Hello from New Zealand. Thank you. Brant Pitre's excellent scholarship has solved this issue for many people for years and deserves a much wider audience.
Hello from New Zealand too. I loved this great explanation based in scripture which is always needed when challenged by our Protestan brothers in Christ. The additional clarification from early church fathers is the cherry on the top. 😊
In Kenya I was teaching a pupil who told me her mother had died. I spoke to the headteacher about her. But she told me it was her aunt who had died. This was confirmed by the pupil herself. Aunts in Kenya are considered to be mothers and cousins are brothers and sisters. This culture is present now not 2,000 years ago. I think it is almost certain that this culture was prevalent in Israel 2,000 years ago.
True. I grew up in the tribal Ares of Rhodesia. Africans of the same tribal village refer to each as brother and sister regardless of who their parents are.
Familial terms in American English tend to be more "precise" (for lack of a better term), but even here we can have situations with similar results. My mother's biological parents abandoned her at a young age by leaving her with her aunt and uncle and then never coming back. Her aunt and uncle then raised her, and so she always called them "Mom" and "Dad." She was well aware they weren't her biological parents, but I didn't know that until I was older. Was my mother incorrect in calling them Mom and Dad? No, of course not, even though they weren't her biological parents.
So if u were writing an eye witness report about a family u know so well, n u know it's important for ppl to know how these family are related, wd u make it vague such that when u say mother, father, sons, brothers etc no one reading the book really knows what u describing?
@@NATAR160 I would probably describe it in a manner consistent with custom in my time and place without worrying about how people from other cultures might misconstrue my description.
@@frankmcgowan9457 Then why was Elizabeth refered to as the cousin of Mary if every time we see brothers n sisters we must assume they are not blood relatives?
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him. Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions. Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him), - Colossians 4:10 Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@Tanjaicholan most protestant pastors are prideful enough to be their own pope, Martin Luther wanted to throw away the epistle of James because it didn't align with his own interpretation and self declared dogma of 'Faith alone'. If that is not pride I don't know what it is.
I served in the Army for 20 years, back in the 1970s black soldiers referred to one another as "Bro", short for brother. They learned that from the black churches, hearing church members calling one another "Brother" or "Sister" as in "brothers and sisters in Christ." So we don't have to look back at ancient Jewish culture to understand that brothers and sisters aren't necessarily related.
Take a look at Mark 6:3 and Mark 5:31-35 and tell me if you think that the Gospel writer is using "bro" in the manner that you describe above. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that we need to turn to a metaphorical use of brother to understand what the Gospel writer is describing. This is Jesus' immediate biological family. Simple!
@@markrutledge5855 If I were a Protestant and I didn't have nearly 2,000 years of church tradition telling me that Jesus was Mary's only son, then I could say screw it, Mary and Joseph screwed like rabbits and had lots of kids. Unfortunately Catholics accept what the early church traditions were. Heck, if I were Protestant I could decide that Jesus misled us when he said that we must eat his flesh and rink his blood to have life within us, and I could decide that he misled us when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". But once again, I'm Catholic and I assume Jesus meant what he said and wouldn't have intentionally told us something he didn't mean.
@@Davcramer Again, the question this video addressed is what do the Gospel writers say about Jesus’ earthly family. This discussion is not about Roman Catholic hermeneutics or canon formation or a history of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is simply inferring the most likely interpretation at what the Gospel writer’s say about this topic. Here I think Ockham’s razor is most helpful. When choosing between competing explanations for the same phenomenon, we should prefer the simpler one. In the case of where the Gospel writers describe Jesus’ family, specifically his brothers, the simplest interpretation is that they are his biological brothers. If we didn’t have the above doctrine to contend with it would a be simplest inference to make when reading the Gospels. Mary was the mother of many children. It is the obvious and plain meaning of multiple texts in the Gospels.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him. Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions. Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him), - Colossians 4:10 Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@CIST3 A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him. Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions. Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him), - Colossians 4:10 Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@Tanjaicholan It is better to remain silent and let the world doubt about the fact that you might be an idiot than to open your mouth (or write, like in this case) and remove any doubt about it. "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" - this verse is a MORE THAN FORCED translation of the original passage, that instead should be translated as "since I KNOW no man". The verse says "quoniam virum non cognosco" (latina vulgata). As in the original Greek, that "cognosco" is present indicative, or present simple. It cannot be translated as "since I KNEW no man" or "since I haven't known no man (until now, yet)" but rather "since I KNOW no man". The use of that particular verbal time and mode grants the idea that it is not an "occurance", something that "it is not at the moment" but, rather, a state of things, a permanent statement. If you care about increasing your biblical knowledge instead of trying to bash others while displaying your utter ignorance, I suggest you: First: get rid of that shitty translation you have and Second: read Brant Pitre's "Jewish Roots of Mary"...or search YT, where you can find some videos where he goes more in depth with his brilliant analysis of the gospels' and their parallels within the OT. You are welcome!
In my culture (and thus, my language) there is only one word to describe sisters and female cousins, only one word for brothers and male cousins. I think it’s an eastern specificity probably related to the fact that society is very family oriented, community oriented. So personally, I don’t have any problem believing what Dr Pitre is suggesting.
Then how do they call real blood brothers n sisters? Also, if u were writing a book as an eye witness about a family, wd u choose to express the proper relationship btw them or u wd make it so vague to the point that when u mention mother, father, brothers etc no one really knows whether u meant distant relatives or blood relatives, especially if the real relationship btw is so important for the ppl u are writing to to know?
@@NATAR160cousin-brothers are for 1st degree cousins only. The brothers are just brothers, at least in the south of Portugal. I don't know why they didn't specified the family menbers, maybe they didn't had a name for cousins, maybe it was a costum calling brothers to cousins and aunts. For instance in all Portugal "parents" are called "fathers" and I'm not talking about same gender parents. If you read a litteral translation from Portuguese you would see the word "fathers" instead of "parents"
The word "until" does NOT mean that whatever happens before necessarily ceases (ie Mary did not have relations with Joseph 'until' Jesus was born). Look at Matthew 28:20 "...and behold I am with you always until the end of the age." Does this mean then that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of the age? No way! The word until simply means, as stated, that Jesus promised, "I am with you always." And in the same way, "until" in the other verse simply stated that Mary and Joseph had no relations before the birth of Jesus. It does NOT prove that Mary and Joseph did have relations after Jesus' birth. It simply does not say that, let alone prove it.
Don't you think if Jesus had brothers and sisters; meaning as we interpret them today, that they would have been worshiped and put in a high place by people because we are people. Why do you think the Bible was written for 21st Century Americans, if that was the case what would people believe in the 25th Century and beyond? Please stop recycling these ridiculous Protestant clams that you can read the Bible on your own and all of a sudden you know all things.
In Mark chapter 6 there is a reference to Jesus' brothers. A few verses later in the same chapter is a reference to Herod Antipas and his brother Philip. We know from Josephus that Herod And Philip were sons of the same father, but of different mothers.
“A band of brothers” “My brother from another mother” “Brother in arms” Some ways we in modern times refer to people we are close to. Possibly related or not.😊
"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her TILL she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." - Mt 1:24-25. "Until" = heos - "to denote the end of a period of time" (BDAG)
"Heos" is used in all of the following verses: 2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?) 1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?) 1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”) That's why Martin Luther and John Calvin both said that anyone who used Matthew 1:25 to argue for Mary having children after Jesus was born was, in their words (they were pretty rude), "stupid" or "an idiot" (respectively). And bear in mind, they did everything they could to distance themselves from any Catholic doctrine.
@@bigfootapologeticsnot from any catholic doctrine just the ones that contradict scripture they had zero problem with the nicer creed and both acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary and other views as well
@@bigfootapologetics that is such a stupid comparison. One is a condition the other is a description. I can say im not going to eat till I get home. And she never recovered till the day she died. Those two uses of Till are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Thats FALSE EQUIVALENCY
@@patricktinley6545 the same word doesn't always mean the same thing when put in different contexts. Like I said if I say. "Yesterday I didn't eat until I got home". That means I ate WHEN I got home. But if I say, "Until the day she died she never ate meat" That sentence means from the day she was born until her death SHE NEVER had meat. The use of UNTIL has 2 VERY different meanings in context. One points to WHEN an event happened. Another points to how an event NEVER HAPPENED.
European people must stop imposing their culture on the Bible. I am an Akan. In the Akan culture, your mother's sister is your mother. Also, your father's brother is your father, therefore their children are your brothers and sisters. We do not struggle with the idea that Mary did not have a child besides Jesus. We do not refer to them as half brothers and sisters. We do not have Aunties and cousins in our culture.
I tend to support you on this. So many authors believe that Heaven is a carbon copy of their homes down here, complete with pets. I dismissed the suggestion that love =sex. The reasoning was that there are no marriages in Heaven, so all the souls sleep freely with one another, like an enormous Hippie community. That is what Hollywood has done to your culture.
Well that's NOT BIBLICAL. Elizabeth is referred to as Mary's COUSIN in the Bible. You guys are the one's changing scripture to FIT your narrative. The usage of the word cousin does appear in the Bible.
The argument is quite possible, but it is not conclusive to declare the perpetual virginity of mother mary. What will you say about Eusabias mentioning James as the brother of our Lord and Simeon his successor the cousin of the Lord. The matter of perpetual virginity of mother mary doesn't in any way affect our faith and salvation. The Catholic church is promoting such arguments for extraneous reasons.
In Spanish first cousins are called brother-cousins: primos hermanos. And the children of your first, second, third cousins call you uncle or aunt and your children are their cousins. Just some modern examples of how different cultures view and name relatives.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him. Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions. Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him), - Colossians 4:10 Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
If you want to know everything and I mean everything about the holy mother please read the book The Mystical City of God. Written by the venerable Maria of Agreda in order of the holy mother Mary herself. Everything from just before her immaculate conception till her assumption is there. All your questions will be answered. Hail Mary most pure, pray for us.
In Spanish first cousins are called primos hermanos, that is brother cousins. And the children of first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, etc., are also called nephews and nieces and among the ir children, cousins.
This is my problem with Catholic doctrine. It assumes a presupposition that was gradually developed over centuries and THEN goes back to bend and contort Scripture in order to shoehorn it to fit the presupposition. It never actually agrees with the presupposition though. It just gets to a place where the strongest argument is, "well, it COULD have been a thing, and "holy" tradition says we're right." It's grasping at straws in order to validate an unbiblical and idolatrous dogma.
How can they contort? Do you mean the divided Protestants don't contort? They are divided by 30K, which is evidence of the way the contort scripture. If they didn't, they'd be under one church with one interpretation. This doctrine wasn't developed over time but even if it was, the church has the same authority today as they had to bring us the God breathed scripture. The teachings are ancient and consistent worldwide for 2000 years. And more evidence of the Satanic influence in the divided, confused and fighting Protestants is they hate on the Catholics for doctrine also understood by some mainline Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, yet no hate for those churches? I find all of this fascinating. As a mystical Christian who is not catholic, this is part of the reason I decided to study the catechism. Hate, division, and confusion are not from God. I've learned that in my experiences with Him. Love, consistency, and unification are from God. “Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11).
The perpetual virginity of Mary is in the doctines of the orthodoxes churches. It was even part of the doctrines of the syro-malabare and syro-malankare churches founded in india by the apostle Thomas. Churches which were geographicaly separated from the Catholic Church until a first contact in 1599. "Gradually developed over centuries" my ass. Even the first protestants like Luther and Calvin believed it. It's only until the XVIIs that some protestants began to reject it just because it was one of the doctrines teached by the Catholic Church.
IF Jesus had brothers, why did Jesus commend His Mother to John at the Cross? John 21 says John took her into his home, He took care of her. The Children would have cared for their Mother. The early tradition by 250 ad, Mary is described as, 'Ever Virgin', in the prayer, Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν, refers to Her as Only Pure ever Virgin. If there were Children of grand children, they would have corrected this error. You use the term, bending and contorting scripture. As a former Bible Fundamentalist, I never realized how we were taught to bend and contort scripture to fit our doctrine.
@@DanH-ui8oh Again, it's an assumption meant to validate a preconceived notion. There are any number of reasons why Jesus asked the disciple He loved most to watch over Mary, whom He does not refer to as mother anymore at that point. As He told his disciples while He left His mother and brothers waiting outside, those who did the will of His Father were, in fact, His family, not necessarily His blood relatives.
2 Timothy 2:14 'Remind everyone of these things and command them in Gos's presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them.'
Well it was Puritans who started all this quibbling. They knew nothing of what family life was in the first century and they was trying to make history fit Luther’s theories.
@@johnschuh8616 Well, I imagine anybody who has ever been in a family knows something about family life. Not only that but useless arguments were likely taking place long brfore the Puritans.
Martin Luther Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . . Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . . When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. Because Jesus is the Davidic King, Jesus elevates His Mother as Queen of Heaven (Rev 12) just as the Queen-Mother was highly exalted and given a prominent place in the OT (1 Kings 2). Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) -- "She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: 'Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'" Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said -- "She was not filled with pride by this praise...this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN....blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'" (LUTHER'S WORKS 36:208; 45:107 as cited in REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY by Fr. Mateo available from Catholic Answers) Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer's brother-in-law, Zwingli's successor said: "What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..." French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt said in the 17th century -- "We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God." (from MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [p. 89] by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian who later converted to the Catholic faith) The titles of "Mediatrix" or "Co-Redemptrix" for Mary have not been officially defined so those dates are wrong. They do reflect the Marian piety and devotion of many great Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church John Calvin Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned. [On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. Huldreich Zwingli He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . . 'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary. Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.' I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity. Heinrich Bullinger Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . . 'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.' John Wesley (Founder of Methodism) I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
Amazing how quickly it went from “Mary wasn’t always a virgin, here are her other kids,” to “Well it has nothing to do with Salvation anyway so I don’t know and I don’t care.” Is it at all possible, that Mary’s status as Ever-Virgin, could have a whole lot to do with Salvation through Christ? Might it be that, if we say Mary had other children by Joseph, that calls into question whether or not Jesus really is born of a virgin? Whether or not He is really conceived by the Holy Spirit? Whether or not He really is the Son of God? Which then begs the question of whether or not His sacrifice on the Cross did in-fact rejoin us with the Father??? It would seem that Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity might just strengthen the argument for Jesus as the Christ, rather than detract from Him at all.
Because these arguments have been repeated over and over again, all trying to eliminate Jesus' brothers and sisters, described as anything but Jesus' siblings. Why must they be relatives, why cousins, and why are the cousins are mentioned always in the company mother of Jesus but never in the company of their supposedly mother another Mary?
This makes the most sense to me: Mary wife of Clopas (brother of St. Joseph) was the widow of Alphaeus (himself a widower) and mother to Salome (Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee), James the Less (brother of Matthew/Levi, together the sons of Alphaeus). Clopas was also a widower whose children were Mary (mother of Mark), Simon and Jude. The youngest of these relatives was Joses the biological child of Mary and Clopas. Mary of Clopas is the biological mother of James and Joses.
@@Nolongeraslave what I wrote actually makes the most sense of the brother/mary/alphaeus verses in scripture. And the early church also told these “stories”. They believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity
Thank you you are very open minded, and are very able to discern and use your wisdom to search for truth. Thank you you’re not trying to prove a religion you’re trying to prove truth. You deserve sainthood for that one if you ask me! There is a u tube fellow with the last name of Snipe who could surely use a dose of humility. He is very close minded, very fundamentalist, and refuses to even consider anything except what he thinks. I wish he would listen to your stuff because you are bringing in the whole wide variety of truth. Thank you again honestly, I think you’re pretty awesome. It’s all about Jesus Christ that’s the bottom line
read the old testament. Jesus is the son of A VIRGIN. NOT THE SON OF A FORMER VIRGIN. VIRGIN ALL HER LIFE. ALSO THE WOMAN IF GENESIS THAT FROM HER SEEED THE SAVIOUR WOULD BECOME FLESH THE ENEMY OF SATAN. ALSO MARY THE WOMAN OF REVELATION.
@@MAP2023 1. If Mary had children after Jesus, Jesus was still born of a virgin. 2. Yes, in Genesis it says the seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head and the serpent will bruise his heal. This is a prophecy of the Christ and that He will not be born from the seed of a man. 3. The women in revelation can also be Israel. Israel makes more sense to me because the Christ comes through Israelite people. It is the Roman Church interpretation that it is Mary, which leads to another dogma that has to be believed as absolute truth, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. I believe that Jesus is the Christ and He was born of the virgin Mary as prophesied. The question is, why do I have to believe that Mary's perpetual virginity is absolute truth to be saved from eternal damnation?
The perpetual virginity was based on the perpetual virginity of the goddess Hera, whose virginity was miraculously restored every year. Hera was also known as Queen of Heaven.
There are many counterfeits, contrived by the enemy of Truth, to hide the "needle" of truth in a haystack of lies. {See the article, "Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?" by Jon Sorensen 12/2013} 'One argument that is often used by mythicists is the claim that other pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions. As the argument goes; Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna, and others all fit this description. In fact, as it is often claimed, there are also heroes and historical figures like Ion, Romulus, Asclepius, and Alexander the Great who were believed to be the generation of gods and virgin women. This is not the case for any of the pagan deities or historical figures mentioned above. Each can be classified in one of three ways: * The pagan god is not born of a virgin mother. * The birth of the pagan god is the result of a sexual encounter. * The parallel exists, but the Christian tradition antedates the pagan mythology.'
This argument makes the assumption that the James and Joseph in Matthew 27 is the same as James and Joses, etc in Matthew 13, but James and Joseph, like Mary, were exceedingly common names then. I studied under arguably the greatest scholar about Jesus' family, Richard Bauckham, and he says that of the three options on the brothers, the one that can be definitively ruled out is the cousins theory. In addition there are probable misreadings of Eusebius here in this argument. The gospels were in Greek, and Greek did not have the flexible use of brother to mean cousin etc that was OT and Jewish use.
...and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?... (Matthew chapter 13, Mark chapter 6) The most natural reading is quite simple.
Yes but what is the most natural reading of that verse? It all hinges on the meaning of the word "brothers" which we westerners assume means the same in their language as it does in our language. But that doesn't take into account the enormous difference between their culture (the writers of the New Testament) and ours -- which is very nuanced. Even today, in many cultures, it's common to use the word brothers (or brother) in a broader sense than "born from the same mother". Even in Old Testament, the term for brother was used more broadly. For example, Lot is referred to as Abraham's brother although he is elsewhere described as his brother's son, aka his nephew. There are numerous examples of this usage in the Old Testament.
@@rebeccamohammed8465 We only have the Greek of the NT writers and the literal translation into our vernacular languages. The most natural reading of that is just what it says: brothers and sisters and his mother Mary. Why go beyond it to say something else entirely? None of the NT writers or apostolic fathers imply anything else. She was Joseph's wife, with all that entails. It is not until the late second century CE that something else arises, within writings of a sect that involve an asceticism which was not truly of Jewish cultural origin. The Jews believed in the goodness of creation, including God's gift of marriage and its blessings. Mary was indeed blessed to be the vessel in which the Holy Spirit conceived and brought forth the Son of God. But the later innovations in narrative regarding Mary have no warrant in the inspired scriptures or earliest traditions of the Church. Those later narratives' acceptance should not be required for considering any person a fellow child of God or follower of Christ. Nor should the eucharistic table be turned away from those who do not accept their veracity. Let the common table be open to all and let Christ alone be the judge.
Is it hard to understand Matthew 1:25? When it is clear that Joseph knew Mary not “UNTIL” she brought forth Jesus. That means he didn’t sleep with her until after Jesus’s birth. What Jewish marriage in the Old Testament had no consummated union? There was none! Truth is you CANNOT force a man made doctrine to fit the truth that is in the scriptures. The NT has written records of Jesus’s brothers and sisters from both the first and second person testimonies.
Look at how the word “until” is used in the rest of the New Testament to get some context on the Hebrew use of the word, and then your perception will change
The NT for your info is written in Greek. The manuscript word used is “Heos” and is conjunctive marking specific points in time. I’ll help you with what you were trying to say. The Hebrew equivalent would be “ad, lo” which also acts as a conjunction like all conjunctions do in any language.
Or my friend it means what it says, that Joseph from the time he knew Mary and until the time of the birth of Jesus did not have relations with her. Meaning that the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth, And that is all. It does NOT say necessarily mean that he did after. That is conjecture on YOUR part.
I’ll use the comment regarding contextual use of the word “heos” to help you understand its meaning in both the OT and NT examples. Look up Daniel 10:3 and Matthew 2:15. Tell me, in those verses did the same condition remain following the word “until”?
I was born 1972 in Cracow (a city in Poland, Central Europe). When I was a child in Cracow "brother" and "sister" meant only those who had at least one common biological parent. But in the village my parents were from (also in Poland) it was not unusual to use these terms in broader sense: a son/daugther of your parent's sibling could be called your brother/sister. Although such use was declining there and now even there it is no longer in use. This is an example of how language evolves.
Best positive argument for Mary's perpetual virginity. And, for all you scripture only people. Jesus entrusted His Mother to John. If she had other biological children, it would have been their duty to take her in. He entrusted her to Apostle John ( by extension to us, the Church). She is my mother. Is she yours?
Was the Epistle of St James more likely written by James the Just [son of Clopas] or more likely by James the son of Alpheus, aka James the Younger, one of the 12? [it could not have been James son of Zebedee, - aka James the Elder - as he had been beheaded by Herod]. Was the Judas the same person as Judas Thaddaeus. [one of the 12, the Thaddaeus surname added to distinguish him from the traitor] and the writer of the Epistle of Jude? Lastly was Clopas, father of James and Simon/Simeon likely to be the same person as Cleopas, who met the Resurrected Lord on the way to Emmaus?
The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35] Now notice how God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then ind welled Mary. At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35] Then The Ark contained the Ten Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron's rod who was the high priest that had a bulb on the end of it which when they pulled it out the bulb bloomed which represents Jesus's resurrection [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4] Now look what the womb of Mary contained : Jesus who is the Word of God made flesh , the true bread from heaven , Jesus is the high priest who resurrected to life. So you can clearly see why the Church teaches typo logically that Mary is the New Ark and it gets worse for you the very same ARK had passed King David and when he saw this he danced and leapt for joy! just as with Mary when Elizabeth saw her and at the voice of Mary the baby in Elizabeth's womb Leapt for Joy! then David also said David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" [2 Samuel 6:9] and then notice what Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43] then The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom in the Jude-an countryside for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11] Mary traveled to the Jude-an countryside and stood with her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months!! Luke 1:56 Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. !!!
2 different people. The baptist was beheaded before Jesus died. The brother of Jesus was the leader of the church in Jerusalem that Paul met after Jesus died.
I don’t think scripture ever refers to John’s relationship to Jesus. It’s deduced from Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth. And Elizabeth is referred to as a kinsman of Mary. In the OT, Lot is referred to as both a kinsman and a brother of Abram.
Just read the verses in context.. it shows us what a cousin(kinsmen) or brother in Christ or actual half sibling to Jesus as was James--> Galatians 1:19 KJV - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
I understand that the term ´brother’ was applied to relatives or cousins who grew up together. But John grew up in Ein Kerim (Judaea), while Jesus grew up in Nazareth (Galilee). They doubtless would have met occasionally, but they didn’t actually grow up together. Also, Elizabeth, John’s mother and Mary’s relative, is older than Mary by at least one generation, as she was ‘too old to conceive’ when she actually did, while Mary was a teenager at the time.
Fine, I confess I’m convinced of this particular doctrine. The cousin thing was always in the back of my mind when I heard it and I saw someone on Twitter make the connection to Clopas but this really made it pretty undeniable. Thanks for sharing. What Protestant denominations hold to this doctrine? lol
My understanding (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what I have read in the O/T). In the N/T, Mary & Joseph were of the tribe of Judah. Elizabeth & Zaccariah were of Levi. In the O/T, God commanded families to marry within their own tribes, so within the 1 tribe of Israel they were called 'brothers/sisters', while descended from another of the 12 tribes they were called cousins - Mary went in haste to the hill country to her cousin Elizabeth - another proof of 'cousins' Vs 'brothers/sisters'??. Book of Tobit: Young Tobias married his 'fathers 'brothers' daughter, when they were (if I'm understanding correctly), distant relatives descended from the same of one of the sons of Jacob (israel)?? If Cleopas was Josephs brother then both Marys (BVM & the other Mary) were sisters-in-law (by our modern day description?? Is that right?
This approach to interpreting the Bible text about Jesus' siblings does indeed require several steps: Reinterpreting the term "brothers" to mean cousins or relatives Analyzing multiple gospel accounts to identify different Marys Connecting these accounts with early church writings Using these connections to support a specific theological position (Mary's perpetual virginity)
The RCC found it necessary to imagine Mother Mary as perpetual virgin even though nothing in the early writings of the Church, from Paul's letters through John's gospel, makes this claim. In fact, we have both Mark and Matthew telling their readers that Jesus was Mary's oldest male child, followed by James, the oldest surviving brother, James. It was he who took over the Nazarene movement after after Jesus was executed. Then came Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Mary was fecund. (The Greek term "adelphoi" [ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit.] "of the same womb" of Jesus is used in Mark and Matthew.)
Brother means cousins...do you know what means family in the middle east all three generations, uncle aunts their children...also in China .all old languages.... nowadays when a Turk is polite ...when meat someone...hey abi means brother ... doesn't mean is brother... Abla greets sisters to everyone friendly....also their cousins...ABI is brother...also in ancient times the tribal three generations lived together
Does whether Jesus had siblings have any effect whatsoever upon your salvation? If not, then it doesn't matter. I can't find a reason why anyone should care.
@@tjseaney_ this “great tradition“ it’s not taught in ORTHODOX ratings until the mid-4th century. It comes from a false gospel from the second century, which is where you find ORTHODOX writers such as Hegesippus and later Victorinus who believed the brothers of Jesus were younger half siblings of Jesus.
It matters because there was a political schism within the early church. Rome needed a way to allow Roman citizens who were paganistic worshippers to be able to accept Christianity. Therefore they conveniently established their doctrines on the writings of Paul, which allowed enough of legalistic loophole to install the papal authority and for "gentiles" to easily transfer their idol worship and the worship of the Roman Emperor onto who and is was now called Pope, the vicar of Christ. Vicar (vicarius) quite literally means substitute. We can see clearly in Paul's writings an attempt to dissuade believers from the teachings of Peter and James, so there is deception and seeds of division are being sown. Paul's so called authority supplants that of James who was the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, established before Antioch, which conflicts with the narrative from Catholic tradition that teaches the first church being established by Peter in Antioch in 34 AD; and uses Christ's authority to appropriate Peter's gift of the keys of the kingdom. This is also used to divest James of his legitimacy to lead, as Mary and Joseph, who were James's parents, were direct descendants from the house of King David and from Aaron the High Priest, which is also why he was highly regarded by the Jews. James was a threat to Roman control of Christianity, which is why the Roman appointed high priest in Jerusalem had him stoned for supposedly "breaking the law." If the Roman authority can convince the followers of Christ to abandon the law then there will be less resistance to them subsuming the authority of Christ and install their "vicar of christ"...which they successfully did through the ignorance of the people. It was common practice for the Romans to combine deities...All of the signs and evidence are clearly there. Catholic tradition is not Christianity and is not the following of Jesus Christ, it uses his name and his story but that is all. *When we speak of sin, Catholic tradition teaches you need to repent to a man and previously pay an indulgence (and now again) for your sin to be forgiven. But none of this takes away the penalty for the sin, it just is a psychological tool to deceive people out of their guilt. When you look at what sin is in the Old Testament, sins are things that would literally cause the children of Israel to die or bring dysfunction that would lead to death, while they were in the wilderness when the law was given. For example, if while in the desert they by chance happened upon fish without scales, shellfish for example, chances are it would cause them to become sick and die. Where would they receive medical help? If a man had incestuous relations and a child was born, the genetic malformations resulting would greatly endanger the child and the mother and cause social dysfunction in the family. Sins are not just people being "bad boys and girls." They are actions that created dangerous conditions for the children of Israel in the place and time they lived. This is why Jesus summed up the law we are to follow in the 10 and in the additional 2 commandment he gave. James taught this, and the Catholic tradition uses Peter's acknowledgement of the context in which the Law is to be followed (by the Jews) as a way to steal the authority of Christ. In all, it is important to acknowledge Jesus has siblings because his teachings become corrupted when you invalidate the ones who truly kept them alive.
