MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

marks · May 10, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
ANYBODY trying to make the case that Jesus had uterine siblings based SOLELY on the use of this word in the NT has a weak if not, non-existent case . . .

Though anyone trying to make the case that Jesus did not have siblings has a weaker case.

In the simplest straightforward reading, well, Jesus' mother and his brothers and his sisters. Unless you have something else in mind already, the normal way to read this would be as immediate family. And no one seems to have a problem when it's used other places for immediate family.

Now do they?

Much love!

PS . . . will this then be charaterized as psychotic ravings also?

BreadOfLife · May 10, 2019

marks said:
Though anyone trying to make the case that Jesus did not have siblings has a weaker case.

In the simplest straightforward reading, well, Jesus' mother and his brothers and his sisters. Unless you have something else in mind already, the normal way to read this would be as immediate family. And no one seems to have a problem when it's used other places for immediate family.

Now do they?

Much love!

PS . . . will this then be charaterized as psychotic ravings also?

Not at all.
Yours is a lucid, albeit erroneous argument. @101Gs posts are confused rants that make no sense.

One of the big problems with your position are the names of the "brethren", who are shown to be the children of ANOTHER Mary standing near the cross, who is called the "sister" (adelphe) of Mary, Jesus' Mother. This would make those "brethren" relatives of Jesus - but not siblings.

marks · May 10, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Not at all.
Yours is a lucid, albeit erroneous argument. @101Gs posts are confused rants that make no sense.

One of the big problems with your position are the names of the "brethren", who are shown to be the children of ANOTHER Mary standing near the cross, who is called the "sister" (adelphe) of Mary, Jesus' Mother. This would make those "brethren" relatives of Jesus - but not siblings.

Nice to know I get a pass on the "psycho" stuff!

That members of two families might overlap on names isn't a stretch to me, and the fact that the one family has 2 sons and the other has 4, two of which have the same name, nothing there to make me think it's not that, two families with common names.

There are two employees here with same first and last name, they are father and son. The difference is only in a second middle name.

I've recently learned that I have a distant cousin who not only shares my same first and last name, but was also born on my birthday! Go figure!

Are you sure 101G's posts don't make sense to 101G?

Much love!
Mark

Rollo Tamasi · May 10, 2019

Marymog said:
In Scripture only Jesus is called the son of Mary. Where does Scripture call any other person her son/daughter?

The earliest writings (1900 years ago) of your Christian brothers make it clear Mary did not birth any other children.

The latest writings (500 years ago) of your Christian brothers disagree with that.

I choose the writings closest to the times of the life of the Apostles since they would know better.

Mary

Is Mary your god?

Rollo Tamasi · May 10, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Not at all.
Yours is a lucid, albeit erroneous argument. @101Gs posts are confused rants that make no sense.

One of the big problems with your position are the names of the "brethren", who are shown to be the children of ANOTHER Mary standing near the cross, who is called the "sister" (adelphe) of Mary, Jesus' Mother. This would make those "brethren" relatives of Jesus - but not siblings.

Yes, we all know.
You were there.

BreadOfLife · May 10, 2019

marks said:
Nice to know I get a pass on the "psycho" stuff!

That members of two families might overlap on names isn't a stretch to me, and the fact that the one family has 2 sons and the other has 4, two of which have the same name, nothing there to make me think it's not that, two families with common names.

There are two employees here with same first and last name, they are father and son. The difference is only in a second middle name.

I've recently learned that I have a distant cousin who not only shares my same first and last name, but was also born on my birthday! Go figure!

Are you sure 101G's posts don't make sense to 101G?

Much love!
Mark

Here's the problem with that position, as I pointed out in post #21 and #176 . . .

James the "brother" (adelphos) of Jesus is said to have been the son of Alphaeus or Clopas.
The “other Mary” at the foot of the cross is described as being the mother of James and Joses. She is also described as being Mary’s (mother of Jesus) “sister” (adelphe) (John 19:25). She cannot be Mary's uterine sister because she is also named "Mary", so she must be some other relation - making her children some distant relation of Jesus.

James is elsewhere described as the son of "Alphaeus" (Matt. 10:3), which would mean this other Mary, whoever she was, was the wife of both Clopas and Alphaeus. However, Alphaeus and Clopas are the same person, since the Aramaic name for "Alphaeus" could be rendered in Greek either as "Alphaeus" or as "Clopas".

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. ANY attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

PS - I'm quite sure 101G's posts make sense to 101G - but NOBODY else . . .

