I’ve been reading over all the comments and find the “back and forth” conversation very interesting. At the age of 42, 26 years ago (yes, I am old) I converted to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church after questioning Christian dogma and doctrine as taught in the United Methodist Church in which I was raised. When I realized the Methodist community was created from a split from the Episcopal community which was created from a split with the Anglican community which was created from a split with the Roman rite of the Catholic Church I began to wonder WHY all the splits when Jesus prayed we should all be one and St. Paul wanted no divisions in the faith communities he had established SO..... to make a very long story short, I came home to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in 1993. I find all this bickering totally a waste of time. People will twist and turn the Scriptures into any meaning they, personally, want to believe and after more than 500 years of one community after a another, after another after another after another after another after another (you get my meaning) splitting from the ONE Church Jesus established, only the Holy Spirit can stop this tragedy of divided Christendom. Pray that all our brothers and sisters in Christ come home to the fullness of the Faith. God bless.
I’m Jewish. I believe that people of good will of all religions can and must get together in faith, in brotherhood and sisterhood. Jews and Christians are not so different. Jews are waiting for the Messiah to Come. Christians (including Catholics) are waiting for the Messiah to Come Back. Do you want the Messiah to Come soon? Then be good to members of his tribe! Jesus was Jewish when he was a man on Earth. What religions will He be if & when He Comes Back? Wait and see!
Mike T5 Yes, Jews and Christians are brothers and sisters! St. Paul writes: Romans 9:3-4 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”.
prayerfully study bible . Holy Spirit lead, Jesus Vs multy billion industrial corporate church though God allowed Jesuits and Carmalites ( education ) and medical service. Study prayerfully and reflect if this is the church of Christ with all its antisemetic activities . Crucifixion wss a Roman punishment and jews were under Romans in Christ’s tims . Pray for truth .
Jesus said to John, the disciple he loved; “behold your mother.” Notice Jesus did not say; “ John, behold your mother.” Why? Because John represents Christians throughout all time. We are called, to behold Mary as our spiritual mother and to take her into our home. Where is that home? That home, is where your heart is.
Maximilian Thomas Faith is the most important part of a Christian life, but God doesn’t call us to faith alone. God calls us to service, to good works, to many obligations to make our world better and to serve others. We need Mary and the Saints to help us on our walks with God. The argument of faith alone also oversimplifies thousands of years of Christian tradition and theology that has been universally accepted; where in the Bible is the Holy Trinity mentioned? Where does Jesus say he is fully man and fully God? Faith is important, but we need the theology and truths divinely revealed to us through the church in order to grow closer to God.
@@maximilianthomas3006 the faith alone in Romans was in fact added by Martin Luther, he admitted to that. St. James reads, "faith without works is dead."
"Bible believers" do not know the bible. It's like having a family photo album stolen and then the thief tries to piece together stories based only on what he thinks he understands from the pictures.
@@ElKabong61 What reading of scripture is that. The Old Testament, not the New. Timothy was written many, many years before the NT. 1 Timothy 4:10-14 10 For to this end we toil and strive,[a] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. 11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. This is talking to a New Testament Church. Not something 300 years later. The elders were the leaders of the local church.
In Africa as well. In my African language there's no actual word for brother of sister we only have the gender neutral "my mother's child" or "my father's child" which also mean my mother's brother's or sister's child, yep, my cousins on my mother's side and same thing on my father's. Translated into English like the Greek? Well, that would often result in a narrow and often misinforming.
Why would Jesus ask John at the Calvary to take care of Mary? In those days I think... it would be greatly offensive to her real sons....if there were any. This argument makes sense.
Ivana Tokár Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion. As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas. This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9). There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.” The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
arcunap7 have you considered reading the Holy Bible it says “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14) Matthew 1:21-23, records the fulfillment of the prophecy: "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:21-23) On the contrary Now I can better understand why she lost Jesus if she had younger children.
arcunap7 The explanation is that Mary and Joseph have faith in their 12 year old son. If he had been an irresponsible child, his parents would never have gone a whole day without knowing his whereabouts. They trusted him and knew he had good judgment. This suggests that Jesus' motive in staying behind was not carelessness or disrespect. Evidently he intentionally let them go in order to demonstrate something more forcefully. The other kids are not mentioned.
@@acunchevy54 I can not conceive the Idea of Mary braking up with her sons and or daughters because they didn't believe in Jesus, to start with. Mary is not braking up with her sons and or daughters. John stood at the foot of the cross and received Christ’s command to care for His mother. John 19:26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” 27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
What a sensational video. Quite enlightening. I'm Brazilian, ex-protestant, I'm 17 years old and I'm studying about the Catholic faith. I discovered this video thanks to Fábio Salgado de Carvalho's blog.
He has a video explaining purgatory a very informative for those who study Catholicism. With Dr. Barnt Pitre, you will be enlightened. I also recommend the contents of Dr. Scott Hahn a former protestant theologian who converted to the Catholic Church and Marcus Grodi a former Pastor and also theologian who runs an EWTN Journey Home Program. Greetings from your brother in the Catholic faith from the Philippines. Viva Cristo Rey.
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
@@jeanlucaspc Turtullian is human, his conclusion is in no way superior to interpretations concluded from councils such as the Lateran council, let's not even go far to early Church Apologists who supported Mary's perpetual virginity like Origen who was there during Turtullian's time, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine just to name a few. A write up from the University of Dayton👇 [The classic text on this question remains that of Joseph Blinzler. After a careful study of all the relevant texts, he offers this conclusion: The so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were male and female cousins. The relationship of Simon and Jude with Jesus occurs through their father Clopas and thus, these were of the lineage of David.]
I'm Greek and I was NEVER taught that Jesus had Brothers or sisters who were blood related, this is NOT what the scriptures are saying, AT ALL. Jesus called his disciples and acquittances Brothers just like WE all do to people who are very close to us, without being blood related to them, as simple as that......
@ChiefCowpie No, they are not. They are children of Joseph's brother, Cleophas, and his wife, Mary ("the other Mary" who is mother of James and Joses) as the Scriptures and the Early Church show. Dr. Pitre has made it very plain in this video. The story of Joseph being an old widower with children is apocrypha. The early Church clearly knew these were cousins of Christ, related to him through both his parents. St. Joseph's brother, Cleophas, was married to Our Lady's cousin/relative, "the other Mary" and their children were called Jesus's brothers.
So you never saw didymos which is Greek for twin or Thomas which is Hebrew for twin when it was talking about judas, Jesus twin brother doubting Thomas is called Thomas judas didymos
Another point not mentioned about "adelphos", according to the “Greek expression” used by John (1:41) “Andrew (after his encounter with Jesus) went to look for his brother (Peter) “ton adelphon ton idion” (John 1:41). John considers insufficient the word “adelphos” (=brother) to express the relationship between Andrew and Peter who were true blood brothers of the same parents. This is why John says “ton adelphon ton idion.” ( "[Andrew’s] very own brother") This expression is in contrast with the different expression “hoi adelphoi autou” used a little later to describe the meaning of the “brothers of Jesus” (John 2:12; 7:3-10). This is the key to grasping why “adelphos ” can signify “cousin,” “countrymen” (4,45), “townspeople” (7:5). The brothers of Jesus in the gospel of John are his “fellow countrymen,” not true siblings.The terminology that John uses in using the word adelphos thus differs between the way John refers to Jesus’ brethren, and the way John refers to the blood brothers Peter and Andrew. The phraseology makes a distinction in the way adelphos is used. But the fact that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, this was a euphemism for a marital bond, thus Joseph could not and would not touch her, the Ark of the New Covenant.
@Patrick Montgomery Ark of the Covenant will have the presence of God himself, Mary is the Ark of the Covenant because she had Jesus Himself in her Womb from the day of her Immaculate Conception If you believe that Jesus is God, you should agree that no one in this world could have been so close to Jesus except Mary. Just to make it more clear your mother who had brought you into this world is the only person by the will of God was the only person could explain even more clearly to you.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
@@mariaaugustine2675 wow, Mary was special, chosen by God. But was just another sinner. This is the beauty of it, that God the Father would use a sinful women to bear His Son. For all have sinned.
