Brakelite
Well-Known Member
No you didn't. You showed that the etymology of the worlds used allowed for the possibility that such an interpretation may be made. My suggestion is also a possibility.
Jesus's "siblings".
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Incorrect, my evidence isn't solely etymology. Are you deliberately leaving out my other evidence?
It's not possible, because in my Were they Jesus's siblings? thread I've shown Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas).
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
which is exactly what I said.
You can't win an argument when the opposite position is just as possible as your own.
In an effort to see you try and support your position, I challenged you to answer the questions under each section of verses in the opening post here, and you refused. And, that position isn't possible, because in my Were they Jesus's siblings? thread I've shown Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas). My evidence for this isn't solely etymology as @Brakelite falsely claimed.
That's a lie. Not once, in any of the books of the New Testament, are Jesus's brothers Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 called the sons and daughters of Mary of Joseph, nor Mary of Joseph called their mother. And, according to you: "If it’s not clearly stated in the Bible, then it isn’t true."
We agree that the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19 were the same person. However, In Gal. 1:18, Paul is referring to the apostle Peter, and indicating James is one of the twelve apostles in v. 19, and only two were named "James": James of Zebedee and James of Alphaeus. How could either of those Jameses been Jesus's sibling? That's just one of the questions in the opening post you refuse to answer. I can and have answered it though, and the answer is neither were Jesus's sibling, because the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 is apostle James of Alphaeus, the son of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus, and thus Jesus's cousin.
The Koine Greek word used in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19, etc., is "ἀδελφός" (sing. ἀδελφός adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), translated to "brother" in English, and it has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "a near kinsman, or relative". The definition "a near kinsman, or relative" applies in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and Gal. 1:19, and a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc. I've shown here why the type of kinsman/relative that applies to James is cousin not sibling.
The question whether Mary remained a virgin her whole life appears to be answered here:
Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The marital relationship between Joseph and Mary here indicates that they did consummate (have sexual intercourse) their marriage after the birth of Christ. That would mean Jesus would undoubtedly have had half siblings through Mary.
Matthew 1:24-25 (KJV) Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The marital relationship between Joseph and Mary here indicates that they did consummate (have sexual intercourse) their marriage after the birth of Christ. That would mean Jesus would undoubtedly have had half siblings through Mary.
Whenever the Koine Greek word "ἕως" (heōs), translated to "until" in English, is used in Scripture, it's not always used to indicate what didn't happen until a certain point started to happen after that point. In some cases, it's used to refer to something that didn't happen during a certain period, like in the case of Matt. 1:25.
"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife. And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."
In Matt. 1:20-24, the author is speaking about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, the author reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph, whom he had just said accepted Mary as his wife, didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not that Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the world...
Your argument that the author concluded speaking about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his wife Mary, the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit, by ending with this tidbit: "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph finally got to have sex", is quite random, and doesn't fit with the context of Matt. 1:20-24.
Additionally, the word "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos), translated to "firstborn" in English, has more than one definition.
Last edited:
After the birth of Jesus it would be foolish to suggest there was no conjugal relationship between Joseph and Mary. And even though "firstborn" is not found is some manuscripts, the fact remains, this passage from Scripture indicates a normal marital relationship commenced between J&M after the birth of Christ, only before His birth did Mary remain chaste.
Your so-called refutation above doesn't refute anything I said. It is only your OPINION without biblical prooftexts. While I agree with the opinion that the statement dispels any belief that Joseph was the father, that does not prove that J&M did not have a normal marital relationship after the birth of Christ.
So let me repeat once again for those reading: After the birth of Jesus it would be foolish to suggest there was no conjugal relationship between Joseph and Mary. And even though "firstborn" is not found is some manuscripts, the fact remains, this passage from Scripture indicates a normal marital relationship commenced between J&M after the birth of Christ, only before His birth did Mary remain chaste.
I have no intention of rehashing your opinions. The topic I raised is in regards to the marital relationship between a husband and wife after the birth of Christ. Can you disprove from the Word of God that the marriage between Joseph and Mary was without sexual relationship after the birth of Christ? If you cannot biblically prove what you think, your opinion is simply that an OPINION without merit!