BreadOfLife · May 10, 2019

Rollo Tamasi said:
Yes, we all know.
You were there.

No - I just know how to READ my Bible.
YOU should try it sometime . . .

Doug · May 11, 2019

tzcho2 said:
She must claim that, because how else can the RCC claim that Mary is the perfect sinless vessel worthy of all that praise given by the RC? she couldn't have had actual sex with her husband Joseph you know....ewwwwww!... that would make her a sinful human & contradict the false doctrine of Immaculate conception and they'd have to toss out all those statues , rosary beads & prayer cards. <idol worship>

What is the Immaculate Conception?

Question: "What is the Immaculate Conception?"

Answer: Many people mistakenly believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus Christ. Jesus’ conception was most assuredly immaculate—that is, without the stain of sin—but the Immaculate Conception does not refer to Jesus at all. "The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to Mary, Jesus’ mother. The official statement of the doctrine reads, “The blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus the Savior of Mankind, preserved free from all stain of original sin” (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 1854). Essentially, the Immaculate Conception is the belief that Mary was protected from original sin, that Mary did not have a sin nature and was, in fact, sinless."
Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary on December 8. Within Eastern Orthodoxy, December 9 is the date of the Feast of the Conception by St. Anne of the Most Holy Theotokos. (Anne is Mary’s mother, according to tradition.) The Eastern Church does not hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, although they do consider Mary “all-holy,” that is, she never committed a sin.

The Immaculate Conception is not a virgin birth. Catholics believe Mary was conceived the normal way, but God made her immune from imputed or inherited sin. For as long as she’s been in existence, Mary has been free of sin. This allowed her to be the “second Eve” to give birth to the “second Adam” (see 1 Corinthians 15:45). Overshadowed by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), Mary was a pure and holy “ark,” fit to carry the Son of God. As the ark of the Lord in Moses’ day carried the elements of the Old Covenant within it, so Mary carried the Author of the New Covenant within her.

The Roman Catholic Church bases its teaching of the Immaculate Conception on tradition along with a couple passages of Scripture. One is Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium. There, God speaks to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.” Catholics point to the fact that the conflict between the serpent and the woman is equal to the conflict between the serpent and the woman’s Offspring, and they explain this by saying the woman (Mary) must be as equally sinless as her Offspring (Christ). The other passage cited by Catholics in support of the Immaculate Conception is Luke 1:28, “The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’” The Greek word translated “highly favored” can be rendered “favored with grace”; thus, according to Catholic dogma, Mary had a superabundance of grace, rendering her sinless, and that’s why God chose her to bear His Son.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy (1 John 3:8). Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into the world.

One problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught in the Bible. Even Catholics admit that Scripture does not directly teach the Immaculate Conception. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ. Mary was undoubtedly a godly woman (Luke 1:28). Mary was surely a wonderful wife and mother. Jesus definitely loved and cherished His mother (John 19:27). But the Bible gives us no reason to believe that Mary was sinless. In fact, the Bible gives us every reason to believe that Jesus Christ is the only Person who was not “infected” by sin and never committed a sin (see Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Peter 2:22; 1 John 3:5).

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is neither biblical nor necessary. Jesus was miraculously conceived inside Mary, who was a virgin at the time. That is the biblical doctrine of the virgin birth. The Bible never hints that there was anything significant about Mary’s conception. Mary is not an exception to the Bible’s statement that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). Mary needed a Savior just like the rest of us (Luke 1:47)."

Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes

Hello
To me it is apparent Mary could not be sinless if she needed a savior
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour

101G · May 11, 2019

as said, when Joseph her husban "KNEW" had sex with her, that put an end to any and all virginity that Mary had. it's over. my wife, good as she can be is not a virgin anymore .... (smile). the same with mary. Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS". after she brought forth our Lord, then Joseph and mary got busy. motel 6 left the lights on.....

PICJAG.

Marymog · May 13, 2019

marks said:
Um . . . I think it started 2000 years ago when the Apostles told us about Jesus' family, then someone came along and wanted to make it into more. Someone who introduces doubt about the Scriptures. Someone who isn't as concerned about matching what the Bible says.

Much love!

Thanks marks.......Hope you had a great mothers day weekend.

Scripture calls Jesus and ONLY Jesus the son of Mary. Catholics have believed that, taught that and for 2,000 years stood up to heretical teachings that say otherwise. If you can show me in Scripture where ANYONE else is named as Mary's son OR daughter I will refute 2,000 years of Christian teaching, jump to your side of the isle, and donate $1,000.00 to your charity of choice. Deal?