I do find the argument that they’re his cousins compelling but think I’m this for a second. The New Testament states that Joseph waited to consummate the marriage until after the baby was born. It didn’t say that he didn’t consummate it but that he waited until after Jesus was born. The New Testament also calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son. It doesn’t call him her only son, or her only child, but the “firstborn” that implies she had other children after and it also implies they did consummate the marriage just after Jesus was born
John’s gospel uses one word for ‘brother’ or ‘brothers’ but he uses a different word for ‘relatives’. He makes a distinction. Why would Mary having other children diminish her contribution to the plans of God?
Why would John be entrusted with her care after His death? If there were in fact other siblings, why would the Lord have them break His own 4th commandemwnt?
@@gopalsharma1208 Hello and thank you for your reply. I do appreciate your time. Jesus was fulfilling His command to honor His mother by not leaving His mother, even for just three-days, with His unbelieving brothers. As we see in John 7:1-6, His brothers were wanting Jesus to go to Jerusalem knowing that the religious leaders were looking to kill Him. They were encouraging Jesus to go and present Himself and perform works for His disciples (suggesting that they were not His disciples) so that they may find Jesus and arrest and kill Him. If Mary had been left with them for the three-days Jesus was in the tomb, she would have suffered greatly. Jesus honored His mother by sparing her that torment. Take care and have a good day.
Yes. And the scripture is literal in Matthew 26: 26 when it says: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it and, giving it to his diaciples, said, 'Take and eat; this is my body.' Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins." We Catholics do take scripture literally. Do you?
@@rebeccamohammed8465 oh you think you can trap me? Transsubstantiation is idolatry and heresy. Keep reading the bible says do this in remembrance of me. The bread is always bread. Get out of that church the protestants have the true gospel.
How can the bread be the literal body of Christ when he was literally with his disciples giving the bread to them ? When Jesus says "I am the door", did he become wood or metal ? When he says "I am the vine", did his nature change to become a vine ? No. Jesus uses pictures to illustrate his teaching : just as eating bread is a personal act to be nourished, so believing in Christ is a personal relationship, and he feeds his disciples.
WHO CARES? and why? I follow Jesus not anyone else! Serve the poor and needy. Do onto others.... what ever you do to the least.you do to me. He who saves his life loses it." It's pretty simple!
Other arguments against Jesus having siblings. 1. If Joseph had children from a previous marriage this would have made his other sons his first born, and by extension, heirs to the throne of David before Jesus. (1 Kings 1:11-13) And without some sort of intervention by either God or Joseph that named an heir outside the established order, Jesus could not inherit the Kingdom. (David named Solomon his heir ahead of all of his other sons. 1 Kings 1:43) 2. If Mary had other children then after Jesus' death his younger brother would be next in line to inherit the Kingdom, thus Jesus would not be the eternal king of the Kingdom of David. 3. On the more human level; the idea that after an angel appeared to St. Joseph in a dream and told him that Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost and that Jesus was a fulfillment of scriptural prophecy, therefore he should take her as his wife (Mt 1:20-24); then an angel appears to him a second time to tell him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt, and again in fulfilment of prophecy (Mt 2:13-15); and then appeared to him a third time to tell him to return to Israel (Mt 2:19) and was also warned in his sleep, so he settled in Galilee (Mt 2:23). And that after all that St. Joseph would dare to have relations with her is beyond credulity. When God sends an angel to you three different times to tell you to protect Mary and Jesus, would you dare to touch her in a sexual way? Impossible. 4. If the angel appearances in his sleep were not enough here is a list of signs that Joseph saw or heard to which point to Jesus' favor with God and, by extension, his mother. a. the shepherds came to see Jesus "And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds" (Lk 2:18). So there are a bunch of shepherds telling everyone that an angel told them a Savior, a Christ is born and then the angel is joined by a multitude of angels. (Lk 2:10-15) b. Simeon in front of everyone present takes Jesus in his arms and equates Jesus to God's salvation. (Lk 2:25-33), another prophetic declaration. c. The same day as Simeon, Anna a prophetess, confessed to the Lord; and spoke of him to all that looked to the redemption of Israel (Lk 2:36-38). Again, after all these indications of the absolute holiness of Jesus and his role in God's plan for the people of Israel, it is unthinkable that Joseph would have relations with the vessel of God that was the mother of: the Saviour, Christ the Lord, God's Salvation, and "the redemption of Israel." 5. This one is just an observation: If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why in the account of Jesus in the temple why did Mary and Joseph look for "him among their kinsfolks and acquaintances"? Why didn't they ask his brothers where he was? Why aren't they even mentioned? Could these arguments be used in addition to all the ones regularly used to dispute and invalidate the protestant position? (All quotes are from the Douay-Rheims) Show quoted text
Number 1 is in error. There is NO proof that Joseph was married and had children before Mary. No proof. Number 2 is in error. Jesus died but rose again, so He is not dead, but alive forever more. God the Father is Jesus' Father, not Joseph, and only God can leave anyone the Kingdom, and since Jesus is not dead, that is what the Father did. Joseph can only leave his eldest son material things, not Spiritual things. You might want to delete number 2. You missed that one by a country mile. The same is true for number 3. Read Matthew, chapter 1, verse 25. It says Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first born son, and called his name Jesus. He knew her not UNTIL. That is the key word "UNTIL". Number 4 has no argument either way, it is simply stating things. Number 5...Jesus was the one they could not find, so they went looking for Him, not any of his siblings. In fact we do not know if Mary and Joseph asked any of Jesus' brothers or sisters where He was. Do you know? No, you were not there, so you are simply guessing. Just because they were not mentioned, means nothing. We do not have a word for word statement of anyone recorded in the Bible, so that "argument" is moot.
Excellent video, however I am confused on something. At the 3:30 mark, Dr. Pitre states that Mary was already married when the angel appeared to her in Luke 1. In the NRSV version (and others I looked at) it states that Mary was engaged. Did this term mean something different back then? Please help!
The Gospel says Mary was engaged to Joseph, but that they were not yet living together. However, she would have been legally bound to Joseph by that engagement, even though the wedding would have been celebrated later. But I agree Dr. Pitre’s formulation is confusing.
@@pinkpaprika8410It is the Jewish tradition that if a woman is already engaged to a man, she is already considered his wife. Although in their practice the consummation of marriage can only be done after the ritual of marriage.
My copy of Eusebius (Maier translation) has Clopas as James's uncle. All of this just underscores the tragedy of Hegesippus's works having been lost to history, while making me curious about the various texts and debates about Eusebius.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre. And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” - Luke 1:34 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary. - Luke 1:27 Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him. Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions. Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek. Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him), - Colossians 4:10 Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
If you read The Bible for what it plainly says and not what you want it to say, it’s quite clear Jesus had siblings. Which also means Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin. She had normal sexual relations with Joseph AFTER the birth of Jesus. The Bible is very clear about this! I pray that God will lift the veil from your eyes and come to the knowledge of the truth of what His word actually says.
Read the writings of Italian mystic Maria Valtorta who wrote thousands of pages whist disabled and confined to bed. Maria was given a first hand look at the life of Jesus and Mary. Her descriptions are so detailed it is easy to recognise physical features as she described them when travelling through the Holy Land.
Having brothers and sister James, Jude,Simon, Solome, Mary medium size family at that time.I cannot believe Jesus only, husband and wife lived happily .
The difference between Catholics and Protestants like me is, we are more Christ centric, we respect Marry but in no way would we have to make dogmas to fit a narrative. I think Catholics like their Novelas and need to be romanticized by the Marry doctrines.
I have never heard this subject explained in such a clear and precise way. Dr. Pitre, with examples from two different sources, makes a strong, believable case. Thank you for posting this.
This ridiculous attempt to claim Mary’s perpetual virginity is such a disgraceful lie. The Bible not only says that Jesus had brothers and sisters but it says very clearly in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did not know Mary until after she had Jesus. That literally means that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until after she had Jesus. God did not deny Joseph and Mary a normal healthy marriage. Then they act as though Jesus giving Mary to John as mother and son somehow means that Jesus didn’t have brothers. His Brothers were not yet believers in him. They were not Christians. Even if his Brothers were actually just cousins, which is absurd, they were obviously so close to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph that they were called his Brothers (and Sisters) then why didn’t Jesus give Mary to them? This is more Roman Catholic nonsense to prop up their completely unbiblical Marian doctrines. Which are idolatrous and blasphemous. Matthew 1:25..Mary was not a perpetual Virgin. The word of God tells us that point blank.
Mary of Cleophas (married to Cleophas), the other mother is wife of Zeb'edee ... Oh, Virgin Mary's husband was Joseph, right? Interesting that there is that description from historian at 4th century reafiming that also another saying that Cleofas was Joseph's brother.
I think Mary was only betrothed to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. The non Catholics would naturally debate that argument. In those days was the betrothal akin to marriage?
I don't think proving that our Lord not having brothers equal perpetual virginity. Even if we yeild to the argument that jesus had no brothers (and sisters)... there's still a problem when comes to "consumating the marriage". Matthew 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Why use the word until? Wouldn't it be clearer if they say Joseph never 'knew' mary.
The Bible clearly says that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after Jesus was born. Know means intimately and maritally. They, Joseph and Mary had other children. It is clear. I think you may want to reconsider who is lying here.
Don't do that, until does not always imply change of state, even in english If you tell your child to nice to the aunt until you return, it does not mean that when you return your kid should became not nice Look at this passage in Old Testament 2 Samuel 6, 23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death. But by your logic it would imply that Michal gave birth after dying, which is not possible, who is lying here? Either way, you think the word until would mean change of state which would imply Jesus would be no longer King after this nor sit at the right hand of The Father 1 Corinthians 15, 25 "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Or that Jesus will not sit at the right hand of Father Hebrews 1, 13 “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? So will Christ no longer sit at the right hand of the Father, no longer be the King and Michal would be having son after her death Or the Word until does not imply the change of state
Check this out, this is from my 1954 Catholic Challoner-Rheims Bible. Look at Galatians chapter 1,verse 19. "But I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the brother of the Lord." Sure sounds here that Jesus had a brother named James. Why does the Church keep denying this? What's so wrong if Mary had other children? Sounds like false man made traditions.
The issue is the perpetual virginity of Mary and the immaculate conception. For reasons above my pay grade that would undermine these two doctrines if she had other children.
I thought sex within marriage was Holy and God-ordained ... the Marion doctrines are erroneous and unnecessary .. created later in response to accusations of infidelity regarding the virgin birth ... perpetual virginity can only be dated to the mid 2nd century and the immaculate conception and assumption even later ... interesting that when Mary questioned about being pregnant she said that no man had 'known' her ... ie had intimacy ... but when Joseph didn't 'know' Mary until after the birth that means him saying hello ... the level of eisegesis needed to shoehorn these ideas into the gospels is astounding ...
Protestants don't know that brethren means whoever professes the same faith...The other Mary is Mary Clopas the Mother of James and Joseph and she was related to the Virgin Mary...
Not only do we need to look at the coined phrase of "brotherhood" brother, but also, what was the translation to greek, hebrew and aramaic. And then what did it mean? Like the camel through the eye of a needle. It meant the door entering a town where the camel and its rider would have to kneel down or bow their heads to clear the top of the door way.
Hey my dear Protestant 'brothers', have some respect for St.Joseph, the guardian of the holy family. He is not an average joe as your twisted minds think. He was a righteous man (Mat 1:19). He clearly understood his role in the salvation plan and was constantly guided by the Holy Spirit. Also please have reverence towards the holy mother of God. If you dishonor her, you will receive the wrath of her only son, our Lord. For nearly fifteen centuries the faithful (all orthodox and catholic churches) had no issues on this matter. Confusion arose only when the deceiver was successful in rupturing the Catholic church.
There sure is a lot of reinterpreting the biblical text to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary. It seems much more historical that Mary and Joseph had 4 other sons and at least 2 daughters in addition to Jesus as a traditional Jewish family of their time. You don’t have to go through a lot of linguistic gymnastics to get there either. Mary can have a God appointed role in salvation history and still raise a family. What a miracle and what a blessing!
And it was probably that Mary, wife of Clopas who was accompanying him on their way to Emmaus. Jesus appeared first to the women who stood beside him till the end, the three Marys - mother, aunt and Magdalene.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible that Mary should have to be a virgin after Jesus was born. I don't see where she plays any part in salvation other than carrying and raising Jesus. I don't see where it says to pray to her or any other saints. I think this is twisting reality for Catholic tradition and is worthless.
In other words, we don't know. "The Jesus Dynasty" suggests that Mary was mentioned twice. Clopas was the name of one of the two on the road to Emmaus. They lived together, and invited Jesus to have dinner with them. The book suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas (Cleophas in my translation) was the same person as Joseph's widow who had married Clopas under the requirements of Jewish law. The author, believe it or not, is an unbeliever who is head of a theological college. He tends to place less reliance on John's Gospel, as being a late work tainted by Gnosticism, until, near the end of the book, John is the only Evangelist who supports him, and suddenly becomes the fair-haired boy.
Does that mean that the book's author claims that in the Gospel narrative, Mary the Mother of Jesus is referred to twice in the same sentence as being both the "wife of Cleopas" and the "Mother of Jesus"?? Does that make sense to anyone?!!