In Matt. 1:20-24, the author is speaking about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, the author reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph, whom he had just said accepted Mary as his wife, didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief he was conceived by him, and not born of a virgin. How does interpreting the word "until" to indicate Joseph had sex after Jesus's birth fit with the context of Matt. 1:20-24? Also, do you believe the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person?
Last edited:
Mt 1:25 - Matthew 1:25 (KJVSL) And καί knew γινώσκω her αὐτός not οὐ [till ἕως οὗ] she had brought forth τίκτω her αὐτός firstborn πρωτότοκος son υἱός: and καί he called καλέω his αὐτός name ὄνομα JESUS Ἰησοῦς.
Strong's Greek Dictionary
2193. ἕως heos (héōs)
Search for G2193 in KJVSL; in KJV.
ἕως héōs, heh'-oce - of uncertain affinity; a conjunction, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place):—even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-)til(-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while(-s).
Strong's Greek Dictionary
3757. οὗ hou (hoû)
Search for G3757 in KJVSL; in KJV.
οὗ hoû, hoo - genitive case of G3739 as adverb; at which place, i.e. where:—where(-in), whither(-soever).
Joseph did not know her intimately till after she gave birth to Jesus. With this it cannot be proven that Mary remained a virgin for life as you imagine. Repeating yourself again and again does not change that. This proves only that Mary gave birth to a Son without having engaged in sexual intercourse with Joseph before Christ was born. And after Christ' birth once more it is foolish to imagine that Mary remained a virgin that Joseph would never KNOW intimately.
I understand how you think the word "until" is being used in Matt.1:25. Now you have to explain how using the word "until" to state Joseph and Mary had sexual intercourse after Jesus's birth dispels any belief Jesus was conceived by Joseph, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, nor born of a virgin.
In Matt. 1:20-24, the author is speaking about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, and Joseph accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. In Matt. 1:25, the author reiterates and reinforces that the Savior was truly begotten by the Holy Spirit, and born of the Virgin Mary, by stating that Joseph, whom he had just said accepted Mary as his wife, didn't have sexual intercourse with Her prior to Jesus's birth, to dispel the belief he was conceived by him, and not born of a virgin. The author's entire focal point is on the messianic prophecy, not that Joseph finally got to have sex after the Savior was born unto the world...
Also, do you believe the James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person? This is the third time I've had to ask. Is there a problem?
Last edited:
Since Joseph did not have sexual intercourse with Mary before Christ was born, proving a virgin gave birth, how do you prove it does not also mean after Jesus's birth he did? You have no biblical authority to back up your assumption for perpetual virginity of Mary. Your OPINIONS UNPROVEN don't cut it! You're simply guessing about the authors intent based on bringing your preconceived opinions into the passage. Because you cannot prove their marriage was anything less than a normal relationship that all married people have after Christ was born.
P.S. I'm finished with this discussion with you! It's proving to be an exercise in futility!
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
Jesus's brothers speaking in Jn. 7:3-4 were two of His four cousins, Joseph and Simon of Alphaeus, who at that time were unbelievers, though they later came to believe. (The Poem of the Man-God: Vol. IV, ch. 476, pp. 249-253)
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
Doesn't say cousin hoss.
His brothers knew He had disciples there and that they the twelve saw His works. They wanted Him to go other disciples of His in Judah.
John 7
3 So Jesus’ brothers said to Him, “Leave here and go to Judea, so that Your disciples there may see the works You are doing.
And that happened well after Jesus had chosen twelve who He named them "apostles"
Luke 6
13 When daylight came, he summoned his disciples, and he chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother; James and John; Philip and Bartholomew; 15 Matthew and Thomas; James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called the Zealot; 16 Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.
Last edited:
It doesn't say siblings either. Since when do only Koine Greek words that have the specific familial definition "cousin" have to be used to refer to a cousin, and not also words that have the broader familial definition "kinsman, or relative", which can and have been used to refer to various types of kin, including cousins?
BeyondET
Well-Known Member
When did you start believing in catholic doctrine?
Because of that, you have to twist the Koine Greek words to fit in your English belief of perpetual virginity.
Similar threads
