Did Mary & Joseph have children, & did Jesus have brothers & sisters?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Order my new book on Amazon!
www.amazon.com...
Did Mary & Joseph have children after the birth of Jesus? Did Jesus have half-brothers & half-sisters? If not, then who are the 'brothers & sisters' of Jesus mentioned in Matthew 12:46-50 & Matthew 13:55-56: James, Joseph, Simon, Judas (Judas), & at least 2 'unnamed' sisters? Are they Jesus' disciples, His cousins, His believing 'brothers,' or children from a previous marriage of Joseph? Or are they Jesus' actual blood-related half-brothers & half-sisters born of Mary & Joseph after the birth of Jesus?
This is a BRIEF 14 minute video attempting to show BIBLICAL support that they are Jesus' actual blood-related, half-brothers & half-sisters. For a more detailed explanation than this 14 minute video will allow, below is a more in-depth discussion I had with my friend Geoff Robinson from “a Goy for Jesus “ which includes time stamps to conveniently jump to individual topics:
• the Perpetual Virginit...
NOTE: Although Matthew uses “heos,” translated “until” in his gospel to normally mean a change of condition, it is not always used this way in the New Testament. But in Matthew 1:25, he uses “heos ho” (not just “heos”) which the New Testament consistently refers to a change in condition.
This is the actual Bible study I did several years ago with the actual Bible study notes, which can be downloaded for free:
www.vernisage.u...
(a) Matthew 10:3
(b) Matthew 12:46-50
(c) Matthew 13:55-56
(d) Matthew 20:20
(e) Matthew 27:56
(f) Mark 10:35
(g) Mark 15:40 & 47
(h) Mark 16:1
(i) Luke 1:36
(j) John 2:12
(k) John 6:42
(l) John 7:3-5
(m) John 19:25-27
(n) Acts 1:13-14
(o) Acts 12:2
(p) Acts 15:13
(q) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8
(r) Galatians 1:19
(s) Galatians 2:9
(t) James 1:1
(u) Jude 1:1
(v) Psalm 69:8
/watch?v=NyiGw4cI95E
BTW, the purpose of this video is to demonstrate BIBLICALLY that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters. Any foul language or attempt to create Red Herrings by attempting to discuss the legitimacy of the Bible or Christianity will be deleted, since that is not the purpose of this video. Also, bringing up the beliefs of "select" 2nd through 5th Century ECF's on the perpetual virginity of Mary (while rejecting those who did NOT agree her virginity was perpetual) will also be deleted since their writings are not Inspired. If you wish to discuss those things, either message me privately if you REALLY want to KNOW if the Bible & Christianity are true, or if Jesus did indeed have half-brothers & half-sisters (not just to debate), or go onto another video to discuss it there.
After two reschedules, my debate against Dr. Robert Sungenis on the Marian dogmas has FINALLY been rescheduled for Friday, May 5th starting at 7pm EST on "Standing For Truth." Here is the direct link:
th-cam.com/video/NQKd3ieMVSg/w-d-xo.html
You made a nice analysis_but missed the point when you diverted James the less and Joseph to be different from the James and the Joseph on Mary and Joseph's family tree, they are same.. Jesus had relatives...there is no concrete evidence that Mary gave birth to other children..Brothers and sisters can mean anything even up till this day. We use the words brother or sister for relatives and countrymen
Virgin Mary is a perpetual Virgin. She only conceived and gave birth to Jesus Christ. Jesus has no siblings. The Scripture you’re talking about is His brothers and sisters of His kingdom.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph, arising from sleep, did just as the Angel of the Lord had instructed him, and he accepted her as his wife.
Matthew 1:25 AND HE KNEW HER NOT, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.
There is no until or after because Virgin Mary took a vow of virginity. There’s great articles about the subject on Catholic Answers online.
@@berifxacademy while it is true, that the word “ Brothers“ can mean other things other than biological siblings, then to be consistency, you would have to use the same argumentation for Andrew and Peter being “brothers.“ But I don’t know anyone, including Roman Catholics, who make this argument and outright rejects them being siblings, despite there being zero evidence from Scripture that they had the same parents, or even one parent in common. So would you then conclude that they were not biological siblings?
Plus, as I mentioned in the video, the specific Greek word translated “sisters“ only has two meanings that are used specifically in the New Testament, as well as in the Septuagint. Either biological sister or a believing “sister.” So it does not mean relatives, cousins, disciples, or anything else other than these two meanings. So when it says Jesus “brothers and sisters“this is how we know, Jesus brothers are the same kind of sisters of Jesus. And the way we know that they are not the same “James and Joseph“ that are mentioned in Mark 15 and 16, is because Mark does not mention Simon and Jude is in these chapters, let alone them having sisters. In fact, he mentions them collectively, as well as individually, indicating that these are the only two sons of the “other Mary“ and simply different men with the same names as Jesus brothers, but not the same people.
So I didn’t miss anything, but rather stressed these points out if you listen closely.
Just because the bible references Jesus’ “brothers” and “sisters” (Matthew 13:54-56 and Mark 6:3) doesn’t mean these individuals are Jesus’ blood brothers and sisters (coming from the same womb). If the usage of the word “brother” (Greek-adelphos) always meant a literal brother, then we would have to say Lot was Abraham’s sibling since the Greek version of Genesis 14:12-14 uses adelphos to describe Lot’s relation to Abraham. But we know this is not the case because Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Furthermore, Luke uses adelphos when Ananias calls Paul “brother” in Acts 9:17 but that doesn’t mean Ananias and Paul came from the same womb.
Therefore, the conclusion, “Jesus had blood brothers,” doesn’t follow from the premise, “the bible says Jesus had brothers.” The same reasoning would apply to the usage of sisters.
So what did Matthew and Mark mean? One explanation is that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (the assumption being Joseph was a widower), which would make these individuals Jesus’ stepbrothers and stepsisters. This was a view common around the time of St. Jerome.
It’s also possible, however, that they were cousins of Jesus. This seems to be a plausible explanation because Matthew refers to these “brothers” of Jesus as being the sons of another Mary in Matthew 27:56, whom John refers to as “Mary wife of Clopas” and the “sister” of Jesus’ mother in John 19:25. Whether John is using “sister” in the literal or more general sense, the relation this Mary has with Jesus’ mother would make the “brothers” of the Lord his cousins.
I came here to say this good show
If Joseph and Mary had other children before or after Jesus, how is it that nobody prior or during the Reformation taught it. The Protestant Messiah, Martin Luther, along with the other Messiahs, denounced any claim that Mary and Joseph had other children. How do you explain that?
+George Pierson first, "where" did I say in my video that Joseph & Mary had other children BEFORE Jesus? I STATED that Mary was a virgin BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus, but that Scripture doesn't state that she "remained" a virgin AFTER she gave birth to Him. Second, no Protestant - nor Luther himself - believed that Luther was the "Protestant Messiah." Luther would not have wanted people to look to him as the "ultimate authority" in the way Catholics look to the pope & the magisterium. Luther's whole desire was to look to SCRIPTURE - not him. So do Protestants.
BTW, there were Catholics BEFORE the Reformation that taught that Joseph & Mary had children AFTER the birth of Jesus, like Hegesippus. But this video is not about what INDIVIDUAL or even GROUP Protestants or Catholics "believe," but on what SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS. But the fact that Luther, & "some" of the other Reformers also believed in the unscriptural Catholic dogma of the PVM is irrelevant since their writings are not Inspired. Remember, Luther & many of the Reformers were originally CATHOLIC. Therefore, "some" of the their Catholicism spilled over into the Reformation, particularly the unscriptural dogmas of Mary. So, the real question that should be asked is "not" what the REFORMERS, like Luther, "believed" based on "their" Catholicism, but on what God-breathed SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS. And SCRIPTURE supports that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph & Mary consummated their marriage & had children, who are mentioned by name in Scripture. I understand you don't believe this because it conflicts with the unscriptural Catholic dogmas about Mary's perpertual virginity. But since the Catholic church ALSO believes in the Inspiration & inerrancy of Scripture, look up the nearly TWO DOZEN verses I posted below my video, & use it to create a "Jesus Family Tree" of your own. If you do this, you should find that it will resemble the one I posted via the link below my video that demonstrates that SCRIPTURE supports that Jesus' brothers & sisters were His YOUNGER half-siblings.
@@BornAgainRN best explanation ever 👍.God bless you brother
Luther was catholic.
@@BornAgainRN half sibblings? So Joseph and Mary were not really married then. Also why punish Mary by not giving her more children
@@BornAgainRN hegesippus was orthodox and the eastern orthodox say Jesus brothers and sisters were Joseph’s children only to a previous marriage , HEGESIPPIUS NEVER SAID THEY WERE BLOOD CHILDREN OF MARY . I HAVE READ HIS WRITINGS GET IT RIGHT ?
According to Matthew 1:24 and 25, Joseph received Mary as his wife, but had no marital relations until she gave birth to her son. What does this verse actully mean? It means or points to the fact that Jesus was born without the biological participation of her husband i.e, he is the son of virgin. Regarding Jesus' alleged brothers, the names of two persons named as brothers of Jesus in Mattew, viz., James and Joseph are not direct brothers of Jesus. They are sons of another Mary, who was near the cross along with Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Salomi. Let us recall the incident of missing of Jesus, when he accompanied Mary and Joseph to the Jerusalem Temple at the age of 12. There is no mention of any other children accompanying Mary and Joseph. If Jesus had any other brothers, what was the need of entrusting Mary to the protection of John by Jesus? John says he received her at his house.
Just out of curiosity, did you actually watch my video? Because I addressed that the James and Joseph who are the sons of the other Mary, are not the same James and Joseph who are the brothers of Jesus. I have the same names, but they are different men. For one, the brothers of Jesus are James and Joseph and Simon in Judas, and he has at least two unnamed sisters. But later when the other Mary is described as being the mother of James and Joseph, there’s no mention of Simon or Judas, or sisters. That’s because these are different men with the same names.
And the reason why Jesus did not and trust Mary to his younger Brothers, because at that point they were unbelievers. In Mark 31:35, makes a distinction between his biological mother and brothers were on the outside, to his disciples on the inside who do the will of God who he describes his “brothers and sisters and mother.“ that is why he trusts Mary to John, because John was his faithful disciple, his cousin, and did the will of God. He would not trust her to an unbeliever, even if they were his younger half siblings.
And the reason why Luke does not mention Jesus’ brothers is because he merely mentions Jesus ‘ relatives as an umbrella term. He was not concerned about enumerating all of Jesus’ relatives, like His aunt Salome who was Mary’s sister.
@@BornAgainRN You have been very keen in vainly trying to prove that Mary had other children. But we do not see such keenness in you in believing what Jesus had said in clear direct language that my body is real food and my blood is real drink. He reiterated this fact in spite of many of his disciples left him. He explained this using the words truly, truly I tell you... But you have not taken care of these direct language used by Jesus himself. Instead you are seeking refuge in unacceptable explanations
@@sebinantony6983 this video is about whether Joseph & Mary had children after the birth of Jesus, not the Eucharist. If you wish to discuss the Eucharist, I suggest going to a different video. Also, I am not being "keen" about Mary having other children. If you took the time to watch this video, you would see that SCRIPTURE, not me, rejects the PVM.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph, arising from sleep, did just as the Angel of the Lord had instructed him, and he accepted her as his wife.
Matthew 1:25 And HE KNEW HER NOT, yet she bore her son, the firstborn. And he called his name JESUS.
She never had sexual relations at all; she continues to be a perpetual Virgin as she is completely consecrated to God.
Please… it’s irrelevant after the Son of man birth. The woman served God and after, she was a married woman not married to God. Please, why can’t man understand “of God’s” apart from “of man” ?
BEST explanation of JESUS and his family I've ever seen. No doubt JESUS had relatives with popular/ common names: Mary, James, Joses, John, Jude, etc. are the names of many of JESUS'S loved ones. Thank you soo much for this video !
Thanks Michael! Glad I could help and that it was clear. God bless!
I have a better one! All brothers & sisters of Jesus are fabrications of who ever wrote g.Mark in c.80CE. None of them are attested to in any earlier christian literature. They were, and remain a fiction.
Jesus had brothers and sisters. Like he turned water into wine. Not carbonated grape juice, WINE. Not extended family, SIBLINGS!!!
@@jandt3463 well I beg to differ no christian document written earlier than g.Mark mentions anything at all about any family members. The logical conclusion is that in all probability Mark made them up when writing his story.
@@ghostriders_1 so the bible is fallable. Why would the Gospel lie? And again, why would a planned marriage not be consummated? FYI James the Just is well documented. From his being the brother of Jesus, to even his dreadlocks.......
On the Greek word 'Adelphos':
1. It's a Greek word
2. In Aramaic, there's no word for cousins, nephews, nieces, aunts or uncles
3. In Gen 14:14 Abram and Lot were described as adelphos, or brothers, in the English translation. But Abram is, in fact, the uncle of Lot.
The question is: why cross out the possibility that people related to Jesus, described as His brothers might mean that they are actually cousins? (Coz adelphos refer to counsins, nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles as there are no words for counsins, nephews, nieces, aunts and uncles in Aramaic, reference is in Aramaic not in Greek)
+embeevee...points #1 & #2 were covered in my video. Did you even watch it??? Doesn't sound like it.
Point #3 is irrelevant since the OT was written in Hebrew & Aramaic, not Greek like the NT was. BTW, in Genesis 14, Moses uses TWO Hebrew words to describe Lot's relation to Abraham, which literally means "brother's son" - not just "brother."
Lastly, since the primary definition for the Greek word "adelphos" to mean "brother" means male siblings, they are YOU ruling that meaning out? Yes, it has more than one meaning, but that was the purpose of my video - to demonstrate that SCRIPTURE eliminates every other meaning for "adelphos" EXCEPT for male sibling. Of course, that would require you to WATCH it first. Also, I covered in my video that there are other Greek words USED in the NT to refer to Jesus' "relatives" (syggenes), as well as "cousin" (anepsios). IOW, if the gospel writers intended these alternative meanings when referring to Jesus' "brothers" they would have USED them, just as they did elsewhere in the NT.
The Aramaic word for cousin is בר דוד “bar duḏ”
i know there are so much contradictions to cover up but trust me you dont want to research in original language because the contradictions get even worse
@@suluklu name one.
@@BornAgainRN I think the poster of this comment is considering not just the language of the Bible, but the language of the original conversation. The New Testament includes many Greek translations of conversations that would not have been in Greek. I don’t think that conversations among his own family and community would have been conducted in Greek. Thus it becomes relevant to talk about how family is referred to in Aramaic, because the Greek family words here are likely a translation of Christ’s Aramaic.
Read Mathew 13 55-66
Mathew 1 16-17
Mathew 27 56-57
Mark 3 16-20
John 19 25-26
Judas 1 1
Yep, all evidence that Jesus had younger half siblings, and that Joseph and Mary had children after the birth of Jesus.
Acts 12:12 When this had dawned on him, he went to the house of Mary the mother of John (Jesus brother), also called Mark, where many people had gathered and were praying.
Luke 1:38 "I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May it be to me as you have said." Then the angel left her.
Galatians 1:19 The only other apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord's brother.
Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Luke 1:46-47 Mary responded, "Oh, how my soul praises the Lord.
How my spirit rejoices in God my Savior!
Thanks for the post! I just sent you a private message.
reformed James the less was the son of Alphasus of cleophas . the bible very clearly says that 2 of the men said to be the brothers of Jesus were in fact cousins
+Louise Williams John the baptist was Jesus cousin as the scripture tells us
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.For no word from God will ever fail.""I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her.
Jesus had brothers and sisters that came out of Marys body. Gods word will not say Brother and mean cousin.
Matthew 13:55 "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
Do you believe Mary had only Jesus and she is the mother of all mankind?
Louise Williams please provide the EXACT Scripture that says "2 of the men said to be brothers of Jesus were in fact cousins." Not your personal interpretation of the text, but the EXACT VERSE - word-for-word.
1 king 2:19-20 Solomon doesn't refuse request. Jeremiah 13:18, 20. King's mother was important in those days. John 1:12 Mother Mary made a request. Genesis 3:15 woman is also important. Not as protestants see it.
Raul Baires...you didn't read far enough. After Bathsheba asked her son King Solomon to "not refuse me" to "Let Abishag be given to Adonijah your brother as a wife" (1 Kings 2:20-21), King Solomon replied "surely Aboijah shall be put to death today" (v.24), & then had him killed (v.25). So, yes, King Solomon DID "refuse" the request of his "Queen Mother" Bathsheba. That's why using this analogy and attempting to relate it to praying to "Queen Mother" Mary to pray for us to "King Jesus" is unbiblical. Plus, Jesus COMMANDS us when we pray to "pray THIS WAY: Our FATHER"...not "Mother Mary."
BTW, Mary didn't "make a request" to Jesus at the wedding at Cana. She merely informed Him they were out of wine. She didn't say anything else. And Jesus' mildly & respectfully rebuked her saying "What is this of us?" reminding His earthly mother that He does things in the Father's timing so that He may be glorified. So, He didn't "respond" to a prayer request of "Mother Mary," but rather performed this miracle so it would bring glory to the Father. Also, this passage also makes a distinction between Jesus' "disciples" vs. His "brothers" (John 2:12).
It would help when you post passages to defend your position to read the WHOLE passage, not just a SINGLE isolated verse out of its context. BTW, please stick to the topic of the video. I don't want to start deleting your comments if they go off onto unrelated tangents...because I will. Thank you in advance for complying.
brothers and sisters which were marys and Josephs but Jesus was the only one by God, He was the eldest.Mary had to remain a virgin during her pregnancy, nursing period etc. But after that Joseph and Mary were properly married. Remember she was only engaged to Joseph when Jesus was born. In addition John the Baptist mother Anna was the cousin of Mary.
Actually, Mary's close relative was Elizabeth, not Anna. But the rest is correct. Thanks for the support! Wish people who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity could see that - Biblically - Mary only needed to remain a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus. She was under no command from God, nor did she take any sort of "vow," to remain a virgin her entire life. That is simply an old man-made invention based on a false "gospel" from the mid-to-late second century.
True my mistake, I was mixed up for a moment, I was thinking of the prophet Anna, who spoke that Jesus was going to be the Messiah to Mary at the temple when she came to present him. Yes Elizabeth was John's mother and Marys cousin. Name mix up thats all.
@@BornAgainRN
And just so you understand, that Catholic church doesn't accept that "false gospel" from the second century that you are referring to. And even though it is not an inspired work, does not mean that there can not be some truthful statements contained in it.
No
@who ever that's because it's a reference to Jesus being "virgin born" not about Mary's virginal status post-Jesus' birth.
Yes of course they did, they are mentioned in the Holy Bible. He also had at least two sisters, possibly more, because the Holy Bible mentions his sisters too.
The mistake that Roman Catholics make is that Mary is not divine. Jesus is. Mary was a good and holy woman, she was also a wife and mother. Mary was human. Jesus Christ is divine, Jesus is the Son of God.
Barron Trump is the firstborn son of Melania. Barron Trump has 2 brothers and 2 sisters. Does that mean Melania bore 5 children?
Catholics do not believe Mary is divine. How many times do Protestants need to be reminded of this! She is honored because she is the mother of Jesus.
@@donnam1257 I am not a "Protestant." I was born to a Roman Catholic family, lived in an almost 100% Roman Catholic neighborhood, attended Roman Catholic primary school and Roman Catholic secondary school, attended Mass every Sunday and Holy Day, and sang in the Children's Choir at Mass, and at age 9 and 10, I did the readings at Mass on Sunday with my beloved teacher Sister Thomas standing near me to support me. Some of the very best people I ever knew were Roman Catholics. But from the time I was a child I couldn't understand why Roman Catholics prayed to saints and held novenas, nine days of prayers to various saints, and why certain saints were supposedly in charge of certain things, like when my mother lost the front door key again we all had to pray to Saint Anthony to find it for her. I left the Roman Catholic Church at the age of 14. The papacy is corrupt. The papacy took away the 2nd Commandment. The RC church teaches some doctrine that completely contradicts God's Holy Bible. The RC church has (deliberately?) misinterpreted the Holy Bible and do not encourage their members to read the Holy Bible. And Roman Catholics pray to Mary and to saints. People are supposed to pray to God, not to Mary and saints.
I am now a born-again Christian, by the singular grace of God. God bless you.
It was a family affair. John the Baptist was a cousin. So was John and his brother. When James and Jude became believers, James became the head of the Jerusalem Church.
You made me laugh claiming that it was a family business, and you have a point. Though, I accept Jesus as my Savior and my Lord, and I aspire to belong to Jesus's family.
@@mirr1427 : Don't think I quite used the word 'business.' Thar would suggest they were seeking commercial advantage. No evidence of that. Quite the opposite , really. I wonder who Jesus viewed as his Lord and Savior?
@@ewankerr3011, I am posting a link that might help you to sort out the issue you mentioned about. David Wood deals mostly with the hypocrisy of islam. However, he on his channel has many guests that address Christianity and Anthony Rogers is one of them.
A. Rogers has his own channel under his name. AR is very well versed both in the subjects of Christianity and Islam, and probably you will find there a lot of answers to your quandary.
th-cam.com/video/fk9wGv2U6nU/w-d-xo.html
Dear BornAgainRN: You did a good job of going through the different possibilities, but I disagree with you on a few points. Names like Mary, Salome, James and John are very common names. I just do not believe Mary's sister, Salome is the wife of Zebedee and that the apostles, James and John, are Jesus' first cousins. Thanks for sharing your thoughts even though I disagree with some of them.
+Earl Murphy...thanks for the feedback. Yes, those names - particularly Mary, James, & John - were indeed very common names (however, Salome, only appears twice in the entire NT - referring to the same woman, so I don't know how common it was). But the way the writers of the NT present them, the reader is expected to know who they are based on Scripture. But if your disagreement is that Salome wasn't the wife of Zebedee, that really isn't a point of disagreement - even between Protestants, Catholics, & Eastern Orthodox. They all agree on that familial relationship. And that's because Scripture is explicit on their familial relationship based on the gospels. For example, take a look at Matthew's & Mark's gospels talking about the same group of people:
"Among them was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." (Matthew 27:56)
"There were also some women looking on from a distance, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the Less and Joses, and Salome." (Mark 15:40)
Matthew & Mark are 2 of the "synoptic gospels" - meaning they tell some of the exact same stories, but vary them a little in grammar. As you can see both gospels mention the same 3 women. But Matthew refers to the 3rd woman as "the mother of the sons of Zebedee," while Mark refers to her simply as "Salome." And we know from the gospels that the disciples, James & John, were the sons of Zebedee. Therefore, Salome is the mother of James & John, the sons of Zebedee.
In order to figure out that James & John were cousins of Jesus, we have to add John's account of the women at the cross:
"Therefore the soldiers did these things. But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." (John 19:25)
Again, the same 3 women are at the cross, but John adds Mary the mother of Jesus, because here they are AT the cross, rather than the 3 original women who had moved back FROM the cross in Matthew's & Mark's account who were "looking on from a distance after Jesus had died (see above). Some people think there are only THREE women in John's account. However, if that were true, John would be omitting his OWN mother in his OWN gospel, despite mentioning Mary of Clopas & Mary Magdalene BY NAME, & even though Mark mentions John's mother - Salome - again, BY NAME. John doesn't mention his mother (Salome) nor Mary (his aunt) by name, because they are his elder relatives. It would be no different than not calling our parents by their first names out of respect. Therefore, by combining the women in Matthew's, Marks', & John's accounts at the cross, we find that since Mary the mother of Jesus, & Salome the mother of James & John were sisters, then that would make James & John the cousins of Jesus. And that's because when John says "His [Jesus'] mother's sister," it does NOT refer to Mary of Clopas, but rather it refers to Salome. Mary of Clopas is the same as the "other Mary" referred to in Matthew's & Mark's gospels as "Mary the mother of James the Less & Joses."
Yes, it's because there are so many "Mary's, James, John's, etc," that it can get confusing. And since the early church didn't have the Bible under one cover like we do today, we can understand why the very early, early church got confused to the specific identity of the women at the cross.
I hope this clarifies things. Thanks again for the feedback & the compliment. God bless.
Thank you for your time and diligence explaining this. I have been looking at extra-Biblical references naming Jesus' sisters. One source, and I do not remember which one it was, named Salome as one of Jesus' sisters. One source said that Jesus had 5 brothers and 7 sisters. I find that hard to believe. What are your thoughts on the names and number of Jesus' sisters? If this is off subject, just ignore although I am interested in your opinion.
Earl Murphy...to be honest, I don't know of any source that names Salome as a sister of Jesus. I read Eusebius' Church History from cover to cover, which chronicles the first 300 years of the church, & despite quoting numerous ECF's, there isn't anything about Salome being Jesus' sister. Where I think some early Christians "may" have gotten the idea of Salome being a sister of Jesus is in Matthew's & Mark's accounts of the women at the cross. The "other Mary" is referred to as the mother of James the Less & Joseph, and it also says "Salome." What might have happened early on is that some early Christians "might" have thought this particular "Mary" might have been Mary the mother of Jesus, since she is described as the mother of James & Joseph (even though it's a different "James & Joseph" than the ones mentioned in Mark 6:3, who they are described as Jesus' brothers). Therefore, they might have assumed when it says "Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Salome," that they took it to mean that Salome was James, Joseph's, & Jesus' sister. However, by cross-referencing, Salome is not related to this particular James the Less, Joseph, nor the "other Mary." Rather, again, she is the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus, & the mother of Zebedee's sons, James & John. Also, based on the context, the unnamed, unnumbered sisters were most likely more than two, since it refers to them as "all," which would indicate more than two. Sorry I couldn't be more help, but that's my take on it. BTW, if you're interested in church history, since the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation is coming up this October 31st, I made a 3-part series on TH-cam about it, including why Protestant Bibles are smaller (which is the bulk of the videos). If you'd like to check it out, click below, & if you like it, please consider "liking" it & subscribing to my channel, so it can reach out to a greater audience, & they can be aware of it.
th-cam.com/video/mStL5_wGrYk/w-d-xo.html
Thanks again, & God bless!
BornAgainRN .So in accordance to the question asked by Earl Murphy , which was "how many sisters do you think Jesus had" . would it be fair to say that you cannot objectively answer that question . Would that be because the gospels do not actually give us any data about the number of sisters or about the reality of Christ having any sisters at all .
Just putting it out there
Earl Murphy Mary the mother of Jesus was a only child,that's why her mother in gratitude offered Mary to God and presented her to the temple at the age of three
Mary the mother of Jesus had no other children. Scripture "alone" confirms it. I apologize for the long explanation, but it is necessary to fully understand who these "brothers" of Jesus really are.
Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
So, who are these brethren? First let us correlate the lists of the Apostles in the various Gospels:
Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
Mark 3:16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.
Luke 6:14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, 15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, 16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
St. John does not provide a list. Here we go:
They all begin with Simon Peter, showing his primacy.
They all mention Andrew, his brother, although not in the same order.
They all mention James, the son of Zebedee.
They all mention John, the brother of James.
They all mention Philip.
They all mention Bartholomew.
They all mention Thomas.
They all mention Matthew.
Now, pay close attention to the next three:
ONE: They all mention James the son of Alphaeus. Some call him James the Less.
TWO: Matthew’s Labbaeus Thaddeus is Mark’s Thaddeus which corresponds to Luke’s Judas the brother of James. Did you catch that? Judas the brother of James. Keep that in mind.
THREE: Next, Matt’s and Mark’s Simon the Canaanite corresponds to Luke’s Simon Zelotes.
We can disregard the final Apostle, the traitor Iscariot.
What were the names of those brethren again? James, Joses, Simon and Judas. Is it a coincidence then that James, Judas the brother of James and Simon are always listed together in the lists of Apostles?
There is no question in my mind, that these three Apostles are the brethren mentioned in Matt 13:55.
Furthermore, if we study further, we will also see that these same 3 brethren are identified as the children of the other Mary. There is another Mary who is the “sister” of the Virgin Mary. Let us correlate some Scriptures:
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
This Mary is always mentioned along with Mary Magdalene.
Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Note that she is the mother of James:
Luke 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
I’m assuming that Joanna is Salome, who is also frequently mentioned with Mary Magdalene and the other Mary:
Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Now, this Mary is the mother of James the less and of Joses. Therefore she is also the mother of Judas the brother of James and of Simon:
At the cross in John's gospel, besides Mary Magdalene, the mother of Jesus was there and her "sister", the wife of Cleophas, therefore her “sister”, the OTHER Mary, is her “cousin.”
The children of this other Mary, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas are kin of Jesus. But not brothers of the womb.
That’s from Scripture.
Mathew 1:25.
@@eddieboggs8306
Do YOU think that verse had a dual meaning to the reader? The ONLY point Matthew was trying to make was that Joseph had nothing to do with the conception of Jesus. If all YOU think Matthew was saying is that Joseph had sex with Mary after Jesus' birth, you are dreaming.
@@morelmaster
We not the only ones it would seem.
The word of God,the Bible, or thus sayeth and believeth mankind.
@@morelmaster a lot of what you wrote I already addressed with you - several times. So, I'll only address the new content you said you "think" is true:
1) You listed the names of Jesus' 4 brothers in Matthew 13:55 (James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas) & then you gave lists of Jesus' disciples from the various gospel accounts. While James, Simon, & Judas are names of disciples, JOSEPH IS NOT! So, if this is one of your "Scripture alone" arguments, it fails, because Joseph was NOT a disciple in "any" of the lists. Plus, these were VERY common names in the first century in Israel. There are eight different Judas' mentioned by name in the NT alone, and four different James'. Simon & Joseph were also very common names in the NT. And there were two different disciples named James, Simon, & Judas but NOT JOSEPH! So, this is a poor & unconvincing argument. Just because they have the same names, doesn't mean they are the same people.
2) You assumed since three of the disciples of Jesus (James the less, Simon the Zealot, & Judas Thaddeus) are always "grouped" together towards the end together, then that automatically means these are the same 3 "brothers" of Jesus of the same names, who are also "grouped" together in Mark 6:3. There are several problems with this, two of which I already covered:
A) These were all VERY common names in Israel in the first century;
B) Joseph, who was the brother of James the less, was NOT one of Jesus' disciples, so he would not have been one of these "brothers" of Jesus (meaning believing disciples);
C) Judas Thaddeus was the SON of James (Acts 1:13), not the BROTHER of James. While the KJV translates "Judas BROTHER of James," the original Greek omits the word "brother," which is why it's italicized in modern translations with the word "son." You see this even with Judas Iscariot "son" of Simon, the word "son" is italicized demonstrated Judas Iscariot was Simon's "son," not his "brother." Likewise, Judas Thaddeus was the "son" of James, not his "brother." So, this is not the same "James" & "Judas" mentioned as the "brothers" of Jesus in Mark 6:3.
D) The reason why these 3 other men, who happened to have the same names as 3 (but not 4) of Jesus' brothers, were grouped together is because "The 12" were listed & grouped in lists of 4 in relation to their intimacy level with Jesus. This is why Peter is ALWAYS listed first, & Judas Iscariot is ALWAYS listed last (except in Acts because he was dead). The "inner 3" (Peter, James, & John) are ALWAYS listed in the top 4 (along with Andrew, who was also mentioned with them alone with them & Jesus in other occasions in the NT apart from the rest of the disciples). Philip is ALWAYS listed first in the second grouping of 4, and James the less is ALWAYS listed first in the third grouping of 4. As the intimacy level with Jesus descends, so does the name of each disciple. We know a lot about those in the first grouping from Scripture, but very little from the last grouping (except for Judas Iscariot because of his betrayal which is why he's listed dead last). THIS is why they are grouped together with Judas Iscariot, NOT because they are the same "brothers" of Jesus in Mark 6:3.
3) Although you "assumed" Joanna & Salome were the same person, Scripturally, they are not. Joanna was the wife of Chuza (Herod's steward), while Salome was the wife of Zebedee. I was surprised you would make this assumption, which is such a blatant mistake, which can be found easily in Scripture (Luke 8:3). Just as Matthew did not mention Salome by name at the empty tomb, even though Mark mentioned her, likewise Luke included Joanna, but not Salome. Matthew, Mark, & Luke simply mentioned different women at the tomb, just as John mentioned the same THREE women "at" the cross as Matthew & Mark ALONG WITH Jesus' mother, while Matthew & Mark omitted mentioning Mary, because she was "still" at the cross.
4) We've already discussed that Mary of Clopas was NOT Jesus' mother's sister, because:
A) They are BOTH named MARY, & if they were sisters, their parents would NOT have given them the SAME NAME!
B) In Greek, "sister" only has TWO meanings: i) biological female sibling; ii) female believer. So, "female non-uterine relative" is NOT a Greek meaning of it, which is why when Mark 6:3 talks about Jesus' "brothers and SISTERS," this cannot mean "female non-uterine relative." It is ONLY used these TWO ways in the Septuagint as well - the only exception is when "sister" in Hebrew to mean non-uterine is translated directly into the Greek, because it's a translation. But in the NT, it is NEVER used to mean anything other than uterine female sibling or female believer.
C) Even EWTN (the Global Catholic Network) ADMITS that Mary of Clopas was NOT Jesus' mother's sister, but instead SALOME was her sister, making the apostle John, His cousin.
5) If one of your arguments is Mary the mother of James the less & Joseph has the same two sons who are two "of" the brothers Jesus by the same name, then why would the cross accounts of Matthew & Mark ONLY mention TWO of these alleged "brothers" of Jesus but OMIT the other two (Simon & Judas)? In fact, Mark & Luke go out of their way to state Mary the mother of James the less & Joseph had only TWO sons, because they mention them not only together, but also SEPARATELY in relation to Mary (Mary the mother of Joses - Mark 15:47; Mary the mother of James - Mark 16:1; Mary the mother of James - Luke 24:10). THIS "James & Joseph" are the ONLY sons of this "other" Mary, and NOT the same "James & Joseph" of Jesus' brothers in Mark 6:3, who are mentioned with Jesus' OTHER BROTHERS - Simon & Judas, who were NOT 3 of Jesus' disciples of the same name.
6) The only reason the reader of Mark 6:3 would think James, Judas, & Simon were brothers to begin with is because the text explicitly states they were brothers of JESUS. So, they would have to be brothers of HIM, in order to be brothers with "each other."
I give you credit you at least attempted to use Scripture, but you used it eisegetical, and not exegetically, by making self-admitted assumptions, such as Joanna being the same as Salome (which they are not the same person), and assuming that since VERY COMMON names in the first century are "grouped" together in different "lists," this automatically means they are the same people, without considering the reason "why" they are actually grouped that way.
It also ignored the fact that Scripture DOES support Jesus' "brothers" AND "sisters" were younger & uterine for the reasons in not only this post, but also in the video, which is backed up by the Greek, & doesn't require all the mental gymnastics, assumptions, & eisegesis of the text you employed.
Sorry for the long response, but it was required for your long argument.
@@BornAgainRN
YOU: You listed the names of Jesus' 4 brothers in Matthew 13:55 (James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas) & then you gave lists of Jesus' disciples from the various gospel accounts. While James, Simon, & Judas are names of disciples, JOSEPH IS NOT! So, if this is one of your "Scripture alone" arguments, it fails, because Joseph was NOT a disciple in "any" of the lists.
ME: Sorry, but I'm not following your line of reasoning here about Joseph??
Hello! I am writing a book and was researching this today using only the Bible. Then, I like to look up videos to kind of see if others came to the same conclusions. Your notes matched mine exactly! The only thing I'm working through now is what to call people when they have 2 names or 2 spellings. For example, Judas and Jude mean Judah. James means Jacob, etc. I want to figure that out so that my readers understand and yet make it obvious. Any thoughts?
Thanks! Jude is essentially short for Judah and Judas, basically a nickname. James is a derivative of Jacob. Thaddeus is the surname of Labbaeus. I believe there is a more technical term for this. If I think of it, I will post it here. Jerome referred to Thaddeus as “Trinomious” - the man with three names. Yes, Scripture alone will bring the Biblical reader to the conclusion in the video, which explains why those who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity reject sola scriptura because Scripture conflicts with this latter preconceived religious viewpoint.
Luke 1:31-34. The angel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive a son in her womb. Mary says "How can this be since I know not man?" This would be a very odd question for Mary to ask the angel, if Mary and Joseph had planned to have children. Why? Because when the angel came, Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which is the first stage of the Jewish marriage contract, they are legally husband and wife, but she was not yet living with Joseph. "IF" Mary had planned to have children, then what the angel said to her would not have shocked her because Mary would have just assumed that the angel meant WHEN Joseph took her into his home as his wife, at that point she would have conceived a son by him. BUT for Mary to ask the angel "How can this be since I know not man?", indicates that Mary had NOT planned to have children. Only then does the angel explain to Mary HOW the child will be conceived, through the Holy Spirit. Because Mary was obedient to God, she accepted whatever God had planned to do through her, despite her intention to not have children.
John, you asked this same question about 5 or 6 years ago, and back then I responded that BECAUSE Joseph & Mary were in the year long betrothal period which did not involve sexual relations, when the angel told her she would conceive, this is why she was bewildered. It had nothing to do with any alleged "vow" of perpetual celibacy. The text does not even hint at this. It was because Mary knew she was still in the year-long betrothal period that she couldn't understand how she would get pregnant, which was then explained that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. Immediately after this, Mary travels the the hill country to meet Elizabeth, and Mary is already pregnant. So, Mary understood this conception could happen at any moment, including while she was still in the betrothal period.
So, Luke 1:31-34 is not a prooftext either that proves Mary was a perpetual virgin. What might save us both some time, and since I am a former Catholic, since I have heard all of the classic arguments (like this one) that have been addressed centuries ago, do you have anything new that has not been asked hundreds of times in the past?
@@BornAgainRN
Let's just ASSUME that Mary INTENDED to have a family with Joseph when the angel came to her. Seeing as how Mary was still in the betrothal period (I feel it was very near the end), I think the most NATURAL way she would have interpreted the angel's introductory message is that she would conceive AFTER Joseph took her into his home. This is why her question "How can this be since I know not man?"(during the betrothal period) seems strange seeing as how she knew how babies were made, and knowing that her and Joseph would be living together shortly when relations would begin. It was only AFTER the angel explained HOW it would happen, that Mary fully understood her role in God's salvation plan, and gave herself over to God for His purpose.
So I don't agree with you that Mary would have thought the conception could have happened at any moment during the betrothal period, I think it more likely (If she planned to have a family) she was thinking it would happen AFTER her and Joseph came together in his home. The angel was not specific about WHEN it would happen, so I think that Mary naturally would have interpreted it to mean AFTER the betrothal period, and with Joseph.
@@jzak5723 first, why must we "assume" that Joseph & Mary as a MARRIED COUPLE would have intended to have a family? Beyond Rome assuming otherwise based on Proto-James, what objective - and more importantly, Scriptural - reason do you have that they would have had any other "intention" than to plan a family? I am afraid you are beginning with what Rome teaches, by questioning that this "might" not have been their plan, since you don't make this assumption with anyone else in Scripture where this "vow" of perpetual virginity is not even implied, let alone explicitly stated.
And where are you "feeling" that the angel's appearance was "near the end" of their betrothal period? Again, you are ASSUMING this, since there is nothing in the text that even hints at this. And even "if" it was, the rest of your assumption about Mary saying "how can this be?" to mean that they weren't planning on having a family. And no one is denying she didn't know where babies came from. So, that's not even an argument needing to be brought up. Again, it is BECAUSE they were in the betrothal period - whatever part it was - that she asked the question, since sexual relations did not occur during this time. Since there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that Mary could not have thought the virginal conception could happen during this time, there is no objective or Scriptural reason to eliminate this as a reason for her to say this.
@@BornAgainRN
quote; And where are you "feeling" that the angel's appearance was "near the end" of their betrothal period? Again, you are ASSUMING this, since there is nothing in the text that even hints at this.
Oh brother! Nobody is even allowed to give their personal opinion without YOU criticizing it. I think its pretty clear that I wasn't saying that the text hinted at anything about the stage of the betrothal period. The annoying thing is, YOU have done the very same thing over the years, assuming things from the text, but when YOU do it, its justified. Not sure how much longer I can continue conversing with you concerning this video with this kind of attitude, it gets really old.
@@jzak5723 no one is forcing you to continue making replies. You can stop at any time. When I make comments regarding a text, where it is not explicit, such as Jesus' brothers not being explicitly mentioned in the caravan in Luke's gospel, it is to point out that them not being mentioned explicitly is not "proof" that they didn't exist or were not there.
When you make the assumption that Joseph & Mary "might" have planned not to have a family, this is not the same thing that I am doing. Again, your "opinion" - that are totally entitled to, BTW - isn't based on anything that can be derived from the text. Sure, married couples can choose to refrain from having children, and there are even examples of this in Scripture...but not in the text between Joseph & Mary.
Perhaps your frustration is due to your arguments having been addressed numerous times, and that nothing you have ever presented proves Mary was a perpetual virgin, or that Jesus' brothers were anything other than younger half-siblings.
Just from human logic; if I were Joseph and clearly understood for what cause GOD had used my fiancee for; where would I get the guts to enter her? Blessed amongst women, born and unborn... no way I could follow the natural instincts. Scripture is not clear on this topic and lots of assumptions need to be made to justify it. It never happened. Thanks
You have a VERY singular view on that matter. The whole point of virgin birth was that the birth of Jesus was not of earthly birth but heavenly! After the birth of Jesus, why would Jesus compromise Mary and Joseph's NATURAL, (as is ordained by God) relationship??? What is there to be surprised about that Joseph and Mary as husband and wife consummated and beget other children, after the birth of Jesus?? Scripture DOES assert this!! Catholics made all sort of things up to bolster their unfounded claims about Mary's sinlessness and perpetual virginity. All these are UNBIBLICAL! Scripture IS clear that Jesus HAD siblings! What more do you want??? I DON"T GET IT!
Fabian, since there was no direct command from God to either Joseph or Mary for her to “remain” a virgin after the birth of Jesus, there is no SCRIPTURAL reason to entertain the theory. Joseph is described as Mary’s HUSBAND, and Mary as his WIFE. As faithful Jews, they would have been obedient to God in their marriage and been “fruitful and multiply.” Besides, the text of Scripture supports she had children with her husband. So, I’m afraid it did happen.
@@BornAgainRN also as it looks like from the Scriptures, Mary the wife of Clopas is indeed in other words wife of Alpaeus and mother of James the less and Joseph.
Mary's sister's name is unmentioned in gospel of John, but if we compare it to the gospel of Mark she is mentioned as Salome? This is how I always viewed this little confusion.
And I always saw it that John didn't mention his mother by name, just by "His mother's sister". To be respectful
@@maryanna682
even EWTN espouses to the view that Salome was Jesus' mother's sister in John's gospel. Otherwise, John would not have mentioned his own mother, in his own gospel, even though he mentioned the other women, and Mark mentioned Salome by name. This is why John mentions FOUR women at the cross, not three, which Catholic & other non-Protestant apologists get wrong. As a result of their error, they also get these women's sons' identities wrong as well, which results in denying that Jesus did indeed have younger half-siblings.
😂 Know your Bible
Yes, He did. And we shouldn't be upset about it. And the thing is, there are people today who descend from His brothers and sisters. Think about that one. They were NOT brothers and sisters "in the faith" because He never called Mary Magdalene or Mary of Bethany and her sister Martha as "sisters in the faith". Neither did He call any of the men "brothers in the faith".
It would have been very appropriate for Mary and Joseph to procreate because that was the ultimate purpose of marriage. I think though, that the reason they aren't recorded at the crucifixion was because as His siblings, they would have been hid in a safe place.
moorke1987...great insight. I wish more people could leave their man-made traditions behind & allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves.
@@BornAgainRN I know we are not supposed to be silent where the Bible is silent, and speak where the Bible speaks.
And two or three witnesses establish a thing. So by comparing verses dealing with a particular thing, we can get the context and understand better. I have heard people make entire doctrines on one verse alone.
@@morelmaster We don't know how old they were. He could have had some very young siblings and they would need protecting. But Jesus was her firstborn, why wouldn't she as a mother be there?
Would you allow your children to witness an execution, especially their sibling?
@@moorek1967
quote; But Jesus was her firstborn, why wouldn't she as a mother be there?
ME: That's exactly why she was there.
Jesus was approximately 33 yrs. old when he died, and IF he had siblings, they wouldn't have been "very young" as you said, they would most likely have all been adults by then, don't you think? Being adults, they could do as they wanted and wouldn't need someone to "protect" them. Of course, everything you, I, or anyone says about it is just pure speculation, but I find it highly unlikely based on the crucifixion accounts, and other places in Scripture, that Jesus had other siblings.
@@morelmaster you have asked this question several times about where His brothers were at the crucifixion, and it has been answered for you several times. Your comment is deleted. Please ask something different.
In Semitic Usage, the term’s brothers and sisters are applied not(( Only to Children of the same Parents)), but to nephews-nieces-cousins- half brothers and half sisters.((Gen 14;16-29;15 and Lev 10;4) see New American Bible page 1011
I know. I was raised Catholic. But if you watch the video, the Bible eliminates every other Semitic meaning for “brother” and “sister” except for half-sibling.
No Mary did not have any after Jesus.
Jochim, can you actually back this up with Scripture, beyond your personal opinion? If so, please demonstrate.
@@BornAgainRN I know. The early Church onward and not just Catholics believed Jesus had no blood brothers but Dr Luther also and other old Protestants. I have many facts on this. First-- The “brothers” of the Lord
Neither Aramaic, the language Jesus probably spoke, nor Hebrew has a separate word for cousin. In reality the term, brothers, was commonly used in the Bible to describe close family members including cousins and uncles. Lot, for example was Abraham’s nephew. He was the son of Abraham’s brother Haran. Yet in Genesis 14:14, Lot is depicted as Abraham’s brother. In Mt 29:15 Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban. Again in 1 Chron 23:21-22 the daughters of Eleazar married their brethren. This is not possible because Eleazar had no sons. These brethren were really their cousins, the sons of Cis. Cis was Eleazar’s brother. Mary was most blessed of all woman. No blood brothers.
@@jochimbenschneider1915 just out of curiosity, but did you actually "watch" my video, since I acknowledged that "brother" in Greek has other meanings besides male sibling? But that does not prove that by "brothers" this does not mean that Jesus' brothers were not His siblings. Because if you are going to use these arguments from the OT, such as Genesis 14:14 & 1 Chronicles 23:21-22, then to be consistent, you must use this argument EVERY time "brother" is used in the OT & NT, even when it means sibling. Again, what Scriptural reason do you have for eliminating the PRIMARY meaning of "brother" to mean sibling? BTW, the NT was written in Greek - not Hebrew - and Greek DOES have a specific word for cousin, and it's used in the NT.
@@stephenmatthews161 irrelevant comments pertaining to my video will be deleted, as per the instructions below my video. Any further violations and you will be banned from channel. Please comply with my rules. Thank you.
@@jochimbenschneider1915 I also agree that Mary was "blessed among women" since Scripture teaches that. But "blessed among women" does not mean she was a perpetual virgin her entire life.
With all due respect to Pastor Joshua Sullivan, the Catholic Church would not recognize a Lutheran pastor as being a legitimate "ordained servant of the word" since they don't recognize him as being ordained by a Roman Catholic bishop. Obviously, I would not agree with Rome on this. Nonetheless, he believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary because Luther did. And the only reason Luther did was because he was ordained a Catholic, and that part of Catholicism spilled over into the Reformation. Remember, Luther's beef with Rome wasn't about Mary, but about the authority of Scripture (sola scripture) vs. the authority of the Church (sola ecclesia).
Funny how you refuse to listen to my "heresy," but you want me to listen to yours? That is a bit subjective. BTW, I will not tolerate what I am teaching being called "heresy" on my own channel. This is a violation of the rules of my channel (see the description below my video), so it will be deleted. Any further violations will result in banning from my channel. Please comply with my rules, as I have no desire to do this. Thank you in advance for complying.
Now, can you demonstrate from SCRIPTURE that Jesus' brothers & sisters were not His younger half-siblings? And use SCRIPTURE not the beliefs of Lutheran pastors & other uninspired sources.
Can anyone rebut Matthew 1:25? I have yet to hear any good reasoning that Mary remained a virgin in light of this verse. It is clear Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after Jesus was born.
They have said the Greek words translated “until” does not always mean an activity ends once an event concludes. They will say all the verse is saying is Joseph kept her a virgin “up to” the birth of Jesus, but does not indicate what happened afterwards. But that ignores the context of the passage, and in the NT, the specific Greek words “heos ho” are used that way consistently in the NT, meaning Joseph only kept her a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus. The context is that her virginity ended after she gave birth.
kind crazy to believe anything but.
The statement about the "brothers" of Jesus in St. John 7 is mistakenly taken to mean that they were not believers. But it says in the BIBLE that they believed in His miraculous power and were urging him to manifest it to the world. The problem was not that they were unbelievers per se. They believed that He is the Messiah. But they did not believe in Him as the KIND of Messiah that rivals their notion of the mighty political messiah according to human understanding. I got this from Catholic Encyclopedia.
Paul Sara Jose if you click "SHOW MORE" below my video, in the notes section, I list all the Scripture verses I used for my video. It also contains the link to the "Jesus Family Tree" that is in my video, based on those Scripture verses:
img40.imageshack.us/img40/8902/familytreea.jpg
For a more detailed description, with Scripture verses included, you can view & download my Bible study notes for free:
www.vernisage.us/SteveChristie/16/index.html
(Upper right hand corner of the screen.) God bless! :)
(John 2:12) “After the wedding he (Jeus) went to Capernaum for a few days with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples.”
MsNairobi I see your confusion in these verses. First, you are 'assuming' that Mary's parents named BOTH of their daughters 'MARY,' which does NOT take into account that FIRST century Jewish families would NOT name BOTH of their daughters the EXACT SAME NAME, because, back then, names had meaning & significance, unlike today. Second, your assumption is based on the 'beliefs' of 'certain' LATER 2nd through 5th Century ECF's that the 'other Mary' was Mary's sister, which demonstrates that even the ECF's got confused to the various 'Mary's' in Scripture. Third, you made an error that the 'other Mary' is the mother of James & John, while SCRIPTURE states that the 'other Mary' (wife of Clopas,' aka Alphaeus) is the mother of James & JOSEPH (not James & JOHN). The mother of James is JOHN (the mother of Zebedee's sons) is a 'different' woman - SALOME, which is supported if you cross-reference Matthew & Mark's account. So, if you go back & examine those passages & compare them to what I just wrote & corrected you on this, if you're honest with yourself, you'll see that you got confused to the various 'Mary's,' which only demonstrates that it's possible to misinterpret those passages - even the LATER 2nd through 5th century ECF's can get confused.
I find it interesting that you referenced Hegessipus (100-180 A.D.) for your support, who wrote AGAINST the PVM, who you stated the RCC declared him a 'heretic,' who wrote about this AFTER Proto-James was written. And regarding Joseph & Clopas being brothers, that's based on the 'assumption' that the 'Clopas' [Gr: Klōpas - 'my exchanges'] of John 19:25 is the same 'Cleopas' [Gr: Kleopas - 'of a reknowned father'] of Luke 24:18, which is based on the 'assumption' from LATER 2nd through 5th century ECF's that he was the brother of Joseph. Two problems: 1) These LATER 'beliefs' are NOT supported by Scripture - neither Luke nor John STATE they are the 'same Cleopas/Clopas'; and 2) neither Luke nor John STATE that 'either' Cleopas nor Clopas is the brother of Joseph. Again, these are LATER 2nd through 5th century 'beliefs,' which are BASED on Proto-James - NOT the Bible! If you go back & examine everything - including the TIMING of these LATER 'beleifs,' & if you're honest with yourself, I think you'll be surprised how many of these LATER 2nd through 5th century & CATHOLIC 'beliefs' - and others - about Mary are actually BASED on Proto-James, not the Bible.
Ms BORN AGAIN RN:Mary's parents only had one child , they had been barren a long time, Mary was their only child
Louise Williams first, I'm a guy, not a girl. That should have been obvious if you listened to my video. If you haven't listened to it (which it doesn't sound like you did), I address why the extra-biblical belief of Mary's perpetual virginity, that originated in the SECOND century non-inspired writing of the Proto-evangelium of James, is not supported by Scripture, and actually contradicts it. Seriously, listen to the video. It will address your comment in Biblical context.
I did not listen to your video as I didn't know you had one. As far as marys parents, they only had one child as they had been barren and couldn't have children
Louise Williams um...my video is the one you are commenting on! As far as Mary's parents, Scripture explicitly states they had at least TWO children - "Jesus' mother & his mother's SISTER" (John 19:25). Nowhere in Scripture does it say that Mary's parents were "barren." Again, you are confusing the false "gospel" of the Protoevangelium of James written in the SECOND century, with Inspired Scripture written in the FIRST century. It sounds like your religious "beliefs" about Mary don't originate from God-breathed Scripture, which is what my video is addressing: does SCRIPTURE support that Jesus had brothers & sisters? And, yes, Scripture "does" support that.
You say that Mary and Mary are not sisters even though in the scripture they are labeled as being. This could mean they are cousins or something. What is to say the same couldn't be true for Jesus's supposed adelphos
I appreciate all the replies. 1. if you have read something similar from my sharing. Probably God is giving you a massage. 2. Matthew 1:21 tells about Mother Mary "will bear a son" I still can't find a passage Mary will bear more children. 3. John 20:19 "Jesus came and stood in their midst" Jesus appears. Genesis 3:16 the pain of birth, luke 2:7 "she wrapped him in swaddling clothes" baby Jesus appears by the power of the Holy Spirit. No women moves so easily after suffering pain of labor. This is what I believe and convinced of.... Virgen Mary"before, during, after" 4. luke 1:35 seems two actions going on there"Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High" God does want to father Jesus. Mary is dougher, Mother and spouse. I really get it why Mary and Joseph didn't need to be intimate, when "the love of loves" is in there midst. Humans won't understand it because we lack graces. And Mary is full of grace luke 1:28. Thank you for the time interacting.
Raul Baires...keep in mind the Bible is about JESUS, not His earthly family, including Mary, which is why she is mentioned so infrequently by name in the NT, including less than most of the apostles, including Judas Iscariot. So, the NT writers weren't as concerned about the family dynamics of Jesus' younger half-siblings, even though they are mentioned by name. So, the NT - specifically - not saying "Mary beared more children" doesn't mean she didn't, since - again - the NT is NOT about Mary, but about JESUS. This is often overlooked by Catholics & others.
@@BornAgainRN
I agree with you here, the primary focal point of Scripture is Jesus. Then tell me something, why is it a FACT that non-Catholics are so consumed with trying to "PROVE" Mary had other children, as if it could be done with 100% certainty, and Catholics on the other hand, rarely think about such things, and instead concern themselves with things of much greater importance from Scripture? Certainly, a Catholic will defend their belief in Mary's perpetual virginity if it is questioned, as I have been doing here, but generally its not something we worry about.
@@jzak5723 because since SCRIPTURE is God-breathed & cannot be in error, SCRIPTURE does support Jesus' brothers & sisters were uterine. Catholics, on the other hand, devote so much time to Mary, even more so than Jesus or the Father, in prayers (ie: the Rosary), that they have elevated Mary to position above & beyond she is in Scripture. And since SCRIPTURE does "not" support the PVM, but instead supports she had children after the birth of Jesus, then Catholicism is wrong about the PVM, since this much MUCH later Catholic dogma is not supported "by" Scripture.
@@BornAgainRN
quote;
Catholics, on the other hand, devote so much time to Mary, even MORE SO than Jesus or the Father, in prayers (ie: the Rosary), that they have elevated Mary to position above & beyond she is in Scripture.
Here we go again with your opinions being stated as FACTS. Regardless of whether you once were a Catholic yourself, to make statements such as this that cannot be PROVEN is really unacceptable. Prayer is a private matter, and to imply that you know Catholics pray to Mary "more" than Jesus and the Father is ludicrous to me. To be honest, I'm getting more than a little tired of these kinds of remarks.
@@jzak5723 does the Rosary have more prayers devoted to Mary than God Himself? Yes or no? How many beads are on a Rosary reserved for "Hail! Mary" vs. ones for "Our Father"? Simply answer the question.
MsNairobi, I will answer the first question you asked me (so that others who read this will understand the kind of UNVERIFIED assumptions you make):
"The church teachings of the 1st century after Christ (AD 33) up to the second century (AD 199) reflects the teachings of the apostles, the disciples of the apostles, and the disciples of those taught by the disciples of the apostles. Do you agree, if not explain why?"
ANSWER: As I've explained NUMEROUS times to you, there is ZERO evidence that the APOSTLES believed some of the things the Catholic church teaches, which INCLUDES that Mary REMAINED a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus. If this is not true, then 'WHO' are the apostle(s) who STATED this? If you say that a doctrine is apostolic but you cannot quote the apostles to confirm it, then that doctrine is not apostolic, and anyone who says it is is calling the apostles liars. And 'THAT' is exactly what you're doing - you're trying to 'bridge' the beliefs of LATE 2nd through 5th Century ECF's to the apostles regarding the PVM. The problem is that there is ZERO evidence from the WRITINGS INBETWEEN THEM, nor from the apostles THEMSELVES!!! So, your 'belief' that there is (which you have ZERO evidence for) is the foundational error for your belief in the PVM, as well as other anti- & extra-biblical CATHOLIC beliefs. So, until you accept this, & put away your Catholic pride & unfortunate allegiance to that false form of Christianity, you won't realize the UNVERIFIABLE "ASSUMPTION" you are making, & you will remain 'stuck' in that false theology. Until then, I'll keep you in my continued prayers. In Jesus' Name, Steve.
BornAgainRN a
Sorry did not mean to send
BornAgainRN , The man made protestant traditions like Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are NOWHERE found in scripture . So the two pillars of protestantism are far more extant than that any Catholic Doctrine ,
BornAgainRN . And I will answer your answer to MsNairobi
The protestant man made tradition of Sola Fide is a case of double standards when they accuse catholics of man made traditions and here is the classic case
JAMES 2:24
…23And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God. 24As you can see, a man isJUSTIFIED BY HIS DEEDS and NOT BY FAITH ALONE . 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute JUSTIFIED BY HER ACTIONS when she welcomed the messengers and sent them off on another route?
Would you kindly apologise to MsNairobi for your your obvious double standards
PAUL VINCI...this video is about who the brothers & sisters of Jesus are - NOT sola fide. So, if you have a specific argument - from Scripture - "who" the brothers (mentioned BY NAME) & sisters OF Jesus mentioned in Scripture are, then please explain so. Otherwise, please refrain from unnecessary Red Herrings - like sola fide - that are completely unrelated & irrelevant to the intention of my video. IOW, please follow my instructions just below my video so your comments will not be deleted. Thank you for following instructions.
I have been invited to another LIVE debate on the Marian dogmas, this time against Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is scheduled for Thursday, October 6th at 8pm EST on the "Standing For Truth" TH-cam channel. The live chat will be active to ask us questions. Keep me in your prayers that God will be glorified! Here is the direct link:
th-cam.com/video/NQKd3ieMVSg/w-d-xo.html
It’s explained in the Urantia Book. Joseph was married before Mary. His wife died and he already had two sons. Joseph was 29 and Mary was 15. Chapter 126, Section 2 explains where they had other children. The Catholic Church deleted the mentioning of Jesus’ brothers as blood.
Although the Urantia Book is not God-breathed Scripture, fortunately we have the Bible, which is Inspired which does support Jesus' brothers were half-blood siblings & younger.
'before they came together' meant before they were married. Since, before she was betrothed to Joseph, she was found to have the child of the Holy Spirit. No where does it say they conjugated. It simply meant until. If there were important actions following, they would have been referenced in the Bible.
Tim Perry...for some reason, comments from 5 years ago are only now popping up. Hopefully, you are still on TH-cam. Rather than respond to every separate post you made, I am going to consolidate them here & delete the rest. The Hebrew idiom "came together" means more than just "before they were married." It specifically refers to having sex. Paul uses the term in his first epistle to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 7:5) to mean this. So, when Matthew wrote "before they came together," he's saying "before Joseph & Mary had sex."
And if you read the text carefully, it wasn't BEFORE Mary was betrothed to Joseph, but WHILE she was betrothed to him. Betrothal was a year-long period when a couple were legally married, but hadn't had sex yet. This is why Matthew states he considered DIVORCING her when he found out she was pregnant. You only need to get a divorce if you are MARRIED.
As I mentioned in the video, the SPECIFIC Greek word for "until" Matthew uses, is used consistently 100% of the time in his gospel to mean "once an event ends, so does the activity" - in this case the "event" is the pregnancy of Mary with Jesus, and the "activity" is keeping her a virgin. If Matthew wanted to convey her virginity continued after the birth of Jesus, he would have used another available Greek word for "until" used in the NT, other than "heos." Or, he would have simply said "he [Joseph] kept her a virgin"...PERIOD! Continuing to say "...until she gave birth to a Son" is redundant & unnecessary unless "until' means "up to" the birth of Jesus (but not beyond that) Joseph kept her a virgin. Also, the exact conjugation of "until" is "heos hos" which is even more explicit than just "heos," because it indicates the event (Mary's virginity) ended after the birth of Jesus.
Regarding why Jesus didn't entrust His earthly mother to one of His half-siblings, even though it was "Jewish custom": that's because Jesus followed the LAW of Moses, not Jewish custom. This is why when Jesus corrected the Jewish leaders, like the Pharisees, He said, "As it is WRITTEN..." or "Have you not READ?" but not "Your 'custom' says..." And nothing in the Law of Moses, nor anywhere else in the OT, does it command an older dying brother, whose father was dead, do entrust his earthly mother to the next eldest male sibling. Therefore, Jesus had the right to entrust her to whoever He desired. And since His biological brothers were unbelievers (John 7:5) & dishonored Him (Mark 6:3-4), He entrusted her to His heavenly "brother" who did the will of God (Mark 3:34-35) - the apostle John who was also His cousin, which means He did entrust her to a close male family member. Jesus' TRUE family was not necessarily earthly, but spiritual, which explains why He did not entrust her to His younger half-brothers who were not believers.
And, no, not "EVERYONE was wrong" about this in the early church. Several ECFs & early Christian writers, like Helvidius, Hegesippus, Africanus, & even Irenaeus, either directly or indirectly believed or alluded to Jesus' brothers being uterine, or that Mary's virginity was not perpetual. But since not ALL ECFs agreed with each other, is why we have to turn to Scripture. Because while they can contradict each other, Scripture cannot. And Scripture supports they were younger half-siblings, which means Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin.
Also, when the NT was translated into Latin - which happened very early on - the meaning from Hebrew & Greek were lost. Many ECFs, like Jerome, still understood them, but they were relying on the Latin text, rather than the direct Hebrew & Greek, which led to confusion to their identity.
The reason Jesus' sisters are not named or numbered is cultural. Women in Jesus' day did not have the status that men did. They couldn't even testify in a court of Law. So, it is not surprising they are neither named nor numbered, just identified as "His sisters." Also, unlike the Greek word for "brother" (adelphos) which can have multiple meanings other than uterine, the specific Greek word for "sister" (adelphe) only has TWO: 1) uterine; 2) believer. So, when Jesus said His brothers AND SISTERS did not honor Him (Mark 6:3-4), we can eliminate believer. And since non-uterine female relative, like a cousin, is not an option in the Greek, there is only ONE option left: uterine. So, Jesus' unbelieving "sisters" were younger half-siblings, which is supported by the Greek. It's also used this way in the Greek translation of the OT. When "sisters" in Hebrew is translated into Greek (adephe) it too only has these same two meanings.
Also, a Scriptually-believing Jew whose authority was the OT would have understood "Son of God" to be an OT reference to Messiah, Who would be God Himself (see Psalm 2, 2 Samuel 7:14; Isaiah 9:6. In the book of Daniel, when Nebuchadnezzar cast Daniel's 3 friends into the burning furnace, he noticed a fourth man in there who was like "the Son of God," which was Jesus. So, when Jesus said He was the Son of God, His disciples understood this to be a fulfillment of OT prophecy, while the Jewish leaders who relied on their "traditions" rejected it. See also Isaiah 53 which foreshadows Jesus. BTW, I don't use the KJV exclusively. It's not even my Bible of choice, so please don't make unfounded assumptions about me.
So, this is not a "newer argument," & the fact that "some" of the Reformers espoused to the PVM is irrelevant, since a Protestant's authority is NOT the Reformers, who also contradicted themselves on topics like this, but instead on SCRIPTURE that supports they were younger, uterine, & half-siblings.
No where in the Bible does it say “ the children of Mary.” Sorry sir better luck next time.
It doesn’t need to. The Bible also doesn’t say “God is a Trinity.” But just as the concept of the trinity is supported by scripture, so is the concept that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus. Exact wording is not necessary for something to be true. Just out of curiosity, did you even watch my video before you made a comment? If not, why don’t you watch it first. That would be more productive.
@@BornAgainRN good Im glad you accepted the idea of the Trinity because it’s supported in scripture , now you have to apply that same concept to Mary’s virginity by asking yourself Where are the rest of the children during the finding of the twelve year old child Jesus in the temple in Luke’s gospel ? or where are his siblings at the foot of the cross? Jesus had to give his own mother to John to take home as his Mother and in Jewish cultural this would have been a very scandalous thing if she had other children. Where’s the so called children you claim in both of these occasions? The answer is nowhere because there isn’t any.
@@mosestorres6553exactly he wont be able to answer that question at all.
Also Thats a excellent point when you brung up the temple, when Jesus was 12 yrs old and Mary & Joseph were lookin for him. Yes were r the other siblings @, that's because Mary didn't have any other children great point brother...
@@mosestorres6553 because Jesus was only 12, "some" of them may not have been born yet since they were younger. Those that were were part of the "relatives" in the caravan. Luke was not concerned about enumerating every single of Jesus' family members, as there would have been many. Jesus' younger half-siblings were not at the foot of the cross because they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5) & dishonored Him (Mark 6:3-4). Again, Jesus would not entrust His earthly mother to an unbeliever, but to His disciple who was doing the will of God (Mark 3:33-35), which was John who was also Jesus' cousin. So, there is nothing "scandalous" about Jesus doing that. No OT Law commanded Jesus to do so.
@@onlylove556 the same question could be asked that if Jesus' brothers were old step-brothers, where were they? And where were they when the traveled to Bethlehem for the census. You have a much bigger Scriptural problem with them being older than younger.
Today at 3 PM EST is my live interview with Dr. Michael Brown on his nationally syndicated radio program, “the line of fire.“ Here is the link where you can watch it:
m.th-cam.com/video/GyrezIYvkgk/w-d-xo.html
Where were all these brothers and sisters when Jesus was found teaching in the temple at 12 years old? Mary and Joseph spent 3 days looking for him. Were they at home with the baby sitter ? You would think being the eldest brother he would be at home looking after them
If you read that passage from Luke's gospel, it says Joseph & Mary's "relatives" were in the caravan when Jesus went missing, but doesn't mention ANY of them by name. They would have remained behind in the caravan with Jesus' relatives. Luke simply didn't mention them by name or designation, just as he didn't mention Jesus' other relatives. If Jesus was an only child at this point, why did it take so long for them to realize He was missing? If He had several other younger siblings, it would make sense they wouldn't have noticed right away, because Joseph & Mary would have several other children to look after.
@@BornAgainRN
The word "relatives" in this passage most likely means those who are related but outside Mary and Joseph's immediate family, which only consisted of Jesus. Your explanation certainly is plausible, IF Jesus had other uterine siblings, but the text doesn't explicitly tell us that.
YOU: If Jesus was an only child at this point, why did it take so long for them to realize He was missing?
ME: Well, if they were travelling in a caravan with their "relatives", then it is very likely that there were younger cousins of Jesus that may have been near his age that he was spending time with, as kids like to do.
YOU: If He had several other younger siblings, it would make sense they wouldn't have noticed right away, because Joseph & Mary would have several other children to look after.
ME: OR, his parents thought he was hanging out with his cousins which were more his age, as I pointed out earlier. With many other adults around, who may have been looking after all the kids in the caravan, Mary and Joseph may have assumed (as most parents would) that Jesus was being looked after by other parents somewhere in the caravan. Not too hard to imagine is it?
Mr. Born Again, your handwriting presentation is highly misleading to the viewers. Put the whole verse/s on your screen for the viewers to see. You are putting your theory down our throat with your very poor presentation.
This was something I did immediately after a home Bible study on my dry erase board over a decade ago. Can you be more specific what was “highly misleading” in my presentation? Be specific.
Mary did not have other children.
Joseph knew that God has chosen Mary for a mission.
Joseph had self control before Jesus' birth. He can have self control after Jesus' birth too.
When angel Gabriel told her that she will bear the Son of the Most High God, Mary exclaimed how can that be since she knew no man. This expression gives indication that Mary must have made a vow of celibacy. Else how would she not know of how to make babies since she was betrothed to Joseph. If Jesus had four brothers and sisters then they would have accompanied him to Calvary but none of them were there except his mother. This indicates that Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters which is further strengthened by Jesus entrusting his mother to the care of Apostle John. Also two of the four supposed brothers were the children of Clopas whose wife Mary was the sister of our Lord's mother Mary. If those 4 brothers are Jesus real biological brothers, then all of them should have been mentioned in other places but we have 4 of them mentioned in one place and two of them in another place. Thus, the account of 4 brothers of Jesus is not consistently true which indicates that they cannot be Jesus' real biological half brothers.
Psalms 51 that said we are conceived in sin. Many people implied that Mary too was conceived in sin.
Before I make my case for immaculate conception of Mary, I want to say that we cannot give hard evidence as proof for my claim.
I am going to argue that Mary was immaculate since her conception, meaning she did not inherit Adam's sin or the Original sin.
You will agree that the New Testament is superior to the Old Testament in every way. There was a deficiency in the old testament such that the new testament was needed.
You will also agree that the Old Testament was a foreshadow of the New Testament.
That is why Paul called Jesus the new Adam. And the Catholic Church called Mary the new Eve.
Both Adam and Eve were created without the original sin.
You will agree Jesus was born without the original sin.
Now if Mary were born with the original sin, then Mary is inferior to Eve. The typology fails in this case. So I'll contend that Mary must be born without the original sin but I have no hard evidence from scripture.
Eve brought sin and death to the world. Mary brought Jesus into the world who defeated sin and death.
Catholics view Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant. You don't have to agree with it. But the Catholics understanding is as follows.
The Old Ark of the Covenant Box had the two stone tablets of the 10 commandments, Aaron's stick that sprouted leaves; and the manna. In parallel, Mary the Ark of the New Covenant had in her womb Jesus, the word of God, Jesus the High Priest and Jesus who gave his flesh for us to eat.
The Ark of the Covenant Box was so holy because it was overshadowed with God's presence. It was so holy that those who peeped at it were instant killed by God. A man also stretched his hand to catch hold of the Covenant Box from falling from the cart of a bull too was instantly killed by the Lord for touching it.
Thus if Mary is the correct typology of the Ark of the Covenant Box, then she must be very holy because of the Holy Spirit overshadowing her.
We read in the history of Israel that they took the Ark of the Covenant Box to war and it gave them victory.
Revelation chapter 12 tells us of the Woman who gave birth to a Son. She defeated the Dragon with the timely help she got from heaven. Then the Dragon went off to wage war against the rest of her offsprings who keeps God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. The Catholic Church recognise this Woman to be Mary and the Son to be Jesus. Her offsprings are Catholics who obey God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus. Mary fights against the Dragon because she just can't bear to see the Dragon devour her children. Marian apparitions are a confirmation of this.
To prophesy the coming of the Messiah, Isaiah's tongue was cleansed of all sin by touching his lips with a live coal taken from the altar in a vision.
To be the forerunner of the Messiah, John the Baptist was filled with the holy spirit even from his mother's womb.
So, how much more it must be for Mary that she is kept pure, undefiled by sin so that she is fit to bear God's own begotten Son? Who are Isaiah and John the Baptist compared to Mary?
Mary is the masterpiece of God. She must be perfect to bear God's Son. For his own sake and for his own glory, God will keep her pure, immaculate so that the Devil will have no chance to mock our Lord Jesus. Remember the Devil even fought with the angel over the dead body of Moses?
When angel Gabriel addressed Mary as Hail, you know that this angel knew the royalty status of Mary. Hence, everyone should have a second thought before calling her a sinner.
From Gabriel's address, we know that Mary was "full of grace" even before she said yes to God's message.
Now, you will agree that with God's grace you CAN overcome adversities. So, how much more can God's "full of grace" do to Mary? When the grace is full, when the grace is overflowing, will there be anything lacking?
If anyone believes Mary sinned in spite of God's full of grace, then that man does not have faith in the efficacy of God's grace.
Remember God's full of grace was given to Mary, not because of her merit but because of God's will.
Without this grace, Mary would not have gathered enough courage to say yes to the message of Gabriel.
The predicament of Mary for being pregnant are gloomy.
1. She could be stoned to death for adultery
2. She will be shamed by everybody for carrying a child without knowing the child's father.
3. She will bring dishonour to her parents and Joseph to whom she was betrothed.
It was a life and death decision but she won over fear and shame. Mary is not an ordinary Woman. She is the Woman mentioned in Genesis.
Jesus addressed her as Woman during the wedding feast at Cana and another time at the cross just before dying.
I hope you could broaden your views through this post.
Just Think...first, I am going to ask you, did you first WATCH this video before commenting? If not, please watch it FIRST & BEFORE replying, since some of the comments you made were addressed "in" the video.
Second, since this video is about whether or not Joseph & Mary had children after the birth of Jesus, not ALL of the Marian dogmas, my reply to you will focus on your comments on that dogma.
Third, I wrote specific rules below the video to stay on topic & only argue from Scripture, and not discuss irrelevant topics here. If this continues, future comments will be deleted. I do not wish to do that, as I embrace dialogue. But it is to impractical to jump around to several different topics in a written format like this. So, I ask you in advance to please comply to these written rules. Thank you.
Whether or not Joseph had self-control or not is irrelevant to whether or not SCRIPTURE supports these brothers were His younger half-siblings or not.
You wrote: "Mary exclaimed how can that be since she knew no man. This expression gives indication that Mary must have made a vow of celibacy."
No, because Mary only made this comment, because her & Joseph were in the year long betrothal period. This meant they were legally married, but they had not consummated their marriage yet (Matthew 1:18). Mary understood the angel's annunciation that it could happen at anytime, and it was BECAUSE she knew where babies came from that she didn't know how this could happen. Remember, at this point, the angel had not told Mary that Jesus would be conceived by the Holy Spirit. At this point, Mary is only thinking about NATURAL conception, not SUPERnatural conception. THIS is why the angel explains to her it will be of the Holy Spirit.
You wrote: "If Jesus had four brothers and sisters then they would have accompanied him to Calvary but none of them were there except his mother. This indicates that Jesus had no biological brothers and sisters."
That is like saying since John was the only Jesus' only disciple, because he was the only one at the cross. Scripture is explicit that Jesus' brothers dishonored Him & did not believe in Him, which is why they were not at the cross, just as the other disciples were not at the cross because they were in hiding, not because they didn't exist. When Jesus told John, "Behold your mother," John would have remembered Jesus in Mark 3:31-35, who pointed to His disciples who said, "these who do the will of God, are My brothers & sisters & MOTHER." Mary was doing the will of God, which i why Jesus said, "Behold your MOTHER."
"which is further strengthened by Jesus entrusting his mother to the care of Apostle John."
No, because John was Jesus' only "God willing 'brother' & disciple" at the cross, which is why Jesus entrusted Mary to her. He would not entrusted Mary to an unbelieving sibling who did NOT do the will of God, evidence by the not being at the cross, like John & Mary.
You wrote: "two of the four supposed brothers were the children of Clopas whose wife Mary was the sister of our Lord's mother Mary"
No, these are men with the same NAMES as Jesus' brothers, but not the same PEOPLE. Names like "James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas" were VERY common Jewish names in Israel in the first century. Plus, the Gospel writers make it point to point out they are NOT the same men, because unlike Mark 6 which lists the names of FOUR of Jesus' brothers & unnamed sisters, Mark 15 & 16 only mention TWO brothers. In fact, he mentions them "collectively" & "individually." But he doesn't mention the other two, nor Jesus' sisters. This is because they are different people.
Also, Mary's sister is NOT Mary of Clopas. Clopas was most likely the "other Mary's" father, not his wife. When the NT describes someone as being "of" someone, it usually means offspring, not spouse. For example, "Judas Iscariot of Simon." The words "the wife" to describe Mary is not in the Greek. It was added by the translators much later. And Salome, not Mary of Clopas, was the sister of Mary, which I pointed out in the video, and is backed up by Scripture.
You wrote: "If those 4 brothers are Jesus real biological brothers, then all of them should have been mentioned in other places."
Not necessarily. That is an assumption that is not backed up by Scripture. Just because a person is mentioned once in the NT, that doesn't mean that they will be brought up elsewhere. There are lots of people who are mentioned only once in the Bible. BTW, James IS mentioned elsewhere in the NT as "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19). he is also the leader of the Jerusalem council in Acts 15, and mentioned SEPARATELY from "The 12" who Jesus appeared to (1 Corinthians 15:7). This indicates this is a different "James" from the two apostles with the same name. He is also the writer of the epistle that bares his name. Judas (Jude) is also the brother of Jesus, since his epistle begins with saying he is the brother of this same James (who is "the Lord's brother").
As you can see, this took a lot of explaining to address your arguments, which is why I insist on sticking to ONE topic & limiting your arguments to Scripture, which eliminates EVERY meaning for "brother" except for younger half-siblings. Your examples you gave do not disprove they were, because they are easily addressed.
Again, please stay on topic, & don't write long comments. Thank you in advance.
@@BornAgainRN you can delete my comments if you are offended
adelphi is the same word to describe the relationship of the blessed Virgin and the other Mary at the foot of the cross - the wife of Clovis, so the word means cousin (or there were two children named Mary in one family which is extraordinarily unlikely). Jesus' adelphi were cousins and the early church knew it, one of them ,Judas lived into the 2nd century. Avoid error.
Andrew, according to EWTN (the global Catholic network) Mary of Clopas was NOT the “sister” of the Virgin Mary, nor her cousin. Salome the mother of Zebedee’s sons (James and John) was. There were FOUR women at the cross in John’s account, not three. If you have Mary of Clopas being the Virgin Mary’s sister, then you have John omitting his own mother in his own gospel. Plus, acoording to EWTN, Mary of Clopas was not the “wife” of Clopas, but more likely his “daughter.” The words “the wife” are not found in the Greek. When this occurs elsewhere in the NT, this means “offspring,” not “spouse.” When you get the identity of the women at then cross right, then you find out James and John were “cousins” of Jesus, not Mary of Clopas being the cousin of the Virgin Mary. Plus, the Greek word for “sisters” (Adelphe) does not have the multiple meanings that “brothers” (adelphos) has. Adelphe only has TWO: 1) full, own sisters, 2) believing “sisters.” So, “cousin” is not an option because it is not faithful to the Greek. This is why Salome - not Mary of Clopas - must be the sister of the Virgin Mary.
Also, the early church was NOT unanimous in agreeing to the identity of Jesus’ brothers, nor her perpetual virginity. Jerome and Augustine disagreed to their identity. In the first two centuries, the early church did NOT believe Mary’s virginity was perpetual. Click below for a more in-depth discussion on this topic, which includes time stamps, so you can click any topic you wish:
th-cam.com/video/TexNvNU-ldM/w-d-xo.html
@@BornAgainRN Thank you for taking the time to respond. I appreciate your efforts and your providing the link; I will need a couple of free hours to get through it.
It seems that we are in agreement that the sons of Mary of Clopas are not Jesus's brothers as we would use the term. I am no scripture scholar for sure, but I was reacting to the video above which seemed to not be clear on that.
For me, when Jesus, on the cross, tells Mary to behold, as her son, the beloved disciple, and tells the beloved disciple to behold Mary his mother, in addition to saying that she is the mother of all of us beloved disciples, and all of us beloved disciples are her children; he is practically also doing so because she did not give birth to other children to care for her. It shows how important to him she was, that even in the throes of death, he ensures her welfare. From his earliest miracle at Canna, when he tells her that it is not yet his time, but he does the miracle anyway; to the moments of his death; she is a very big deal to him.
@@andrewoneill4382 For some reason my reply to you keeps getting deleted, whenever I try to edit it. I replied back to you twice, so hopefully they will show up later. Also, I placed the link to the timestamp where we discuss the reason why Jesus entrusted John to Mary instead of his younger half brothers. Hopefully this will work and not get deleted. if ithe link doesn’t work, when you go to the actual video, it is around the 1 hour 24 minute mark:
th-cam.com/video/TexNvNU-ldM/w-d-xo.html
@@BornAgainRN
quote; Plus, according to EWTN, Mary of Clopas was NOT the “wife” of Clopas, but more likely his “daughter.”
From EWTN website, MARY OF CLEOPHAS by Christopher Y. Wong
"This other Mary in turn had a husband named Cleophas (Jn 19:25)."
Where did you see EWTN saying that Mary of Clopas was not the wife of Clopas?
@@jzak5723 unfortunately, when EWTN updated its site, I believe they took it down. However, I copied & pasted the both quotations from John Echert before they did:
“There are a couple good reasons not to view Mary the wife of Clopas as the sister of Mary, the Mother of the Lord. For one thing, it would be odd for sisters to have the same name. Furthermore, the Gospel of St. Mark records three women present at the Cross with the Blessed Mother…. If the three women of the Johannine account are those of the Markan account, then the reference to ‘his mother’s sister’ may refer to Salome, not Mary the wife of Clopas. As to why the Gospel of St. John does not identify Salome by name, such would be consistent with other members of the family of our Lord who remain nameless in this Gospel: his mother, the disciple whom Jesus loved (St. John, who would be related as a cousin), and Salome.…the reference to Clopas may be with regard to her father, family, or some other reason, as St. Jerome noted. Unfortunately, some modern translations render this text of St. John as, “Mary the wife of Clopas" which is not literal to the Greek and takes too much liberty in speculation.”
- Fr. John Echert (08-04-2001), EWTN Catholic Q&A (Question from Kelli on 07-29-2001)
www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=345653&language=en
As you can see, the Web site is not functioning anymore. But I can assure you, they are word-for-word quotations from Fr. Echert from EWTN. And his argument about "Mary of Clopas" being in regard to another family member, like her father, is consistent elsewhere in Scripture (ie: "Judas 'of' Simon Iscariot").
Regarding your citation from Christopher Wong, he most likely received the part about Joseph & Clopas being brothers from Eusebius' Church History. However, this is centuries long after the fact, and it doesn't take into consideration Fr. Echert's arguments, which - again - are consistent with the use of someone being "of" somebody as being an offspring, rather than a spouse.
Unfortunately, the Bible was not written and English, the original words used to refer to the Lord's "brothers" and "sisters" in Greek are "Adelfós" and "Adelfí" which do not exclusively mean blood brother or blood sister. That same double meaning can be applied to modern English as we see commonly. "We are Brothers in Arms" "That's my bro" and even "Brothers in Christ" are common phrases. Protestants seem to ignore this possibility as if the New Testament was written in modern English.
@Brady youseem to have ignored my video, because I brought that very fact up that the Greek word for brothers does not exclusively mean sibling. And protestants are well aware of this fact, so I’m not sure why you think they aren’t. And as I mentioned in my video unlike the Greek word for brother, the Greek word for sister only has two meanings in the Greek, and slang and non-uterine female sibling is not one of them. The only two meanings are female sibling and female believer, which is how the word is used in the Septuagint in the Old Testament. So in Mark chapter 6 when it says that Jesus brothers and sisters did not honor him, that obviously cannot mean female believer. So there is only one other meaning that is faithful to the Greek word, which is female sibling. Female non-sibling relative is not a meaning in the Greek, and therefore would not have been used that way in the New Testament. What Catholics overlook, is because of their preconceived religious view of Mary that she was a perpetual virgin, they automatically dismiss the primary meaning of the words brother and sister which mean sibling. So if you put aside your preconceived religious beliefs for a moment, what scriptural reason do you have for dismissing this primary meaning of these Greek words?
The truth of the matter is that there was virtually no debate in the early church until well into the 4th century challenging the perpetual virginity of Mary. It wasn't until Helvidius wrote against the perpetual virginity of Mary in the mid-4th century that it became an issue. NOTICE! It was accepted that Mary was a perpetual virgin in the early church until Helvidius showed up and questioned it. What does that tell you?
John Mizak...it tells me you don't know anything about church history until the 4th century, because this is completely false. The EARLIEST belief of Mary's perpetual virginity comes from Origen, who not even recognized as an early church father, even by the Catholic church. And Origen based this on the false "gospel" of the Protoevangelium of James from the mid-to-late SECOND century, falsely written by James the Just who had been DEAD for over 100 years! It also tells me you didn't read the rules of my video. If you do it again, & can't provide an argument - I didn't already bring up in the video - your comment will be deleted.
@@jzak5723 again, the point about bringing up Origen is that this is the EARLIEST identification that Jesus' brothers & sisters were anything other than younger uterine half-siblings. And, as you said, he got this from Proto-James, just as later Catholics did, despite them rejecting Origen as an ECF & Proto-James as canonical Scripture. You don't seem to get what I'm getting across here. Are you reading everything I'm writing, because your comments don't seem to reflect that you are? And, since you didn't follow my rules - again - this comment too will be deleted. And, no, it's not because I "disagree" with you. As I said, this video is about what SCRIPTURE supports, not about what early Christian writers "believed" about their identity, since they often contradict each other, like Augustine who thought they were older step-brothers, while Jerome thought they were cousins. Unlike SCRIPTURE that can't be wrong, since it's God-breathed, ECFs like Augustine & Jerome are not & can be wrong. Not sure why you have problems with this. Do you like your comments being deleted that no one but you & I will ever read???
Good presentation. Thank you.
+Transformation of the Bride thanks! And praise Jesus!
In the gospels a man walks up to Jesus and says: ' Your mother and brothers are here to see you.' Jesus responds by saying that all who follow Him are His brothers. So Jesus expands the word ' brother ' to mean His followers. HOWEVER He does so as a pose to what the man meant, so in context it is obvious that the man was refering to Jesus' genetical brothers.
Yep! Both Matthew's & Mark's gospels confirm this. Sadly, so many Catholics, Protestants, & others don't seem to grasp this.
texaslocoma1...no one is claiming that Jesus "mocked His own mother as unimportant" in Mark 3:31-35. YOU are claiming that we are, which is strawman on your part. All Jesus is doing is saying that ONLY those who do the will of God are His TRUE eternal heavenly "family," who are His heavenly "brother & sister & mother." By saying this, NOBODY is saying that Jesus is "mocking" His mother as being "unimportant." Mary is BOTH His earthly mother & His heavenly "mother" (ie: heavenly family), because she did the will of God. Jesus is just saying that earthly family is not as important than heavenly family. This is because earthly family can disobey God, while heavenly family obey Him.
Also, it is because Joseph was most likely dead by Jesus' ministry is why the crowd didn't say "your FATHER & your mother & your brothers are outside." You just answered your own argument. You are also dismissing the fact - again - the context of the Greek word for "brother" & "sister" in this verse, implying that Protestants dismiss these Greek words to mean something other than uterine. Again, even in my video, I mention that "adelphos" CAN refer to other non-uterine relationships. So, please don't set up strawman arguments of what I am NOT saying! Again, "adelphos" CAN mean non-uterine...but it can ALSO mean uterine. But "adelphe" translated "sister" ONLY has TWO meanings in the Greek: uterine & believer. So, when Jesus uses it in Mark 3:35, He's using it as a believer ("brother & sister & mother'). But when He uses in in Mark 6:3-4, He is saying that IN ADDITION to His relatives ("syggenes" - NOT "adelphe"), those in His own household don't honor Him, which include His "adelphe" (sisters). So, since "adelphe" CAN'T mean "relative" since the Greek does not allow that as a meaning. And since it CAN'T refer to believers, since believers DON'T dishonor Christ, then it can only have ONE meaning: uterine. Therefore, "adelphos" in the SAME passage refers to Jesus' younger half-brothers too.
I get you reject the Greek. But that is really the source of our disagreement. You trust what your church teaches, rather than what the New Testament teaches that was originally written in Greek. Sorry, but that's the real source of our disagreement. You trust the fallible Catholic church over & above the Word of God. If this was not true, you would accept what the Greek actually supports & you would acknowledge the error of your church. But you refuse to, because your allegiance is to them, not the infallible, inerrant, Inspired Word of God.
texaslocoman1...the only thing we can "infer" from the New Testament is that Joseph was dead during Jesus' ministry. For one, he is never mentioned as being present - anytime - during His ministry like Mary was. (Mary even spoke to Jesus at the wedding of Cana & was at the cross. Joseph didn't & wasn't). If he were alive there would be no reason for Jesus to entrust Mary to John, because not only was Joseph her legal husband, he was also Jesus' heavenly "brother & sister & mother" who does the will of God (Mark 3:34-35). That is why we can infer that he was dead with certainty. Everything else you mentioned isn't "inferring," but speculating. Again, you have ZERO evidence from Scripture - even indirectly - that John was a teenager during Jesus' ministry. You are "speculating" not 'inferring." Inferring is like the example of Joseph (not at the cross, not at the wedding of Cana, Jesus having to entrust Mary to someone else - something that would not be necessary if Joseph was alive, etc). Same with Peter being married. You can't have a mother-in-law unless you first have a wife. This too is inferring something that is not explicitly stated. But you are "guessing" that John was a teenager - not from anything explicitly obvious from Scripture, but your own personal opinion. Again, that is not "inferring." That is "guessing" & "speculation."
What you call "history" (much later extrabiblical "traditions" about Mary's virginal status) isn't "common sense." It's simply relying on early Catholic "beliefs" from individual Catholic writers, while choosing to reject OTHER Catholic writers who did "not" believe she was a perpetual virgin. That is all you are doing! And the fact you reject the Greek DOES show that you are basing your faith on Catholicism, regardless of what it says. If you TRULY are going to rely on "logic & common sense," then logic & common sense will tell you that first century Koine Greek...NOT 21st century English is what the NT was written in. And "logic & common sense" will also tell you that the NT Greek ONLY defines "adelphe" as either a uterine sister or female believer. The fact that you are choosing to reject this "logic & common sense," by rejecting what the Greek NT "actually" states "adelphe" actually means, demonstrates that you are NOT using "logic & common sense," but instead relying on your OWN beliefs - not Scriptures.
texaslocoman1...."You infer when you conclude that Mary had other children because the Gospels says "Jesus had 4 brothers and non named or numbered sisters at least 2"
If that was the ONLY thing I brought up in my video or during our exchanges, then you would have a point. However, again, that is NOT my ONLY argument. There are SEVERAL arguments from Scripture that the brothers & sisters of Jesus are uterine besides "Scripture says Jesus had 4 brothers & at least 2 unnamed & unnumbered sisters." The fact that you use that argument demonstrates that you have learned nothing from either my video, nor our exchanges.
For example, again, "sister" in Greek ONLY has TWO meanings - TWO! And "relative" is NOT one of them. This isn't speculating. This isn't even inferring. This is explicit! But, again, you reject the NT because you "believe" your personal opinion is greater than the NT Greek that it was actually written in. If this is not true, then why do you dismiss the ONLY TWO Greek meanings of the word then? You can't answer this without saying "I don't care what the Greek says." And by doing that, you are elevating yourself above the Greek NT Scriptures which are God-breathed, whether you agree or believe this or not.
TheEagleofLightandNight
...does so as a pose to...
The idiot that wrote this can't even write, much less interpret scripture. The correct phrase is "does so as opposed to"
Learn how to read and write BEFORE you interpret the word of God!
So if Jesus had brothers, why he asked John to take care of his mother when he was on the cross? Why not just tell his brothers to take care of her because she’s closer to them than to John
Rana Jalil...good question. John 7:3-5 states Jesus’ brothers did not believe in Him, and Jesus stated in Mark 6:3-5 that along with His relatives, those in His own household (which Mark identifies as His brothers, who he names, and His sisters) did not honor Him. Earlier in Mark 3:31-35, Jesus contrasted His biological brothers who did not do the will of God to His heavenly “brothers and sisters and mother” who did do the will of God. Jesus was only bound by the OT Law, which meant He was free to entrust His earthly mother to whoever He wanted. In this case, Jesus’ cousin and heavenly “brother” John who did the will of God, since he was the only faithful male disciple at the cross.
Matthew, 1/I : 18 “Thus was the birth of Christ. His mother Mary, being betrothed to Joseph and before they ever consummated, was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.”
The fact that she became pregnant before they ever “consummated” does not signify that they “consummated” afterwards. Do we read anywhere here that they afterwards “consummated”? The point that is being stressed here is that Christ was not the son of Joseph, and that Mary was a virgin! Nothing more is being implied. The same thing applies in the following verse that we shall examine. There, we shall see the answer to both those points.
Matthew, 1/I : 25 “….and he did not have any (carnal) knowledge of her until she gave birth to her firstborn son, and she gave him the name of Jesus”.
Here again, the point that the evangelist is stressing is that Christ was not Joseph’s son. It doesn’t say anything about their relations afterwards. Nevertheless, Protestants SUPPOSE that the two preceding verses imply something else.
They suppose that the expressions: “before they ever consummated” and “until she gave birth to her firstborn son” imply that AFTERWARDS, the Holy Mother and Joseph had conjugal relations.
For someone to suppose something, does not mean that their conclusion is correct. This might well not be the case. Of course, in a more extensive analysis we shall prove this. Here, we shall simply give an example. We shall quote a familiar verse, so that one can easily perceive how the word “until” does not imply anything. It is the last verse of Matthew 28/XXVIII : 20. In it, Jesus says: “… and behold, I am with you every day, until the end of time”.
So, because Jesus said “until”, are we to understand that the Lord will not be with us, AFTER the end of time? Well, this is exactly the same kind of expression as above. Just as this “until” hides no special meaning, so it is with the previous one. Besides, we would like to pose a question of our own: If there had been a clear reference to conjugal relations between Joseph and the Holy Mother, wouldn’t it have been used by Protestantism? Why should they resort to assumptions? Wouldn’t they prefer to use positive information?
If my brother did that to me, I would have been pissed off because how can a man give his mother to his youngest disciple ? Whereas in Jewish culture it is very frowned upon. But wait a minute, John the beloved disciple doesn't he represent all Christians? If Jesus gave his mother to John because he believed, it only reinforces the fact that Jesus gave his mother on the cross to all believers
@@BornAgainRN this is obscure and misleading to infer 'did not honor Him' from Mark 3:31-35. beside even if they do... in the jews culture it would be unthinkable/even insulting/ for Mary to go to other person's house had she had other children.
@@spirosassima3998 the specific Greek words translated "until" in Matthew 1:25 are "heo ho." 100% of the time it is used this way in the NT, it refers to a change of action. IOW, Matthew doesn't just use "heos," but "heos ho." I only mentioned "heos" in the video, because 9 years ago, I was unaware of the difference, but even in Matthew 28, when Jesus says "even to" (or "until") the end of the age, He is speaking in spiritual terms being "with" them. When the age ends, Jesus will be "with" them physically as well, which means an event will change. Plus, "heos ho" is not used in Matthew 28, which is significant.
So, when Matthew records Joseph did not have relations with Mary "until" (heos ho) she gave birth to a son, a change in action is taking place AFTER His birth. Scripture does not have to use explicit wording such as "they consummated afterwards," since the Greek readers would have understand this is what Matthew meant by "until" (heos ho).
You mean to tell me I watched a 3 hour debate for nothing?! SMH LOL Great explanation.
The Culture of Psalms what 3 hour debate are you referring to?
Why did Jesus leave his mother Mary to John the Beloved?
Why couldn’t James, Joses (aka Joseph jr.), Simon, or Judas (aka Jude) take care of her?
I understand Jesus’ brother’s wouldn’t have wanted to have anything to do with Him, remember they used to mock Him, so why would they want any association to the self-proclaimed Messiah?
Once Jesus returned & showed Himself to His brothers & sisters, we’ve got epistles from James & Jude, but we hear nothing from Simon or Joseph jr.
What age did Joseph & Mary marry?
A lot of good questions. When you read Mark 3:31-35, Jesus mother and brothers come to speak with him. But Jesus states that his true family, his spiritual brothers and sisters and mother are those who do the will of God, pointing to his disciples, which includes John. When it came time for Jesus to trust his mother to someone, he wasn’t going to trust her to unbelievers even if they were his biological family, because he made it clear during his ministry that his true family were his disciples. The only faithful disciple at the cross was John, who is also his cousin, since their mothers were sisters. So there’s a double reason why he entrusted her to John instead of one of his unbelieving brothers.
I don’t know at what age Joseph and Mary got married, since their ages are not mentioned in scripture. Generally, Jewish women who got betrothed were really young, like teenage. Joseph could’ve been as old as his mid-20s. But he certainly was not elderly, which is the EASTERN ORTHODOX view of Joseph. On my channel, I had a discussion with a Roman Catholic who also believes Joseph and Mary had a normal marriage, and that Joseph was closer to Mary‘s age. And it wasn’t unusual in Middle Eastern culture for the husband to be a decade or older than his wife. For example Abraham was 10 years older than Sarah in the old testament.
As far as why nothing was written by Simon or Joseph, Jesus other younger half siblings, in the New Testament, I couldn’t tell you why, except that it was not part of God‘s sovereign plan to have them write anything, just as it wasn’t for most of the disciples to write anything in scripture.
Hope this helps.
The Bible clearly says so at John 7:5: “His brothers were, in fact, not exercising faith in him.”
Jesus was concerned not just with Mary’s physical and material needs but her spiritual welfare. The apostle John had proved his faith and so he entrusted the care of his mother to this beloved apostle.
@@sunnyjohnson992 and John was not married and his parents were prob desceased by then.
Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary and he prayed the Hail Mary. Was Martin Luther wrong?
@timothyoreilly6675 obviously, you did not read the description below this video, which states this video strictly addresses what SCRIPTURE supports about the identity of Jesus' brothers & sisters. Did you even WATCH the video? Because if you had, it demonstrates Scripture supports they are younger half-siblings. And as my rules dictate, if you don't adhere to leaving comments based strictly on Scripture, I will delete them, which I don't have a desire to do, since I prefer an open dialogue. Bringing up Luther is irrelevant since: 1) Luther is not ANY Protestant's authority, and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Reformation. Even Luther would not want that; and 2) Not all the Reformers believed in the PVM. Calvin rejected Mary took a vow of perpetual virginity with Joseph. Even ECFs as early as the second & third centuries denied the PVM. It would not be until the mid-fourth century that orthodox Christians began to believe in it, due to the rise of monasticism & asceticism.
So, please base your questions & arguments to what SCRIPTURE supports, and please make sure you WATCH the video FIRST, so I don’t have to constantly repeat myself. Otherwise, your comments will be deleted. Thank you in advance! :)
I would respectfully add that as we speak, any descendants of this tribe are being exterminated by Zionists in Israel. Most evangelists do not know this, due to the Palestinian tribe converting to Islam 400 years ago. DNA can prove this if you are skeptical.
Doesn't JOHN 19:25 list FOUR women, not three: JESUS'S mother Mary, her sister (Salome ?), Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdeline. That's how I interpret it !
The reality is John was written with knowledge of the other gospels, and he intentionally inserted the one and only mention of "mary of clopas" to distinguish from jesus' mother. The account in John doesn't make much sense when compared to the rest. Mary of Clopas *is* Jesus' mother, and also the mother of james the less, joseph barnabas, simon the zealot, and judas thaddeus thomas. We know mary salome is the sister of mary of clopas, and is the mother of zebedee's children, who are james the greater, and john mark. That makes the three women at the crucifixion and the tomb: mary magdalene, mary of clopas (jesus' mother), and mary salome. Ofc this rejects josephs role and the virgin birth, but ofc a virgin birth is scientifically nonsense anyway.
@MICHAEL...yes, there are four women in John 19:25. That’s because all four women are AT the cross since Jesus had not died yet. When the women are mentioned in Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts, Jesus had already died, and three of the women had moved away from the cross “looking from afar.” Only Jesus’ mother was still at the foot of the cross, which is why they don’t mention her. Don’t listen to Kafke’s explanation. It mixes up the various Jameses, Josephes, Mary’s, etc in the NT. When you watch my video, it clears up these misunderstandings.
@@BornAgainRN John is wrong. He duplicated Mother mary in order to separate her from the earlier stated fact that she's the mother of james and joseph.
@@Otome_chan311 John can't be "wrong" since he is writing God-breathed Scripture. It would be like saying God is wrong, which is impossible! John mentions four women at the cross, while Matthew & Mark mention three of them who have moved back "from" the cross (Jesus' mother would still be "at" the cross at this time.)
@@BornAgainRN What proof do you have that the gospel of john is "god-breathed scripture"? He constantly contradicts things, deviates heavily from the synoptic gospels, and goes against jesus' message.
Where were all of these quote/unquote "brothers" when Jesus went to the temple with His Mother and Joseph at twelve years of age? The Scriptures are awfully silent about them if they exist as his blood brothers and sisters.
And St. Luke, the great writer according to historical order of events, is the one who wrote it with the Holy Spirit.
Simple, they were included in the 'caravan' in Luke 2:44, with other family members who were ALSO not mentioned. All Scripture states is that MARY & JOSEPH returned to Jerusalem to look for Jesus - no OTHER family members went with them. Jesus' half-siblings would have remained with them, SUCH AS with Salome, Mary's sister. Also, Jesus was only 12, so 'some' of them might not have been born yet, like His half-sisters. The same argument could be used that 'if' the brothers & sisters of Jesus were Jesus' step-brothers who were 'members of His own household' (Mark 6:4), then 'why' are THEY not mentioned, not only when Jesus went to the Temple, but ALSO when Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to register WITH HIS FAMILY for the census? Or when they took Jesus to be dedicated to the Temple? Or when they fled to Egypt? Or when they returned to Israel? You have a much bigger SCRIPTURAL problem 'assuming' that the 'brothers' of Jesus are OLDER step-brothers than YOUNGER half-brothers.
Luke writing the historical account 'with the Holy Spirit' doesn't change the fact that he ALSO stated that he received much of what he wrote from other people, because the information he received from other people, the Holy Spirit made sure that that information was true. Plus, it is irrelevant to what we're talking about.
BornAgainRN
Then if OTHER family members were there then that could easily mean that they too were OTHER family members or relatives and NOT blood brothers. I do not believe that Jesus had step brothers so that will not be my problem.
Alex Santana If Jesus' brothers were 'relatives' then the NT writers would have used 'syggenes' just as Luke used them for 'relatives' instead of 'adelphos.' You are STILL arguing in circles, attempting to avoid the ultimate & obvious conclusion - the Catholic church is WRONG!
So, "if' the brothers of sisters of Jesus are NOT uterine, & the Catholic church's 'theories' that they are NOT step-siblings, & since they AREN'T 'cousins' or 'kinsmen,' otherwise the NT writers would have used either 'syggenes' or 'anepsios,' they 'who' are they?
Also, let's just say they ARE Jesus' half-siblings. Then 'how' would the NT writers have described them IN RELATION TO Jesus as UTERINE brothers & sisters IN THE SAME WAY they described OTHER uterine siblings, like Peter & Andrew; & Martha, Mary, & Lazareth? (Remember, the "THE son of Mary" argument doesn't work, so you can't use that one).
BornAgainRN
You are the one who is setting up this imaginary criterion that they must use the correct word for kinsmen or relative in the Greek. Says who? If the word ADELPHOS covers it just fine? They were close to Jesus. They saw Him grow up. THAT IS THE POINT. They were acquainted with His HUMANITY. This is the whole point of these people bringing up the whole "brothers" thing. Jesus was TOO Divine and Heavenly for them. His Wisdom, His Power to work Miracles was overwhelming them. They needed to GET A GRIP on His EARTHLY TIES (if you may call it that) or EARTHLY RELATIONS.
So what did they do? They looked for a way to depreciate Jesus' DIVINITY by looking for WITNESSES of His Humanity and they referred to those who were NEAREST to Him. I wouldn't even be surprised if they EXAGGERATED in their attempt to make them appear closer to Him than they were.
They used the word BROTHERS as was commonly used in their tongue. And the Gospel writer LEFT IT AT THAT. Is that so hard to believe? Even if in other occasions they demonstrated a knowledge of syngenys etc. The fact remains that Adelphos can also mean countrymen.
You don't want to RULE IT OUT that they could be uterine brothers? That's your choice because you don't want to accept Divine Tradition (the Word of God). But don't jump to the baseless conclusion that THEY ARE, IN FACT, the UTERINE brothers of Jesus Christ and the sons of the Blessed Virgin. It is simply not a fact. And the Bible does not show conclusively that it is a fact.
Furthermore, there is the issue of PROPHECY. The Prophets foretold how Messiah would be rejected by His own people. These verses on the "brethren" of the Lord are merely pointers to the fulfillment of these Messianic Prophecies. Doesn't Isaiah say that WE SAW HIM GROW UP LIKE A SAPLING BEFORE US?
They needed to show who these WITNESSES of His growing up WERE.
God bless you.
Alex Santana Because without criteria, then you can't be sure of ANYONE'S relation to anyone else in Scripture - including James & John's blood-related relationship to Salome. It's this kind of confusion that the Catholic church infests on its 'church,' to confuse people in order to support their anti-scriptural 'belief,' BASED on a PAGAN source (Proto James - which they admit...ADMIT!...is the EARLIEST source!) Wake up, Alex!!!
Show me IN SCRIPTURE, where NON-Scriptural 'tradition' is called 'Divine Tradition' or 'Word of God' - NOT from a CATHOLIC source - that is circular reasoning.
So, since you are so convinced that they aren't Jesus uterine brothers, nor step-brothers, then 'who' are they? They were important enough to be NAMED that the reader would expected to KNOW 'who' they are. And use SCRIPTURE to support YOUR 'believe,' since Jesus' 'brothers' are mentioned IN SCRIPTURE. If you don't 'know,' then you CAN'T say for certain they weren't His half-siblings, because you HAVEN'T disproven this from SCRIPTURE.
And in Psalm 69:8, it describes the 'brethren' of the Messiah who rejected Him as His "mother's SONS" (PLURAL), which means the Messiah's mother was to have OTHER sons, BESIDES Jesus. And regarding your 'sapling' example, you used that already, & I addressed it already. You're already forgetting the arguments you've ALREADY used, which demonstrates that you're OUT OF ARGUMENTS for defending the PVM. Jesus' step-father & mother saw Jesus 'grow up,' as well as His half-siblings, so that argument doesn't work either.
Face it, you don't have anything. Only recycled arguments that you keep repeating, that has been debunked centuries ago, but still used by the Catholic church that Catholics still 'buy into.'
Jesus didn't speak Greek! He spoke Aramaic. The translation is the key here and this guys argument is very week when you look at the details that are actually provided by scriptures as well as the proof of details written about the Holy family when Jesus was lost in the temple ( come on....twelve years was an awfully long time NOT to have more children, if that was the case)...and how about when Jesus gave his mother to John while looking down from the cross. I mean really.... did brothers and sisters of Jesus just show up one day while Jesus was in His ministry as a 32 or 33 year old man only to disappear at Jesus's most tragic final hour? Mary was and is a perpetual Virgin.
First, the NT was WRITTEN in Greek, not Aramaic. So, the written Greek is what's Inspired, so it's not relevant what language Jesus spoke, which He would have been able to speak Aramaic, as well as Hebrew, Greek, Latin, as well as any other language He wanted, because He is GOD. What's stated in the original GREEK is how we know what's true. And regarding your other comments, obviously you didn't bother to read my responses to others who asked these exact same questions, because I addressed them there.
Regarding Jesus being lost in the Temple, Scripture doesn't say that Mary & Joseph didn't have children. In fact, in Luke 2:44 it states that when they noticed Jesus was missing, they began looking among their RELATIVES & acquaintances. These 'relatives' could have included Mary's sister, Salome, however, that doesn't mean Salome didn't exist then because she wasn't specifically mentioned anymore than Jesus' younger half-siblings didn't exist because 'they' weren't specifically mentioned. So, your argument is overlooking this fact, & is a poor Catholic 'cookie-cutter' response, which proves you didn't even bother to consider this, but merely chose to believe what the Catholic church tells you.
And regarding Jesus appointing Mary to John instead of his unbelieving half-brothers, I covered this in the video. You might want to go back & watch it again, because you seemed to have missed it. During Jesus' ministry, He makes it a point to contrast His earthly family who were OUTSIDE (Mark 3:31-32), with His spiritual family INSIDE (v.33-35). IOW, Jesus is making the claim that His spiritual family is more legitimate than His biological, earthly family, which is why He entrusted His earthly mother (who is also part of His spiritual family) to His ONLY faithful spiritual family member at the cross, who was also His COUSIN, because His biological, half-brothers had mocked Him & DISbelieved in Him during His ministry (John 7:5), which explains 'why' they abandoned Him at the cross. This is 'why' Jesus entrusted Mary to His spiritual 'brother' John, rather than His unbelieving half-brothers. And, BTW, Jesus' half-brothers are mentioned throughout Jesus' ministry, as well as throughout the epistles. They didn't 'just show up one day' and then 'disappear,' which - again - I covered in the video. Both Paul and Luke mention his half-brothers who converted to Christianity AFTER Jesus rose from the dead. In fact, Luke lists His 'brothers' (Acts 1:14) WITH the apostles at Pentecost (v.13). The problem is that you aren't taking the time to look up the verses I PROVIDED you & cross-reference them to come to your conclusion. If you had, you'd realize that the Catholic church is wrong on it's man-made dogma of the PVM, which they actually got from the MID-SECOND Century false 'gospel' of the Proto-evangelium of James, which even Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin ADMITS this is the EARLIEST source for the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. So, this 'belief' is not only not Biblical in origin - it's not even CATHOLIC in origin.
I'm afraid all you have done is recycle weak Catholic arguments that have been debunked centuries ago, yet the Catholic church is still using them, because they don't have any new arguments to defend their man-made, anti-biblical tradition. So, you haven't actually proved anything, except your blind acceptance to a false form of Christianity who, like the Pharisees, are just concerned in 'transgressing the commandments of God for the sake of THEIR tradition' (Matthew 15:3). You have also not effectively proven with SCRIPTURE that Mary was a perpetual virgin, just that you believe it, because the Catholic church does (circular reasoning).
66julieroot please read my post below my video. I will only allow & answer questions related to this video - "whether Mary & Joseph had children AFTER the birth of Jesus," which by no way affects His virgin birth, either prophecized in the OT, nor fulfilled in the NT. If you wish to discuss other non-related topics, PM me.
Using non-inspired texts written AFTER Inspired Scripture was completed is not support for what the Word of God explicitly supports of Mary's LACK of virginal status AFTER the birth of Jesus. You are only employing desperation now. Plus, if you had bothered to read my instructions, below my video, I only allow comments that are SUPPORTED by Scripture, not what people believed decades or hundreds of years AFTER Scripture was completed. All that demonstrates is what "they" believed about Mary AT THAT TIME, which contradicts what Scripture actually STATES about Mary & her virginal status (or lack thereof AFTER Jesus' birth). So, stick to SCRIPTURE, unless you wish to concede that as a Catholic you are unable to.
Also, "if" Mary didn't experience pain during her childbirth with Jesus, based on the 'woman' in Revelation 12:1 referring to Mary & not Israel, then 'how' did Mary NOT experience pain during childbirth BASED on Revelation 12:2?
"and SHE was with child; and SHE CRIED OUT, being in labor and IN PAIN TO GIVE BIRTH."
It seems that the CATHOLIC belief that Mary did NOT experience pain during childbirth contradicts the CATHOLIC interpretation of Revelation 12:1-2 to refer to Mary (which actually contradicts the BIBLICAL support that the 'woman' refers to ISRAEL - Genesis 37:9-10 - not Mary). So, I'm afraid the only one who is "cookie-cutting" is you & the RCC, not me.
I will as soon as you supply any Scripture of Peter's father, John, having any other children other than Peter. Scripture not recording the births of Mary's other children doesn't mean that she didn't have any, since Scripture SUPPORTS that Jesus had half-brothers & half-sisters, & since Scripture is about JESUS, not Mary. The Catholic church teaches that Andrew was Peter's actual blood-brother, despite there being ZERO Scriptural evidence for this, yet they deny Jesus had half-siblings despite Scripture supporting that He did. So, by doing that, the Catholic church is being inconsistent with their exegesis of Scripture, in order to justify their man-made theology about Mary.
66julieroot
then you too provide with any scriptures saying that Mary did not have more children. What was wrong with Mary having more children, maybe because the Catholic Church wants to call her a God, and I assure you that if Mary in heaven finds out that "Christians" are venerating her (worshiping) would shake her head, good thing she does not know. The problem here with catholic people is that they try to justify why Mary should be venerated. They have fallen from the grace of God. This are my basis from saying that, take a look at this "OUR MOTHER OF PERPETUAL HELP DEVOTIONS" book says: O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason, has He made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee; come, then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands, I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me; for, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge Himself, because, by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear; that, in the hour of temptation, I may neglect to call on thee, and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me then the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help. Doesn't this sounds like Idolatry to you? in order for Catholics to do this they have to make her God. With all respect.
66julieroot still waiting on that verse from you that shows that Peter's father only had one child, since Jesus refers to Peter as "THE" son of John. Still waiting....
A husband having intercourse with his legally-married wife isn't "defiling" her, except in the mind of the Catholic church. In fact, from the very beginning God Himself commanded the man to leave his father & mother and be cleaved to his wife. There is ZERO evidence in Scripture that God gave Mary or Joseph any command to not conjugate their marriage after the birth of Jesus. Since you are making that assertion that they didn't, then the burden of proof is on you to provide that EXPLICIT evidence from Holy Scripture, not Christians who assume that they naturally conjugated their marriage after the betrothal period ended, just like every other Jewish married couple at that time. Making speculations that they did, because the Catholic church "says so," is subjective & using circular reasoning. Please provide EXPLICIT SCRIPTURE to back up your position.
BTW, Rev.14:4 has nothing to do with Mary, but the future tribulation period, so if you're going to use Scripture, please use RELEVANT Scripture.
Riveting brother thank you in Jesus name!
On Jesus giving His mother to John
1) Salome is Mary's sister? Nope.
Mary's sister is the "other Mary" wife of Alphaeus, mother of James and Joseph.
Jn 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister Mary, who was the wife of Cleophas"
How did Salome become Jesus' mother's sister? Enlighten me!
2) If Jesus had blood brothers why didn't she entrusted His mother to them? Because he did not have any!
+embeevee....again, it would help if you WATCHED my video, since I addressed this there. You want to enlightened? Try WATCHING MY VIDEO!!!! Again, Jewish families in Israel in the first century would NOT have named BOTH of their daughters the EXACT SAME NAME! - Mary. Think about that before reading any further. Names in Biblical times had significance & meaning. Therefore, parents would not have given them the same name.
The gospels tell us that Jesus' brothers did not believe in Him, & even mocked Him. Jesus then makes a distinction between His biological family (ie: His mother & brothers) who are OUTSIDE, with His believing brothers (disciples) who are INSIDE. This is both in Matthew's & Mark's gospels. So, THAT is why they were not at the cross - NOT because they didn't exist, but because - like His doubting disciples who were hiding behind locked doors if fear, His biological half-brothers did not believe in Him & chose not to be at the cross. John was Jesus' cousin (since Mary & Salome were sisters), which is why he was at the cross, & why Jesus entrusted him to Mary. Not only was he family (a cousin of Jesus) but also His only faithful male family member & faithful disciple at the cross. THAT is why He chose John instead of His unbelieving biological brothers. Again, most of this is IN THE VIDEO!
It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus' mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.
So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph's son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus' mother and father.
Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus' mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.
Mr. Emoji...great exegesis of Scripture & use of the Catholic NAB translation to support that Joseph only kept Mary a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. Thanks for the support!
Jesus did have siblings brothers & siblings.
Brothers James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas
Sisters Anna & Lybia
Just out of curiosity where did you get the names of his sisters, since the NT doesn’t name them?
Sword O'Truth I quickly skimmed through the article you wrote from that Orthodox "Father." I deleted it for 2 reasons:
1) If you read my disclaimer below my video, the purpose of this video is to demonstrate what SCRIPTURE supports about who Jesus' brothers & sisters were, not what the "beliefs" of ECF's or anyone else - including someone who lived nearly 2,000 years later. Keep in mind, I could provide you with ECF's who did "NOT" believe in the PVM who lived both contemporarily, as well as PRIOR TO the ones who believed it. So, providing these "beliefs" is really a moot point. Rather, since Scripture is the Word of God, Scripture can - and does - tell us who they are, with the Spirit's help. Therefore, any comments quoting "select" ECF's is a violation of the intent & disclaimer of my video, which are subject to deletion.
2) After reading it, all he's doing is recycling old Catholic apologetics for why HE "believes" in the PVM, including making the same mistakes that Catholics & many ECF's did. For example, they falsely claim there were THREE women AT the cross, instead of the FOUR mentioned in the Gospels (particularly John's Gospel). The RCC incorrectly "meshes" the 'other' Mary with Salome. By doing that, they make Jesus' mother (Mary) having a sister named MARY too! And first century Jewish parents would not have named BOTH of their daughters the exact same name. But they have to do that in order to also mesh the two "James' & Joseph's" together, rather than acknowledge that there are TWO "separate" James' & Joseph's. If they were to acknowledge there was only "one" set like Scripture affirms, then it's explicitly clear that the "James & Joseph" who are sons of Alphaeus & the 'other Mary,' aren't the same as the James & Joseph who are ALSO brothers with Simon, Judas (Jude), as well as the 2 unnamed sisters of Jesus, as well as half-brothers of Jesus.
Also, the Orthodox "Father" also uses the same bad Catholic apologetics about the Greek word "until" by referencing the OT words for "until" which are in HEBREW, not Greek. Plus, he completely ignores that when Matthew uses the Greek word for "until," he uses it 100% of the time to mean "once an event ends, so does the activity" - nearly TWO DOZEN times. And in the case of Matthew 1:25, the "event" was the pregnancy of Mary with Jesus, & the "activity" that ended at her pregnancy was Joseph keeping her a virgin, which doesn't violate anything in Scripture. Same with "firstborn," which although doesn't ALWAYS mean "first & only," it 'can' mean that such as in Hebrews 11:28.
Reasons like this is why I don't allow posts like that here, because people "assume" that they are legitimate arguments, & don't make the same effort to find out if they are legitimate arguments are not, so I don't want people to be deceived which is why I delete them. His conclusion is also faulty. Mary having children AFTER she gave birth to Jesus doesn't affect the "specialness" of His birth. If anything, Mary refusing to consummate her marriage with her legally married husband AFTER Jesus' birth would be a violation of God's commandment to married couples (Genesis Ch1 & Ch2). And since there is no direct commandment ANYWHERE in Scripture from God or any other Heavenly being for Mary to refrain from having sexual relations AFTER the birth of Jesus - only DURING her pregnancy (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew Ch1; Luke Ch1) - we shouldn't "assume" that Mary & Joseph didn't consummate their marriage & have children after the birth of Jesus, especially since SCRIPTURE supports that they did.
So, in fact you are doing the same thing you accuse Catholic's and Orthodox of doing, stating your personal beliefs as FACT. Your beliefs are not facts.
The fact is other Christians that use the same methodology of "Scripture Alone" don't subscribe to your theory. The fact is the Prophet Ezekial said this:
“This gate shall remain shut;
it shall not be opened,
and no man shall enter by it;
for the Lord, the God of Israel,
has entered by it;
therefore it shall remain shut."Ezek 44:1-3
As the Catholic Church teaches, the Blessed Virgin Mary is perpetually a virgin - she did not have relations with Joseph after Christ’s birth in accordance with the prophecy of Ezekiel: “and no man shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.” That's a fact.
Sword O'Truth "the same thing you accuse Catholic's and Orthodox of doing, stating your personal beliefs as FACT"...“This gate shall remain shut;it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter by it;"..."As the CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES, the Blessed Virgin Mary is perpetually a virgin"
Outside of the CATHOLIC CHURCH "teaching" that these passages from Ezekiel are about Mary, where in this verse does it state this has anything to do with the mother of the future Jewish Messiah? It is "THIS" kind of EISEGETICAL "teaching" that the Catholic & Orthodox churches are "accused" of by "reading INTO" Scripture, which Scripture doesn't support. "Thinking" that a passage applies to a future event, or person, doesn't make it so. You have to examine if the actual TEXT, & surrounding passages in that text, support that "belief." And if it doesn't, then you aren't EXEGETICALLY understanding that verse. And that verse from Ezekiel has NOTHING to do with Mary the mother of Jesus, "because" the surrounding verses don't mention anything about the mother of the future Jewish Messiah. You are "overallegorizing" these verses to support a preconceived religious worldview about Mary, which isn't how to properly understand Biblical hermeneutics - regardless of what the Catholic or Orthodox churches "believe."
Your example is no different than that of the Orthodox "Father" who "read INTO" Scripture in order to support "his" preconceived worldview about Mary. However, the only way you can negate what I have demonstrated from Scripture EXEGETICALLY, is to point out that these Bible verses disagree with the "personal" religious views of the Catholic & Orthodox churches. But by doing that, you are rejecting what Scripture EXPLICITLY STATES ("exegesis"), with what these churches "assumes" it says ("eisegesis") by "reading INTO" Scripture their preconceived worldview about Mary, that is NOT "explicitly" supported by Scripture. And Scripture "explicitly" supports that Jesus' "brothers & sisters" were His actual, half-siblings, particularly by consulting the Greek.
Well, prophecy is subjective, and in many cases, is not explicit. Nor, are the many of prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament, that even Protestants agree are about Christ but are not explicitly speaking of a "JEWISH MESSIAH".
That being said, the Greek word "ADELPHOS" does not "EXPLICITLY" mean "BLOOD BROTHER" like you keep implying.
I have Greek speaking Orthodox friends that find this to be a ridicules argument. They also agree that the word "ADELPHOS" can be used for "STEP BROTHER". Just like the Greek word for the Virgin Mary's "SISTER", that was used in the NT, doesn't mean "BLOOD SISTER" in this case. Unlike George Foreman, people in ancient times didn't name there children the same names. This Mary is a Sister In-Law.
The bottom line is this....Protestants believe Catholic's pay too much honor to Mary, and Protestants want to discredit any Apostolic Traditions, for fear of honoring Mary too much.
As usual, Protestants go to the "BIBLE ALONE" for their interpretations, and reject APOSTOLIC TRADITION. Does this formula work? NO. As history continues to show we have over 30,000 denominations and independent Churches around the world using this formula, and all "DO NOT AGREE" with eachother. This doctrine is indefensible.
I'll stick to what has been taught since ancient times and you can create "NEW TRADITIONS' it's all good.
PEACE BROTHER
Sword O'Truth actually, there are over 330 OT prophecies about "Who" the Jewish Messiah would be - over 100 of them, Jesus LITERALLY fulfilled them, just in His birth, including the fact that the Jewish Messiah would have to die, specifically be crucified between 2 criminals, betrayed by a friend for 30 pieces of silver, & be buried in a rich man's grave. The rest of them pertain to His Second Coming. This is something both Catholics and BIBLICALLY-based Protestants agree. So, I'm afraid that you are out on your own limb for saying "prophecy is subjective" about the Jewish Messiah. The fact that not "every" OT prophecy "explicitly states" that it pertains to a "Jewish" Messiah, there is no doubt that the Jewish people were looking for a "Jewish" Messiah, since every Jew acknowledged the Law of Moses (the Torah), & that Moses prophesized about a JEWISH Messiah, which he "explicitly stated" would come from His own people. So, it's unnecessary, as well as irrelevant, for "EVERY" OT prophet to use the words "Jewish Messiah" when making a prophecy, because the OT Jews understood that He would be Jewish.
I wish for once Catholics would actually LISTEN to what I say in my video, because I EXPLICITLY STATED that "adelphos" does not "always" mean "blood brother." I even MENTIONED that "adelphos" has numerous different meanings in the Greek, INCLUDING - but "not" limited to brother brother. So, PLEASE go back & re-watch my video. The point of the video is to demonstrate - with Scripture - that when the NT writers use the word to describe Jesus' "brothers" that:
1) they EXPLICITLY distinguish between Jesus' "brothers," "disciples," unbelieving "brothers," and "relatives" & "kinsmen"
2) if the NT writers were referring to any other non-uterine siblings, they would have used a different Greek word, just as Mark used "syggenes" for "relative" in Mark 6:4, yet he used "adelphos" for "brother" in Mark 6:3. Luke also uses "syggenis" (with an "i" instead of an "e"), instead of "adelphe" to describe Mary's relationship to Elizabeth, which is why - even Vatican.va - refers to Elizabeth as Mary's "cousin," not simply a "close relative (sygenes/syggenis)" Paul also used the available Greek word for cousin, "anepsios" instead of "adelphos" in referring to Mark's relationship to Barnabas, instead of simply "adelphos."
3) there is ZERO evidence - both from Scripture, as well as from the FIRST Century ECF's that Joseph was ever married before Mary, let alone had children from an "alleged" previous marriage. So, the " older step-brother theory" is based on a much, MUCH later pagan false "gospel," used by the Catholic church to support their much, MUCH later religious "belief" in the PVM, which has ZERO Biblical support.
And it's not that Protestants "believe Catholic's pay too much honor to Mary" or that Protestants "fear honoring Mary too much." I don't know "where" you got that idea. Biblically, Catholics "elevate" Mary beyond her "honored" position in Scripture as "the mother of my Lord," the "mother of Jesus." Scripture is SILENT on the Catholic "traditions" of Mary, including her PVM, that only Protestants disagree with, but MORE IMPORTANTLY that SCRIPTURE disagrees with, including the PVM.j
The "30,000 denominations" is an EXTREME stretch. You only come close to that if you count every minor disagreement in a particular "belief" between individual churches. But there is nowhere close to even "30,000" of them. And the fact that they disagree with each other is completely irrelevant to this video, which is what THE WORD OF GOD actually supports about "who" the brothers & sisters of Jesus are. So, could you stay on ONE subject, like I requested in my notes below my video, & refrain from "jumping around" from subject to subject like the typical Catholic. I notice Catholics do that when they can't defend their position on a subject, except for their old outdated & debunked "theories" which I am able to discredit WITH SCRIPTURE.
"Sola Scriptura" isn't even the issue. The issue is that, as a Catholic, do you believe that the Bible is the inerrant, Inspired Word of God? If so, then do you believe it can't be wrong? If so, then the issue is that the BIBLE EXPLICITLY supports that Mary did "not" remain a perpetual virgin, BECAUSE the Bible EXPLICITLY supports that the "brothers" & "sisters" of Jesus were His actual HALF-siblings, not the other "theories" taught by Catholics, which have ZERO Biblical support.
What you may not like to hear is that many of these "traditions" that the Catholic church teaches from "ancient times" didn't even form until HUNDREDS of years after the actual events. That's why Luke writes in Acts 17:11 that in order to be more noble-minded (like the Bereans), we should compare what is being taught TO SCRIPTURE - not just "assume" what's being taught is true, like the "less-noble" Thessalonicans. The latter is what Catholics do. And as far as "traditions" go, anything extra-biblical, Jesus was OPPOSED to (Matthew 15:1-9). In fact, whenever Scripture talked about "tradition," out of the 14 times it's mentioned, 11 times "tradition" is mentioned NEGATIVELY. And the THREE times it's used positively, it refers to "tradition" that Paul had just WRITTEN DOWN - not "tradition" that wasn't supported or found in WRITTEN Scripture. There is ZERO "Scriptural" support for extra-biblical "tradition" being at the same level as God-breathed Scripture, including the "tradition" that Mary remained a perpetual virgin. Scripture is clear that Jesus' "brothers" & "sisters" were His half-siblings. And, BTW, if the 'other Mary' was a "sister-in-law" John would have EXPLICITLY used "in-law" just as the other Gospel writers used "in-law" (such as mother-IN-LAW, daughter-IN-LAW). In fact, in the OT, the actual WORD "sister-IN-LAW" is used. John, being a Jew, too would have used "sister-IN-LAW" just as Matthew, Mark, as well as the writer of Ruth used it. Plus, Scripture is EXPLICIT - particularly in the Greek - that the "sister" of Mary is SALOME - not the "other Mary." So, the "sister-in-law theory" used by many - but not ALL Catholics - is both unbiblical & unnecessary.
1) Prophesy is subjective. Ex.1) Jews can read those same OT prophesies and come to the conclusion that those verses have nothing to do with a Jewish Messiah. Ex.2) Anti-Catholics can read Revelations and conclude the "WHORE OF BABYLON" is the Catholic Church, and the BEAST is the Pope. Do I interpret it that way? I don't think so. Prophesy is indeed (SUBJECTIVE) -based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
2) (Luke 2:48) calls Joseph Jesus’ “FATHER” rather than “STEPFATHER there being NO Greek word for either “STEPFATHER” or “STEPBROTHER” it would also seem that “if Luke can call Joseph Jesus’ parent or father without implying blood relationship, then it is arbitrary to insist that reference to Jesus’ brothers and sisters must imply blood relationship.
In addition, I pointed out before our translations come from the Septuagint (Ancient Greek), both Old and New Testaments. I pointed out that there are other places in the Bible the word "Adelphos" was used incorrectly and NEVER corrected by translators. Even to this very day as it was translated into the modern vernacular languages.
For instance, (cf. Gen 11:27-31), (Genesis 14:14-16) Your NKJ version shows these verses with the incorrect family relations. These English-speaking translators are simply following the example of the ancient Jewish translators of the Septuagint version of Genesis, who also rendered the Hebrew word as "ADELPHOS": the same Greek word that is also used to describe Jesus’ relatives.
Be careful. You are sounding like God.All knowing. With all respect , but people like you , can never relate to the Truth even if concrete Biblical passage prove your teaching wrong.
The problem is that you haven't actually demonstrated any "concrete Biblical passage that has proven me wrong." All you've done is point out what we both agree with - that I disagree with the LATER Catholic 'beliefs' & 'traditions' that the Catholic church believes, which is based - not on the Bible - but on a LATER Second Century pagan source - the Protoevangelium of James. So me trusting in what God's Word STATES isn't me "sounding like God, All-knowing," because it's not what "I" believe, but believing in what God through His Word STATES.
Who are my sisters and brothers.???anyone who hears my word.Does this ring a bell?but as I stated earlier even if I prove you biblically wrong,you would still find ways and means to defend your false teaching.
Kevin Mifsud that quote was from Mark 3:31-35 where Jesus was contrasting His literal, biological 'brothers' on the OUTSIDE (v.31-32) to His spiritual 'brothers' on the INSIDE who 'does the will of God' (v.33-35). When you read a passage of Scripture, you have to take it into context by reading the ENTIRE passage, not just a single verse, which you didn't do in your last reply. BTW, did you even bother to 'listen' to my video, or are you just making comments based on your preconceived religious Catholic opinion?
BornAgainRN..Yes i started to watch and listen your idea of this issue..but of course i had to stop, for many like you cannot understand the Bible in its Context.I heard and watched many clips on youtube, and they are literally distubing...This is like this new sect (born again which arose from just a single passage, that of John 3:3)...Who was Jesus speaking to?who was nicodemus?was he a Christian.?? of course not..Christiany didnt exist when Jesus walked on earth.!!it came later on....keep praying bro, for if not you will get more confused and eventually give up.
Kevin Mifsud actually, the term "born again" WAS used AFTER the Christian Church was established, such as by Peter (1 Peter 1:3 & 1:23), which he even uses the word "Christian" to describe believers in his same epistle (1 Peter 4:16). In fact, variations of this term (like 'born of God') to refer to believers is used throughout the NT epistles after the Christian Church was established (1 John 3:9; etc.) And regarding Nicodemus, who wasn't a Christian AT THAT TIME, but a legitimately inquisitive Pharisee about "Who" Jesus was, Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus 'how' a person "can see the kingdom of God" by using the term "born again" (John 3:3,7). So, this "new sect" of being "born again" was a term used not only by Jesus to describe "how" to get into Heaven, but also a term used by Peter, & other NT writers, to describe Christians. BTW, Nicodemus DID become a Christian later, by secretly taking Jesus' body with Joseph of Arimathea & burying it in Joseph's tomb. So, Nicodemus 'eventually' was 'born again.'
The fact that you stopped watching my video, demonstrates that you went into watching it with a preconceived religious opinion, & that any view - even if it's an "in context" view - that's backed up by the pages of God's Holy Word based on accurate hermeneutics supported by the meaning of words from the original Greek, you won't believe it. So, as mentioned in the notes below my video, if all you want to do is debate & simply say "you're wrong" without any BIBLICAL support for your assertion is just a subjective opinion based on circular reasoning, & if you continue to disagree with further 'non-answers,' your future posts will be deleted if you don't take the time to prove I am wrong using SCRIPTURE. God bless.
There is really not enough information, jesus could have had 4 brothers and at least 2 sisters.....we just don't know but what we do know is most important, Jesus was the Missiah! The Son of God. ;-)
You don’t know that, you _believe_ that that’s why it’s called “belief”
@@anthonyjones6870 no, it says it in two places....Matthew and Mark. Hmmm open your bible! MARK 6:3 AND MATT 13:55 & 56
The information is clearly written in the Bible 😂😭
How do you know that? Is this what you were taught? Where is it written that she had no other children after birthing Jesus?
Tony Tiger i’m just out of curiosity, did you actually watch the video, because I actually argue that Mary DID have other children after birthing Jesus. And by the way, I was raised Catholic, so I was “taught“ that she didn’t. But after reading the New Testament, as well as the Old, I became convinced from scripture that Mary went on to have other children with her husband Joseph. And these are the “brothers and sisters” of Jesus that the gospels talk about.
@@BornAgainRN I think I agree with you but misunderstood the gist. My mistake. Nea Culpa!
I too was Catholic and lately, I am interested in the Early Church, the Patristic era and what ALL the other mainline denominations say on every issue-including this one.
I will rewatch-this time in an area where I am not distracted-like in the supermarket waiting on my wife. Glad you responded.
😎✌🏽Peace is the Liturgical second week of Advent.
Church history clearly shows that Mary remained a virgin her whole life. Oh, and the "until" explanation is simply wrong. The word "until" simply emphasizes what took place before the until was fulfilled. It says nothing about what happened after the until was fulfilled. Take, for example, 1 Timothy 4:13. "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, and to teaching." Does this mean that Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes? Of course not. It says nothing about the "afterwards". So too with Mary's relationship with Joseph. (For more examples, see 2 Samuel 6:23 and 1 Corinthians 15:25.)
KM, first, the specific Greek word for “until” in 1 Corinthians 15:25 is achri, not heos. Second, when I was referencing the Greek word for heos in Matthew 1:25, I didn’t specify that the specific combination of Greek words that make up the English word translated “until” in Matthew 1:25 is not merely “heos,” but “heos ho.” And, unlike heos by itself, which does often mean that once an event ends so does the activity, when used along with ho, heos ho 100% of the time in the NT means once an event ends, so does the activity. However, 1 Timothy 4:13 and 2 Samuel 6:23 only uses heos, not heos ho. So those specific two passages do not refute these specific Greek words and meaning in Matthew 1:25.
Lastly, the belief that Mary was a perpetual virgin was not an exclusive belief, particularly in the infant church in the first two or three centuries. In fact, prior to the third century, the church is completely silent about Mary being a perpetual virgin. In fact you find early Christian writers, who not only believed Mary had sex with her husband after the birth of Jesus, but also that Jesus brothers and sisters were younger half siblings. This is why I specified in the comments section below my video that this discussion is based on what SCRIPTURE reveals, not on the beliefs of early church fathers, because they often contradict each other, including on this topic. So it is fruitless to side with one early Christian writer over another, simply because we agree with them, because that is incredibly subjective. Rather, scripture is explicit that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus.
I created a link towards the end of the video, where a friend of mine and I go into much more depth than this brief 14 minute summary, which demonstrates that Jesus brothers and sisters were in fact his younger half siblings. The video also has timestamps for you to jump and listen to specific arguments for your convenience.
@@BornAgainRN
quote; And, unlike heos by itself, which does often mean that once an event ends so does the activity, when used along with ho, heos ho 100% of the time in the NT means once an event ends, so does the activity
Acts 25:21. Did Paul cease to be held in custody at some point?
@@jzak5723 yes, because after Paul left Festus and was sent to stand before Caesar, he was no longer in the jurisdiction of Festus. So he was no longer under his custody, but under Caesar’s.
@@jzak5723 This is the reason why Albrecht replied with personal insults and ad hominems towards me when I confronted him on the historical and biblical evidence for the bodily assumption of Mary. Although this video I made is not about that particular Catholic dogma, when I questioned him on his eisegesis of Epiphanius, and I asked him where he himself states that Mary laid her head on Jesus’ bosom, or even historical of biblical evidence for this, not only was he not able to give me an answer, but that’s when the true Albrecht reared his ugly head and began insulting me. Even if he was not able to answer someone, there is no reason to belittle and attack someone’s character. It only demonstrates that Albrecht was not able to answer me and was too proud to admit it. And it showed, because I got personal messages on Facebook from some of his followers that said that he should’ve not done that and that he was completely out of line. But that’s a separate issue that has nothing to do with this video. I just wanted to address it since you brought up Albrecht.
@@BornAgainRN
quote; I just wanted to address it since you brought up Albrecht.
I'm looking at my posts, and I don't see where I brought up Albrecht?
Does the Bible state that aside from Jesus, anyone else was a son or daughter of Mary, his mother?
@Salvador Alphaeus had more than one son, despite James being referred to as “the” son of Alphaeus. Joseph was his son too. Same with Jonas despite Simon Peter being “the” son of Jonas. Andrew was also his son. So, Jesus being called “the” son of Mary doesn’t mean Jesus was her only child.
Even online they show Mary never had any other children she remained a virgin, but right beside it is posted According to Mark and Matthew, Jesus has two sisters and four brothers named James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. Joseph died 18 or 19 AD
Yeah, this is pretty strong evidence that Jesus had younger biological siblings, who are even named except for the sisters. So since he had younger siblings, this demonstrates Mary had children after the birth of Jesus.
I love it. The word of God always wins againts the lies and traditions of man... many sit back and just listen to the man behind the pulpet and take what they as truth..all false religious beliefs are man made. Gods word is truth. but you'll still have the ones that dont read argue with you. keep going bro.. Let Him lead you always...
Good video..
Thanks! And praise God!
Sensei Wait...I attend a very strict Bible-believing Baptist church. However, I don't actually consider myself "Baptist," since I don't really like denominational labels. I just consider myself "Christian" as did the first followers of Jesus did, who referred to themselves as such, or as "the Way."
Solar Wind...based on his wording, I think he was just trying to be respectful...which I in turn respect.
It all in their profession, trades ran through the families. Jesus and his step father Joseph where both carpenters while the other apostle were fisher man, tax collector and a thief.
Mary didn’t have any other children, if their was their would be a Holy people on the earth and their isn’t as Jesus doesn’t talk about it.
Rethink Science...that's because the Bible is about JESUS, not His earthly family. That is why his earthly mother, Mary, is only mentioned 20 times by name in the NT - only one of those times is outside of the gospels in the book of Acts. And, yes, Jesus DOES mention His brothers, in passages like Mark 3:31-35 where He contrasts His earthly "mother & brothers" (ie: Mary, James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas) with His "heavenly" family who are His "brothers and sisters and mother." BTW, did you actually WATCH my video??? In it, I discern between when the NT discerns between a literal biological "brother" vs. a spiritual "brother." If you haven't, I highly encourage you watch it.
You must read the Psalm 69...!
Jesus said
-->>7 For I endure scorn for your sake,
and shame covers my face.
8 I am a foreigner to my own family,
a stranger to *my own mother’s children*
and after the Catholic and Orthodox church say
The Mary is mother for all people...!!
That is *Blasfime*
the Old testament Mother for all is EVA.!
20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was *the mother of all living*
Then New testament Mother for all is *JERUSALEM.*
26 But *Jerusalem* which is above is free, which *is the mother of us all*
Why believe the people and dont read the Holy Bible?
@@Rafail-Nikolaidis again, you are attempting to include Psalm 69:7 with Psalm 69:8. But in Hebrew, it is not! Again, verses 8 & 9 IN HEBREW are read as ONE continual thought, but not v.7. You have to study this in the Hebrew to see this, not English.
When Paul states, "But the Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother." (Galatians 4:26), this is a word picture, an analogy, because he also talks about "Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia"" (v.25). But in Genesis 3:20, when it states Eve is "the mother of all the living," Moses is being literal, because she was the first mother of every human being that descended from her & Adam. Paul is simply using an analogy of "Jerusalem" in the same way John used the "woman" in Revelation 12:1-2 to refer to ISRAEL (Genesis 37:8-9), not Mary. Paul was being literal, while Moses in Genesis 3:20 & David in Psalm 69:8 is being literal.
You have to discern the literary context of a particular passage before you can say it's literal or figurative. Obviously, "Jerusalem" is not our LITERAL mother, but Eve "was" the biological "mother" (physical ancestor) of all living. Jerusalem is "free" in the sense that unlike the son of Hagar who was born "of the flesh" (born of bondage) which is a symbol of being born under the Law at Sinai, the son of the "freewoman" (by Sarah) is the "son of promise" (Isaac) who is "free" which is compared to Jerusalem who are descendants of the "freewoman" & her son, which is "who" we relate to as "free" & not under bondage when we accept Christ as Savior AND Lord.
The Catholic & Orthodox churches saying "Mary is the mother of us all," has nothing to do with the Galatian passage by Paul, Genesis 3, Revelation 12, or even John 19. This is extra-biblical man-made "tradition" which has ZERO to do with identifying Jesus' brothers & sisters were in Scripture. And SCRIPTURE supports they were His younger half-siblings.
@@BornAgainRN Hello... i dont know English...!
I am from Greece,,!
And i Read the Greek and Hebrews Bible...!
You can read the Hebrews bible.
prnt.sc/njm4ve
the Galatians 4¨26
Paul Say the Jerusalem is mother..!
But that is not mother Jesus...!
that is my your and all christian people.. not Jesus...!
You can Read and Here Jesus speak for his mother...!
Psalm 21:10
Jesus speak and Here..
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
And here the mother is Jerusaleam?? (galatiasn 4¨26????)
Looking again. the psalm 69,8
8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.
I am bcome stranger y brother (Judish brother)
and alien the my mother children (the real brother)
The first verse... is the Brother (35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
)
and alien the my mother children
is the real Brother
(5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him) . john 7
11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. John 1
open your the bible my friend..!
dont believe fallacy the 2 AD
@@Rafail-Nikolaidis I understand English is not your primary language. So, I am afraid that how I respond might not translate well to you, because you simply repeated a lot you said before, which means I do not think you are understanding my response to you. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul is using a word picture when talking about Jerusalem. He is using a specific kind of literary device to convey an idea that "mothered" fellow believers. However, you are turning it into some sort of allegory, without any Scriptural support, and then trying to apply it to Psalm 69. Just as John quoted Psalm 69 ("Zeal for my house"), and applied it to Jesus' confrontation with the Jewish leaders when He cleansed the Temple the first time in John 2, likewise John cites Psalm 69 when He refers to Jesus' mother having sons which are Jesus' brothers who are estranged from Him in John 7:3-5 who don't believe in Him.
At 4 min when you address the cousin argument. Just because a word can be used in certain circumstances for specificity, doesn't mean that not using implies something else.
If I was quoted saying my dog and we know the word friend exists, it doesn't imply I wasn't talking about my friend and not my pet. Further, the Gospel writers quoted what others were saying. That's the word they used in this context.
@canibezeroun1988 but the difference in your example like you said, you KNOW that "my dog" means "my friend,' and not "my pet." And the way you would KNOW this if there is more specific information that is revealed there. But in the case of Jesus' brothers in the NT, there is NOTHING to indicate that they are anything other than younger half-siblings. Therefore, you have no SCRIPTURAL reason to eliminate the PRIMARY meaning of "brothers" (male blood sibling) as an option. And what I was demonstrating is when the NT writers wish to convey a relationship OTHER THAN sibling, they USE different Greek words, like syggenes, syggenis, anepsios, etc. to make that clear. The Gospels even go out of their way to make a distinction between "brothers" & "relatives" - in the same verse - such as Luke 14:12 & 21:16, including making a distinction between Jesus' brothers AND relatives in Mark 6:3-4.
Also I find it funny when Catholics start their debate with: " oh Mary and Joseph didn't have any more children, because how then can you explain them searching for 12 year old Jesus in the temple if they had other children."
I on the other hand see more evidence that they had other children, that's why they would not perceive that Jesus was missing. They would be distracted with their younger children.
The clue to that passage in Luke’s Gospel is that it was a caravan. A caravan would have had dozens if not hundreds or even thousands of people. The fact Jesus was 12, an age when he could’ve started his own family, there would have been no need for his parents to watch him so closely. They would have just assumed he was with another unnamed member of their family, which explains why he would have been missing for so long. And as you said them having more children, particularly younger children to look after, Better explains why he went missing for so long. It’s a really poor Catholic explanation for them not having other children.
Also, children stayed with their mother under 12. After 12, they began to be taught and apprenticed by their father. Mary and Joseph could have each assumed Jesus was with the other parent since both could have been perceived as appropriate at that age.
@@BornAgainRN I cannot find you on facebook :(
@@maryanna682 facebook.com/BornAgainRN
@@BornAgainRN
I look at it in a somewhat similar way, because it was a caravan of many people, with lots of relatives traveling with them, and Jesus being 12 and not needing constant supervision, it is not surprising that they didn't notice him missing right away, NOT that they had other children to look after.
Seeing as how my statement above is just as likely a scenario as any other ones which you support, I find it quite harsh that you would say "its a really poor Catholic explanation for them not having other children." I think my explanation fits just fine.
Mary was born a Virgin because she is the New Ark of the Covenant to bring forth the Savior.
Mary's Womb was a Tabernacle / Ark for Jesus.
Mary was Prophesied to be a Virgin for God’s Holy purpose.
The OT Ark was a prefigure of Mary.
Eve was a prefigure of Mary.
Through Biblical Typology:
Mary is revealed as the New Ark of the Covenant.
Mary is revealed as the New Eve.
Like the Ark, Mary was created Pure & Incorruptible.
Like Eve, Mary was created without sin.
WHY WAS MARY CREATED SINLESS?
Because God did not want His Son to be bound within Mary's Womb where satan had Dominion through the Stain of Sin.
Mary was God's greatest creation where she freely cooperated with God's grace and she gave birth to the Savior of the World.
It is only fitting that Jesus be brought into the world through God's plan.
Anna, first, this is a video about whether or not Jesus had brothers and sisters, not about the immaculate conception which is what the false Roman Catholic typologies of Mary being the new Ark try to defend. Second, did you even watch the video? Because if you did, it’s abundantly clear that the brothers and sisters of Jesus cannot be anything other than younger biological half siblings, because the Greek of the New Testament does not allow any other possibility. What you were describing is Roman Catholic Mariology. But the problem is that it conflicts with what scripture actually supports about Mary.
Please keep the discussion focused on the topic of the video, because in my description I have stated that if it goes off topic, comments will be deleted. I do not wish to do this, because I value dialogue and interaction. So please comply with the rules of this video.
If you wish to discuss Mary being the new Ark, I have made a video about this on my channel. But please listen to the video first, before making comments, because in the video, I have critiqued all of the common Roman Catholic comparisons between 2 Samuel 2 and Luke 1. That is why I am asking you to watch it first, so I don’t repeat something I already stated in the video. Here’s the direct link:
th-cam.com/video/Rb0H2Y-UwUU/w-d-xo.html
Anna, also, sin is not passed down biologically, but is a spiritual condition. Therefore, Mary could be a sinner, and Jesus would not have to worry about inheriting sin from her or being tainted by her. That belief, which Roman Catholicism is embracing, is a form of Gnosticism, which teaches that only the spirit is good, but the flesh is evil.
@@BornAgainRN
-James and Joseph are called "brothers of Jesus,"
-But they are the sons of "another" Mary, who is a Disciple of Jesus.
-Whom St. Matthew called "the other Mary."
-Matthew would never refer to the Virgin Mary in that manner.
-They are relatives of Jesus but they are not brothers.
-James & Joseph are the sons of Mary and Clopas.
@@annapennrose1158 Again, did you even bother to watch the video, because I discussed all of this? Again, Mary of Clopas and the Virgin Mary are NOT related. Again, by being referred to as “Mary of Clopas,” this means Clopas was her FATHER, not her husband. So even “if” Clopas and Joseph were brothers, the two Marys would not be sisters-in-law, which means the “other Mary’s” sons James the Less and Joseph would not be cousins of Jesus. They would not be related at all. Again, the two men who are referred to as “Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph” are NOT the same as two out of the four men referred to as “His [Jesus’] brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas.“ they may have the same names, but they are different men, because these names are very common in Judaism in the first century. Plus, if these were the same men, why doesn’t Matthew and Mark mention Simon and Judas along with James and Joseph when he says “Mary the mother of James the Less and Joseph”? Why do they omit Simon and Judas? Why do they omit the fact that Jesus had sisters? Because these are different men. This is why your explanation, which is simply a Catholic apologetics explanation, it doesn’t work. Seriously, watch the video before making other comments, because I addressed all of this year and I don’t feel like repeating myself again.
@@BornAgainRN Go online and look at the numerous English translations of John 19:25 and they state..."Mary the wife of Cleopas"
So James and Joseph were sons of Mary and Cleopas.
If you only understood why Mary was called to be a Virgin by God, your view of the Bible would open up.
Our blessed mother Mary is ever-virgin. Please get to know your mother, she brings you to Jesus. Jesus save us, Mary pray for us. Peace to all!
My mother and your mother is not Mary. My mother is the one who gave birth to me. Just out of curiosity, did you even WATCH this video??? It’s not long, only about 14 minutes. If you watch it, you’ll see that biblically Mary was not a perpetual virgin, and the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his younger half siblings. Please watch this first before commenting. It will greatly advance our discussion.
It is quite clear from scripture as well as common sense that Mary did not have children other than Jesus. What are the reasons to suppose this is so? (1) The words of Elizabeth to Mary: Blessed is the fruit of thy womb (Jesus) show that the only fruit of the womb of Mary was Jesus and no one else. (2) The womb that gave birth to the sinless Son of God could not give birth to sinful sons of men. (3) Since it is through the Holy Spirit that Mary conceives Jesus, the Holy Spirit becomes the divine Spouse of Mary and the role of Joseph must be understood as a legal husband assigned to guard Mary and the Child Jesus and he must respect the peculiar state of Mary as the spouse of the Holy Spirit and refrain from any physical relationship with her in deference to the Holy Spirit. (4) Though after the birth of Jesus, according to St. Matthew's Gospel, both Mary and Joseph had the choice or the right to engage in marital relations, they must have renounced freely such course of action in view of the birth of Jesus who must become the centre of their lives. (5)When the Holy Family returned from Egypt where it must have stayed for at least 3 years, there is no indication in the Gospel of Matthew that there were more than 3 people in the Holy Family. (6) That Mary and Joseph did not have other children becomes all the more clear because when Jesus was lost in the Temple at the age of 12, there is no mention at all of the children of Mary or the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Mary's words, Your father and I have been looking for you, show that there were no other children in the household of Mary and Joseph. (7) The Gospels mention the brothers and sisters of Jesus, but nowhere do they mention that they are the children of Mary. (8) A close look at the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus will show that they are in deed his cousins or half brothers from Joseph, but not the children of Mary. (9) At the foot of the Cross, Jesus entrusts his mother Mary to John rather than to his own brothers and sisters or to Mary's children. If Mary had her own children, the gesture of Jesus becomes very strange and amounts to a violation of Jewish law. It shows that Mary would be all alone after the death of Jesus whose so called brothers and sisters were not Mary's children.