I have never disagreed with you that Scripture tells us about Jesus family in Matthew 13:5. I and the CC agree with Scripture and Scripture calls those "family" adelphoi not blood brothers sharing the same mother. I am not comfortable twisting Scripture to fit my personal belief or the beliefs of the reformers of the reformers. Scripture doesn't support the 500 year Protestant teaching that any of those family members mentioned in Scripture are the children of Mary and when all of NT Scripture is taken in context those "brothers" that you mention can be attributed to mothers other than The Virgin Mary. They are as Scripture says: adelphoi.

Mary

Marymog · May 13, 2019

marks said:
Not debunked, you've not debunked any of my simple arguments.

And this will be my last word on this thread. Because we are going in circles.

It doesn't say they weren't and it doesn't say they were but it reads like they were so they were.

All yours.

No, it does not read like they were. You are wrong..... It says exactly what it means: Isn't his (Jesus) mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers (adelphoi) James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

Jesus and only Jesus is named as the son of Mary....no one else....the other four names can be accounted to other mothers. You choose to ignore that part sooooo it you believe it reads like they are.

I'm not going in circles here kiddo. I'm staying in a straight line and saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, that's not a circle. Here it is again: Scripture calls Jesus and only Jesus her son/child. No one else. That's not a circle....that's a straight line.

You are using a circle argument when you miss-use the word adelphoi to mean brother from the same parents when it doesn't mean that soooooo when I ask your for any other evidence from Scripture you point to the same word (brother) AND also suggest that the passage "reads like they were" as proof that Mary has other children even though the word doesn't mean "blood brother" AND those names can be attributed to other mothers.

Pointing to the same passage with different twist on it is classic circular reasoning and it is making you dizzy, confused and defensive.

My last word on this thread about it: I will continue to believe what has been taught for 2,000 years by our Christian forefathers. You can continue to believe what you have taught yourself.

Mary

Marymog · May 13, 2019

Jon Mathews said:
NOPE. Mary had other children.

Luke 8:19-20
And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd. And it was reported to Him, “Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, wishing to see You".

"His mother and his brothers" were OUTSIDE the crowd of the believers. His biological mother and brothers wanted to pull Jesus aside but He said "Whoever does the will of my Father is my mother and my brother". Eventually, Jesus' biological mother and brother ALSO became His spiritual brother (James, the pastor of the Jerusalem church).

Luke 8:19-20 is talking about his BIOLOGICAL mother and brothers, not his spiritual ones.

Hi JM,

Thanks for joining the conversation. First I have seen you or talked to you to the best of my knowledge. I love bible study.

It is written in Greek. The Greek word for brother does not only mean 'blood brother'. This "brother" could be a cousin or son of Joseph. Other Scripture passages attribute James to a different mother.

If you would, quote me one passage from Scripture that calls anyone but Jesus the son/child of Mary and I will accept your teaching.

Mary

Marymog · May 13, 2019

Rollo Tamasi said:
Is Mary your god?

I haven't heard from you in awhile......You crack me up....

BreadOfLife · May 13, 2019

Doug said:
Hello
To me it is apparent Mary could not be sinless if she needed a savior
Luke 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour

Mary absolutely needed a Savior. Her sinlessness was NOT by her own doing.
God simply applied saving grace to her before she was born.

Christ's sacrifice is ETERNAL. Rev. 13:8 tells us that He was slain BEFORE the foundations of the world.
It happened once for ALL - in our time, but God is OUTSIDE of tome and is not bound by it like we are (2 Pet. 3:8).

101G · May 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Mary absolutely needed a Savior. Her sinlessness was NOT by her own doing.
God simply applied saving grace to her before she was born.

Christ's sacrifice is ETERNAL. Rev. 13:8 tells us that He was slain BEFORE the foundations of the world.
It happened once for ALL - in our time, but God is OUTSIDE of tome and is not bound by it like we are (2 Pet. 3:8).

Man oh man, people come up with ridiculous notions. please post bible verse where is state mary was applied grace to her before she was born?
book chapter and verse please.

PICJAG.

BreadOfLife · May 13, 2019

101G said:
Man oh man, people come up with ridiculous notions. please post bible verse where is state mary was applied grace to her before she was born?
book chapter and verse please.

PICJAG.

Sure.

The Greek word is kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. So, it translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” It is used by the Angel as a title – a name.
The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, Hail, Kecharitomene.”

