Brothers and Sisters?

Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?

A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.

Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.

The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.

In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.

James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.

The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.

.
>> “I don’t think that all the churches, in all places, lied all the time” <<

Lets start with Irenaeus, who wrote in “Against Heresies” that the heart of Yeshua’s gospel was “the Teaching.”

Torah is specifically “the teaching,” and 90% of Yeshua’s words were instruction in living the Torah. The first written description of Yeshua’s words and deeds was, according to Papias, Matthews gospel that was written in his native tongue, Hebrew, from which it was translated to other tongues

That makes considerable sense, since Matthew, the Cohen, was the only literate disciple.

Paul, the only literate apostle, told us that the “oracles of God” (the word) were committed to Judah.

From that we see that writings from others that were of other nations, cannot be a legitimate part of the word. The Canon has to be from Judah.

The writings that the Roman church promulgates and claims to have given us are mostly not from Judah.

The writers from the House of Judah (Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude) conversed in only Hebrew, the language of the Garden.

Attempts to force Judah to accept Greek were repelled, as well described in the Maccabees.

Greek translations of the Apostles writings are mostly what survive, and are filled with clumsy misunderstandings of the native Hebrew culture and traditions.

Those clumsy translations are why few have any understanding of the Gospel of the Kingdom. From them came distortions and outright lies when the Roman empire decided to create a religion to bond the worship of Yeshua to the pure pagan sungod worship of Rome.

Truly it is Paganism, since it is not the pure worship of the disciples of Yeshua.
.

As I always tell my RCIA students, Scripture doesn’t say, “For God so loved the world, He sent a book.”

True, but it does say:

16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:16-18 NASB

The question is....do you believe this promise of eternal life through faith in Jesus?

Joe Smith was a...

Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God. And a great man.

And the Church God restored through him, is God's kingdom on the earth. And no unhallowed hand can stop this work. It is the restored kingdom spoken of in Daniel 2.

We have meeting houses all across the US, through Europe and the Asia, even the middle-east and islands in the ocean you didn't even know existed. And we are all united in the faith as told by Paul. I can into any LDS Chapel in the world and be right at home with the Saints. And be taught the exact same thing.

And around the world people describe us as good people. If Joseph Smith were false, that wouldn't be true. By their fruits you shall know them.

You have nothing to give me. Nothing. God hasn't spoken to your kind in 2000 yrs. You cling the left over notions of an apostate church, who's leaders are embracing worldly perversion after perversion. Who's past is bathed in blood.

Paul gave a warning that in the last days people claiming to be godly would reject the living prophets. Jesus warned that those people think they know Him and they think they are saved, but they're not and will be cast off at judgement.

Remember this, the devil doesn't make men good. So, you just keep on condemning us to hell. All we have to do is wait for Jesus to judge us both. One of us has a real shock coming.

And around the world people describe us as good people. If Joseph Smith were false, that wouldn't be true. By their fruits you shall know them.

Not sure I'd make that claim. Mormons are nice people...but so are Hindus.

Mormonism is not Christianity.

Mormons believe the following about God: He has not always been the Supreme Being of the universe (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) but attained that status through righteous living and persistent effort (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). They believe God the Father has a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22). Brigham Young taught that Adam actually was God and the father of Jesus Christ—although this teaching has been abandoned by modern Mormon leaders.

https://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons.html

Joseph Smith Jr. was a prophet of God. And a great man.

Joe Smith was a con man, as testified in court:

Josiah Stowell, a Mormonite, being sworn, testified that he positively knew that said Smith never had lied to, or deceived him, and did not believe he ever tried to deceive any body else. The following questions were then asked him, to which he made the replies annexed.

“Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain glass which he mentioned?

“Yes.

“Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?

“Yes.

“Did you dig?

“Yes.

“Did you find any money?

“No.

“Did he not lie to you then, and deceive you?

“No! the money was there, but we did not get quite to it!

“How do you know it was there?

“Smith said it was!

“Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that at the very same time that Stowell was digging for money, he, Austin, was in company with said Smith alone, and asked him to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not.

“Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, “to be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living.”

“Here, then, we have his own confession, that he was a vile, dishonest impostor.

“As regards the testimony of Josiah Stowell, it needs no comment. He swears positively that Smith did not lie to him. So much for a Mormon witness.”

Evangelical Magazine & Gospel Advocate Utica, N. Y., April 9, 1831.

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1877Purp.htm

You "flick off [my] claims"? Yes, yes exactly: because you haven't even examined my claims.

And you've applied a broad-brush tarring to early exegesis of OT passages referring to Mary as "Gnosticism," which is complete and utter nonsense because the Gnostics above all rejected the Incarnation.

If what you say is true, then it would apply equally to OT passages referring to Jesus: certainly the Jews saw any alleged correlation between OT passages and Jesus of Nazareth as eisegesis.

For instance: if the "Son" destined to rule the nations with an iron rod (Psalm 2:9) is not Jesus, then the child destined to rule the nations with an iron rod in Revelation 12:5 is not Jesus either, and his mother is not the mother of the Messiah, and therefore his mother (in Rev. 12) is not Mary.

If the "Seed of he woman" in Genesis 3:15, destined to defeat the Serpent (Satan) is not Jesus Christ, then Mary his mother is not the woman who bore this Seed, there is not enmity between her and the Serpent, and she is not the woman referred to by Paul when he spoke of Jesus as being "born of Woman, born under the law."