Sorry brother, you are wrong. The New Testament writing had a very specific word for cousins “Anepsios” Paul uses “Adelphoi” in 1 Corinthian 9:5 when discussing Jesus brother James. Paul then uses “Anepsios” for cousin in Col 4:10 (Barnabas, cousin of Mark)” In addition, Although scripture is the only authority on a topic, I will indulge you and if we bring in some texts of the early Christians of the Church, we must make the same observation. For example, Hegesippus (2nd century) uses the expression "brothers of the Lord" to speak of James, while elsewhere he also speaks of Jesus' uncles and cousins. In summary, on the purely historical level, it must be admitted that brothers and sisters of Jesus refers to brothers and sisters of blood. Since we name four brothers, and speak of sisters in the plural, we must recognize at least six persons. This conclusion is based on the criterion of multiple attestation (Paul, Mark, John, Matthew, Josephus). It is also established on the philological meaning of the word adelphos, which never has the meaning of cousin in the whole New Testament. To sum up, until the council of Chaldean in 325 A.D., it was understood by predominantly most writings, including the Word of God-The Bible, see Mathew 27:56, Mark 15:40 and more, that indeed James and Joseph (Joses), were sons of Mother Mary and were the blood Brothers of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Blood in antiquity meant full blood. No differentiation was used) Either way the official Roman Catholic view, the Hieronymian view, is incorrect as You now agree and you have retreated to the Epiphanian view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. At best, the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint is teetering on end. Reasonably, as biblical Christian’s we take the preponderance of evidence, including the only authority on topics of theology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, the Word of God. We then reach a reasonable conclusion that they are true blood relatives. I take my study of God‘s word seriously, so the final thing I want to say on this topic is for us to remember, this determination is not essential for salvation. Some Christian doctrinal differences are more important than others. This is of lesser importance. Let’s keep that in mind. Salvation comes only through true faith that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God and our Lord and Savior, faith that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the father. John 3:16, Romans 3:23-26, and many more. Much love brother ✝️
I am sure there are many "born" into a faith, no matter what church, that really don't know what their church teaches. I am happy to finally wake up and get away from the false episcopal church to come home to Rome.
Punk33: Every time you go to church and every good you do as a consequence, you're proclaiming to the world you are a believer in Jesus Christ and his holy Roman Catholic church; consequently, a defender of the faith.
What more proof do we need than the meticulous studies you have done of the gospels and of the church fathers to show that the heresies about the " brothers of Jesus" were clever concoctions of the protesting variety, just in order to insult the mother of the saviour. They are the very people who argue that Catholics do not know the scripture, when they them selves have not read the scripture with wisdom and discernment.
The Catholics do not use the scriptures as they should. The scriptures are not definite enough for me to say one way or the other. But The scriptures do say Joseph had sexual relations with her. Matthew 1:25 Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the baby boy was born. He could well have brothers and sisters. Mark 6:3 ESV / 13 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Matthew 12:46 ESV While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Matthew 13:55 ESV 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? Luke 8:19 ESV Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. There are several more, the Greek does the word adelphos means brother. Cousin in Geek is xáderfos. The x is very important and it is used in the original greek of the Bible. The church fathers do not want you to know these things.
John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America wrote: "In the New Testament 'adelphos' [brother], when used merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else!" Jesus did have brothers and sisters who were born to Joseph and Mary.
@Grumpy Oldfart yes but then back up with historical records written by the early Church fathers who really were eye witnesses of the Apostles and so its a fact!
@@shiduschannel5151 Mark 6:3 still could mean His sisters. 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 15 does not say anything about cousins either. There is not one commentary that says, cousins. There is no solid proof either way. It seems funny to me that the scriptures seem to use 2 different words for Jesus' kin. It uses cousin for John the Baptist but brothers for everyone else according to you and your church. This does not make any sense in any way.
@@bcalvert321 Did you even watch the video? If Mary was a consacrated virgin (and the evidence is as strong as it gets), she would have not have had children even later in life.
Thank you Father. You clarified all my doubts. I am a Roman Catholic and have deep faith on the Bible , church and all its teachings. Yet some believers tried to brainwash me and you enlightened my mind. Thank you so much and God bless you and the Catholic church. Amen
Why would you have doubts? The bible never claims that Marry did not have other children after Jesus. You say you have deep faith in the bible, well then, believe what the bible says. Look at 2 John: "To the lady chosen by God and to her children , whom I love in the truth-and not I only, but also all who know the truth- 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever" Who is John writing to here? To Marry and to her children. No brainwashing needed. The only brainwashing is from the catholic church. But the bible is very clear. Marry was a good wife to Joseph, do you also believe Joseph was a virgin all his life? Because if not, did he cheat on Marry? Of course not. Joseph and Marry were one flesh in marriage as God ordained and had other children. Nothing bad with it at all. Marry was chosen lady by God, blessed servant of the Lord who obeyed the will of the father perfectly. But, Marry is not God. I just dont understand, why catholics have a problem with this. Its not a sin to have kids with your husband/wife you know? Its a blessing.
Hi dear one, well the facts are those are the children of Mary. She was not a perpetual virgin. Even if she didn't have other children why would she have remained a virgin and been married.
@@stevesawicki2062 How is Mary our mother too? You mean to say she is a heavinly mother? Where did you get that from? There is no such thing as a heavenly mother. Only heavenly Father - God
@@ahojahojish since dying breath wish every word out of his mouth was excruciating, our Lord said take this your mother, to the unnamed disciple. To all of us
Simply brilliant. It is right there in the bible! No confusion. It is clear. Can’t be disputed, so evident and yet we pass over it and let other “sects “ insert doubts and confusion. Thank you Dr Pitre!
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
In Australia, the word 'Brother' is often used as a term of endearment. This is especially so within the Indigenous population. The people often refer to someone as their brother showing that their love for and wish to be close to a certain person is like that of a beloved brother. We also have a famous football club called 'Brothers'.
"Brother" or "Bro" are common terms between two male close friends. It's also used casually, kind of a throwaway term, a place marker, if you will. When I was young , "brother" was not a casual term between two post-adolescent men. Accordingly, its value can be easily degraded or worthless.
Jesus did not have brother or sister. Bible says , when Jesus was teaching, someone said your Mother and brother are waiting . In Middle East , cousin brother or sister are called BROTHER OR SISTER. Even now , they dont call their cousins , cousin brother or cousin sister. I met so many people in Oman, UAE and Qatar and these guys introduced to me their cousin as BROTHER or SISTER. I asked them why they dont says cousin brother or sister, they informed their custom is to call all cousins BROTHER or SISTER. This is even now. I heard some of Indian still call their cousins 'BROTHER or SISTER'.
@@michaeldukes4108 Nope. Same can be said for certain Latino cultures, though it is more archaic, it is still a thing. #GetCultured You know what IS a stretch though? Believing "sola scriptura" when there are 7 books missing from your Bible and the Bible itself says that there are things not recorded in it that Jesus did.
@@michaeldukes4108 I don't think it's a stretch. My siblings are much older than I am and I grew up with my 2 cousins who are my age. Even now I consider them as my sisters even more than my siblings who left home when I was little. My aunt always said I was her 3rd daughter. She and my uncle were like 2nd parents to me. I love my siblings but my cousins are more like sisters to me. So no, no stretch at all.
Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion. As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas. This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9). There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.” The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
Can you provide one verse that says CHILDREN OF MARY MOTHER OF JESUS in the bible. Or where the brothers say OUR MOTHER and clearly defining its Mary the Mother of Jesus. Be aware that Jewish tradition would be that he who is the head of the home - which Jesus would be since he would be the oldest - would have not given John that responsibilities when he had tons of brothers or sisters that they would have inherited by Jewish culture. Furthermore Jesus and the Apostles being semetic - the very usage of the word brother isnt the same as English as you know could mean something different...it not only can mean literal but also can mean spiritual or Cousins - see Gen 13:8 and also 14:12.Heck according to your interpretation Mary had 100s of children 1 Cor. 15:6. In John 2:1; Acts 1:14 these "sons" are never called Mary's children but Jesus is the ONLY one called that. In John 20:7 talking to Mary Magdalene- tell her to go tell his BROTHERS...who were the brothers in the following verse but the Disciples..he never says to tell the Disciples but she clearly understood it was the Disciples. Nevertheless the First Churxh Fathers who were whom the ORIGINAL apostles had taught never taught them that he had blood brothers from Mary..
@@rhdtv2002 one verse Matthew 13:55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? no in brothers like fellow Christians
Let me ask you something, do you think all mothers and their grown children agree about everything? And when they disagree about something, does their mother go and live with someone else? Besides, do you really think Jesus would tell his own mother what to do IF she had other children she could live with. Don't you think he would leave it up to her IF she had other children? Honestly, the only logical way to look at the incident at the cross, is that Mary had NO other children. Trying to explain it any other way like many try to do involves too many improbable scenarios.
@@morelmaster I think we can glean two important things from our Lord's decision: 1) as the elder brother, the care of His sole remaining parent was Jesus' responsibility. He wasn't about to leave it to others to decide, given the opportunity to arrange the matter Himself (even though He had to do so from the cross). Since none of the 12 really "got it" before Jesus was crucified and resurrected, it would not have been prudent of our Lord to entrust this responsibility to John before the cross, any more than it would have been fair to expect the charge and responsibility to fully register before John saw Jesus hanging there. There is a proper time and place for everything (Eccl.8:5-6; cf. Eccl.3:1-8). Even though there are some things that weigh so heavily upon us that we would like to settle them ahead of time, if we are prudent and wise we will, like our Lord, wait patiently for just the right time. 2) There can be no stronger testimony as to the importance of faith over all other worldly considerations than this decision of our Lord. In our own scale of priorities, some of us would put family first in such situations (the principle of "blood being thicker than water"). Others would consider the material aspects: "Who could best provide for her?" John was not family. Our Lord was clearly more concerned with His mother's spiritual welfare than with either family considerations or economic welfare (and letting His brothers take care of her would have been better on both of these other two counts). For our Lord was concerned that His mother continue in an environment of faith, her eternal life and spiritual growth being even more important to Him than her physical life and financial security. If we really love someone, we should live by this example and put their spiritual welfare ahead of all other considerations. For even if we see to it that they are happy, healthy, and know no financial want, if they are suffering spiritually because of our focus on these other issues - far subordinate in God's eyes to maintaining healthy faith, growing in the truth, and drawing closer to Him and His Son - then we have made a poor bargain indeed. John was, as it says in this context, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (cf. also Jn.13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). Since our Lord's judgment was perfect, this means that John certainly had a lot going for him relative to the other disciples. And the qualities which attracted our Lord to John must have been primarily spiritual. We certainly see His great humility and responsiveness to the leading of the Spirit in his gospel and his epistles. And John, of course, lived longer than any of the rest, penning the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, apparently just before his death in circa 64-68 A.D. For all these reasons, John seems to have been the best choice and indeed the perfect choice to look after Mary. the fact is that our Lord had a number of brothers and sisters, although technically they were of course half-brothers and half-sisters, all of them being the biological seed of Joseph while our Lord was virgin born. See: Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-31; 2:12; 7:3-5; 7:10; Acts 1:14; 1Cor.9:5. We don't know anything about most of them from other than the little that can be gleaned from scripture. James was Jesus' brother (Gal.1:19), this makes Jude also a brother of the Lord by blood (Jude 1:1). We know about James and Jude both from the epistles that bear their names, and about James in particular from both the book of Acts (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18) and Paul's epistles (1Cor.15:9; Gal.1:19; 2:9; 2:12). Mark also mentions, in addition to James and Jude, Simon and Joses (i.e., Joseph) as brothers of Jesus (Mk.6:3). Of course, if someone wants to think a brother is not a brother, it is difficult to see how to defend against that sort of studied denial of plain words. In the Mark 6:3 passage, two of the brothers are mentioned by name, and I know of no precedent in Greek literature where a "brother" when named might not even possibly be a brother indeed. The point that these people may be "misinformed" is mitigated by the fact that Mark, an evangelist after all, does not serve his purpose in any way that I can see by reporting this fact if it were not true (which he surely could have left out; he leaves out a lot under the guidance of the Spirit; cf. the abrupt end of the book). When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in their own towns and in their own homes are prophets without honor." And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith. Matthew 13:53-58 NIV While, "brothers" is only used metaphorically in the NT to refer to "community of believers", in the passage above Jesus' skeptics are clearly not dealing in metaphor but are talking about Jesus' literal, physical family in order to "prove" that He is not the Messiah, since "no one knows where the Messiah comes from" but they know his family, his brothers and sisters (Jn.7:27). That the Messiah would have an unknown origin was the understanding of events current at the time and still prevalent in much of Judaism today (i.e., He is thought to be an angel or something of the sort - which helps to explain the necessity or the book of Hebrews). If these siblings were "made up" the argument would be nonsensical both for contemporaries and for inclusion into Matthew.
@@paulfromthefaroeislands5761 YOU: as the elder brother, the care of His sole remaining parent was Jesus' responsibility. ME: There was more to the scene at the cross than just finding a place for his mother to live. LOOK at the words of Jesus, "Woman, behold your son", and to John, "behold your mother." Don't know about you, but it seems a rather unconventional way to tell someone to take care of your mother for you.
