Who is online?
In total there are 15 users online :: 1 Registered, 0 Hidden and 14 Guests :: 1 Bot

Admin

[ View the whole list ]


Most users ever online was 115 on Wed 03 Jul 2019, 3:20 pm
Latest topics
» Bayo Afolaranmi (Pastor).
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 1:34 pm by Admin

» ENDTIME HEADLINES
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 1:30 pm by Admin

» ISRAEL VIDEO'S VARIOUS COVERAGES
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 1:06 pm by Admin

» NUGGET Today's Devotional
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 12:49 pm by Admin

» FoxNation Documentary on Bethlehem Avoids Obvious Conclusions
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 12:45 pm by Admin

» TERRORISTS ATTACKS Various places
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:52 am by Admin

» MISC NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:48 am by Admin

» Erdogan threatens EU to Kneel to us or “we’ll send 3.6 million refugees your way”;
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:43 am by Admin

» JIHAD WATCH
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:38 am by Admin

» BIBLE STUDY on VERSE
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:33 am by Admin

» Daily Disciples
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:22 am by Admin

» Gatestone Institute
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 11:17 am by Admin

» FRANCIS FRANGIPANE MINISTRIES
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyToday at 12:20 am by Admin

» GLOBAL WARMING FAKE IT IS COLD CLIMATE COMING
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 11:43 pm by Admin

» R.D SOUZA Saved by faith
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 11:33 pm by Admin

» CHRISTIAN NEWS NETWORK
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 11:25 pm by Admin

» OBAMA AGAIN
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 11:00 pm by Admin

» servant @ TWO LISTENERS
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 10:34 pm by Admin

» PROPHESY NEWS WATCH
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 8:52 pm by Admin

» Bill & Hillary Clinton
Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? EmptyYesterday at 8:00 pm by Admin

Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search

Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?

Go down

Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters? Empty Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?

Post  Admin on Fri 02 Sep 2011, 3:07 pm

Sharing a post which exposes what most Catholics are lied to...

Did Jesus Have Brothers and Sisters?
-by Tony Warren

When we carefully consider the Biblical record, the question itself
seems quite ridiculous, because it is so clear even from the context of
many of the scriptures that He did. The only major religion that chooses
to dispute this is the Roman Catholic religion. Roman Catholicism
dogmatically maintain that following the Lord's birth, Mary continued in
her virginity the rest of her life and never bore any more children.
This in direct contradiction to everything in scripture which shows that
though Joseph and Mary did not come together before Jesus was born, they
did afterward, and the Lord indeed blessed them with Children.

With so much Biblical validation for this, the question is, why would
anyone attempt to dispute it, or even want to? The answer is as simple
as the word 'tradition'. It is because these scriptures directly
contradict Roman Catholic tradition which glorifies Mary as a perpetual
virgin, Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. If this church were to confess
that the scripture is correct and Mary had other children, it would
destroy their well oiled myths about Mary. Therefore, a way had to be
devised which would justify this teaching.

It is hard to imagine the argument against Mary having other children
being more thin or groundless. Number one, nowhere does the Word of God
say she had no other Children and so it is a doctrine which is not based
on solid scripture. Number two, Roman catholics have made the
fundamental error of building a house from the roof down. In other
words, they started out with a conclusion, and then set out to find what
they call "technicalities" in the Greek to try and give the appearance
their conclusions have support. But any logical Bible scholar knows that
sound Bible hermeneutics doesn't start out with a conclusion and then
search for justification of it, rather, it starts out with the Word, and
then follows it to it's conclusion. Since there is nothing in God's word
which says or even implies that Mary had no other Children, that
starting conclusion is based on man's thoughts, not God's.

What they have done in one instance is taken the Greek word [adelphos],
that is translated brethren, and attempted to make it's meaning vague
and unclear. But while it is true that this word can have a couple of
meanings in different parts of the Bible (Brethren/in Christ,
Brethren/Kin) , it cannot be used this way in the pertinent passages we
are dealing with, nor is there is any reasonable justification to claim
that this word in it's context could mean cousins. As for the spurious
claim that it means brethren 'in Christ,' the very context of the
passages precludes it. Moreover, even without the word "brethren" we can
see clearly that Mary had other children. To simply "ignore" these
things would be handling the scriptures tortuously.

The best way to find an answer of what is true is to go right to the
Scripture and let it speak for itself. Remember, the scriptures (the
Word of God) are the ultimate Authority. Note carefully that you would
have to "tortuously" wrest the scriptures to even begin to make them
imply Mary didn't have other children. for example...