I used to think that too, but the gospel of Matthew, I believe, said that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary because she was found with child. There can be no divorce if they were not already married. I believe Jewish marriage is a two-phased event, with the couple living together in the second phase. I don’t know all the details, but that is the gist of it.
In that culture (and time) betrothal was the first stage of marriage. They were married -- as confirmed by the fact that Joseph "planned to divorce her quietly" -- but we're not yet living together in the same house, as was the custom. (Matt 1:18-19) And what is more, does it not seem strange that Mary, in asking, "How can this be for I am a virgin?" was demonstrating a complete ignorance of where babies come from? Do we really think that she was asking the angel to tell her "how can this be?" as in, how is a baby to be conceived? Or was she rather asking, "Does God want me to have sex with my husband (to whom she was already legally married, according to their custom) so that we would conceive a son?" A chapter or two before this, when the same angel spoke to Zachariah, announcing to him that his wife also would conceive a son, Zachariah asked a similar question, "How can this be since my wife is old?," yet the angel struck Zachariah dumb as punishment for his insolent question, his lack of faith. The angel didn't need to explain to Zachariah where babies come from, and his reply to Mary's queswas not a biology lesson; it was the explanation that she had asked for: "Not by deed of man" He said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."
@@rebeccamohammed8465 thank you for this thoughtful answer! I am actually a new Catholic, and am still learning all of the little apologetics details and am so grateful! It would be helpful if he explained the answer like you did. Most evangelicals have been taught that Mary and Joseph were betrothed/engaged during that time and were not yet married, so to hear him say they were already married, with no explanation, would be taken as a weird Catholic distortion to them.
I don’t remember a Bible verse saying that Mary had more children. Is there one? Or that Mary and took Jesus and his siblings to Jerusalem. Is there one?
"Look your mother and your brothers are outside want to see you" Somehow that is questionable in Catholic theology. Compare this: And Jesus entered the house of Peter and found Peter's mother-in-law sick with fever...:" then you argue that because it is not mentioned anywhere that Peter had a wife, therefore Peter never married! Words have meaning, but in Catholic theology somehow they don't.
@@Nolongeraslave Nope. Brother in Christ. The Catholic Church interprets Sacred Scripture the way Jesus told the Apostles to interpret it guided by the Holy Spirit. The verse you misinterpret is someone talking to Jesus about his mother and some of his disciples outside. It does not say Mary had other children. Watch the video instead of making comments denigrating Jesus the theology breathed into His Catholic Church. By the way the Apostles passed on the interpretation of the Bible to the Bishops who followed them for the last 2,000 years. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the millions of protestants who followed them were not given the authority to interpret Scripture.
@@Nolongeraslave I’m not sure what your nonsense is about Simon Peters mother-in-law. Everybody knows he was married except you I guess. Just a thought but under the protestant sola scriptura dogma where anybody’s interpretation of Scripture is acceptable by the “we agree on the essentials” clause then I claim the Catholic Churches interpretation must be accepted by all. So stop criticizing us.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Yes, the Church interprets Scriptures according to their purposes. And you are faithfully following that interpretation. But apart from that, who exactly find it necessary to interpret those verses instead of letting the clear meaning of the words speak for themselves? The Church is reading the Perpetual virginity of Mary back in the Scriptures because their being challenged by people who love letting the Holy Spirit speak! For us who are guided by the Spirit of God, just let our God talk to us instead of sitting on the fence and allow sons of mean who love to claim big titles lord it over people telling them they are the Church, you their followers must accept whatever rabbit they pull out of the magician's hat and claims comes from God! The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters and these brothers and sisters were almost always in the company of their mother Mary the mother of Jesus. When we contrast this with Rome's claims, there is no Scriptural basis to lean on ~ such as they are Jesus' cousins, you are saying disciples, others says they were children from Joseph's earlier marriage, claiming that Joseph was a widower. Rome also wrestles with the word "until" in Matthew trying to explain away the obvious, and so on, insisting the clear words of Scripture means anything other than what they mean. I am wondering whether these men think about the wrath of God when they deliberately lead their blind faithfuls astray. And that time will come, for each one of you.
@@Nolongeraslave Brother in Christ. The Catholic Church and Catholic Christians are not your enemies. According to Jesus we are the original Biblical and historical Christians. And you know why, because there was only one deposit of faith left by Jesus to the Apostles and handed on to their successors for the last 2,000 years. If it wasn’t the Church Jesus started would have died out after the last Apostle died. But you and I both know it didn’t because Jesus told us he would build his church and the gates of would not prevail against it and He would be with them until the end of the age. Jesus also told the Apostles, and therefore their successors He would send the Holy Spirit so they would recall all that He said to them and lead them to all truth and He even breathed on the Apostles so everything the Catholic Church teaches including about Mary is God breathed. Jesus clearly speaks through the inspired writers of the New Testament books the He is the bridegroom of his Church and the Church is His body. Now let’s look at protestantism. It can’t be filled with the Holy Spirit because it teaches 1,001 contradictory theologies based on the fallible human interpretation of Scripture which has led to chaos in protestantism. Sorry brother you are wrong about Mary, the mother of Jesus who was her only divine child.
It does do ones head in; sure, the text may be referring to relatives. But is the only possible explanation of this text with no other possible at all Of course not QED these dues are Mythist
"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, BUT KEPT HER A VIRGIN UNTIL SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A SON; and he called His name Jesus." (Matthew 1: 24-25)? "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5) "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4: 1-4) Sola Scriptura! Semper Fidelis est Deus!
Answered, and explained countless number of times, in papers, books, YTube videos etc. Actually if people keep bringing up these same tired old points, it most likely means they don’t want to know the truth. (Followers of the church of Martin Luther instead of the church Christ’s founded 1500 years earlier? ) A 30 second query will find more than enough the books, debates or videos to dispel the errors you allude to.
How does the virginity of Mary have any bearing on how one is saved? Bulletin: It doesn't!!! Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had children together. Simple as that.
The main problem with the argument that, the brothers and sister of Jesus are from Joseph ( a previous marriage). But when they went for to Bethlehem only Joseph and Mary - there was no place for them in the inn. Even if you check every single nativity scene there are no other children.
No. Stop. At this point you are trying to make stuff up to fit your narrative. Even if that crazy story true would still prove Mary eternal virgin and Jesus no siblings since he was conceived by the holy spirit and Mary.
Consider this. When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a son she responded by saying, "How shall this be? For I do not know man." At this time Mary was already engaged to Joseph. If a woman who is engaged to a man is told that she is going to conceive why would she be surprised when it should be obvious that she will eventually have relations with her husband to be?
I don't know man, Jesus having siblings just makes sense for me; they have just not mentioned in the bible. For one thing Joseph is basically married to Mary right? Plus the norm on that time is to have as many hands as possible to help the work as those times are eras when manual work is absolutely needed. I may be Catholic but if a priest say that Mary is forever a virgin while being married to Joseph; I'll just say: " Sorry father, that just doesn't make sense for me."
Rubbish... Stop listening to protestant rubbish.... Protestants religion was invented 1500 years after Jesus ascended into heaven..... Why would anyone in their right mind listen to a protestant.... Rather listen to the Catholics who walked and talked with Jesus There were no protestants at the time of Jesus
Consider what the Gospel of Luke tells us in chapter 2 verses 5-7 : “ to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn “ (ESV) Note that verse 7 tells us “And she gave birth to her firstborn son” The Gospel of Luke was written sometime around A.D. 62, so Luke would know for certain if Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son or her only son. Since verse 7 specifies “HER firstborn son” we must interpret firstborn to mean a physical human child and not a reference to the supremacy and honor that belongs to Jesus as expressed in Colossians 1:15 ““ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (ESV) Luke clearly tells us that Mary had at least one other son. We must also consider the Gospel of Matthew that says of Joseph in chapter 1 verses 24-25 : “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son…” (ESV) In this context the word “knew” means to know physically through intimate relations. Joseph knew his wife Mary intimately only after the birth of Jesus. Knew is first used in Genesis 4:1 which tells us “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, …” It is used again in Genesis 4:17 which tells us “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch” It is used again in the same context in Genesis 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth” So Joseph knew his wife Mary in the same exact physical way that Adam and Cain knew their wives. And the outcome was the same - children. Half-brothers and sisters to our Lord Jesus.
Or it could mean Luke just identifies Jesus as being Mary's first and only true born son. Being first doesn't necessarily mean that there is a second. I'm sure you could think of a few examples where this is true. Also, First born is distinct from saying "first or second" son. Mary or many households could have many children, each being 1st, 2nd, 3rd but not necessarily being born of... Do you get my meaning?
OK, so you're in the camp that Jesus sinned on the cross when handing care of his mother to John? If Mary had another child, that care would've fallen on them. Not allowing them to care for her would've been disrespectful and broken a commandment.
Hello from New Zealand. Thank you. Brant Pitre's excellent scholarship has solved this issue for many people for years and deserves a much wider audience.
Hello from New Zealand too. I loved this great explanation based in scripture which is always needed when challenged by our Protestan brothers in Christ. The additional clarification from early church fathers is the cherry on the top. 😊
And hello from another New Zealander!!❤
In Kenya I was teaching a pupil who told me her mother had died. I spoke to the headteacher about her. But she told me it was her aunt who had died. This was confirmed by the pupil herself. Aunts in Kenya are considered to be mothers and cousins are brothers and sisters. This culture is present now not 2,000 years ago. I think it is almost certain that this culture was prevalent in Israel 2,000 years ago.
True. I grew up in the tribal Ares of Rhodesia. Africans of the same tribal village refer to each as brother and sister regardless of who their parents are.
Familial terms in American English tend to be more "precise" (for lack of a better term), but even here we can have situations with similar results. My mother's biological parents abandoned her at a young age by leaving her with her aunt and uncle and then never coming back. Her aunt and uncle then raised her, and so she always called them "Mom" and "Dad." She was well aware they weren't her biological parents, but I didn't know that until I was older. Was my mother incorrect in calling them Mom and Dad? No, of course not, even though they weren't her biological parents.
So if u were writing an eye witness report about a family u know so well, n u know it's important for ppl to know how these family are related, wd u make it vague such that when u say mother, father, sons, brothers etc no one reading the book really knows what u describing?
@@NATAR160
I would probably describe it in a manner consistent with custom in my time and place without worrying about how people from other cultures might misconstrue my description.
@@frankmcgowan9457 Then why was Elizabeth refered to as the cousin of Mary if every time we see brothers n sisters we must assume they are not blood relatives?
Brant Pitre is a valuable gift to the Catholics and Christians in general
The ONLY Christian’s are Catholic’s. Protestant’s are NOT Christian because there’s ONLY ONE CHURCH.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre.
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
- Luke 1:34
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Luke 1:27
Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him.
Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions.
Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him),
- Colossians 4:10
Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@Tanjaicholan most protestant pastors are prideful enough to be their own pope, Martin Luther wanted to throw away the epistle of James because it didn't align with his own interpretation and self declared dogma of 'Faith alone'. If that is not pride I don't know what it is.
B.S.
Dr Brant is incredible!! What a scholar and he explains it all so well.
I served in the Army for 20 years, back in the 1970s black soldiers referred to one another as "Bro", short for brother. They learned that from the black churches, hearing church members calling one another "Brother" or "Sister" as in "brothers and sisters in Christ." So we don't have to look back at ancient Jewish culture to understand that brothers and sisters aren't necessarily related.
@@Davcramer I call my friends that
Brothers in Christ
Take a look at Mark 6:3 and Mark 5:31-35 and tell me if you think that the Gospel writer is using "bro" in the manner that you describe above. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that we need to turn to a metaphorical use of brother to understand what the Gospel writer is describing. This is Jesus' immediate biological family. Simple!
@@markrutledge5855 If I were a Protestant and I didn't have nearly 2,000 years of church tradition telling me that Jesus was Mary's only son, then I could say screw it, Mary and Joseph screwed like rabbits and had lots of kids. Unfortunately Catholics accept what the early church traditions were. Heck, if I were Protestant I could decide that Jesus misled us when he said that we must eat his flesh and rink his blood to have life within us, and I could decide that he misled us when he said "this is my body, this is my blood". But once again, I'm Catholic and I assume Jesus meant what he said and wouldn't have intentionally told us something he didn't mean.
@@Davcramer Again, the question this video addressed is what do the Gospel writers say about Jesus’ earthly family. This discussion is not about Roman Catholic hermeneutics or canon formation or a history of the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. It is simply inferring the most likely interpretation at what the Gospel writer’s say about this topic. Here I think Ockham’s razor is most helpful. When choosing between competing explanations for the same phenomenon, we should prefer the simpler one. In the case of where the Gospel writers describe Jesus’ family, specifically his brothers, the simplest interpretation is that they are his biological brothers. If we didn’t have the above doctrine to contend with it would a be simplest inference to make when reading the Gospels. Mary was the mother of many children. It is the obvious and plain meaning of multiple texts in the Gospels.
Brant Pitre's books are a must read.
I agree. His book "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist" is breathtaking.
@@CIST3”Jesus the Bridegroom” is amazing.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre.
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
- Luke 1:34
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Luke 1:27
Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him.
Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions.
Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him),
- Colossians 4:10
Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@CIST3 A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre.
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
- Luke 1:34
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Luke 1:27
Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him.
Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions.
Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him),
- Colossians 4:10
Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
@@Tanjaicholan It is better to remain silent and let the world doubt about the fact that you might be an idiot than to open your mouth (or write, like in this case) and remove any doubt about it.
"How will this be, since I am a virgin?" - this verse is a MORE THAN FORCED translation of the original passage, that instead should be translated as "since I KNOW no man".
The verse says "quoniam virum non cognosco" (latina vulgata). As in the original Greek, that "cognosco" is present indicative, or present simple.
It cannot be translated as "since I KNEW no man" or "since I haven't known no man (until now, yet)" but rather "since I KNOW no man".
