Does John 5:24-29 contradict the belief that one must believe in Jesus to avoid eternal death?

[Patrick1966]

You can disagree all you like, but God does not contradict himself.

I didn't say that GOD contradicts himself.

 

[Jim B]

The Bible is actually a bit ambiguous on that point, if not out-and-out self-contradictory, but very few people here are willing to concede that. The predominant narrative Jesus preached and Paul wrote about is that EVERYBODY, good and evil alike, are DEAD in the ground until the Resurrection on the Last Day. The Tribulation Martyrs are the exception, staying under God's throne in their white robes until the Resurrection. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man MAY (and I emphasize "MAY") point to a pre-Resurrection experience, as does "Today you will be with me in Paradise" and "To be absent from this body is to be present with the Lord".

But again, very few here are willing to concede that the Bible may have contradictions. There. I said it.

There are "contradictions" because of misinterpretation. If you read the Bible and remain open to what it says you fill benefit from it. If you're looking for "logical" contradictions, then you will find them and impact your faith and trust.

 

[Patrick1966]

There are "contradictions" because of misinterpretation.

Biblical contradictions arise through erroneous translations.

Are you claiming that EVERY Bible is a perfect translation?

 

[Augustin56]

How about a mistranslation? Do those exist in any English translations?

Good point! Translations from one language to another, especially from Greek and Hebrew, are usually problematic, because there are some words and phrases that do not completely translate well between languages. For example, the Commandment, "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother." The word "honor" doesn't completely transmit the original meaning. The proper understanding would be closer to (but not quite) "glorify." We don't have an English word equivalent, however, so we're kind of stuck with "honor." And there are other important examples, too. One that comes to mind is in Luke 1:28, where the angel appeared to Mary and greeted her. We translate into English some form of "highly favored" or "full of grace." The actual Greek word that was written was kecharitomene, which implies much more than that. It implies that Mary was "full of grace" not just at that moment, but from the very beginning of her existence (conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter. That means that she was without sin, since someone cannot be "full" of grace and have sin on their souls.

 

[Enoch111]

Sure, it can be interpreted that way but the verse stands out to me because it doesn't say anything about faith. It's different and peculiar for me.

Well the Bible is not a textbook. It requires spiritual understanding.

 

[Enoch111]

That means that she was without sin, since someone cannot be "full" of grace and have sin on their souls.

This is a Catholic interpretation. Since Mary acknowledged that she also needed "God my Savior", that shoots down any idea of Mary being sinless.

 

[Jim B]

Good point! Translations from one language to another, especially from Greek and Hebrew, are usually problematic, because there are some words and phrases that do not completely translate well between languages. For example, the Commandment, "Thou shalt honor thy father and mother." The word "honor" doesn't completely transmit the original meaning. The proper understanding would be closer to (but not quite) "glorify." We don't have an English word equivalent, however, so we're kind of stuck with "honor." And there are other important examples, too. One that comes to mind is in Luke 1:28, where the angel appeared to Mary and greeted her. We translate into English some form of "highly favored" or "full of grace." The actual Greek word that was written was kecharitomene, which implies much more than that. It implies that Mary was "full of grace" not just at that moment, but from the very beginning of her existence (conception) in such a manner as to be permanent thereafter. That means that she was without sin, since someone cannot be "full" of grace and have sin on their souls.

You correctly write that "translations from one language to another, especially from Greek and Hebrew, are usually problematic, because there are some words and phrases that do not completely translate well between languages" and then completely contradict yourself by assigning a specific meaning to "kecharitomene" to glorify Mary.

Again -- how often do I have to cite these verses? -- Matthew 12:46-50, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You have manufactured doctrine to glorify Mary from one Greek word! However, Jesus clearly disagrees with your doctrine, and guess whom I believe?

 

[Jim B]

Biblical contradictions arise through erroneous translations.

Are you claiming that EVERY Bible is a perfect translation?

There is no single "perfect" translation. And it is logically impossible for every Bible to be perfect, since they all differ.

 

[Wrangler]

In verse 24 Jesus says that believers have "eternal" life.

In verse 29 Jesus says those resurrected who did "good" will have life. Notice Jesus said nothing about faith or belief.

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm gleaning that believers in Jesus go straight to Heaven. Unbelievers are DEAD in the ground until their resurrection on the last day but those unbelievers that were nevertheless Godly people will remain among the living forever.

Regarding the apparent contradiction, I rely more on Roman2 than John 5:29. The way I reconcile these verses is SHALL v SHOULD.

In my career, we are required to have a QMS (Quality Management System) that is certified to comply with an industry ordained governing body. The requirements are often worded along 2 moral imperatives: SHALL and SHOULD. Should is not required but more like a recommendation. Something that is specifically required uses the word SHALL.

So, if we believe in Christ, we SHALL be saved because of our faith. But unbelievers only should be saved due to their good work but this is not guarenteed.

Hope this helps.

 

[Augustin56]

This is a Catholic interpretation. Since Mary acknowledged that she also needed "God my Savior", that shoots down any idea of Mary being sinless.

Not at all. Nothing is "shot down." Mary did, indeed, need a savior, and Jesus did save her....before she sinned!

The way it was explained in days of old was similar to this...

A young man was walking through the forest and didn't notice a quicksand pit ahead. (sin) He fell in and couldn't get out by himself. So, he yelled for help. A handsome young Prince (Jesus) rode over on his white horse, threw him a rope and pulled him out. (Saved him.)

Later that day, a beautiful young princess (Mary) was coming down along the same trail towards the same quicksand pit. But the young Prince yelled out and warned her before she fell in and, therefore, saved her. The Prince still saved her, but He did so before she fell in, not after.

 

[Augustin56]

You correctly write that "translations from one language to another, especially from Greek and Hebrew, are usually problematic, because there are some words and phrases that do not completely translate well between languages" and then completely contradict yourself by assigning a specific meaning to "kecharitomene" to glorify Mary.

Again -- how often do I have to cite these verses? -- Matthew 12:46-50, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, “Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”

You have manufactured doctrine to glorify Mary from one Greek word! However, Jesus clearly disagrees with your doctrine, and guess whom I believe?

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage.

If Mary had anticipated having children in the normal way, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Again, your personal interpretation of Scripture leaves you in error. Jesus gave His authority to teach and preach to His Church, not to each individual personally interpreting Scripture to fit their own desires, biases, and prejudices.

 

[Jim B]

Not at all. Nothing is "shot down." Mary did, indeed, need a savior, and Jesus did save her....before she sinned!

The way it was explained in days of old was similar to this...

A young man was walking through the forest and didn't notice a quicksand pit ahead. (sin) He fell in and couldn't get out by himself. So, he yelled for help. A handsome young Prince (Jesus) rode over on his white horse, threw him a rope and pulled him out. (Saved him.)

Later that day, a beautiful young princess (Mary) was coming down along the same trail towards the same quicksand pit. But the young Prince yelled out before she fell in and saved her. The Prince still saved her, but He did so before she fell in, not after.

Are you okay?

Where did you get the idea that Jesus saved His own mother? There is nothing in the Bible that gives any indication of that, so it's just another Catholic myth.

Your story is nothing but fantasy.

 

[Augustin56]

Are you okay?

Where did you get the idea that Jesus saved His own mother? There is nothing in the Bible that gives any indication of that, so it's just another Catholic myth.

Your story is nothing but fantasy.

If the first step in a journey is incorrect, then even if one follows the directions perfectly thereafer, they cannot reach their desired destination.

The notion that everything we are to believe and know is explicitly in the Bible is non-Biblical. It is a man-made doctrine. Christ founded a Church to spread His truths. He didn't write a book and tell the Apostles to go to the nearest Kinko's and make as many copies as they can, teach everyone how to read (a tiny percentage of the earth's population was literate until the last 100 years or so), and whatever they interpreted this book to mean, would be true. He never did that or implied it.

True faith is never infra-rational (below reason). It is always supra-rational (above reason). Once reason has done all it can, then faith steps in.

But we can reason, based on all we know, including Scripture, what the truth is. If the angel appread to Mary in Luke 1:28, and addressed her as kecharitomene, in the manner in which he did, then we can know that, through this term, Mary was "full of grace" from the very first moment of her conception, in such a manner to be permanent there after. Words have meaning, Jim. They may not always mean what you would like them to mean. Mary was preserved from the stain of Original sin, and throughout her life, by a special grace of God (Jesus is God, right?). It was not through her own merit, but through His.

