MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

Marymog said:

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

Click to expand...

Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:10. Please show me a scripture that attributes James to another mother than Mary.

Jon Mathews said:

Mark 16:1 and Luke 24:10. Please show me a scripture that attributes James to another mother than Mary.

Click to expand...

Hi JM,

Sure....I love bible study.

James is 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".

Salome is a disciple who, like Mary Magdalene, also witnessed the crucifixion (Mark 15:40). "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 of 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. The parallel passage on the crucifixion in Matthew 27:56 conveys she is the mother of the apostles James and John and thus the wife of Zebedee.

Bible study Mary

BreadOfLife said:

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 . . .

Click to expand...

error Grace is not faith, you need to get off what ever you're on.
Acts 6:5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch".

Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
G4102 πίστις pistis (piy'-stis) n.
1. a trust.
2. a firm persuasion, a confidence.
3. (especially) a reliance upon Jesus for salvation.
4. (abstractly) constancy in such reliance.
5. (by extension) the trust in Jesus and the resulting conduct and attitudes of abiding in the Truth Himself.
[from G3982]
KJV: assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity
Root(s): G3982

now as for the translation, "Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28" here is a good topic on this, Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28 | CARM.org

please note this section. The Bible and "full of grace"

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case, it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations, now read that section.

************************************************
now my comments, Acts 6:5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch"

How come he's not FULL of "GRACE" here? here is the link to Bible hub and get all translation.
Acts 6:5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, as well as Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

Faith is viewed as that way by which God's gracious gift of salvation is received — through our faith — the way water flows through a pipe. ... God does not — and cannot — change, and his grace is completely reliable. God's gifts — and salvation by grace means that salvation is God's free gift — are never taken back.

so our Brother Stephen was full of Faith by way the the free gift of Grace came so the KJV is correct in saying full of Faith, because Stephen is a sinner just like us. case closed.

PICJAG.

101G said:

error Grace is not faith, you need to get off what ever you're on.
Acts 6:5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch".

Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles among the people.
G4102 πίστις pistis (piy'-stis) n.
1. a trust.
2. a firm persuasion, a confidence.
3. (especially) a reliance upon Jesus for salvation.
4. (abstractly) constancy in such reliance.
5. (by extension) the trust in Jesus and the resulting conduct and attitudes of abiding in the Truth Himself.
[from G3982]
KJV: assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity
Root(s): G3982

now as for the translation, "Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28" here is a good topic on this, Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28 | CARM.org

please note this section. The Bible and "full of grace"

The phrase "full of grace" in Greek is "plaras karitos," and it occurs in only two places in the New Testament; neither one is in reference to Mary.

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only-begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth," (John 1:14).
"And Stephen, full of grace and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people," (Acts 6:8).
The first citation refers to Jesus who is obviously full of grace. Jesus is God in flesh, the crucified and risen Lord, who cleanses us from our sins. In the second citation, it is Stephen who is full of grace. We can certainly affirm that Jesus was conceived without sin and remained sinless, but can we conclude this about Stephen as well? Certainly not. The phrase "full of grace" does not necessitate sinlessness by virtue of its use. In Stephen's case, it signifies that he was "full of the Spirit and of wisdom," along with faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:3, 5). But Stephen was a sinner. Nevertheless, where does the phrase "full of grace" come from regarding Mary?

The Latin Vulgate and other translations, now read that section.

************************************************
now my comments, Acts 6:5 "And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch"

How come he's not FULL of "GRACE" here? here is the link to Bible hub and get all translation.
Acts 6:5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, as well as Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism.

Faith is viewed as that way by which God's gracious gift of salvation is received — through our faith — the way water flows through a pipe. ... God does not — and cannot — change, and his grace is completely reliable. God's gifts — and salvation by grace means that salvation is God's free gift — are never taken back.

so our Brother Stephen was full of Faith by way the the free gift of Grace came so the KJV is correct in saying full of Faith, because Stephen is a sinner just like us. case closed.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Listen - Einstein - Acts was written in GREEK, not English.
You're looking at a TRANSLATION. You need to go to the original Koine Greek to see what was written.

The word used in Acts 6:8 to describe Stephen was not "Faith". It was χάριτος (Charitos) which means "GRACE". The Greek word for "faith" is πίστις (pistis). You are WAAAYYYYY out of your league on this one, sparky.

The word used to describe Mary is "Kecharitomene", which, as I educated you before means, Completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace. It is a "completed act" with a "permanent result".

I suggest you look at a Greek Concordance and look up that verse - and stop embarrassing yourself.
This is pathetic . . .

BreadOfLife said:

Listen - Einstein - Acts was written in GREEK, not English.
You're looking at a TRANSLATION. You need to go to the original Koine Greek to see what was written.