If Jesus was not her Seed then He was not a member of the human family, was not a Jew, was not a descendant of David according to the flesh (via Mary), was not the Messiah of Israel and was not the Son of Man (by being son of Mary), He was not human like us in everything except sin, and He was not the savior of the Human Race.

Every time you knock out Mary, you knock out Christ.

All we know about Mary is a support of, a logical corollary of, and a confirmation of, the doctrines about Christ.

We have meeting houses all across the US, through Europe and the Asia, even the middle-east and islands in the ocean you didn't even know existed.

Mormonism is the most successful American Cult! No doubts about that.

Great con man. Great cult.

What Do the Founders

of These Great American Cults

Have in Common?

Kabbalah - Founded by a former insurance salesman, Phillip Berg

(now known as Rav) - is a Jewish cult, based on "ancient secrets".

Scientology - Founded by a former vacuum cleaner salesman,

and frustrated sci-fi writer, L. Ron Hubbard.

EST - Founded by a former door-to-door salesman, Werner Erhard

"Prophet" Edgar Cayce - a former insurance salesman

Mormonism - Founded by a former treasurer-seeker, Joseph Smith

Statement of Jim Robinson concerning cultic posting by mormons on Free Republic:

"I’m at the point that I’m not going to allow any protected LDS/Mormon Caucus threads on FR. You can’t post offensive stuff like this and expect Christians not to object to it. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to suspend or ban or deny any Christian from objecting to what he believes is the false prophecy of Joseph Smith. Whether Mormons will feel welcome here after this or not is completely up to them individually."

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-religion/2650662/posts?page=158#158 cc: Jim, Free Republic is being used to promote mormonism again by this poster.

Editor-surveyor: Your broad rejection of ALL Christian churches (not only Catholic) and ALL Christian Scriptures (e.g. the Greek NT) puts you in opposition to historic Christendom including Protestantism, Evangelicalism and common "Christianity" per se. You say that there is no church.

You also say that the "saved" are those followers of Yeshua who follow Torah and keep the Jewish Sabbath, and that none of those whom we commonly know as members of Christian "churches" are saved.

Isn't that so?

1. I've never claimed this - ever.
2. This conversation is about Mary being a perpetual virgin, which is never found in Scripture.
3. Your long post not withstanding, you have provided no credible evidence that any Apostle ever believed it.
4. No where is the continued virginity of Mary necessary for any doctrine found in Scripture.

If you're going to go there you have to keep going to Gen 3:16 for we're talking about the same woman.

Then this means Mary was a sinner for women experiencing pain in childbirth indicated their sinful nature...unless you're going to say Mary didn't experience pain in childbirth.

To justify the Catholic position you're going to have to really do some jumping through hoops and manipulating the Scripture.

But we do see that in the Vulgate translation which renders the passage as "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6056

Unfortunately, the Douay-Rheims continues with this admitted error.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. Gen 3:15 Douay-Rheims

If the RCC can't get this translation correct, when it's admitted to be in error, then why should we trust anything the RCC says after that??

You have nothing to give me. Nothing.

Don't kid yourself. I am not trying to give you anything. You are apparently spiritually blinded by the demonic cult of mormonism.

We are in America and you are in America's Most Successful Cult. It is your free choice.

Only God can save such a person. He is certainly able.

I am only interacting with you to warn others away from your cult.

In the end, mormonism is based on feelings, apart from facts. It is as false as the sweaty, created Jesus who your cult claims swooned in the garden for atonement.

"Now, if you have proof from 100ad or before please share it."

Apostolic Fathers: Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Barnabas, Hermas, Epistle to Diognetus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus. The churches of Crete and Cyprus and Antioch and Jerusalem were all founded before 100 AD. Reference: The Ante-Nicene Fathers a collection that contains most 2nd and 3rd century writings, fills nine volumes, and includes the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Origen of Alexandria.

"If you do not, it happened as paganism was incorporated into Romanism."

Nonsense. A lot of this is not sourced in the Roman (Latin) church at all, if one is speaking of in terms of direct jurisdiction or cultural patrimony: it's Greek.

You spoke of Gnosticism, and that's double nonsense: the historic doctrines of Christianity were forged in opposition to Gnosticism. You are equating the early (1st-4th century) Christian Fathers with the errors which they opposed all their lives.

Nothing to prove this was taught by an Apostle, believed by an Apostle - or any other Christian before 100 ad.

You are using sleight of hand to make it sound as if you've accomplished this. You did not. It is the kind of spinning of straw into gold your posts have been using during the past months - describing facts in a way that they sound as if they are something else.

Nonsense. A lot of this is not sourced in the Roman (Latin) church at all, if one is speaking of in terms of direct jurisdiction or cultural patrimony: it's Greek.

Paganism and its practices were brought into the roman church. Even your Cardinal said so.

The first Christian on record to claim that Mary had other children was Helvidius

That is absolutely false.

Who told you that?

Do you teach that to those you instruct? If so, and if you are interested in truth --- then you really should stop repeating such erroneous information. You've been provided enough information ---even recently--- to have precluded yourself making the above italicised statement.

For clarification:

The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.

The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Irenaeus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.

The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.

More can be found here:

https://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html

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.