Jesus siblings

>According to the so-called Epiphanian view, named after its main proponent, the fourth-century bishop Epiphanius, and championed by the thirdcentury theologian Origen and fourth-century bishop Eusebius, the “brothers” and “sisters” mentioned in the New Testament are all older than Jesus—sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, and hence only stepbrothers of Jesus.
>This view is still the official position of the Eastern Orthodox churches
holy cope!

  1. 3 months ago
    Afro Saxon

    Honestly you would think Jesus siblings would get more mention in the history textbooks they're literal confirmation of Jesus being real. I mean one would think the Church or people back then would look for them and treat them as divine status.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      His brother James is well known. Even headed the church in Jerusalem.

      The word used is more appropriately understood as "kin", but "brothers/sisters" is still perfectly valid in modern English. They simply weren't immediate blood siblings of Jesus Christ. Step-siblings, cousins, people from the same hometown? There's no certain answer, since even the earliest Christians didn't know for sure, but they at least knew Mary was & is perpetually a virgin, precluding the possibility of Jesus having blood siblings.

      False. adelphai and adelphos is used for Jesus' brothers and sisters

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >adelphai and adelphos is used for Jesus' brothers and sisters
        Yes. Also for the five-hundred witnesses to His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6):
        >πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς
        And all who love Christ (Matthew 23:8):
        >πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε.
        Among plenty of other passages in the New & Old Testaments which refer to kinsmen, cousins, all israelites, etcetera. Adelph- describes many relations beyond direct siblings, just as brother/sister do in English.

        >The word used is more appropriately understood as "kin", but "brothers/sisters" is still perfectly valid in modern English. They simply weren't immediate blood siblings of Jesus Christ. Step-siblings, cousins, people from the same hometown? There's no certain answer, since even the earliest Christians didn't know for sure, but they at least knew Mary was & is perpetually a virgin, precluding the possibility of Jesus having blood siblings.
        the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters, there is no evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity

        >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters
        See above.
        This isn't a fringe understanding. Mary's perpetual virginity has been known to the vast majority of Christians for almost 2000 years, the only significant deniers being Gnostic heretics in the early Middle Ages and more presently by Protestants (not all) beginning only a few centuries ago at the oldest.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation of the late Roman empire derived from Gnostic texts that were mistaken for Christian texts. The actual foundation of the myth were heretical works whose actualpurpose was to deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In both those Gnostic texts and the historical Romish mythology the claim is not merely that Mary did not give birth to other children but that her hymen did not break in the process of Christ's birth- in the Gnostic texts, thiswas a means to an end to express the idea that Jesus was not physically born but merely appeared to be. With regard to adelphoi, the meaning of the word is to be determined by its immediate context. The Jerome interpretation is automatically invalid because it makes no positive case, it merely states the fact that adelphoi*can*mean cousins, suggests it*might*mean that here without establishing why, and then concludes it*must*mean that, all as a shameless attempt to shoehorn unbiblical tradition into a text which plainly contradicts it. In the context these adelphoi are mentioned by people have knownJesus since His youth in the exact same sentence as His mother and sisters.The context does not tolerate an interpretation of anything other than immediate literal household brothers.Furthermore when these brothers are named they do not nameHis actual cousins(John and James the Greater)who are also right there, because they are talking about brothers and not cousins.This matters because the church of Rome claims to be infallible,the final rule of faith for Christians everywhere,and the guardian of the interpretation of scripture. They have decreed that one must believe in Mary's perpetual virginity to be saved, which is also the only reason Romanists like yourself believe in it.This is a demonstration that the magisterium of Rome does not possess the authority it arrogates to itself,while also demonstrating the quality of the"infallible"interpretations Romanists would enslave us to.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            (P.S. the formatting is so terrible because I had to delete spaces to cram the post into LULZ's unreasonable 2,000 character limit)

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sorry for taking a while to reply. I had to separate it out in a text editor to read sanely.

            >The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation of the late Roman empire
            The understanding began to become more present and discussed at this time, yes. Knowing and loving God, who is infinite, for everything He does for us is a process that takes a lot of time for finite humans. I don't know your specific position, but would it be unfair to say that things like sola scriptura and eternal security are an innovation of early-modern Germany & France?

            >derived from Gnostic texts that were mistaken for Christian texts.
            Uninspired and ultimately heretical, yes. This doesn't mean it's impossible for them to reflect the truths of Sacred Tradition passed down by the apostles, since these necessarily precede any text.

            >The actual foundation of the myth were heretical works whose actual purpose was to deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ.
            Obviously, Catholics don't deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ. We affirm it regularly in prayer.

            >in the Gnostic texts, this was a means to an end to express the idea that Jesus was not physically born but merely appeared to be.
            Same as above, of course. Christ was, indeed, physically born of Mary.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation of the late Roman empire derived from Gnostic texts that were mistaken for Christian texts. The actual foundation of the myth were heretical works whose actualpurpose was to deny the incarnation of Jesus Christ. In both those Gnostic texts and the historical Romish mythology the claim is not merely that Mary did not give birth to other children but that her hymen did not break in the process of Christ's birth- in the Gnostic texts, thiswas a means to an end to express the idea that Jesus was not physically born but merely appeared to be. With regard to adelphoi, the meaning of the word is to be determined by its immediate context. The Jerome interpretation is automatically invalid because it makes no positive case, it merely states the fact that adelphoi*can*mean cousins, suggests it*might*mean that here without establishing why, and then concludes it*must*mean that, all as a shameless attempt to shoehorn unbiblical tradition into a text which plainly contradicts it. In the context these adelphoi are mentioned by people have knownJesus since His youth in the exact same sentence as His mother and sisters.The context does not tolerate an interpretation of anything other than immediate literal household brothers.Furthermore when these brothers are named they do not nameHis actual cousins(John and James the Greater)who are also right there, because they are talking about brothers and not cousins.This matters because the church of Rome claims to be infallible,the final rule of faith for Christians everywhere,and the guardian of the interpretation of scripture. They have decreed that one must believe in Mary's perpetual virginity to be saved, which is also the only reason Romanists like yourself believe in it.This is a demonstration that the magisterium of Rome does not possess the authority it arrogates to itself,while also demonstrating the quality of the"infallible"interpretations Romanists would enslave us to.

              >In the context these adelphoi are mentioned by people have known Jesus since His youth in the exact same sentence as His mother and sisters. The context does not tolerate an interpretation of anything other than immediate literal household brothers.
              Matthew 13:55-56 (also Mark 6:3), right? His mother, brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are identified, as well as unnamed sisters. There certainly could be another James-Joseph pair related to Jesus, but these are understood as the children of a Mary identified distinctly from Christ's mother.
              See Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40, & John 19:25. There is Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Lesser & Joseph, and Mary the mother of Christ. Never is anyone else identified as the child of Jesus' mother.
              Also - why doesn't the context tolerate this? Why is His mother not allowed to be mentioned with kinsmen and kinswomen? Is there a specific rule of Koine Greek I might be missing out on?

              >they do not name His actual cousins (John and James the Greater) who are also right there
              I can't find anything that notes their presence here. Do you have the verse(s)?

              And note here:
              >This doesn't mean it's impossible for them to reflect the truths of Sacred Tradition
              I mean PARTIALLY reflect or contain, like how a fictional novel can contain truths in reference to the real world.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Also - why doesn't the context tolerate this? Why is His mother not allowed to be mentioned with kinsmen and kinswomen?
                Because the word used is not kinsmen but brothers. The men are expressing their familiarity with Jesus, they are the men from His hometown and they have known Him all His life, they have known His mother, and they have known His brothers and sisters. It would be highly unnatural and bizarre for it to mean anything other than His immediate household, and is not a plausible interpretation without any such clarification in the text. The word 'mother' can also mean a wise woman or a distant female ancestor but that is surely not the meaning here.
                >I can't find anything that notes their presence here.
                I don't know that they are personally mentioned but this is during His ministry, the 12 are with Him.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Because the word used is not kinsmen but brothers.
                Matthew 13 and Mark 6 give the same account of "aren't these his brethren?"
                The exact form of the word used in Mark 6:3 referring to his brothers is "ἀδελφός" / "adelphos", and in Matthew 13:55 it's "ἀδελφοὶ".
                The former, "ἀδελφός", is used extensively in the testimonies of Christ's teachings, which obviously don't only apply to only your direct siblings. This exact form is also used by Paul to refer to brothers in Christ like in 1 Corinthians 1:1
                >Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes a brother (rendered adelphos)
                As well as Romans 16:23
                >Caius, my host, and the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, saluteth you, and Quartus, a brother (again, adelphos)

                The latter form, "ἀδελφοὶ", is used just as openly, such as in Matthew 23:8
                >But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren.
                And in Acts 1:16
                >Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled...

                >I don't know that they are personally mentioned but this is during His ministry, the 12 are with Him.
                But they are not all always in his direct physical presence, as they are recorded being away sometimes, even when Christ is ministering.

                Anyway, assuming you're the same anon I was replying to earlier, I'd really appreciate replies to some things I answered you on, like:

                >Christianity isn't polytheism. You can't make Mary into Juno/Hera just because you want to.
                Correct. We don't worship Mary, since she isn't God. We are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, just as the ancient israelites did for their prophets, kings, and patriarchs chosen by God. The mother most worthy of our honor is the very Mother of God. There is no doubt that Christ, who is the "way, truth, and life", making Himself our model of perfection, infinitely greater than any of us, honors His mother with His infinite love - and we, imitators of Christ, should do so, too. Christ, suffering on the cross, even gave us His mother directly:
                >When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

                >Mary is the new Eve
                One of many poetic symmetries & prefigurations planned immaculately throughout millennia of scripture by the Holy Ghost. As the pinnacle of God's work, planned for all time, Christ's incarnation is most worthy of this.
                I shouldn't have to directly quote text to explain how original sin entered the world by Adam through Eve's disobedience - most Christians understand this.
                In the gospels, this is mirrored by Jesus Christ redeeming the world from original sin through Mary's obedience:
                >And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.
                Revelations depicts the woman who "brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations". This child is obviously our Lord, Jesus Christ. Further on we can read:
                >And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
                This is an allusion to Genesis:
                >I will put enmities between thee [Satan/serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed

                >The reflection of Eve's role with Mary's in the fall vs. the redemption.

                [...]
                The woman of Revelation is also a type of the Church/Israel, but also representative of Mary, who literally gave birth to the Lord. These are further married by the fact Jesus Christ gave His mother to the "disciple whom he loved" as his own mother - this man being all of us who go after Christ and are loved by Him: the Church.