In my culture, if your father has a brother or your mother has a sister, the Children of that Uncle or Aunt would be identified as your brothers and sisters.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Here is a good document I found that basically sums up what this video is all about. MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary') Some people refer to these verses as 'proof', that Mary had other children. See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5. Now using the Bible, we are about to explode forever, the myth that Christ had siblings. The word: 'Brethren'...appears over 530 times in the Bible. 'Brother' - appears over 350 times. 'Sister' - appears over 100 times. 'Sisters' - appears over 15 times. BRETHREN: This is a plural word for 'brother'. BROTHER: The Hebrew word 'ACH', is ordinarily translated 'brother'. The Jews at that time, used it in a broader sense to express kinship. Even today, the word is used in a larger meaning, so that friends, allies, fellow believers, and fellow citizens can be included in the same brotherhood. It was no different in the time of Christ. There are four classes of meanings of the word 'brother'. The first class is BROTHER BY NATURE (sons of the same parents) Genesis 4:1-2 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD." And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. The second class is BROTHER BY KINSHIP Genesis 13:8 Then Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are brothers (i.e. related, as uncle and nephew) The third class is BROTHER BY RACE Genesis 19:4-7 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. The fourth class is BROTHER BY LOVE 2 Sam 1:26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (David of his friend Jonathan) Rom 12:10 love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother (Paul speaking of Christians) How many times have you seen T.V. Evangelists address their audiences as 'Our brothers and sisters'? Marian detractors accept the last three meanings to suit themselves, but when it comes to Mary, the mother of GOD, they always refer to the first meaning. Is this fair to her? How do you explain this? In 1Cor 15:6, Jesus appeared to five hundred 'brothers' at one time. Could all of these be blood brothers? Hardly. Then there is Peter speaking before one hundred and twenty brothers in Acts 1:15-16. Paul speaks of a 'brother or sister' in 1 Cor 5:11 when referring to a fellow believer. The Bible has many more similar verses. Now we have four 'brothers', JAMES, JO'SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3. Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion. Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person. Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES." From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JO'SES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JO'SES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3. To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary (the mother of Jesus), then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite (Mk 3:18) also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor." Jn 19:26-27, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved..." The disciple was John, the author of the Gospel of John. "Then He said to the disciple, BEHOLD THY MOTHER." Was John a child of Mary and blood brother of Jesus? Read the following verses to see... Mk 1:19, "...He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN', his brother." Mk 3:17, "And James the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN' the brother of James." In neither of these passages is it said that Jesus saw a blood brother or even recognized them as men that He knew. Mt 27:56, "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James Mt 20:20, (the less) and Jo'ses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." Mk 15:40, "...among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and Salome (mother of Zebedee's children)." Lk 24:10, "It was Mary Magdalene...and Mary ('the other Mary') the mother of James (the less)..." A comparison of Mt 27:56, and Mk 15:40, clearly shows that Zebedee had a wife whose name was Salome. She is called the 'mother of Zebedee's children' in Mt 27:56, and 'Salome' in Mk 15:40. They had two children, JOHN and JAMES, (Mk 3:17). JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would have demanded it... GENEALOGY: Zebedee + Salome > begat James and John Cleophas (Alphaeus) + Mary (the other "Mary" in Mt 27:56, 61, 28:1, Jn 19:25) > begat James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude THE HOLY SPIRIT + Blessed Virgin Mary > begat JESUS THE CHRIST This 'Genealogy' shows who the real parents of the 'brothers' in Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55, are, and makes the word 'brother' a non-argument. Additional notes... Mt 1:25, "And knew her not till...". The old meaning of the word 'till' or 'until', meant an action did not occur up to a certain point. It does not imply the action did occur later. Gen 8:7, "He sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, 'until' the waters were dried up off the earth." 2 Sam 6:23, "...the daughter of Saul had no child 'until' the day of her death." Did she have a child after she died? Lk 1:34, "Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" This shows Mary had no relations with a man before and was virgin. Lk 2:7, "And she brought forth her 'firstborn' Son and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes..." Firstborn, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, meant, 'the child that opened the womb'. See Ex 13:2 and Num 3:12. Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'. NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HAD OTHER CHILDREN. WHY THEN, DO SOME INSIST THAT SHE DID? Bible References: Gen 8:7, Gen 25:21-26, Gen 29:5,15, Ex 13:2, Num 3:12, Num 8:26, Deut 23:7, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26,6:23, 1King 9:13, 2King 10:13-14, 2Chron 29:34, Mt 1:25, Mt 4:21, Mt 10:2-4, Mt 12:46, Mt *12:50, Mt 13:55-56, Mt 20:20, Mt 26:26, Mt 27:56,61, Mt 28:1, Mk 1:19, Mk 2:14, Mk 3:17-21,31,35, Mk 6:3, Mk 15:40,47, Lk 1:34, Lk 2:7 Lk 2:41-51, Lk 5:10, Lk 6:16, Lk 8:19, Lk 24:10, Jn 7:2-7, Jn 19:25-27, Acts 1:13-16, Rom 8:29, 1Cor 5:11, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:6, Gal 1:19, 1Pet 5:12, Jude 1:1 Why Does This Matter? A reasonable question, though, is why any of this matters. Ultimately, it would seem that Mary’s virginity or not is unrelated to anything that would have to do with our salvation, and while that might be technically correct, per se, the danger comes from the disobedience that such a belief causes. If we can deny the Church’s teaching on this, pretending even to use the Bible to do it, then this leads to doubts elsewhere. If we can be led to believe that the Church is wrong about this, what else might she be wrong about? Bit by bit, brick by brick, our faith is eroded, until one day we decide the Church is wrong about everything, and leave. From there, we have spoken Satan’s mantra “I will not serve,” which is exactly what he wants for us to say and do. The Church has made it infallibly clear that Mary was ever-virgin, and the Bible clearly indicates that she bore no other children. Unfortunately, we have only closed one argument that Satan uses to lead souls out of the Church. He will simply find other means to do so now. Our hope is that someone will read this article and ask instead, “Hmm...what else is the Church RIGHT about?” and come to know and love the very church that Christ established on earth, so that salvation can be theirs.
MATTHEW @-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?" (Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary') In the exact statement THE brother of James , Joseph and of Jude and Simon and not a brother of James. How did you missed the "The" when it came to list of brothers? Also they were not making the argument of perpetual virginity but proclaiming Jesus was just an average person with a father, mother , brothers and sister just like everyone else. It makes a lot of sense that Jesus came down not as a king's son but came down and lived in a poor and average family just like his own people. Trying to make his family different from the rest of his people in the first century is denying that Jesus purpose to lived totally as we do. If he had super duper parents then Jesus wouldn't be growing up in a normal home like the average person in that day.
02:21 - 02:30 I strongly disagree with what Dr. Pitre says here. I disagree that Mary has taken some kind of vow of virginity. At that time she was *betrothed* to Joseph but NOT actually married to him. They had not solemnized, nor, obviously, consummated the marriage. As a good, well brought-up Jewish girl she had kept her virginity until this point, as girls were expected to be virgins when they married. There is no need to infer any special vow of virginity at that point: she had simply kept herself pure and virgo intacta as girls were expected to do, at least those girls who expected to marry a respectable man.
Apparently there was a betrothed marriage situation that would normally have involved sexual relations in Jewish customs. I think Pitre explains it in a book.
I have often used that point to confirm the historical truth of the bible. Iit points to authenticity of scripture. Any fictional tome would identify characters with completely different names to avoid confusion. The story of Jesus is, therefore, not fiction.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Hello Brother- thank you for enlightening me that there are Semper Virgo Lutherans! Maybe you know this- but I believe there is documentation to show Luther was also of this belief. If so, one has to wonder what happened?
It does not make sense that Mary's sister would also be called Mary. Mary's sister was Salome the wife of Zebedee. See comparisons of parallel accounts below: (Matt 27:55-56) And many women were there watching from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Galʹi·lee to minister to him; 56 among them were Mary Magʹda·lene and Mary the mother of James and Joʹses and the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee. (Mark 15:40) There were also women watching from a distance, among them Mary Magʹda·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joʹses, and Sa·loʹme, 41 who used to accompany him and minister to him (John 19:25) By the torture stake of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cloʹpas and Mary Magʹda·lene. So, watching Jesus were 4 women, three named Mary and Salome. Mary the wife of Clopas is therefore the mother of James the Less and Jo'ses. This only leaves Salome as Mary's sister, the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Jesus' Apostle's James and John.) The only reason this video argument is being made is that Catholic doctrine holds that Mary was a Virgin ALL of her life and find inconvenient that the Bible indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters. There is nothing in the Bible which says Mary had to remain a virgin forever despite being a married woman. She only refrained from relations with Jesus UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. (This was to make clear Jesus was not Joseph's fleshly son.) His brothers and sisters were younger than him. (Matt 1:24-25) Joseph woke up from his sleep and did as the angel of Jehovah had directed him, and he took his wife home. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus. KJV And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son. (As another point, "Firstborn" son seems to indicate there were more sons later.) Considering how important having children was to Jewish women back then (remember Samuel's mother?) I'd like some proof of Dr. Pitre's claim married women could take a vow of abstinence. I doubt the husbands would go along with that. What would be the point of marrying. Even though it says Joseph was planning on secretly divorcing her, back then being engaged was considered like being already married. This is why they had not started having sex yet, they hadn't had the official ceremony yet. The Greek Scriptures use distinct words for “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin.” (Luke 21:16; Colossians 4:10) so brothers did not mean cousins. Jesus entrusted Mary's care to John, his cousin, rather than to his fleshly brothers, because they were not believers yet and he was caring first for her spiritual welfare. (John 7:5) His brothers were, in fact, not exercising faith in him. After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his fleshly brothers and this convinced them. They thereafter became his followers. Thus, they were with Mary at Pentecost. (Acts 1:14) With one purpose all of these were persisting in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers. Here are some relevant links showing what the Bible teaches on these matters. www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/was-jesus-married/ www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/virgin-mary-immaculate-conception/ www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/about-jesus/
ElKabong61 they're just trying to explain away the Mary continuous virgin myth and keep Jesus as God, so of course thy e got to try and scramble something together ....Mary, Mary...oh, please.....
