Were the brothers in Matthew 13:55 Mary's sons?

[BeyondET]

Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" was so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there are multiple women in the Bible named "Mary".



Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek words aptly applies, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, because you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.



What you're trying to say didn't come out clear. So, try again, and show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that James was an apostle, but not one of the twelve apostles?



You believe and Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

Ok, now do that with His sisters.

Ease up on copy and paste don't you have original thoughts, your running like a robot.

 

[Sigma]

I never claimed that, Elizabeth was called Mary of Joseph's cousin. Thats hog wash.

Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" was so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there are multiple women in the Bible named "Mary".

Really don't matter if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin...

Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek words aptly applies, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, because you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

Because Paul didn't say he seen two.

In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate to us that James is one of the twelve apostles.

The reason why he was one of the twelve apostles is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate to us that James is one of the twelve apostles, and it's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates to us he was also Jesus's family member. This means if this James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, specifically either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus James, nor Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings.

Show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that James was an apostle, but not one of the twelve apostles.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters who was their father and mother where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" was so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there are multiple women in the Bible named "Mary".



Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek words aptly applies, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, because you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.



What you're trying to say didn't come out clear. So, try again, and show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that James was an apostle, but not one of the twelve apostles?



I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

Your a broken record, no one types that fast.

 

[Sigma]

Your a broken record, no one types that fast.

You keep refusing to address my latest replies, so I'm going to keep re-posting them until you do, if ever.

 

[Sigma]

I never claimed that, Elizabeth was called Mary of Joseph's cousin. Thats hog wash.

That's a lie. Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" was so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there are multiple women in the Bible named "Mary".

Really don't matter if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin...

Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek words aptly applies, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, because you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

Because Paul didn't say he seen two.

In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate to us that James is one of the twelve apostles.

The reason why he was one of the twelve apostles is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate to us that James is one of the twelve apostles, and it's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates to us he was also Jesus's family member. This means if this James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, specifically either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus James, nor Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings.

Show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that James was an apostle, but not one of the twelve apostles.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters who was their father and mother where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

You keep refusing to address my latest replies, so I'm going to keep re-posting them until you do, if ever.

Nay your scared to think about it. The thought of Mary not being a perpetual virgin frightens you.

You've been copying and pasting your doctrine for awhile, so you don't have to give it much thought.

 

[BeyondET]

That's what the father of lies wants people to do, just fall in line and dont think about it, it's true.

 

[Sigma]

I never claimed that, Elizabeth was called Mary of Joseph's cousin. Thats hog wash.

That's a lie. Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" was so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there are multiple women in the Bible named "Mary".

Really don't matter if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin...

Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[Illuminator]

Nay your scared to think about it. The thought of Mary not being a perpetual virgin frightens you.

You've been copying and pasting your doctrine for awhile, so you don't have to give it much thought.

Because you keep repeating the same modernist denials over and over again.

Let’s give a simple definition of modernism: it is that ideology which reduces both divine revelation and the supernatural life of grace to being the result of a subjective attitude or tendency on the part of human nature. Modernism thus retains all the vocabulary and external forms of orthodox Church life but reinterprets them along the lines of modern, “subjectivist” philosophy.

I think a lot of the objection is sheer overreaction against Catholicism and a manifestation of the disdain for the mistaken view that we worship Mary or at the very least place her much higher than she should be (far beyond what Scripture teaches: so they argue).

So they think it’s merely a “Catholic thing” and enter any discussion about it with that emotional objection and “baggage” or strong predisposition before even considering the many solid and serious exegetical arguments that Sigma has brought to the table.

The other influence, I believe, is the Protestant and secularist notion that Catholics are supposedly obsessively “against sex” and so of necessity had to make Mary into a perpetual virgin (i.e., make up the whole doctrine).

In fact, it has nothing to do with sex at all. We believe it was God’s will and “fitting” in order to protect the doctrines of the virgin birth and the uniqueness of Christ; His status as the incarnate God-Man; God in the flesh. It appears BeyondEt doesn't care about that.

As with the Rosary, title of Theotokos (Mother of God), her Immaculate Conception, and anything and everything else related to the Blessed Virgin Mary in biblical and Catholic Mariology, it’s all about Jesus, not Mary. She is the humble and perfectly willing handmaiden of the Lord. That’s what so many of these critics don’t get.

But it’s not just a “Catholic thing”, since the Orthodox agree with it, as did all of the original leaders of the Protestant Revolt. It’s theological liberalism that worked against its belief, not traditional Protestantism. But few know that history. It’s important to know.

BeyondET re-writes Protestant doctrinal history in order to be right.

 

[Augustin56]

The Bible agrees....
The Catholic church is the only one that would disagree since their reverence for Mary will not allow for the “mother of God” to have had any other children. The Bible say that Joseph did not have marital relations with Mary (his wife) until after she had given birth to Jesus. (Matt 1:24-25)

Matthew 1:25: “And he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.

Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not!

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

You get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

 

[BeyondET]

Because you keep repeating the same modernist denials over and over again.

Let’s give a simple definition of modernism: it is that ideology which reduces both divine revelation and the supernatural life of grace to being the result of a subjective attitude or tendency on the part of human nature. Modernism thus retains all the vocabulary and external forms of orthodox Church life but reinterprets them along the lines of modern, “subjectivist” philosophy.

I think a lot of the objection is sheer overreaction against Catholicism and a manifestation of the disdain for the mistaken view that we worship Mary or at the very least place her much higher than she should be (far beyond what Scripture teaches: so they argue).

So they think it’s merely a “Catholic thing” and enter any discussion about it with that emotional objection and “baggage” or strong predisposition before even considering the many solid and serious exegetical arguments that Sigma has brought to the table.

The other influence, I believe, is the Protestant and secularist notion that Catholics are supposedly obsessively “against sex” and so of necessity had to make Mary into a perpetual virgin (i.e., make up the whole doctrine).

In fact, it has nothing to do with sex at all. We believe it was God’s will and “fitting” in order to protect the doctrines of the virgin birth and the uniqueness of Christ; His status as the incarnate God-Man; God in the flesh. It appears BeyondEt doesn't care about that.

As with the Rosary, title of Theotokos (Mother of God), her Immaculate Conception, and anything and everything else related to the Blessed Virgin Mary in biblical and Catholic Mariology, it’s all about Jesus, not Mary. She is the humble and perfectly willing handmaiden of the Lord. That’s what so many of these critics don’t get.

But it’s not just a “Catholic thing”, since the Orthodox agree with it, as did all of the original leaders of the Protestant Revolt. It’s theological liberalism that worked against its belief, not traditional Protestantism. But few know that history. It’s important to know.

BeyondET re-writes Protestant doctrinal history in order to be right.

Here we have Jesus using His own family members, mother, brother and sister. In a figurative statement about doing the Father's will.

He wouldn't mention family members if He had none. Certainly there's Mary and His brothers mentioned, though His sisters are not mentioned or maybe so.

A guest at a wedding wouldn't be concerned about wine running out.

Another false doctrine of catholics Mary had compassion for the guest.

Jesus says woman why do you concern me with this.

Mary wanted the reception to go smoothly. Jewish weddings was a big deal, family reputation to have a great reception.

Matthew 12

47 Someone told Him, “Look, Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to You.”

48 But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?”

49Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers.

50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

verse 50 is not two cousins and a mother that He is using figuratively.

 

[BeyondET]

That's a lie. Again, you said "...Mary's cousin Elizabeth", which is why I said you claim that Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary of Joseph. The reason I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph"

This is what you first said something about Mary being of Joseph's cousin.

Elizabeth wasn't Joseph's cousin.

Sigma said:

You claim Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was Mary of Joseph's cousin,

 

[Sigma]

This is what you first said something about Mary being of Joseph's cousin: You claim Elizabeth in Lk. 1:36 was Mary of Joseph's cousin...

Elizabeth wasn't Joseph's cousin.

Again, my referring to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" wasn't saying you were saying Elizabeth was the cousin of Joseph... Again, I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there was more than one woman named "Mary".

Really don't matter if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin...

Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[Aunty Jane]

Matthew 1:25: “And he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until.” In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? Of course not!

There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.

You get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).

I have heard all the “explanations” as to why Mary was a perpetual virgin, but never WHY this question was ever raised in the first place. Since there is not the slightest inference that Mary and Joseph DID NOT have a normal marital relationship, which included children of their own, (as was expected in a normal Jewish household, as children were seen as a blessing from God) why would anyone assume that Mary and Joseph were married but never consummated their marriage? There is no scriptural reason at all.

When examining what the Bible record has to say about Mary, we see the scarcity of comment concerning her. Only one mention is made of her outside the Gospels. Neither the apostle Paul, nor the apostle Peter, nor Judas, the servant of Jesus, nor James, the brother of Jesus, make so much as one single mention of her in all their inspired writings. Mary is conspicuous by her absence.

Only the Catholic reverence for Mary, who is elevated above her son in many ways, would have raised this issue in the first place. This is nothing more than ancient mother goddess worship in disguise.
Where did the mother goddesses come from? NOT the Bible. Mary’s status is founded solely upon the traditions and authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

Ancient mother goddess worship (practiced in Egypt and other false religious cultures around the world; some long before the birth of Christ,) was adopted by your church and inflicted on the ignorant masses (no pun intended) down through centuries of indoctrination, when no one could read a Bible and no one could question the teachings of the church without fear of being viewed as a heretic, and becoming the victim of it’s dire consequences.

The old saying is true....’tell a lie long enough and often enough, and it becomes the truth’.
It is exclusively a “Catholic” truth, rejected by those who accept only what the scriptures (God’s word) say.

You will never convince a non-Catholic of something that has NO scriptural basis whatsoever, unless they never do any research of their own, and are swayed emotionally by the statue of the pretty lady with the baby. (Exodus 20:4-6)
Even her titles “Our Lady” and “Queen of Heaven” are taken straight out of that paganism. Mary is not called any of these titles in the Bible. How can you not know this?

Because this is not a Bible teaching in any way, I will continue to reject any notion that Mary was anything other than what the Bible said she was...the one God chose to be ”the mother of Jesus” who at his baptism, became the “Christ”. A wonderful woman, no doubt....but not anything close to what the RCC has made her.

 

[BeyondET]

Again, my referring to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" wasn't saying you were saying Elizabeth was the cousin of Joseph... Again, I referred to Mary as "Mary of Joseph" so people knew which Mary you were referring to when you claimed Elizabeth in 1:36 was called the cousin of Mary, as there was more than one woman named "Mary".



Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore.



You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.



I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

I see you've been posting half my statement, this is what I said it's about Jesus brothers and sisters.

Really don't matter if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin aunt or grandmother. It's rather Jesus had brothers and cousins and aunt's and uncle's, grandparents.

 

[Sigma]

I see you've been posting half my statement...

Yea particularly about the part about Elizabeth, where you suddenly said it really doesn't matter if she was Mary's cousin, to which I said:

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim suddenly doesn't matter anymore."

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[Sigma]

I have heard all the “explanations” as to why Mary was a perpetual virgin, but never WHY this question was ever raised in the first place. Since there is not the slightest inference that Mary and Joseph DID NOT have a normal marital relationship, which included children of their own, (as was expected in a normal Jewish household, as children were seen as a blessing from God) why would anyone assume that Mary and Joseph were married but never consummated their marriage? There is no scriptural reason at all.

Mary and Joseph did not have a "normal marital relationship". An angel of God came to Mary to say He would like Her to conceive by the power of the Holy Spirit, the long-anticipated Messiah, who was also God Incarnate. And, She said yes. An angel of God came to Joseph to tell him to not be afraid to keep his wife who was pregnant with the Messiah, and from that moment of deciding to not divorce her, he knew his life's mission was to care for the Mother of the Messiah and God Incarnate... That's not a "normal Jewish household" lol

Have you taken time to really meditate on that??? Have you really thought about why Joseph, Mary, and Jesus are called "the Holy Family"??? Have you really thought about why Mary found favor with God and wanted Her, of ALL other "normal" Jewish women, to bear and raise the Messiah who was God Incarnate???

Do you really think God wanted Mary and Joseph to not only care for, raise, and protect the Messiah who was also God Incarnate, but at least 4 other kids just to keep up with the Jones's in Jerusalem???