                >Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant
                God was present in the Ark, just as God was present within Mary.
                See Hebrews for a NT mention of the Ark's contents:
                >The word of God (tables of the testament)
                >Aaron's rod (which revived & blossomed)
                >Manna (bread from heaven)
                Compare to what Mary bore, Jesus Christ:
                >The Word (Gospel of John)
                >Rose again and was glorified (Resurrection)
                >The Saviour of man, Who said "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed... This is the bread which came down from heaven" (see John 6:52-58)

                Here are some intentional parallels between the Ark in 2 Samuel & Mary in the Gospel of Luke (just including the verses for text limit):
                >2 Samuel 6:2 & Luke 1:39
                >6:9 & 1:43
                >6:11 & 1:56
                >6:16 & 1:41

                And further, again in Revelation. There is the Ark, and there is the woman in the same vision.
                >And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
                Keep in mind that the modern scheme of chapter divisions wasn't introduced to the Bible until the 13th century, and it'd take even longer to arrive at the modern verse divisions, too.

                [...]
                I quoted a bunch. Do you want the chapter/verse numbers in my first reply?

                >The items borne by the Ark with Christ borne by Mary (verified with KJV)
                >The purposeful parallels between the Ark & Mary (also verified with the KJV)

                As well as a response to my analysis of the greek usage of kneeling, prostration, and adoration.

                No one falls down and adores the Pope. The picture depicts Cornelius, who inappropriately prostrated himself before Peter, kneeling.
                However, you claimed people are falling down / prostrating themselves before the Pope, which doesn't happen - the picture doesn't even claim that, because it's purposed to confuse a common gesture of respect (kneeling) with prostration something much deeper (as described in the text).

                >what the Vulgate says doesn't matter
                Why..? As far as I know, it's literally the first complete assemblage of canonical scripture that we have - even the KJV derives from it (I assume that's your translation of choice).

                But anyway, if you don't like Latin, here's Greek:
                Acts 10:25 renders Cornelius' action as "πίπτω" / "pipto", which means to fall down, prostrate oneself, etc. as opposed to an instance of "γονυπετέω" / "gonupeteo", which is explicitly kneeling.
                I'm not even making any religious claims here, I'm just explaining that the picture and your related statements are not congruous with reality.
                It's more sensible that the adoration ("προσεκύνησεν" / "prosekynesen") is doing the work here, as this is also understood as worship in most occurrences of the word ("προσκυνέω" / "proskuneo"). An example is Satan trying to tempt Christ saying "προσκυνήσῃς" when telling Jesus to worship him. However, this isn't exactly airtight, because "προσεκύνησεν" / "prosekynesen" is used again to describe how Jacob "adored the top of his [Joseph's] rod". Surely he wasn't worshiping Joseph or his rod, because this same passage speaks to Jacob's faith in God.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >The understanding began to become more present and discussed at this time, yes
              This would tend to be a concession of the whole debate, would it not? I get the impression that you're taking the John Henry Newman perspective, the development hypothesis? The problem with that and the reason why that has not been popular with the most conservative of Rome is because it essentially concedes that Rome's traditions are not apostolic, and then it makes a case for innovation and novelty. The difference between Newman's acorn and tree is that proper theological development was the refinement of beliefs already held, not the addition of beliefs unkown in prior centuries. In the case of perpetual virginity the logical explanation for why it was not present in the earliest Church is because it does not actually describe the historical truth, that is as a matter of history Mary did have sex with her husband and conceive natural children, and the apostles who knew Mary and her children personally knew that.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I get the impression that you're taking the John Henry Newman perspective, the development hypothesis?
                No, I actually don't know anything about his work beyond what you wrote.
                >I do not believe that anything divine has been added to the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle
                You're right. It also happens to be the stance of the Catholic Church.
                >I would distinguish between the practical application and epistemic principle
                This could apply just as well to the perpetual virginity of Mary, really. The early fathers claim and defend it explicitly, such as Jerome:
                >We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it... You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock
                >But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature.

                and Augustine:
                >It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?

                When I mention it becoming "more present and discussed", this is close to what I mean. Truth & revelation was present from the beginning, but in a body of faithful that must grow through humans and is limited by time and the conditions of the day such as illiteracy & manual copying, truth takes longer to propagate and become so rooted that we can see its blossoms from 2000 years on.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This could apply just as well to the perpetual virginity of Mary, really.
                I admit to being a bit flabbergasted by this response. I struggle to understand your point, I was saying that semper reformanda, which is the practical application of sola scriptura, was not practiced by the ancient fathers, inconsistently with their stated beliefs. This has something to do with two 5th century writers expressing belief in something that was not believed in the earlier centuries?
                >Truth & revelation was present from the beginning, but in a body of faithful that must grow through humans and is limited by time and the conditions of the day such as illiteracy & manual copying, truth takes longer to propagate and become so rooted that we can see its blossoms from 2000 years on.
                The perpetual virginity of Mary is a doctrine that not only makes theological claims but historical ones as well. Specifically, it makes the historical claim that historically the woman Mary wife of Joseph and mother of Jesus did not have any children besides Jesus Christ. If historically this woman gave birth to any other children, the doctrine is false. To suppose that this doctrine developed over time is to suppose that it is false, because its historical claims are either absolutely true or absolutely false- if the apostles, their successors and their successors successors lacked knowledge of this doctrine in any sense then it is not possible that it is true because if it was true they would have immediate knowledge of the truth of its historical claims. In other words, John would have known that Jude was not Mary's son.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Then I may have understood the inverse of what you were trying to explain, then. My bad.
                I tried to describe that the epistemic principle existed first, from the beginning (the objective truth of Mary's perpetual virginity), and the practical application came with time (defense of it, doctrine, etc).
                >If historically this woman gave birth to any other children, the doctrine is false.
                This would be correct. Scripture never identifies Christ's mother as having other children. Mothers of children besides Christ are never identified as Christ's mother. The best attempt at assigning new children to Christ's mother is saying that she is a certain different Mary without any supporting evidence. There are many women named Mary in scripture, but only one mother of Jesus.
                >John would have known that Jude was not Mary's son.
                Well, he was *A* Mary's son: the sister of Christ's mother. Jude is the son of this sister and Cleophas/Clopas.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the sister of Christ's mother. Jude is the son of this sister and Cleophas/Clopas.
                Mary's sister is Salome, Anon. Different woman, wife of Zebedee, mother of John and James the Greater.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Mary's sister is Salome
                I can't find anything pinning this down, but Hegesippus apparently claimed Cleophas was St Joseph's brother (according to Eusebius). This doesn't make them blood related, of course, but do we know anything about how common/permitted marrying in-laws was here?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Marrying in-laws was forbidden under the law of God, Leviticus 18:15-16

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                That verse refers explicitly to daughters in law rather than sisters in law, though. Verse 9 is closer, but it appears to be referring to half-siblings rather than the sister of your brother‘s wife.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Knowing and loving God, who is infinite, for everything He does for us is a process that takes a lot of time for finite humans. I
              I do not believe that anything divine has been added to the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle. The faith was delivered once for all to the saints, the canon was closed and God ceased to speak. Nothing which was added later was divine revelation but mere human corruption.
              >would it be unfair to say that things like sola scriptura and eternal security are an innovation of early-modern Germany & France?
              I would distinguish between the practical application and epistemic principle of sola scriptura. As far as its practical application (the principle of semper reformanda) goes yes I would agree it is essentially an innovation of the 15th century, but as an epistemic principle no I see the ancient fathers consistently saying that holy scripture is and ought to be the rule of faith and practice for the Church even if they did not actually behave consistently with that express principle. And no I would not agree that perseverance of the saints is an innovation of that time and place.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Uninspired and ultimately heretical, yes. This doesn't mean it's impossible for them to reflect the truths of Sacred Tradition passed down by the apostles, since these necessarily precede any text.
              So the sacred apostolic tradition on this point was contained not in the orthodox Christian writers but the heretical Gnostic ones? I mean, besides all of the obvious problems with this, there goes Irenaeus' entire argument out the window, I guess the Gnostics had a claim to apostolic tradition too. My point in emphasizing the Gnostic source was not to suggest that Rome has a docetic Christology, but to emphasize the fact that this doctrine does not reflect apostolic teaching, the only thing it actually reflects is the heretical Gnostic denial of the birth of Jesus Christ. It is not an apostolic tradition, it is an anti-apostolic tradition which externally entered and corrupted the Christian tradition.

              [...]
              >In the context these adelphoi are mentioned by people have known Jesus since His youth in the exact same sentence as His mother and sisters. The context does not tolerate an interpretation of anything other than immediate literal household brothers.
              Matthew 13:55-56 (also Mark 6:3), right? His mother, brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are identified, as well as unnamed sisters. There certainly could be another James-Joseph pair related to Jesus, but these are understood as the children of a Mary identified distinctly from Christ's mother.
              See Matthew 27:55-56, Mark 15:40, & John 19:25. There is Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Lesser & Joseph, and Mary the mother of Christ. Never is anyone else identified as the child of Jesus' mother.
              Also - why doesn't the context tolerate this? Why is His mother not allowed to be mentioned with kinsmen and kinswomen? Is there a specific rule of Koine Greek I might be missing out on?

              >they do not name His actual cousins (John and James the Greater) who are also right there
              I can't find anything that notes their presence here. Do you have the verse(s)?

              And note here:
              >This doesn't mean it's impossible for them to reflect the truths of Sacred Tradition
              I mean PARTIALLY reflect or contain, like how a fictional novel can contain truths in reference to the real world.

              >but these are understood as the children of a Mary identified distinctly from Christ's mother.
              Not in the Gospels they aren't. The mother of James and Joseph is never distinguished from the mother of Jesus, the former is simply how she was referred to by Mark and Matthew, because these three men share the same mother. The Gospels give us four women at the crucifixion: Mary the mother of Jesus James and Joseph, Salome the sister of Mary and mother of John and James, Mary the wife of Cl(e)opas and Mary Magdalene.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Knowing and loving God, who is infinite, for everything He does for us is a process that takes a lot of time for finite humans. I
                I do not believe that anything divine has been added to the deposit of faith since the death of the last apostle. The faith was delivered once for all to the saints, the canon was closed and God ceased to speak. Nothing which was added later was divine revelation but mere human corruption.
                >would it be unfair to say that things like sola scriptura and eternal security are an innovation of early-modern Germany & France?
                I would distinguish between the practical application and epistemic principle of sola scriptura. As far as its practical application (the principle of semper reformanda) goes yes I would agree it is essentially an innovation of the 15th century, but as an epistemic principle no I see the ancient fathers consistently saying that holy scripture is and ought to be the rule of faith and practice for the Church even if they did not actually behave consistently with that express principle. And no I would not agree that perseverance of the saints is an innovation of that time and place.

