MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[Robert Gwin]

I have presented evidence disproving the teaching that states Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Thaddeus), were sons of [St.] Joseph and/or the Blessed Virgin Mary here.

If you cannot believe the Bible sir, who can you believe?

 

[Daniel Veler]

If you cannot believe the Bible sir, who can you believe?

You can believe God. See what’s within the scriptures. Examine all of them then conclude with the understanding from God. Not being clouded with religious teaching of your denomination.

 

[Robert Gwin]

You can believe God. See what’s within the scriptures. Examine all of them then conclude with the understanding from God. Not being clouded with religious teaching of your denomination.

Is the Bible the word of God or not Dan? You seem to indicate that it is, therefore how is it you cannot believe it when it clearly states that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Thaddeus), were sons of [St.] Joseph and/or the Blessed Virgin Mary?
(Matthew 13:55) . . .Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So let me ask you sir, if you cannot believe the Bible, who can you believe?

 

[Pearl]

What does it matter?

 

[Daniel Veler]

Is the Bible the word of God or not Dan? You seem to indicate that it is, therefore how is it you cannot believe it when it clearly states that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Thaddeus), were sons of [St.] Joseph and/or the Blessed Virgin Mary?
(Matthew 13:55) . . .Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So let me ask you sir, if you cannot believe the Bible, who can you believe?

You can believe God. Who sent his Son in the world. Where there was no male seed present to give Christ life. The other children that were born of Mary and Joseph were through human conception. It was no so with Christ. The male seed carries the blood that give life to the egg of a woman. The conception of Christ was from on high. The apostle wrote it like this. God created two Adams. The first having a living soul. The second a Quickening spirit. The children that followed Christ he was not part of them. Mary was the vessel the Father used to bring forth his Son.

 

[Robert Gwin]

According to Scripture, Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Thaddeus), were not sons of [St.] Joseph and/or the Blessed Virgin Mary. See why here.

Sorry sir, If the Bible says it, I believe it, if I cannot, on what can I base my faith?

 

[Robert Gwin]

You can believe God. Who sent his Son in the world. Where there was no male seed present to give Christ life. The other children that were born of Mary and Joseph were through human conception. It was no so with Christ. The male seed carries the blood that give life to the egg of a woman. The conception of Christ was from on high. The apostle wrote it like this. God created two Adams. The first having a living soul. The second a Quickening spirit. The children that followed Christ he was not part of them. Mary was the vessel the Father used to bring forth his Son.

I fully agree with what you said here, but what does that have to do with Jesus having brothers and sisters? Are you saying that because they did not come from the same father that they are not his siblings?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Is the Bible the word of God or not Dan? You seem to indicate that it is, therefore how is it you cannot believe it when it clearly states that Simon, Joseph, James, and Jude (Thaddeus), were sons of [St.] Joseph and/or the Blessed Virgin Mary?
(Matthew 13:55) . . .Is this not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

So let me ask you sir, if you cannot believe the Bible, who can you believe?

Because the Bible NEVER make this claim.
It NEVER states that Mary had other children.

If somebody were writing about me and MY mother - they could say:
"Is not his mother called Frances, and his cousins (Adelphoi) John, Frank and Edward?

You see - YOUR problem is that you don't understand the language in which the NT was written - or you would never have made this argument.
It has been explained - ad nauseam - that "Adelphoi(os)" is used in the NT for brother, half-brother-step-brother-cousin, uncle, nephew, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

As a matter of fact - there are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT:.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

Your case crumbles under the weight of Biblical statistics - to say NOTHING of the fact that ZERO mention is ever made about Mary having other children . . .

 

[Robert Gwin]

Because the Bible NEVER make this claim.
It NEVER states that Mary had other children.

If somebody were writing about me and MY mother - they could say:
"Is not his mother called Frances, and his cousins (Adelphoi) John, Frank and Edward?

You see - YOUR problem is that you don't understand the language in which the NT was written - or you would never have made this argument.
It has been explained - ad nauseam - that "Adelphoi(os)" is used in the NT for brother, half-brother-step-brother-cousin, uncle, nephew, fellow believer, fellow countryman, etc.

As a matter of fact - there are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT:.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

Your case crumbles under the weight of Biblical statistics - to say NOTHING of the fact that ZERO mention is ever made about Mary having other children . . .

I don't really try to disprove the Bible sir, time alone will reveal whether it is fact or fiction, but as for myself I will take it as truth.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I don't really try to disprove the Bible sir, time alone will reveal whether it is fact or fiction, but as for myself I will take it as truth.

I'm not trying to "disprove" the Bible, either.
I simply obliterated YOUR false claims about what the Bible is saying.

Tell me - what is it that you are "taking as truth" here?
The idea that the word "Adelphos" can ONLY apply to uterine siblings?
OR, the fact that you didn't know that this word has MANY uses -, as I educated you in my last post - and are therefore ONLY going by the English translation of "brothers" and "sisters"?

 

[JunChosen]

Your case crumbles under the weight of Biblical statistics - to say NOTHING of the fact that ZERO mention is ever made about Mary having other children . . .

WRONG! or ERROR! as you would say.

Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said in Luke 2:7: "And she [Mary] brought forth [gave birth] her 'firstborn' son..."

God gave this information to Luke so that there will not be any confusion. To say "firstborn" is to indicate there are other children born off Mary... hence "second born," "third born" etc.

As well as Matthew 13:55.

To God Be The Glory

 

[BreadOfLife]

WRONG! or ERROR! as you would say.

Luke under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said in Luke 2:7: "And she [Mary] brought forth [gave birth] her 'firstborn' son..."

God gave this information to Luke so that there will not be any confusion. To say "firstborn" is to indicate there are other children born off Mary... hence "second born," "third born" etc.

As well as Matthew 13:55.

To God Be The Glory

WRONG.
Your ignorance of Scripture is almost matched by your ignorance of Jewish culture . . .

The term, "Firstborn" simply means "the one who opens the womb".
Exod. 13:1-2
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

It does NOT automatically conclude that other children will follow.
Do your homework . . .

 

[JunChosen]

Your ignorance of Scripture is almost matched by your ignorance of Jewish culture . . .

I'm glad you're NOT my teacher! If I reed the Bible as you do by culture pretty soon I will run out of Scripture to read.

Why? Because I'm not a Roman so the Book of Romans does NOT pertain to me or, a Corinthian so the Books of 1&2 Corinthians does NOT apply to me likewise, I'm NOT a Ephesian so the Book of Ephesians is NOT for me because it was written for the church at Ephesus which was the culture of that day.

CULTURE???!!! lol.

It does NOT automatically conclude that other children will follow.
Do your homework . . .

HOMEWORK???!!! As far as the English language is concerned the term "firstborn" do intimate there will be other children to follow, as what a proud father would say, "he is my second born or third born" What school did you go to? lol

To God Be The Glory

 

[Robert Gwin]

I'm not trying to "disprove" the Bible, either.
I simply obliterated YOUR false claims about what the Bible is saying.

Tell me - what is it that you are "taking as truth" here?
The idea that the word "Adelphos" can ONLY apply to uterine siblings?
OR, the fact that you didn't know that this word has MANY uses -, as I educated you in my last post - and are therefore ONLY going by the English translation of "brothers" and "sisters"?

I am sorry sir, I disagree with you, I say Jesus had brothers and sisters. I guess that ends our discussion on the subject. The fact is that he did or didn't, and if I am in error on such a simple thing as to question that, where would I be in the more serious life saving information of the Bible? Best not to dig that deep into trivial things, in my opinion anyway.

 

[Gary Urban]

WRONG.
Your ignorance of Scripture is almost matched by your ignorance of Jewish culture . . .

The term, "Firstborn" simply means "the one who opens the womb".
Exod. 13:1-2
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

It does NOT automatically conclude that other children will follow.
Do your homework . . .

As in must cases two difernt kinds are used .Satan would make it all one and the same to remove the spiritual understanding hid from the lost .What God calls one Satan two or more .What God cals two he calls one .What God called inspired from heaven he turns that upside down as earthly and takes away the understanding of God .

Two different kinds of seeds as well as the use of the word mother . The goal of Catholiscim in both cases has to do with the temporal seed. They as a law of thier venerable fathers need to teach that our blessed sister in the lord is the mother of all Christianity a wile of the father of lies . Jesus said of his own flesh it profits for nothing. What alone di profit was the unsen power of our Father working with jeus strenthing him to both revel the wil of the father and empoaer the Son of man to perfom it .No power is attributed to the corrupted dying flesh of mankind .Many disciples were offened and walked away in unbelief .

The spiritual seed Christ comes after the corrupted seeds of the flesh using the second born to represent Christ as Gods first born. . the second Adam

The blessing does not come with the first fleshly birth. But the second Abel, Issac , Jacob, Manasseh. Jesus ended the need of genealogy to represent the spiritual seed Christ fulfilling the shadow.


In that way the whole church is signified as the mother of us all Not one of the lively stones that does make up the spiritual unseen house of God the church or bride

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.

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

Therefore call no man on earth Holy Father or woman Holy Mother. Christians are considred the fred woman as the mother of Christianity . The parable can be seen using Paul as a surgate womb sufering in pain of birth holding out the gospel in a hope Christ wil form it in Timothy and Timothy as a member a chaste virgin bride the church .

2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

The word virgin is simply a reference of the unmarried or widows that have not fornificated with the many gods of this world .

 

[BreadOfLife]

I am sorry sir, I disagree with you, I say Jesus had brothers and sisters. I guess that ends our discussion on the subject. The fact is that he did or didn't, and if I am in error on such a simple thing as to question that, where would I be in the more serious life saving information of the Bible? Best not to dig that deep into trivial things, in my opinion anyway.

That's fine, if you believe that - but you're not basing it on any fort of fact.
As a Sola Scripturist, you must surrender ALL authority to Scripture - and you are NOT doing that.

If you're groping blindly in the dark on this issue - how many MORE issues have you not understood?

 

[BreadOfLife]

As in must cases two difernt kinds are used .Satan would make it all one and the same to remove the spiritual understanding hid from the lost .What God calls one Satan two or more .What God cals two he calls one .What God called inspired from heaven he turns that upside down as earthly and takes away the understanding of God .

Two different kinds of seeds as well as the use of the word mother . The goal of Catholiscim in both cases has to do with the temporal seed. They as a law of thier venerable fathers need to teach that our blessed sister in the lord is the mother of all Christianity a wile of the father of lies . Jesus said of his own flesh it profits for nothing. What alone di profit was the unsen power of our Father working with jeus strenthing him to both revel the wil of the father and empoaer the Son of man to perfom it .No power is attributed to the corrupted dying flesh of mankind .Many disciples were offened and walked away in unbelief .

The spiritual seed Christ comes after the corrupted seeds of the flesh using the second born to represent Christ as Gods first born. . the second Adam

The blessing does not come with the first fleshly birth. But the second Abel, Issac , Jacob, Manasseh. Jesus ended the need of genealogy to represent the spiritual seed Christ fulfilling the shadow.

In that way the whole church is signified as the mother of us all Not one of the lively stones that does make up the spiritual unseen house of God the church or bride

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.

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

Therefore call no man on earth Holy Father or woman Holy Mother. Christians are considred the fred woman as the mother of Christianity . The parable can be seen using Paul as a surgate womb sufering in pain of birth holding out the gospel in a hope Christ wil form it in Timothy and Timothy as a member a chaste virgin bride the church .

2 Corinthians 11:2
For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

The word virgin is simply a reference of the unmarried or widows that have not fornificated with the many gods of this world .

Barring the first par of your rant - let's address your error in RED.

In John 6:63, Jesus wasn't talking about His OWN flesh - but the fleshly thinking of the crowd, who couldn't understand the spiritual ramifications of what He was telling them. Jesus's flesh profits is EVEYTHING because without sacrificing His very flesh, we cannot hope to be saved. Not sure what this has to do with our conversation - but you needed correction on that point.