The word used in Acts 6:8 to describe Stephen was not "Faith". It was χάριτος (Charitos) which means "GRACE". The Greek word for "faith" is πίστις (pistis). You are WAAAYYYYY out of your league on this one, sparky.

The word used to describe Mary is "Kecharitomene", which, as I educated you before means, Completely, perfectly, and enduringly endowed with grace. It is a "completed act" with a "permanent result".

I suggest you look at a Greek Concordance and look up that verse - and stop embarrassing yourself.
This is pathetic . . .

Click to expand...

Look inspector clouseau, if you think a man or woman is born sinless, go ahead, but as said, don't burn your bread over it. we have look at all of the dictionaries, and translation.

if our brother was full of Faith in Acts 6:5 then he's full of Faith in Acts 6:8 ...

did you read the link we gave? guess not. let's give it again, "Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28", Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28 | CARM.org

be sure to read the section on, "The Latin Vulgate and other translations".

now if you cannot accept the facts, no need to continue this argument. and if you just want to vain babble that's what facebook and tweeter is for ...



PICJAG.

Marymog said:

Hi JM,

Sure....I love bible study.

James is 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".

Salome is a disciple who, like Mary Magdalene, also witnessed the crucifixion (Mark 15:40). "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 of 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. The parallel passage on the crucifixion in Matthew 27:56 conveys she is the mother of the apostles James and John and thus the wife of Zebedee.

Bible study Mary

Click to expand...

Mark 6:3

"Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

Jesus step-brothers by His mother Mary were:
1) James
2) Joseph
3) Judas
4) Simon

Jon Mathews said:

Mark 6:3

"Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him."

Jesus step-brothers by His mother Mary were:
1) James
2) Joseph
3) Judas
4) Simon

Click to expand...

Thank you JM,

I do enjoy bible study......

Notice Jesus was called "Mary's son" and the others were not called her son's EVER, anywhere in Scripture? Sooooo your theory has one hole in it.

2nd hole in your theory: Scripture does not call them "step-brothers by His mother Mary" sooooo not sure why you are adding to Scripture something that isn't there. That is your interpretation of Scripture OR you have accepted the teachings of the men of the Reformation era (16th Century).

Beginning in the 2nd century and continuing thru today the interpretation has been they were cousins or possibly children of Joseph which would make them 'step-brothers by His earthly father'. That interpretation of the word adelphoi fits what the rest of the NT has to say on this matter. It's called context.

What makes your interpretation more valid then the men of the 2nd Century?

You failed to debunk what I wrote to you about James. Would you care to at least try?

Bible study Mary

Marymog said:

Notice Jesus was called "Mary's son" and the others were not called her son's EVER, anywhere in Scripture? Sooooo your theory has one hole in it.

Click to expand...

not trying to butt into your conversatation, but like you said, I love bible study also.
not saying that you're right or wrong, but the scripture do say so, Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS". FIRSTBORN: (of a person's child) the first to be born; the eldest.

Marymog said:

2nd hole in your theory: Scripture does not call them "step-brothers by His mother Mary" sooooo not sure why you are adding to Scripture something that isn't there. That is your interpretation of Scripture OR you have accepted the teachings of the men of the Reformation era (16th Century).

Click to expand...

correct, so go with what the bible says.but watch the contrast in these two sets of scriptures.,

Matthew 12:46 "While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

WHY did the bible change "brethren" to "brother" here in verse 50. but it gets better,

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.

what sticks out to me is why not his sister, (if of the Faith), is not stated with our sisters here with us. because they said "with us". so are they, (who was speaking not of the Faith?)h. for the the term "sister" has the same effect as "Brethern"
G79 ἀδελφή adelphe (a-d̮el-fee') n.
1. a sister.
2. (of faith) a sister in our Lord, Jesus.
[feminine of G80]
KJV: sister
Root(s): G80

but what's the kicker for me is this, the term "son".
G5207 υἱός huios (hwiy-yos') n.
1. a son.
2. (of animals) a colt, etc.
3. (broadly) a descendant.
{used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship}
[apparently a primary word]
KJV: child, foal, son

so if this was Mary child, who was born of her, then context of the scripture makes sense when they said, "the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?" who are Mary's children also.

Just something to think about.

PICJAG.

101G said:

not trying to butt into your conversatation, but like you said, I love bible study also.
not saying that you're right or wrong, but the scripture do say so, Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS". FIRSTBORN: (of a person's child) the first to be born; the eldest.

correct, so go with what the bible says.but watch the contrast in these two sets of scriptures.,

Matthew 12:46 "While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 12:48 "But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Matthew 12:49 "And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Matthew 12:50 "For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

WHY did the bible change "brethren" to "brother" here in verse 50. but it gets better,

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.

what sticks out to me is why not his sister, (if of the Faith), is not stated with our sisters here with us. because they said "with us". so are they, (who was speaking not of the Faith?)h. for the the term "sister" has the same effect as "Brethern"
G79 ἀδελφή adelphe (a-d̮el-fee') n.
1. a sister.
2. (of faith) a sister in our Lord, Jesus.
[feminine of G80]
KJV: sister
Root(s): G80

but what's the kicker for me is this, the term "son".
G5207 υἱός huios (hwiy-yos') n.
1. a son.
2. (of animals) a colt, etc.
3. (broadly) a descendant.
{used very widely of immediate, remote or figuratively, kinship}
[apparently a primary word]
KJV: child, foal, son

so if this was Mary child, who was born of her, then context of the scripture makes sense when they said, "the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon?" who are Mary's children also.