What do you expect the video to say? He is defending the official teaching of the Church? You, on the other hand, are giving the view of a different group.
At 2:30 he said that Mary is already married ?????????? Can someone tell me where it says that Mary was already married when the angle first visited her ?????
You are correct in questioning this. Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married, when she got pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:18 states: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." They weren't married yet. This was how they proved that she was still a virgin. My guess is that they weren't together yet, like an arranged marriage. I'm guessing that family verified this.
Addressed at the beginning of this video: ua-cam.com/video/LqdV3WjfYms/v-deo.html Remember the mystical Body of Christ is called the Bride, and that Jesus says He is going to "prepare a home" for us John 14:3 .
4 роки тому
@@paxcoder What exactly are you trying to say, your post is confusing
I’m just going to put what I believe on here and you guys can take what you want from it. First of all, in Luke 2:7 it is stated that when Jesus was born, Mary gave birth to “her first born son”. Now assuming this was the only child of Mary, it would not seem logical to refer to Jesus as the first born. Also, in Matthew 1:25 it states that Joseph “knew her not” or “had no relations with” Mary until after she bore Jesus. This wording can be used as sexual relations, like in Genesis when it is stated that “Adam knew Eve, and they bore Cain and Abel”. Now assuming Mary had other children with Joseph, the claims of Jesus’ brothers and sisters would make sense. Referring to the claim that the word brother refers to cousin or distant relative is strange because we can see in the gospel of Luke that there was a distinct difference in brothers and relatives. “And you shall be betrayed by both parents, and brothers, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall cause to be put to death” (Luke 21:16). I do not believe the brothers of Jesus were referring to his followers as well. This is because of the distinction in John 2:12 where it states “ After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.”
From Matthew 1 (BibleHub): 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. From Luke 3 (BibleHub): 23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, Why in neither of these genealogies were no other siblings mentioned if Jesus did in fact have blood siblings...?
[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." (Pringle, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 107) -John Calvin "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." (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] ) -Martin Luther "Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." (Pringle, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] ) -John Calvin The last argument doesn't hold much weight for me. Why isn't it possible that the author felt like distinguishing Jesus' cousins amongst his disciples? Why would their distinction indicate a blood relationship at all? I agree that most people reading the Bible would take away the idea that Jesus had blood brothers. But when you read it very carefully, Matthew 27 and Mark 15 clearly indicates these individuals are not sons of Mary. It doesn't follow from this specific argument that Mary was perpetually a virgin, but it shouldn't be controversial that these individuals are not blood brothers of Jesus.
@John in PA What is plain, is twisted by those who won't give up their false agenda... the context of "first born" is clear when taken with the rest of what the Bible says about Jesus and his family... keep twisting.
Lord Jesus did not have brothers and/or sisters for one reason, when He was on the Cross he told one of his disciples to take his Mom as his mother, and to his mother to take this disciple as her son. If Mary had other children, they should care for her, not the outside family discipline. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"They will look at the one who was pierced and mourn for him as for an ONLY CHILD, weeping bitterly as for a FIRSTBORN." (Zechariah 12,10 ) Who was PIERCED? Jesus... and Mary mourned for Jesus as Her only child, and She wept for Jesus as Her firstborn.
@@lolasobande8663illogical? - Hi, what's your name? - Sarah - And this is...? - He's my son Isaac - Is he your firstborn? - No, I have to wait until I have a second child before I can call him that. So Sarah never had a firstborn because she didn't have a second child, and Isaac was an only child but never a firstborn because his mother didn't have a second child.
If a woman had 3 children, if one dies she will mourn as if it were her only child. Again I ask why is the sex life of a married woman with her husband a BIG DEAL?
lola sobande the phrase "first-born of all creation" proclaims Christ’s preeminence. As the eternal Son of God, He created the universe. He is the Ruler of creation!
Wow! well done Father. As a Middle Eastern Catholic, your explanation is simply perfect and Biblical. As a Middle Eastern, pls allow me to add what is also missing is all of the 4000 years of Eastern traditions that is so difficult for a western world to grasp. I believe that when the disciples wrote the Bible they did not know that this would become a big issue 2000 years later. Example: it just wouldn't be fair to Americans for a foreigner to come in to the US and interpret its laws without studying the culture and the 200 Yr old traditions... The same way, it just wouldn't be fair for us Middle Eastern Christians to have some Protestant pastor who knows nothing about Middle East customs and 4000 Yr old traditions to pick up a bible and run his mouth about the Holly Family. "Roy Schoeman" a converted Jewish Harvard Professor who was a devoted Jewish who memorised the Tora, and after his conversion to Catholics he explains this particular subject in the most profound traditional way.
Thanks for the taking the time to make an excellent commentary. I have always been of the opinion that you have to know and understand the culture of the time. By reading Mathew 19 Verse 16 - 24 (" 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” 17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 “Which ones?” he inquired. Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]” 20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.") The Question is, What is the Eye of a needle and what is it's actual meaning? Understanding the culture and language of the time leads you to geat a clearer meaning.
@@oramairiza2004in the " Aramaic Bible" Jesus is talking to his Apostles who are fishermen and he actually says that it's easyer for a "rope" not a camel, to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter Heaven" very similar meanings.
Hello all, due to the praise for the background music ;-), we uploaded a new version without it. You can check it out at the link below. Thanks for your feedback: ua-cam.com/video/bfWsQDOC1NA/v-deo.html
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Glory to God for these informations and clarification as well..God bless you more Brother.( knowing more about the Lord Jesus is a fulfilling big achievement for me..I wish to know more about Jesus..😍😍😍)
Its so wonderful to know that our Lady devoted herself to God so much that she didn't think about having another offspring, but followed and loved her only son of God so devoutly.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
@@donnaberube5480 The word "until" in english is a translation of the word "heos" of the Greek version. "Heos" does not imply a reversal like until does in English. Some other examples of "heos" in Matthew's gospel include: Matthew 28:20 "I am with you all the days "Heos" the completion of the age." Matthew 11:13 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied "Heos" John (the Baptist)." Even the Reformers like John Calvin thought "until" was neither for nor against her virginity: "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ."
Interesting video. Turns out, just yesterday someone was telling me Jesus had brother and sisters and the Catholics are wrong. The Spirit clearly guided me to this video and I shared it with them. Whether or not they watch it is entirely between them and God. Thank you.
Bro. Ed Miranda Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion. As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas. This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9). There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.” The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
Roman Flores 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. Does it say we must obey and follow these other things . Are sure that they are rightly qouted I do no think so it is only the Bible that is inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness. 17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work. Revelation 22: 18 If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
The question of whether or not Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus is one that has been debated throughout the history of the church. Passages in which the other children of Mary are mentioned are Matthew 12:46-50; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 (mentioning sisters as well as four brothers); Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; and Acts 1:14. Several interpretations of these passages were given by early church leaders. Epiphanius believed they refer to the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. Jerome said they are cousins. Helvidius believed that they are the sons of Joseph and Mary (young half-brothers of Jesus). There are several reasons to prefer Helvidius’s view. In the first place, it is the simplest and most natural interpretation of the text. If Mary was so much younger than Joseph that he had a large number of children by an earlier marriage while refraining from a normal marital relationship with her, why would children from an earlier marriage be mentioned repeatedly in close connection with Mary without any indication that they were step-brothers and sisters? It seems most likely that Luke’s reference to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn” (Luke 2:7) and the statement in Matthew 1:24-25 (“Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus”) implies that she and Joseph had a large natural family following the Savior’s birth. This, after all, would be the normal and honorable pattern within Jewish culture. The view that the brothers and sisters (Greek: adelphos, adelphe) mentioned in these passages are actual brothers and sisters confirms Paul’s references to James as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19 and to “The Lord’s brothers” in 1 Corinthians 9:5. If they were cousins rather than brothers, Paul would have used the Greek word for “cousins” (anepsioi; see Colossians 4:10). In light of these factors, those who would depart from the simplest and most natural meaning of the text carry the burden of proof. The reverence for celibacy and the exaltation of Mary that occurred within the early church is more likely an explanation for Epiphanius’s and Jerome’s interpretations than genuine historical fact.
