripture, whether they are from 1999 years ago, or 1 year ago.

Much love!
mark

I suspect you believe the Reformers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to break away from The Church and bring the truth to all Christians.

101G · May 9, 2019

marks said:
It's like the dinosaur thread. The underlying supposition is that dinos lived pre-adamic

first there is no pre-adamic at all. that's not theology, that's a error on mam's part. the scriptures are clear, 1 Corinthians 15:45 "And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit".

I believe the BIBLE.

marks said:
I'd rather take what every verse says about a topic, and reach a conclusion that takes into account everything that the Bible says about it, so far as I can find, without having to do these kinds of mental gymnastics to make it wor

Listen to scripture, 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". know this first.

and second, Colossians 2:8 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ”.

now if God said "Adam was the first man, why look for a pre-adamic man?. question is you after God or man?.

marks said:
And If I find a passage that conflicts with my view, I'll change my view before changing the passage.

this is good, be a Berea. Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now the answer to understanding the scriptures, James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
James 1:6 "But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed".

see, the bible tells us what to do in getting answers with understanding.
PICJAJ.

101G · May 9, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
More ignorance regarding Jewish culture . . .

The term "Firstborn" doesn't indicate that other children came later.
This term simply means, "The one who opened his mother's womb" (Exod 13:2).

READ your Bible before posting . . .

son do.

PICJAG

Pearl · May 9, 2019

Marymog said:
You gave up already.....

Since none of her children are EVER named and there is NOT ONE mention of her having other children, except Jesus, then silence of Scripture is evidence.

+2 for Mary.......

zero for Pearl

How do you make out I gave up? I have quoted a whole chunk of stuff which point to her having other children but you prefer to believe the RCC's false teaching so good luck with that.

101G · May 9, 2019

The "firstborn" is that which first opens the womb of its mother. first, first, to open the womb, but the term "son" that follows is certian that she had another son. if use by itself, but the term son was added to show she had other children. so that virgin status is lost, expecially when MIGHTY "JOE" penetrate her all that virginity went out the door. ... LOL.

so before you post take you dunce hat off first.

PICJAG.

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
Can I ask @Marymog , why would Mary not have a normal marriage? What would be the RCC's thoughts behind that?

Mary is the NT fulfillment of the OT type that was the Ark of the Covenant.
She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant (Jesus).

Here is a Scriptural comparison:
OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

The Old Ark was NOT to be handled by human hands - and neither is the NEW Ark.
The Old Ark was purified and blessed throughout - so is the NEW Ark.
The Old Ark carried symbols of God's power within it. The New Ark actually carried GOD within her.

In the Book of Revelation, we see the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says:
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

There is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

THAT'S why her marriage to Joseph was different.

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

101G said:
The "firstborn" is that which first opens the womb of its mother. first, first, to open the womb, but the term "son" that follows is certian that she had another son. if use by itself, but the term son was added to show she had other children. so that virgin status is lost, expecially when MIGHTY "JOE" penetrate her all that virginity went out the door. ... LOL.

so before you post take you dunce hat off first.

PICJAG.

WRONG.

It could have said Firstborn daughter.
The sex of the child does NOT imply that she had others after.

You have LOST this point because you didn't do your Bible homework.

Enoch111 · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
What would be the RCC's thoughts behind that?

Mary was to become Queen of Heaven and Co-Redemptrix with Christ.

Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology she was (a) born sinless , (b) remained a perpetual virgin, and (c) became the mother of God (rather than just the mother of Jesus).

But there is a lot more to the cult of Mary. For all intents and purposes, Christ has been substituted by Mary, who becomes the Mediatrix between men and God and Christ. They just stopped short of saying that she also died on the cross for our sins. The cult of Mary itself is conclusive proof that Roman Catholicism is false Christianity.

101G · May 9, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Mary is the NT fulfillment of the OT type that was the Ark of the Covenant.
She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant (Jesus).

Here is a Scriptural comparison:
OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house in the hill country of Judea for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mary, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

The Old Ark was NOT to be handled by human hands - and neither is the NEW Ark.
The Old Ark was purified and blessed throughout - so is the NEW Ark.
The Old Ark carried symbols of God's power within it. The New Ark actually carried GOD within her.

In the Book of Revelation, we see the New Ark of the Covenant in Heaven being spoken of at the very end of Chapter 11, verse 19: Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

The very next verse is in Chapter 12 (Rev 12:1):
A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

Verse 2 says:
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.

We know that this child is Jesus because in verse 4, we read:
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod.

There is simply NO getting around the fact that the Woman here in Revelation 12 is Mary.

THAT'S why her marriage to Joseph was different.

ERROR, Mary carried a dead man inside her. Jesus who is the ARK is alive. no woman carry life in her. only GOD. supportive scripture, Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

for the body without the spirit is "DEAD".

yes, you're right, you're a lay person.

PICJAG.

BreadOfLife · May 9, 2019

Marymog said:
You gave up already.....

Since none of her children are EVER named and there is NOT ONE mention of her having other children, except Jesus, then silence of Scripture is evidence.

+2 for Mary.......

zero for Pearl

Since Pearl refuses to look at my posts - you might want to re-post some of the info I presented because they pretty much obliterate ALL of her arguments . . .

101G · May 9, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
WRONG.

It could have said Firstborn daughter.
The sex of the child does NOT imply that she had others after.

You have LOST this point because you didn't do your Bible homework.

did you not read, "SON, first Son".

no you gave me the point.

PICJAG.

Marymog · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
Can I ask @Marymog , why would Mary not have a normal marriage? What would be the RCC's thoughts behind that?

Very good question.

Celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom finds its biblical mandate at Matthew 19:12.

Mary is considered the spouse of the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” her and was the formal cause of her virginal conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35). Mary’s unique and “supernatural maternity” through the power of the Holy Spirit precludes her from intimate union with a man. Mary is a virgin because of her “undivided gift of herself” to God.

Clearly Mary took a vow of virginity. We know this because in the verse is Luke 1:34 she said, “How shall this be, seeing I do not know man.” These words of Mary to the Angel Gabriel at the Annunciation show that Mary did not intend to have conjugal relations with a man; otherwise, Mary surely would have known that conjugal relations with Joseph, her husband, could cause a pregnancy. The Greek present tense used for Mary’s words in Luke 1:34 correspond to the Hebrew and Aramaic active participle indicating a permanent condition. Mary’s words in Aramaic were ki enneni yodaat ish, the yodaat indicating a permanent condition of virginity”

Such a situation as being a married virgin would not have been unknown among first-century Jews. In Numbers 30 we find instructions given for a woman still living in her father’s house (v. 3-5), a married woman (v. 6-8), and a widowed or divorced woman (v. 13) concerning her oath to “afflict herself.”

Thanks for asking....Mary

marks · May 9, 2019

Marymog said:
I suspect you believe the Reformers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to break away from The Church and bring the truth to all Christians.

Your suspicions of my views of the "reformers", well, what does that have to do with whether Mary had other children besides Jesus? I'm just reading the Bible.

Much love!

Marymog · May 9, 2019

Pearl said:
How do you make out I gave up? I have quoted a whole chunk of stuff which point to her having other children but you prefer to believe the RCC's false teaching so good luck with that.

Ohh.....then your answer should have been "Hey Mary...I already answered that in post #......".

Instead you obfuscated....

MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads