Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by NYer
Q: What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible? Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?
A: No.The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus. Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon...”
The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.
First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56. Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar...among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses...” It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus.
Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer — in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith — then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have?
But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus — neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.
Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.
So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.
Thank you Captain Obvious
**I did not see the article mention for instance, Matthew 13:54-57 which specifically says:
54 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. 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? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 And they took offense at him.**
I remind RCs of that passage all the time. How could an only child be viewed as so shockingly different when compared to the rest of the brothers and sisters,......if there were no brothers and sisters? Those folks had seen them all grow up. They couldn’t understand how Jesus could have turned to be the man they were seeing and hearing.
It’s just like the devotion to praying to Mary, but NOT to the woman from Canaan, or the centurion that asked the Lord to “speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed’; both of whom the Lord praised for their show of faith. (of course the praying to those asleep in Christ is another one of the RCC hangups.)
A very good question. I’ve never understood why Catholics are so intent on Mary’s being ever virgin.
It seems to imply they think her living in this regard as a normal woman would denigrate her. What I don’t understand is why they think this way. Why would a Mary who had intercourse with her husband after the birth of Jesus be any less admirable or worthy of veneration? Are we supposed to think there is something shameful about this entirely normal and righteous act?
Have never gotten this.
One of the claims is that the term "brothers" of Christ is used in a spiritual sense.
But the people of Nazareth here weren't speaking spiritually. They weren't even aware of the existence of a spiritual brotherhood, and wouldn't have believed in it had they been aware.
The other explanation here is that "brothers" means kinsmen. Well of course it could, and still is used that way today to some extent. But it seems odd to assign the looser definition when the simpler meaning makes perfect sense.
What exactly is a "church group" according to the scriptures ?
We have but one Savior, even though we may go to different churches.
Both John and Paul wrote to holy catholic apostolic churches by name. I notice most of the antiCatholics here are unwilling to use the names of their groups; odd that reluctance to shine the light.
Does your group agree with WVKayaker's group in matters of faith and doctrine, including calling Catholics "a cult?" Does your group believe Catholics worship and adore the same God of Abraham as you ?
Self authentication can be deceptive; ala Mark Driscoll. Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain. Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all. For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me. But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel.
Phillipians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses twelve to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
and often ignored by antiCatholics who have forsaken the authorized version to search for emerging Bibles and theologies.
“..It’s a good thing some of those guys didn’t write Scripture...”
It’s a good thing Dave Hung didn’t write scripture.
“...never understood why Catholics are so intent on Mary’s being ever virgin...”
It is because of the importance of Mary’s holiness because her body must have no contamination because of Jesus’ perfection.
The Blessed Mother is the Ark of the New Covenant. The previous Ark of the old Covenant was the dwelling place of God and the Ark of the New Covenant, Mary is also the dwelling place of God. (Luke Chapters 1 and 2)
The orginal ark contained in the tabernacle was the Holy of Holies and to touch it was to die. It was a type or figure of Mary who became the new tabernacle containing God. Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and so permanently changed by this overshadowing; She must remain undefiled by sinful man afterward - she became too perfect for ordinary mortals to “touch” in that way.
The Ark of the Covenant could not be touched - however it was not worshipped, and Mary is not worshipped, either. We love and admire her perfection but do not worship it.
In other words, it is because of Mary’s perfection as the new tabernacle that she must remain so. All of the scriptures in the Old Testament that describe the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple are the biblical references for this teaching as they describe the type or pre-figurement of the perfection and worth of the coming new testament ark - Mary.
Dave Hung - sorry Hunt
A church group would be like the Jerusalem Church, and the other churches that sprung up with the preaching of the Apostles and the other Christians that went out, like Apollos (for example) in the various areas where they went. Over the centuries, there have been many Christians who have gone out, throughuout the world, and many churches have started as a result.
Here’s a more thorough explanation of it from someone else.
— — —
Question: “What is the church?”
Answer: Many people today understand the church as a building. This is not a biblical understanding of the church. The word “church” comes from the Greek word ekklesia which is defined as “an assembly” or “called-out ones.” The root meaning of “church” is not that of a building, but of people. It is ironic that when you ask people what church they attend, they usually identify a building. Romans 16:5 says “… greet the church that is in their house.” Paul refers to the church in their house—not a church building, but a body of believers.
The church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Ephesians 1:22-23 says, “And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.” The body of Christ is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ from the day of Pentecost (Acts chapter 2) until Christ’s return. The body of Christ is comprised of two aspects:
1) The universal church consists of all those who have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. “For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Corinthians 12:13). This verse says that anyone who believes is part of the body of Christ and has received the Spirit of Christ as evidence. The universal church of God is all those who have received salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
2) The local church is described in Galatians 1:1-2: “Paul, an apostle … and all the brothers with me, to the churches in Galatia.” Here we see that in the province of Galatia there were many churches—what we call local churches. A Baptist church, Lutheran church, Catholic church, etc., is not the church, as in the universal church—but rather is a local church, a local body of believers. The universal church is comprised of those who belong to Christ and who have trusted Him for salvation. These members of the universal church should seek fellowship and edification in a local church.
In summary, the church is not a building or a denomination. According to the Bible, the church is the body of Christ—all those who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation (John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 12:13). Local churches are gatherings of members of the universal church. The local church is where the members of the universal church can fully apply the “body” principles of 1 Corinthians chapter 12: encouraging, teaching, and building one another up in the knowledge and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-the-church.html
— — —
In regards to some not giving their own church’s name, from what I’ve seen, it’s because they don’t have their source of authority from some local congregation, but from the Bible. So it’s of no consequence to name their church, except out of curiosity. If you say you are a Catholic, you’re not naming a particular church, but are naming, in effect, a theology that you adhere to. And it’s understood that way. I think many others would simply name themselves as “Christians” and explain things that way, rather than say, “my church says this” ... when they are not really the authority in the matter.
As far as that “group” you’re referring to ... I don’t know what group that is. I’m not familiar with it. If, on the other hand, if you’re asking me if Catholic theology is right ... no, it’s not, as there is a lot of stuff there that doesn’t have to do with the Bible (we’re discussing one thing with the brothers and sisters of Jesus ... as an example).
In regards to the God of Abraham ... well, there are a whole lot of groups that believe in what they call the God of Abraham, but it’s not the one I know. For example I hear Muslims believe in the God of Abraham, but I don’t believe in the one they describe.
The one I believe in, is described in the Bible as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and sent His Son as the Messiah of Israel and as Savior for all who believe in Him as their personal savior. And this God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob sent Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, to also return to Israel to set up Israel as the ruling nation over all the nations of the world, to be seated on the Throne of David in Jerusalem, and to fulfill all the remaining promises to Israel, as given in the Bible, in the land of Israel. This God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has Israel as a nation before him forevermore and his Messiah will set up the new Temple (Ezekiel’s Temple as described in the Bible) as the final and permanent Temple for Him, forevermore, on this earth.
That’s the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I read about in the Bible. As to whether you or anyone else of the Catholics worship this God ... that would be for you to say ... :-) ...
He never made the claim, but he presents Scripture to his listeners, as the authority that he points to in his teaching. That Word of God is the same one that I point to, also, and derive my understanding from.
The only problem with that is that Mary was a sinner, just like the Apostle Paul points out that all have sinned. There was only ONE in the entire human race, from the beginning that didn’t sin, and that was Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.
Mary was in need of Salvation just like all others have been and are. And there is only one way to Salvation and that is by way of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel. Mary had to choose that way, too, for herself.
An article on the subject ...
— — —
Is MARY SINLESS?
Even with the best intention’s one cannot prove Mary is sinless from the Bible. The Word of God gives a different story than the traditions the Roman Catholic church uses to validate their dogma of the Immaculate conception. Eve was the only sinless woman who ever existed, until she sinned.But Eve was not born but created from Adam. In Luke 1:34 when the angel Gabriel first appeared to her and announced the savior would be conceived in her womb, she responded, “ how can this be since I do not know a man.” Mary asked the angel what manner of greeting is this. If she was sinless certainly she would have known and understood the things of God, but Mary could not understand why she had been selected for this honor. In Luke 2:49-50 When Mary and Joseph after a day’s journey found out that Jesus was missing from their company they went back to find Him. After two more days they found Him teaching in the temple teaching. Mary then asks Jesus why he did not leave with them, they looked high and low for him? His response is, why did you look all over for me? Did you not know that I must be about my fathers business (work)?”
Lk.2:50: “But they (both Mary and Joseph) did not understand the words he spoke to them.” Notice in both accounts Mary does not understand the things of God. Someone who is sinless would know God’s ways and not need a explanation. It is sin that corrupts ones understanding of spiritual things. What did they not understand? That Jesus would be about His Fathers business. In this account we see Mary equal with Joseph in not understanding.
Nowhere does the Bible says Mary was sinless or the exception to sin passed on from each generation. For such a miraculous event the Bible surely would have spoken to this issue. Catholics do not find this doctrine from the context of Scripture but from making a pretext out of the Scripture from their Church tradition (which happens to be written down). But again it is not apostolic tradition. If Mary was conceived without sin then her parents would have certainly known and would have assumed she was to bare the Messiah. The Catholics say she became sinless later in life. This would mean God took someone who has the nature of sin and completely change them to be sinless like Jesus Christ—without a virgin birth. Certainly such a miracle would be mentioned in the Scripture, but it is not! The Bible has no hint of such a thing to occur and actually says the very opposite in no uncertain terms in Romans 3. Accusing all of humanity to be under sin except for one, the God/man with the virgin birth.
There is not one Scripture given in context to show Mary is without sin. However, there is much to show the opposite. In Luke 1:46-47: After she visits Elizabeth and she is blessed she exalts the Lord saying “ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.’ Here Mary is saying that God is her personal savior, only sinners need a savior. In vs. 48 Mary states “ Henceforth all generations will call me blessed for He (God) has done great things for me and Holy is His name and His mercy is on those who fear Him.” Notice she says, God is Holy not herself, that He will have mercy upon her. Mercy is withheld punishment, only a sinner needs the mercy of God. It wasn’t until 1850 that the Catholic church endorsed Mary’s sinlessness. Luke records by the Holy Spirit that Mary said she is a sinner by her admission in needing a savior, but the Pope says she does not. So then the Bible would be wrong and a man called the Pope is right, it can’t be both.
... much more at the link ...
http://www.letusreason.org/rc1.htm
When people refer to a “church” usually they are referring to either a “building” or an “organization” or the entire group of “those who are saved” by their faith in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as their personal Savior.
I use the term alternately, too ... many times referring to an “organization”, other times referring to a particular “building” and then at other times referring to the “saved ones” who are in Jesus, the Promised One.
When one “goes to a church” ... they are going to a BUILDING many times, and then they may be following the doctrines of an “organization” ... and SOME of those who are in that building, which was purchased by an organization ARE THE SAVED ONES (and those saved ones are part of the “ECCLESIA”).
I ... PERSONALLY ... am of the ECCLESIA ... the called-out and saved ones, having their salvation in their Savior, Jesus, the Messiah of Israel.
I do go to a BUILDING, but that building is not defining for me, according to the Bible. And that building was purchased or built by an “organization” (with their accompanying rules and bylaws and also referencing the Bible as being their basis for existing) ... but that ORGANIZATION is not defining for me.
The ECCLESIA is defining for me, per the Bible, as as the Salvation provided by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as my personal Savior (and no “building” and no “organization”).
You might find this enlightening ... :-) ...
— — —
‘Church’ is not in New Testament!
http://messiahsmandate.org/the-truth-behind-the-word-church/
Did you know that the King James Version was not the first English translation of the Bible? The Tyndale Bible was translated in 1526 and the Wycliff bible predates that. What is interesting is that Tyndale never translated the Greek word ecclesia as church, but congregation (congregacion). He does use the word church twice, but only in reference to pagan Temples (see Acts 14:13, 19:37). Ecclesia is not used in either of these verses. So, according to Tyndale, a congregation was People who are Holy and churches were Buildings for Religious Purposes, including pagan temples.
Churches are Buildings
The Greek word for church is kyriakos and appears in the New Testament only once (1 Cor. 11:20). It is the first part of the phrase The Lord’s Supper. It is an adjective (not a noun) meaning “belonging to the Lord.” Sometime in the 300s people began to refer to buildings where believers met as kyriakos or churches (About the time that the anti-Semitic Roman Emperor Constantine began building structures for Christians). And then, the body of believers themselves started to be called ‘the church’. Of course, in popular vernacular, most of the world associates churches with buildings.
The fact that church (kyiakos) does not appear in the New Testament (in connection with the body of believers) must be the reason Tyndale refused to use it. Young’s Literal Translation (1862) correctly translates ecclesia as assembly, not church. However, when King James aurthorized a new translation (1611) one of the rules was that the ecclesia would not be translated congregation, but church. Why? Maybe because they wanted to be consistant with common practice or maybe it was more sinister—was congregation too Jewish? Let’s remember they also translated Yeshua’s brother Jacob as James. Then again, Tyndale also translated Jacob as James (Iames).
Ecclesia (the word that is translated church in your Bible) is not a religious word. In Acts 19 it refers to a town council. In verses 32, 39 and 41 the KJV correctly translates the word as assembly, referring to the meeting of the council. However, the more than 100 other times that ecclesia appears in the New Testament, translators simply changed the word to kyriakos or church. In the same way that believers were part of The Way. Way, though a general word, becomes a specific word—a proper noun.
Ecclesia simply means “those called to a regular gathering.” For years believers have said it means “Called out ones” — as in, called out from the world. While I like that, in truth, it means called out to gather for any purpose, as in Acts 19. Is it possible that the New Testament seeks to elevate the meaning of ecclesia, adding a spiritual definition? Sure, in the same way a house can be white without being the White House, but still, the word church is nowhere in the texts.
Kehila—Community
The Hebrew Word used for ecclesia in my Hebrew NT is kehila, or Community/Congregation. This, in my opinion, is a much better word, because the community is people no matter where they meet. The New Testament congregation is a spiritual house made of people, as Simon Peter says, “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house” (2 Pet. 2:5). In addition, as pointed out by one of my readers, the Old Testament book that we call Ecclesiastes (from ecclesia) in Hebrew is Kohelet. Kohelet comes from the word kehila or kahal (gathering; audience).
Community is also a more Jewish friendly term. Most Jewish people would not step foot in a church, but they might come to your community or gathering (especially if the meeting is in a non-religious building, like a home).
I am not maintaining that there was a conspiracy (although, there may have), but rather that because ecclesia was not a religious word and the new word church did have a religious connotation, it became the dominant word. However, I think that the word ecclesia (assembly) is a perfect word because at the end of the day, the body of believers in a living community of people, not a building, and that is the word in the New Testament, not church.
Is this really a big deal?
As long as we know to whom we are referring, the people of God, then maybe not. But the confusion that remains today over whether church is a building or a group of people stems from the fact kyriakos are buildings, not gatherings, while the ecclesia are people. In addition, because the construction of historic church buildings (that the New Testament never encourages us to build) are so closely connected with Christian animosity towards Jews, the less charged word—community, may be preferable.*
I respect your POV but can’t agree.
God implanted Christ in Mary’s body without his inheriting sin.
I see no reason why his intrauterine contact with her would have been any more contaminating to him than his physical contact with her and other after birth.
Jesus said it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what comes out. (The exact opposite of Hinduism, BTW, which is why high-caste men can to low-caste women without defilement, but high-caste women can’t get it on with low-caste men.)
I also don’t see how Mary’s being ever-virgin makes her in any way more pure or holy. A virgin is no more pure than a chaste wife. Sex within marriage, as God commanded, simply does not defile a person. Joseph having sex with Mary did not “defile” her in the least.
I find the implicit association of sex with impurity and defilement a good deal more disturbing than the basic idea of the ever-virgin Mary.
Thanks for trying to explain.
Just curious here...let’s assume that Mary and Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus, and I understand that Jesus perhaps had as many as four half-brothers and two half-sisters, right? All of these would have been younger than Jesus. Assuming that they didn’t all die before Jesus died on the cross, why should Jesus have John take Mary into his home? Again, just curious. I guess I’d sort of assume that at least one of these six other children would have written something about his or her life growing up in the house with the Messiah. To me, this question causes me some degree of confusion because some assumptions are being made without any scriptural evidence. How does one reconcile these two seeming contradictions?
Is this your organization ? Are you a member in good standing of a local Independent Fundamental Baptist assembly, or a Calvary Chapel, or a Calvinist group, or a Pentecostal assembly, or a Reformed congregation, or do you so whatsoever you please whenever you want ? Do you have a bishop like those appointed by the Jewish Apostles ?
And thus the confession that the Protestants did not have the error free scriptures, and still do not have them to this day, which is what enables an emerging theology amongst myriads of disparate and contradicting assemblies.
As certain of your own poets have said:
Almost aflame still you don't feel the heat
Takes all you got just to stay on the beat
You say it's a living, we all gotta eat
but you're here alone there's no one to compete
If mercy's in business I wish it for you
More than just ashes when your dreams come true
Of the three usages for church, that I mention — building, organization and believers — I am part of all three, but only “one” is defining for being a “Christian”
So, to answer as to whether I go to a building, yes I do, but the various buildings I have gone to, in the past up to the present, have all been owned by different organizations (and with different rules and bylaws and theology). They have not been “defining” with me as a Christian.
As to what “organizations” I have been associated with (in attending their gatherings) ... there have been several, with the most recent being the “organization” of the Southern Baptist Convention in Texas and Oklahoma. There have been different organizations however, so the SBC isn’t the sole organization. And there were different ones in Oregon, too.
The ONLY one I consider to be “defining” is belonging to the ECCLESIA of the New Testament, according to the Salvation that is in the Messiah of Israel, my personal Savior. All the other buildings and organizations have NO MEANING WHATSOEVER in me belonging to the ECCLESIA.
As far as to someone else trying to “get a handle” on where I’m coming from in regards to what I understand from the Bible, my Freeper home page pretty well sums it up in a very concise way. The most concise understanding is simply “dispensational” which is fairly comprehensive. But most of that is outside of the area of Salvation, and I must point out that is it by Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, as my personal savior that I am a member of the ECCLESIA.
FINALLY, what most people want to know is what “church” (i.e., “building”) one goes to. I’ll mention just one, to simply satisfy the most COMMON UNDERSTANDING related to that question (even though I’ve defined the above matters) ...
First Baptist Dallas
http://www.firstdallas.org
Dr. Robert Jeffress is the pastor. It’s also the church that Billy Graham was a member of for years (I don’t think so now), and it’s one that my dad went to for years, too (along with me, when I was there).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.