Albert Devasahayam...in response to your comments for why you believe that Scripture is "clear" that Mary did not have children other than Jesus:1) Elizabeth saying "blessed is the fruit of your womb" in no way supports that Mary would not have any other children after the birth of Jesus. She was only commenting on the fact that she was carrying the promised Messiah. This fact is later illustrated in Jesus' ministry when a woman tells Jesus "blessed are the breasts who nursed you" & Jesus' reply was, rather, blessed are those who believe in Him.2) Sin is transmitted spiritually, not physically. Because if it were transmitted physically, then you have the problem with Mary's mother transmitting HER sin to Mary when she was in her womb.3) Nowhere in SCRIPTURE does it state that the Holy Spirit is Mary's spouse. Rather, it says that JESUS was conceived by the Holy Spirit - simply meaning that Mary's egg was supernaturally fertilized by God Himself. Rather, SCRIPTURE states that JOSEPH - not the Holy Spirit - was Mary's husband, not merely just a "legal husband." SCRIPTURE says nothing of the kind. I'm afraid you are confusing what Catholic tradition "believes" with what SCRIPTURE actually states, which it does not say that. Rather, the CHURCH is the "bride" of Christ, which includes Mary, but is not limited to her.4) Again, nowhere in SCRIPTURE does it state that Joseph & Mary chose to "renounce freely" the choice to consummate their marriage. Their only obligation - from Scripture - was that she remain a virgin until she gave birth to Jesus. Even the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy only states that the "virgin" remain a virgin while she was pregnant, but not afterwards.5) The reason no other people are mentioned during the Holy Family's return from Egypt, besides Joseph, Mary, & Jesus, is because Jesus' half-siblings weren't born yet. Remember, Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, which would mean that if He had half-siblings, they would have been born AFTER Jesus was born. But Scripture doesn't state "when" they were born, only that they would have to be younger. Meaning, that they weren't born until sometime AFTER the return from Egypt.6) When Jesus goes missing for 3 days in the Temple, it states that Joseph & Mary were in a caravan with their "relatives" when they realized it. A caravan would have included a large number of people. The absence of mentioning Jesus' younger siblings among His other relatives does not mean they didn't exist. It only means that they would be included among the other unnamed "relatives" of Jesus in the caravan, such as Mary's sister Salome, who is also not mentioned by name in the caravan, but mentioned later in Mark's gospel.7) Jesus' brothers & sisters not being mentioned as the children of Mary isn't proof they didn't exist. That's because Scripture is about JESUS, not Mary. That is why in Scripture most of Jesus' relatives are mentioned in relation to HIM, not His earthly mother, including Mary herself.8) Nowhere does Scripture state they were non-uterine relatives or cousins. Had they been, the gospel writers would have used the specific Greek words for "relatives" (syggenes) or "cousin" (anepsios), rather than "adelphos" & "adelphe." In fact, in Mark 6:3-4, Mark explicitly uses different Greek words for Jesus' "brothers" & "relatives" to distinguish between the two. If they were the same, Mark wouldn't have used different Greek words. He would have used the same ones, but he didn't.9) I brought this up in the video. Perhaps you missed it. Remember, John 7 states that His brothers did not believe in Him. Later, Jesus makes a distinction between His biological "mother & brothers" vs. His heavenly "brothers & sisters & mother" who do the Father's will. Plus, Jesus was only obligated to follow the Law of Moses in the OT - not extra-scriptural Jewish man-made "tradition." Therefore, Jesus was free to entrust His earthly mother to whoever He wished to. So, since John - Jesus' cousin - was His only male relative & faithful disciple who demonstrated his faith by being at the cross, Jesus entrusted Mary to him. So, Jesus' disciples not being at the cross does not demonstrate that Jesus' half-brothers didn't exist, anymore than it means His other disciples didn't exist even though they were not at the cross either.At least you took the time to think out some comments. However, none of them are "clear" from Scripture that Mary didn't have other children after the birth of Jesus. In fact, God commanding married couples to be "fruitful & multiply" would have been observed by Joseph & Mary after the birth of Jesus. And since God did not give them a command to remain from doing so, had they done so, they would have violated the Law of Moses, as well as God Himself.
Dam bro you helped me alot with this topic
@@SolarPost you’re welcome! All the glory goes to God. 🙂
Mary is a virgin woman until forever.
Your explanation is wrong..l
Did you know ?
Father reformation like Marthin Luther ,etc . They always remained said : "Mary is always virgin".
And now protestant reject person who had already made Christian of protestan.
This is funny 😀
Kevin, yes I am well-aware that Luther believed Mary was a perpetual virgin, and that is because Luther was a Catholic. So, that is no surprise he would believe that, since the Catholic Marian dogmas was not his beef with Rome.
It is easy to say "Your explanation is wrong." It is another thing to prove this, which you have not done. And since this video is about what SCRIPTURE supports - not what Catholicism "believes" or what select ECFs believed (since not all of them believed in the PVM), since you believe I am "wrong," then demonstrate this from SCRIPTURE.
@@BornAgainRN Up to you.
> Maybe, You must know well and thoroughly about Father Reformation, Martin Luther, Calvin etc. Of course, He was Catholic but When he reformed, he still assumed that Mary was a perpetual virgin. And in his 95 dalil, he wrote that should honor the virgin Mary as an immortal virgin. Even catholics have some explanations from the bible. Not only Martin Luther but also the early Christian writer like hegesipus called Mary a perpetual virgin.
> Mary was a nazirite of god. Don't you think? That the most holy of the gods had spent nine months in Mary's womb. And born through her hymen. And in the same womb were the other children who had sex with Joseph. What a dirty, dirty look. A very bad impression. God in the old testament, keeps very much holy things like the ark of the covenant, etc. And maria, who gave birth to the bailiff, was mixed with the sex
> You must learn diligently & study thoroughly.
@@kevinrendyka5357 again, that is because the Marian dogmas was not his beef with Rome. And the purpose of the Reformation was not that the Reformers THEMSELVES were a Christian's sole infallible authority for Christian truth & morals, but SCRIPTURE. The Reformers did not want people looking to THEM, no-more than they wanted people looking to Rome. So, Luther believing Mary was a perpetual virgin BECAUSE he was Catholic is irrelevant to what SCRIPTURE ITSELF supports. So, if Luther or anyone else believes one thing, but Scripture supports another, since Scripture is our ONLY infallible source, not man, we must go by what Scripture supports. And since Scripture supports Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin & had children with her husband AFTER the birth of Jesus, then Scripture is correct.
Nothing in Scripture even implies "Mary was a Nazirite of God." And there is nothing "dirty" about a wife having sex & children with her husband. To believe that is to embrace the heresy of gnosticism. And there isn't even a hint in Scripture that Mary was to remain her virgin her entire life, past the birth of Jesus, because that is all that was required of her in the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, and supported in Matthew 1:25 by the Greek words "heos ho" translated "until," which is how these words are consistently used throughout the NT.
And, no, Hegessipus did NOT teach Mary was a perpetual virgin. Actually, quite the opposite! And, again, the rules of this video is about what SCRIPTURE teaches, not what "select" early church fathers teach, since they did NOT all agree on this much later Catholic dogma. So, please respond with evidence from SCRIPTURE, not the early church, otherwise your next comment will be deleted for violated the rules of this video, which are spelled out in the description below the video. Please comply, because I do not wish to delete your comments, but I will if the rules are not abided by. Thank you in advance for complying.
@@BornAgainRN I appreciate your belief.
Up to you ! You said hegesipus didn't say that Mary isn't a perpetual virgin. LOL 😂
You haven't known the truth
> In scripture said : Jesus Christ is the second Adam.
so of course, exactly.
Mother Mary is the second Eve.
I don't explain it. Because you surely know it about the second Adam is Jesus Christ.
Soo....
> I have a heavenly father is Jesus Christ.
And I have a heavenly mother is Mother Mary.
Because Elizabeth in Luke said :
" Mary is the mother of God "
Sooo exciting & proud to be Catholic.
Jesus Christ bless & loves u.
Thanks for sharing 🙏
@@kevinrendyka5357 Hegesippus' quote about the descendants of Jesus' brother, Judas, is preserved in Eusebius' Church History, of which I have two translations of it (Maier's & Kruse's). In both, it states that Judas was the brother of Jesus "according to the flesh." This same phraseology "according to the flesh" is used by the apostle Paul in the epistle to the Romans when he talks about the Jews being related to Abraham "according to the flesh." He does the same with King David. So, in context, when Hegesippus says Judas the brother of Jesus "according to the flesh," he is referring to Judas being PHYSICALLY related to Jesus as a literal younger half-sibling. So, this is not "my belief." It is explicitly stated.
Jesus is referred to as the "last Adam," because the "first Adam" was related to mankind by sin being passed down through him. Jesus was related to mankind by being the Lamb of God Who takes away that sin. It has nothing to do with false Catholic typology of Mary being the "second Eve." For one, Eve was Adam's wife, while Mary was Jesus' earthly mother. So, the analogy fails from the start.
Also, your heavenly Father is not Jesus, which is why Jesus does to refer to HIMSELF as "Father," but distinguishes between the First Person of the Trinity & Himself as "the Father AND I are One." And, "pray this way, Our FATHER." While they are both the same God, they are different Persons of the same God. But God is Trinity, not Triad. That is Modalism.
And Elizabeth did not say "Mary is the mother of GOD," but "mother of my LORD." The difference is in Greek, "God" is theos & "Lord" is kyrios. Kyrios means Master, not God. They are two different Greek words, with two different meanings. Yes, Jesus is God, and yes, Mary gave birth to Jesus Who is God. But that is because Mary was the earthly vessel God chose to come into the world through, to fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy, and because He needed to die as a human in order "become sin" and die in the place of sinful mankind who would believe in Him.
But none of this anything to do with whether or not Jesus' brothers & sisters were His actual blood siblings or not. You still have not demonstrated FROM SCRIPTURE where it states that Jesus had brothers (Mark 6:3; John 7:5; etc.) that these were anything other than biological siblings. This is what I am asking for, not you repeating Catholic lingo (ie: "Mary is the second Eve"). That is not quoting Scripture. That is allegorical, eisegetical, false typological nonsense. Again, show me from SCRIPTURE Jesus didn't have younger half-siblings.
You need to read dr. brant Pitre ... your exegesis is flawed
3 Leon I am well aware of Brant Pitts’s argumentation on this. In fact, I responded to his own TH-cam video on this topic, which he never responded to. Instead of just saying “it’s flawed” and directing me to a Catholic apologist with a Catholic eisegesis, how about give me a specific example of how my exegesis is “flawed”?
@@BornAgainRN what about Pitre’s book is flawed? Inferences about # of Maries? Symbolism of wedding at Cana? Inference about parentage and children? what he says about the wife of Clophas? His deductive logic about two sisters not being named Mary? and, quite frankly, there’s really no conversation with Protestants who reject apostolic succession and the reality of the teaching authority of the magisterium … is there?
@@BornAgainRN also, Catholic eisegesis? Protestant eisegesis and a priori antiCatholic bias is much more profound given the history of the Protestant revolution ...
@@3leon306 As I said, give me some specifics. Your last comment was rather vague and in general. For example, EWTN concedes that in John’s Gospel, there were FOUR women at the cross, not THREE. If you compare this to Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts, they do not mention Jesus’ mother but the other three women, which I demonstrated in my video. This means the sister of Jesus’ mother is not another woman named Mary. Again, if you go to the other accounts the three women are Mary Magdalene, Salome the mother of James and John the sons of Zebedee, and the other Mary the mother of James the Less (the son of Alphaeus) and Joseph who John refers to as “Mary of Clopas.” So, Mary of Clopas is not the same person as Salome who is Jesus’ mother’s sister. This is where Brant Pitre errs, because he conflates these two women (Mary of Clopas and Jesus’ mother’s sister). Again, EWTN concedes that Mary of Clopas is most likely not his wife, but more likely his daughter. The confusion comes in John’s Gospel where the words “the wife“ are italicized in most translations, because those words were added by the translators later, and were not included in the original Greek text. So, when John refers to Jesus’ mother’s sister, she is her literal biological sister, and it does not mean a sister-in-law, or some other non-sibling relative, since the Greek word translated “sister” (adelphe) cannot be translated these ways.
The reason it is important to get the identity of the women and their offspring correctly is so you find out that there are two women named Mary who have two sons with the same names. Jesus’ mother has FOUR sons named James, Joseph, Simon, & Judas and at least two daughters, who are all younger half-siblings. Mary of Clopas only has TWO sons also named James and Joseph, but no daughters. So, these two men with the same names as the brothers of Jesus in Mark 6:3 are not the same people. The latter are the literal younger half brothers of Jesus. And as I mentioned in my video, the Greek word for sister only has two meanings: one’s own sister, such as a full blood sister or a half sister; or a believing Christian “sister.” It is never translated as relative or cousin in the New Testament. When the New Testament writers wished to convey that a female relative was something other than a blood sibling, they would either use syggenes for “relative” or specifically anepsios for “cousin.” Jesus stated that not only his brothers but also his sisters did not honor him. And since a believing “sister“ in Christ cannot dishonor Him, meaning not believing in Him, then the only other faithful meaning for “sister” in the Greek means biological sister, which - again - is used this way consistently in the NT.
Virtually all of this is laid out in the video, which is why I drew the graphs in order to make it easier to visualize. Again, this is where Brant Pitre errs, because he attempts to use definitions for “sisters” like relatives and cousins that are not faithful to the Greek. I would encourage you to watch my video again, assuming you did the first time, and compare this explanation to the video and more importantly to the Scriptures, not to Brant Pitre who never replied to my comment in his video, like I have done with you.
@@BornAgainRN If you are asking about what ἀδελφός / ἀδελφή could mean, that is another question. It really depends on who is using it. ἀδελφός is not a technical word with a single definition (externally defined meaning that is true in all circumstances). You need a different model to understand it, one that is more contextual. Brother is individual for each person, the boy in your household, that you grew up with, not something universally recognisable like Mohs scale of mineral hardness.
Even if the word was used in a particular sense without semitic influence, that wouldn't show that it was the "true" sense of the word. Finding the meaning in classical Greek, is not really going to prove whether or not the meaniing at another time was because of any or no other influence. The meaning it had in that other contexts would be because of the way of thinking at that time, not because of not thinking something at a different time. If you really want to see the breadth of meaning of this word, consider that in Egypt, there is mention of an ἀδελφή in the sense of "wife".
Thank you for making this information super easy to understand. God bless
You’re welcome! I try to make my videos brief but informative. Glad you enjoyed it and understood it. Praise Jesus! If you are interested, I will be debating Trent Horn on the Marian dogmas on Wednesday, April 20 at 1 PM EST on “Pints with Aquinas.”
Watch a video about the James ossuary. On the ossuary is written, James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. After Jesus was born Mary and Joseph had other children, including a son named James. He wrote the book of James.
soundmixer...saw it some years ago. Another example of how archaeology confirms the Bible.
@@BornAgainRN
I thought everyone knew by now that part of the inscription on the box was forged in modern times.
@@morelmaster yes, but the part about James being the brother of Jesus.
alray...that's because the genealogy of Jesus leading up to his birth. His half-brothers would have been younger. And, again, the genealogy is about JESUS, not them.
Keep up the good work sir. This lie that Mary remained a virgin is a catholic lie to deify her. I couldn't find one single word in scripture or even early 1st century church fathers who says Jesus was an only child. Again, keep up the good work sir
Dana thank you! God bless! 😀
If Jesus had siblings, he wouldn't have given his mother to James, the disciple because that would have not only violated Jewish law, it would have made Jesus a rather big jerk. The reason why Jesus doesn't give his mother to his actual brothers was because they didn't exist.
@@MGR1900 Remember Jesus own brothers didn't believe in Him during the time of His ministry. They also weren't there during the crucifixion. So you can't just assume because John was the only one there, therefore that meant Jesus had no siblings, that's reaching. Again, read the gospels on Jesus own brothers not believing in Him. Now if His cousins were also disciples then it couldn't have been them that didn't believe....right?
@@danamurphy5241
quote; Remember Jesus own brothers didn't believe in Him during the time of His ministry. They also weren't there during the crucifixion.
So, if we follow that same logic further, that means that all the other Apostles besides John were not believers either, right?
quote; So you can't just assume because John was the only one there, therefore that meant Jesus had no siblings, that's reaching.
Who's assuming what? So are you also assuming that Jesus HAD siblings because they weren't there at the cross? That's even more of a reach I would say.
quote; Again, read the gospels on Jesus own brothers not believing in Him. Now if His cousins were also disciples then it couldn't have been them that didn't believe....right?
How do you know that these "brothers" were siblings, when the Greek word "adelphos" can mean sibling, cousin, kinsman, countryman, fellow man, fellow believer?
@@jzak5723 The gospels says that Jesus brothers didn't believe in Him. They even mocked his miracles and said *His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.* This is in John 7 vs 3 -5. Its clear that these are the brothers of Jesus. Mary of Clopas sons were disciples. You can't be a disciple and mock your leader at the same time. It's clear that Catholics have it wrong as to who was Jesus brothers. Also Mary of Clopas had 5 sons, where Mary the mother of Jesus had only 4. Mary of Clopas as far as we know didn't have daughters whereas Mary the mother of Jesus did.
Who shown up to the crucifixion and who didn't has nothing to do with whether Jesus had siblings or not. That logic is an exaggerated leap to say he had no brothers. What happened to the cousins who were supposed to be considered brothers? Why didn't they show up to the crucifixion? Were they exempt since they were only cousins? You see how the *brothers weren't at the crucifixion* argument falls flat?
I'm not assuming Jesus had brothers, the gospels says he had brothers and sisters. The only assumption is that they were his cousins.
BornAgainRN you are WRONG RE: ADELPHOS
For example, in Gn 13:8 and 14:1416, the word was used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot; however, these two men DID NOT SHARE A BROTHER RELATIONSHIP, but one of uncle and nephew. Another instance is that of Laban, who was an to Jacob, NOT A BROTHER, but as an uncle. (In the New American translation, "kinsman" or "relative" will be used in these Old Testament cases; I do not know why this is not true in the English translation of the Gospel.) The same is true for the word sister.
By: Fr. William Saunders
Martin Sandoval first, Genesis 13:8 & 14:14-16 was written in Hebrew, not Greek. "Adelphos" is a GREEK word, not a Hebrew one. Therefore, when those passages were written, they were not ORIGINALLY written in Greek, so "adelphos" was NOT used. Second, even though these passages were TRANSLATED into Greek, like I mentioned in my video "adelphos" has numerous meanings, which although INCLUDE non-uterine relatives, "adelphos" can ALSO mean uterine siblings. The problem is that you are "picking" a SINGLE definition of "adelphos" to support a preconceived religious view about Mary's post-birth virginal status, rather than explore ALL of the related verses in the NT that discuss Jesus' "brothers" to find out "who" they actually are. This is what I did in my video, & used SCRIPTURE to eliminate all of the other "definitions" of "adelphos," to demonstrate that - Scripturally - the ONLY definition for "adelphos" that is left is uterine half-siblings.
The reason why the English translation doesn't use "kinsmen" or "relatives" (like cousin) for "brother" in the NT when referring to Jesus' "brothers," is because unlike Hebrew, the Greek has SPECIFIC words for "kinsmen" & "relatives" (syggenes), as well as for "cousin" (syggenis/anepsios), which are USED in the NT. Therefore, if these "brothers" were Jesus' "syggenes" (relatives or kinsmen) or "sygennis/anepsios" (cousins), the NT writers would have USED them - instead of "adelphos" - just as they did in other passages. Let me illustrate how our conversation is going, & "how" Scripture deduces that Jesus' "brothers" are His half-siblings, & not any other relationship:
YOU: When the NT is talking about Jesus' "brothers," they could be talking about His disciples.
ME: No, because John 2:12 discerns between His disciples & His brothers, plus one of Jesus' brothers is named Joseph, & Jesus did not have a disciple named Joseph.
YOU: Well, they could be His 'believing' brothers.
ME: No, because John 7:3-5 tells us His 'brothers' did NOT believe in Him, & it also discerns between His brothers & His disciples.
YOU: Well, they could be other family members, like cousins.
ME: If Jesus meant 'cousins,' the NT writers would have used the AVAILABLE & SPECIFIC Greek word for 'cousin' ('anepsios') just as Paul did in Colossians 4:10 to describe Mark's relationship to Barnabas, as well as Mary's relationship with Elizabeth ('syggenis') which can also be translated 'cousin'.
YOU: Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. There was no Aramaic word for 'cousin,' so he used 'brother' to mean cousin.
ME: Paul also spoke Aramaic, yet he used the GREEK word for 'cousin' ('anepsios'), instead of the 'brother.' Also, since the NT was written in Greek - not Aramaic, the NT word for 'cousin' could have been used, just as Paul used it. (BTW, I think Jesus 'knew' how to speak Greek, since He was/is God).
YOU: Well, maybe they were Jesus' close-relatives.
ME: No, because the other Greek word for 'relative' is 'syggenis,' which even the CATHOLIC CHURCH USES to describe Mary's relationship to Elizabeth in Luke Ch.1. Also, Jesus discerns between His own 'countrymen,' His own 'relatives,' & members of His own 'house' (Mark 6:4).
YOU: Well, the members of His own house 'could' be Jesus' step-siblings from a previous marriage of Joseph.
ME: There is ZERO Scriptural evidence that Joseph was married before. According to the CATHOLIC CHURCH, the EARLIEST religious 'BELIEF' that they were step-siblings didn't originate until the MID-SECOND Century, from a pagan source - Proto James, which states that Joseph was MUCH older & the author of it was James the Just (even though he was DEAD!) And even 'IF' they were His step-siblings, they wouldn't have been 'members of His house' in His hometown, because according to Proto-James, they would have been grown by the time the MUCH older Joseph 'adopted' Jesus at His conception, & therefore not living in His 'house' even when Jesus was a Child. So, we've been able to eliminate - from the Word of God - that the 'brothers & sisters' of Jesus CAN'T be His disciples, 'believing' brothers, cousins, relatives, nor OLDER & GROWN step-siblings from an 'alleged' previous marriage of the MUCH older Joseph, which is BASED on MID-SECOND Century pagan, false "gospel" - Proto-James. Therefore, the ONLY option left - which does NOT conflict with ANY PART of the Word of God, is that they were Jesus' ACTUAL half-brothers.
YOU: Well, 'brother' doesn't always mean 'brother' in the NT.
ME:
***** first, my video does not deny Jesus' message in John 3:16, or that Jesus was precisely pointing out to Himself & "only" Himself. Nor does my video say anything that God "gave His Son 'and' His mother." So, I don't know where you are getting that idea from - certainly not from my video. And regarding Jesus' Authority & His family in Matthew 12:48-49, there's more to that conversation & passage than those two verses. You have to back up & read vv. 46-47 too:
"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His MOTHER and BROTHERS (adelphos) were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your MOTHER and Your BROTHERS (adelphos) are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Jesus' "mother" is His earthly biological mother, Mary, while His "brothers" (adelphos) are His earthly biological half-blood brothers, who are on the OUTSIDE, who Jesus contrasts with His heavenly "brothers & sisters & mother" - His disciples - on the INSIDE (Matthew 12:48-49). In fact, I brought this very fact up in my video. So, either you didn't watch it, or you missed it. In fact, Matthew 12:46-50 is one of the verses listed below my video, not just vv. 48-49. When you use Scripture to support a religious view like yours, you have to take the ENTIRE passage into perspective, not just a single verse or two out of context. So, your example doesn't hold. I'd encourage you to watch my entire video again (if you haven't already), look up the verses provided BELOW my video, & create a "Jesus Family Tree" BASED on those verses. If you do, & you leave your preconceived religious view to the side, you "should" discover that the Word of God supports that the "brothers" of Jesus are His literal, half-blood brothers.
***** if I understand you correctly, we are on the same page about this. If so, then I apologize for my misunderstanding. God bless, & thanks for leaving a comment! :)
Also sir, this question doesn't appertain to this video, but I'd like to know your opinion on this issue:
Simply that is Mary Magdalene the same Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus? I had a debate with someone who claimed that Mary Magdalene, Mary of Bethany AND the "sinful woman" who anoints Jesus are all one and the same.
Could I get your opinion?
I personally see all three of them different women
You are correct that they are three different women. The reason people believe the sinful woman and Mary of Bethany are the same woman is because they both pour perfume on Jesus’ body. However the two stories take place in two different cities, In two different homes. Mary Of Bethany takes place in Bethany in the home of Lazarus. The sinful woman takes place in the home of Simon the Pharisee, in Galilee. It is also falsely believed that Mary Magdalene is the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8. However the adulterous woman was a local girl and Unnamed. Mary Magdalene was from the town of Magdala, which was not local. Plus there is no indication in scripture that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute nor does John chapter 8 Suggest that she was a prostitute either only that she was caught in the act of adultery. The only thing we know about Mary Magdalene is that Jesus freed her of seven demons, but Nothing about her being a prostitute. So the three women are completely different individuals. Hope that helps. Feel free to ask me anything else. God bless.
@@BornAgainRN thank you so much. God bless you too.
Do you have something like Instagram maybe that I can follow you?
@@BornAgainRN could you also make a video about your experience when you were a catholic. Like what you did to personally "grow" in your faith and then how your eyes were opened to the truth?
Thanks
@@maryanna682
you can follow me on Facebook (BornAgainRN is my username there too).
@@maryanna682
if you go into my TH-cam channel, I have some videos on the 500 year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, and from my second book "Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller' where I talk about how I went from being a devout Catholic, including graduating from a Catholic college, to becoming a Bible-believing Protestant. Also, I will be debating the canon of Scripture on December 14th of this year with a semi-well known Catholic debater on TH-cam. I will be posting the debate time & details here, once I get more information. So, if you haven't subscribed to my channel yet, you can do so now, to get updates. And in my two books (Not really of us, and Why Protestant Bibles are smaller) I begin each book talking a little about my conversion experience & growth. If you would like copies of either ( or both) books, let me know, because I can get you a discount.
Also, I would begin by watching the videos at Faith Baptist Church & First Baptist Church where I briefly talk about my conversion, which began with noticing the difference between Catholic & Protestant Bibles at a very young age.
The Greek Orthodox hold Mary is Perpetually Virgin.
The Greek Orthodox speak and understand Greek.
victor crowne You’re telling The Greek Orthodox they don’t know their own language and what they mean? I find it hard to believe Greeks don’t know the language they’ve been speaking for over 3,000 years.
Have you looked this up from Greek Orthodox sources?
victor crowne Have you checked The Greek Orthodox about what they mean by their own language? I think you will find they know Greek but you don’t understand Jewish titles.
victor crowne Have you checked what The Greek Orthodox teach? I think you will find they know the Greek language. I think you will find there is a difference between what they teach and Jewish titles.
I can’t help but note, you refuse to accept Greeks know Greek better than you.
Attia Sprouse...and the NT is God-breathed which was written in Greek, which holds that Jesus' brothers & sisters were younger half-siblings. The fact that the Greek Orthodox rejects the Filioque from John 15:26 in the Greek NT that explicitly states that the Holy Spirit ("the Helper") was sent by BOTH the Father AND the Son ("filioque"), demonstrates that they trust in the unbiblical teachings of their CHURCH, rather than the Greek. This is why the true church must trust in what the NT actually supports, rather than councils, church leaders, popes, & patriarchs who are capable of being wrong. God's Word CANNOT be wrong.
BornAgainRN This doesn’t answer why The Greek Orthodox teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Why do The Greek Orthodox (who speak Greek) hold Our Lady is Perpetually Virgin? They wrote in Greek, they know what Greek words mean. This is about Greek, not Latin.
Please see this article regarding The Holy Ghost and John 15:26. www.goarch.org/-/the-fundamental-teachings-of-the-eastern-orthodox-church.
Listen to Dr Brandt Pitre explain this topic. ....those fellas are cousins and the protestants don't understand this because they neglect the areas of the Bible that explains such things. And, they do not read the letters of the first and second century bishops, the church fathers, who knew and studied under the apostles, the Bible tells us that they are the sons of Mary and Clopas (sp?) And this Mary, is the cousin of the Virgin Mary , and her husband is the brother of Joseph, who is married to the Virgin Mary.
row1landr...I'm well aware of Brandt Pitre. If you bothered to look at his TH-cam video on the topic, I even left a comment there where he erred. Just out of curiosity, did you even WATCH my video??? Because I explain the whole "brother" vs "cousin" argument there. Augustine & Jerome were not only ECFs, they were also Doctors of the church, and they did NOT even agree to their identity. And even if they did, their writings are not Inspired like Scripture is, and Scripture is clear they were younger & uterine. Again, watch the video if you haven't already. And, no, the "James & Joseph" who were sons of the "other Mary" & Alphaeus/Clopas are NOT the same "James & Joseph" mentioned with Jesus' other brothers (Simon & Judas) in Mark 6:3. Mark Ch.15-16 make it clear Mary only had TWO sons, James the Less & Joseph, since he mentions them together as well as individually in those chapters. Mark Ch.15-16 makes no mention of Simon & Joseph being her sons, which demonstrates this is a completely different "James & Joseph" from the ones mentioned earlier in Mark 6:3.
Also, the specific Greek word for "sister" in the NT only has TWO meanings: 1) female uterine sibling; 2) female believer...not cousin.
@@BornAgainRN
I couldn't find the comment that you left, what is it that you are claiming he erred about?
@john mizak...he erred in claiming Eusebius stated the brothers of Jesus were of a different "Mary." This comes from a misinterpretation of John 19 and the women at the cross, and who their children were.
Whether or not Mary kept her virginity, is irrelevant. Marriages are to be consummated. Mary was in love with Joseph and it's not unreasonable to know that after the birth of Jesus, her and her husband showed their love in the marriage bed. Sex between two married people is not a sin. It's meant to share each other's intimacy. I believe these two people, who were deeply in love, had relations. That's not unreasonable.
I understand why you are saying this, but we have to let Scripture speak for itself. Everything you said is to be expected in a normal marital relationship, but we have to be honest about it, this was not a normal beginning, middle, or end of the story. An angel appears to the virgin Mary, then Mary the virgin conceives by the Holy Spirit, her son is born in a manger, Joseph has to take his family to Egypt to avoid having Jesus killed by Herod, etc. Does any of this sound normal? So why are you so determined to normalize sexual relations between Mary and Joseph? Are you allowing for the possibility that things didn't work out the way you assumed they would? Why couldn't Joseph have kept Mary a virgin after the miraculous birth of the Son of God? Why couldn't Mary and Joseph have put their own needs aside and agreed to abstain from sex from that point onward? I think it would be good to think about these questions?
@@jzak5723 because everything else you wrote you got from SCRIPTURE, but your belief of Mary's perpetual virgin is NOT from Scripture, but from select Christian writers like Origen in the 3rd century & ECFs after that. How about defending your belief from SCRIPTURE for once?
@@jzak5723 and John, like I said, her perpetual virginity, or lack thereof, has no bearing on my/our salvation. My focus is on the blood of Christ and, the cross. That is the ONLY way to the Father. But, an answer to your questions, I could propose the opposite. Again, Jesus, not Mary or her virginity, is my only focus. Have a great day!
@@myronsevera345
And I agree with you, sometimes I have to step back from all the debate about this issue and ask myself why we (Catholics and non-Catholics) spend so much time and energy on something that really has no bearing on who Jesus Christ is.
@@jzak5723 because although it's not a salvation issue it IS an authority issue. And when your authority is the Catholic church which has "traditions" that conflict with the authority of what God-breathed SCRIPTURE supports, then God-breathed Scripture is not your authority but rather the "traditions of men" Jesus condemned the religious leaders of His time of embracing (Matthew 15:9). And Catholic "tradition" that believes Jesus' brothers were anything other than uterine conflicts with the authority of Scripture which supports that they were.
DID
JESUS, OUR LORD HAVE OTHER BROTHERS?
(Part 1: A Look at the Biblical Texts)
Alternatively asked:
DID JESUS HAVE ACTUAL SIBLINGS?
RESPONSE 1
IT WOULD APPEAR SO AS THE FOLOWING TEXTS MIGHT SEEM TO DEPICT AT A SUPERFICIAL GLANCE
Matt 13:54-56
...And coming to his own country 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 brethren[a] James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And
are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
Mark 6:3
is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and
Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense
at him.
John 7:3-10
so his brethren said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea that your disciples
may see the works you are doing. For no man works in secret if he seeks to be
known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For even his
brethren did not believe in him. Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come,
but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me
because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go to the feast yourselves; I
am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” So saying,
he remained in Galilee. But after his brethren had gone up to the feast, then
he also went up, not publicly but in private.
Matt 12:46
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren
stood outside, asking to speak to him.
John 2:12
after this he went down to Capernaum, with his mother and his brethren[a] and
his disciples; and there they stayed for a few days.
Gal1:19
But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother
1 Cor 9:5
Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a
believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord
and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?
RESPONSE 2
HOWEVER, A CLOSER ANALYSIS AND DEEPER LOOK AT THESE SAME
TEXTS IN RELATION TO OTHER TEXTS OF THE NEW TWSTAMENT WILL SHOW CLEARLY THAT
THE INDIVIDUALS REFERED TO AS THE BROTHERS OF JESUS IN OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS
ARE REALLY NOT SIBLINGS (BLOOD BROTHERS) AT ALL! THIS IS THE APOSTOLIC POSITION
OVER THE CENTURIES
First Analysis: WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL NAMES OF THOSE REFERRED TO AS THE
“BROTHERS” OF JESUS AND HOW MANY ARE THEY?
The Bible tells us that Jesus had four brothers: James (aka, James the
Less), Joseph (aka, Joses), Simon, and Jude (aka, Judas, not Iscariot) (Matthew
13:55). The Bible also tells us that Jesus had sisters, but they are not named
or numbered (Matthew 13:56). Note well that apart from these 4 names, no other
person is mentioned in the New Testament as “brother of Jesus.
Second Analysis: NONE OF THESE 4 NAMES IS MENTIONED AS THE SON OF MARY THE
MOTHER OF JESUS.
Although they are referred to as “brothers of Jesus”, they are NEVER called
the sons and daughters of Mary the Mother of Jesus. This is very significant.
Note well that, rather, ON THE CONTRARY, these same names, or at least some of
these same names are referred to as sons of ANOTHER Mary, (Matthew 27:56-61;
Mark 15:40, 47; Mark 16:1, 9; Luke 24:10). And mark this well: this other Mary
who is specifically called the mother of these names also happens to be the
SISTER of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Interesting indeed!!! (John 19:25)
Third Analysis: NONE OF THESE 4 NAMES IS MENTIONED A THE SON OF JOSEPH THE
CARPENTER AND FATHER OF JESUS.
None of these 4 names referred to as “brothers of Jesus”, is EVER called son
and/or daughter of Joseph the Carpenter of Nazareth and father of Jesus our
Lord. This too is very significant, since, ON THE CONTRARY, these same names,
or at least some of these same names are referred to as sons of ANOTHER man,
Cleopas (aka. Alphaeus or Clopas) who interestingly happens to be husband of
that same Mary who is the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Let the bells ring
now (John 19:25)
Fourth Analysis: SOCIO-HISTORICAL MEANING OF THE TERM TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH
AS “BROTHER”
Now to really understand what the texts are saying or are not saying, we
need a small analysis of the socio-historical background of the term being used
here in its Aramaic and Greek heritage. Generally speaking, there wasn’t a
specific word in Jesus’ original language of Aramaic to define the proper or
exact relationship these “brothers” had to Jesus, so when New Testament writers
like Luke wrote the story down they didn’t use a specific Greek word for these
kinsmen but instead used the more general term in Greek which meant ‘close kin’
so that it encompassed a wider range of relationships. What this means is that
when the term used in the Greek manuscript for a ‘brotherly relationship’,
translated into English it was translated as “brothers”. The Greek word itself
used the term “brethren” as in either close family - like cousins, brothers by
bond (think of ‘Band of Brothers’ or ‘Brothers in Arms’), as tribal relations,
or as blood brothers. So the way it was originally written the Greek word used
there was used as a very wide open term to describe the relationship.
Fifth Analysis: WHO ARE THE POSSIBLE REAL BLOOD PARENTS OF THE 4 PEOPLE NAMES
AS “BROTHERS” OF JESUS
If we look at the men specifically mentioned in the Bible as being
“brothers” of Christ like James and Joseph (or Joses depending on the
manuscript), Simon, and Jude (or Judas, not Iscariot [cf. Mt. 13:55; Mk. 6:3])
we can identify who they were exactly and who their parents were or at least
where they came from.
John 19:25 says
“Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister Mary
the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Well who is Mary, the wife of Clopas (or Cleophas)?
• She is mentioned in Matthew 15:40 as being the mother of James and Josas (or
Joseph).
• In Mark she’s called the mother of James the Less and Joses (Mk 15:40).
And who is this James?
• James is described as the son of Alphaeus in the synoptic Gospels’ listing of
the Apostles (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15).
Who is Alphaeus?
• Alphaeus and Cleophas is often thought to be the Roman and Hebrew name of the
same man. (Much like Saul was the Jewish name and Paul was his Roman name.)
• Therefore, we can deduce that Cleophas/Alphaeus is the father of James and
Joses/Joseph.
• We can also deduce that it is highly unlikely that Mary wife of Cleophas is a
blood sister of the Virgin Mary since they bear the same name. More likely they
were probably close kinsmen or cousins. This parallels the use of “brother” in
relating James to Jesus.
• Acts 1:13 says that Jude (Judas) was a brother of James who is identified in
this verse as James, the son of Alphaeus. Jude himself says in his own epistle
that he is a brother of James (cf. Jude 1:1).
• Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as
were Joseph, Mary and Christ. (Mark 3:18)
CONCLUSION:
Therefore, the “brothers” mentioned by name in Scripture as being brothers of
Christ are clearly shown to have different lineage than that of Mary and
Joseph.
+Lesego Mosetlha James is referred as THE son of Alphaeus. Does this mean that Joseph was not THE son of Alphaeus too? Peter is referred to as THE son of Jonah. Does this mean that Andrew was not THE son of Jonah too? This is why the "THE son of Mary" argument doesn't work.
"Note well that apart from these 4 names, no other
person is mentioned in the New Testament as “brother of Jesus.""
Actually, you even posted the verse in Galatians 1:19 that states that James is the "brother of the Lord." If 'brother' here does not mean sibling, then what is Andrew's relationship to his 'brother' Peter? How about James the 'brother' of John? Are they not male siblings?
"this other Mary
who is specifically called the mother of these names also happens to be the
SISTER of Mary the Mother of Jesus. Interesting indeed!!! (John 19:25)"
No, this "other" Mary is not the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. This "Mary" is the mother of the "other" James & Joseph. The sister of Mary is SALOME (otherwise, you have Mary's parents naming BOTH of their daughters - "Mary" - something first century Jewish families would have not done, because names had meaning back then). Plus, John would have omitted his OWN MOTHER (Salome) is his OWN GOSPEL, while Matthew & Mark didn't. This is unreasonable & unrealistic.
Regarding none of them being referred to as "the son of Joseph," is because Scripture is about JESUS, not Joseph or Mary. That is why Jesus' brothers are in relationship to HIM, not His earthly parents.
Also, the NT writers - especially the Gospel writers - when they wanted to explicitly describe a relationship of someone who was "not" a biological sibling, they used the specific Greek word for "relative" (syggenes or syggenes)(Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24). In fact, Mark 6:3-4 uses BOTH "syggenes" AND "adelphos' (brother) in the SAME PASSAGES to describe two DIFFERENT relationships to Jesus:
""Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother ("adelphos") of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters ("adelphe") here with us?" And they took offense at Him.Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and among his own relatives ("syggenes") and in his own household."
Why didn't Mark simply use the same Greek word "adelphos" in both verses instead of using "syggenes" too?
I give you credit that you at least attempted to use Scripture, but upon careful - and exegetical - examination of Scripture, you have misinterpreted key texts, which is commonplace of Catholics & other Christian denominations who attempt to impute their much MUCH later man-made "traditions" into Scripture about Mary's (alleged) perpetual virginity. The problem is that Scripture does not support it.
BTW, for the sake of argument, if Jesus did have younger half-brothers, what Greek word would the NT writers have used to describe their male sibling relationship to Jesus if not "adelphos," & how would you know - based on keeping the Bible written (as is) - that they were younger half-brothers, & not some other kind of relationship?
I read somewhere Mary and Joseph had Judas,Simon,Joseph,Mary and Miriam,their children after the birth of Jesus.
@Sharon...the Bible doesn’t mention the name of Jesus’ younger half sisters, but the names of His younger half brothers are mentioned in both Matthew’s and Mark’s gospels as James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.
At about 5 minutes into the video you state that this "different" James that Jesus appeared to, cannot be either of the other two James (son of Zebedee, and James the Less) because Jesus already appeared to the other two James when he appeared to Peter (John 21). I'm not understanding your reasoning why you see this "different" James as being someone besides the one of the two James of the Twelve? For example, Jesus appeared to Peter multiple times as well as other disciples. So, how do you know for a fact that this "different" James couldn't have been one of the Twelve again?
John Mizak...unlike Peter, who stands out in Scripture from the rest of "The 12," neither "James" who were part of "the 12" stands out where Christ would appear - alone - to them. While James the son of Zebedee was part of His "inner circle" with Peter, so was his brother John. Yet, Jesus did not appear - alone - to John immediately after His Resurrection, like he did - alone - with Peter. James the son of Alphaeus is always listed ninth in the listing of the apostles, & other than being mentioned as a disciple and who his immediately family is, we know nothing from Scripture about him. He doesn't even speak - even once - in Scripture. The only significant detail about him is that in the ranking of "The 12" where they are divided into 3 groups of 4, James the son of Alphaeus is always listed first before Thaddeus, Simon, & Judas Iscariot. Beyond that, there is nothing significant about James the son of Alphaeus that Jesus would appear - alone - to him either.
And, again, Jesus had just appeared to Peter, & then "The 12" collectively. There would be no reason for Him to appear to either of the "James" a second time. There is nothing particularly special about either of them, like there is with Peter, who was arguably Jesus' biggest piece of work, since Jesus prayed for Peter so Satan would not sift him like wheat, Peter was the only believing disciple Jesus called "Satan," who Jesus questioned his love 3 times after His Resurrection. This explains Jesus appearing to Peter first, but it doesn't account for Jesus appearing to any of the other "12" singly & alone. Ergo, this was a completely different "James" after Jesus appeared to "The 12" collectively. There is no Scriptural reason to believe otherwise.
@@BornAgainRN
your quotes;
"unlike Peter, who stands out in Scripture from the rest of "The 12," neither "James" who were part of "the 12" stands out where Christ would appear - alone - to them."
"And, again, Jesus had just appeared to Peter, & then "The 12" collectively. There would be no reason for Him to appear to either of the "James" a second time. There is nothing particularly special about either of them"
__________________________________________
You say there is nothing special about either of the Apostles names James? They were Apostles weren't they? That's not reason enough to think that they were special in some way? Give me a break with your rationalizations please.
None of this is convincing proof that the separate James mentioned in the appearances could not be one of the two James who were Apostles. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
@@jzak5723 then by your reasoning, then "why" didn't Jesus appear to ALL of the disciples SEPARATELY too? Weren't "they" just as "special" as Peter & James? I don't think you are understanding my point. Peter is mentioned by name 205 times in the NT, far more than any other of the other disciples, including both James which are not even a distant second or third. What was so "special" - in particular - either of the two James who were part of "The 12" that Jesus would appear to one of them SEPARATELY APART FROM THE REST but not do the same from the rest SEPARATELY? That is "your" argument, not mine. So, please address this. The "James" Jesus appeared to separately was "not" one of "The 12," but rather His younger half-brother, who He appeared to AFTER "The 12" which includes the two James who were disciples.
@@jzak5723 I've already answered these, either in other responses to you, or in my video. Please don't pretend I haven't. Your comment is deleted.
Wow !! I just accidentally stumbled across your video !! what a lot of garbage YOUR putting out there for people?? AND why is it THAT you take THAT Litterly?? BUT not what Jesus said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood??? I am so confused !! I Would LOVE to hear what you have to say about that??? May God BLESS YOU and OPEN your EYES and Ears to the truth!!!
nixNax...the New Catholic Version of the Bible translates this same Greek word for "eat" figuratively as "consume" (Hebrew 10:27; James 5:3). Likewise, Jesus figuratively says "the seed IS the word of God" (Luke 8:11), just as He says "this IS my body" (Matthew 26:26). When reading a passage of Scripture, you can't always read it literally or figuratively. You have to read it in the context of the passage, so that when you interpret it, you aren't conflicting with other passages.
But since this is a video about who Jesus' brothers & sisters are, please be more specific about what you disagree with - based on SCRIPTURE - not your personal opinion, or that of your church's. This is one of the rules I wrote in the notes section below my video. Also, I am asking you not to use such attacking language (like "garbage"). That too is a rule of this video. It is neither courteous nor Christ-like. Please comply. If not, then I will delete your comments. I don't wish to do this, because I desire a civil - and Biblical - dialogue. But I will, if it continues.
So, based on SCRIPTURE, then what - specifically - do you disagree with?
1 Corinthians 15 says, in your words, He appeared to Peter, "THEN" the 12. Was Peter part of the 12? Or did Jesus appear to Peter separately, then to all the 12, or is Peter a different Peter? That would be no different the Jesus appearing to James "Separately" , then the Apostles? Further more, if I was to use your theory on this text, then the James mentioned in the text would neither one of the 12 nor an Apostles (follower) of Christ.
1 Cor. 15 is only showing the order of appearances of Jesus after His Resurrection in chronological order. Nothing more
The term "The 12" that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15 is a title referring to the apostles of Jesus. Obviously, it doesn't mean the actual number of apostles, since Judas was dead & there were only 11 left when Jesus appeared to them. Paul is just saying that Jesus appeared to Peter FIRST, & then "The 12" as a whole. But then He appeared to James, who was a completely different "James" than the two James' mentioned among "The 12."
" Paul is just saying that Jesus appeared to Peter FIRST, & then "The 12""
I agree. It's a chronological order of who Christ met with during the 40 days He was on Earth after the Resurrection. He met with Peter alone, then all the Apostles, then the 500, then James alone, then All the Disciples. Paul makes no mention of which James it is. You are speculating.
Sword O'Truth it's a matter of "who" you think this "James" is, & why Jesus would appear to him separately like He did with Peter. Most Christians, including Catholics, believe that "this James" is the same James as the leader of the Jerusalem council in Acts Ch.15, who was the writer of the epistle of James. Based on the NT passages, that's a fair assessment, supported by Scripture. However, he can't be James the brother of John, because "that James" was martyred in Acts 12:2 "before" the Jerusalem council convened. It also can't be the other James who was one of "The 12," because whenever "this James" is mentioned:
1) When he's mentioned, he's referred to as either James the Less (Mark 15:40), or James the son of Alphaeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15) including in the book of Acts (Acts 1:13) or he's paired with his ONLY brother Joses (Joseph)(Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40). However, when the Gospels & Paul mention this "third" James, he's referred to as the "brother" of Jesus ALONG WITH His other brothers Joseph, Simon, & Judas & at least 2 unnamed sisters, or "James, the Lord's brother" (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19). These "titles" are never used to describe either James the son of Alphaeus, nor James the brother of John.
2) When he's listed among "The 12," he's ALWAYS listed NINTH (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15), including in the book of Acts (Acts 1:13). If fact, other than being listed among "The 12," & other than what we know that his father was Alpheaus, his mother was the 'other Mary,' & Joses (Joseph) being his brother, we know nothing about him. In fact, the Gospels don't even mention anything he said, including in the Gospel of Luke. Yet, in Acts (also written by Luke), James is the leader of the Jerusalem Council & speaks (Acts Ch.15), & Paul lists him FIRST & AHEAD of Peter (Galatians 2:9)? It seems highly unlikely that this relatively unknown "James the Less" who is hardly mentioned & doesn't even speak in the Gospels & listed ninth - even in Acts - is believed to be the same "James" listed ABOVE Peter & head of the Jerusalem Council.
So, there's no "speculating" that the "James" that Paul lists separately in chronological order in 1 Corinthians 15 is the half-brother of Jesus, when you take all these other verses (as well as others) into context. Jesus appeared to His half-brother, James, after He appeared alone to Peter, & then "The 12" as a whole. Most of these points are mentioned in my video as well, which are supported by the Scripture verses provided below it. I would encourage you to look all of them up & rewatch my video. If you want a more detailed explanation beyond this "summary" video, I also produced a much more indepth video, as well as Bible study notes that you can view & download for free. I would encourage you to read them as well:
www.vernisage.us/SteveChristie/16/index.html
Joseph actually had more than one wife at the same time as Mary. But yes Mary had baby's after Jesus was born.
+Ryan Ehlis Scripture does not state Joseph had "more than one wife at the same time as Mary." Nowhere in Scripture does it state that. Even the Proto-evangelium of James which is a mid-to-late SECOND false gospel states that Joseph was married before, but "not" that he was a polygamist. This video is about what SCRIPTURE supports, so please comment based on what SCRIPTURE supports, not personal opinion.
Ryan, where in the bible does it state that Joseph had one more wife at the same time as Mary. I think you are just guessing. But anyway, it doesn't state anywhere biblically that Joseph was married to anyone else while he was married to Mary.
Why do you discuss the different interpretations of the word brother and yet you take the literal meaning of virgin as written? That's a rhetorical question because I know you are ignoring the true meaning of the word virgin to fit your narrative.
If you take the meaning of the Hebrew word 'virgin' to mean someone of marriageable age, the first two options you have on your board, full brother and half brother, become relevant and this notion that Mary was a virgin all her life becomes mute.
hawkesworth1712...for some reason, people's comments from 5 years ago, like yours, are just popping up now. Your personal assumptions about why you "think" I take the word "virgin" literally notwithstanding, instead I'll explain SCRIPTURALLY why I take it literally. It's because when Matthew 1 writes about Mary being a virgin, he is citing Isaiah 7:14, which states the VIRGIN will be with Child. While "virgin" can be synonymous with "maiden," which simply means an unmarried girl, in the ancient Jewish culture, this also referred to a girl who did not have sex yet. IOW, if you were a maiden back then, you also hadn't had sex yet. Plus, the specific Hebrew word for "virgin" used in the OT, means "virgin," not just "maiden." So, it's not just to "fit my narrative" like you assumed.
Also, because Mary was the fulfillment of that OT "virgin," she admitted in Luke that she "knew not man" which means she hadn't had sex yet. This is why modern translations translate the verse as "virgin." The reason this is relevant & significant, is because this demonstrates that Jesus' birth was supernatural & miraculous, and the identity of Jesus' brothers & sisters is also significant. When you eliminate from Scripture all the possible meanings of "brother," you are only left with one: uterine. So, since Mary was virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (meaning Joseph was not His natural father), and since they were uterine brothers, full-blood brothers is not an option. So younger half-brothers is the only viable option, because Joseph was their biological father, but they shared the same mother - Mary who was no longer a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus.
@@BornAgainRN why are using Greek words and not Hebrew words is my problem
I have released my first YOU TUBE video today in honor of the Feast of the Annunciation (9 months before Christmas). It is on "Mary's Vow of Virginity". Luke 1:34
See video covering brothers of Jesus from Dr Brant Pitre
You are about the fifth or sixth person who has mentioned Brant Pitre’s video, who did not realize that I left comments below his video. Check them out.
@@BornAgainRN What are your thoughts on his using only Luke's account?
@@stevesawicki2062 if you’re referring to him utilizing Luke chapter 1 where he assumes that Mary took a perpetual vowel virginity when she said, “I know not man,” that’s all it is - an assumption, because that phrase does not imply a vow of perpetual virginity. Mary said this because she was still in the year-long betrothal period, which means she was legally married but it did involve sexual union. That is why she was confused, because she knew where babies came from, and she legally could not be engaged in an activity because the betrothal period was not over. And we know she understood that it could happen at any time, because she is immediately pregnant when she goes to visit her relatives Elizabeth in Hillcountry. So Luke’s gospel does not prove Mary was a perpetual virgin, nor does the rest of Scripture. Just the opposite.
@@stevesawicki2062 I saw your link to Catholic Answers, but for some reason I cannot see it in the comments section. Every one of these arguments have been answered by Protestants decades, even centuries ago, so I don't know why they keep bringing up these outdated & answered questions & comments. Plus, if you read some of the comments below the video from 4 years ago, some of the comments made in the video bring up other problems for the Catholic side, such as if Jesus' brothers & sisters were older step-siblings from an (alleged) previous marriage of Joseph, then when Joseph & Mary went to Bethlehem from the census, then "why" does it not record them going with them, not during their flight to Egypt, nor back to Nazareth? His sons would have went with them for the census, since Bethlehem would have been THEIR (meaning Joseph's sons') ancestral city of origin to travel to for the census, since King David would have been their ancestor too, and would be required to travel to Bethlehem. There are several other problems with the Catholic position - Scriptural, linguistic, and logical - of them being anything other than younger half-siblings. But there is nothing Scriptural, linguistic, nor logical that prevents them from being younger half-siblings.
If you are interested, a friend of mine from "a Goy for Jesus" & I had an online discussion where we attempted to cover all of the Catholic arguments we have heard over the years, addressing each one of them in-depth. Here is the link if you would like to watch it, including time-stamps in the description area below the video, where you can jump to individual topics:
th-cam.com/video/TexNvNU-ldM/w-d-xo.html
In speaking to my Jewish Orthodox friend, it was explained to me that Jews "DO NOT" name their children after living relatives, that includes parents. So, Jesus would not have had a brother named Joseph.
Laws of Jewish Names
"It is the Jewish custom is not to name a baby after living individuals. The reason for this seems to be that it is a merit for a deceased person to have a descendant (or other relative) named after him or her. If the name is given while its bearer is still alive, this will no longer be possible (in the same family) after that person’s passing. The Sephardim--that is, Jews of Iberian or Middle-Eastern origin--can include naming their children after a grandparent, either living or dead."
By the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there is no example of a child named for the father. So, as you say, this is un-scriptural.
"In speaking to my Jewish Orthodox friend, it was explained to me that Jews "DO NOT" name their children after living relatives, that includes parents. So, Jesus would not have had a brother named Joseph. By the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, there is no example of a child named for the father. So, as you say, this is un-scriptural."
I guess you & your "Jewish Orthodox friend" forgot about John the Baptist:
"Her [Elizabeth's] neighbors and her relatives (syggenes) heard that the Lord had displayed His great mercy toward her; and they were rejoicing with her. And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child [John the Baptist], and they were going to call him ZACHARIAS, after HIS FATHER." (Luke 1:58-59)
The fact that Zacharias insisted on naming him, John, is because he was being obedient to the angel of the Lord who insisted it. Here's an example where you & your "Orthodox Jewish friend" elevate your man-made "tradition" above that of the Word of God, as well as the BIBLICAL (not Protestant) doctrine of sola scriptura. So, your comment is false that "there is NO example of a child named for the father." If that were true, Elizabeth's neighbors & relatives wouldn't have insisted on naming him after his FATHER...unless you want to take the position of "tradition" being elevated above the Word of God.
BTW, if you notice, in Luke 1:58, Luke chooses "syggenes" instead of "adelphos" to refer to Elizabeth's "relatives." "If" the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew, not Greek, then "why" didn't Luke use "adelphos"?
BornAgainRN
1) I appreciate the correction that Jews did name their children after the parents. The information I was told by my Jewish friend always troubled me, because I believed the brethren in question were Josephs children and not cousins of Jesus. Thanks to you pointed out this scripture on the Baptist my understanding of Christ's brethren is even stronger.
2) As far as your question to me asking where these children were during the early life of the Holy family in scripture, tradition tells us that Joseph was much older then Mary, and there's a likelihood that Joseph's children had their own families. This is not outside the realm of possibility. The theory that Joseph was much older would also explain why Joseph is not mentioned later in Jesus' life.
3) As far as your belief about Catholic Tradition. We are taught that the NT Scripture is part of Apostolic Tradition, but as scripture says, not everything was written. "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25).
The Apostolic Oral Tradition is merely the correct interpretation of scripture taught orally, until they were recorded by the ECF's. Without it, any individual can come to different conclusions of scripture and splinter off into their own denomination, as history has shown. This splintering is in violation to what Christ commanded us, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee," (John17:20) The proof of the error of Sola Scriptura is in the schisms. Scripture even tells us that not all scripture is easy to understand read (2Peter3:16)
If I were to reject Apostolic Tradition, then I would be rejecting what Christ told the Church " And I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you into ALL truth" And also "The Gates of Hades will not prevail against it" Meaning, there will never be a time when Christ's Church would not exist, and it will never teach error. Amen
God Bless!
Sword O'Truth
1) No problem. Glad I could help clarify your Jewish Orthodox friend's misunderstanding that Jewish families did indeed name their sons after the father, particularly around the time of John the Baptist & Jesus. And because of that, and because of the Zacharias/Baptist example, it should really reinforce that the "Joseph" mentioned as one Christ's "adelphos" is not only the biological son of Joseph, but also the biological son of Mary, thus making these "adelphos" of Jesus younger half-brothers. [see comment #2]
2) But did you ever wonder the actual origin of that particular "Catholic Tradition" regarding Joseph being "much older" than Mary & having older children with an "alleged" previous wife? That "Catholic Tradition" ALSO came from the false "gospel" of Proto-James, as well as some other "Catholic Traditions" not found in Scripture. In fact, if you read Proto-James, although the "Joseph & Mary" are "similar" to the actual Joseph & Mary of Scripture, there are some significant differences between them - enough to realize they are not one in the same. IOW, since the "Joseph & Mary" of Proto-James is not the Joseph & Mary of Scripture, then neither is the "Jesus" of Proto-James. Therefore, the older step-brothers of the "Jesus" of Proto-James aren't the same as the "adelphos" of Jesus in Scripture. Plus, the fact that the "author" of Proto-James is attributed to James the Just...who was DEAD for around 100-150 years...the validity of it's claims of the Holy Family - as well as the "Catholic Tradition" that the RCC bases it's "theory" on - looses credibility. And, again, even "if" they were older step-brothers from an "alleged" previous marriage of Joseph, then that would contradict the other "Catholic theory" that Joseph was ALSO a VIRGIN when he married Mary. I would do some real heavy thinking that if the Catholic church is so confident that the NAMED "brothers" of Jesus weren't younger half-brothers, & that if their identity was "passed down" to the ECF's through "apostolic succession," then "why" did the ECF's - like Jerome & Augustine - DISagree with each other on their identity? Again, the fact they are NAMED indicates that the readers of the Gospels & the NT epistles would KNOW "who" they are. And if you base your faith on the Word of God (and not a "Catholic Tradition" BASED on a false "gospel" from the MID-to-LATE SECOND century), you'll quickly discover that you "can" identify these NAMED "adelphos" specifically, based on Scripture alone.
Also, even "if" Joseph had older children from an "alleged" previous marriage, who would have been older & "allegedly" had a family of their own, the fact that their father Joseph was married to Mary before he died, would still make Mary THEIR mother THROUGH her marriage to Joseph. So, why didn't Jesus entrust THEIR mother (through marriage to Joseph) to one of Jesus "alleged" older step-brothers? Plus, it still doesn't change the fact that "if" these "adelphos" were Jesus' "brothers" who didn't believe in Him (John 7:3-5) who were in His "household" (Mark 6:3-4), then when Joseph went to his hometown of Bethlehem for the census, he would have taken not only Mary, but ALSO those in his "household" - which would have included the "adelphos" of Jesus IN His "household" (Mark 6:3-4), because Joseph's "alleged" children, from an "alleged" previous marriage, would have been part of Joseph & Mary's family as well. So, "where" were they in their journey to Bethlehem, the Temple, back to Bethlehem, to Egypt, back to Nazareth, & when Jesus went missing for 3 days when he was 12?
If you haven't done so already, look up the Scripture verses I provided directly below my video, as well as the link to the "Jesus Family Tree" that is online, & what you'll discover is that those approximately two-dozen verses actually support what I demonstrated in my video. Please consider doing that before responding, because to date, I am unaware of any Catholic who has responded to this video who has actually done that per my request. Otherwise, it'll be just a matter of your "Catholic Tradition" disagreeing with me - and more importantly what Scripture actually states & supports - which isn't productive to this exchange.
3) As a former Catholic, I understand that this "Catholic Tradition" is "believed" to be based on the "Catholic" understanding of "apostolic tradition" which was passed down to the ECF's. But again, if that were true, then ECF's like Jerome & Augustine wouldn't have DISagreed with EACH OTHER on the identity of these "adelphos" of Jesus. And, again, this particular "Catholic Tradition" is even ADMITTED by CatholicAnswers apologist Jimmy Akin that the EARLIEST source for this "Catholic Tradition" of Joseph being "much older" & having children from an "alleged" previous marriage is BASED on Proto-James - not any earlier ECF. IOW, the LATER ECF's (like Augustine) "based" THEIR "Catholic Tradition" ON Proto-James - not "APOSTOLIC Tradition." Apostolic Tradition was based on what the apostles believed & taught in SCRIPTURE - which is a record of what the APOSTLES believed & taught - which is why God gave us His Word.
I'm well aware of the verse at the end of John's Gospel that says that not everything Jesus DID were written in the Gospel, but you have to consider four things: 1) that verse doesn't say "what Jesus SAID" or "what Jesus TAUGHT" - just "what Jesus DID"; 2) John's Gospel isn't the ONLY Scriptural source of what Jesus said, taught, & did - we have 3 other Gospels, as well as the rest of the NT - that record what Jesus said, taught, & did; 3) there are a lot of things Jesus "didn't say" in John's Gospel, but that doesn't give the RCC license to just "make up" things & call them "Apostolic Tradition" if they can't name the actual APOSTLE who said, taught, & believed these "Catholic Traditions"; and 4) since John doesn't specify the other things Jesus "did" that weren't recorded in his Gospel, it's not objective to say that the extra-scriptural "Catholic Traditions" are the "other things" that Jesus "did." And as far as the RCC claiming "apostolic tradition," since they are unable to provide the specific "APOSTLE" to back up this "Catholic tradition" then the RCC is being subjective, as well as using circular reasoning ("the Catholic church 'claims' apostolic tradition, because it 'claims' to be the 'One True Church'...because it CLAIMS 'apostolic tradition.'") Again, if that were so, Jerome & Augustine would AGREE with each other on the identity of Jesus' "adelphos" - not DISagree with each other.
As a Catholic, you can disagree with extra-scriptural "Catholic Traditions" & still be faithful to the teachings of Jesus & the apostles BECAUSE you can KNOW with 100% assurance & confidence what Jesus & His disciples said, did, & taught...that they wanted communicated to His Church, through the pages of JESUS' Word. You can't have that same level of confidence or assurance with extra-scriptural "Catholic Tradition," which is BASED on a false "gospel" falsely attributed to a DEAD APOSTLE - that the Catholic church doesn't even considered Inspired in the first place. In fact, objectively, you can't have any confidence or assurance at all - only a religious blind "belief," not evidential faith based on GOD'S Word.
Lastly, when Peter says "not all Scripture is easy to understand" in context he's addressing the fact that those who can't understand it are those who twist Scripture to say what it DOESN'T SAY - like Joseph being "allegedly" older & being "allegedly" married & "allegedly" having children, before being married to Mary. Basing one's religious "belief" & "tradition" on what Scripture DOESN'T say is what makes Scripture "not easy to understand" - and even confusing, which is why Jerome & Augustine were confused & DISagreed with each other on the identity of Jesus' "adelphos." Rather, basing one's faith on Scripture alone makes it "easy" to identify exactly "who" these "adelphos" of Jesus were, because that LACK of confusion isn't influenced by a "Catholic Tradition" based on a LATER false "gospel." The Holy Spirit is the One Who leads men to understand God's Word WITHOUT confusion, because the Holy Spirit is the One Who "breathed" the Word of God into existence without error as the writers were penning the Scriptures. However, fallible human beings who base their faith on "Catholic Tradition" BASED on a false "gospel" can lead others - like Jerome & Augustine - to confusion, not the Holy Spirit.
Seriously, look up ALL those verses & write out your own "Jesus Family Tree" - using my diagram as a model - & see if my model CONTRADICTS what is written in those verses. If you put your "Catholic Tradition" aside for a moment, you "should" see that my diagram does "not" contradict those nearly two-dozen verses, but is rather SUPPORTED by the Word of God.
God bless in Jesus' Name.
1) Can you tell me where and what Jerome and Augustine disagree on? Jerome wrote the "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary" and Augustine also believed in Mary ever virgin.
Now, whether one believed cousin, and one step brother is irrelevant. They both believe Mary never had children, and that is the real issue.
The Proto. of James, though NOT inspired scripture, is considered an early Christian writing. This was written while Christians taught by the Apostles were still living and it is our belief that it contain an amount of oral Apostolic Tradition.
2) The funny thing is the founders of Protestantism, the Sola Scriptura doctrine inventers, also believed in Mary ever virgin. Go figure.
Martin Luther -
"The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, ‘Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.’ Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too, it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew says, ‘She was found to be with child before they came together,’ it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him" - Martin Luther, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 45, ed. Walther I. Brand, 1962, Muhlenberg Press, p. 212.
John Wesley-
" I believe that he was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin." - John Wesley “Letter to a Roman Catholic”
John Calvin -
"The word ‘brothers’, we have formerly mentioned, is employed, agreeably to the Hebrew idiom, to denote any relative whatever; and, accordingly, Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons because Christ’s ‘brother’ are sometimes mentioned." - John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. II, p. 215 (on Matthew 13:55)
Sword O'Truth
1) Why are you asking me what Jerome & Augustine disagreed on when you yourself admitted that they disagreed on SPECIFICALLY "who" the brothers of Christ were? You answered your own question. Plus, I STATED what they disagreed on about them (Jerome - cousins; Augustine - older step-brothers). And, yes, it "is" significant, because the point you are missing is "if" Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin (which Scripture does NOT support) which was passed down through "apostolic succession" & "tradition," then since these "brothers" of Christ are all NAMED, then the apostles would have known SPECIFICALLY "who" they were, & would have passed that down as well. So, "why" did Jerome & Augustine DISagree on their identity, rather than agree?
Although the RCC considers Proto-James to be an early Christian writing, it's actually pseudoepigraphical - meaning that the author is FALSELY attributed to James the Just - who was DEAD. Plus, it was written during a time of the disciples of the disciples of the disciples. IOW, NOBODY alive during this time, knew the disciples themselves. So, you're at least THREE generations removed from Christ - enough time for confusion & false teaching to creep into a false text. Pseudoepigraphical texts are not "Christian," & as mentioned previously, the "Mary & Joseph" of Proto-James is NOT the same as the Mary & Joseph of Scripture. There are too many dissimilarities between them. Therefore, neither is the "Jesus" of Proto-James that has older step-brothers the same as the REAL Jesus of Scripture. And, again, "if" this is an early Christian text (which it's not) then "why" would Jerome believe that these "brothers" are cousins, & not older step-brothers, like this "early Christian text" states?
2) Again, sola scriptura is NOT an "invention" of the Reformers. It's EXPLICITLY taught throughout Scripture from the Torah to the last page of Revelation [Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19]. The RCC simply IGNORES these Scriptures that do indeed support it, because most Catholics have a false understanding of what sola scriptura is, because they are falsely taught by the RCC what it is. And as far as the Reformers go, why on earth are you using that strawman argument??? Because if you knew anything about Protestants & sola scriptura, you'd know that unlike Catholics whose authority is the pope & the magisterium ("the doctrines & precepts of MEN" - Matthew 15:9), a Protestant's authority isn't the Reformers, but the Word of God ITSELF. This is why well-trained Catholic debaters don't use this weak strawman argument anymore, because they know it's invalid. So, I would encourage you not to use it. Plus, although Calvin didn't believe that they were Jesus' uterine siblings, he didn't actually take a position on whether Mary was a PERPETUAL virgin, unlike the Luther. That's why using the Reformers, as well as the ECF's is futile, because many of them DISagreed with each other.
So, I have a few questions for you, but I'd encourage you to answer them COLLECTIVELY, rather than individually:
1) "If" Proto-James was an early Christian writing (rather than a falsely attributed pseudoepigraphical text), then 'why' did Jerome not believe that Jesus' "brothers" were actually older step-brothers?
2) Since these "brothers" are NAMED, then 'why' is the RCC not "universal" as to the identity of these "brothers" since the apostles would have KNOWN them, & "passed down" through "apostolic succession" their identity? Why the confusion to their identity?
3) If these were indeed Jesus' half-brothers, then what Greek word for "brother" would the Gospel writers have used, instead of "adelphos"? Remember, the NT is about JESUS, not Mary. So, using the argument "it doesn't say they are Mary's children" doesn't work. Jesus' relationships in the NT are mentioned frequently in relationship to HIM, not Mary.
4) When you do examine the VERY early Church (1st through 3rd centuries) what you find are early Christians BELIEVING that they were indeed younger half-brothers. Even Eusebius' "Ecclesiastic History" supports this by quoting SECOND century ECF's like Julius Africanus. So, when you reference ECF's, "why" do you reference FOURTH & FIFTH century ECF's, rather than FIRST & SECOND century ECF's who DID believe Joseph & Mary had children together?
5) If Joseph had children from a previous marriage, then 'why' do many Catholics believe that Mary AND Joseph were virgins when they got married? How is that even possible?
6) If Proto-James was indeed a legitimate early Christian text, & if the RCC is so confident that Mary remained a perpetual virgin, then "why" has no pope in nearly 2,000 years declared "ex cathedra" with papal infallibility that Mary was a perpetual virgin, let alone identify SPECIFICALLY "who" these NAMED "brothers" of Jesus actually are, like popes in the past have done with the dogmas of the assumption of Mary & the immaculate conception of Mary? (Both of which aren't Biblical either.)
7) Did you even BOTHER to write out a "Jesus Family Tree" based on the Scripture writings I provided you below the video, or did you just refuse to do so? If you continue to leave comments without at least ATTEMPTING to do so, then all we're doing is engaging in a pointless debate - me, basing my faith on what God's Word actually SUPPORTS, and you, basing your religious "belief" on what the RCC "believes" that is NOT supported by Scripture. If you continue to leave messages without any indication that you at least ATTEMPTED to map out a "Jesus Family Tree," per my request, then any response you make will be deleted.
Did Mary and Joseph have children?
The gospel of Mark (6:3)and Gospel of Matthew mention James , Joseph/ Jose, judas/Jude and Simon as brothers of jesus the son of Mary
John 19:25 kJV
Among them, Jesus his mother and mother 's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Salome was jesus's aunt , possible.
William...The reason Salome is Jesus’s aunt is because it’s supported by the cross references in Matthews and marks gospel regarding the women at the cross. Matthew and Mark name the same three women mentioned in John’s Gospel, except for Jesus’ mother as the fourth woman at the cross, and Mark even mentions Salome by name who is the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostle John. So it would not make sense that John would not mention his own mother who was at the cross with him in his own gospel. This is why Mary of Clopas cannot be Mary sister, for one they would have the same name,Matthew and Mark name the same three women mentioned in John’s Gospel, except for Jesus‘s mother, and Mark even mention Salome by name who is the wife of Zebedee and mother of the apostle John. So you would not make sense that John would not mention his own mother who is at the cross with him in his own gospel. This is why Maria Clopas cannot be Mary’s sister, for one they would have the same name And their parents would not have done this. This leaves Salome as being the sister of Mary which would not be a problem since they have different names.
Reason .... Gospel of Mark and Matthew talk about jesus' s mother and sister- why?
Thank for an explanation....
@@williamgraves535it is done so the reader can discern between the various women at the cross and who they are based on who their children are or where they were from. There were at least 3 Mary’s at the cross. Mary Magdalene is referred to this way to show she was from the town of Magdala. Mary of Clopas is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less & Joseph, who are the sons of Alphaeus. Mary the mother of Jesus had a sister, Salome, who was the mother of James and John - two of Jesus’ disciples. All this helps demonstrate Jesus’ brothers and sisters were younger half siblings by simply identifying exactly who each of these women were based on who their children were.
Yes, sir. The commas separate Mary's sister (Salome) from Mary of Clopas ( mother of James the less and Joses). I don't think Mary and Clopas were even related to St. Mary and St. Joseph.
Did Joseph and Mary have children? Half brothers and sisters
Yes, as the Bible reveals, which I outline in my video.
very good and clear presentation
Thanks!
There is no word for cousins in hebrew. Jesus spoke aramic / hebrew. Also if Jesus had brothers when Jesus was at the cross he would not have given his mother to his beloved John. That would go against Jewish law and tradition. all of the early church called mary the EVER VIRGIN. she never had other children. Please look into this. I suggest catholic answers.com
Simple question.... where in the bible does it say the Virgin Mary had more children? Is there any scriptures which starts of ‘Mary mother of Jesus had more children etc? Yes or No
Jp M that's because the Bible is not about Mary, but about Jesus. That is why Jesus' family are written in relation to HIM: "HIS father the carpenter," "HIS mother," "HIS brothers & sisters," "HIS relatives." Mary the mother of Jesus is only mentioned by name 20 times in the entire NT, which is less frequent than many of the disciples, including Judas Iscariot. So, that is why you don't read the phrase "Mary the mother of Jesus' brothers ______." And when Jesus is described as Mary's "firstborn," Luke uses this specific Greek word, instead of "only begotten" which is used in the NT to describe an only child. But if you watch the video, and look up the nearly two dozen Scripture verses listed below the video, you'll see Scripture makes a definite & explicit argument that Jesus' brothers & sisters were younger half-siblings.
BornAgainRN BornAgainRN min 9:12 you mention that James and Joseph also have their father named Joseph. Where can I find that in the bible? Also, you haven’t provided any details on Simon, could he be Simon the cananaean?
@@johnm6926 What I was getting across was that one of Jesus’ younger half brothers named Joseph had the same name as their father, which means that Joseph named one of his sons after himself. Regarding one of Jesus” other younger half brothers, Simon, this was not one of his disciples names simon. This is an example of how common names in Israel such as Joseph Simon Jesus Judas James etc. can be easily misunderstood to be the same person, but when an exhaustive examination of scripture is done, it’s clear they are different people. The obvious evidence for this, is even though Jesus had disciples named James Simon and Judas, he did not have a disciple named Joseph who was part of the 12. Therefore the Joseph James Simon and Judas who are described as Jesus” brothers were not any of the disciples of Jesus, meaning the 12, because Jesus did not have a disciple named Joseph. Rather they were all Jesus” younger half-brother’s.
BornAgainRN and Simon the cananaean? How is he Jesus half brother? Also u say names were common in those days, well the name Mary was also common
@@johnm6926 he isn’t. Simon the Zealot who is one of Jesus’ disciples, one of The 12, is not the “Simon” mentioned as one of Jesus’ brothers in Mark 6. Another example of a common Jewish name (Simon) is used to describe two completely different people.
noah's ark was found at Ararat, Turkey was Egypt. Noah's ark was found.
The Bible says when Noah was about five hundred year old , he becomes shem, hap and Japheth.
The mount of Ararat on peak
Why did story of adam and Eve have been lived ?
Egypt was more Year than story of Adam and Eve were humans.
william graves...it seems English must be a second language, because I have a little difficulty understanding your question. I'm sorry, but could you try to rephrase your question? Thank you.
Thank you .... Just an explanation.
REV 12 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. 3 Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days. 13 So when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14 But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to her place where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. 15 Then from his mouth the serpent poured water like a river after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. 16 But the earth came to the help of the woman; it opened its mouth and swallowed the river that the dragon had poured from his mouth. 17 Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus
18 Then the dragon took his stand on the sand of the seashore
JUST as Abraham was promised children as numerous as the sands of the seashore so satan has taken his stand on them...
Yes and this is what we’re going to see in the future tribulation. The “woman” in Revelation 12 which represents the nation of Israel will be persecuted by the great dragon, represented by Satan.
Hello there, I am new on your channel, I have a question
Some christians says the following interpretation about mark chap 6 : 3-4
- In verse 3 The jews affirmed that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary, and that his borthers (adelphos) and sisters (adelphai) were among them. But then in verse 4 Jesus replied " A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin (synggeneusin) and his own house" . Litterally, when the Jews said that Jesus had brothers and sisters (adelphos-adelphai), Jesus himself rebuked them by saying those are only his cousin (Synggeneusin). Because the word "adelphos" is in verse 3 but not in verse 4, and Jesus used "synggeneusin" right after the Jews rejected him, therefor Jesus clearly said that these "adelphos" were not his brothers and sisters, but they were only his "synggeneusin" or cousins-
could you give your opinon about his interpretation please ?
Thank you and GBU
Little Yeshayahou welcome to my channel and thanks for the question. In verse Mark 6:3 those who are listening to Jesus identified Him as being the Carpenter, which Matthew identifies as being the son of the carpenter which is Joseph, the son of Mary, and the brother of James Joses Judas and Simon. He is clearly grouping them all together as a family unit. Then in verse four, Jesus states that “a prophet is not without honor except,” and then identifies three different groups of people. If you notice in this verse Jesus goes from the more general and larger population to a more specific and intimate one, beginning with all those in his hometown, and then to his relatives, and then those in his own household. So his relatives who do not honor him are different than those in his own household. And if you notice, Jesus does not use the Greek work adelphoi in v.4, like it is used in v.3, but instead the Greek word synggenes. And that’s because those in his own household in v.4 are a different group of Jesus’ family who do not honor him, who are distinct from his syggenes in the same verse. This third more intimate dishonoring group of Jesus’ family would be his adelphoi and adelphe mentioned in v.3. Jesus may even be drawing from Jeremiah 12:6 where the old testament prophet uses similar language. So the three groups of people who dishonor Jesus are those in his own hometown, his non-sibling syggenes. and his younger half adelphoi and half adelphe, meaning biological brothers and sisters, distinct from his non-sibling relatives. If Jesus was saying that his brothers mentioned in v.3 were actually his non-blood brothers and sisters, then Mark would’ve have also used the same Greek word for brothers in v.4, instead of the Greek word for relatives. But he didn’t, because he was purposely making this distinction by using two completely different Greek words to describe two different groups of Jesus’ dishonoring family. I hope this answers your question. God bless!
Your brothets and sisters are still kin. It's a general word to describe relatives in general or distant trubal relations. Your cousins and siblings are your kin but they belong to different type of kin.
Why Jesus had brothers and sisters? Half blood
william graves...in Genesis, God commanded married couples to be fruitful and multiply. In the case of Joseph and Mary, they had to wait until their year long betrothal period was over, since this time period did not involve sexual relations. And they had to wait until Mary gave birth to Jesus in order to fulfill the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy. But once all that was over, nothing in the OT, nor anything told to them by the angel Gabriel, prevented them from being fruitful and multiply, which from Scripture they did.
If Cleopas and Alphaeus are the same then Levi the son of Alphaeus aka Matthew, is also related to Jesus. But none of the scriptures say per se that the James is technically James the Less. There was a James son of Alphaeus but it didn't say that Joseph was son of Alphaeus I only recollect two sons of Alphaeus that being James and Matthew. So it is possible and perhaps probable that the James and Joseph with Mary are two of Jesus's half brothers.
Lee Darin, Jr...it is entirely possible that "if" Clopas & Alphaeus were the same, and "if" the "Alphaeus' who is the father of Levi/Matthew is the "Alphaeus" who is the father of James the Less, then they "might" be brothers too. In fact, I have that "possible" connection. But like you said, that's a lot of "ifs," which is why I didn't comment about it in the video, since Scripture doesn't explicitly - nor implicitly - support this. For one, Mark goes out of his way in Ch.15 & 16 to mention the "other Mary" only had TWO sons by mentioning them together ("Mary the mother of James the Less & Joseph") and then separately ("Mary the mother of James" and then "Mary the mother of Joseph"). But he never mentions the other "brothers" from Mark 6 - Simon & Judas (Jude) nor the unnamed & unnumbered "sisters" of Jesus.
But neither James the son of Alphaeus nor Matthew would be related to Jesus, since Mary of Clopas/Alphaeus' sons, James the Less & Joseph, in Mark 15 & 16 are not the same ones mentioned as Jesus' brothers in Mark 6. We know this by taking the cross-accounts from Matthew & Mark and comparing them to John's account of the women at the cross. Salome - not Mary of Clopas (Alphaeus) - is Jesus' mother's sister. So, there are TWO sets of "James & Josephs," not one. The ones who are mentioned in Mark 6 are Jesus' younger half-brothers. The ones mentioned in Mark 15 & 16 are not. They are a different "James & Joseph" - this "James" is James the Less the son of Alphaeus, who is unrelated to Jesus. The idea of him being related to Jesus comes from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical history, based on an early "tradition" that Clopas & Jesus' step-father were brothers, which is not found anywhere in Scripture. But even "if" they were brothers, they would be cousins of Jesus, not brothers.
Mary have brothers And sisters
Mary definitely had a sister. Scripture is explicit that her sister is Salome. it is silent if Mary had brothers, but if she did the scripture simply doesn’t mention them. But Jesus definitely had younger half brothers and half sisters, because scripture does support it, which this video demonstrates.
@@BornAgainRN I GUESS YOU WERE DROPPED AT BIRTH
+George Pierson
For some reason, my reply to you keeps getting deleted.
I'm afraid by you asking for a "Catholic source" for Mary having children after the birth of Jesus, it's like an atheist asking for an "atheist source" that states God exists. Since that is impossible, just as it is with a Catholic source (like CatholicAnswers) to support Mary having other children, "Eusebius' Church History" IS a VERY early Catholic source that DOES quote Hegessipus, who states that the "brothers" of Jesus are indeed younger half-brothers:
Eusebius quotes Hegessipus from Book 5 of his "Memoirs": "[Administration of the church passed to James, the brother of the Lord, ALONG WITH the apostles. He was called 'the Just' by everyone from the Lord's time to ours, since there were many Jameses, but THIS ONE was consecrated in His mother's womb." ("Eusebius," Book 2.23).
Flavius Josephus (who lived in the FIRST century) also writes, "These things happened to the Jews as redistribution for James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus who was called Christ." ("Eusebius," Book 2:23)
Eusebius goes onto write: "...the descendants of Jude - the brother of the Savior, HUMANLY SPEAKING - claiming that they were of [King] David's family and RELATED to Christ Himself." ("Eusebius," Book 3:19), and then quotes Hegesippus again:
"Still surviving of the Lord's family were the GRANDSONS of Jude, who was said to be his brother ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, and they were informed on as being descendants of [King] David..... they became leaders of the churches...because they were of the Lord's FAMILY" ("Eusebius," Book 3:20)
"The same writer [Hegessipus] says that the other descendants of one of the Savior's BROTHERS named Jude..." ("Eusebius,' Book 3.32)
However, this video is not about what either individual - group denominations - "believe" or "have believed" about "who" the "brothers & sisters" of Jesus were, but rather what SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS. And this video demonstrates what Scripture - itself - supports, which is that the "brothers" of Jesus are indeed His younger half-brothers.
BTW, the reason your last reply was deleted is because if your the comments just below my video since this video is about what SCRIPTURE supports about Jesus' "brothers," any comments that go of on a tangent about ECF's will be deleted. I do this for the purpose of preventing unnecessary & irrelevant rabbit trails, & keep the conversation on topic - again, what SCRIPTURE supports. Please adhere to these rules on my video, so future comments of yours won't be deleted. I have no problem with you voicing from SCRIPTURE "who" these "brothers" were, & I welcome them.
Hopefully, this won't get deleted.
How about the Protoevangelium of James? That's earlier than Eusebius' claims.
In the Protoevangelium, James said that the brothers of Jesus are His half-brothers from St. Joseph, His foster father. This was clarified later on by St. Jerome and he explained that by half-brothers of Jesus, James meant brethreb or relatives of Jesus from St. Joseph other than brothers (so cousins, aunts and uncles are applicable).
+embeevee...just out of curiosity, did you actually WATCH my video??? Because I brought up Proto-James there. I wish people would watch my video before making comments. The whole purpose is so I don't have to repeat what I said in the video. Like I said, Proto-James was a false "gospel" written in the mid-to-late second century, falsely authored by someone who had been DEAD for over 100 years. So, anything it says, if it isn't supported by Scripture, is nothing but the unknown author's personal belief. So, when you eliminate Proto-James, the question of Mary's (perpetual) virginity doesn't even get addressed until at least the third century.
BTW, Proto-James does NOT say that they were HALF-brothers. A half-brother means they have share one biological parent in common. I notice that people who believe in the PVM seem to get this wrong. Rather, it says they were His older STEP-brothers...which Scripture does not support, nor even allude to. Again, this is the anonymous author's imagination. That's all.
Also, Jerome believed they were Jesus' COUSINS, not step-brothers. Augustine believed they were step-brothers, because he based his belief on Proto-James, which is a false "gospel." IOW, even Augustine & Jerome were at odds with each other over their identity, & couldn't agree.
Seriously, watch the video, & if you wish to comment, fine. But PLEASE don't bring up something that has already been covered there. I really don't want to delete your comments. So, in compliance with the rules I set below my video, please critique based on what SCRIPTURE supports...not on what individuals personally "believed" based on a false "gospel." Thank you.
embeevee...I already responded to Proto-James - both in my video & in another response, which demonstrates you neither watched my video, nor read my reply. So, no offense, but I'm not going to repeat myself again. And, again, Proto-James says STEP-brothers, not HALF-brothers. Half-brothers means children share one biological parent in common. And, again, Jerome believed they were cousins, not step- or half-brothers. Augustine - not Jerome - believed they were step-brothers, which he based solely on the false "gospel" of Proto-James...not the Bible. If you're going to comment, please understand your argument first.
Sorry to say, but this is a very untidy presentation. No one can figure out what you say with that scribbled piece of paper jumping around.
chrisanthie That is a dry erase board which is stationary. I was taking it with a handheld video camera. Sorry you’re having difficulty following the presentation. Perhaps try listening to it without looking at the screen. Maybe that might help.
Superb analysis! Loved it! You even made go to Strong concordance to double ckeck the greek words! Everything is spot on! Thanks brother! 😀
Thanks for the support.
I don't think it's important if u ask someone who Kennedy was ur gonna get just as confused so that's why I don't think it matters also think for a number of reasons it would make sense that people be confused about who jesus family was because of the possibility of time travel and time line manipulation !
Unknown Opinionoid The reason this is important is because even though this is not a salvation issue, it is an authority issue. The authority of what scripture plainly reveals versus later man made traditions that popped up in the Catholic Church, which were influenced by an anonymous, late second century false “gospel” which contradicts previous inspired scripture. And if time travel was possible, it would simply reinforce the scriptural support that Jesus’s brothers were younger half siblings. But since we have God breathed scripture to tell us who they are, there is no need for time travel.
+Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine for some reason, your posts do not show up on my channel when I try to view them. So, what exactly was I supposed to be "surprised" about at the Catholic Answers TH-cam link you sent me to? Ezekiel 44 & Isaiah 66??? Got news for you, NEITHER of them have anything to do with Mary. In fact, Isaiah 66 STATES that the "she" in v.7 refers to ZION (v.8) - not Mary. I don't know how Tim Staples, or you, could have missed that. Plus, Isaiah is being sarcastic in v.7, just as he is in v.8, v.9, etc. His point is that just as birth cannot happen without a delivery (v.9), likewise, birth cannot occur without labor pains. IOW, it says NOTHING about Mary not having labor pains.
Likewise, Ezekiel 44 has NOTHING to do with Mary either. For one, it says the LORD "entered" by the gate. If you think the "gate" refers to Mary's genitals, then that's like saying God the Father had sex with Mary ("the LORD God of Israel ENTERED by it.") If God the Father had sex with Mary (which is the only contextual interpretation if you believe the "gate" refers to Mary), then that would mean that Mary was not a virgin anymore. Plus, God is Spirit. Why would He need to "enter" through Mary's genitals??? You are making God out to be some sort of pagan deity who has sex with human females. God the Father would do no such promiscuous thing! Plus, the "prince" in v.3 is NOT Jesus, since later in the same chapter, this "prince" has his OWN SINS to atone for. Rather, the "gate" is a REAL gate in the yet-future Temple that the Messiah will enter LITERALLY during His Second Coming. The Ezekiel 44 passages has NOTHING to do with His First Coming.
I brought up the Proto-evangelium of James in the video. So, nothing knew there. Interesting that the Gnostics AGREE WITH CATHOLICISM about Mary not having birth pains, which could only happen if Jesus were not actually human. Think about that for a minute - where Catholics DISAGREE with Protestants, they AGREE with Gnostics!
Sorry, but the only thing I was "surprised" about the video Tim Staples made is his ignorance of the text of Scripture & his dependence on early Catholics & a false "gospel" (Proto-James) to base his unbiblical view about Mary on. Did you ever wonder why Catholics MUST go to the OT? Because the PVM is completely ABSENT in the NT.
Refusing to follow rules & attempting to force your own religious or personal agenda through bullying, rather than follow them & actually stick to the subject & answer the questions is an act of cowardice. Now, because of your personal ad hominem attacks towards me ("heretic," "coward"), now you are being reported. Find someone else to force your man-made unbiblical theology on.
I'm surprised that you concluded that Mary's sister was Salome and not the other Mary.
In the KJV, the comma after Mary's sister is an appositive comma used to explain a dependent clause preceding it.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
John 19:25 KJV
That means that the Blessed Virgin Mary's aldephe was named Mary and married to Clopas.
Additionally, you assume that James and Joseph, the sons of the other Mary are not the adelphos previously mentioned. The mother of James and Joseph can still be the mother of James, Joseph, Simon, Jude (Judas). The question is this Mary the Mary who mothered Jesus. I don't see how you can get that strictly from the text.
@canibezeroun1988 "the comma after Mary's sister is an appositive comma used to explain a dependent clause preceding it. That means that the Blessed Virgin Mary's adelphe was named Mary."
First, there are no commas in the Greek language. This was inserted by the later English translators. Plus, having a comma doesn't make it a dependent clause. For example, look at the list of the apostles in Acts 1:13:
"Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
Notice the comma between Andrew & Philip, between Thomas & Bartholomew, & between Matthew & James the son of Alphaeus. Notice the word "and" is not there like there is between the other apostles. Why? Because Luke is simply grouping certain apostles together, which is why the English translators placed the comma there. Same is true why the word "and" is not between "his mother's sister" & "Mary of Clopas." John is simply grouping these women together, not that he's saying Mary of Clopas is Jesus' mother's sister. BTW, "Mary THE WIFE of Clopas" is an inaccurate translation, since the words translated "the wife" are not part of the original Greek, but ADDED by the English translator. The Greek simply reads "Mary of Clopas," which means offspring, not spouse. The Clopas was not "the other Mary's" husband, but her father. ETWN concedes all this:
“There are a couple good reasons not to view Mary the wife of Clopas as the sister of Mary, the Mother of the Lord. For one thing, it would be odd for sisters to have the same name. Furthermore, the Gospel of St. Mark records three women present at the Cross with the Blessed Mother…. If the three women of the Johannine account are those of the Markan account, then the reference to ‘his mother’s sister’ may refer to Salome, not Mary the wife of Clopas. As to why the Gospel of St. John does not identify Salome by name, such would be consistent with other members of the family of our Lord who remain nameless in this Gospel: his mother, the disciple whom Jesus loved (St. John, who would be related as a cousin), and Salome.”
- Fr. John Echert (08-04-2001), EWTN Catholic Q&A (Question from Kelli on 07-29-2001)
Also, the belief that Clopas & Joseph were siblings isn't from the NT, but from later ECFs, & historians such as Eusebius writing in the fourth century, which likely got it from Clement of Alexandria from the third century. But this still wouldn't make Mary of Clopas the "sister" (or "sister-in-law") of the Virgin Mary, because: 1) since Clopas was her father, not her husband, at most this would make Mary of Clopas the NIECE of the Virgin Mary, not her sister-in-law; and 2) the specific Greek word for "sister" (adelphe) only has TWO meanings in the Greek & USED in the NT & LXX: a) biological sister; & b) believing "sister"...not "sister-in-law" or other non-uterine female relative, like a niece. Plus, there is a specific Greek word for "sister-in-law" which is USED in the LXX that John was aware of & could have used ("synnymphos") such as in LXX Ruth 1:15.
"you assume that James and Joseph, the sons of the other Mary are not the adelphos previously mentioned."
Because in Mark 6:3 he mentions all FOUR of Jesus' brothers BY NAME, as well as at least 2 of Jesus' "sisters." But in Mark Ch.15 & 16, he only mentions TWO "the other Mary's" sons, but collectively (Mary the mother of James & Joseph) AND individually (Mary the mother of James; Mary the mother of Joseph), but no mention of Simon & Judas, let alone them having sisters. IOW, Mark is going out of his way to communicate that the "other Mary" only had TWO sons, not four. Again, the tradition that Clopas was the brother of Joseph, and Clopas & the other Mary had another son named Simon, are later traditions, based on confusing & conflating the various Marys, Simons, Jameses, Judases, Josephs, etc. This is why I created the family tree in the video which perfectly meshes what we read in Scripture.
Also, in Jewish families sons were often named after their father (ex: Luke 1:59-61). The fact that one of Jesus' brothers was specifically named Joseph, and Jesus' step-father was also named Joseph, this indicates that one of Jesus' brothers was named after his father, and is therefore one of Jesus' younger half-brothers.
Ergo, the James & Joseph who were the TWO sons of the "other Mary" were NOT the same as two of the FOUR brothers of Jesus. They had the same NAMES, but not same MEN, since these were common male names in Israel.
@@BornAgainRN @BornAgainRN I don't argue with the KJV much about anything. It's the standard text for English. If the comma and the word wife was added in that case the scholars had good reason to do it. I don't see a reason to go against the precedent.
Remember, I don't believe that aldelphe means sister exclusively. It can mean Mary had a cousin named Mary.
Second while Mark mentioned all four brothers (or cousins) by name and only listed two the second time ignores two things. The first is that Mark was quoting the people who knew Jesus in his account. Second instance there were no quotes, only his own terms. Second, in the first case Mark is identifying who they are to Jesus when the question is who are they to Mary. In the second passage you see that Mary is the subject and has two sons. Those may have been the only ones Mark was concerned with.
In general, I still don't agree with the idea that the existence of another word implies meaning.