The use of that particular verbal time and mode grants the idea that it is not an "occurance", something that "it is not at the moment" but, rather, a state of things, a permanent statement.
If you care about increasing your biblical knowledge instead of trying to bash others while displaying your utter ignorance, I suggest you:
First: get rid of that shitty translation you have and
Second: read Brant Pitre's "Jewish Roots of Mary"...or search YT, where you can find some videos where he goes more in depth with his brilliant analysis of the gospels' and their parallels within the OT.
You are welcome!
In my culture (and thus, my language) there is only one word to describe sisters and female cousins, only one word for brothers and male cousins. I think it’s an eastern specificity probably related to the fact that society is very family oriented, community oriented. So personally, I don’t have any problem believing what Dr Pitre is suggesting.
To this day people in Fiji and other Pacific areas call their
cousins"Cousin Brother"
So some people in the south of Portugal, exactly like That cousin-brothers
@@lxportugal9343 Fillipinos too.
In Africa we do the same. We don’t really say cousin. That’s more of a western thing
Then how do they call real blood brothers n sisters? Also, if u were writing a book as an eye witness about a family, wd u choose to express the proper relationship btw them or u wd make it so vague to the point that when u mention mother, father, brothers etc no one really knows whether u meant distant relatives or blood relatives, especially if the real relationship btw is so important for the ppl u are writing to to know?
@@NATAR160cousin-brothers are for 1st degree cousins only. The brothers are just brothers, at least in the south of Portugal.
I don't know why they didn't specified the family menbers, maybe they didn't had a name for cousins, maybe it was a costum calling brothers to cousins and aunts.
For instance in all Portugal "parents" are called "fathers" and I'm not talking about same gender parents. If you read a litteral translation from Portuguese you would see the word "fathers" instead of "parents"
The word "until" does NOT mean that whatever happens before necessarily ceases (ie Mary did not have relations with Joseph 'until' Jesus was born). Look at Matthew 28:20 "...and behold I am with you always until the end of the age." Does this mean then that Jesus will no longer be with us after the end of the age? No way! The word until simply means, as stated, that Jesus promised, "I am with you always." And in the same way, "until" in the other verse simply stated that Mary and Joseph had no relations before the birth of Jesus. It does NOT prove that Mary and Joseph did have relations after Jesus' birth. It simply does not say that, let alone prove it.
Don't you think if Jesus had brothers and sisters; meaning as we interpret them today, that they would have been worshiped and put in a high place by people because we are people. Why do you think the Bible was written for 21st Century Americans, if that was the case what would people believe in the 25th Century and beyond? Please stop recycling these ridiculous Protestant clams that you can read the Bible on your own and all of a sudden you know all things.
this was extremely well put. i also read his book on Jewish roots of Mary.
In Mark chapter 6 there is a reference to Jesus' brothers. A few verses later in the same chapter is a reference to Herod Antipas and his brother Philip.
We know from Josephus that Herod And Philip were sons of the same father, but of different mothers.
“A band of brothers”
“My brother from another mother”
“Brother in arms”
Some ways we in modern times refer to people we are close to. Possibly related or not.😊
"Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her TILL she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." - Mt 1:24-25.
"Until" = heos - "to denote the end of a period of time" (BDAG)
"Heos" is used in all of the following verses:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
That's why Martin Luther and John Calvin both said that anyone who used Matthew 1:25 to argue for Mary having children after Jesus was born was, in their words (they were pretty rude), "stupid" or "an idiot" (respectively). And bear in mind, they did everything they could to distance themselves from any Catholic doctrine.
@@bigfootapologeticsnot from any catholic doctrine just the ones that contradict scripture they had zero problem with the nicer creed and both acknowledge the perpetual virginity of Mary and other views as well
@@bigfootapologetics that is such a stupid comparison. One is a condition the other is a description.
I can say im not going to eat till I get home.
And she never recovered till the day she died.
Those two uses of Till are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Thats FALSE EQUIVALENCY
@@RJWM1999it's the SAME word "until".
@@patricktinley6545 the same word doesn't always mean the same thing when put in different contexts.
Like I said if I say. "Yesterday I didn't eat until I got home". That means I ate WHEN I got home.
But if I say, "Until the day she died she never ate meat"
That sentence means from the day she was born until her death SHE NEVER had meat.
The use of UNTIL has 2 VERY different meanings in context. One points to WHEN an event happened.
Another points to how an event NEVER HAPPENED.
Only the high priest could touch the Ark of the Covenant. Uzzah was struck dead when he touched the Ark (2 Sam 6:6-7). Joseph was not a high priest.
European people must stop imposing their culture on the Bible. I am an Akan. In the Akan culture, your mother's sister is your mother. Also, your father's brother is your father, therefore their children are your brothers and sisters. We do not struggle with the idea that Mary did not have a child besides Jesus. We do not refer to them as half brothers and sisters. We do not have Aunties and cousins in our culture.
I’m Italian and I agree with your culture too. My aunts are also my mother. ❤
👍Thanks for sharing that
Which means if u show sb ur own mother, the person has to assume she must be just some close relative to u n not ur mother?
I tend to support you on this. So many authors believe that Heaven is a carbon copy of their homes down here, complete with pets. I dismissed the suggestion that love =sex. The reasoning was that there are no marriages in Heaven, so all the souls sleep freely with one another, like an enormous Hippie community. That is what Hollywood has done to your culture.
Well that's NOT BIBLICAL. Elizabeth is referred to as Mary's COUSIN in the Bible. You guys are the one's changing scripture to FIT your narrative. The usage of the word cousin does appear in the Bible.
The Hebrew (& presumably Aramaic) word for brothers simply means male relatives, including cousins. No one lied to anybody.
That doesn't explain why the New Testament consistently uses the Greek word for brothers because that language definitely has a word for cousin.
Hey I am reading this book right now!
The argument is quite possible, but it is not conclusive to declare the perpetual virginity of mother mary. What will you say about Eusabias mentioning James as the brother of our Lord and Simeon his successor the cousin of the Lord.
The matter of perpetual virginity of mother mary doesn't in any way affect our faith and salvation. The Catholic church is promoting such arguments for extraneous reasons.
AS an aside, I note that Samuel Adams and John Adams, though cousins, were sometime calle the :”Brothers Adams” .
I just cracked open a 12 pack of delicious Sam Adams Octoberfest beer. It's so good, I consider both of them to be my brothers as well.
In Spanish first cousins are called brother-cousins: primos hermanos. And the children of your first, second, third cousins call you uncle or aunt and your children are their cousins. Just some modern examples of how different cultures view and name relatives.
Excellent. Pitre lays evidence out clearly. Thank you.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre.
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
- Luke 1:34
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Luke 1:27
Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him.
Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions.
Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him),
- Colossians 4:10
Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
That's great. Thank you. I always thought it was muddled to talk of brothers of Jesus.
Matthew would have called Mary as mother of Jesus if that Mary was the mother of Jesus instead of calling her mother of James and Joseph.
If you want to know everything and I mean everything about the holy mother please read the book The Mystical City of God. Written by the venerable Maria of Agreda in order of the holy mother Mary herself. Everything from just before her immaculate conception till her assumption is there. All your questions will be answered. Hail Mary most pure, pray for us.
In Spanish first cousins are called primos hermanos, that is brother cousins. And the children of first cousins, second cousins, third cousins, etc., are also called nephews and nieces and among the ir children, cousins.
Subscribed!
This is my problem with Catholic doctrine. It assumes a presupposition that was gradually developed over centuries and THEN goes back to bend and contort Scripture in order to shoehorn it to fit the presupposition. It never actually agrees with the presupposition though. It just gets to a place where the strongest argument is, "well, it COULD have been a thing, and "holy" tradition says we're right." It's grasping at straws in order to validate an unbiblical and idolatrous dogma.
Exactly
How can they contort? Do you mean the divided Protestants don't contort? They are divided by 30K, which is evidence of the way the contort scripture. If they didn't, they'd be under one church with one interpretation.
This doctrine wasn't developed over time but even if it was, the church has the same authority today as they had to bring us the God breathed scripture. The teachings are ancient and consistent worldwide for 2000 years.
And more evidence of the Satanic influence in the divided, confused and fighting Protestants is they hate on the Catholics for doctrine also understood by some mainline Protestants and Eastern Orthodox, yet no hate for those churches? I find all of this fascinating. As a mystical Christian who is not catholic, this is part of the reason I decided to study the catechism. Hate, division, and confusion are not from God. I've learned that in my experiences with Him. Love, consistency, and unification are from God.
“Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one” (John 17:11).
The perpetual virginity of Mary is in the doctines of the orthodoxes churches.
It was even part of the doctrines of the syro-malabare and syro-malankare churches founded in india by the apostle Thomas. Churches which were geographicaly separated from the Catholic Church until a first contact in 1599.
"Gradually developed over centuries" my ass. Even the first protestants like Luther and Calvin believed it. It's only until the XVIIs that some protestants began to reject it just because it was one of the doctrines teached by the Catholic Church.
IF Jesus had brothers, why did Jesus commend His Mother to John at the Cross? John 21 says John took her into his home, He took care of her. The Children would have cared for their Mother. The early tradition by 250 ad, Mary is described as, 'Ever Virgin', in the prayer, Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν, refers to Her as Only Pure ever Virgin. If there were Children of grand children, they would have corrected this error. You use the term, bending and contorting scripture. As a former Bible Fundamentalist, I never realized how we were taught to bend and contort scripture to fit our doctrine.
@@DanH-ui8oh Again, it's an assumption meant to validate a preconceived notion. There are any number of reasons why Jesus asked the disciple He loved most to watch over Mary, whom He does not refer to as mother anymore at that point. As He told his disciples while He left His mother and brothers waiting outside, those who did the will of His Father were, in fact, His family, not necessarily His blood relatives.
Well said!
2 Timothy 2:14 'Remind everyone of these things and command them in Gos's presence to stop fighting over words. Such arguments are useless, and they can ruin those who hear them.'
Well it was Puritans who started all this quibbling. They knew nothing of what family life was in the first century and they was trying to make history fit Luther’s theories.
@@johnschuh8616 Well, I imagine anybody who has ever been in a family knows something about family life. Not only that but useless arguments were likely taking place long brfore the Puritans.
Martin Luther
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
Because Jesus is the Davidic King, Jesus elevates His Mother as Queen of Heaven (Rev 12) just as the Queen-Mother was highly exalted and given a prominent place in the OT (1 Kings 2).
Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) --
"She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: 'Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'"
Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said --
"She was not filled with pride by this praise...this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN....blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'"
(LUTHER'S WORKS 36:208; 45:107 as cited in REFUTING THE ATTACK ON MARY by Fr. Mateo available from Catholic Answers)
Heinrich Bullinger, Cranmer's brother-in-law, Zwingli's successor said:
"What pre-eminence in the eyes of God the Virgin Mary had on account of her piety, her faith, her purity, her saintliness and all her virtues, so that she can hardly be compared with any of the other saints, but should by rights be rather elevated above all of them..."
French Reformed pastor Charles Drelincourt said in the 17th century --
"We do not simply believe that God has favoured the holy and blessed Virgin more than all the Patriarchs and the Prophets, but also that He has exalted her above all Seraphim. The angels can only qualify as servants of the Son of God, the creatures and workmanship of his hands; but the holy Virgin is not only the servant and the creature but also the Mother of this great and living God."
(from MARY, MOTHER OF ALL CHRISTIANS [p. 89] by Calvinist theologian Max Thurian who later converted to the Catholic faith)
The titles of "Mediatrix" or "Co-Redemptrix" for Mary have not been officially defined so those dates are wrong. They do reflect the Marian piety and devotion of many great Popes, Saints, and Doctors of the Church
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity.
Huldreich Zwingli
He turns, in September 1522, to a lyrical defense of the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ . . . To deny that Mary remained 'inviolata' before, during and after the birth of her Son, was to doubt the omnipotence of God . . . and it was right and profitable to repeat the angelic greeting - not prayer - 'Hail Mary' . . . God esteemed Mary above all creatures, including the saints and angels - it was her purity, innocence and invincible faith that mankind must follow. Prayer, however, must be . . . to God alone . . .
'Fidei expositio,' the last pamphlet from his pen . . . There is a special insistence upon the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she
brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
I feel like Protestants commenting here didn't even watch the video. 🤔
correct
its just an opinion not fact
Amazing how quickly it went from “Mary wasn’t always a virgin, here are her other kids,” to “Well it has nothing to do with Salvation anyway so I don’t know and I don’t care.”
Is it at all possible, that Mary’s status as Ever-Virgin, could have a whole lot to do with Salvation through Christ? Might it be that, if we say Mary had other children by Joseph, that calls into question whether or not Jesus really is born of a virgin? Whether or not He is really conceived by the Holy Spirit? Whether or not He really is the Son of God? Which then begs the question of whether or not His sacrifice on the Cross did in-fact rejoin us with the Father???
It would seem that Mother Mary’s perpetual virginity might just strengthen the argument for Jesus as the Christ, rather than detract from Him at all.
@@markwelch9250 What?
Because these arguments have been repeated over and over again, all trying to eliminate Jesus' brothers and sisters, described as anything but Jesus' siblings. Why must they be relatives, why cousins, and why are the cousins are mentioned always in the company mother of Jesus but never in the company of their supposedly mother another Mary?
This makes the most sense to me: Mary wife of Clopas (brother of St. Joseph) was the widow of Alphaeus (himself a widower) and mother to Salome (Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee), James the Less (brother of Matthew/Levi, together the sons of Alphaeus). Clopas was also a widower whose children were Mary (mother of Mark), Simon and Jude. The youngest of these relatives was Joses the biological child of Mary and Clopas. Mary of Clopas is the biological mother of James and Joses.
It is always interesting to read stories created for the solo purpose of distorting the Scripture. I wonder what the Church gains in this.