Just something to think about.

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

Thank you 101G,

All your objections have been covered extensively in this thread and in a historical Christian writing from the year 150AD so I will not beat a dead horse and go over them again.

The simple FACT is that NO ONE else in the entire NT is EVER called Mary's son/child EXCEPT Jesus. If you want to start naming certain characters in the NT as "son's of Mary" then you wouldn't be repeating the teaching of Scripture. You would only be giving your interpretation of Scripture.

So I ask you a very simple question: What makes your interpretation valid and the interpretation of the person who wrote the The Protoevangelium of James wrong? Calvin, Zwingili and Luther's interpretation of Scripture is opposite of yours. Why are the three of them wrong and you right?


Mary

Marymog said:

Thank you 101G,

All your objections have been covered extensively in this thread and in a historical Christian writing from the year 150AD so I will not beat a dead horse and go over them again.

The simple FACT is that NO ONE else in the entire NT is EVER called Mary's son/child EXCEPT Jesus. If you want to start naming certain characters in the NT as "son's of Mary" then you wouldn't be repeating the teaching of Scripture. You would only be giving your interpretation of Scripture.

So I ask you a very simple question: What makes your interpretation valid and the interpretation of the person who wrote the The Protoevangelium of James wrong? Calvin, Zwingili and Luther's interpretation of Scripture is opposite of yours. Why are the three of them wrong and you right?


Mary

Click to expand...

first thanks for the reply, second, I have no interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". as said, "don't add nor take away from the scriptures". so we know from scripture that the Lord Jesus is her "FIRST"born son, the eldest. no interpretation there just scripture.

PICJAG

101G said:

first thanks for the reply, second, I have no interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation". as said, "don't add nor take away from the scriptures". so we know from scripture that the Lord Jesus is her "FIRST"born son, the eldest. no interpretation there just scripture.

PICJAG

Click to expand...

Your welcome....

If it is not your interpretation then it is your opinion.

In ancient Jewish culture, the term “firstborn son” did not imply that other sons came later. You are applying 20th century thinking to Scripture. That is not a good theological approach when reading Scripture. I suggest you research what "first born" means.

So I ask you a very simple question: What makes your opinion valid and the opinion of the person who wrote the The Protoevangelium of James wrong? Calvin, Zwingili and Luther's opinion of Scripture is opposite of yours. Why are the three of them wrong and you right?

Mary

First thanks for the reply, second, opinions? .... a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. but we have the knowledge, or do we understand the "knowledge" of the facts?. fact, the Lord Jesus is Mary's first born, that a fact, we have scripture. so there is no need of an opinion either.

PICJAG.

Marymog said:

Thank you JM,

You failed to debunk what I wrote to you about James. Would you care to at least try?

Bible study Mary

Click to expand...

It is clear from the contextual reading of Mark 6:3 that Jesus was the son of Mary and brother to James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. The Pharisees clearly knew it, and because they saw nothing special about him, they were offended. Jesus had biological step brothers. Anyone who reads Mark 6:3 can clearly see this. There were at least 4 Mary's in Jesus' following, and 3 James'. But it's plain and clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters... the other children of his Mother Mary. I won't argue this point any further. It's too plain and obvious.

Marymog said:

One must have a understanding of the meaning of the word brother. In the original text of the gospel, we find the Greek word adelphos, meaning brothers, used. However, adelphos does not just mean blood brothers born of the same parents. Rather, adelphos was used to describe brothers not born of the same parents, like a half-brother or step-brother. The word also described other relationships like cousins, nephews, uncles, etc. For example in Genesis 13:8 and 14:14-16, the word adelphos was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men did not share a blood brother relationship, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an adelphos to Jacob, not as a brother, but as an uncle.

The theory that Jesus had brothers is a 500 year Protestant tradition

Click to expand...

No. It's not a matter of arguing about the meaning of words. It's a matter of context. The OP is right. From the context, discussion, and topic at hand in Scripture, anyone can clearly see when the Word is speaking of Jesus' siblings compared to his believers.

Marymog said:

Ummmmm I don't think I said that "Jesus didn't have siblings".

In effect I am saying that Mary had only one child; Jesus.

Click to expand...