If Jesus had actual siblings, what would be the purpose for many of the early church fathers to lie about it (as you are implying) and say Jesus didn't have siblings? Why not just tell the truth? Nothing would have changed about Jesus and his mission. So what if he would have had brothers and sisters. Many of the church fathers who said Mary had no other children were from the second century, not that long after the last Apostle died, surely they would have known the truth, being so close in time to the events of the NT. It's not like there would have been confusion about whether or not Jesus had siblings, as he had as many as 6-7 of them according to some interpretations.
John, u have to consider the words used to define them as "brothers" that came from the greek word "adelphos" well you are going to say that the word "brother" is often associated with cousin in the jewish culture specially in the old testament and that's right because there is no specific word for cousin in hebrew and in aramaic but u have to consider tht the new testament is written in greek wherein thre's a specific word for cousin which is "anepsios", the commentary and interpretations of the early church fathers must not be equated with the interpretation and truth of the scriptures itself, we need to evaluate the interpretations based on what really the bible says
@@tomsepulchre7945 At first glance, your comment might make some sense to some, but what you are not taking into consideration is that the NT writers were Jewish and probably spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic, which had no special word for cousin. The Septuagint always translated the word for blood brother or cousin as "adelphos", so when writing the NT, these Jewish authors simply used "adelphos" also. What you and others try to do is use backwards logic. You deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, believe she had other children with Joseph based on an incorrect "singular" meaning for the word "adelphos" (blood brother), instead of the fact that it had multiple meanings (a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother, cousin, kinsman, fellow believer, fellow man). You are putting much weight on the belief that because "anepsios" was not used in reference to the "brothers" of Jesus, that they must be blood brothers, or siblings of Jesus. It always amazes me how many people incorrectly believe that "adelphos" can only mean a sibling from the same womb.
@@jzak5723 Hi John. The normative meaning of the word adelphos is brother in a strict sense, and if those mentioned in Matthew 13 where not the brothers of Jesus, then Matthew could have used the word anepsios (wich the other guy already pointed out) and there is another word he could have used, suggenis wich means relative. So yeah, they were jewish writers, but they could have used two diferent words instead of adelphos, and the context for example in Matthew 13 mentions Jesus´ human father, his mother and brothers. That is clearly a full family and it would be unnatural to read the passage like: "Is not this the carpenter´s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his COUSINS or KINSMEN James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?". This the man in the video did not consider, and clearly went away of the text, to ch. 27, to "prove" that the James and Joseph mentioned in ch. 13 were not his blood brothers, wich clearly is an invalid argument because it could be simply said that the James and Joseph of ch.27 are not the same of ch.13 , and, the argument leaves out Judas and Simon. What about them? Are they sons of another Mary too? Or are we going to let text speak for itself and recognize that the text most naturally calls all 4 of them brothers in the normative brothers sense? The word adelphos could have meant a lot of diferent things in the OT, but the point is that in the NT they used specific words to differentiate between brother, cousin, and relative, and Matthew used brother. And the word for blood brother or cousin as you say, could have been always translated in the Septuagint as adelphos, but since now in NT writings there are three diferent words for each three kinds of people, then most probably Matthew would have used one of the other two words if those mentioned in Mt. 13 were not in fact the brothers of Jesus, even if he was a jewish writer.
@@AndresMartinez-tx6hc Just because there was a specific Greek word for cousin doesn't necessarily mean that the writers had to use them. The Greek Septuagint was written in Koine Greek, as was the New Testament, but in the Septuagint, the word "adelphos" was used to indicate not only blood brothers or siblings, but also other relationships including cousins. If there was a word for cousin in Koine Greek at the time of the writing of the Septuagint, then you have to ask yourself why it wasn't used to refer to cousins when translating the Hebrew OT? This has to be answered, if possible, before you can insist that the word "anepsios" or "suggenis" should have been used. The most likely answer is that the NT writers simply used "adelphos" to refer to cousin or some type of relative which would be normal historical usage of the word. You have to understand, different Christian groups today probably are making a "mountain out of a mole hill" when is comes to the "brothers of Jesus" debate in the use of the word "adelphos", compared to the intentions of the NT writers, who were most likely not trying to prove a point back then with the use of the word.
All this is fine and well but Matthew's words do not support the idea that Mary had some kind of vow. Matthew writes, "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." It was understood that as a married couple the time would come when they would consummate their marriage. So there is no need to try to force a view of virginity here. I don't see the early church's need to have her remain in her virgin state while still married.
Mary said to the angel, "how can this be since I know not man." You think Mary didn't understand how babies were made??? Remember, at this point, the angel had not yet told Mary HOW she would conceive her child. YOU:So there is no need to try to force a view of virginity here. I don't see the early church's need to have her remain in her virgin state while still married. ME: The Church had no "need" to have her remain a virgin, as if the Church had a say in the matter, it's simply the reality of what happened, that's all.
john mizak I think before marriage she could have had first born miraculously conceived but your quote says nothing after after she was married. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity
@@sliglusamelius8578 Bible says she was a virgin until after she was married. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3
Chizzle Maestro If you are asking whether Catholic pray to Mary yes, if you ask if we worship her, no. Mary (and all the other Saints) is able to, through the power of God (in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit), hear our prayers and can intercede on our behalf’s. It’s God’s power that makes everything. It is like asking a friend to pray for you, asking a friend for advice, or just having someone to talk to.
@@Christian-ut2sp Captious question. Actually you should read Eusebius. This video is somewhat tedious father Luis Toro explained this much more vividly, all the men called the brothers of Jesus were relatives or spiritual brothers.
Lol..the temple gate has nothing to do with Mary. She was a virgin for the birth of Jesus. .but after that was exactly the wife of Joseph. .and had children.
Some people are like Pharisees. They saw for themselves the miracles that Jesus did but still refuse to believe in him partly because he chastised them for their hypocrisy. Many people are like that. Even if the facts are laid before them the refuse to accept. As Jesus did say “Do not cast pearls among ( a certain kind of animal)” but to “shake the dust from your feet and sandals” as you leave them. (And by the way I am a Catholic and a Legion of Mary member . Someone thought I was a non-Catholic and verbally attacked me because I quoted the Bible!)
@@supershooter20 Shame..by deeper investigation you'll find that the apparitions of "Mary" to the children was one of Satan's coolest deceptions. ..So much like those that deny Jesus. .you may have similar inclinations regarding "Mary"...yet at its roots under the deception is idolatry..repetitive useless prayer..false intercessorship and more. Mary was blessed highly...saw out her assigned task, and like all needed a saviour. .And she now rests. Contrary to what you may imagine. .she's not privy to any deep secrets of YHWH. .nor can intercede for people in any form. I encourage you to find your way to Jesus erasing all DISTRACTION. Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus and is blessed..but there ends her task. So..maybe you'll figure things out in time..or perhaps not.
My point exactly!!! Also the Epistle of Jude -he says Jude BROTHER OF JAMES and not Jude brother of Jesus!!!!! Mary didn't have any more children. Also : Isaiah 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son."
Thank you for a clear explanation of these relatives of Jesus. I was wondering, I think I heard that in Jewish law, when a husband died, the wife was married off to her brother-in-law, who was legally responsible for her.( And multiple wives were still allowed in the Roman territories until about the 5th century. So, St. Joseph died sometime after Jesus's 12th BD, so maybe Cleopas as Joseph's brother had the legal care of Mary, so all the cousins were grouped as brothers and sisters.
I wonder if this would also explain the Eastern view that Jesus’ “brothers” were sons of Joseph. Basically it would be known that his cousins lived in the same household, and some thought they were the sons of Joseph as a result.
I wonder why and how did you came to a conclusion that St. Joseph died after Jesus’ 12 birthday. I read somewhere that the popular view is, St. Joseph died at around when Jesus started his ministry which means St. Joseph died when Jesus was 30 years old. Also it was not Cleopas that took care of Mother Mary, it was John the disciple that took care of her. In the Gosple of John (Jn 19:26-27) 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. It is obvious it was the disciple that took care of Mother Mary and not Cleopas.
Excellent commentary, Dr. Pitre...but please have your production people nix the incessant and irritating background music. My goodness, that is distracting.
YES, Christ Jesus had (Half/Step) Brothers and Sisters... R.C.C. attested that the Greek word ADELPHOS does not mean "Brothers and Sisters" but COUSIN... if that was Biblically TRUTH?... then, why did the Bible refer to ELIZABETH as COUSIN?... It should have been written as "Sister Elizabeth" and not Cousin Elizabeth... Do the Native Nazarene Jews who lived and known St. Joseph as the Carpenter by profession and his family members, falsely attested to Christ Jesus, "Look here is your Mother, Brothers, and Sisters standing outside seeking for you." (ref. Mark 3:31-35 / Matt. 12:46-50 / Luke 8:19-21)... Three (3) Gospel Writers ATTESTED to this Biblical TRUTH... that Blessed Mary had children from St. Joseph before he died... Christ Jesus' Half-Siblings. According to the Bible, 2 or 3 or more who have attested/witnessed in PUBLIC, therefore, the SUBJECT MATTERS (Testimony) is honestly TRUTHFULL...(ref. Matt. 18:16 / 2 Corinthians 13:1 / Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15 / Numbers 35:30)... Amen. Were the Israelite Jews who lived in Nazareth WRONG by using the words "Mother, Brothers, and Sisters" instead of COUSINS???... NOPE... The R.C.C. interpretation was WRONG to favor their Dogma of the "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary"... R.C.C. also interpreted that that was the Children of Joseph from his previous marriage, referring to Joseph as a WIDOWER... but NOTHING was found in the Bible that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary... Totally NOTHING/NADA... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen...
according to Luke 1:36(ESV) " And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren" so the angel Gabriel used "relative" not cousin even in (NIV) . second thing i think we both agree that the angel Gabriel wasn't Jewish to adhere to Jewish culture and call a cousin brother or sister he literally told her your "RELATIVE" as aa fact unlike jewish people calling The Christs cousins as his brethren or brothers regarding you brought 2 or 3 testimonies this is just a fallacy you only brought one "ELIZABETH as COUSIN one" from luck. Where is the others ?????????????? The Evidence that Mary remained a virgin is over the place . God bless you
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi Take Note: the Original Gospel of Matthew was Originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic Language before it was copied and translated into Greek... Apostle Matthew (former tax collector) was a native Hebrew-speaking literate Jew... "DOD" in Hebrew or "BRAW" in Aramaic means Uncle's/Aunt's Son or Daughter which means in plain words, COUSIN... "BEN DOD" means Uncle's Son... "BAT DODA" means Aunt's Daughter... both means COUSIN in English... The English word "RELATIVE" (SYNGENIS in Greek) in connection to Blessed Mary... was either ELIZABETH was her AUNT or her COUSIN... Only 2 Blood Relationships and nothing else... Therefore, if ELIZABETH was Mary's Aunt, then John the Baptist was Jesus' Uncle... if ELIZABETH was Mary's cousin, then John and Jesus were also COUSINS either 2nd or 3rd degree. However, according to the Early Christian Tradition of the 1st Cent. A.D., the Early 7 Churches in Asia Minor had accepted and acknowledged, that Christ Jesus and John the Baptist were both COUSINS in the 3rd Degree... In that case, we can conclude that St. Elizabeth and Blessed Mary were also both Cousins in the 2nd degree... as attested/claimed by the Original Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew-Aramaic... not in Greek... Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
In Slavic languages brother means any male to whom you're related within your own generation. So I've had someone tell me some man is her brother only to find out she has no brothers and he is a cousin or a second cousin, but young enough to be in her generation.
Sounds like a conclusion drawn from the presupposition of the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But Matthew 1:25 states, "But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." So Mary was not a virgin! And we know that birth control wasn't used back then and the pull out method was considered sinful (since God killed Onan for it in Genesis). We also know that Mary was fertile. The only way to say that Mary had no kids, yet had sex with her husband, was to assume that Joseph was sterile. But even this seems like an argument from silence. Regarding the Mary the mother of James and Joses in Mark 16:1, it is clear in Mark 15:40, that this James the Less - Son of Alphaeus. This is not Jesus Mother. Otherwise Mark would have said so. She is more well known in connection with the Son of God than unbelieving James (James didn't convert until after the resurrection). I think the best explanation is that the Church fathers he quotes were already predisposed (as many Catholics) to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and want to change the plain meaning of the Greek word "Adelphoi" (brothers) to mean cousins. But if the Holy Spirit meant to call these people Jesus cousins, he certainly could have used the Greek word for cousin: "xaderfos". This is another case of Catholic Apologists appealing to the Church Fathers who frequently contradict the truth - and themselves, like the Pope and church councils on the reg. Trust in Scripture alone and you won't need to resort to defending unbiblical doctrines.
This is nothing "fresh" but the same old Roman Catholic doctrine attempting to justify the doctrine of the "perpetual" virginity of Mary. There are two perfectly good Greek words that can be properly translated "cousins," and they are never used to describe the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus. We see one being used in Luke 1:36 to describe the "relative" of Mary name Elizabeth, and another being used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the "cousin" of Barnabas. So let's not pretend that this is not a significant fact here. Had the Gospel writers wanted us to understand that they were referring to "cousins" of Jesus, then they had two specific Greek words they could have used but chose not to. The next problem in this video is the assumption that the James and Joseph of Matthew 27 are the same people mentioned in Matthew 13:55. This is not a valid assumption just because the names are similar or identical. If that were the case, then why only mention two of the four brothers? No, this is another woman who had two kids with the same names of Jesus' mother who also had two sons named James and Joseph. This sounds strange to us, but in the ancient world, families did strange things like this. Going to fourth century works like Eusebius to establish who the brothers of Jesus were is also not conclusive, since Jesus and the apostles were from the FIRST century, not the fourth. And since the first century apostles never referred to these "brothers" of Jesus as "cousins," far be it from us to stray from their writings to make things up that simply don't hold up to the actual words we find in Scripture from the first century apostles. The normative meaning of the word "brothers" in the New Testament speaks of blood relatives, and to misconstrue the New Testament usage to mean "cousins" in this way is an exercise in eisegesis (reading INTO), not exegesis (reading out of).
@@Personaje123 Nonsense. The Gospels are first century, and they clearly teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and this was said in the immediate context of His biological mother. Thus, the brothers and sisters had to be what the context reveals - biological. Jesus did not found the "catholic" church. He found the church, which is composed of many people from all nations all over the world.
This was far better information than the guy who asserts they could be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (where we lack their attendance in Bethlehem at the nativity and the flight to Egypt). The most compelling was actually pointing out that Jesus put Mary in John’s care. This past week, we studied Ruth and the redeemer bridegroom but I had pointed out it wasn’t just the levirate bridegrooms that redeemed the motherless, but their sons that redeem them. Tamar and Ruth are foreshadows of Mary. They were redeemed by their sons, Mary’s son redeems the whole world. Tamar, especially, as she is “married” to Judah but never “knows” him again.
Well, if Joseph was a widower his children could have been adults and responsible for themselves to register at a different time. It appears from Scripture that neither Mary nor Joseph shared with others (except for Elizabeth) the miracle of the divine conception of Jesus. We must remember that the Gospels are not a "biography" like we have today, but a presentation of the good news as taught by the apostles.