As for the rest - nothing you stated disproves the Jewish definition of "Firstborn".
As I educated you in my last post - this term does NOT require that the mother has more than one child. It is simply a title given to the one who "opens the womb".

Try to stay on point . . .

 

[Gary Urban]

Barring the first par of your rant - let's address your error in RED.

In John 6:63, Jesus wasn't talking about His OWN flesh - but the fleshly thinking of the crowd, who couldn't understand the spiritual ramifications of what He was telling them. Jesus's flesh profits is EVEYTHING because without sacrificing His very flesh, we cannot hope to be saved. Not sure what this has to do with our conversation - but you needed correction on that point.

As for the rest - nothing you stated disproves the Jewish definition of "Firstborn".
As I educated you in my last post - this term does NOT require that the mother has more than one child. It is simply a title given to the one who "opens the womb".

Try to stay on point . . .

Your point or that of the Bible?

I am on point as it is written(sola scriptura) .It is you that must serve a law of fleshly men in false pride . Peter moved by the Holy Spirit the power of our unseen Holy Father agrees. That should mean something seeing Catholics hold him in false pride as the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against, rather that the true key words of gospel as it is written.

Peter understood the spiritual understanding of parable of drink blood as it relates to the gospel.

It’s easy to see when trusting sola scriptura that those who walk after the lust of flesh the temporal. . things the eyes see were offended as a hard saying refusing to hear when Jesus asked them ; what if you see him disappear out of sight? They walked away faithless looking for another savior.

John6:60;67 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Clearly Peter did not say"thou has the flesh of eternal life" .Its easy to see if you piut your trust in sola scriotura(al things writen in the law and the prohets. Its is the work of the unssen Father that did profit .

 

[JunChosen]

Clearly Peter did not say"thou has the flesh of eternal life" .Its easy to see if you piut your trust in sola scriotura(al things writen in the law and the prohets. Its is the work of the unssen Father that did profit .

YES, SOLA SCRIPTURA!

Many in Christendom do NOT understand this concept of Sola Scriptura. They are assured that for someone to become saved all they have to do is ACCEPT and BELIEVE [works that man performs] in Jesus for their salvation.

Yet, Sola Scriptura insists otherwise, that man in and of himself is spiritually dead and therefore; has no power to accept nor believe in Jesus.

"But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples."

To God Be The Glory

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your point or that of the Bible?

I am on point as it is written(sola scriptura) .It is you that must serve a law of fleshly men in false pride . Peter moved by the Holy Spirit the power of our unseen Holy Father agrees. That should mean something seeing Catholics hold him in false pride as the key that the gates of hell could never prevail against, rather that the true key words of gospel as it is written.

Peter understood the spiritual understanding of parable of drink blood as it relates to the gospel.

It’s easy to see when trusting sola scriptura that those who walk after the lust of flesh the temporal. . things the eyes see were offended as a hard saying refusing to hear when Jesus asked them ; what if you see him disappear out of sight? They walked away faithless looking for another savior.

John6:60;67 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

Clearly Peter did not say"thou has the flesh of eternal life" .Its easy to see if you piut your trust in sola scriotura(al things writen in the law and the prohets. Its is the work of the unssen Father that did profit .

You missed the entire point of verses 67-68. Jesus just lost the BULK of His disciples in verse 66 because they couldn't handle what He was telling them:
John 6:53-55
So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is TRUE FOOD, and my blood is TRUE DRINK.

His words were SPIRITUAL - but that doesn't mean "metaphorical" or "symbolic".
Does He say, "You missed the point! I wasn't speaking literally - I only meant it 'figuratively'."
NO - He turns to the Apostles and doubles-down by asking them, "Do you ALSO want to leave?"

Peter's answer is perfect because although they didn't fully understand what He was talking about until the Last Supper - he stated that their faith in Him would carry them through.

For YOU to imply that Jesus's flesh profits "NOTHING" indicates your lack of faith in His perfect sacrifice . . .