We know that's what you're saying. And it's false. And that was his main point.

Jon Mathews said:

It is clear from the contextual reading of Mark 6:3 that Jesus was the son of Mary and brother to James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. The Pharisees clearly knew it, and because they saw nothing special about him, they were offended. Jesus had biological step brothers. Anyone who reads Mark 6:3 can clearly see this. There were at least 4 Mary's in Jesus' following, and 3 James'. But it's plain and clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters... the other children of his Mother Mary. I won't argue this point any further. It's too plain and obvious.

Click to expand...

Thank you..

It is clear and plain and obvious to other men who have read the same thing you have read that you are wrong. So ONCE AGAIN what makes your opinion valid and the opinion of the person who wrote the The Protoevangelium of James wrong? Calvin, Zwingili and Luther's opinion of Scripture is opposite of yours. Why are the three of them wrong and you right?

Mary

Jon Mathews said:

No. It's not a matter of arguing about the meaning of words. It's a matter of context. The OP is right. From the context, discussion, and topic at hand in Scripture, anyone can clearly see when the Word is speaking of Jesus' siblings compared to his believers.

Click to expand...

No, not anyone can see clearly see when the Word is speaking of Jesus' siblings compared to his believers that those siblings are His blood brothers. If was clear to see we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would not be going on for over 1,000 years.

Mary

Jon Mathews said:

We know that's what you're saying. And it's false. And that was his main point.

Click to expand...

Why is it false? Because YOU say it's false? Other men greater than you have interpreted Scripture OPPOSITE of you on this matter. Sooooo if anyone disagrees with you they have a false belief?

Marymog said:

No, not anyone can see clearly see when the Word is speaking of Jesus' siblings compared to his believers that those siblings are His blood brothers. If was clear to see we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would not be going on for over 1,000 years.

Mary

Click to expand...

MM, correct this is why we have these discussions, because men and woman want to have their way. context is very important, but what's more important is having the Holy Ghost to guide us. I'm not going off topic but for a second to show an example of what I'm saying. scropture, 1 Corinthians 14:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law".

many have said that the apostle was speaking to women in general in the church to be silence. we say, no to two things. #1. the apostle was not even speaking to women in general at all, nor any woman at all. #2. he was speaking to the HUSBAND of "wives", which confirms 1 Timothy 2:11 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

in each section of scripture, it was never directed at women general, but to wives. for as in the term "brother" or " brethren". likewise here with "woman" or "Wife". 1 Timothy 2:11 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

here in both section of scripture, "woman" is the Greek word,
G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n.
1. a woman.
2. (specially) a wife.
[probably from the base of G1096]
KJV: wife, woman
Root(s): G1096

for the context in both section reveals that these are as definition #2 states "Wife". how do we know? just read the context. in 1 Corinthians 14:34 just read the very next verse, 1 Corinthians 14:35 "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church". the only woman that have a "husband" is a married one... a wife. so the apostle was speaking about married woman. for if he used the term G2338 θήλυς thelus (thee'-lïs), that would have covered all women married and none married. see the diffrence.

in 1 Timothy 2:11 "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
here it's the same thing, G1135 γυνή gune (ǰ ï-nee') n. again how do we know? just keep reading unto verse 15, 1 Timothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety".

the only kind of "Woman" who .... suppose ... to be having children is a MARRIED one, meaning a wife. see how the context reveal the truth.

now back to the topic, 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".

here "son" set the contex that they was speaking of a "NATURAL" son, and not a spiritual brother, and the "Brothers" that followed was "NATURAL" Brothers and not spiritual brothers.

the Lord Jesus himself made a clear distiction between his natural brothers and his disciples. after the marriage in Cana of Galilee,
John 2:12 "After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

here our Lord made the distiction of "brethern" and his "Disciples". was not his disciples his "brethren" in the faith? did he not chose them? here is a clear example of the distinction.

PICJAG.

101G said:

Look inspector clouseau, if you think a man or woman is born sinless, go ahead, but as said, don't burn your bread over it. we have look at all of the dictionaries, and translation.

if our brother was full of Faith in Acts 6:5 then he's full of Faith in Acts 6:8 ...

did you read the link we gave? guess not. let's give it again, "Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28", Mary, Full of Grace, and Luke 1:28 | CARM.org

be sure to read the section on, "The Latin Vulgate and other translations".

now if you cannot accept the facts, no need to continue this argument. and if you just want to vain babble that's what facebook and tweeter is for ...

PICJAG.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the Latin Vulgate, einstein - I am talking about the original Koine Greek that the NT is written in.
The plain facts are that:
a) Acts 6:8 states that Stephen was full of GRACE (Charitos) - not faith (Pistis).
b) Mary is described as Kecharitomene, not Gratia Plena.

Learn about the original Biblical languages instead of constantly embarrassing yourself with these asinine arguments that don't make ANY sense.