1. 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!

Featured MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

Discussion in 'Bible Study Forum' started by Doug, May 7, 2019.

  1. Doug

    Doug Active Member

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    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.


    Jesus had siblings, brothers and sisters. Mary had other children. Jesus had siblings, conceived by Mary and Joseph.

    Genesis 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.

    4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

    Brother in the Bible means brother.

    Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

    Paul clearly speaks of James as being the Lord's brother.

    1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

    Paul speaks of being able to to have a sister as a wife; not a sibling sister, but rather a believer. This differentiation is derived strictly from an unbiased and natural common sense consideration of the text and context. By utilizing the same common sense, it can be also determined that the brethren of the Lord are siblings rather than believers.

    1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,

    Here Paul is speaking of Sosthenes as being a brother in the sense of being a fellow believer.

    Mark 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.

    3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.

    3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren

    3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

    3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

    In this scriptural passage, is one last example of the ready distinction between family and fellow believers. If viewed honestly, it is apparant that in Mark 3:31-32 Jesus's brethren and mother is his family; in Mark 3:34-35 Jesus is speaking of those who believe.
     
  2. 101G

    101G Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,332
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    TRUE, as for believers, but Not biological brothers and sisters.

    PICJAG.
     
  3. Doug

    Doug Active Member

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hello
    So are you saying Jesus had no biological brothers or sisters?

    All references to brother or sister is speaking of them as being believers?
     
  4. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    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
     
    101G likes this.
  5. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    And why would you say Jesus didn't have siblings?

    I don't need tradition, I read it in my Bible. Yes, the word extends to others, but hey, that's my mother, and my brothers . . . pretty clear.

    Much love!

    Though of course Jesus' siblings wouldn't be actual blood relatives.
     
    Jon Mathews likes this.
  6. Davy

    Davy Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,602
    Likes Received:
    554
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Amazing how little some read their Bible, and then speak as if with authority...

    You guys haven't read this?

    Mark 6:2-4
    2 And when the sabbath day was come, He began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing Him were astonished, saying, "From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?"

    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.


    4 But Jesus said unto them, "A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house."

    KJV
     
  7. tzcho2

    tzcho2 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    858
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    She must claim that, because how else can the RCC claim that Mary is the perfect sinless vessel worthy of all that praise given by the RC? she couldn't have had actual sex with her husband Joseph you know....ewwwwww!... that would make her a sinful human & contradict the false doctrine of Immaculate conception and they'd have to toss out all those statues , rosary beads & prayer cards. <idol worship>

    What is the Immaculate Conception?

    Question: "What is the Immaculate Conception?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes
     
    Butterfly likes this.
  8. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  9. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    OK, I understand.

    But the plainest reading of the text seems pretty clear that Mary had other children.

    I read what what tzycho2 posted, is that your understanding of things? Not the refutation, of course, but does it present your view correctly?

    Much love!
     
  10. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hi,

    Scripture calls Mary a virgin. In the plainest reading of the text she had no children born of man.

    What tzycho2 posted or what he quoted?

    Mary
     
  11. 101G

    101G Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,332
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    this is exactly what I'm saying. and get this, Mary nor Joseph was his biological mother or father. Mary was only the birth mother, meaning she was only the surrogate mother to that body of FLESH.

    Joseph did not have sex with Mary until she brought forth her firstborn son:. Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
    Matthew 1:25 "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”

    PICJAG.
     
  12. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    In Scripture only Jesus is called the son of Mary. Where does Scripture call any other person her son/daughter?

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

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

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

    Mary
     
  13. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    What he quoted, the first part, where it purports to give the Catholic view.

    Virgin at Jesus' birth, but not after, or, where?

    much love!
     
  14. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Purports to give the Catholic view is a good way to put it. Not sure why people quote non-Catholic websites when giving an example of what Catholics believe. o_O

    @tzcho2 should correct that post and link to this website instead: Immaculate Conception

    Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with virginity of Mary.

    Where does Scripture call any other person besides Jesus her son/daughter?

    Mary
     
  15. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hi Mary,

    That's why I'm asking.

    Personally, I like to read about my views from those who disagree, to challenge myself in my views. But I prefer to learn of another's views from those who actually promote them.

