Jesus had "brothers" and a "sister"?

[Cepha]

[quote author=knuckle

That said these brothers were closer than cousins as Mary travels with them (John 2:12 and Matthew 12:46-50)

There were complete strangers (like most of the Apostles) who were complete strangers that spent the rest of His life with Him.
Mary travels with The Women (AKA The 3 Maries).

Had Jesus been Mary's only biological child He would have been with in His right to appoint John as caretaker though Joseph could have had children by a previous marriage (who I believe His brothers to be)

No, He would've been violating Jewish Law for Him to do that. No matter what, even Jesus had to obey what He was...God's Word.

I've heard this over and over, but I'm finding the Law and seeeing where in Scripture it came from.

Technically, Jesus didn't have to appoint anybody to care for Mary. Why? Because, had that been the case, The Law prescribes that her next eldest son was to care for her.

And if these brothers were so close to him, where were they when He was on The Cross? There was a stranger, a woman, there. Where were his male blood relatives? Mary, His 2nd cousin was there. Where were his male brothers?

Pax.



(PS I really enjoy our excanges. We work out our excanges. We trade ideas and questions. We are civil to each other. To you, I give all the credit because I wouldn't be this way had you not been such a gentleman. God bless you Brother Knuckle. Without belittling anybody else here, you are surely a blessing. I'm going to work to follow the fine example of Christianity that you portray here.)

[Cepha]

AGAIN: I ANSWERED YOUR POST AND DELETED THE SCRIPTURAL VERSES YOU POSTED, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE I USED WHAT I NEEDED HERE. I CLICKED ON THE MODIFY BUTTON INSTEAD OF THE QUOTE BUTTON. THAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ANSWERS ARE LONG. SORRY. IN THIS INSTANCE, THERE'S NO LOSS OF INFO BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I DELETED IN RESPONDING WAS THE SCRIPTURAL QUOTES YOU USED THAT I DIDN'T RESPOND TO ANYWAY. NEXT TIME, I'M JUST GOING TO COPY AND POST YOUR WORDS SO THAT I WON'T MISTAKINGLY HIT THE MOD BUTTON ANYMORE.

=====================================================

God's Law is Jewish Custom at the time of Christ.

That is a lie. You and I BOTH know it. You only say that because like the Jews of that time, you wish to equal your traditions with the commandments of God.

McFly...The Jews had no laws before Moses! Moses made their laws!

"Mark 7:5-13 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

Gosh...you just really love doing my work for me, don't you?



Matthew 23
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

2Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

The Jot and the tittle may not be a "comma".

Nuff said. There was nothing needed after that. That's like saying "Your honor, I did it!" at a murder trial. Everything after that was useless!

While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord.

Another lie. You did not even come close to "demonstrating from scripture" that Jesus did not have literal half brothers.

Show me one scripture were any man other than Jesus is called "the son of Mary"?

Just one!

I'll show you where there are thousands of men called "brothers" at the same time, but all you have to do is show me where The Bible says "MARY" had other children.

Just one.

Name her son besides Jesus.

Just one scriptural verse.

Just.

One.

(That, and a verse that states that it is forbidden to pray to The Saints)

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha------------

You wrote---Technically, Jesus didn't have to appoint anybody to care for Mary. Why? Because, had that been the case, The Law prescribes that her next eldest son was to care for her.

yes HER next eldest son not the son of her husband.

much love----------------knuckle

[Cepha]

Apr 16, 2008 19:12:54 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha------------

You wrote---Technically, Jesus didn't have to appoint anybody to care for Mary. Why? Because, had that been the case, The Law prescribes that her next eldest son was to care for her.

yes HER next eldest son not the son of her husband.

much love----------------knuckle

Technically, "if" He had brothers. If He had brothers, it was understood that the next eldest brother would automatically take care of her without him having to have been appointed.

Or, we could switch that around and say "if" Mary had other sons (which no scripture ever states).

Of course, because Mary had no sons, there was no one to appoint. Hence, he appointed John to care for His mother. And John took her to his home.

Pax

[Cepha]

Who besides John is called a son to Mary?

And why was John called a son to Mary?
Because he was the only one there.
He was the only one who was loyal to Jesus to the very end.
He represented (at that moment) a "real" brother to Jesus.
This lends itself to when Jesus was told that His mother was waiting for Him and He said who are His mother? Brothers?
Those that obey His will.
Again, the proof that obeying God as Mary did, brings one into Christ's family.

Since John was loyal, he was brought into God's immediate family spiritually too. As are all those who keep God's commandments in Revelation 12:17...they too are the children of Mary as our eternal lives (Jesus who is The Life) comes from her womb.

Mary is our spiritual mother as our physical lives came from our physical mothers' wombs, our spiritual lives came through her womb (Jesus).

[alfie]

Apr 16, 2008 19:25:11 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Apr 16, 2008 19:12:54 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha------------

You wrote---Technically, Jesus didn't have to appoint anybody to care for Mary. Why? Because, had that been the case, The Law prescribes that her next eldest son was to care for her.

yes HER next eldest son not the son of her husband.

much love----------------knuckle

Technically, "if" He had brothers. If He had brothers, it was understood that the next eldest brother would automatically take care of her without him having to have been appointed.

Or, we could switch that around and say "if" Mary had other sons (which no scripture ever states).

Of course, because Mary had no sons, there was no one to appoint. Hence, he appointed John to care for His mother. And John took her to his home.

Pax

Why would Jesus hand over his mother to one of his biological brothers when the Bible said they didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ?

[alfie]

Hey Cepha!

Where you getting this stuff about there not being a word for cousin in Aramaic and Greek? Usually Catholics make the opposite claim and say that there was no word for brothers and sisters in Aramaic.

[knuckle]

Hi Alfie-----------

I knew a girl named Alfie once,fiery red hair and freckles she looked adorable but was mean as a snake

The post you addressed was my answer to what Jewish custom says---had Mary had another son---her biological son,not the son of her husband---then she would have automatically became his responsibility.

much love-------knuckle

[alfie]

Apr 12, 2008 21:40:16 GMT -5 Cepha said:

But it wasn't written by Greeks.
It was written by Jews.
Bigggg difference

.
I'll remember that comment the next time you try to justify the Apocrypha being added to the Latin Vulgate since Protestants argue that the Palestinian Jews wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew and the Alexandrian Jews wrote the Septagiant in Greek.

Since there was no word for cousin in Aramaic, they used the next best word they could find that most resembled it...brethren which has multiple meanings.

Since the Bible says that Jesus was Mary's first born I take it to mean that she had more than one child otherwise why use the term "first born".

You can't have it both ways.

Yeah but you sure are trying too.

[Cepha]

alfie
Why would Jesus hand over his mother to one of his biological brothers when the Bible said they didn't believe that Jesus was the Christ?

The Bible doesn't say that Jesus had biological brothers.

No where does it say that Mary had other children and no man is called the son of Mary, but Jesus.

If He did, by Jewish Law (which was still in effect) Jesus would've had to have handed Mary over to them. Their faith in Him had nothing to do with that tradition.

[Cepha]

Apr 17, 2008 17:39:03 GMT -5 alfie said:

Hey Cepha!

Where you getting this stuff about there not being a word for cousin in Aramaic and Greek? Usually Catholics make the opposite claim and say that there was no word for brothers and sisters in Aramaic.

Good question. As for Greek, I don't think I ever mentioned Greek, but I know I talk about there not being an Aramaic word for "cousin" in Jesus' time when the scriptures were written.

Here's a detailed explaination.

www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea2.asp

Bad Aramaic Made Easy
There Is No Word for ‘Cousin’
By Jimmy Akin

[Cepha]

alfie

I'll remember that comment the next time you try to justify the Apocrypha being added to the Latin Vulgate since Protestants argue that the Palestinian Jews wrote the Old Testament in Hebrew and the Alexandrian Jews wrote the Septagiant in Greek.

The Septugaint existed about 300 years before Jesus was even born. The Pharisees Canon wouldn't exist for another 60 years "after" Jesus' death.

Now...do the math. Which one did Jesus use? ;D

Since the Bible says that Jesus was Mary's first born I take it to mean that she had more than one child otherwise why use the term "first born".

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word prototokos, translated 'first-born' in Luke's gospel.

But the Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ's relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary.

The term "first-born" was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the "first-born" of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.

www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/maryc2.htm

You can't have it both ways.

Yeah but you sure are trying too.

I have it every which way it comes...either way, coming or going, the truth is the truth.

Show me one verse that The Bible states that Mary had sex, that she had other children (not that Jesus had brethren...Peter had brethren too...about 3,000 of them, but that Mary had children other than Jesus).

Again, all those called Jesus brothers are proven to be the children of Mary's cousin also named Mary (which is stated at the Cross).