Replies

I just reread. Does not make sense. Where are the offspring of the brothers would not there children be elders in the church on record equal to the early church fathers. No where is there a proper record of these children and grandchildren of their uncle Jesus.

All due respect. For crying out loud. History is silent on these nephews and nieces. It seems to me that they would have been celebrated as being so close as to an uncle Jesus. This does not really wash. How could all these offspring be lost to history.

They would have been priests and bishops(elders) according to them being married believers with even more famous offspring. A huge Holy Brood. All over on record written about.

IMHO = It does not sound right. Just Saying my Brother. There are many avenues to go down with this assumption( He had Brothers). It was accepted(No natural Brothers) from the beginning on record with the early church fathers letters. The Article is not clear cut with all the equations of history. Sometimes I have seen things propped up on both sides of this issue by catholics and protestants. Also sometimes good points on both sides. In this case I do not buy it. I do not mean you but the writer of the article. Praise Jesus!

Perhaps you won’t buy the one just above . . .

either

That will have to be . . . between you . . . and the Lord at some point.

I believe His Spirit can enlighten where there’s an openness for HIM to do so.

Where are the offspring of the brothers[?] [W]ould not [their] children be elders in the church on record equal to the early church fathers[?] No where is there a proper record of these children and grandchildren of their uncle Jesus....It seems to me that they would have been celebrated as being so close as to an uncle Jesus....They would have been priests and bishops(elders) according to them being married believers with even more famous offspring. A huge Holy Brood.

Only if church heirarchy were awarded according to bloodline, and not according to faithfulness, creed, and witness.

This does not really wash. How could all these offspring be lost to history.

It doesn't wash because things aren't the way you want them to be? God put in His Word what HE wanted us to know. Do you only believe when you have 'all the facts' - you need some backup if you are to believe God's Word when it clearly states Jesus had brothers and sister?

What Jesus says isn't good enough because you were led to believe He had no brothers and sisters before you read it for yourself - in God's Word - that HE did have brothers and sisters?

Who are you going to believe - man or God? Remember, we are to conform to God's Word - renew our mind to what His Word says - not have God's Word conform to what we were told by 'man'.

I just reread. Does not make sense. Where are the offspring of the brothers would not there children be elders in the church on record equal to the early church fathers. No where is there a proper record of these children and grandchildren of their uncle Jesus.

All due respect. For crying out loud. History is silent on these nephews and nieces. It seems to me that they would have been celebrated as being so close as to an uncle Jesus. This does not really wash. How could all these offspring be lost to history.

They would have been priests and bishops(elders) according to them being married believers with even more famous offspring. A huge Holy Brood. All over on record written about.

With all due respect, only with corrupted human thinking. The kingdom of heaven that Jesus came to establish is not a monarchy in that it is inherited. It is through faith and believing.

In these passages, Jesus lays that to rest. He never denied that he had brothers and sisters. HE knew what those people meant when they names His brothers and mother and called Him the carpenter's son.

Matthew 13:53-57 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "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?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."

He also cleared up that physical birth relation was not who His brothers and sisters and mothers were, but those who believed and did His will and that right there would counter your contention that the establishment of the church was a family affair. Just because they were related through His HUMAN side, doesn't mean it goes to follow that they were believers.

Now it's true that some of Jesus' brothers did end up believing and holding office in the early church, but they are mentioned only in passing.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.