ArchivedImmaculate conception and assumption of MaryMike The answre to your Question is so easy I am sorry that you wasted all that time writting your post, here I go. We know that Jesus was an only child, but some people disagree. The reason they disagree is that they deny the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that has always been believed by Christians. If Mary had had children other than Jesus, it would have been impossible for the Church to teach that Mary was always a virgin. After all, if you were descended from Jesus' mother, you'd know it and be proud of that fact - if anyone thought that Mary were a virgin, you'd set them straight. And yet, the Church did teach early on that Mary was ever-virgin; despite this, no Christians denied the truth of this teaching. So it would seem that Mary didn't have any descendants besides Jesus. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Mary had had children other than Jesus, then how would Jesus appear to the people of that time? He would just be the first of many children, nothing special. His conception by the action of the Holy Spirit would be disbelieved, and people would naturally assume that, for instance, Joseph was the father - note that Joseph took her into his home at the same time that Jesus was concieved. So the prophecy of the Messiah's mother being a virgin (Matthew 1:22-23) would appear to have been unfulfilled in Mary; and so Jesus would not appear to be the Messiah. On the other hand, though, if Jesus were an only child, something rather unusual at that time, his supernatural conception would be more likely to be believed. His birth would plausibly appear miraculous, Jesus being the only child of an otherwise infertile couple. Now for Biblical Answers. Here's a proof that Jesus was an only child: 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. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense. Some people claim that the following verse shows that Jesus had brothers: 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. First, note that James, Joses, Juda, and Simon are called the brothers of Jesus, not the sons of Mary. No one in the Bible, besides Jesus, is ever called a natural son of Mary. So this verse doesn't show, at all, that Mary didn't remain a virgin - the "brothers" of Jesus could have been his cousins (as I'll be arguing below), or they could have been His brothers by adoption (that is, they could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary), or they could have been Jesus' half-brothers (for instance, if Joseph were a widower and had fathered those children with his previous wife). All of these cases are possible and are in complete harmony with the above Biblical verse. In the Bible, the term "brother" is used in a more general sense than is common today; it would be better translated as "kinsman" or "relative". There are several Biblical examples of this. The reason for this is that Hebrew didn't have a word for "cousin", so the word "brother" was used to include cousins. The people who wrote the Bible were of Jewish culture and were accustomed to this usage, and so they applied it when writing in other languages as well, such as Greek. The Greek Old Testament used by the Evangelists, called the "Septuagint", was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars about a century before Jesus' time, and it refers to cousins and other close relatives as "brothers" in exactly the way I've described. In the following examples, I'll provide the verses in English, and also a transliteration of the Greek Old Testament used in Jesus' time. Genesis 11:26 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot. This verse tells us that Abram is the uncle of Lot: Abram is the brother of Lot's father. But in another verse, Abram is called Lot's "brother": Genesis 14:12,14 And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed. And when Abram heard that his brother [Lot] was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. [Here's the Greek version from the Septuagint:] Genesis 14:14 akousas de abram hoti Echmalwteutai lwt ho adelphos autou ErithmEsen tous idious oikogeneis autou triakosious deka kai oktw kai katediwxen opisw autwn hews dan Similarly, the Bible tells us here that Laban is Jacob's uncle: Genesis 29:13 And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidings of Jacob his sister's son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things. However, two verses later, Laban calls Jacob his brother: Genesis 29:15 And Laban said unto Jacob, "Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?" In the following, the cousins of the daughters of Eleazar are called their "brethren": 1 Chronicles 23:21-22 The sons of Merari; Mahli, and Mushi. The sons of Mahli; Eleazar, and Kish. And Eleazar died, and had no sons, but daughters: and their brethren the sons of Kish took them. So we see that the term "brother" in the Bible can refer to family relationships other than the one to which we usually apply it. The Bible shows us that James and Joses had a different mother than Jesus did. 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; Obviously, Mary the mother of James and Joses is not the mother of Jesus. The context here is the crucifixion of Jesus, and if the Mary in question here were Jesus' mother, this would have been stated. Therefore, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary the mother of Jesus. Now, let us look at Mark 6:3 again: 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. We've seen that James and Joses were not Jesus' brothers as we understand the term, but rather cousins at best. But what about Juda and Simon? Are they Jesus' "real brothers"? Clearly they are not, because it would be absurd to name Jesus' cousins first, and then His "real" brothers. So it would seem that Mark 6:3 does not give any evidence at all that Jesus had any siblings. In fact, it proves that He didn't, when we take into account what the Bible says concerning James and Joses. It is claimed that the following verse says that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus' birth: Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus. However, what the Bible is actually doing here is underlining the fact that Joseph is definitely not Jesus' father, since he didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary before Jesus was born. But the word "till" in this verse does not imply that Joseph "knew" Mary after the birth of Jesus (that is, that they eventually had sexual intercourse). Here's a Biblical example to demonstrate this: 1 Timothy 6:14 "I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ." Does this imply that we are allowed to sin after Jesus appears? Of course not. In addition, note that if Joseph intended to ever have sex with Mary, why did he wait until after Jesus' birth? There was nothing to stop him. So this actually indicates that Joseph did not intend to have sex with Mary. Acts 1:12-15 ... apostles, Mary, "some women" and Jesus' "brothers" number about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." John 19:26-27 ... Jesus gives care of Mary to John, not one of his "brothers." Why? On the term "brother". It is a fact of the linguistics of Hebrew that brother meant "cousin" in addition to "sibling brother". Hebrew doesn't have a word that exclusively means "brother" as a sibling. Second Jewish custom and law required that at the death of the husband, the care of the family passed to the eldest son. At the death of the eldest son, the care of the family passed to the next eldest son. If Jesus had had brothers, it would have been custom and law for him to entrust the care of his mother to his brother. But Jesus did not do that. Jesus, from the Cross, entrusted his mother to John. That is about as close to absolute proof as one can get that Jesus had no brothers. Please Open Your Eyes and you read the Bible. And Yes I have seen the Stigmata nice Film, right? lol, its Just a film God Bless |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame