A heretical teaching dismantled with the help of Paul the Evangelist.

[Sigma]

This thread is directed at those who claim both the following:

(i) that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings
(ii) that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person

In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle of the Twelve and a family member of Jesus. After Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter, one of the twelve apostles, in Jerusalem, he continues to say that he didn't see any of the other apostles, except James. The context of Gal. 1:18-19 is what indicates that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

The flaw in your believing that James in Gal. 1:19 was James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is that the former was one of the Twelve, which means that he had he had to have been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven false the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings using Scripture alone. If you disagree, then I challenge you to refute my evidence in this post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'd attempt to try. Note: This in and of itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: (i) that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and (ii) that he and apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus. So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?
The answer is here.​

 

[L.A.M.B.]

The word of God is in COMPLETE harmony!
It is only confused by man's or our own private interpretations!
It must be rightly divided in context by content.
However all else outside of the doctrines of God and of Christ are historical or prophetic .
If it isn't doctrinal, does it matter? NO
I do not care what label ppl put on themselves whether by affiliation or denominal doctrine.
We must live by the standards set forth in God's word.

 

[Sigma]

The word of God is in COMPLETE harmony!

True, it's your interpretation on this topic that isn't in harmony with it.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

True, it's your interpretation on this topic that isn't in harmony with it.

It's not doctrinal.
The fact your affiliation states Mary was a perpetual virgin is irrelevant to salvation or how to walk in the word.
How many threads on this now, how many rebukes by the scriptures?
You are going to believe what you have been taught regardless of what the word says in opposition.
Therefore, I'm done with seeing Catholic indoctrination.

Bye:

 

[Sigma]

...how many rebukes by the scriptures?

​

None, because the Truth of this matter is in harmony with the scriptures, but rather it's your and other's interpretations that isn't.

 

[Deborah_]

In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus.
This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles,
he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James...").
The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was also one of the twelve apostles.

There's just one flaw in your argument. In the New Testament, the title "apostle" is not restricted to the Twelve. See Romans 16, for example, where Paul describes Andronicus and Junia as apostles; or Acts 14:14, where Luke describes both Paul and Barnabas as apostles. Not forgetting Paul himself!

 

[Sigma]

There's just one flaw in your argument. In the New Testament, the title "apostle" is not restricted to the Twelve. See Romans 16, for example, where Paul describes Andronicus and Junia as apostles; or Acts 14:14, where Luke describes both Paul and Barnabas as apostles. Not forgetting Paul himself!

The existence of other people called "apostles" doesn't change the fact that in Gal. 1:18–19, it's specifically Peter and James of the Twelve whom Paul mentions. Therefore, the flaw lies in the argument that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and that James and the apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, because it means that he could've only been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary. Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone.

 

[face2face]

This thread is directed at those who claim the following:

(i) that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt: 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and
(ii) that James in Matt: 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person

In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus.
This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles,
he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James...").
The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles.
It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have been either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

However, you are still right about two things: that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's family member, and that he and
apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, was either apostle James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus.
So, what type of family member would either apostle James of Zebedee, or apostle James of Alphaeus, have been to Jesus?

The answer is here, and in short, there I've shown that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, James in Gal. 1:19, and the apostle James of Alphaeus, etc., were the same person, and that he and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (who I've also shown was the apostle Judas of Alphaeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousins. And, they were called Jesus's "ἀδελφοί" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, and because the information I provided in the previously cited link shows they were His family, specifically cousins, that's why its definition "a near kinsman, or relative", which can and has been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousin, applies.​

You're wasting your time and energies for even if this were true (which it isnt), you have hundreds of false doctrines to manipulate the text to prove.

The list is on page 1 The Man of Sin identified

Maybe start at the top and work your way through the years...I expect a lot of new threads coming CB's way.

These are the years your RCC body designed and formulated abhorrent teachings concerning Mary.

Year 250
Year 431
Year 600
Year 819
Year 1291
Year 1858
Year 1917
Year 1931
Year 1950
Year 1954

You are without excuse!

F2F

 

[Sigma]

You're wasting your time and energies for even if this were true (which it isnt)...

Don't stop at claiming it isn't true. Try and show its not. Or, do you refuse?

 

[face2face]

Then try and show the opening post isn't true. Or, do you refuse?

There is no need, everyone in this forum knows Mary had other children - what motivates you to suggest otherwise?

Have you ever thought why the RCC designed this belief 500 plus years after the true Gospel had been delivered?

And such is the heretical nature of this doctrine, that some took it beyond ridiculous, by saying Mary was a virgin even during childbirth as well as stating that Mary did not have pain during childbirth.

Your fixation on Mariology has it's roots in ANE worshiping of mother and child which has you firmly placed as an idolater.

F2F

 

[Cassandra]

Same song 3rd verse, a little bit louder and a little bit worse.

 

[Sigma]

There is no need, everyone in this forum knows Mary had other children...

Lol, "knows" while turning a blind eye to the fact that two of those "siblings" of Jesus were the apostles James and Judas of Alphaeus. Also, if you challenged someone to defend their claim, would you let anyone, especially a Catholic, get away with a lazy reply like the one you just gave?

 

[face2face]

Lol, "knows" while turning a blind eye to the fact that two of those "siblings" of Jesus were the apostles James and Judas of Alphaeus. Also, if you challenged someone to defend their claim, would you let anyone, especially a Catholic, get away with a lazy reply like the one you just gave?

There is no challenge, as I said the teaching you are trying to prove was formulated hundreds of years after the fact. You have no foundation to which you can base your arguments.

Show us anywhere in the Gospel the RCC's position on Mary?

The Gospel is 100% silent on your churches dogma.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Don't stop at claiming it isn't true. Try and show its not. Or, do you refuse?

How many times do I need to say this before it sinks in...your church conjured up this teaching in its lower dark dungeons over 1500 years ago. For me to prove it from these catechisms, I would need to be a RCC member, which I am not...hence why you are here trying to prove the unproven.

Here is what you cannot prove from the Bible

1. Theotokos: Mary is the Mother of God.
2. Perpetual Virginity: Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.
3. Immaculate Conception: Mary was conceived without original sin.
4. Assumption: Mary was taken body and soul into heaven.
5. Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate: Mary plays a unique role in redemption.

All these 5 points are formulated lies told to you by your priests who in turn have been told lies by their priests.

The first (1) lie just grew larger and larger until now Mary statues are kissed so often their toes are missing.

Don't come into this forum and pretend your beliefs have their basis in the Bible because they dont - now if you belonged to an RCC forum you can bang these lies around as much as you want, none would be the wiser, literally speaking!

F2F

 

[Sigma]

There is no challenge, as I said the teaching you are trying to prove was formulated hundreds of years after the fact. You have no foundation to which you can base your arguments.

Catholic teaching has nothing to do with your beliefs that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he could've only been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone. In reply, you repeated your claim that they were Jesus's siblings, and when challenged to show how, you refused, because you are the one who lacks a foundation on which you can base your belief.

 

[face2face]

Catholic teaching has nothing to do with your belief that James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 was Jesus's sibling, and your belief that that James and
apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, who again, could've only been James of Zebedee or apostle James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus James and his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas couldn't have been Jesus's siblings. In reply, you repeated your claim they were Jesus's siblings, and when challenged to show how you refused, because you are the one who lacks a foundation to which you can base your belief.

You can copy and paste to your heart's content...you are better off as I've said to quote your RCC's catechisms.

499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man.

Forget using the Bible Sigma! Quote your institutions dogma, because the Bible is silent on the subject of Mary's relations with Joseph...if anything it alludes to them consummating their marriage after Jesus' birth. After all, God went to great lengths to ensure Mary and Joseph remained together. Do you think God gave a commend that Joseph not lay with her? If you do, please provide the verse!

F2F

 

[Sigma]

You can copy and paste to your heart's content...

I will. Here again is my latest reply to you that's currently not refuted:

"Catholic teaching has nothing to do with your beliefs that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he could've only been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone. In reply, you repeated your claim that they were Jesus's siblings, and when challenged to show how, you refused, because you are the one who lacks a foundation on which you can base your belief." (post #15)

You also refused to answer my question in post #12 as well.

 

[face2face]

I will. Here again is my latest reply to you that's currently not refuted:

"Catholic teaching has nothing to do with your belief

...it has everything to do with your belief, which is why I keep reminding you that your investigation of the Word is "confirmation bias"..meaning you will force and twist the text to prove your dogma. And as I have said earlier you have 5 core dogma's on Mary and none of them are Bible based.

F2F

 

[Sigma]

it has everything to do with your belief...

Again, as I said in post #15:

"Catholic teaching has nothing to do with your beliefs that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and that James of the four in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. The flaw in your believing James of the four "siblings" of Jesus in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person is that the latter was one of the Twelve, which means that he could've only been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone. In reply, you repeated your claim that they were Jesus's siblings, and when challenged to show how, you refused, because you are the one who lacks a foundation on which you can base your belief". If you had a sliver of conviction in your belief, you'd attempt to try."

I have yet to receive an answer from you to my question in post #12 as well.

 

[face2face]

Again, your beliefs that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings, and that James and the apostle James of the Twelve in Gal. 1:19 were the same person, means that he could've only been either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and neither of them were a son of Joseph and Mary.

Therefore, I've proven the belief that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's siblings to be false using Scripture alone, but if you continue to repeat it as true, then I'll continue to challenge you to refute the evidence to the contrary in the opening post. If you have a sliver of conviction in your belief, then you'll decide to attempt trying.

I have yet to receive an answer from you to my question in post #13 as well.

Gal 1:9 & Mark 6:3 is more than not considered to the the eldest after Jesus (by Joseph and Mary) —unfortuntely for you there is no hint anywhere in the NT that James and the others mentioned in Mark 6:3 were anything other than full brothers of Jesus.

You or I can twist it either way!

F2F