@@Nolongeraslave what I wrote actually makes the most sense of the brother/mary/alphaeus verses in scripture. And the early church also told these “stories”. They believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity
Thank you you are very open minded, and are very able to discern and use your wisdom to search for truth.
Thank you you’re not trying to prove a religion you’re trying to prove truth.
You deserve sainthood for that one if you ask me!
There is a u tube fellow with the last name of Snipe who could surely use a dose of humility.
He is very close minded, very fundamentalist, and refuses to even consider anything except what he thinks.
I wish he would listen to your stuff because you are bringing in the whole wide variety of truth.
Thank you again honestly, I think you’re pretty awesome.
It’s all about Jesus Christ that’s the bottom line
There are many Marys, James, and Josephs. Either way, why does Mary’s perpetual virginity need to be believed as absolute truth in order to be saved?
read the old testament. Jesus is the son of A VIRGIN. NOT THE SON OF A FORMER VIRGIN. VIRGIN ALL HER LIFE. ALSO THE WOMAN IF GENESIS THAT FROM HER SEEED THE SAVIOUR WOULD BECOME FLESH THE ENEMY OF SATAN. ALSO MARY THE WOMAN OF REVELATION.
@@MAP2023
1. If Mary had children after Jesus, Jesus was still born of a virgin.
2. Yes, in Genesis it says the seed of the woman will crush the serpent's head and the serpent will bruise his heal. This is a prophecy of the Christ and that He will not be born from the seed of a man.
3. The women in revelation can also be Israel. Israel makes more sense to me because the Christ comes through Israelite people. It is the Roman Church interpretation that it is Mary, which leads to another dogma that has to be believed as absolute truth, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven.
I believe that Jesus is the Christ and He was born of the virgin Mary as prophesied. The question is, why do I have to believe that Mary's perpetual virginity is absolute truth to be saved from eternal damnation?
ua-cam.com/video/YX2usF519ZE/v-deo.htmlsi=9mrjrn78zdkfnUNd
Here is why we care about Mary's virginity @@mattb4249
@@mattb4249 Protestantism=Satan LIES.
@@mattb4249 Protestantism=SATAN LIES.
The perpetual virginity was based on the perpetual virginity of the goddess Hera, whose virginity was miraculously restored every year. Hera was also known as Queen of Heaven.
There are many counterfeits, contrived by the enemy of Truth, to hide the "needle" of truth in a haystack of lies.
{See the article, "Was the Virgin Birth of Jesus Grounded in Paganism?" by Jon Sorensen 12/2013}
'One argument that is often used by mythicists is the claim that other pagan deities were also born miraculously of virgins, making the birth of Jesus nothing new in the history of world religions. As the argument goes; Horus, Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus, Krishna, and others all fit this description. In fact, as it is often claimed, there are also heroes and historical figures like Ion, Romulus, Asclepius, and Alexander the Great who were believed to be the generation of gods and virgin women.
This is not the case for any of the pagan deities or historical figures mentioned above. Each can be classified in one of three ways:
* The pagan god is not born of a virgin mother.
* The birth of the pagan god is the result of a sexual encounter.
* The parallel exists, but the Christian tradition antedates the pagan mythology.'
This argument makes the assumption that the James and Joseph in Matthew 27 is the same as James and Joses, etc in Matthew 13, but James and Joseph, like Mary, were exceedingly common names then. I studied under arguably the greatest scholar about Jesus' family, Richard Bauckham, and he says that of the three options on the brothers, the one that can be definitively ruled out is the cousins theory. In addition there are probable misreadings of Eusebius here in this argument. The gospels were in Greek, and Greek did not have the flexible use of brother to mean cousin etc that was OT and Jewish use.
...and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?... (Matthew chapter 13, Mark chapter 6)
The most natural reading is quite simple.
Yes but what is the most natural reading of that verse? It all hinges on the meaning of the word "brothers" which we westerners assume means the same in their language as it does in our language. But that doesn't take into account the enormous difference between their culture (the writers of the New Testament) and ours -- which is very nuanced. Even today, in many cultures, it's common to use the word brothers (or brother) in a broader sense than "born from the same mother". Even in Old Testament, the term for brother was used more broadly. For example, Lot is referred to as Abraham's brother although he is elsewhere described as his brother's son, aka his nephew. There are numerous examples of this usage in the Old Testament.
@@rebeccamohammed8465 We only have the Greek of the NT writers and the literal translation into our vernacular languages. The most natural reading of that is just what it says: brothers and sisters and his mother Mary. Why go beyond it to say something else entirely? None of the NT writers or apostolic fathers imply anything else.
She was Joseph's wife, with all that entails.
It is not until the late second century CE that something else arises, within writings of a sect that involve an asceticism which was not truly of Jewish cultural origin. The Jews believed in the goodness of creation, including God's gift of marriage and its blessings.
Mary was indeed blessed to be the vessel in which the Holy Spirit conceived and brought forth the Son of God. But the later innovations in narrative regarding Mary have no warrant in the inspired scriptures or earliest traditions of the Church.
Those later narratives' acceptance should not be required for considering any person a fellow child of God or follower of Christ. Nor should the eucharistic table be turned away from those who do not accept their veracity.
Let the common table be open to all and let Christ alone be the judge.
Is it hard to understand Matthew 1:25? When it is clear that Joseph knew Mary not “UNTIL” she brought forth Jesus. That means he didn’t sleep with her until after Jesus’s birth. What Jewish marriage in the Old Testament had no consummated union? There was none! Truth is you CANNOT force a man made doctrine to fit the truth that is in the scriptures. The NT has written records of Jesus’s brothers and sisters from both the first and second person testimonies.
Look at how the word “until” is used in the rest of the New Testament to get some context on the Hebrew use of the word, and then your perception will change
The NT for your info is written in Greek. The manuscript word used is “Heos” and is conjunctive marking specific points in time. I’ll help you with what you were trying to say. The Hebrew equivalent would be “ad, lo” which also acts as a conjunction like all conjunctions do in any language.
My Bible doesn't even have "until" writen on it.
Or my friend it means what it says, that Joseph from the time he knew Mary and until the time of the birth of Jesus did not have relations with her. Meaning that the birth of Jesus was a virgin birth, And that is all. It does NOT say necessarily mean that he did after. That is conjecture on YOUR part.
I’ll use the comment regarding contextual use of the word “heos” to help you understand its meaning in both the OT and NT examples. Look up Daniel 10:3 and Matthew 2:15. Tell me, in those verses did the same condition remain following the word “until”?
I was born 1972 in Cracow (a city in Poland, Central Europe). When I was a child in Cracow "brother" and "sister" meant only those who had at least one common biological parent. But in the village my parents were from (also in Poland) it was not unusual to use these terms in broader sense: a son/daugther of your parent's sibling could be called your brother/sister. Although such use was declining there and now even there it is no longer in use. This is an example of how language evolves.
The relation between the Virgin Mary and Mary the wife of Clopas could simply be that they were sisters-in-law.
Best positive argument for Mary's perpetual virginity. And, for all you scripture only people. Jesus entrusted His Mother to John. If she had other biological children, it would have been their duty to take her in. He entrusted her to Apostle John ( by extension to us, the Church). She is my mother. Is she yours?
"By extension to us, the Church" is without biblical foundation. She is not my mother.
Was the Epistle of St James more likely written by James the Just [son of Clopas] or more likely by James the son of Alpheus, aka James the Younger, one of the 12? [it could not have been James son of Zebedee, - aka James the Elder - as he had been beheaded by Herod]. Was the Judas the same person as Judas Thaddaeus. [one of the 12, the Thaddaeus surname added to distinguish him from the traitor] and the writer of the Epistle of Jude?
Lastly was Clopas, father of James and Simon/Simeon likely to be the same person as Cleopas, who met the Resurrected Lord on the way to Emmaus?
the ark of the covenant was not used as a biscuit tin once the israelites built the temple..if you touched the ark, you died
The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35] Now notice how God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then ind welled Mary. At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35] Then The Ark contained the Ten Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron's rod who was the high priest that had a bulb on the end of it which when they pulled it out the bulb bloomed which represents Jesus's resurrection [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4] Now look what the womb of Mary contained : Jesus who is the Word of God made flesh , the true bread from heaven , Jesus is the high priest who resurrected to life. So you can clearly see why the Church teaches typo logically that Mary is the New Ark and it gets worse for you the very same ARK had passed King David and when he saw this he danced and leapt for joy! just as with Mary when Elizabeth saw her and at the voice of Mary the baby in Elizabeth's womb Leapt for Joy! then David also said David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" [2 Samuel 6:9] and then notice what Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43] then The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom in the Jude-an countryside for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11] Mary traveled to the Jude-an countryside and stood with her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months!! Luke 1:56 Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. !!!
@@bibleman8010Good imaginations.
I have a question: John the Baptist was Jesus’s cousin. Was he called a brother of Jesus?
2 different people. The baptist was beheaded before Jesus died. The brother of Jesus was the leader of the church in Jerusalem that Paul met after Jesus died.
@@daveg5420Do you not read?
I don’t think scripture ever refers to John’s relationship to Jesus. It’s deduced from Mary’s relationship to Elizabeth. And Elizabeth is referred to as a kinsman of Mary.
In the OT, Lot is referred to as both a kinsman and a brother of Abram.
Just read the verses in context.. it shows us what a cousin(kinsmen) or brother in Christ or actual half sibling to Jesus as was James-->
Galatians 1:19 KJV - But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
I understand that the term ´brother’ was applied to relatives or cousins who grew up together. But John grew up in Ein Kerim (Judaea), while Jesus grew up in Nazareth (Galilee). They doubtless would have met occasionally, but they didn’t actually grow up together.
Also, Elizabeth, John’s mother and Mary’s relative, is older than Mary by at least one generation, as she was ‘too old to conceive’ when she actually did, while Mary was a teenager at the time.
Fine, I confess I’m convinced of this particular doctrine. The cousin thing was always in the back of my mind when I heard it and I saw someone on Twitter make the connection to Clopas but this really made it pretty undeniable. Thanks for sharing. What Protestant denominations hold to this doctrine? lol
My understanding (please correct me if I'm misunderstanding what I have read in the O/T). In the N/T, Mary & Joseph were of the tribe of Judah. Elizabeth & Zaccariah were of Levi. In the O/T, God commanded families to marry within their own tribes, so within the 1 tribe of Israel they were called 'brothers/sisters', while descended from another of the 12 tribes they were called cousins - Mary went in haste to the hill country to her cousin Elizabeth - another proof of 'cousins' Vs 'brothers/sisters'??. Book of Tobit: Young Tobias married his 'fathers 'brothers' daughter, when they were (if I'm understanding correctly), distant relatives descended from the same of one of the sons of Jacob (israel)?? If Cleopas was Josephs brother then both Marys (BVM & the other Mary) were sisters-in-law (by our modern day description?? Is that right?
This approach to interpreting the Bible text about Jesus' siblings does indeed require several steps:
Reinterpreting the term "brothers" to mean cousins or relatives
Analyzing multiple gospel accounts to identify different Marys
Connecting these accounts with early church writings
Using these connections to support a specific theological position (Mary's perpetual virginity)
So that means, the Church taught the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, and then read it back into the bible. Makes sense.
The RCC found it necessary to imagine Mother Mary as perpetual virgin even though nothing in the early writings of the Church, from Paul's letters through John's gospel, makes this claim. In fact, we have both Mark and Matthew telling their readers that Jesus was Mary's oldest male child, followed by James, the oldest surviving brother, James. It was he who took over the Nazarene movement after after Jesus was executed. Then came Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Mary was fecund. (The Greek term "adelphoi" [ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit.] "of the same womb" of Jesus is used in Mark and Matthew.)
Brother means cousins...do you know what means family in the middle east all three generations, uncle aunts their children...also in China .all old languages.... nowadays when a Turk is polite ...when meat someone...hey abi means brother ... doesn't mean is brother... Abla greets sisters to everyone friendly....also their cousins...ABI is brother...also in ancient times the tribal three generations lived together
Does whether Jesus had siblings have any effect whatsoever upon your salvation? If not, then it doesn't matter. I can't find a reason why anyone should care.
The great tradition teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary. Therefore, providing a biblical warrant that Jesus doesn’t have brothers is paramount.
@@tjseaney_ this “great tradition“ it’s not taught in ORTHODOX ratings until the mid-4th century. It comes from a false gospel from the second century, which is where you find ORTHODOX writers such as Hegesippus and later Victorinus who believed the brothers of Jesus were younger half siblings of Jesus.
@@BornAgainRNthe orthodox became CULTS when they disobeyed Rome in 1054AD.
@JoyToTheWorld-v2fso you insult Mary therefore you insult Jesus and will lose your immortal soul
It matters because there was a political schism within the early church. Rome needed a way to allow Roman citizens who were paganistic worshippers to be able to accept Christianity. Therefore they conveniently established their doctrines on the writings of Paul, which allowed enough of legalistic loophole to install the papal authority and for "gentiles" to easily transfer their idol worship and the worship of the Roman Emperor onto who and is was now called Pope, the vicar of Christ. Vicar (vicarius) quite literally means substitute.
We can see clearly in Paul's writings an attempt to dissuade believers from the teachings of Peter and James, so there is deception and seeds of division are being sown. Paul's so called authority supplants that of James who was the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, established before Antioch, which conflicts with the narrative from Catholic tradition that teaches the first church being established by Peter in Antioch in 34 AD; and uses Christ's authority to appropriate Peter's gift of the keys of the kingdom.
This is also used to divest James of his legitimacy to lead, as Mary and Joseph, who were James's parents, were direct descendants from the house of King David and from Aaron the High Priest, which is also why he was highly regarded by the Jews. James was a threat to Roman control of Christianity, which is why the Roman appointed high priest in Jerusalem had him stoned for supposedly "breaking the law." If the Roman authority can convince the followers of Christ to abandon the law then there will be less resistance to them subsuming the authority of Christ and install their "vicar of christ"...which they successfully did through the ignorance of the people. It was common practice for the Romans to combine deities...All of the signs and evidence are clearly there.