                (Quoted this post here because I forgot to get it in my previous reply addressing it.)
                >So the sacred apostolic tradition on this point was contained not in the orthodox Christian writers but the heretical Gnostic ones?
                I tried to clarify my point a bit more in a reply to myself earlier, so I'll try to do so better with a fictitious example:
                >The deposit of faith provides that Jesus Christ is a divine person of the Holy Trinity
                >A heretical text affirms that Christ is a divine person of the Holy Trinity, but also that Christ did wicked things to his disciples
                The truth reflected in a text containing lies does not invalidate the truth. The item of truth precedes the text and continues to hold.
                The counterpoint to this would be "but it wasn't maintained by orthodox Church fathers"/"it isn't proven in scripture", but I've done my best to provide some examples for the former and explain how the inverse is neither proven for the latter.

                >The mother of James and Joseph is never distinguished from the mother of Jesus
                She is never called the mother of Jesus, nor is the mother of Jesus called the mother also of James & Joseph. In fact, His mother is never described as having any children but Christ, and no issue is recorded from Joseph.
                See each record of the identified women at the cross for a distinction of the mother of Jesus:
                Matthew 27:56
                >...Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.
                Mark 15:40
                >...Mary Magdalen, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome
                >John 19:25
                >...by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
                His mother is identified distinctly from any other Mary, let alone women with children apart from Jesus Christ. Note that the women shown in Matthew & Mark are "afar off", while "by the cross of Jesus" is His mother.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The truth reflected in a text containing lies does not invalidate the truth
                It is true that this tradition is not contained in the orthodox writers who opposed the Gnostics, correct? There is no reference to it in the likes of Irenaeus and Tertullian? Then the sacred apostolic tradition on this point is contained, NOT in the orthodox Christian writers, but in the heretical Gnostics? And so if we seek to find our "sacred" tradition at this time we should not waste our time looking at the stalwart, faithful, and orthodox Christian writers, the only place we ought to seek it is in the heresy of the Gnostics, whose affirmation of it was not distinct from their denial of the birth of our Lord.
                >"but it wasn't maintained by orthodox Church fathers"
                Of course it was, just not any who lived at the time the Gnostics made it up
                >the inverse is neither proven for the latter.
                Let's assume for a moment that this was demonstrated, if so it is irrelevant, because the reason why it was totally absent from the first few centuries is because it is totally absent from the category of truth. The magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church tells me that I will go to hell for rejecting this dogma, and the best you can do is an argument from silence?
                >She is never called the mother of Jesus, nor is the mother of Jesus called the mother also of James & Joseph.
                One gospel refers to a mother of Jesus, the other to a Mary mother of James and Joseph, and elsewhere we are told that this Jesus has a mother named Mary and brothers named James and Joseph. Is this how you would interpret any other history book? Is this how you would interpret this book if you did not have a pre-commitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary?
                >In fact, His mother is never described as having any children but Christ
                Except, of course, for right here
                >while "by the cross of Jesus" is His mother.
                So are all the other women

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >because the reason why it was totally absent from the first few centuries is because it is totally absent from the category of truth.

                Like sola fide and sola scriptura?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Weren't you just telling us we should believe everything Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Latimer and Cranmer believed?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No. I cite them in this specific argument because the tenor of those opposing the Catholic view is that the Catholic Church is engaged in baseless, illogical special pleading on behalf of Mary.

                The fact that so many leading Reformers held the view that Mary remained a virgin is strong evidence that the charge that Catholic belief is illogical or unscriptural does not hold water.

                So I am being consistent in citing this evidence given the nature of the claims I am addressing.

                On the other hand, to dismiss belief in the doctrine of Mary's virginity on the grounds of its being an argument from silence, while at the same time believing in sola fide and sola scriptura, neither of which were believed in the early Church nor taught in scripture (indeed, scripture refutes both doctrines) is plainly inconsistent.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >sola fide and sola scriptura, neither of which were believed in the early Church nor taught in scripture (indeed, scripture refutes both doctrines)

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You have "clever" memes, but I have the scriptures that refute sola scriptura and sola fide.

                To wit:

                2 Thessalonians 2:15 refutes sola scriptura:
                >So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours.

                James 2:24 refutes sola fide:
                >A man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Your first topic is comparable to denying the prior existence of an invisible electric fence (the kind for dogs), because it didn‘t shock your pet until it tried to cross the boundary. It didn‘t cause a shock until tested, so it must have not been there beforehand. It‘s arguable that it wasn‘t there beforehand from that one piece of evidence alone, but we know that isn‘t the case. The Gnostic texts including this truth would be like a falsified manual describing the shocking operation of this fence, but also that it will turn your pet into gold upon activation. It‘s still true that the fence shocks, but the false manual didn‘t invent the idea of the fence shocking - it was the fence‘s creator who ultimately caused this.

                >Is this how you would interpret this book if you did not have a pre-commitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary?
                Even throughout my life growing up a Southern Baptist, I was always under the impression that Jesus Christ was the sole child of Mary, and that Joseph was an old man who refrained from carnal knowledge of his wife. It was natural to me that such a special thing would be kept pure and chaste.
                So, I legitimately couldn‘t know otherwise.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Even throughout my life growing up a Southern Baptist, I was always under the impression that Jesus Christ was the sole child of Mary, and that Joseph was an old man who refrained from carnal knowledge of his wife. It was natural to me that such a special thing would be kept pure and chaste.
                >So, I legitimately couldn‘t know otherwise.
                Jesus having brothers and sisters is definitely taught in the Southern Baptist church, because, surprise, surprise, it's in the Bible, and Baptists actually read the Bible, just don't listen to what some fruit tells them is in the Bible.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You asked about how I would understand the text if I didn't have a precommitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I answered how I used to understand it from my point of view as a Southern Baptist, a group which doesn't maintain this, as you said.

                I'm not sure if you're the same anon, but what do you think of my analysis on the scriptural use of adelphos/adelphoi here?:

                >Because the word used is not kinsmen but brothers.
                Matthew 13 and Mark 6 give the same account of "aren't these his brethren?"
                The exact form of the word used in Mark 6:3 referring to his brothers is "ἀδελφός" / "adelphos", and in Matthew 13:55 it's "ἀδελφοὶ".
                The former, "ἀδελφός", is used extensively in the testimonies of Christ's teachings, which obviously don't only apply to only your direct siblings. This exact form is also used by Paul to refer to brothers in Christ like in 1 Corinthians 1:1
                >Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes a brother (rendered adelphos)
                As well as Romans 16:23
                >Caius, my host, and the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus, the treasurer of the city, saluteth you, and Quartus, a brother (again, adelphos)

                The latter form, "ἀδελφοὶ", is used just as openly, such as in Matthew 23:8
                >But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren.
                And in Acts 1:16
                >Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled...

                >I don't know that they are personally mentioned but this is during His ministry, the 12 are with Him.
                But they are not all always in his direct physical presence, as they are recorded being away sometimes, even when Christ is ministering.

                Anyway, assuming you're the same anon I was replying to earlier, I'd really appreciate replies to some things I answered you on, like:
                [...]
                >The reflection of Eve's role with Mary's in the fall vs. the redemption.
                [...]
                >The items borne by the Ark with Christ borne by Mary (verified with KJV)
                >The purposeful parallels between the Ark & Mary (also verified with the KJV)

                As well as a response to my analysis of the greek usage of kneeling, prostration, and adoration. [...]

                There are claims in this thread that these words only apply to blood siblings, but evidence proves otherwise.

                And the scriptural parallels of Mary and Eve:

                >Christianity isn't polytheism. You can't make Mary into Juno/Hera just because you want to.
                Correct. We don't worship Mary, since she isn't God. We are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, just as the ancient israelites did for their prophets, kings, and patriarchs chosen by God. The mother most worthy of our honor is the very Mother of God. There is no doubt that Christ, who is the "way, truth, and life", making Himself our model of perfection, infinitely greater than any of us, honors His mother with His infinite love - and we, imitators of Christ, should do so, too. Christ, suffering on the cross, even gave us His mother directly:
                >When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

                >Mary is the new Eve
                One of many poetic symmetries & prefigurations planned immaculately throughout millennia of scripture by the Holy Ghost. As the pinnacle of God's work, planned for all time, Christ's incarnation is most worthy of this.
                I shouldn't have to directly quote text to explain how original sin entered the world by Adam through Eve's disobedience - most Christians understand this.
                In the gospels, this is mirrored by Jesus Christ redeeming the world from original sin through Mary's obedience:
                >And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.
                Revelations depicts the woman who "brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations". This child is obviously our Lord, Jesus Christ. Further on we can read:
                >And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
                This is an allusion to Genesis:
                >I will put enmities between thee [Satan/serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed

                The quoted passages are respectively from John 19:26, Luke 1:38, Revelation 12:17, & Genesis 3:15. The only reply so far from the other side was someone who apparently didn't recognize these excerpts of scripture.

                As well as the parallels between the Ark of the Covenant & Mary, both having borne God:

                [...]
                The woman of Revelation is also a type of the Church/Israel, but also representative of Mary, who literally gave birth to the Lord. These are further married by the fact Jesus Christ gave His mother to the "disciple whom he loved" as his own mother - this man being all of us who go after Christ and are loved by Him: the Church.

                >Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant
                God was present in the Ark, just as God was present within Mary.
                See Hebrews for a NT mention of the Ark's contents:
                >The word of God (tables of the testament)
                >Aaron's rod (which revived & blossomed)
                >Manna (bread from heaven)
                Compare to what Mary bore, Jesus Christ:
                >The Word (Gospel of John)
                >Rose again and was glorified (Resurrection)
                >The Saviour of man, Who said "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed... This is the bread which came down from heaven" (see John 6:52-58)

                Here are some intentional parallels between the Ark in 2 Samuel & Mary in the Gospel of Luke (just including the verses for text limit):
                >2 Samuel 6:2 & Luke 1:39
                >6:9 & 1:43
                >6:11 & 1:56
                >6:16 & 1:41

                And further, again in Revelation. There is the Ark, and there is the woman in the same vision.
                >And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
                Keep in mind that the modern scheme of chapter divisions wasn't introduced to the Bible until the 13th century, and it'd take even longer to arrive at the modern verse divisions, too.

                [...]
                I quoted a bunch. Do you want the chapter/verse numbers in my first reply?

                And further parallels between the Ark & Mary made explicit by intentional literary mirrors between 2 Samuel & Luke:
                Everything here is quoted from the KJV.
                -Rising to deliver the Ark (first to a separate destination for 3 months, then the city of David which is Jerusalem, and then Bethelhem as named in Luke 2:4 & 11)
                >And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God...
                >And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda
                How should the Ark of the Lord come to me?
                >And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
                >And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
                Abiding/continuing in a house aside from the city of David for three months
                >And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household.
                >And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

                See my quoted post for more, including another relation in Revelation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I am the guy you were talking to before, I stopped replying because I felt my point was proven.
                >I answered how I used to understand it
                You didn't though. I asked how you would interpret these texts, not what your belief was (which sounds like it was an assumption that nobody told you either).
                >but what do you think of my analysis on the scriptural use of adelphos/adelphoi here?
                I think it is directly refuted in the post it is replying to, which is why I did not respond.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You didn't though.
                I did. That is how I interpreted the scripture. Southern Baptists place a heavy emphasis on reading scripture, as you said, and that was not lost on me. I think it‘s likely that "brethren" and similar words being used for cousins, uncles, co-faithful, etc. as well as no actual issue being described of the Virgin Mary besides Jesus, while every other relation is described with "X begat Y", "son of X", "mother of Y" made it impossible for me to think she had any children besides Christ. You need to enter with a preconceived opposition to Christ being the only child of Mary to even try to see that in the text (unless you‘re otherwise unfamiliar with scripture, and think brother can only mean direct sibling).

                >I think it is directly refuted in the post it is replying to
                You claimed that adelphos and adelphoi are only used in the context of direct blood siblings, and I showed you multiple passages from the New Testament among many in the Greek which use these exact words to mean other kinds of relations.
                And "feeling your point is proven" isn‘t any excuse to flee from a good debate. I presented things you asked about, challenged, and mocked and gave you textual analysis, scriptural evidence, and support from an ancient orthodox anti-Gnostic church father. I figured you‘d appreciate that and at least want to address everything with your own beliefs.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That is how I interpreted the scripture.
                That's not what you were saying before, you just said you believed Mary didn't have other children. Also, I don't buy the answer that you would interpret it that way.
                >You need to enter with a preconceived opposition to Christ being the only child of Mary to even try to see that in the text
                That's laughable. This entire thread is demonstration of why that's laughable. I remind you that you have no positive case. At no point have any of the arguments made in this thread (or really, in church history) made the assertion that some text of scripture actually confirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary. All of the arguments have been evasions, they have all been excuses as to why X reference to Jesus' brothers *might* not mean that, it *might* mean this instead, *who knows*. It is painfully obvious that yours is an interpretation which seeks not to derive meaning from the text but insert it, in all cases these arguments have sought only to make just enough room to fit perpetual virginity into the text.
                >You claimed that adelphos and adelphoi are only used in the context of direct blood siblings
                No, I made the case that in this context it *is* used in the context of immediate household. The Greek word adelphos and the English word brother have a virtually identical semantic domain. They have more than one meaning, and that meaning is determined by the context. Because adelphoi and adelphai are used in the context of their familiarity with His immediate household since His youth and the same context of the mention of His immediate mother the semantically appropriate definition for the words here is as literal immediate brothers and sisters.
                >And "feeling your point is proven" isn‘t any excuse to flee from a good debate.
                That's great rhetoric anon, let's hope it works out for you.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Also, I don't buy the answer that you would interpret it that way.
                If you‘re convinced I‘m lying to you, then there‘s really nothing I can do. I‘ve been citing my claims and presenting clear analysis of scripture that you‘re comfortable with and can verify independently.

                >Context of adelphos/adelphoi
                The original claim was that the words can only mean direct siblings, so I refuted that with multiple citations of the Greek for each. Your position is now evolved into relying on a specific grammatical context which relies solely on your description. Is there something I can read on Koine Greek‘s grammar rules here, and that the gospel writers abided by it in their (likely) Semiticized Greek?

                >That's great rhetoric anon
                I was just trying to communicate that I was justifiably upset that you stopped engaging with certain parts of our debate for an unknown reason. I elaborated on that further:
                >I presented things you asked about, challenged, and mocked and gave you textual analysis, scriptural evidence, and support from an ancient orthodox anti-Gnostic church father. I figured you‘d appreciate that and at least want to address everything with your own beliefs.

                I‘m enjoying this, and I‘m keeping as best I can from prodding you in any way.

                Also see:
                Irenaeus on Mary‘s reflection of Eve:

                You told me that finding literary parallels in scripture which help reveal the genius of the Holy Ghost and the overall incredible scope of God‘s work is rabbinical nonsense. You also said that the writings of the orthodox Church fathers who fought Gnosticism (like Irenaeus) about scripture are more valid, as they are more likely to be free of Gnostic corruption. You also appealed to Irenaeus‘ authority by name twice.
                Now that you find out he simply recorded the existence of something you deny as reality, you‘re saying he‘s lying.
                Why? To what end? Both for you and Ireneaus.

                >Midrash
                Irenaeus explained the mirror between Eve and Mary. Assuming you‘re the same person, you appealed to his orthodox authority a few times.
                Section 4 of this page’s translation of his "Against Heresies" has it here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm

                Parallels between the Ark and Mary:

                You asked about how I would understand the text if I didn't have a precommitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I answered how I used to understand it from my point of view as a Southern Baptist, a group which doesn't maintain this, as you said.

                I'm not sure if you're the same anon, but what do you think of my analysis on the scriptural use of adelphos/adelphoi here?: [...]
                There are claims in this thread that these words only apply to blood siblings, but evidence proves otherwise.

                And the scriptural parallels of Mary and Eve: [...]
                The quoted passages are respectively from John 19:26, Luke 1:38, Revelation 12:17, & Genesis 3:15. The only reply so far from the other side was someone who apparently didn't recognize these excerpts of scripture.

                As well as the parallels between the Ark of the Covenant & Mary, both having borne God: [...]

                And further parallels between the Ark & Mary made explicit by intentional literary mirrors between 2 Samuel & Luke:
                Everything here is quoted from the KJV.
                -Rising to deliver the Ark (first to a separate destination for 3 months, then the city of David which is Jerusalem, and then Bethelhem as named in Luke 2:4 & 11)
                >And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God...
                >And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda
                How should the Ark of the Lord come to me?
                >And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
                >And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
                Abiding/continuing in a house aside from the city of David for three months
                >And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household.
                >And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

                See my quoted post for more, including another relation in Revelation.

                And more, if you look back at what I‘ve posted.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The original claim was that the words can only mean direct siblings
                This is false.
                >I was justifiably upset that you stopped engaging with certain parts of our debate
                I stopped engaging entirely. I stated before my purpose was that the Marian dogmas represent the authority claims of the bishop of Rome and his underlings, and for that reason alone it was worth talking about. Apart from that dogmatization it would be a contentious waste of time to dispute about it. If you really want to have a lengthy thorough discussion with me then let's go to the heart, to the hinge upon which it all turns, to the article upon which the church stands or falls, the doctrine of justification.
                >Irenaeus on Mary‘s reflection of Eve
                >Parallels between the Ark and Mary
                Irrelevant to the topic at hand, though relevant to general Roman Mary-worship. Irenaeus' interpretation of Mary as new Eve was because of his strange atonement theory, it was really about Jesus, much like the title "mother of God" it has been co-opted by later Romanism as pure exaltation of Mary rather than indirect reference to Christ as it was in the patristic age. Parallels between the ark and Mary, like all Marian typology, collapses when examined fully and in context. The actual fulfillment of the ark is Jesus of Nazareth in whom the fullness of God dwells bodily.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                If this post wasn‘t you, then I guess not. But it seemed like it since it bridged the replies.

                >Also - why doesn't the context tolerate this? Why is His mother not allowed to be mentioned with kinsmen and kinswomen?
                Because the word used is not kinsmen but brothers. The men are expressing their familiarity with Jesus, they are the men from His hometown and they have known Him all His life, they have known His mother, and they have known His brothers and sisters. It would be highly unnatural and bizarre for it to mean anything other than His immediate household, and is not a plausible interpretation without any such clarification in the text. The word 'mother' can also mean a wise woman or a distant female ancestor but that is surely not the meaning here.
                >I can't find anything that notes their presence here.
                I don't know that they are personally mentioned but this is during His ministry, the 12 are with Him.

                The fact does remain that you claimed the existence of a context which defines the meaning of these words, but haven‘t cited anything yet.

                >the doctrine of justification
                Gladly, but in a different thread, and not tomorrow.

                >The actual fulfillment of the ark is Jesus of Nazareth in whom the fullness of God dwells bodily.
                I‘d love to see more parallels on Christ as the Ark, but it does seem to contradict with the fact that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man in perfect, inseperable union. The Ark is not God, just as Mary is not God (even though you claim I think so, tee hee), but both bore God.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >If this post wasn‘t you
                It was me, I am sorry you are having so much difficulty understanding the post but at least take my word for it as to its meaning.
                >haven‘t cited anything yet
                This is also false. I'm sorry but I have been citing the context since I first made the argument: their familiarity, His mother.
                >it does seem to contradict with the fact that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man in perfect, inseperable union.
                Inseparable but not mixed, there is nothing unorthodox or inconsistent about stating that God the Son dwells in Jesus anymore than it is unorthodox or inconsistent with the Trinity to say that God has revealed Himself fully in His Son.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I get what you meant now - that one post was just less precise and I took it literally.
                As for the context: it‘s not something that can be respected as evidence, because it‘s a rule you‘re proposing rather than a rule of Greek grammar demonstrably followed by scripture. Christ‘s mother could, for example, be this familiar with her sister‘s children and her spouse‘s brothers, who would be Jesus‘ cousins and uncles respectively, and the same exact word (adelph-) would describe their relation to Christ in this situation, just as it‘s used to describe these exact relations elsewhere in scripture.

                >Inseperable but not mixed.
                I‘ll have to study and pray on this part. Do you maintain the orthodox position that Christ is one divine person with two natures?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Do you maintain the orthodox position that Christ is one divine person with two natures?
                Absolutely.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, okay. I just wasn‘t sure if "mixed" was supposed to mean separate persons. The Athanasian Creed defines that precisely in that the natures aren‘t "blended", which of course is a synonym of mixed, as I should‘ve recognized.
                Bedtime. Thank you for replying for all this time.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation of the late Roman empire derived from Gnostic texts that were mistaken for Christian texts.

            Wrong. The idea that Mary had children other than Jesus is a VERY recent innovation among ignorant American Christians.

            The belief was rejected by Protestant leaders until very recently.

            Thus, all of the following expressly upheld the perpetual virginity of Mary, as based on the evidence of scripture, not anything found in any gnostic text:

            - Martin Luther
            - Jean Calvin
            - Ulrich Zwingli
            - John Wesley
            - Bishop Latimer
            - Thomas Cranmer

            But obviously you know the Bible better than they did, right anon?

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              stop sperging out, you can type all your crappy retorts in one reply, this theory didn't exist in the early church, that Jesus's brothers and sisters had some weird conspiracy where they weren't his family because its gnostic garbage adopted by the Catholic church for political reasons, the people who reject it today are correct

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >based on the evidence of scripture
              What evidence of scripture would that be, imbecile?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >What evidence of scripture would that be, imbecile?

