[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Bible only uses the word Brethren which means cousin as much as it means brother.
You are correct Leo. In Greek, the word for brother is 'adelphos' and sister is 'adelphe'. The word is definitely used in different contexts such as children of the same parents, descendants of parents, the Jews as a whole, etc. So yes, the term brother and sister can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus. So yes, there is merit to your argument.
However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not appropriate to say that because a word has a wide scope in meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. Just because the word 'brother' means 'fellow Jews' or 'cousin' in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Each verse must therefore be looked at in context to see what it means.
In Matthew 12:46-47 "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to you."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not is mother called Mar, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
In both verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter's father? In other words, 'mother' here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though the 'carpenter's son' refers to Joseph, and 'mother' refers to Mary, 'brothers' does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus' brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.
Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus' siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in John 15:25,
"But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, 'They hated Me without cause.'"
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in John 2:16-17, "and those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without cause are more than the hairs on my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, Any my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee no be dishonored through me, O God of Isreal, Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face.
I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. God's will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Again, Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradtion says no. Which will you trust?
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase :my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both, "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by His siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of Biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
Sourced from CARM.org
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The Bible uses the phrase, "Joe didn't have relations until the Birth" which only means that Joe did NOT have sex with Mary. The same syntax can be used to say that "the man did not eat until he starved" (a quote using the same words from the same language from the Old Testament).
Joseph didn't have relations 'until' the birth of Jesus seems to indicate he didn't 'know' Mary until after the birth of Jesus which is what the Bible teaches. 'Until' is a preposisiton and is used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time <stayed until morning>
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Now, to support my argument. When Jesus was twelve and went back to the Temple and Mary and Joe had to go back, we find that Mary and Joe thought Jesus was with his "brethren" in another caravan. This would not mean "brothers" since they would have been riding together. It must certainly mean that Mary and Joe thought Jesus was with the children of his Aunts and Uncles.
Please see the argument above where the meaning of "adelphos" should be discerned in light of the context. It is poor hermeneutics to apply 'cousins' across the board.
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Next, Jesus at the Crucifixion. Mary was alone. Where are all of Jesus's brothers now? Jesus gave over the care of Mary to John. Where are all Jesus's brothers now?
His brothers did not believe He was the Messiah. It is even more appropriate to say they were ashamed of Him.
James, the brother of the Lord (Galatians 1:19) came to prominence after the resurrection of Jesus (see 1 Corinthians 15:7). When Paul was converted he treated him with respect (Galatians 1:19, 2:9) though he did not agree with his Jewish legalism (Galatians 2:12). By the time of the Council of Jerusalem James had become the presiding elder of the mother church in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13, 21:18). And in church tradition he is listed as the first Bishop of Jerusalem.
John informs us that during Jesus' ministry James and the other brothers of the Lord did not believe in him (John 7:5). Mark even writes that "When his family heard it, they went out to restrain him, for the people were saying, "He has gone out of his mind" (Mark 3:21). Jesus' brothers had come to faith by the time of the Ascension, and they attended the prayer group that gathered in the upper room (Acts 1:12-14).
John records that Mary was present at the crucifixion though he refrains from mentioning her by name. Matthew, Mark and Luke apparently make no mention of Mary being present at all. But we must look more carefully.
Among the women present at each of the three events, there are two who are named, one is Mary Magdalene and the other is
Mary the mother of James and Joseph. Who was this second Mary? Matthew 13:55 provides the answer, ‘Isn’t Mary his mother, and aren’t James, Joseph, Simon and Judas his brothers?’ So, the two oldest brothers of Jesus were James and Joseph. Perhaps there was another Mary having sons called James and Joseph but if so scripture is silent about her. James and Joseph must have been household names in the early church so that readers knew who was being referred to and that is certainly true of James, the oldest brother of Jesus. Finally, this explains the apparent total failure on the part of Matthew, Mark and Luke to make any mention of Mary even though she was undoubtedly present at the crucifixion.
But why would Matthew, Mark and Luke all refer to Mary as ‘the mother of James and Joseph’ rather than the more obvious ‘mother of Jesus’? This must have been at Mary’s request; three writers wouldn’t independently act in this way and it has already been noted that John refrains from mentioning her by name. Perhaps Mary remembered the bitter lesson she had learned that her blood relationship with Jesus was not important and perhaps she feared that it might be deemed to confer extra status on her in the Church. And so Mary deliberately ‘played down’ her blood relationship; she was content to be known as ‘the mother of James and Joseph’. Her fourth son, Jude, acted likewise introducing himself as ‘Servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James’ (Jude 1).
Thus the lovely, humble spirit of Mary the mother of Jesus is revealed.
In the minds of many, Mary has been elevated to the position of goddess in all but name, she has been given the title of ‘Mother of God’ and prayers are addressed to her. Nothing would have been further from the wishes of that humble, faithful woman revealed in the Gospel record.
Mary was a normal, mortal, human woman who made mistakes and had lessons to learn like us all. After the birth of Jesus she married Joseph and had a large family. She now sleeps in her grave, along with other faithful men and women of former generations, awaiting the Day of Resurrection and the sound of her first-born son’s voice calling her forth.
Sourced from BBIE.org
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]So, you see, from you absolute certainty that the Bible tells you that Mary had other children, you find that 1) You weren't that sure afterall. 2) Only the most careless people could have asserted such a thing with the certainty they claimed. 3) You were lied to, and if you persist, you will be lying.
1. I find I am quite certain Jesus had brothers and sisters. The Scriptures support this where you have nothing in Scripture that supports your view. What you do have is erroneous interpretation which is supported by erroneous 'tradition'.
2. If you call proper exegesis of the above passages careless I charge you of the same error and ask that you produce Scripture to support your claim.
3. I was not lied to. The Scripture supports this view much more than yours. No where in the Bible will you find Mary is declared a perpetual virgin. Nor will you find anywhere in Scripture that states she had no more children. On the contrary, the above verses and more which I have not included seem to suggest otherwise.
