Mary’s children?

[theefaith]

If that were true, you would cite the verse.

It is not Scripture but your man-made theology that forbids it.

which one?

joseph father of Jesus Jn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

not the son of Mary matt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

a son singular Jesus is her only child not janes

 

[theefaith]

Also more
Mother of God Lk 1:43
Immaculate conception of Mary gen 3:15 Lk 1:28 Lk 1:49
Mother of our salvation Lk 2:30
Queen of heaven etc.

 

[theefaith]

Again, the word "brother" is translated from the Koine Greek "adelphos" (ἀδελφός) which has multiple meanings, not just "born of the same father and/or mother." You assumed that meaning applies to "James" in Gal. 1:19.

Furthermore, again, it is one of the apostle-Jameses who is identified as "brother of the Lord" in that verse, and you did not identify which, nor specify if they are a full or half biological brother of Jesus. Care to now?

why only James
Why are not the other so called brothers called the brother of the Lord?

 

[Wrangler]

As @soul already mentioned, an apostle named "James" is identified as the "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19. Do you believe it's James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, and are they a full or half-sibling of Jesus?

I've already answered this several times. When Mark 1:1 says this is the story of the Son of God, do you conclude it cannot be biological son but only a step son?

 

[Wrangler]

Again, the word "brother" is translated from the Koine Greek "adelphos" (ἀδελφός) which has multiple meanings, not just "born of the same father and/or mother."

Frankly, I don't believe you in this context.

You assumed that meaning applies to "James" in Gal. 1:19.

No. My translations of the Bible all say brother. The primary and general meaning of brother is biological. It is not my assumption that the relationship is brother; it is your assumption brother does not mean biological. Again for theological reasons, you are invoking word play.

Furthermore, again, it is one of the apostle-Jameses who is identified as "brother of the Lord" in that verse, and you did not identify which, nor specify if they are a full or half biological brother of Jesus. Care to now?

No. Jesus did not deny having brothers.


Someone from the Crowd: Jesus, Your mother and brothers are outside the house hoping to see You.

Jesus: 21 Do you want to know who My mother and brothers are? They’re the ones who truly understand God’s message and obey it.
Luke 8:20-21 (Voice)

 

[FHII]

Romans 8 says Jesus is the firstborn of many brethren and Col 1 says Christ in you, the hope of glory... So if you want to take that route you might have a point. But Mary was the natural portion of Jesus, not the spiritual portion.

Galatians says:

Galatians 4:26 KJV
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

 

[FHII]

On the topic of whether Mary had other children: I believe she did. Of course everyone knows Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3... Those who disagree that Mary had other children are quick to point out that "brothren" or "brother" can have other meanings. Yes, that's true, but they also can include an actual "brother", meaning: a sibling.

However, the Bible seems to make it clear (especially in the OT with multiple accounts) when a brother is really a cousin: the Bible clarifies itself. This is not done with James, Joses, Simon and Judas.

Furthermore, it mentions sisters. There may be incidences where female cousins were called sisters, but I haven't found any. The best I can find is that elder women should treat younger women as sisters.

In short, it really doesn't matter to me. Whether Jesus had half brothers and sisters does not affect my trust in him. Soes it affect my trust in Mary? No! I have no trust in her! I love Mary. But my trust is in her son.

I do winder why some are so offended at the idea that she may have had other children.

 

[reformed1689]

I am convinced James, Jesus' brother, is Mary's other children. That is, I have no problem with Mary having children after her first born son.

If anyone thinks that Mary did not have other children they simply ignore Scripture.


Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.” 58 And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.


The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Mt 13:53–58.

Jesus not only had half brothers, he had half sisters too.

 

[reformed1689]

Refer back to post #9. I used Scripture to present, at minimum, strong evidence to support why Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas in Mat. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 could not have been brothers of Jesus, as in "born of the same father and/or mother."

Yeah it doesn't hold water.

 

[reformed1689]

Because?

Because you have to do some serious gymnastics that do not have any bearing on what the text actually says.

 

[Wrangler]

If it was, then you would be guilty of "wordplay," too, because you said, "The primary and general meaning of brother is biological," which is an acknowledgment by implication that word has additional meanings.

Yea, figurative and literal. I am taking the text to be a literal brother, meaning biological.

You are insisting the text be figurative so that brother means anything other than biological.

 

[reformed1689]

Show where in post #9 I displayed "...serious gymnastics that do not have any bearing on what the text actually says."

I don't need to. Scripture plainly states Jesus had ACTUAL brothers and sisters.

 

[Wrangler]

Because you have to do some serious gymnastics that do not have any bearing on what the text actually says.

It’s this expectation of mental gymnastics that has turned me and many others, not only away from reading the Bible but from Christ.

Such mental gymnastics is the opposite of the Good News. The Good News is not dogma; it is that God has revealed his plan for your salvation through his Servant Jesus. To learn that any great man of the past had a brother or brothers is irrelevant to the Good News.

One might think the Bad News emerging from this thread is the central message of the Bible is that Mary never had other children and, although married, remained a virgin all her life, and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved.

 

[Wrangler]

Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological brothers!"

Oh? I look forward to you sharing this plain Scripture.

 

[reformed1689]

Lol.

Would you accept such a reply from an opponent? Imagine if I had entered this argument claiming, "Jesus did not have biological brothers, and you are displaying some serious gymnastics that do not have any bearing on what the text actually says, but I do not need to substantiate these claims, because Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological brothers!"

It is the problem that it does state he had biological brothers and sisters. There is no reason at all to think that they were not biological brothers and sisters outside of certain theological biases that have been forced onto the text.

 

[reformed1689]

Lol.

Would you accept such a reply from an opponent? Imagine if I had entered this argument claiming, "Jesus did not have biological brothers, and you are displaying some serious gymnastics that do not have any bearing on what the text actually says, but I do not need to substantiate these claims, because Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological brothers, and there is no reason at all to think He did not have biological brothers!" Honestly, would you?

If you provided a Scripture that plainly stated that of course I would accept it. But Scripture doesn't state that. It states the exact opposite.

 

[reformed1689]

That is not what I asked. I will simplify the question for you: would you accept an opponent making claims, but not substantiating them?

If they did not substantiate them? Sure, but my claims were substantiated. Nice try.

 

[reformed1689]

In other words, @reformed1689, say your opponent cited a few verses from the Bible that contain the words "brother" and "sister" in relation to Jesus, then said, "See! Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological siblings, and there is no reason at all to think otherwise outside of certain biases that have been forced onto the text." Would you say there is nothing further required from them to prove they are right?

This is ridiculous. I am talking about verses that actually exist, you are making up stuff.

 

[reformed1689]

I will clarify: say your opponent cites the same few verses you have used from the Bible that contain the words "brother" and "sister" in relation to Jesus, then says, "See! Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological siblings, and there is no reason at all to think otherwise outside of certain biases that have been forced onto the text." Would you say there is nothing further required from them to prove they are right?

No because nobody honestly comes to that logical conclusion from reading the text.

 

[reformed1689]

In my hypothetical scenario, your opponent claims Scripture plainly states Jesus did not have biological siblings, and that there is no reason at all to think otherwise, outside of certain biases that have been forced onto the text, because they merely read the words "brother" and "sister" in verses that are in relation to Jesus. What is further required from them to prove they are right?

The context of the ACTUAL Scripture do not merely read the words "Brother and Sister"