Catholic tradition is not Christianity and is not the following of Jesus Christ, it uses his name and his story but that is all. *When we speak of sin, Catholic tradition teaches you need to repent to a man and previously pay an indulgence (and now again) for your sin to be forgiven. But none of this takes away the penalty for the sin, it just is a psychological tool to deceive people out of their guilt. When you look at what sin is in the Old Testament, sins are things that would literally cause the children of Israel to die or bring dysfunction that would lead to death, while they were in the wilderness when the law was given.
For example, if while in the desert they by chance happened upon fish without scales, shellfish for example, chances are it would cause them to become sick and die. Where would they receive medical help? If a man had incestuous relations and a child was born, the genetic malformations resulting would greatly endanger the child and the mother and cause social dysfunction in the family. Sins are not just people being "bad boys and girls." They are actions that created dangerous conditions for the children of Israel in the place and time they lived. This is why Jesus summed up the law we are to follow in the 10 and in the additional 2 commandment he gave. James taught this, and the Catholic tradition uses Peter's acknowledgement of the context in which the Law is to be followed (by the Jews) as a way to steal the authority of Christ.
In all, it is important to acknowledge Jesus has siblings because his teachings become corrupted when you invalidate the ones who truly kept them alive.
I do find the argument that they’re his cousins compelling but think I’m this for a second. The New Testament states that Joseph waited to consummate the marriage until after the baby was born. It didn’t say that he didn’t consummate it but that he waited until after Jesus was born. The New Testament also calls Jesus Mary’s firstborn son. It doesn’t call him her only son, or her only child, but the “firstborn” that implies she had other children after and it also implies they did consummate the marriage just after Jesus was born
Wonderful❤
John’s gospel uses one word for ‘brother’ or ‘brothers’ but he uses a different word for ‘relatives’. He makes a distinction. Why would Mary having other children diminish her contribution to the plans of God?
Why would John be entrusted with her care after His death?
If there were in fact other siblings, why would the Lord have them break His own 4th commandemwnt?
@@gopalsharma1208 Hello and thank you for your reply. I do appreciate your time.
Jesus was fulfilling His command to honor His mother by not leaving His mother, even for just three-days, with His unbelieving brothers. As we see in John 7:1-6, His brothers were wanting Jesus to go to Jerusalem knowing that the religious leaders were looking to kill Him. They were encouraging Jesus to go and present Himself and perform works for His disciples (suggesting that they were not His disciples) so that they may find Jesus and arrest and kill Him. If Mary had been left with them for the three-days Jesus was in the tomb, she would have suffered greatly. Jesus honored His mother by sparing her that torment.
Take care and have a good day.
What a beautiful description Brother. God blew you abundantly
This is why sola scriptora is everything all of what you're about to watch is false the scriptures in Matthew are literal.
Yes. And the scripture is literal in Matthew 26: 26 when it says: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it and, giving it to his diaciples, said,
'Take and eat; this is my body.'
Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
We Catholics do take scripture literally. Do you?
@@rebeccamohammed8465 oh you think you can trap me? Transsubstantiation is idolatry and heresy. Keep reading the bible says do this in remembrance of me. The bread is always bread. Get out of that church the protestants have the true gospel.
How can the bread be the literal body of Christ when he was literally with his disciples giving the bread to them ?
When Jesus says "I am the door", did he become wood or metal ?
When he says "I am the vine", did his nature change to become a vine ?
No. Jesus uses pictures to illustrate his teaching : just as eating bread is a personal act to be nourished, so believing in Christ is a personal relationship, and he feeds his disciples.
WHO CARES? and why? I follow Jesus not anyone else! Serve the poor and needy. Do onto others.... what ever you do to the least.you do to me. He who saves his life loses it." It's pretty simple!
Honor thy father and mother, so why not Jesus’s Mother? Why does she get ignored by everyone, even among other biblical women figures? 😢
Other arguments against Jesus having siblings.
1. If Joseph had children from a previous marriage this would have made
his other sons his first born, and by extension, heirs to the throne of David before Jesus. (1 Kings 1:11-13) And without some sort of intervention by either God or Joseph that named an heir outside the established order, Jesus could not inherit the Kingdom. (David named Solomon his heir ahead of all of his other sons. 1 Kings 1:43)
2. If Mary had other children then after Jesus' death his younger brother would be next in line to inherit the Kingdom, thus Jesus would not be the eternal king of the Kingdom of David.
3. On the more human level; the idea that after an angel appeared to St. Joseph in a dream and told him that Mary conceived of the Holy Ghost and that Jesus was a fulfillment of scriptural prophecy, therefore he should take her as his wife (Mt 1:20-24); then an angel appears to him a second time to tell him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt, and again in fulfilment of prophecy (Mt 2:13-15); and then appeared to him a third time to tell him to return to Israel (Mt 2:19) and was also warned in his sleep, so he settled in Galilee (Mt 2:23). And that after all that St. Joseph would dare to have relations with her is beyond credulity. When God sends an angel to you three different times to tell you to protect Mary and Jesus, would you dare to touch her in a sexual way? Impossible.
4. If the angel appearances in his sleep were not enough here is a list of signs that Joseph saw or heard to which point to Jesus' favor with God and, by extension, his mother.
a. the shepherds came to see Jesus "And all that heard, wondered; and at those things that were told them by the shepherds" (Lk 2:18). So there are a bunch of shepherds telling everyone that an angel told them a Savior, a Christ is born and then the angel is joined by a multitude of angels. (Lk 2:10-15)
b. Simeon in front of everyone present takes Jesus in his arms and equates Jesus to God's salvation. (Lk 2:25-33), another prophetic declaration.
c. The same day as Simeon, Anna a prophetess, confessed to the Lord; and spoke of him to all that looked to the redemption of Israel (Lk 2:36-38).
Again, after all these indications of the absolute holiness of Jesus and his role in God's plan for the people of Israel, it is unthinkable that Joseph would have relations with the vessel of God that was the mother of: the Saviour, Christ the Lord, God's Salvation, and "the redemption of Israel."
5. This one is just an observation: If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why in the account of Jesus in the temple why did Mary and Joseph look for "him among their kinsfolks and acquaintances"? Why didn't they ask his brothers where he was? Why aren't they even mentioned?
Could these arguments be used in addition to all the ones regularly used to dispute and invalidate the protestant position?
(All quotes are from the Douay-Rheims)
Show quoted text
Number 1 is in error. There is NO proof that Joseph was married and had children before Mary. No proof. Number 2 is in error. Jesus died but rose again, so He is not dead, but alive forever more. God the Father is Jesus' Father, not Joseph, and only God can leave anyone the Kingdom, and since Jesus is not dead, that is what the Father did. Joseph can only leave his eldest son material things, not Spiritual things. You might want to delete number 2. You missed that one by a country mile. The same is true for number 3. Read Matthew, chapter 1, verse 25. It says Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first born son, and called his name Jesus. He knew her not UNTIL. That is the key word "UNTIL". Number 4 has no argument either way, it is simply stating things. Number 5...Jesus was the one they could not find, so they went looking for Him, not any of his siblings. In fact we do not know if Mary and Joseph asked any of Jesus' brothers or sisters where He was. Do you know? No, you were not there, so you are simply guessing. Just because they were not mentioned, means nothing. We do not have a word for word statement of anyone recorded in the Bible, so that "argument" is moot.
Thanks
Excellent video, however I am confused on something. At the 3:30 mark, Dr. Pitre states that Mary was already married when the angel appeared to her in Luke 1.
In the NRSV version (and others I looked at) it states that Mary was engaged. Did this term mean something different back then? Please help!
The Gospel says Mary was engaged to Joseph, but that they were not yet living together. However, she would have been legally bound to Joseph by that engagement, even though the wedding would have been celebrated later.
But I agree Dr. Pitre’s formulation is confusing.
@@pinkpaprika8410It is the Jewish tradition that if a woman is already engaged to a man, she is already considered his wife. Although in their practice the consummation of marriage can only be done after the ritual of marriage.
Thank you both for your responses! I understand now 🙏
My copy of Eusebius (Maier translation) has Clopas as James's uncle. All of this just underscores the tragedy of Hegesippus's works having been lost to history, while making me curious about the various texts and debates about Eusebius.
The internet is melting pridestants.
Interesting.
It's melting my mind. However there is good.
This is now a word that will come out of my mouth lol. "Pridestants"
Thank you my brother for this lol
If one person brings up his case he's right until the other party is given a hearing.
A simple response to the angel Gabriel is read as a vow of chastity from Mary without any Scriptural reference from Pitre.
And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”
- Luke 1:34
to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin’s name was Mary.
- Luke 1:27
Yet she is engaged to Joseph to be married to him.
Papists have no knowledge of Holy Scripture and depend on their presupposition, illogical interpretation and pseudo documents ie Protoevangelium of James for their ambiguous traditions.
Cousins is clearly identified in the Greek.
Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, and Mark the cousin - anepsios of Barnabas (concerning whom you have received instructions-if he comes to you, welcome him),
- Colossians 4:10
Pitre is full of eisegesis and the papist are prideful of his ignorance!
The neutral historical records say yes, the religious texts say no. You pay your money and you make you choice.
Matthew 12:50 'For whoever shall do the will of My Father which is in Heaven, the same is My brother and sister and mother.' Truth has spoken
And yet they said right before this that Jesus’ brothers and mother were waiting outside for him. Didn’t say cousins.
@@Sirach144didn’t understand that there were NOT WORD FOR COUSINS IN ARAMAIC. Slow.
this is commonly the case in Eastern Cultures like in India
If you read The Bible for what it plainly says and not what you want it to say, it’s quite clear Jesus had siblings. Which also means Mary was NOT a perpetual virgin. She had normal sexual relations with Joseph AFTER the birth of Jesus. The Bible is very clear about this! I pray that God will lift the veil from your eyes and come to the knowledge of the truth of what His word actually says.
Read the writings of Italian mystic Maria Valtorta who wrote thousands of pages whist disabled and confined to bed. Maria was given a first hand look at the life of Jesus and Mary. Her descriptions are so detailed it is easy to recognise physical features as she described them when travelling through the Holy Land.
Having brothers and sister James, Jude,Simon, Solome, Mary medium size family at that time.I cannot believe Jesus only, husband and wife lived happily .
Not just in ancient Jewish culture. In many present day cultures. Particularly African, also many Latin American cultures.
This was also the case with English before William the Conqueror invaded. There was no "cousin" in Anglo-Saxon English.
@@RudyCarrera Interesting. The word for cousin in Spanish is “primo” as in first (primero). Or sometimes “primo hermano”.
The difference between Catholics and Protestants like me is, we are more Christ centric, we respect Marry but in no way would we have to make dogmas to fit a narrative. I think Catholics like their Novelas and need to be romanticized by the Marry doctrines.
What does that have to do with if Mary remained a Virgin?
I have never heard this subject explained in such a clear and precise way. Dr. Pitre, with examples from two different sources, makes a strong, believable case. Thank you for posting this.
This ridiculous attempt to claim Mary’s perpetual virginity is such a disgraceful lie. The Bible not only says that Jesus had brothers and sisters but it says very clearly in Matthew 1:25 that Joseph did not know Mary until after she had Jesus. That literally means that Joseph didn’t have sex with Mary until after she had Jesus. God did not deny Joseph and Mary a normal healthy marriage. Then they act as though Jesus giving Mary to John as mother and son somehow means that Jesus didn’t have brothers. His Brothers were not yet believers in him. They were not Christians. Even if his Brothers were actually just cousins, which is absurd, they were obviously so close to Jesus, Mary, and Joseph that they were called his Brothers (and Sisters) then why didn’t Jesus give Mary to them? This is more Roman Catholic nonsense to prop up their completely unbiblical Marian doctrines. Which are idolatrous and blasphemous. Matthew 1:25..Mary was not a perpetual Virgin. The word of God tells us that point blank.
Have you even watched the video?
@@a-medeeHave you ever read a Bible?
That literelly doesn't mean anything because my Bible doesn't even have the word "until" wroten.
That's the problem when you single out one sentence
Love how people find a religion solely based on English translations in a Western worldview without respect for Jewish culture and ancient customs.
In India too in many cultures the cousins are called brothers, unless you ask, you would not know whether they are cousins or real brothers.
Mary of Cleophas (married to Cleophas), the other mother is wife of Zeb'edee ... Oh, Virgin Mary's husband was Joseph, right?
Interesting that there is that description from historian at 4th century reafiming that also another saying that Cleofas was Joseph's brother.
I think Mary was only betrothed to Joseph at the time of the Annunciation. The non Catholics would naturally debate that argument. In those days was the betrothal akin to marriage?
I don't think proving that our Lord not having brothers equal perpetual virginity.
Even if we yeild to the argument that jesus had no brothers (and sisters)...
there's still a problem when comes to "consumating the marriage".
Matthew 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Why use the word until?
Wouldn't it be clearer if they say Joseph never 'knew' mary.
The point was to affirm the virgin birth of Jesus and not give a history of his parents. And that s exactly how Scripture often uses the word "until".
The Bible clearly says that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after Jesus was born. Know means intimately and maritally. They, Joseph and Mary had other children. It is clear. I think you may want to reconsider who is lying here.
Not even the original Protestants believed Joseph and Mary had other kids.
Don't do that, until does not always imply change of state, even in english
If you tell your child to nice to the aunt until you return, it does not mean that when you return your kid should became not nice
Look at this passage in Old Testament
2 Samuel 6, 23
And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to the day of her death.
But by your logic it would imply that Michal gave birth after dying, which is not possible, who is lying here?
Either way, you think the word until would mean change of state which would imply Jesus would be no longer King after this nor sit at the right hand of The Father
1 Corinthians 15, 25
"For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet."
