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

[Cassandra]

I didnt say Mary was the Ark of the Ten Commandments....wow. Re-read what I said.

Was she Noahs Ark?
The Ark of the Covenant Heb 9:4
"The ark of the covenant [was] covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod, which budded, and the tablets of the covenant."

How are all of these symbolically held within her?

 

[Illuminator]

If you insist, sure.

Let proposition P1 = Mary remained a virgin till she died.
P2 = Mary did not remain a virgin till she died.

Between 0 and 10, how much weight do you put on the above proposition? The stronger your belief in a proposition, the higher the weight.

Are you willing to bet your life based on your weighting scheme?

None of the early reformers rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. Not a single Protestant denomination, before the 18th century, taught or believed this nonsense. It is a modernist invention that began with skeptics and atheists in the post enlightenment era, and slowly spread in Protestantism like a cancer. There are several rebuttals here and here.
The notion that Jesus had biological siblings diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation.

 

[Illuminator]

Was she Noahs Ark?
The Ark of the Covenant Heb 9:4
"The ark of the covenant [was] covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron's rod, which budded, and the tablets of the covenant."

How are all of these symbolically held within her?

Mary's womb is a Living Temple.
Manna foreshadows the Bread of Life in Mary's womb.
Arron's rod foreshadows Jesus' royal priesthood in Mary's womb.
The Word in stone foreshadows the Word made Flesh in Mary's womb.
The only way around this is to deny the Living Temple.

 

[TonyChanYT]

None of the early reformers rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary. Not a single Protestant denomination, before the 18th century, taught or believed this nonsense. It is a modernist invention that began with skeptics and atheists in the post enlightenment era, and slowly spread in Protestantism like a cancer. There are several rebuttals here and here.
The notion that Jesus had biological siblings diminishes the uniqueness of the Incarnation.

If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it. See If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it

 

[Cassandra]

Mary's womb is a Living Temple.
Manna foreshadows the Bread of Life in Mary's womb.
Arron's rod foreshadows Jesus' royal priesthood in Mary's womb.
The Word in stone foreshadows the Word made Flesh in Mary's womb.
The only way around this is to deny the Living Temple.

Jesus was not a levite priest

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There's a lack of conviction in stopping at money. If you know something is true, you'd die to defend that Truth. That's how far I'm willing to go.

murder is a crime..

are you going to commit suicide if you lose?

 

[Sigma]

Matt. 13:54 Coming to His hometown...
The home in Hometown refers to the biological family.

Not entirely, for Joseph isn't biologically related to Jesus, though still family.

Matt. 13:55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?...
i.e., familial son

Although Jesus wasn't biologically Joseph's son, because He was begotten by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35).

Matt. 13:55 Isn’t His mother’s name Mary...
i.e., the biological mother

We know Mary of Joseph is Jesus's biological Mother because of Lk. 1:31.

Matt. 13:55 and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?...
biological half-brothers?

Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are never called the sons of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "near kinsman, or relative", etc.

We agree the definition that applies to the word "adelphoi" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "adelphoi" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

Unlike you and others, I don't assume my position is true, I show it is, and my position is that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, specifically His cousins. See here.

Matt. 13:56 Aren’t all His sisters with us as well?
biological half-sisters?

The unnamed sisters of Jesus in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:4 are never called the daughters of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather only Jesus's "αδελφαι" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), or "sisters" in English, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, one of them being "near kinsman, or relative".

We agree the definition that applies to the word "αδελφαι" in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:4 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, niece, or aunt, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "αδελφαι" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

Matt. 13:57 But Jesus said to them, “Only in his hometown and in his own household is a prophet without honor.”
Mk. 6:4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.”
More evidence of biological/familial terms.

Correct, you only err in your assumption of the type of kinsmen, or relatives, that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were to Joseph, Mary of Joseph, and Jesus.

As I've shown, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.

Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her firstborn, a Son.
Presumably, after the firstborn, Mary would have her 2nd born, etc.

The word used in Lk. 2:7 is "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos), or "firstborn" in English, and it has more than one definition. You "presume" the definition "eldest" applies, but this "presumption" is based on the assumption Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings, and an assumption isn't proof.

 

[TonyChanYT]

Not entirely, for Joseph isn't biologically related to Jesus, though still family.



Although Jesus wasn't biologically Joseph's son, because He was begotten by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35).



We know Mary of Joseph is Jesus's biological Mother because of Lk. 1:31.



Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are never called the sons of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "near kinsman, or relative", etc.

We agree the definition that applies to the word "adelphoi" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "adelphoi" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

Unlike you and others, I don't assume my position is true, I show it is, and my position is that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, specifically His cousins. See here.



The unnamed sisters of Jesus are never called the daughters of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather only Jesus's "αδελφαι" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), or "sisters" in English, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, one of them being "near kinsman, or relative".

We agree the definition that applies to the word "αδελφαι" in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:4 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, niece, or aunt, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "αδελφαι" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.



Correct, you only err in your assumption of the type of kinsmen, or relatives, that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were to Joseph, Mary of Joseph, and Jesus.

As I've shown, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.



The word used in Lk. 2:7 is "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos), or "firstborn" in English, and it has more than one definition. You "presume" the definition "eldest" applies, but this "presumption" is based on the assumption Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings, and an assumption isn't proof.

I am done trying to convince you by logic. At his point, if you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it. See If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it

 

[Sigma]

murder is a crime..

are you going to commit suicide if you lose?

I didn't say I'd kill myself and I wouldn't because God says not to. I said I'd die for what I believe, if I had to. I obviously don't have to in this case.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Not entirely, for Joseph isn't biologically related to Jesus, though still family.



Although Jesus wasn't biologically Joseph's son, because He was begotten by the Holy Spirit (Lk. 1:35).



We know Mary of Joseph is Jesus's biological Mother because of Lk. 1:31.



Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) are never called the sons of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "near kinsman, or relative", etc.

We agree the definition that applies to the word "adelphoi" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "adelphoi" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

Unlike you and others, I don't assume my position is true, I show it is, and my position is that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, specifically His cousins. See here.



The unnamed sisters of Jesus are never called the daughters of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather only Jesus's "αδελφαι" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), or "sisters" in English, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, one of them being "near kinsman, or relative".

We agree the definition that applies to the word "αδελφαι" in Matt. 13:56/Mk. 6:4 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, niece, or aunt, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "αδελφαι" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.



Correct, you only err in your assumption of the type of kinsmen, or relatives, that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Judas/Thaddeus) were to Joseph, Mary of Joseph, and Jesus.

As I've shown, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.



The word used in Lk. 2:7 is "πρωτότοκος" (prōtotokos), or "firstborn" in English, and it has more than one definition. You "presume" the definition "eldest" applies, but this "presumption" is based on the assumption Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were Jesus's siblings, and an assumption isn't proof.

just because they are never called the children of Joseph and or Mary does not mean they were not.

this is a weak argument.

they were never called Jesus cousins. they were called his brothers.. in fact. they were even recognized as his brothers.

so the cousin, kinsmen argument is weak also.

basically you are arguing against yourself.. saying it can never be this way, when it fact it could be that way.

it is called a double argument,, you argue that it can mean this way

those against you say it can be that way

your both right, it could mean either or, and the argument is mute..

 

[Sigma]

I am done trying to convince you by logic. At his point, if you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it. See If you think Mary remained a virgin till she died, then bet on it

You have nothing to say, which isn't a surprise, because you can't refute the Truth.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I didn't say I'd kill myself and I wouldn't because God says not to. I said I'd die for what I believe, if I had to. I obviously don't have to in this case.

but it is meaningless. Unless you could actually die, it is just words.

again, an illogical argument..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

You have nothing to say, which isn't a surprise, because you can't refute the Truth.

truth? what truth?

the roman truth? or biblical truth?

 

[Sigma]

just because they are never called the children of Joseph and or Mary does not mean they were not.

I know which is why I don't say it does mean that. If you read the rest of my point you'll see a link to where I show why they weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary of Joseph.

they were never called Jesus cousins. they were called his brothers.. in fact. they were even recognized as his brothers.

I said Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were called Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "near kinsman, or relative", etc.

We agree the definition that applies to the word "adelphoi" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "adelphoi" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

As I've shown, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.

 

[Sigma]

truth? what truth?

the roman truth? or biblical truth?

God's Truth.

 

[Sigma]

but it is meaningless. Unless you could actually die, it is just words.

again, an illogical argument..

Just saying if I had to I would.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I know which is why I don't say it does mean that. If you read the rest of my point you'll see a link to where I show why they weren't the sons of Joseph and Mary of Joseph.



I said Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were called Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi), or "brothers" in English, in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, and that doesn't prove they were His siblings, because the word has multiple definitions, e.g., "fellow-countryman", "disciple/follower", "one of the same faith", and "near kinsman, or relative", etc.

We agree the definition that applies to the word "adelphoi" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 is "near kinsman, or relative", but a kinsman/relative can be a sibling, cousin, nephew, or uncle, etc., and the word itself doesn't indicate which type of kinship applies. For this reason, merely citing verses with the word "adelphoi" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

As I've shown, Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Joseph's brother, Alphaeus, and his wife Mary of Alphaeus (Clopas/Cleophas), and thus were the nephews of Joseph and Mary of Joseph, and cousins of Jesus. See here.

So all you have done is prove they may be his brothers, they may not be.

so there is no proof at all

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God's Truth.

Which God?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Just saying if I had to I would.

Not very convincing.

You never did answer me about mary, and her mother having to be perfect to bore a perfect mary..

 

[Aunty Jane]

You claim that Scripture plainly states in Matt. 1:25 that Joseph and Mary didn't have intercourse and more children until after Mary gave birth to Jesus, but it doesn't; rather, it states they didn't have intercourse "until she brought forth her firstborn son." The word "until" has multiple definitions, not only the one you're inferring by your insertion of the word "after".

For the sake of argument, say the word "until" was used to mean Joseph and Mary had intercourse after Jesus's birth, that in itself wouldn't prove Mary bore more children because, for example, having vaginal intercourse doesn't lead to procreation for some men and women. Sometimes the woman is barren or the man is sterile, etc. Your interpretation that the gospel writer, after writing about the long-anticipated messianic prophecy coming to fruition, basically threw in the tidbit, "After the birth of the Savior, Joseph had intercourse with Mary and 6+ more kids" at the end is quite random. It also isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25:

I’ll just leave your comment there to show that the assumptions made about Mary not being in a normal God blessed marital relationship with her husband and producing more children (another blessing from God, especially to Jews) is completely unfounded. The assumption made do not make them true.

The elephant in the room, as it was in the other thread....is the reason WHY the Catholic Church is the only one that puts Mary on the same level as the son she conceived by holy spirit. By adopting pagan ideas about Mother goddesses, and giving Mary their titles, the church created a reason why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin...never having any other children.
Mother goddesses were found in pagan religions long before Jesus was even born.
Do some research on Semiramis....mother goddesses go all the way back to Babylon.

The Bible gives no grounds whatsoever for Mary and Joseph’s relationship being anything other than a normal Jewish family, blessed with many children. Jesus grew up with siblings.....nowhere does the Bible say he was Mary’s only child.