The song of Mary- an unorthodox perspective

[Johann]

That is a LIE! The Bible says no such thing! The Bible says that Jesus had four brothers and a number of sisters:

Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas,and Simon? Aren’t His sisters here withus as well? Mark 6

the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon? who were all of them the sons of Alphaeus or Cleophas, who was himself brother, or his wife sister, to Joseph or Mary; so that Christ was the near kinsman of these his sons:

and it was usual with the Jews to call such an one a brother, and even indeed a more distant relation. The Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, instead of Joses, read Joseph:

Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Some have thought that these were literally brethren of our Lord, sons of Joseph and Mary. Others have considered that they were his legal half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage. This view is held by many of the Greek Fathers, and has something to recommend it. But, on the whole, the most probable opinion is that they were cousins of our Lord—sons of a sister of the Virgin Mary, also called Mary, the wife of Cleophas, Clopas, or Alpheeus. There is evidence that there were four sons of Clopas and Mary, whose names were James, and Joses, and Simon (or Symeon), and Judas. Mary the wife of Clopas is mentioned by St. Matthew (Mat_27:56) as the mother of James the less and of Joses. Jude describes himself (Jud_1:5) as the brother of James; and Simon, or Symeon, is mentioned in Eusebius as the son of Clopas.

Always something new to learn--even when we are well advanced in years.

 

[Jim B]

the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda and Simon? who were all of them the sons of Alphaeus or Cleophas, who was himself brother, or his wife sister, to Joseph or Mary; so that Christ was the near kinsman of these his sons:

and it was usual with the Jews to call such an one a brother, and even indeed a more distant relation. The Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions, instead of Joses, read Joseph:

Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Some have thought that these were literally brethren of our Lord, sons of Joseph and Mary. Others have considered that they were his legal half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage. This view is held by many of the Greek Fathers, and has something to recommend it. But, on the whole, the most probable opinion is that they were cousins of our Lord—sons of a sister of the Virgin Mary, also called Mary, the wife of Cleophas, Clopas, or Alpheeus. There is evidence that there were four sons of Clopas and Mary, whose names were James, and Joses, and Simon (or Symeon), and Judas. Mary the wife of Clopas is mentioned by St. Matthew (Mat_27:56) as the mother of James the less and of Joses. Jude describes himself (Jud_1:5) as the brother of James; and Simon, or Symeon, is mentioned in Eusebius as the son of Clopas.

Always something new to learn--even when we are well advanced in years.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers. For example, Matthew 12:46, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him". And Galatians 1:18-19, "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." People can try to spin it differently, for example, claiming that they were cousins, but that is what the clearly Bible says.

 

[Johann]

The Bible clear says that Jesus had brothers. For example, Matthew 12:46, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him". And Galatians 1:18-19, "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." People can try to spin it differently, for example, claiming that they were cousins, but that is what the clearly Bible says.

Behold his mother and his brethren: by "his mother" is meant Mary; but who are "his brethren", is not so easy to say: some are of opinion, that Joseph had children by Mary, who are here meant; but it is more generally believed, that these were either the sons of Joseph by a former wife, whose name is said to be Escha; or rather, Mary's sister's sons, the wife of Cleophas, the cousin-germans of Christ, it being usual with the Jews to call such kindred brethren; and so they might be James, Joses, Simon, and Judas:

2) "Behold, his mother and his brethren stood without," (idou he meter kai hoi adelphoi autou heistekeisan ekso) "Behold his mother, Mary, and his brothers (half brothers) stood outside," perhaps the entire family, his kinsmen in the flesh, named Mat_13:55-56.

There is difficulty in ascertaining the precise relationship to Christ borne by the persons called "his brethren." They were what we should call "blood-relations," but they may not have been either children of Joseph before his marriage to Mary, or children of Mary born after the birth of Jesus. The term is known to have often included cousins, and cousins of different degrees. The point we want is that they came, claiming Christ’s special attention, because they were blood-relations.

Maybe time to reconsider? No one is "spinning" anything.

 

[Jim B]

Behold his mother and his brethren: by "his mother" is meant Mary; but who are "his brethren", is not so easy to say: some are of opinion, that Joseph had children by Mary, who are here meant; but it is more generally believed, that these were either the sons of Joseph by a former wife, whose name is said to be Escha; or rather, Mary's sister's sons, the wife of Cleophas, the cousin-germans of Christ, it being usual with the Jews to call such kindred brethren; and so they might be James, Joses, Simon, and Judas:

2) "Behold, his mother and his brethren stood without," (idou he meter kai hoi adelphoi autou heistekeisan ekso) "Behold his mother, Mary, and his brothers (half brothers) stood outside," perhaps the entire family, his kinsmen in the flesh, named Mat_13:55-56.

There is difficulty in ascertaining the precise relationship to Christ borne by the persons called "his brethren." They were what we should call "blood-relations," but they may not have been either children of Joseph before his marriage to Mary, or children of Mary born after the birth of Jesus. The term is known to have often included cousins, and cousins of different degrees. The point we want is that they came, claiming Christ’s special attention, because they were blood-relations.

Maybe time to reconsider? No one is "spinning" anything.

The Bible says what it says. I won't bother to reconsider, since I have no motivation to disagree with Scripture.

There is no difficulty in ascertaining the precise relationship to Christ borne by the persons called "his brothers." People can spin whatever they want, but that is of no importance. The Bible -- every single translation! --clearly says that Jesus had brothers. There is no evidence that overrides the Bible!

 

[Johann]

The Bible says what it says. I won't bother to reconsider, since I have no motivation to disagree with Scripture.

There is no difficulty in ascertaining the precise relationship to Christ borne by the persons called "his brethren." People can spin whatever they want, but that is of no importance. The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers. There is no evidence that overrides the Bible!

No problem--you obviously have not read the post--and you need to ask questions, as to why, when, what, how. We can go deeper, but I don't have that motivation to do so-
Have a good day.
J.

 

[Jim B]

No problem--you obviously have not read the post--and you need to ask questions, as to why, when, what, how. We can go deeper, but I don't have that motivation to do so-
Have a good day.
J.

I have read the post and, more importantly, I have read the Bible with understanding. The Bible says in several places that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). I believe God's word, not people's (mis)interpretations.

 

[Johann]

I have read the post and, more importantly, I have read the Bible with understanding. The Bible says in several places that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). I believe God's word, not people's (mis)interpretations.

Have a good day.
Signing off
J.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ol' @Bible Highlighter would certainly disagree with you here.
J.

Biblical Hebrew went extinct.
There was a time in history before Israel came back as a nation when Biblical Hebrew was no longer being used as a language any more. Try Googling it sometime.

Also, try Googling the differences between Modern Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew; you will find many articles on their differences.

When Israel became a nation again, they revived the Hebrew language, which was not identical to the old Hebrew. There are differences. I did not have to Google to know that there would be differences. Something that went extinct for a while and then is revived does not mean it will be identical. It's a logical deduction. To say so otherwise is to plead "ignorance" or to live in a fantasy world.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have read the post and, more importantly, I have read the Bible with understanding. The Bible says in several places that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). I believe God's word, not people's (mis)interpretations.

Yes, I agree. Jesus indeed had brothers and sisters.

 

[ewq1938]

Oh yes He was born too soon (i.e. prior to sex with Joseph); and Joseph was even considering divorcing her until the angelic intervention.
And on the contrary, we should listen to the independent witness of the ancient rabbis because they allow us to rule out the greatest skeptical threat to virgin birth tradition, that Jesus was the natural son of Joseph and Mary.

Same Rabbi's deny Jesus is God, and deny he is the Messiah. Good luck listening to them!

 

[Jim B]

Behold his mother and his brethren: by "his mother" is meant Mary; but who are "his brethren", is not so easy to say: some are of opinion, that Joseph had children by Mary, who are here meant; but it is more generally believed, that these were either the sons of Joseph by a former wife, whose name is said to be Escha; or rather, Mary's sister's sons, the wife of Cleophas, the cousin-germans of Christ, it being usual with the Jews to call such kindred brethren; and so they might be James, Joses, Simon, and Judas:

2) "Behold, his mother and his brethren stood without," (idou he meter kai hoi adelphoi autou heistekeisan ekso) "Behold his mother, Mary, and his brothers (half brothers) stood outside," perhaps the entire family, his kinsmen in the flesh, named Mat_13:55-56.

There is difficulty in ascertaining the precise relationship to Christ borne by the persons called "his brethren." They were what we should call "blood-relations," but they may not have been either children of Joseph before his marriage to Mary, or children of Mary born after the birth of Jesus. The term is known to have often included cousins, and cousins of different degrees. The point we want is that they came, claiming Christ’s special attention, because they were blood-relations.

Maybe time to reconsider? No one is "spinning" anything.

This whole argument is dependent on one "unspoken" belief: that Mary was "forever virgin", i.e., she and Joseph never had intercourse and therefore Jesus' brothers can't be His biological brothers. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that asserts this! Every single English translation says that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). The text is perfectly clear!

There is no indication anywhere that Mary was a perpetual virgin! Undoubtedly she had normal sexual drives and produced Jesus' siblings. Creating a myth about who Mary was will never change reality.

 

[Berserk]

So what is your sources on ancient rabbinical writings? Any links? Not that you will answer-I'm sure.

Google the Youtube video "Did Jesus have a biological father? Sorting through the Pantera traditions."

 

[Jim B]

Mathew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and Paul wrote his Epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew.

The Gospel According to Matthew was composed in Greek, probably sometime after 70 ce, with evident dependence on the earlier Gospel According to Mark. There has, however, been extended discussion about the possibility of an earlier version in Aramaic..

a) There is no proof that Paul wrote "Hebrews".
b) The Gospel of the Hebrews, as known to scholars, is thought to have been composed in Greek. The provenance has been associated with Egypt; it probably began circulating in Alexandria, Egypt, in the first decades of the 2nd century and was used by Greek-speaking Jewish–Christian communities there. (wikipedia)

What are your sources for your statement?

