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

[BeyondET]

I learned it by researching the writings of early Christians. You should try it.

https://ia801202.us.archive.org/21/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf

CHURCH FATHERS: Home

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Like I said the man who invented the word is the only record of it being used. There's no evidence the sec existed. Not saying there's wasn't people in the 4th century that apposed the idea.

 

[Sigma]

Like I said the man who invented the word is the only record of it being used. There's no evidence the sec existed.

Antidicomarianites

An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the "opponents of Mary". The Ebionites were the first who maintained that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents, and it was afterwards modified so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Ghost, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children. The sect denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians ( see Arianism ), Eudocius and Eunomius, were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius who wrote against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius, Contra Hæres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.). — Antidicomarianites

 

[BeyondET]

I learned it by researching the writings of early Christians. You should try it.

Antidicomarianites

• An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the opponents of Mary Catholic Encyclopedia. Kevin Knight. 2006. Antidicomarianites Antidicomarianites

catholicism.en-academic.com

https://ia801202.us.archive.org/21/items/EpiphaniusPanarionBksIIIII1/Epiphanius%20-%20_Panarion_%20-%20Bks%20II%20%26%20III%20-%201.pdf

CHURCH FATHERS: Home

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

There's nothing in the dictionary that implies something else than a point in time until.

Bill Mounce Greek Dictionary

Forms of the word
Dictionary: ἕως
Greek transliteration: heōs
Simplified transliteration: heos

Numbers
Strong's number: 2193
GK Number: 2401

Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 146
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: conj

Gloss:
up to, until

Definition:
can function as an improper prep., while, as long as, Jn. 9:4; until, Mt. 2:9; Lk. 15:4; as also in NT ἕως οὗ, ἕως ὅτου, Mt. 5:18, 26; ἕως ἄρτι, until now, Mt. 11:12; ἕως πότε, until when, how long, Mt. 17:17; ἕως σήμερον, until this day, to this time, 2 Cor. 3:15; as a prep. of time, until, Mt. 24:21; of place, unto, even to, Mt. 11:23; Lk. 2:15; ἕως ἄνω, to the brim, Jn. 2:7; ἕως εἰς, even to, as far as, Lk. 24:50; ἕως κάτω, to the bottom; ἕως ὥδε, to this place, Lk. 23:5; of state, unto, even to, Mt. 26:38; of number, even, so much as, Rom. 3:12, et al. freq.

 

[BeyondET]

Now your trying to obscure you post and force me to copy and paste it. Really good grief why do you resort to trickery.

Like i said only one man who came up with the word. Just because a catholic post of him doesn't equal more information other than the original writer, One man thats it.


Antidicomarianites

An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the "opponents of Mary". The Ebionites were the first who maintained that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents, and it was afterwards modified so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Ghost, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children. The sect denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies. The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940). Certain Arians ( see Arianism ), Eudocius and Eunomius, were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius who wrote against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius, Contra Hæres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.). — Antidicomarianites

 

[Sigma]

There's nothing in the dictionary that implies something else than a point in time until.

Every time the word "ἕως" is used it doesn't mean what didn't happen until a certain point started to happen after that point. See for yourself by reading the Greek-English Concordance for ἕως.

Now your trying to obscure you post and force me to copy and paste it. Really good grief why do you resort to trickery.

Are you high? You said there's no evidence the sect Ebionites existed and that's false, so I copied/pasted from a site to show you it did. That sect was given the name Antidicomarianites by St. Epiphanius because they denied Mary's perpetual virginity and taught She and Joseph had other children, which was considered heresy even way back then, and it still is today. Other early Church fathers also called such teaching heresy.

 

[BeyondET]

Every time the word "ἕως" is used it doesn't mean what didn't happen until a certain point happened after that point. See for yourself by reading the Greek-English Concordance for ἕως.



Are you high? You said there's no evidence the sect Ebionites existed and that's false, so I copied/pasted from a site to show you it did. That sect was given the name Antidicomarianites by St. Epiphanius because they denied Mary's perpetual virginity and taught She and Joseph had other children, which was considered heresy even way back then.

Why would you even mention getting high, that was totally uncalled for, what's wrong with you to say such a bazaar statement.

I didn't say anything about the Ebionites and the whole account is by one man.

 

[BeyondET]

Every time the word "ἕως" is used it doesn't mean what didn't happen until a certain point started to happen after that point. See for yourself by reading the Greek-English Concordance for ἕως.

It's says the same thing "until" later it mentions "unto" but that isn't the correct translation for the verse.

 

[Sigma]

Why would you even mention getting high, that was totally uncalled for, what's wrong with you to say such bazaar statement.

Because you said I "resorted to trickery" when all I did was copy/paste from a site, so yea I'm gonna ask if you're high, friend lol.

I didn't say anything about the Ebionites and the whole account is by one man.

One man came up with the name "Antidicomarianites" for the people who denied Mary's perpetual virginity and taught She and Joseph had children together. He didn't make up the sect called the Ebionites who actually existed lol

It's says the same thing "until" later it mentions "unto" but that isn't the correct translation for the verse.

Dude...read the context of each verse....omg, and you'll understand how the word is being used. It's not being used in the same way in every verse.

 

[BeyondET]

Because you said I "resorted to trickery" when all I did was copy/paste from a site, so yea I'm gonna ask if you're high, friend lol.



One man came up with the name "Antidicomarianites" for the people who denied Mary's perpetual virginity and taught She and Joseph had children together. He didn't make up the sect called the Ebionites who actually existed lol

Because i tryed to quote the post and nothing was in the post.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt you might not know that if you do what you did nothing will show up if someone quotes the post.

I've seen it before and people do it deliberately.

 

[Sigma]

I will give you the benefit of doubt you might not know if you do what you did nothing will show up if someone quotes the post.

Oh okay I see now. I'll remember to not use the quote feature going forward.

 

[BeyondET]

Because you said I "resorted to trickery" when all I did was copy/paste from a site, so yea I'm gonna ask if you're high, friend lol.



One man came up with the name "Antidicomarianites" for the people who denied Mary's perpetual virginity and taught She and Joseph had children together. He didn't make up the sect called the Ebionites who actually existed lol



Dude...read the context of each verse....omg, and you'll understand how the word is being used. It's not being used in the same way in every verse.

it doesn't say the word has multiple meanings period.

 

[BeyondET]

Oh okay I see now. I'll remember to not use the quote feature going forward.

I apologize for accusing you of trickery, I should of ask you first my fault sorry.

 

[Sigma]

I apologize for accusing you of trickery, I should of ask you first my fault sorry.

I appreciate that, and I'm sorry for asking if you're high lol. I wasn't asking it meanly or anything, I just didn't understand until you clarified. I'm glad you did, because it's annoying to quote something that doesn't show. Now I know what not to do.

As for the word "ἕως" (heōs), or "until" in English, whenever it's used in Scripture, it's not always used to indicate what didn't happen until a certain point started to happen after that point. In some cases, it's used to indicate something didn't happen until a certain point, like in the case of Matt. 1:25. Please take the time to read the following.

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife. And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."

The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father.

In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by Joseph, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Using the word "until" to indicate Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus's birth doesn't dispel the belief Jesus was conceived by Joseph.

Therefore, the argument 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 4 more kids" at the end is quite random and isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25.

 

[BeyondET]

I appreciate that, and I'm sorry for asking if you're high lol. I wasn't asking it meanly or anything, I just didn't understand until you clarified. I'm glad you did, because it's annoying to quote something that doesn't show. Now I know what not to do.

As for the word "ἕως" (heōs), or "until" in English, whenever it's used in Scripture, it's not always used to indicate what didn't happen until a certain point started to happen after that point. In some cases, it's used to indicate something didn't happen until a certain point, like in the case of Matt. 1:25. Please take the time to read the following.

"But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus. For he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled that which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: Behold, a virgin shall be with child and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. And Joseph, rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took to him his wife. And he knew her not until she brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus."

The context of Matt. 1:25 is Joseph's accepting as his spouse the virgin who conceived the Savior of mankind by the Holy Spirit. The gospel writer concludes the passage by stating that Joseph didn't have intercourse with Mary until Jesus's birth, to dispel any belief that he was the father.

In other words, since the gospel writer's intent at the end was to dispel any belief that Jesus was conceived by Joseph, and not begotten by the Holy Spirit, they stated he remained chaste until Jesus's birth. Using the word "until" to indicate Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus's birth doesn't dispel the belief Jesus was conceived by Joseph.

Therefore, the argument 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 4 more kids" at the end is quite random and isn't in line with the context of Matt. 1:20-25.

It's ok water under the bridge.

I believe Mary was pure human, and before the birth of Jesus she was a virgin. Both Joseph and Mary were the descendants of the same lineage from Adam thus the reason Both were used for God's purpose but neither is above any other human.

The Bible doesn't directly say they were intimate during their marriage nor does the bible say they were not. The Bible does say there is nothing wrong with a married couples being intimate.

It could be 50/50, but my feeling is his brothers and sisters where his half siblings.

If they were cousins or something like that they would of been presented as such from the get go.

 

[Sigma]

I could be a 50/50, but my feeling is his brothers and sisters where his half siblings.