    OK, so Immaculate Conception is not at issue regarding whether Mary had other children. I appreciate the clarification. But I likewise don't want to assume that this or that particular website gives the view of the person I'm speaking with.

    So then, considering that the Bible refers to Jesus and His mother, and brothers, and sisters in a very natural way, why would I not think that this is how I should read it?

    Much love!
     
    Butterfly likes this.
  16. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hey Marks,

    I am not sure what you mean by the Bible refers to Jesus and His mother, and brothers, and sisters in a very natural way. I suspect you mean Scripture is literal in regards to this. Well, my answer to that would be that adelphos has many different meanings so we can't take it literally. We have to look at Scripture in context in regard to this matter. If a person were to pigeon hole the word to having only one meaning then that would be dishonest and not a proper way to study or interpret Scripture. Adelphos - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

    These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). After the birth of Jesu no mention is made of Mary and Joseph ever having other children. Never does it refer to the “sons of Mary” or “a son of Mary,” but only the son of Mary.

    James and Joseph (Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus. They are the sons of Mary of Cleophas (Mark 15:40). Mary of Cleophas is described in the Gospel of John as our Blessed Mother’s “sister” (John 20:25); obviously, she must have been a cousin, and James and Joses thereby cousins of our Lord. Judas was the son of James (not either of the apostles) (Luke 6:16). James the lesser was the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:15). James the greater and John were the sons of Zebedee with a mother other than our Blessed Mother Mary (Matthew 20:20ff). After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

    The earliest explanation (1900 years ago) of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. This document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture but it may contain accurate historical traditions. I choose the 1,900 year old tradition since it fits the context of all of Scripture.

    Mary
     
  17. Pearl

    Pearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    2,560
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Mary was a young girl, a virgin when Jesus was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit. But she was a married woman and once Jesus had been born there was no reason for her to not have a normal marital relationship with Joseph and give birth to other children. Mary was not an eternal virgin. The bible refers to Jesus as her first born son inferring that there were other sons to follow in due course. Luke 2:6-7 "While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son."
     
    Butterfly and tzcho2 like this.
  18. marks

    marks Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States

    Hi Mary,

    And if we take non-biblical sources off the table?

    I'm looking at the place you mentioned in Acts,

    Acts 1
    11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
    12 Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
    13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
    14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

    "with Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

    Here is a simple statement of family relationship.

    Yes" adelphos is used for extended as well as immediate family.

    Since this is in relation to Jesus mother, why not Jesus' immediate brothers?

    "James and Joses", and "James and Joses and Judah and Simon", yes, a couple of the names are the same, but these were common names.

    I recently learned that I have a distant cousin who has my same name, and was born on my birthday. But we're not the same people.

    A family that has Mark and Chris is not necessarily the same family that has Mark and Chris and Tom and Joe.

    But just the same, if I read that Jesus and his mother and His brothers and His sisters are here, then why not take it literally?

    To say, "We can't take it literally" is to say adelphos is Never used of someone's actual immediate brother, well, how can we say that?

    I call a friend my brother, but then there is my born brother, whom I call my brother. Since I call a friend brother, and I call my brother brother, does that mean that my born brother cannot be my brother since I also use that term differently?

    But the context reveals what I'm saying.

    Much love!
    Mark
     
  19. Marymog

    Marymog Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,618
    Likes Received:
    573
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Thanks. The context does not reveal what you are saying. I already showed you that.

    Here is another example how we would be wrong if we were to of take Scripture literally: John 19:25-27. CLEARLY John was not her son. We have to look at the entire context of Scripture to determine that.

    Adelphios IS used to mean actual brother in some parts of Scripture. We have to look at the entire context of Scripture to determine that. When we look at the entire Scripture on this matter it is clear that they were not blood brothers. The Christians of the early 2nd century did not believe that. Why do you, 2000 years later?

    Why would we take "non-biblical sources" off the table when we use non-biblical sources to determine other things about Scripture? Why take it off the table in this instance? Show me your biblical source that tells you what Scripture is....;)

    Mary
     
  20. Doug

    Doug Active Member

    Messages:
    736
    Likes Received:
    130
    Faith:
    Christian
    Country:
    United States
    Hello
    I said that the use depends on common sense and context and not tradition.
     
Loading...