 

[Jim B]

Here we go again.
Time for a Bible Lesson . . .

The “Brethren” of Jesus are not only NOT describes as children of Mary – they are some other relation. ANY first year Bible student can tell you that the Greek word “Adelphos” is used FAR MORE often for relations OTHER than uterine sibling in the NT. It is uses for brother of same parents, half-brother, relative, uncle, nephew, cousin, kinship, same tribe, and even a fellow countryman.

Of the 344 times we see the use of the word “Adelphos”, “Adelphe” and all of their variations, we see that –
41 cases (12%) where "adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling:
47 cases (14%) where "adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling:
There are a whopping 256 cases (74%) where "adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling:

What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus.
In Marl 3:18, we see that James the Less father is Alphaeus (Clopas).

Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.
To say that Jesus's mother Mary is the mother of James and Joses and the others named in Matt. 13:55 is to espouse a LIE because the Biblical evidence is overwhelmingly against you.

Every single English translation clearly says that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). Matthew 12 says clearly that Jesus' mother and brothers came to where he was, and Paul wrote that he met with James, the brother of Jesus.

Time for reality...

You are the victim of wishful thinking! You are trying to push that false doctrine that Mary was ever virgin. It is most logical that she was a normal woman who had intercourse multiple times with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born and produced a number of children (male and female).

Matt. 27:56 says that Mary was the mother of James (and Joseph). Galatians 1:18-19 says "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." Did Paul lie?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Every single English translation clearly says that Jesus had brothers (and sisters). Matthew 12 says clearly that Jesus' mother and brothers came to where he was, and Paul wrote that he met with James, the brother of Jesus.

Time for reality...

You are the victim of wishful thinking! You are trying to push that false doctrine that Mary was ever virgin. It is most logical that she was a normal woman who had intercourse multiple times with her husband Joseph after Jesus was born and produced a number of children (male and female).

Matt. 27:56 says that Mary was the mother of James (and Joseph). Galatians 1:18-19 says "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." Did Paul lie?

WRONG.

Your text above in RED is patently FALSE. It NEVER says that they are Mary’s children.
It says that they are ADELPHOI of Jesus. Adelphos doesn't necessarily means uterine sibling.

You guys foolishly believe that the Bible was written in 21st century English.
It WASN’T. It was written in Koine Greek.

 

[Johann]

Google the Youtube video "Did Jesus have a biological father? Sorting through the Pantera traditions."

No, Jesus had no biological father. Look up to see if the brothers and sisters of Jesus was His through Mary, from rabbinical writings--and come back to me.
THX
J.

 

[Jim B]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. If some don't believe this, what else in the Bible don't they believe? Nobody can make the Bible say what it doesn't say.

Again, this whole issue of Jesus not having true siblings is based on the predetermined belief that Mary was "ever virgin". It is a false concept, based on a fantasy that a woman who has intercourse is not "pure", and since Mary was "pure", she couldn't have borne other children. It is truly sad that some people have to invent doctrine to validate their personal view that sex is evil.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The Bible clearly says that Jesus had brothers. For example, Matthew 12:46, "While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him". And Galatians 1:18-19, "Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." People can try to spin it differently, for example, claiming that they were cousins, but that is what the clearly Bible says.

Don’t be so sure. The NT was NOT written in English – but in Koine Greek.
The word “Adelphos” is used FAR more in cases where the people being discussed are NOT uterine siblings. As I have already posted –

There are 344 instances are instances where the word “Adelphos” and all of its variations are used in the NT.
41 times (12%) are cases where "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 instances (14%) are cases where "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
256 instances (74%) are cases where "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does NOT refer to a family sibling.

Let me give you a few examples of the use if the word "Adelphos” in Scripture . . .
The Septuagint, which Jesus and the Apostles studied from is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was his nephew (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.

Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren”, the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

In the NT, we see more examples . . .
In Acts 1:15, the disciples join together to choose a successor for Judas, totaling about 120 “brothers”.

In Luke 22:32, Jesus tells Peter that He has prayed for him to strengthen his “brothers” in faith.

In Matt, 28:19, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to tell His “brothers” that He has risen.

 

[Berserk]

No, Jesus had no biological father. Look up to see if the brothers and sisters of Jesus was His through Mary, from rabbinical writings--and come back to me.
THX
J.

You must learn to read carefully in context. You miss the apologetic point that the ancient rabbis support the Gospel view that Mary was not married to Jesus' biological father. My New Testament professor was once asked, "What's the most certain thing about Jesus?" His reply? "Born of human parents!" My post supports the case against that claim, a common claim among academics.

 

[Jim B]

You must learn to read carefully in context. You miss the apologetic point that the ancient rabbis support the Gospel view that Mary was not married to Jesus' biological father. My New Testament professor was once asked, "What's the most certain thing about Jesus?" His reply? "Born of human parents!" My post supports the case against that claim, a common claim among academics.

The Bible clearly says that Jesus "biological" father was God. Of course, since God is Spirit, that isn't the best definition of Jesus' ancestry. However, Joseph served as Jesus' father, and was the biological father of His brothers and sisters.