Matthew 13:55

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary?
and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Matthew 27:56

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

Here we see from many different levels that Mary is identified as the
"Mother" of James and Joses. This has nothing to do with the translation
of the word "brother". And it is clearly stated again in Matthew 13:55
that James and Joses were Jesus' brothers! And so unambiguously, on two
separate levels, we have the truth of the Word that Mary was mother of
Jesus, James and Joses, and that James and Joses was the brother of
Jesus. That should settle it for any rational, objective thinker. But
Roman tradition is not rational, it's indoctrination. Nevertheless, the
clear sense of scripture (to those without any preconceived ideas) is
made manifest in it's clarity.

Mark 3:31

"There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without,
sent unto Him calling Him."

Mark 6:3

"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James,
and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
And they were offended at him."

Again, the very context of scripture reveals that this is talking about
the blood family of Jesus! In other words, Jesus, Son of Mary, brother
of James and Joses, and He also had sisters. It's identifying a blood
family, and it would be tortuous of scripture to deny this. If we're
going to say that word Brother doesn't really mean His brethren, we have
to also say that word Mother doesn't really mean Mary was Jesus Mother.
For it's the same word that was used in Matthew 27:56 saying Mary was
the Mother of James and Joses. And so it is utterly ludicrous to believe
Mary was not the Mother of James and Joses.

Mark 15:40

"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;"

Mark 16:1

"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother
of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and
anoint Him."

Anyone looking at those scriptures both "carefully" and "honestly" can
come to no other conclusion but that Mary had other children. The
problem is not that the scriptures don't clearly state this, the problem
is that the Roman Catholic church places tradition over and above the
Authority of the Word of God, making it non effectual (mark 7:13). There
is nothing in God's Word that either implicitly or explicitly says Jesus
was the lone son of Mary, or that Mary remained a virgin. But the
context of many verses show that their was physical sexual union between
Joseph and Mary after Christ was born.

Matthew 1:24-25

"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord
had bidden him, and took unto him HIS WIFE:

And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and
he called His name, Jesus!"

He 'Knew her' not (didn't have physical sexual union with her) until she
had brought forth her Firstborn, Jesus. From this statement, it is clear
that He knew her (in the biblical sense) AFTER the birth of Jesus. As a
practical example, if someone were to say that they took a wife, but
didn't consummate the marriage until after January, and in reply I
stated that this means they never consummated the marriage, you would
think that ridiculous. And you'd be right. But this is exactly what
Roman catholics do in regards to the above verses of scripture.

And so, that anyone can read all these scriptures and still believe that
Mary was a perpetual virgin is a testimony to the indoctrination of
traditions. To believe this, they must ignore or wrest scriptures that
say Mary was the Mother of Jesus' Brethren, ignore scriptures which say
Jesus was the brethren of Mary's children, and ignore scripture which
says Joseph knew (in the Biblical sense of union) her not "until" after
the birth of the firstborn (Jesus). And that's just for starters!

The deeper question is not was Mary a perpetual virgin (no scripture
says that), but why should/would she be? Mary was a Chosen vessel, not a
deity! Is there anything wrong with Joseph and Mary having more
children? It was a perfectly normal thing for a husband and a wife to
do. In fact, it would be abnormal for them not to do (1st Corinthians
7:3-5).

Another Biblical indication that the perpetual virginity of Mary is a
myth is that Jesus is referred to as her firstborn Son. If Jesus was the
only child of Mary, would He be referred to as her firstborn Son? Of
course not, because this designation assumes the existence of more than
one son. It designates more than one child, among whom a specific one is
the first. Mary certainly had other children after the birth of Jesus.
Not only does the Bible clearly tells us that, but it also gives us the
very names of those children. From the very beginning God ordained that
wife and husband should be fruitful and multiply. The only thing which
would preclude this, is man-made traditions invoking the idolizing of
Mary. Because God's Word is abundantly clear on the matter.

Matthew 12:46

"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his
brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him."

John 2:12

"After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His Mother, and His
Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Lest anyone should try and wrest the Word and claim that this word
brethren is talking about those in Christ (spiritual brethren), here we
see God showing us the disciples (spiritual family) were distinct "from"
his Brethren and Mother (Blood family). It was his Mother, his Brothers,
"and" the Disciples. Again, the very context confirms these were Jesus
Brethren, not the Church brethren. You don't say, "His Mother and His
Brothers" in a context like this, and have it mean the Church.

John 7:3-5

"His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into
Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.