 

[Ezra]

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm gleaning that believers in Jesus go straight to Heaven. Unbelievers are DEAD in the ground until their resurrection on the last day but those unbelievers that were nevertheless Godly people will remain among the living forever.

Romans 10:
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

[Jim B]

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s “brother” (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of Kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

Because neither Hebrew or Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)

In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.

This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.

When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage.

If Mary had anticipated having children in the normal way, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.

When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.”

Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies, older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).

Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.

Again, your personal interpretation of Scripture leaves you in error. Jesus gave His authority to teach and preach to His Church, not to each individual personally interpreting Scripture to fit their own desires, biases, and prejudices.

I can't tell you how many times I have read this (mis)interpretation. Every single Bible translation says that Jesus had brothers. Every single one!

And your Scriptural misrepresentation is obvious. Genesis 14:14, " When Abram heard that his nephew had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, three hundred eighteen of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan." Genesis 29:15, "Then Laban said to Jacob, “Because you are my kinsman, should you therefore serve me for nothing? Tell me, what shall your wages be?” Those two examples are enough; I won't waste my time correcting your every misinterpretation of Scripture.

Clearly you don't understand eisegesis: the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. That is clearly what you are doing. Choosing out of context verses and misinterpreting them to justify your foregone conclusion is pathetic.

Then you change the subject! You write "From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage." WISHFUL TNINKING!!! Since Jesus had brothers and sisters, as Scripture clearly says, she and Joseph had intercourse multiple times (and not every intercourse causes a pregnancy!).

Claiming that "A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus" is a clear denial of what Scripture says in multiple places. => Why are you denying the truth of God's word??? <=

Another lie: "When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph." More eisegesis, clearly reading into the Bible something that isn't there.

You are right about one thing (only) that you wrote... "your personal interpretation of Scripture leaves you in error. Jesus gave His authority to teach and preach to His Church, not to each individual personally (including you!) interpreting Scripture to fit your own desires, biases, and prejudices."

Why don't you and other Catholics accept what the Bible clearly says in multiple places??? Why do you have to invent this mythology about Mary? Among other things, it creates a false ideal of womanhood, a standard to which no woman can live up to. It idealizes virginity, as though intercourse is evil, even though there is no biblical basis for Mary being "ever virgin".

You might want to look into the doctrine of marianismo. It emphasizes the role of women as family- and home-centered; it encourages passivity, self-sacrifice, and chastity. It defines standards for the female gender role in Hispanic American folk cultures, and is strictly intertwined with machismo and Roman Catholicism.

Another definition: Marianismo is having a strong sense of femininity; it is characterized by virginity until marriage, submission to men, self-sacrifice, tolerance, and nurturance. This is highly associated with Hispanic cultures or Catholicism as it emulates the traits of “The Blessed Virgin Mary”. This term was first used in the 1970s to refer to norms concerning Latin American women. It is the counterpart of machismo which expects men to be muscular, aggressive, dominant, and sexually experienced.

Clearly, none of this is Biblical!!!

 

[Jim B]

If the first step in a journey is incorrect, then even if one follows the directions perfectly thereafer, they cannot reach their desired destination.

The notion that everything we are to believe and know is explicitly in the Bible is non-Biblical. It is a man-made doctrine. Christ founded a Church to spread His truths. He didn't write a book and tell the Apostles to go to the nearest Kinko's and make as many copies as they can, teach everyone how to read (a tiny percentage of the earth's population was literate until the last 100 years or so), and whatever they interpreted this book to mean, would be true. He never did that or implied it.

True faith is never infra-rational (below reason). It is always supra-rational (above reason). Once reason has done all it can, then faith steps in.

But we can reason, based on all we know, including Scripture, what the truth is. If the angel appread to Mary in Luke 1:28, and addressed her as kecharitomene, in the manner in which he did, then we can know that, through this term, Mary was "full of grace" from the very first moment of her conception, in such a manner to be permanent there after. Words have meaning, Jim. They may not always mean what you would like them to mean. Mary was preserved from the stain of Original sin, and throughout her life, by a special grace of God (Jesus is God, right?). It was not through her own merit, but through His.