Jerome translated this title as “Gratia plena” (full of grace).
He could HARDLY write, “Hail, completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace, which is a perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with a PERMANENT result.”

“Full of grace” was simply the most concise way of explaining the above definition. He probably didn’t think that it would be an issue.

101G · May 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
Sure.

The Greek word is kecharitomene that Luke used in his Gospel (v.1:28), which is the perfect passive participle, indicates a completed action with permanent result. So, it translates, “completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace.” It is used by the Angel as a title – a name.
The Angel didn’t say, “Hail Mary, full of grace.” He said, Hail, Kecharitomene.”

Jerome translated this title as “Gratia plena” (full of grace).
He could HARDLY write, “Hail, completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace, which is a perfect passive participle, indicating a completed action with a PERMANENT result.”

“Full of grace” was simply the most concise way of explaining the above definition. He probably didn’t think that it would be an issue.

thank you this is the very verse we had in mind.

(Grace is God blessing us in spite of our unworthiness. Favour is the tangible evidence that a person has the approval of the Lord. This is the main difference between favour, grace, and mercy. Although favour and mercy can be used interchangeably on some occasions, mercy and grace refer to two different things).

now knowing this. Mary is no better off than any other woman. she was "highly favoured". see her blessing which is God's GRACE is after her birth just like anyone else. and because of being approved of God hence his being with her.

Luke 1:28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women".

she is blessed amoung woman, not above woman. so she a plain Mary Jane just like any other woman. only she was "favored" or approved by God. this is nothing new, a many of people was chosen by God. Mary Jane is just a link in the chain. .. that's all ...

PICJAG.

BreadOfLife · May 13, 2019

101G said:
thank you this is the very verse we had in mind.

(Grace is God blessing us in spite of our unworthiness. Favour is the tangible evidence that a person has the approval of the Lord. This is the main difference between favour, grace, and mercy. Although favour and mercy can be used interchangeably on some occasions, mercy and grace refer to two different things).

now knowing this. Mary is no better off than any other woman. she was "highly favoured". see her blessing which is God's GRACE is after her birth just like anyone else. and because of being approved of God hence his being with her.

Luke 1:28 "And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured, the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women".

she is blessed amoung woman, not above woman. so she a plain Mary Jane just like any other woman. only she was "favored" or approved by God. this is nothing new, a many of people was chosen by God. Mary Jane is just a link in the chain. .. that's all ...

PICJAG.

WRONG.

There is NO other person in ALL of Scripture - OT or NT - who is described as "Kecharitomene". Not ONE.
Stephen was "full of grace" at the time of his death (Acts 6:8) - but Mary was full of grace before, during and after the Angel's visitation.

A "completed act" with a "permanent result".
Completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace.

Try as you may - you cannot get around Kecharitomene . . .

101G · May 13, 2019

BreadOfLife said:
WRONG.

There is NO other person in ALL of Scripture - OT or NT - who is described as "Kecharitomene". Not ONE.
Stephen was "full of grace" at the time of his death (Acts 6:8) - but Mary was full of grace before, during and after the Angel's visitation.

A "completed act" with a "permanent result".
Completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace.

Try as you may - you cannot get around Kecharitomene . . .

we don't know what you're smoking, but what bible verses are you reading?, Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people". Stephen ws full of faith, and also it is GIVEN to a man after birth also. listen, Romans 12:3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
Faith is not Grace.

we suggest you get off what ever you're taking.

hey, Don’t burn your bread over this. Just go to God and ask for his wisdom so that you can get of of the ignorance that you’re in.

PICJAG

BreadOfLife · May 13, 2019

101G said:
we don't know what you're smoking, but what bible verses are you reading?, Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people". Stephen ws full of faith, and also it is GIVEN to a man after birth also. listen, Romans 12:3 "For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.
Faith is not Grace.

we suggest you get off what ever you're taking.

hey, Don’t burn your bread over this. Just go to God and ask for his wisdom so that you can get of of the ignorance that you’re in.

PICJAG

WRONG again.

YOUR problem, as usual is a complete ignorance of God's sacred Word. The word used to describe Stephen in Acts 6:8 is χάριτος (Charitos) which means "GRACE". The Greek word for "faith" is πίστις (pistis).
LEARN the original languages before posting and embarrassing yourself any further.

Once again - I don't know if you have a mouse in your pocket - but who is "We"??
I only see these idiotic arguments coming from YOU . . .

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