For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself
seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the
world.

For neither did his brethren believe in him."

Again, we can see clearly that at first even Jesus's brothers did not
believe on Him. This again clearly illustrates that these were his flesh
brothers, not brothers in the sense of brothers in Christ. The context
makes that very plain. And the scriptures use the Greek word [suggenes]
or [suggeneia] when referring to kinsman, relatives, or cousins, not
[adelphos] Brethren. These brethren were Mary's other children. Note
also that his brethren said this, that his Disciples may also see the
works. Again, a distinction between His brothers and the brethren which
were the family of the Church.

Acts 1:14

"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

Galatians 1:19

"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Clear scripture which illustrates to us that Mary had other children.
Unfortunately, when one cannot justify their teachings with scripture,
they must come up with some other way to justify tradition, and so
rationalizing away scripture is usually the rule of the day. Their
authority becomes men instead of God. But what is man's word worth
compared to the Word of the living God? it is written, "let God be true
and every man a Liar".

The fact is, you cannot argue anyone into believing anything. Either
they are noble to receive what is written, or blinded by tradition that
they won't receive it. The key is not to let their frustration become
your frustration. Go into any discussion with the proponents of this
doctrines with your eyes wide open. Don't expect people to listen to the
Word of God, because they probably won't. Nevertheless, here and there
there will be a remnant, a few who will hear, being called of God that
they won't blindly follow man-made doctrines. The Spirit of truth will
guide these to listen with all readiness of mind to rational consistent
Biblical teachings. Just as the more noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) did. As
these Bereans didn't blindly accept what their Priests said, so a few
will search it out to see if what is witnessed is true.

Acts 1:14

"These all continued with one accord in Prayer and supplication,
and with the women, and MARY the Mother of Jesus, and with HIS Brethren."

The truth is both clear and Concise. It's not ambiguous, nor is it hard
to understand. But as Jesus said about His witness, "if you will receive
it".

So what can the faithful Christian glean in information about the Lord's
Brothers and Sisters from all of these pertinent passages? First of all,
we can know that Jesus had at least four brothers and at least two
sisters. The brothers names were, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one
of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.

These things are so clear and so straight forward in the scriptures that
it seems totally irrational to deny them. But with some groups, it
doesn't matter what the scriptures say, because church leaders or
teachers are paramount rather than the authority of the Word of God
itself. We should understand (though not condone) that this is the way
it has to be with them because that is the only way they can claim that
the clear context and text, doesn't "REALLY" mean what it says. By not
having the Word as ultimate authority, but church, they can make these
claims in their private interpretation of scripture, and arbitrary
defining of terms.

The normal process of hermeneutics does not allow us to force upon the
scriptures the idea that Mary had no other Children, ever! Both the
context of the sentences as well as the common usage of these words and
structure elsewhere, testifies that this refers to Jesus Christ, His
Mother, Sisters and Brethren. ...Not cousins, or brethren (as in Church
members).

In all matters of doctrine, it seems to always boil down to the same
common denominator. What is our Authority? Is it God, where we receive
and obey God's Word as the ultimate authority, or is it man, where we
receive and obey our teachers words as the authority? Those who reject
scripture in favor of their teachers (no matter what religion) have
another authority other than that of the Bible. And as long as they do,
they will never come to any agreement with any scripture unless their
church leaders (man) says they can (or God decides to open their eyes).
Our hope and prayer is that God will open many eyes.

The true believer doesn't need to build Mary up, she is already Blessed
and honoured. Yes, Mary was a chosen vessel and was blessed of God to
bear the Lord, but she must not be set up as a idol, or prayer tower, or
intercessor. There is one intercessor and it is Jesus Christ. Let us not
loose sight of that. There is one Mediator between God and man, and one
redemptrix and it's the Lord Jesus Christ. And the idea of mary as a
Co-redemptrix is anathema. We don't have to artificially make her Holy,
she is Holy just like all the rest of God's Chosen vessels. ..by the
Blood of Christ.

Peace,

Copyright ©1995 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! http://www.mountain retreatorg. net
------------ --------- ----*---- --------- --------- -----

Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone
so long as this notice remains intact and there are no changes made to
the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original
form, unedited, and without cost.

--
*-*-*-*-*-*- *-*-*-*-* -*-*-*-*- *-*-*-*-* -*-*

SavedbyFaith. info - Daily Mail
Admin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 61871
Join date : 2008-10-25
Age : 74
Location : Wales UK

http://worldwidechristians.forumotion.com

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum