For you to not consider any of that "debatable" is myopic, and asinine...
The secular Law of Israel, also at the time of Our Lady, wanted each woman to be a wife in Israel to bear a son to the Lord, and each man to be given a woman of his own stock. However, the Law did not condemn a married couple for abstaining from intercourse for just reasons, or being sterile/barren. Therefore, one's mere betrothal, and wedding, does not prove they procreated, nor intended to procreate, with their husband/wife.
St. Joseph, and the Blessed Virgin Mary, did not resist the Law. St. Joseph was given, and married, a woman of his own stock: the Blessed Virgin Mary, and they served one another faithfully, and She bore a son to the Lord: Jesus.
You are referring to Lk. 1:36.
There is no word for "cousin" in Aramaic, or Hebrew. The Greek word used in v. 36, "
συγγενίς" (syngeneís), means "kinswoman", and there is no reason for it to become the standard when referring to anyone who is a "cousin."
You are referring to Mk. 3:31-35.
Regarding the word "brothers" in v. 31, if Jesus did not have siblings, why would it not refer to any, or all, other types of "brothers" He had?
You are referring to Jn. 7:2-10.
First, you quoted v. 5 as "...even his own
family did not believe him", but of this
list of translations, none use the word "family", rather "
brothers/brethren" (
ἀδελφός [adelphos]). Which translation uses "family"?
Second, what evidence supports your claim any, or all, other types of "brothers" He had did not know Him as well as siblings would have?
Third, regarding the word "brothers" in vv. 3,5, if Jesus did not have siblings, why would it not refer to other any, or all, other types of "brothers" He had?
I explained to you why "James" in Gal. 1:19, and "James" in Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3, are one and the same (see post #261), as well as pointed out St. Paul also refers to James, the brother of the Lord, as an apostle. There are
two apostles named thus: James
of Zebedee, and James
of Alphaeus.
Whichever one you say he is referring to, if they, and the "James" in Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3—
whom you claim is an apostle-James—are one and the same, that debunks your claim he is a son
of St. Joseph (see post #11), and undermines the idea either apostle-James is a half-brother of Jesus only through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Unless you have evidence of another male companion?
I explained to you why that is a highly probable corroboration (see post #261). If "James" in Jd. 1:1, and "James" in Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3—
whom you claim in #6. is an apostle-James—are one and the same, that debunks your claim he is a son
of St. Joseph (see post #11), and undermines the idea either apostle-James is a half-brother of Jesus only through the Blessed Virgin Mary. Unless you have evidence of another male companion?
Additionally, in #
6., and #
7., I noticed the double standard of you linking the same biblical identities I have, using two verses you criticize me for using, and I use well over two verses to support those identities are one and the same. Uncool.