                Do you hold yourself out as a Christian?

                Much scriptural evidence is cited in this thread, and in the links I provided here:

                >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters

                The Bible itself makes clear that those called "brothers" or "sisters" were not literally such, but rather relatives such as cousins. There is zero doubt about this, as explained here:

                This article also has a good explanation of the biblical and historical basis for this belief:

                https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

                By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

                See also pic related.

                Just look:

                -Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

                -Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

                -Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

                -There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

                .

                You could also read the passages where the various Reformers address the question of Mary's virginity (which is the specific context in which I made the remark you quoted). Predictably enough, those arguments are based on the evidence of scripture.

                One example of this is Cranmer's citation of Ezekiel 44 as affirmative evidence of Mary's perpetual virginity, as noted in this article: https://stjohnfisher.medium.com/in-defense-of-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-b1925444c6ef

                Certainly Cranmer cannot be accused of having any sympathy for or being under the influence of the Catholic Church.

                It may be noted that Ambrose and Augustine concurred with this interpretation of Ezekiel, as discussed here:
                https://taylormarshall.com/2009/12/virgin-marys-womb-as-ezekiels-closed.html

                Btw, if by some chance you're actually interested in hearing the affirmative case for Mary's virginity laid out clearly and cogently, I would suggest you listen to the Brant Pitre talk I linked to here:

                >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters

                The Bible itself makes clear that those called "brothers" or "sisters" were not literally such, but rather relatives such as cousins. There is zero doubt about this, as explained here:

                This article also has a good explanation of the biblical and historical basis for this belief:

                https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

                By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

                See also pic related.

                Just look:

                -Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

                -Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

                -Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

                -There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

                .

      • 3 months ago
        Afro Saxon

        >Honestly you would think Jesus siblings would get more mention in the history textbooks they're literal confirmation of Jesus being real. I mean one would think the Church or people back then would look for them and treat them as divine status.
        they do get good support in historical documents, Josephus for example

        Getting the family involved didn't work out well for early islam

        They weren't virgin births so they have no inherent divinity

        We barely know them in history books if at all, one think they would be royalty or revered like how Mary and Saints are in Catholic Church, Church is always searching for artifacts relating to Jesus I would think nothing would be great boon than having His kin. Josephus is a historian not Jesus brother.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because they were israeli Christians and didn't agree with Paul abrogating the Law so he could appeal to the gentiles. That's why Paul had conflict with James who was the leader of the Jerusalem Church. That's also why the author of Mark and later gospels seethe about them.
          That coupled with the destruction of the Jerusalem Church, the persecution of the israeli Christian sects like the Ebionites etc, is the reason why modern Christians downplay or ignore the family of Jesus (aside from Mary for the virgin birth thing). Since they sided with the israeli branch of early Christianity that ultimately went extinct.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting. Is there anything in the Acts/epistles that name them on the judaizer side? Historical accounts are fine, too, just curious where this comes from.

          • 3 months ago
            Afro Saxon

            I don't know anything about this elaborate please.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Honestly you would think Jesus siblings would get more mention in the history textbooks they're literal confirmation of Jesus being real. I mean one would think the Church or people back then would look for them and treat them as divine status.
      they do get good support in historical documents, Josephus for example

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Getting the family involved didn't work out well for early islam

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      They weren't virgin births so they have no inherent divinity

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus' brother appeared in Qing dynasty China though

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      He was a schizophrenic and he fucking wrecked Qing China

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        did the world a favour

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    The word used is more appropriately understood as "kin", but "brothers/sisters" is still perfectly valid in modern English. They simply weren't immediate blood siblings of Jesus Christ. Step-siblings, cousins, people from the same hometown? There's no certain answer, since even the earliest Christians didn't know for sure, but they at least knew Mary was & is perpetually a virgin, precluding the possibility of Jesus having blood siblings.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The word used is more appropriately understood as "kin", but "brothers/sisters" is still perfectly valid in modern English. They simply weren't immediate blood siblings of Jesus Christ. Step-siblings, cousins, people from the same hometown? There's no certain answer, since even the earliest Christians didn't know for sure, but they at least knew Mary was & is perpetually a virgin, precluding the possibility of Jesus having blood siblings.
      the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters, there is no evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters

        The Bible itself makes clear that those called "brothers" or "sisters" were not literally such, but rather relatives such as cousins. There is zero doubt about this, as explained here:

        This article also has a good explanation of the biblical and historical basis for this belief:

        https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

        By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

        See also pic related.

        Just look:

        -Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

        -Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

        -Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

        -There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          no one buys your anti-logical papal apologetics, stop calling Paul, etc. a liar

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody called Paul a liar.

            But the Bible - if you actually read it - does make clear that Jesus had no blood siblings.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Nobody called Paul a liar.
              >But the Bible - if you actually read it - does make clear that Jesus had no blood siblings.
              the Biblbe clearly refers to his siblings, you're tradcath retard that has never read anything in the Bible, you're dumber than JWs with yoru selective translation

              >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters

              The Bible itself makes clear that those called "brothers" or "sisters" were not literally such, but rather relatives such as cousins. There is zero doubt about this, as explained here:

              This article also has a good explanation of the biblical and historical basis for this belief:

              https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

              By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

              See also pic related.

              Just look:

              -Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

              -Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

              -Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

              -There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

              >By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
              Luther also put Revelation in the apocrypha. Luther can be right 90 percent of the time and wrong 10 percent of the time.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the Biblbe clearly refers to his siblings

                It appears to - just as certain texts suggests that Jesus was purely human - but a careful exegesis demonstrates that Jesus had no blood siblings.

                This is not a matter of argument. It is conclusive.

                Anyone who is actually interested could check out the material I supplied above

                >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters

                The Bible itself makes clear that those called "brothers" or "sisters" were not literally such, but rather relatives such as cousins. There is zero doubt about this, as explained here:

                This article also has a good explanation of the biblical and historical basis for this belief:

                https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-to-explain-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary

                By the way, as the article notes, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli all believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.

                See also pic related.

                Just look:

                -Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.

                -Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

                -Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

                -There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome.

                In particular, the video is particularly clear and well-done:

                >Luther also put Revelation in the apocrypha.
                Of course, I'm not claiming that Luther was infallible. Far from it. But he certainly knew his scriptures very well. And he was quite firm in agreeing with the perpetual virginity of Mary. And it was not just Luther, but Calvin and Zwingli as well. Also John Wesley, as is mentioned in this article:

                https://aleteia.org/2013/10/10/a-protestant-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/

                So did Cranmer and Latimer.

                But I suppose they're all tradcath retards that never read anything in the Bible, right anon?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >but a careful exegesis demonstrates that Jesus had no blood siblings.
                Catholic fanfiction is not canonical. Note, Catholics also invented a person that never lived, Veronica, because of a misunderstanding of terminology. Jesus has brothers and sisters. It's in the Bible, it's in Josephus. It's history.

                >Of course, I'm not claiming that Luther was infallible. Far from it. But he certainly knew his scriptures very well. And he was quite firm in agreeing with the perpetual virginity of Mary. And it was not just Luther, but Calvin and Zwingli as well. Also John Wesley, as is mentioned in this article:
                They were all wrong. Being wrong a long time ago does not make it right now. There are no toll booths to go to heaven and all the other dumb shit that old churches separated from the direct teachings of christ and the apostles invented. It's garbage.

                >adelphai and adelphos is used for Jesus' brothers and sisters
                Yes. Also for the five-hundred witnesses to His resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:6):
                >πεντακοσίοις ἀδελφοῖς
                And all who love Christ (Matthew 23:8):
                >πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε.
                Among plenty of other passages in the New & Old Testaments which refer to kinsmen, cousins, all israelites, etcetera. Adelph- describes many relations beyond direct siblings, just as brother/sister do in English.
                [...]
                >the Bible clearly refers to them as brothers and sisters
                See above.
                This isn't a fringe understanding. Mary's perpetual virginity has been known to the vast majority of Christians for almost 2000 years, the only significant deniers being Gnostic heretics in the early Middle Ages and more presently by Protestants (not all) beginning only a few centuries ago at the oldest.

                >This isn't a fringe understanding. Mary's perpetual virginity has been known to the vast majority of Christians for almost 2000 years, the only significant deniers being Gnostic heretics in the early Middle Ages and more presently by Protestants (not all) beginning only a few centuries ago at the oldest.
                It was invented in the Gospel of James which is 100 percent heretical garbage. There is no earlier mention of it. Other sources include the rantings of schizophrenic nuns. It's BS that was only given legs by Catholic politics to undercut James' authority in the history of the church and due to a pagan obsession with virginity inherited from he previous Roman religion.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Did your brain turn off when multiple people pointed out that "adelphos/oi" is used to describe cousins, kinsmen, members of the Church, and even strangers with common cause? When you hear an only child call someone "bro", do you immediately think his dad was being unfaithful?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And are so retarded you're going to ignore Josephus? You know one of the few non Christian sources that mention Jesus

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                He wrote in Koine Greek, too.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >More than one mad Catholic repeats their selective misinterpreation apologetics, thus you must concede
                Nope, papist. That's not going to work on me.

                And are so retarded you're going to ignore Josephus? You know one of the few non Christian sources that mention Jesus

                >And are so retarded you're going to ignore Josephus? You know one of the few non Christian sources that mention Jesus
                The passage about James being Jesuss's brother is probably the number one reasons scholars have to concede Jesus was historical.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                I fail to see how this is a gotcha, because the exact same thing is recorded in scripture. Unless you're saying Josephus explained how this James was borne by the Mother of God as well, there's no distinction between other instances of Greek & Hebrew uses of "brother" which describe cousins, nephews & uncles, etc. If it simply wasn't true, we wouldn't believe it.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I fail to see how this is a gotcha, because the exact same thing is recorded in scripture. Unless you're saying Josephus explained how this James was borne by the Mother of God as well, there's no distinction between other instances of Greek & Hebrew uses of "brother" which describe cousins, nephews & uncles, etc. If it simply wasn't true, we wouldn't believe it.
                This is as tortured as JWs thinking Jesus was crucified on a "torture stake." The usage of the term in this instance refers to brothers and sisters.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The usage of the term in this instance refers to brothers and sisters.
                Which is? I don't have a full pdf of it in Greek, so I'd appreciate a link.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >That's not going to work on me.
                You're the one who's determined to keep your eyes shut to the facts. Well, that's certainly your prerogative, albeit willful ignorance is nothing to crow about.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                In the same ways someone might be described as a "brother" or "Brothers and sisters" sure, but James "the brother of Jesus" is a title used for no other figure in the biblical literature, and pretty much every secular historian believes it to be the literal usage that best fits here.
                Ironically this is the same argument used by Christ mythisists who are trying to deny that Jesus was a historical person. When pointed out that Jesus had a brother named in both the bible and secular histories, they simply resort to this hackneyed argument about adelphos which people who actually specialize in the Greek bible have dismissed.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Jesus has brothers and sisters. It's in the Bible, it's in Josephus. It's history.