Oh, now I understand! The Bible, according to you, contains only some truth. That, of course, leaves the door open for your denomination to add all kinds of doctrines and practices under the banner of truth. It's tragic at best, evil at worst.

Your example -- Mary was "full of grace" from the very first moment of her conception, in such a manner to be permanent there after -- is a perfect example. The Bible says no such thing, so it is clearly adding to God's written word. That principle, of course, leads to the question: what else can be added to God's word? Anyone can add to Scripture and claim it to be the truth BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUTH!!! JOHN 17:17, "Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth."

Words have meaning, Augustin! They rarely mean what you would like them to mean. The Bible is truth; added Catholic doctrine is not!

 

[Jim B]

Quoting various sources...

The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb") are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew.

Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brothers are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5).

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.

And regarding Mary's supposed ever-virginity... " When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife but had no marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son, and he named him Jesus." Matthew 1:24-25 This clearly implies that they had intercourse after Jesus' birth.

Romans 15:3 refers to this psalm..."I have become a stranger to my kindred,
an alien to my mother’s children.
It is zeal for your house that has consumed me;
the insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." Psalm 69:8-9

According to context, the Greek plural noun ἀδελφοί (adelphoi), from a- (‘same) and delphys (‘womb), may mean physical brothers, physical brothers and sisters, figurative brothers, or figurative brothers and sisters. It is distinct from anepsios, meaning cousin, nephew, niece, and this word is never used to describe James and the other siblings of Jesus. Aramaic, the native language of Jesus and his disciples, lacked a word for "cousin", but it had the phrase "bar dad", meaning "son of an uncle", and the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament made in the last few centuries before Christ, never translates "bar dad" or its Hebrew equivalent "ben dod" as “brother” or “sister.”

 

[Jim B]

Continuing...

There is no Bible verse that clearly states the names of all of Jesus' siblings, but we can infer from the book of Mark that He had at least six siblings: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" (Mark 6:3; see also Matthew 12:46; 13:53–58). Based on this verse, we know that Jesus had at least four brothers and the word "sisters" is plural, which indicates that He had at least two sisters, maybe more.

Beyond this mention, we know no information about any of Jesus' siblings except for James and Judas—also known as Jude. Each wrote a book of the Bible. In Jude 1:1, Jude identifies himself as the brother of James, Jesus' brother who wrote the book of James (Galatians 1:19). So, we can know with certainty that two of Jesus' siblings began to follow Him as Lord after His resurrection.

There are those who hypothesize that the Greek words adelphos ("brothers") and adelphai ("sisters") that we see mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:54–56 to describe Jesus' siblings are used to refer generally to brothers and sisters in a spiritual sense. Another theory that some cling onto is the concept of Mary being a perpetual virgin after the birth of Christ. This theory assumes that Joseph had other children from a previous marriage. Neither of these ideas have any biblical basis or support. Logically, the siblings mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:54–55 were Jesus' true siblings and Mary and Joseph's biological children.

 

[Stumpmaster]

So then what happens to those resurrected who had done good?

They get judged, but good works alone don't meet God's criteria for salvation. If they did Christ's death was unnecessary.

Heb 3:12-13 Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. (13) But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.

 

[Wrangler]

Not at all. Nothing is "shot down." Mary did, indeed, need a savior, and Jesus did save her....before she sinned!

The way it was explained in days of old was similar to this...

A young man was walking through the forest and didn't notice a quicksand pit ahead. (sin) He fell in and couldn't get out by himself. So, he yelled for help. A handsome young Prince (Jesus) rode over on his white horse, threw him a rope and pulled him out. (Saved him.)

Later that day, a beautiful young princess (Mary) was coming down along the same trail towards the same quicksand pit. But the young Prince yelled out and warned her before she fell in and, therefore, saved her. The Prince still saved her, but He did so before she fell in, not after.

That's. wicked good rationalization. Either Mary is human and sinned or she is sinless and therefore, not human.

The Bible seems to make an exception for the Son of God only. I don't know the authority of those who explained to you otherwise. So, there is that.