If they were cousins or something like that they would of been presented as such from the get go.

Joseph, Simon, James, Judas (Jude/Thaddeus), and unnamed sisters in Matt. 13:55-56/Mk. 6:3-4 are never called the sons and daughters of Joseph and/or Mary of Joseph, but rather Jesus's "adelphoi" (sing. adelphos; pl. ἀδελφοὶ adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι adelphai), or "brothers" and "sisters" 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 words "adelphoi" and "αδελφαι" 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 words "adelphoi" and "αδελφαι" and basically saying "See, they were Jesus's siblings!" is assuming that type of kinship applies, but an assumption isn't proof.

You should check out my thread where I provided evidence that confirms Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, and shows that the type of kinship between them and Jesus was that of cousins, not siblings. This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively show "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus, and thus he and his siblings Simon, Joseph, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the kinsmen, specifically cousins, of Jesus.

If you have any questions, just ask. I tried to be as clear as possible, but there's a character limit, so I couldn't fit everything I wanted to in the opening post.

 

[BeyondET]

You should check out my thread where I provided evidence that confirms Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3 were Jesus's brothers, as in kinsmen, and shows that the type of kinship between them and Jesus was that of cousins, not siblings. This was accomplished primarily by identifying James.

The scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources, even if not every surname is listed by each individual source, collectively show "James" in Matt. 13:55/Mk. 6:3, "James the brother of the Lord," "James the bishop of Jerusalem," "James the Less," "James the Just," and the author of the Epistle of James, were the same person as Apostle James of Alphaeus (Cleophas/Clopas), the son of Jesus's mother's spouse's brother, Alphaeus, and thus he and his siblings Simon, Joseph, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the kinsmen, specifically cousins, of Jesus.

If you have any questions, just ask. I tried to be as clear as possible, but there's a character limit, so I couldn't fit everything I wanted to in the opening post.

If they were cousins the bible would of mentioned them as such just like other people in the bible.

I doubt that scripture would leave people perplexed about if Jesus bothers and sisters were siblings or cousins. If they were cousins it would of presented them as such like below.

Luke 1:36

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Jeremiah 32:7
"Look, Hanamel, your cousin, is coming to you and will say, "Buy my field in Anathoth for yourself, because the right of redemption to buy it belongs to you."'


And quite a few more,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

There's only one God, so that's who I'm referring to. Do you believe there's not only one God?

Again, The jews believed this also.

was the God of Israel the one true God.. Not the one they worshiped. remember the crucified him

Where in Scripture or anywhere else is that said?

lol.. when else would he have left his abode in heaven and entered the body of the child?

Why? Also, so, you don't think God is capable of preserving Mary's soul from original sin?

If he could do it for mary, Why could he not just do it for Christ? (Oh wait, he did)

Mary received original sin from her father.. (in adam (the father) all die..) thats why jesus was not touched by Joseph

I'm not presenting a case so as to convince others. I'm just being honest.

Can you be open?

If your conviction is strong enough, you'll try to refute the evidence in the opening post of my thread then.

its already been refuted. and continues to be refuted..

Again, Can you be open? Or will you stand firm and say no amount of evidence will convince you..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Fun Fact: In the days of the early Church, over 2,000 years ago, Christians knew the Blessed Virgin Mary was a perpetual Virgin and didn't have other children, to the point where those who opposed this were called "Antidicomarianites" meaning "those who oppose Mary". It was and still is considered heresy to teach otherwise.

fun fact

the roman church burnt all books or items that did not line up with their doctrine.

they also executed anyone who they deemed as heretics, saying Mary had sex was heresy.

so you would not expect to find any belief otherwise. it would heave been destroyed by the church.

once again, your argument is futile because it is basically meaningless..

thats why you should stick to the word of God

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Where did you get that fun fact about people 2,000 years ago? What's the source of that information? By the way it wasn't 23 AD or older but it came about in 3rd to 5th century.

From what ive read of it, the word was invented by Epiphanius of Salamis. And that's the only account of anybody saying the word. The sec isn't mentioned anywhere else, I question rather that was a genuine sec.

the "mother of God" was a pagan term..

 

[Eternally Grateful]

If they were cousins the bible would of mentioned them as such just like other people in the bible.

I doubt that scripture would leave people perplexed about if Jesus bothers and sisters were siblings or cousins. If they were cousins it would of presented them as such like below.

Luke 1:36

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

Jeremiah 32:7
"Look, Hanamel, your cousin, is coming to you and will say, "Buy my field in Anathoth for yourself, because the right of redemption to buy it belongs to you."'


And quite a few more,

here you go.

Not proof.. But evidence which supports..