                You don't understand the Bible, and nor do you know history.

                Eusebius specifically identifies the so-called brothers of Jesus as being the sons of a different mother.

                >They were all wrong.
                And you're right. Ha!

                >There is no earlier mention of it.
                The idea itself is *not* in the Bible. You think it's there because you have not studied it carefully, and you refuse to look at the links I've provided.

                You do not and never will know the Bible as well as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Latimer and Cranmer. All those students of the Bible specifically disagree with you. They read the same passages you read, but with intelligence and concluded: Mary remained a virgin.

                You can pound sand with your rhetorical hysterics, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong -- 100% wrong. And it's not just the Catholic Church who says so.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >You don't understand the Bible, and nor do you know history.
                >Eusebius specifically identifies the so-called brothers of Jesus as being the sons of a different mother.
                Eusebius was wrong, and he's not a prophet and didn't write the Bible. He's from the 4th century too, unlike Josephus who confirmed James was Jesus's brother and was born in 37 AD and wasn't writing apologetics. The Catholic church is not infallible or thousands of children wouldn't have been molested by your leaders.

                >That's not going to work on me.
                You're the one who's determined to keep your eyes shut to the facts. Well, that's certainly your prerogative, albeit willful ignorance is nothing to crow about.

                >You're the one who's determined to keep your eyes shut to the facts. Well, that's certainly your prerogative, albeit willful ignorance is nothing to crow about.
                Keep seething, pagan.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Eusebius was wrong, and he's not a prophet and didn't write the Bible. He's from the 4th century too, unlike Josephus who confirmed James was Jesus's brother and was born in 37 AD and wasn't writing apologetics.

                The problem is that you are wrong, and all the great Protestant leaders disagreed with you. I emphasized this because you, and the posters in common cause with you, have a fantastic, distorted idea that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a strange Catholic idea. It is not. Scripture supports the Catholic view, and refutes your view.

                stop sperging out, you can type all your crappy retorts in one reply, this theory didn't exist in the early church, that Jesus's brothers and sisters had some weird conspiracy where they weren't his family because its gnostic garbage adopted by the Catholic church for political reasons, the people who reject it today are correct

                Just stating the facts, which you obviously cannot even begin to address.

                What sort of strange theology do you classify Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Latimer and Cranmer as "gnostic garbage."

                Don't you know they read the same Bible you do?

                Are you too proud to admit they *understood* the Bible better than you do?

                Or are you smarter than all of them?

                You evidently think so.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Scripture supports the Catholic view, and refutes your view.
                There is absolute zero reference to Mary's perpetual virginity in scripture, you lying seething papist. Briniggn up the fact that Luther adhered to some Catholic dogma is not the own you think it is.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                [...]

                supports the Catholic view
                >There is absolute zero reference to Mary's perpetual virginity in scripture

                Scripture refutes the claim that the "brothers" of Jesus are blood siblings, and thus supports the Catholic view.

                >Briniggn up the fact that Luther adhered to some Catholic dogma is not the own you think it is.

                It was not just Luther, but Calvin and Zwingli as well. Also John Wesley, Cranmer and Latimer.

                But I guess none of them understood the Bible as well as *you* do, right anon?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Scripture refutes the claim that the "brothers" of Jesus are blood siblings, and thus supports the Catholic view.

                You're such a dienguenous fraud, I just told you to cite scripture to support your claim, and you refused to do so again. So I guess you are coneding you're wrong then. Good job.

                >It was not just Luther, but Calvin and Zwingli as well. Also John Wesley, Cranmer and Latimer.
                >But I guess none of them understood the Bible as well as *you* do, right anon?

                No one cares. You have no idea what Protestants think. Note, they don't hold up human beings and hierarchy as infallible as you do. Point still just stands that this was not a thing in the early church. The idea that the Catholic/Gnostic heresy persisted with people who broke off from Catholic dogma for a time does not refute that. It's not the only thing a lot of those people are wrong about either.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >until doesn't mean until
          Pointless to say it then
          >James and Joseph have different mothers
          There's many people with the same name. There were clearly two James' because one dies in Acts then still talks about a guy named James

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >he word used is more appropriately understood as "kin", but "brothers/sisters" is still perfectly valid in modern English.
      cope
      46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.

      47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

      48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?

      49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!

      50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

      > but they at least knew Mary was & is perpetually a virgin, precluding the possibility of Jesus having blood siblings.
      also cope and against the Bible

      >are all older than Jesus—sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, and hence only stepbrothers of Jesus.
      this is complete cope. It literally says they had sex after Jesus was born
      24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
      25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I also think the Nazarenes believed that James was the brother of Jesus and that he founded their church. Regardless, who cares? Imagine your faith being fucking destroyed by Jesus happening to have siblings and Mary not being a virgin. It’s insane.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Are all family relationships in the bible suspect and to be assumed metaphorical

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Scripture is explicit through "X begat Y", "son of X", and such. "Father" is, of course, usually explicit, but that word can also describe King David as a national patriarch, Paul as a spiritual father, etc. We understand with basic reasoning that David didn't directly sire every Israelite, and every Christian doesn't share blood with Paul.

      >are all older than Jesus—sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, and hence only stepbrothers of Jesus.
      this is complete cope. It literally says they had sex after Jesus was born
      24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
      25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

      1 Corinthians 15:25
      >For he must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.
      Christ is not abdicating after this.
      Luke 1:80
      >And the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and was in the deserts until the day of his manifestation to Israel.
      John the Baptist continued to minister in the wild after giving testimony of Christ's imminence.

      Origen commentates on this, too, to explain that the Greek equivalent of our "until" is not exclusionary to the "after". (wall of text):
      >Now, the Saviour says to the eleven disciples when He rose from the dead, this among other things, "Lo, I am with you all the days, even until the consummation of the age." When He said this, did He promise that He was going to be with them until the consummation of the age, but that after the consummation of the age, when another age was at hand, which is "called the age to come," He would be no longer with them?--so that according to this, the condition of the disciples would be better before the consummation of the age than after the consummation of the age?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        The word "until" in Matthew's gospel is consistently used to refer to a condition that ceases to exist after the "until". Check a concordance.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          These are some instances from Matthew that use the exact word as 1:25 (referring to Mary's virginity).
          >ἕως

          11:12
          >And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent bear it away.
          This condition did not expire after it was mentioned.

          14:22 (this contains the precise phrasing, ἕως οὗ *verb*)
          >And forthwith Jesus obliged his disciples to go up into the boat, and to go before him over the water, till he dismissed the people.
          In no terms were they to come back after the imminent dismissal; they were sent ahead, and Christ joined them later.

          22:44
          >The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, until I make thy enemies thy footstool?
          In this reference, which 1 Corinthians 15:25 also takes after, the relationship isn't terminated after victory.

          27:8
          >For this cause the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day.
          This passage isn't asserting the name would be changed after this testimony was written, rather than it has been so and still is.

          28:20
          >Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
          This is what Origen was writing about in the excerpt I posted. Christ is absolutely not leaving us after the end of the world.

          There may be some others, but these stuck out pretty plainly when I scrolled through a concordance. The Vulgate's Latin could also suffice here, I think, considering every modern translation I know of uses it to some extent, but this should be fine.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            it says they had sex. cope harder.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            [rather that* it has been so and still is]

            I'll also add that what Matthew 1:25 explicitly communicates is that Joseph, even though he was Mary's husband, absolutely did not have carnal knowledge of his wife before Christ's birth. This is to eliminate any doubt that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Ghost. The ἕως / éos / until does not assert a termination of her virginity after the fact, though, as we can see with the same word & phrasing used by the same human author to describe conditions which do not cease to exist after the object's fulfillment.

            Of course, even Christ's divine nature is doubted by tons of people these days, since His mother is zealously denigrated by people denying her virginity.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              *doubt that Jesus WAS conceived by the Holy Ghost.
              Got the negative mixed up when I rewrote that.

              >until doesn't mean until
              Pointless to say it then
              >James and Joseph have different mothers
              There's many people with the same name. There were clearly two James' because one dies in Acts then still talks about a guy named James

              >There were clearly two James' because one dies in Acts then still talks about a guy named James
              Yeah, there are multiple, so it's confusing. James, "brother of Jesus", is also known as "the Lesser", and is the blood brother of Joseph (another Joseph, rendered Joses by St Mark, not Christ's foster-father). Not to be confused with James "the Greater", who is the son of Salome & Zebedee, and blood brother of John the Apostle. Scripture identifies "His (Christ's) mother" distinctly from Mary the mother of James (the Lesser) and Joseph. We can directly identify the direct siblings because their parents are explicitly described, and are not Christ's mother.

              historians all disagree with you

              [...]
              >Of course, even Christ's divine nature is doubted by tons of people these days, since His mother is zealously denigrated by people denying her virginity.

              Christianity is the worship of Christ, not his human mother.

              >Christianity is the worship of Christ, not his human mother.
              Yes. In this, we are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, and which other mother deserves more honor than the one who bore God Himself? This is made even sweeter by Jesus Christ, beaten, scourged, and hanging on the cross by nails driven through his hands & feet, solemnly giving His mother to us all, as is related by John 19:26-27.
              >When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >are all older than Jesus—sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, and hence only stepbrothers of Jesus.
    this is complete cope. It literally says they had sex after Jesus was born
    24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
    25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus didn't exist.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      historians all disagree with you

      [rather that* it has been so and still is]

      I'll also add that what Matthew 1:25 explicitly communicates is that Joseph, even though he was Mary's husband, absolutely did not have carnal knowledge of his wife before Christ's birth. This is to eliminate any doubt that Jesus was not conceived by the Holy Ghost. The ἕως / éos / until does not assert a termination of her virginity after the fact, though, as we can see with the same word & phrasing used by the same human author to describe conditions which do not cease to exist after the object's fulfillment.

      Of course, even Christ's divine nature is doubted by tons of people these days, since His mother is zealously denigrated by people denying her virginity.

      >Of course, even Christ's divine nature is doubted by tons of people these days, since His mother is zealously denigrated by people denying her virginity.

      Christianity is the worship of Christ, not his human mother.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous
      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous
    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      How did he do so much damage claiming to be Jesus' brother? Were there that many Christians in China back then, or was having a bit of military power and being the "brother of God" enough to convince a ton of peasants?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        It was more of a "fuck I hate the Qing so much and this guy wants to kill them so sure I'll join" than a real christian movement

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: Catholics making it their official doctrine to cuckold Joseph.

    Why must Mary be a perpetual virgin? Why are they so obsessed with that unreasonable idea, bros? Is it ancient waifuism rearing its ugly head in the early church? I just don't get it.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Why must Mary be a perpetual virgin?
      Because this new Eve, who by her perfect obedience to God was the means by which the new Adam, Jesus Christ, redeemed us from original sin. (It was through the old Eve's disobedience that Adam brought sin into the world.)

      She is the new Ark of Christ's covenant with all mankind, even purer than the original which bore God in spirit. Perfectly sinless, Mary was chosen to bear the Son both in His humanity and divinity.

      With these things in mind, and more, Mary's will is in perfect conformity to God's. We know through Christ's teachings that, if possible or required for you, it is preferred by God for you to refrain from sexual relations.
      >Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Because this new Eve, who by her perfect obedience to God was the means by which the new Adam, Jesus Christ, redeemed us from original sin. (It was through the old Eve's disobedience that Adam brought sin into the world.)
        >She is the new Ark of Christ's covenant with all mankind, even purer than the original which bore God in spirit. Perfectly sinless, Mary was chosen to bear the Son both in His humanity and divinity.
        >With these things in mind, and more, Mary's will is in perfect conformity to God's. We know through Christ's teachings that, if possible or required for you, it is preferred by God for you to refrain from sexual relations.
        Heretical fanfiction on the level of the Talmud. Get your brain off of Roman paganism.

        >We know through Christ's teachings that, if possible or required for you, it is preferred by God for you to refrain from sexual relations.

        Christ wanted people to marry and have children, not like the cult of child touchers you defend that have zero connection to Peter who was married and had children.

        >ITT: Catholics making it their official doctrine to cuckold Joseph.

        Why must Mary be a perpetual virgin? Why are they so obsessed with that unreasonable idea, bros? Is it ancient waifuism rearing its ugly head in the early church? I just don't get it.

        >Why must Mary be a perpetual virgin? Why are they so obsessed with that unreasonable idea, bros? Is it ancient waifuism rearing its ugly head in the early church? I just don't get it.

        It's pagans wanting to make Mary and nuns into vestal virigins even though it has no place in scripture after Jesus's birth.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Original sin
          >Christ is fully God & man
          >Direct quotation of scripture
          >Heretical fanfiction

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Mary is the new Eve
            >Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant
            >doesn't cite any scripture to support these claims
            Christianity isn't polytheism. You can't make Mary into Juno/Hera just because you want to.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Christianity isn't polytheism. You can't make Mary into Juno/Hera just because you want to.
              Correct. We don't worship Mary, since she isn't God. We are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, just as the ancient israelites did for their prophets, kings, and patriarchs chosen by God. The mother most worthy of our honor is the very Mother of God. There is no doubt that Christ, who is the "way, truth, and life", making Himself our model of perfection, infinitely greater than any of us, honors His mother with His infinite love - and we, imitators of Christ, should do so, too. Christ, suffering on the cross, even gave us His mother directly:
              >When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

              >Mary is the new Eve
              One of many poetic symmetries & prefigurations planned immaculately throughout millennia of scripture by the Holy Ghost. As the pinnacle of God's work, planned for all time, Christ's incarnation is most worthy of this.
              I shouldn't have to directly quote text to explain how original sin entered the world by Adam through Eve's disobedience - most Christians understand this.
              In the gospels, this is mirrored by Jesus Christ redeeming the world from original sin through Mary's obedience:
              >And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.
              Revelations depicts the woman who "brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations". This child is obviously our Lord, Jesus Christ. Further on we can read:
              >And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
              This is an allusion to Genesis:
              >I will put enmities between thee [Satan/serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Literal Midrash. I asked for scriptural basis for your claims regarding Mary either being a new Eve or a new Ark of the Covenant.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Midrash
                Irenaeus explained the mirror between Eve and Mary. Assuming you‘re the same person, you appealed to his orthodox authority a few times.
                Section 4 of this page’s translation of his "Against Heresies" has it here: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                And what books in the Bible did Iraenaeus author, you dimwit?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                You told me that finding literary parallels in scripture which help reveal the genius of the Holy Ghost and the overall incredible scope of God‘s work is rabbinical nonsense. You also said that the writings of the orthodox Church fathers who fought Gnosticism (like Irenaeus) about scripture are more valid, as they are more likely to be free of Gnostic corruption. You also appealed to Irenaeus‘ authority by name twice.
                Now that you find out he simply recorded the existence of something you deny as reality, you‘re saying he‘s lying.
                Why? To what end? Both for you and Ireneaus.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Any thoughts on this, by the way?

                You asked about how I would understand the text if I didn't have a precommitment to the perpetual virginity of Mary. I answered how I used to understand it from my point of view as a Southern Baptist, a group which doesn't maintain this, as you said.

                I'm not sure if you're the same anon, but what do you think of my analysis on the scriptural use of adelphos/adelphoi here?: [...]
                There are claims in this thread that these words only apply to blood siblings, but evidence proves otherwise.

                And the scriptural parallels of Mary and Eve: [...]
                The quoted passages are respectively from John 19:26, Luke 1:38, Revelation 12:17, & Genesis 3:15. The only reply so far from the other side was someone who apparently didn't recognize these excerpts of scripture.

                As well as the parallels between the Ark of the Covenant & Mary, both having borne God: [...]

                And further parallels between the Ark & Mary made explicit by intentional literary mirrors between 2 Samuel & Luke:
                Everything here is quoted from the KJV.
                -Rising to deliver the Ark (first to a separate destination for 3 months, then the city of David which is Jerusalem, and then Bethelhem as named in Luke 2:4 & 11)
                >And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God...
                >And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda
                How should the Ark of the Lord come to me?
                >And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and said, How shall the ark of the LORD come to me?
                >And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
                Abiding/continuing in a house aside from the city of David for three months
                >And the ark of the LORD continued in the house of Obededom the Gittite three months: and the LORD blessed Obededom, and all his household.
                >And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.

                See my quoted post for more, including another relation in Revelation.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Christianity isn't polytheism. You can't make Mary into Juno/Hera just because you want to.
              Correct. We don't worship Mary, since she isn't God. We are commanded to honor our fathers and mothers, just as the ancient israelites did for their prophets, kings, and patriarchs chosen by God. The mother most worthy of our honor is the very Mother of God. There is no doubt that Christ, who is the "way, truth, and life", making Himself our model of perfection, infinitely greater than any of us, honors His mother with His infinite love - and we, imitators of Christ, should do so, too. Christ, suffering on the cross, even gave us His mother directly:
              >When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, He saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith He to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

              >Mary is the new Eve
              One of many poetic symmetries & prefigurations planned immaculately throughout millennia of scripture by the Holy Ghost. As the pinnacle of God's work, planned for all time, Christ's incarnation is most worthy of this.
              I shouldn't have to directly quote text to explain how original sin entered the world by Adam through Eve's disobedience - most Christians understand this.
              In the gospels, this is mirrored by Jesus Christ redeeming the world from original sin through Mary's obedience:
              >And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word.
              Revelations depicts the woman who "brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations". This child is obviously our Lord, Jesus Christ. Further on we can read:
              >And the dragon was angry against the woman: and went to make war with the rest of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
              This is an allusion to Genesis:
              >I will put enmities between thee [Satan/serpent] and the woman, and thy seed and her seed

              The woman of Revelation is also a type of the Church/Israel, but also representative of Mary, who literally gave birth to the Lord. These are further married by the fact Jesus Christ gave His mother to the "disciple whom he loved" as his own mother - this man being all of us who go after Christ and are loved by Him: the Church.

              >Mary is the new Ark of the Covenant
              God was present in the Ark, just as God was present within Mary.
              See Hebrews for a NT mention of the Ark's contents:
              >The word of God (tables of the testament)
              >Aaron's rod (which revived & blossomed)
              >Manna (bread from heaven)
              Compare to what Mary bore, Jesus Christ:
              >The Word (Gospel of John)
              >Rose again and was glorified (Resurrection)
              >The Saviour of man, Who said "For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed... This is the bread which came down from heaven" (see John 6:52-58)

              Here are some intentional parallels between the Ark in 2 Samuel & Mary in the Gospel of Luke (just including the verses for text limit):
              >2 Samuel 6:2 & Luke 1:39
              >6:9 & 1:43
              >6:11 & 1:56
              >6:16 & 1:41

              And further, again in Revelation. There is the Ark, and there is the woman in the same vision.
              >And the temple of God was opened in heaven: and the ark of his testament was seen in his temple, and there were lightnings, and voices, and an earthquake, and great hail. And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars: And being with child, she cried travailing in birth, and was in pain to be delivered.
              Keep in mind that the modern scheme of chapter divisions wasn't introduced to the Bible until the 13th century, and it'd take even longer to arrive at the modern verse divisions, too.

              Literal Midrash. I asked for scriptural basis for your claims regarding Mary either being a new Eve or a new Ark of the Covenant.

              I quoted a bunch. Do you want the chapter/verse numbers in my first reply?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Word (Gospel of John)
                *Not that Mary bore the Gospel of John, I mean that Christ is directly named as "The Word" in it.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Also, this picture is quite dishonest, lol.
              >And it came to pass, that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him, and falling at his feet adored.
              Cornelius literally laid before Peter and adored him, which is obviously inappropriate. The Vulgate has "procidens" (falling/collapsing) rather than "genua", which means kneel.
              He wasn't kneeling out of respect.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is the part of Romish piety that I simply can't understand, I don't know how Romanists manage to trick themselves into thinking worship is a subjective thing that happens in the mind and is imperceptible, so we can look at pagans falling down before idols of Vishnu and call it idolatry but when Romanists do the exact same thing with an idol of Mary now it doesn't count because they didn't call what they were doing worship. So now we have the exact same thing where falling down to Peter was inappropriate but it doesn't count when you fall down to the pope, because apparently Cornelius was both internally calling what he was doing worship and Peter was able to read his mind and know that? Does the pope read his supplicants minds to know they aren't doing that?
                (P.S. what the Vulgate says doesn't matter)

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                No one falls down and adores the Pope. The picture depicts Cornelius, who inappropriately prostrated himself before Peter, kneeling.
                However, you claimed people are falling down / prostrating themselves before the Pope, which doesn't happen - the picture doesn't even claim that, because it's purposed to confuse a common gesture of respect (kneeling) with prostration something much deeper (as described in the text).

                >what the Vulgate says doesn't matter
                Why..? As far as I know, it's literally the first complete assemblage of canonical scripture that we have - even the KJV derives from it (I assume that's your translation of choice).

                But anyway, if you don't like Latin, here's Greek:
                Acts 10:25 renders Cornelius' action as "πίπτω" / "pipto", which means to fall down, prostrate oneself, etc. as opposed to an instance of "γονυπετέω" / "gonupeteo", which is explicitly kneeling.
                I'm not even making any religious claims here, I'm just explaining that the picture and your related statements are not congruous with reality.
                It's more sensible that the adoration ("προσεκύνησεν" / "prosekynesen") is doing the work here, as this is also understood as worship in most occurrences of the word ("προσκυνέω" / "proskuneo"). An example is Satan trying to tempt Christ saying "προσκυνήσῃς" when telling Jesus to worship him. However, this isn't exactly airtight, because "προσεκύνησεν" / "prosekynesen" is used again to describe how Jacob "adored the top of his [Joseph's] rod". Surely he wasn't worshiping Joseph or his rod, because this same passage speaks to Jacob's faith in God.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >No one falls down and adores the Pope. The picture depicts Cornelius, who inappropriately prostrated himself before Peter, kneeling.
                >However, you claimed people are falling down / prostrating themselves before the Pope, which doesn't happen - the picture doesn't even claim that, because it's purposed to confuse a common gesture of respect (kneeling) with prostration something much deeper (as described in the text).
                LOL at this level of cope.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why..? As far as I know, it's literally the first complete assemblage of canonical scripture that we have - even the KJV derives from it (I assume that's your translation of choice).
                You can't be serious. The Vulgate is just the latin translation of the Greek bible. the KJV was based on a collection of Greek Manuscripts assembled during the middle ages called the Textus Receptus, and modern translations are usually from a broader collection of the very oldest Greek texts modern scholars can track down.
                The Vulgate is widely agreed to have errors and isn't even used in most modern Catholic masses, not even in translation.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The Vulgate is just the latin translation of the Greek bible.
                Its OT comes from the Hebrew Tanakh rather than the Septuagint, actually. NT, yes, the best Greek texts of the 4th century.
                >the KJV was based on a collection of Greek Manuscripts assembled during the middle ages called the Textus Receptus
                And put together by Erasmus in the 16th century, shakily enough that he actually translated his version of Revelation to Greek back from the Vulgate's Latin.
                >The Vulgate is widely agreed to have errors
                In terms of historical details in the OT, definitely, like comparing any two translations will show, but nothing obstructing edification. Thankfully, we have the deposit of faith and a teaching authority to prevent scribe errors from warping our religion.
                >isn't even used in most modern Catholic masses, not even in translation
                Most modern Catholic masses aren't in Latin, so obviously.

                Latin is also pretty easy to understand.

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't really get why people put so much emphasis is Mary being a virgin. Like who cares? Savitri Devi was a virgin all her life does that make her a divine being?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't really get why people put so much emphasis is Mary being a virgin. Like who cares? Savitri Devi was a virgin all her life does that make her a divine being?
      Jesus is the only one without sin, Romans try to raise Mary to the same status because they need a goddess to worship because of their polytheistic inclinations.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Catholics don't worship Mary. She isn't God and there isn't any confusion about that among people who understand the Church's teachings.

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm Catholic and always knew Jesus had siblings. Why is there such disagreement and rage about this in the current times? It's always been accepted he had older siblings. Is this something they don't tell you if you're not Catholic? It came up a lot in Sunday School and nuns and priests always said he had siblings.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Old tradition places them as older step-siblings from a former marriage of Joseph (deceased wife). There's no scriptural evidence for their exact relation, and history is lacking, too.

      From our catechism:
      >499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." and so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Old tradition places them as older step-siblings from a former marriage of Joseph
        Lmao James the Just was younger than Jesus

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Is there anything from scripture or other records stating that? Because I think it says that James is the son of Mary‘s sister. Do they even do birthdates in thr Bible?

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Because I think it says that James is the son of Mary‘s sister.
            That's James the Greater.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm Catholic and always knew Jesus had siblings. Why is there such disagreement and rage about this in the current times? It's always been accepted he had older siblings. Is this something they don't tell you if you're not Catholic? It came up a lot in Sunday School and nuns and priests always said he had siblings.
      It's done for political reasons by the Catholic Church:

      1. James the Just was extremely important to the early church. De-emphasizing him so they can focus only on Peter helps with their bologna claim to apostolic succession. The truth is the Roman church was never supposed to be in control of all other churches.
      2. The fact Mary had sex after Jesus was born messes with the Romans wanting to have a goddess in their paganesque Christian pantheon and their general obsession with female virginity that already existed in the Roman pagan religion.

      Protestants threw this out because it's ahistorical and derived completely from the garbage gnostic fanfiction, the Gospel of James.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It came up a lot in Sunday School and nuns and priests always said he had siblings.

      Then they did a very poor job of catechesis, because it is actually a matter of doctrine that Mary remained a virgin -- for Catholics this belief is not optional.

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    James the JUST

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because Jesus and Magdalene are the adopted twins from Cleopatra Selene II. Born of her, and one of her mothers' priests' sons. She died in childbirth, and this story got "soft disclosured" by George Lucas.
    Juba's mausoleum looks like Jabbas palace btw, so Magdalene was a whore under her dead mothers' ex-husband.
    Truly wholesome pair of twins;
    One schizo priest and one illoyal whore.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    James is the only book in the Bible written by someone who actually met Jesus

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    so joseph was such a cuck not only did he get cucked by the holy spirit he had to never tap that, and thanks to monogamy couldn't get any pussy at all.

    what a "loving" god to require that of a man.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think that Joseph of Nazareth had two wives, probably the result of a levirate marriage, which israelites could have second wives in until the 900's. It explains why the Bible is so vague about it, Rome was strictly monogamous, while it was honorable in israeli society, it would not be in Roman.
    I'm not Catholic, and not particularly attached to perpetual virginity, but I do think it's too vague to say she's the mother of Jesus's brothers.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wouldn‘t that imply a brother of Joseph was married to Mary first? Not sure on the rules, but it wasn‘t just free polygamy.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, in my theory, the Virgin Mary was the first wife, not the wife of the levirate marriage who was married to Joseph's brother. Jesus's brothers and sisters being younger explain why they aren't mentioned in the early childhood of Jesus.
        So the timeline in my theory is: Joseph marries the Virgin Mary, birth of Christ, early childhood of Christ, Joseph's brother dies, Joseph marries his brother's widow, and has sons and daughters with the second wife.
        I identify this second wife with the "Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph [Joses]" in Mark 15:40, and possibly Mary of Clopas from John 19:25. Some people identify this woman with the Virgin Mary herself, but it honestly seems ridiculous to me for the Gospel writers to refer to the Virgin Mary as 'the mother of James and Joseph' rather than 'the mother of Jesus' at his crucifiction.
        One matter I haven't looked into each is identifying each James with each other. I identify James of Alphaeus, James the Younger and James the brother of Jesus as the same person, but I know some scholars disagree. But if you identify they all together, you have a James with a brother Joses and Jude and possibly Simon, in line with Jesus's brothers.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very interesting and well-researched, anon. I really appreciate it.
          Though the tradition of all orthodox Christians would violently disagree with you, I don‘t think your theory actually contradicts any doctrine. (Any Catholic doctrine, as far as I‘m aware.)

          And yeah, your comment on how the gospel writers present the women viewing the crucifixion is what gets me too. It‘s actually funny in the absurdity of describing the mother of the God-Man suffering on the cross in her sight as just the mom of other two other guys.
          There‘s also a difference that, when the mother of Jesus is mentioned, it‘s actually a different scene. Matthew and Mark describe women looking from afar, while John describes the women right at the cross. I think this is a testimony of a time later on, so there‘s no contradiction with some women who were formerly far away from approaching, and new women (like Jesus‘ mother) now being "in the scene".

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Though the tradition of all orthodox Christians would violently disagree with you
            Which is funny, because one of the ways I came across it was through Theophylact of Ohrid (1055-1107), Eastern Orthodox Church archbishop, and I think Blessed, while reading commentaries. But admittedly, I'm not well versed in Orthodox tradition, so he might be condemned by other churches.
            >The Lord had brothers and sisters, the children of Joseph which he begat by the wife of his brother Cleopas. For when Cleopas died childless, Joseph took his wife in accordance with the law and had six children by her, four boys and two girls, Mary, who was called the daughter of Cleopas, in accordance with the law, and Salome.
            https://catenabible.com/com/58a5ce5154b4f95416b2f6ea

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Nice find. I‘m more familiar with the mainstream and western traditions, of course.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Very interesting and well-researched, anon. I really appreciate it.
          Though the tradition of all orthodox Christians would violently disagree with you, I don‘t think your theory actually contradicts any doctrine. (Any Catholic doctrine, as far as I‘m aware.)

          And yeah, your comment on how the gospel writers present the women viewing the crucifixion is what gets me too. It‘s actually funny in the absurdity of describing the mother of the God-Man suffering on the cross in her sight as just the mom of other two other guys.
          There‘s also a difference that, when the mother of Jesus is mentioned, it‘s actually a different scene. Matthew and Mark describe women looking from afar, while John describes the women right at the cross. I think this is a testimony of a time later on, so there‘s no contradiction with some women who were formerly far away from approaching, and new women (like Jesus‘ mother) now being "in the scene".

          And good luck on identifying all the Jameses. There are so many mentions and titles and so little evidence on which is which, there‘s never been conclusive claims of their historical identities.

          And also, another note on the gospel writers on the women at the crucifixion:
          Tradition maintains that Mary (Jesus‘ mother) was near/at the foot of the cross the whole time, or at least from as soon as the soldiers would let her approach (but hey, it‘d be hard to stop a mom from trying to comfort her son being tortured to death). Considering the two accounts "from afar" don‘t mention her, it‘s probably because they didn‘t recognize Jesus‘ mother from that far. It wouldn‘t be until later when more people approached the cross that she was identified in testimony.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it‘d be hard to stop a mom from trying to comfort her son being tortured to death
            Not with a sword.

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/the-brothers-of-jesus-a-fresh-look-at-the-evidence

    Those were his cousins, not his brothers. The mother of James and Joseph was a different Mary from the Virgin Mary. Mary is the Hellenized version of Miriam, and a common name among the Israelites of the time. This other Mary was a cousin of the Virgin Mary.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics are wrong about it. Linking to Catholic apologia for your ridiculous incorrect dogma is not going to help your side.

  18. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    That's Saint Gregory the Illuminator

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >That's Saint Gregory the Illuminator
      it's not

  19. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that the reason why the Western Church rejects the half-sibling tradition from the Infancy Gospel of James is because Jerome insisted there had to be a terrestrial trinity of virgins - Jesus, Mary and Joseph - in imitation of the celestial Holy Trinity, and this is why Joseph had to have stayed a pure and holy virgin all his life. At Jerome's seething insistence, the Bishops of Rome banned any apocypha where Joseph is said to have been married before Mary as heresy.

Your email address will not be published.