Or that Jesus will not sit at the right hand of Father
Hebrews 1, 13
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
So will Christ no longer sit at the right hand of the Father, no longer be the King and Michal would be having son after her death
Or the Word until does not imply the change of state
Check this out, this is from my 1954 Catholic Challoner-Rheims Bible. Look at Galatians chapter 1,verse 19. "But I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the brother of the Lord." Sure sounds here that Jesus had a brother named James. Why does the Church keep denying this? What's so wrong if Mary had other children? Sounds like false man made traditions.
The issue is the perpetual virginity of Mary and the immaculate conception. For reasons above my pay grade that would undermine these two doctrines if she had other children.
I thought sex within marriage was Holy and God-ordained ... the Marion doctrines are erroneous and unnecessary .. created later in response to accusations of infidelity regarding the virgin birth ... perpetual virginity can only be dated to the mid 2nd century and the immaculate conception and assumption even later ... interesting that when Mary questioned about being pregnant she said that no man had 'known' her ... ie had intimacy ... but when Joseph didn't 'know' Mary until after the birth that means him saying hello ... the level of eisegesis needed to shoehorn these ideas into the gospels is astounding ...
The mental gymnastics Catholics have to do to avoid scriptures is crazy.
Protestants don't know that brethren means whoever professes the same faith...The other Mary is Mary Clopas the Mother of James and Joseph and she was related to the Virgin Mary...
To say they are lying to people is bearing false witness.
Not only do we need to look at the coined phrase of "brotherhood" brother, but also, what was the translation to greek, hebrew and aramaic. And then what did it mean? Like the camel through the eye of a needle. It meant the door entering a town where the camel and its rider would have to kneel down or bow their heads to clear the top of the door way.
Hey my dear Protestant 'brothers', have some respect for St.Joseph, the guardian of the holy family. He is not an average joe as your twisted minds think. He was a righteous man (Mat 1:19). He clearly understood his role in the salvation plan and was constantly guided by the Holy Spirit. Also please have reverence towards the holy mother of God. If you dishonor her, you will receive the wrath of her only son, our Lord.
For nearly fifteen centuries the faithful (all orthodox and catholic churches) had no issues on this matter. Confusion arose only when the deceiver was successful in rupturing the Catholic church.
There sure is a lot of reinterpreting the biblical text to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary. It seems much more historical that Mary and Joseph had 4 other sons and at least 2 daughters in addition to Jesus as a traditional Jewish family of their time. You don’t have to go through a lot of linguistic gymnastics to get there either. Mary can have a God appointed role in salvation history and still raise a family. What a miracle and what a blessing!
Early Christians disagreed with how it seems to you.
And it was probably that Mary, wife of Clopas who was accompanying him on their way to Emmaus. Jesus appeared first to the women who stood beside him till the end, the three Marys - mother, aunt and Magdalene.
Tradition does not have "firm biblical roots" as you say, for the Bible was written by them, Holy Tradition comes first.
I don't see anywhere in the Bible that Mary should have to be a virgin after Jesus was born. I don't see where she plays any part in salvation other than carrying and raising Jesus. I don't see where it says to pray to her or any other saints. I think this is twisting reality for Catholic tradition and is worthless.
In other words, we don't know. "The Jesus Dynasty" suggests that Mary was mentioned twice. Clopas was the name of one of the two on the road to Emmaus. They lived together, and invited Jesus to have dinner with them. The book suggests that Mary the wife of Clopas (Cleophas in my translation) was the same person as Joseph's widow who had married Clopas under the requirements of Jewish law. The author, believe it or not, is an unbeliever who is head of a theological college. He tends to place less reliance on John's Gospel, as being a late work tainted by Gnosticism, until, near the end of the book, John is the only Evangelist who supports him, and suddenly becomes the fair-haired boy.
Does that mean that the book's author claims that in the Gospel narrative, Mary the Mother of Jesus is referred to twice in the same sentence as being both the "wife of Cleopas" and the "Mother of Jesus"?? Does that make sense to anyone?!!
Joseph could have been a widower with children
I thought Mary was betrothed when she said “how can this be since I know not man?” I thought she wasn’t married yet
I used to think that too, but the gospel of Matthew, I believe, said that Joseph wanted to divorce Mary because she was found with child. There can be no divorce if they were not already married. I believe Jewish marriage is a two-phased event, with the couple living together in the second phase. I don’t know all the details, but that is the gist of it.
In that culture (and time) betrothal was the first stage of marriage. They were married -- as confirmed by the fact that Joseph "planned to divorce her quietly" -- but we're not yet living together in the same house, as was the custom. (Matt 1:18-19)
And what is more, does it not seem strange that Mary, in asking, "How can this be for I am a virgin?" was demonstrating a complete ignorance of where babies come from? Do we really think that she was asking the angel to tell her "how can this be?" as in, how is a baby to be conceived? Or was she rather asking, "Does God want me to have sex with my husband (to whom she was already legally married, according to their custom) so that we would conceive a son?"
A chapter or two before this, when the same angel spoke to Zachariah, announcing to him that his wife also would conceive a son, Zachariah asked a similar question, "How can this be since my wife is old?," yet the angel struck Zachariah dumb as punishment for his insolent question, his lack of faith. The angel didn't need to explain to Zachariah where babies come from, and his reply to Mary's queswas not a biology lesson; it was the explanation that she had asked for: "Not by deed of man" He said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you."
@@rebeccamohammed8465 thank you for this thoughtful answer! I am actually a new Catholic, and am still learning all of the little apologetics details and am so grateful! It would be helpful if he explained the answer like you did. Most evangelicals have been taught that Mary and Joseph were betrothed/engaged during that time and were not yet married, so to hear him say they were already married, with no explanation, would be taken as a weird Catholic distortion to them.
@@Seekingwisdom2322 thank you! I’ll have to read more about it.
I don’t remember a Bible verse saying that Mary had more children. Is there one? Or that Mary and took Jesus and his siblings to Jerusalem. Is there one?
"Look your mother and your brothers are outside want to see you"
Somehow that is questionable in Catholic theology.
Compare this: And Jesus entered the house of Peter and found Peter's mother-in-law sick with fever...:" then you argue that because it is not mentioned anywhere that Peter had a wife, therefore Peter never married! Words have meaning, but in Catholic theology somehow they don't.
@@Nolongeraslave Nope. Brother in Christ. The Catholic Church interprets Sacred Scripture the way Jesus told the Apostles to interpret it guided by the Holy Spirit. The verse you misinterpret is someone talking to Jesus about his mother and some of his disciples outside. It does not say Mary had other children.
Watch the video instead of making comments denigrating Jesus the theology breathed into His Catholic Church.
By the way the Apostles passed on the interpretation of the Bible to the Bishops who followed them for the last 2,000 years. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the millions of protestants who followed them were not given the authority to interpret Scripture.
@@Nolongeraslave I’m not sure what your nonsense is about Simon Peters mother-in-law. Everybody knows he was married except you I guess.
Just a thought but under the protestant sola scriptura dogma where anybody’s interpretation of Scripture is acceptable by the “we agree on the essentials” clause then I claim the Catholic Churches interpretation must be accepted by all. So stop criticizing us.
@@Spiritof76Catholic Yes, the Church interprets Scriptures according to their purposes. And you are faithfully following that interpretation. But apart from that, who exactly find it necessary to interpret those verses instead of letting the clear meaning of the words speak for themselves? The Church is reading the Perpetual virginity of Mary back in the Scriptures because their being challenged by people who love letting the Holy Spirit speak! For us who are guided by the Spirit of God, just let our God talk to us instead of sitting on the fence and allow sons of mean who love to claim big titles lord it over people telling them they are the Church, you their followers must accept whatever rabbit they pull out of the magician's hat and claims comes from God!
The Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters and these brothers and sisters were almost always in the company of their mother Mary the mother of Jesus. When we contrast this with Rome's claims, there is no Scriptural basis to lean on ~ such as they are Jesus' cousins, you are saying disciples, others says they were children from Joseph's earlier marriage, claiming that Joseph was a widower. Rome also wrestles with the word "until" in Matthew trying to explain away the obvious, and so on, insisting the clear words of Scripture means anything other than what they mean.
I am wondering whether these men think about the wrath of God when they deliberately lead their blind faithfuls astray. And that time will come, for each one of you.
@@Nolongeraslave Brother in Christ. The Catholic Church and Catholic Christians are not your enemies. According to Jesus we are the original Biblical and historical Christians. And you know why, because there was only one deposit of faith left by Jesus to the Apostles and handed on to their successors for the last 2,000 years. If it wasn’t the Church Jesus started would have died out after the last Apostle died. But you and I both know it didn’t because Jesus told us he would build his church and the gates of would not prevail against it and He would be with them until the end of the age. Jesus also told the Apostles, and therefore their successors He would send the Holy Spirit so they would recall all that He said to them and lead them to all truth and He even breathed on the Apostles so everything the Catholic Church teaches including about Mary is God breathed. Jesus clearly speaks through the inspired writers of the New Testament books the He is the bridegroom of his Church and the Church is His body. Now let’s look at protestantism. It can’t be filled with the Holy Spirit because it teaches 1,001 contradictory theologies based on the fallible human interpretation of Scripture which has led to chaos in protestantism. Sorry brother you are wrong about Mary, the mother of Jesus who was her only divine child.
I'm in an alternate universe...
It does do ones head in; sure, the text may be referring to relatives.
But is the only possible explanation of this text with no other possible at all
Of course not
QED these dues are Mythist
Where does the Bible tells us that Mary remained a virgin? This nothing more than rationalizing Mary worship.
"And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, BUT KEPT HER A VIRGIN UNTIL SHE GAVE BIRTH TO A SON; and he called His name Jesus." (Matthew 1: 24-25)?
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5)
"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4: 1-4)
Sola Scriptura!
Semper Fidelis est Deus!
Answered, and explained countless number of times, in papers, books, YTube videos etc.
Actually if people keep bringing up these same tired old points, it most likely means they don’t want to know the truth.
(Followers of the church of Martin Luther instead of the church Christ’s founded 1500 years earlier? )
A 30 second query will find more than enough the books, debates or videos to dispel the errors you allude to.
We've been doing this for two thousand years. I think we got it.
PS. Sola scriptura is an unbiblical, new, man-made tradition.
@@Michael-pw2td Sola Catechismus is unbiblical and man-made doctrine of heresy.
@@4pharaoh Martin Luther was convinced of the perpetual virginity of Mary - he wouldn't recognise churches that call themselves Lutheran these days.
"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will BE LIKE GOD, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:5 😞😞😞
If your pastor gets the virginity of Mary wrong, they're also get a lot else wrong
How does the virginity of Mary have any bearing on how one is saved? Bulletin: It doesn't!!! Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Once Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph had children together. Simple as that.
The main problem with the argument that, the brothers and sister of Jesus are from Joseph ( a previous marriage). But when they went for to Bethlehem only Joseph and Mary - there was no place for them in the inn.
Even if you check every single nativity scene there are no other children.
No. Stop. At this point you are trying to make stuff up to fit your narrative. Even if that crazy story true would still prove Mary eternal virgin and Jesus no siblings since he was conceived by the holy spirit and Mary.
Show us the proof that Joseph was previously married, and had children by a previous marriage. In what documents is this stated?
Consider this. When the angel Gabriel told Mary that she would conceive and bear a son she responded by saying, "How shall this be? For I do not know man." At this time Mary was already engaged to Joseph. If a woman who is engaged to a man is told that she is going to conceive why would she be surprised when it should be obvious that she will eventually have relations with her husband to be?
The brothers are never called the ‘sons of Mary’.
I don't know man, Jesus having siblings just makes sense for me; they have just not mentioned in the bible. For one thing Joseph is basically married to Mary right? Plus the norm on that time is to have as many hands as possible to help the work as those times are eras when manual work is absolutely needed. I may be Catholic but if a priest say that Mary is forever a virgin while being married to Joseph; I'll just say: " Sorry father, that just doesn't make sense for me."
Rubbish... Stop listening to protestant rubbish.... Protestants religion was invented 1500 years after Jesus ascended into heaven..... Why would anyone in their right mind listen to a protestant.... Rather listen to the Catholics who walked and talked with Jesus
There were no protestants at the time of Jesus
In my country, we refer to our cousins as brothers and sisters.
Asian tradition
In my country, we refer to our cousins as cousins. We refer to our siblings as our brother and sisters.
@@davidslone9776 Not ASIAN, just a YANK.
Great 👏🏼
Consider what the Gospel of Luke tells us in chapter 2 verses 5-7 : “ to be registered with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child. 6 And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn “ (ESV)
Note that verse 7 tells us “And she gave birth to her firstborn son” The Gospel of Luke was written sometime around A.D. 62, so Luke would know for certain if Jesus was Mary’s firstborn son or her only son. Since verse 7 specifies “HER firstborn son” we must interpret firstborn to mean a physical human child and not a reference to the supremacy and honor that belongs to Jesus as expressed in Colossians 1:15 ““ He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation” (ESV) Luke clearly tells us that Mary had at least one other son.
We must also consider the Gospel of Matthew that says of Joseph in chapter 1 verses 24-25 :
“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son…” (ESV)
In this context the word “knew” means to know physically through intimate relations. Joseph knew his wife Mary intimately only after the birth of Jesus.
Knew is first used in Genesis 4:1 which tells us “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, …”
It is used again in Genesis 4:17 which tells us “Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch”
It is used again in the same context in Genesis 4:25 “And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth”
So Joseph knew his wife Mary in the same exact physical way that Adam and Cain knew their wives. And the outcome was the same - children. Half-brothers and sisters to our Lord Jesus.
Or it could mean Luke just identifies Jesus as being Mary's first and only true born son. Being first doesn't necessarily mean that there is a second. I'm sure you could think of a few examples where this is true.
Also, First born is distinct from saying "first or second" son. Mary or many households could have many children, each being 1st, 2nd, 3rd but not necessarily being born of... Do you get my meaning?
OK, so you're in the camp that Jesus sinned on the cross when handing care of his mother to John? If Mary had another child, that care would've fallen on them. Not allowing them to care for her would've been disrespectful and broken a commandment.