Also, Mary was already the wife of Joseph when she was told by the angel that God wanted Her to conceive a child, and if she was a "normal Jewess" who already was having or planned to have sexual intercourse with Her spouse, Joseph, the first thing She said wouldn't done is ask, "How will this be possible, since I know not man?" which means "I don't have sexual intercourse, so how can I conceive a child?" Have you really thought about that???

Obviously not, because all you care about is arguing that "normal Jews Joseph and Mary, the parents of the Messiah who was God Incarnate, had sex and other kids." Shallow, no depth.

 

[BeyondET]

Yea particularly about the part about Elizabeth, where you suddenly said it really doesn't matter if she was Mary's cousin, to which I said:

That was supposed to go with, it's Jesus brothers that matters.

You spun a web from half my statement brother.

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you

because the topic is about Jesus brothers not rather Mary was Elizabeth cousin. Thats getting away from the thread topic about the brothers of Jesus.

 

[Sigma]

That was supposed to with, it's Jesus brothers that matters.

And it was with that in your post, but you were still saying it doesn't matter if Elizabeth Mary's cousin, to which I said:

"Your claiming that a Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin" was applied to Elizabeth mattered when you thought it proved that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) couldn't have been Jesus's cousins. That is up until I said the following:

"There's more than one word in Koine Greek that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), which has a specific familial definition "a nephew, cousin" and "συγγενίς" (syngenis), which has a broader familial definition "a kinswoman, female relative", and can be used to refer to various types of female kin, including cousin. Therefore, if Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, the use of either of those Koine Greek would aptly apply, and it was the word "συγγενίς" (syngenis) that in the end was used in Lk. 1:36.

However, solely because the word "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios) wasn't used in Lk. 1:36, Elizabeth couldn't have been Mary's cousin as you claim, since you also claim that only the Koine Greek word with the specific familial definition "cousin", such as "ἀνεψιός" (ἀνεψιός anepsios), would've been used to refer to a cousin, and if its not then they can't be a cousin, and thus you contradict yourself regarding your own claim, according to your own logic."

How convenient that after I said all that above that your claim Elizabeth was called Mary's cousin suddenly doesn't matter anymore."

Yes, I apologize. The Lord's brother was an apostle, but not one of the twelve.

You say that as if you agreed with me from the start that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle when you haven't. You actually went from denying he was an apostle multiple times, to now accepting that he was, though still rejecting he was one of the twelve apostles. However, at the very least, its good you finally accept that James in Gal. 1:19 was an apostle of Jesus. Now, show where in Gal. 1:18-19 is it indicated that he wasn't one of the twelve apostles.

Now, again, we agree James in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 and the apostle James in Gal. 1:19 were the same person. In Gal. 1:18-19, it's indicated by Paul that James was both an apostle and family member of Jesus. This is because after Paul mentions he had seen the apostle Peter in Jerusalem, who was one of the twelve apostles, he adds that he didn't see any of the other apostles there, except James ("But I did not see another one of the apostles except James..."). The context of Gal. 1:18 and the words in bold red from v. 19 are what indicate that James was one of the twelve apostles. It's the title "the Lord's brother" that follows James's first name that indicates he was also Jesus's family member.

Therefore, if James was Jesus's sibling, he would've had to have also been one of the twelve apostles, either James of Zebedee or James of Alphaeus, however, neither were a son of Joseph and Mary, and thus he, nor his siblings Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) could've been Jesus's siblings. Note: This in itself does not prove Mary of Joseph was a perpetual Virgin, though there are reasons that show She is.

Let's talk about Jesus sisters, who was their father and mother, where is it mentioned. Now show me in the bible His sisters were His cousins.

I never said the unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt: 13:56/Mk. 6:4 were Jesus's cousins. You're the one who believes Joseph and Mary were the parents of Jesus's unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:56-Mk. 6:4, despite them never being called the daughters of Joseph and Mary, nor the siblings of Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus).

 

[BeyondET]

And it was with that in your post, but you were still saying it doesn't matter if Elizabeth Mary's cousin, to which I said:

And still you are trying to make some deal out of me saying, the brothers of Jesus is what the topic is about what matters. Rather than Elizabeth being Mary's cousin.