Curiosity question. Had Greek changed that much from the writing of the Gospels to Eusebius' time that the word "cousin" wasn't available to the Gospel writers? If they meant cousin why didn't they just say cousin?
Because the Greek word for brother, "adelphos", can mean cousin among other relationships. Hebrew and Aramaic had no special word for cousin, so when the Koine Greek Septuagint translation of the OT was written, the translators used "adelphos" to refer to relationships other than blood siblings, and one of these relationships was of cousins. When the NT Jewish Gospel authors wrote, they followed not only the Septuagint's use of "adelphos", but also how it was still being used in their current Jewish culture. It is true that at the time of the Gospels, there was a specific word for cousin in Koine Greek, which was "anepsios", but that Greek word only appears a total of ONE time in the whole NT, which shows that it wasn't commonly used in writing, and instead the more common word "adelphos" was used because it had historically been the predominant way of addressing cousins both in speech and writing.
@@morelmaster Still a somewhat strange choice given the availability of a word as evidenced by your citation. Seems they' d have wanted to make it clear the ones mentioned were cousins if they knew Mary to be a perpetual virgin. It would have strengthened the Catholic argument.
@@fordmaidenamill5196 Of course it would have solidified the Catholic argument if the Greek "anepsios" was used, but we cannot argue from that point alone, nor do we need to, because of the historical use of the word "adelphos" to also mean cousin. YOU: Seems they' d have wanted to make it clear the ones mentioned were cousins if they knew Mary to be a perpetual virgin. ME: We shouldn't just assume that the authors KNEW she would maintain perpetual virginity throughout her life when they were writing. Let's not forget, the NT is about JESUS, not his family and other things. As Catholics, we don't believe that ALL TRUTH comes from Scripture alone. The Bible is TRUTH, but so is the authority of the Church to teach from the Holy Spirit, and some teachings are not explicitly revealed in Scripture, but only implicitly, and the Church through the Holy Spirit later shed more light on some things that were not quite as clear. The PVM is one of those teachings.
@@morelmaster What about Gal. 1:19. Granted Paul was certainly Jewish, but he bent over backwards to reach and accommodate his gentile converts. Why would he not have used "cousin" speaking to a predominantly Greek audience in that region?
@@fordmaidenamill5196 I'm not going to try to get into the mind of Paul and question why he said things the way he did, are YOU in a better position to do that?
If Joseph and Clopas were brothers (true blood brothers) then James the Just and Simeon the son of Clopas were not true cousins of Jesus as they were cousins through the male side of the family. Since Joseph was only step father to Jesus (not his biological father) then surely that would mean James and Simeon were simply step cousins. The only way they could be true biological cousins would be if the Virgin Mary and Mary the wife of Clopas were sisters but then you have the problem with two children called Mary in the same family.
Psalm 69:8 I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children; (messianic prophecy) John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him. (Prophecy fulfilled by Jesus Christ)
@@icxcnika2037 It's not a prophecy lol. It's a poem by David. Don't you think that if Jesus had brothers they would actually know he's the Son of God lmao
Valiant effort, but not fully convincing. 1. If Mary had no sexual relations with Joseph then why does the New Testament not just say so? 2. Brant says they were married when the angel spoke to Mary in Matthew 1. My understanding is that they were betrothed but not yet married. Betrothal is/was not the same as modern engagement: a legal divorce was needed to break off a betrothal. 3. Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." The implication is that after Jesus was born they married and had sexual relations. 4. The whole purpose of marriage is for the fulfilment of sexuality. If Joseph and Mary married but did not consummate they were sinning (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) - unless it was by special decree: there is no special decree found in the New Testament.
It will never fit in the context of how things work in the current times... Try understanding the context in the eyes of a first century Jew. In those times, weddings had two parts: betrothal and the wedding proper. Observing an Orthodox Jew wedding should help us understand, as this is currently the nearest as we can get to old Jewish traditions.
There are a whole lot of things the New Testament doesn't say because the New Testament is not the entire Christian faith. It is a collection of writings of the early Church (which was Catholic). The authority is the Church. Christianity is not just the New Testament. Jesus established a Church, not a book. The Church is the primary authority and the New Testament is some writings that the Church produced from TRADITION. The Bible tells you to keep the oral traditions, the Bible tells you to hear the Church, the Bible tells you that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. For the first 400 years of Christianity there was no New Testament. The Catholic Church compiled the New Testament, using its traditions to decide what went in it.
Mary was NOT married to Joseph yet when the angel came to her to tell her that she would bear a child! Joseph had NOT yet taken her to be his wife! If you are going to start off with that error, then there's reason to listen from thence forth!
Here is another proof: Blessed is the fruit of your womb. If the fruit, obviously the offspring, is blessed then all her children would be blessed as Jesus was blessed. If they would be bleased as He is blessed, then they would have done as Jesus did. You know the tree by the fruit. Mary brings forth bleased fruit. There is no one like Jesus, therefore He is the only child.
Quite a stretch. Consider: 1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 2) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood. 3) the word for brother used in Matthew in 13:55-56 is the same word for brothers Matthew 4:18 of Simon and Andrew. 4) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19. 5) There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
Quote; 1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 This is your just your interpretation. Show me how that supposed logic is proof? You can't. Quote; 2) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood. The best way for "you" to understand is what you mean to say, isn't it? Quote; 3) the word for brother used in Matthew in 13:55-56 is the same word for brothers Matthew 4:18 of Simon and Andrew. Yes, adelphos or adelphoi can be used to mean blood brother or brother's. But it is not limited to those meanings. Look it up. Quote; 4) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19. Yep. Adelphos again, it can be blood brother, but not limited to that meaning. Look it up. Quote; 5) There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36 Yes, but in Aramaic and Hebrew, the language Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke, there is no special word for cousin. But the main point you are missing is that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish and were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins, and sons of the same father-plus other relatives and even non-relatives. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was transliterated as adelphos. This is why anepsios is not used in some of the verses you cited.
HEBREW TEXT - PROVERBS 4:3 : For I was my father's son, tender and an ONLY SON (Yachid) before my mother. -----כי־בן הייתי לאבי רך ויחיד לפני אמי׃ king Solomon (the writer of Proverbs) was not Yachid יחיד - the only son - of his mother - 1 Chronicles 3:5 : These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel. In Proverbs 4:3 is speaking Jesus as in Proverbs 8:22 - The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. JESUS IS THE ONLY CHILD OF HIS MOTHER
Justas399 quote; 1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. No, it doesn't have to mean blood siblings. If you look at Mark 3:21 and cross reference Mark 3:31 you will see that these people were called friends or relatives that came to see him. Although it mentions "his mother" in verse 31, we cannot say with certainty that those that accompanied her were blood siblings based on verse 21. Assumptions are not necessarily based on fact.
It would behoove you to study why Catholics Call The Blessed Ever Virgin Mary The "Ark of the New Covenant" so if you would clearly be struck dead if you even touched the Ark of the old Covenant then can you imagine how Holy and pure She is She is Daughter of God The Father Mother of God The Son and SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! St Joseph Knew his role in his marriage it was one of protection not one of procreation!!! If you remember King David had 10 concubines that his son absalom "knew" and when King David reclaimed his kingdom he took care of the 10 concubines but never went into them!! It would behoove you to look at the Holy Scriptures through anxient Jewish lenses and understand the laws that they adhered to. Peace be with you.
I only have a question, does that mean Jesus left her mother by her self for olmost three years knowing that He was the only one that she depend on? Where was Mary or with whom was Mary for all those years when while Jesus went all over preaching repentance , Jesus came out of His house knowing that nobody believed in Him including Mary. Mary appears again when Jesus is about to be crucified, Luke 11:26,27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” Someone wanted to praise Mary but, "Jesus reply in the contrary blessed those who hear the word at God and observe it" Why would Jesus said that, was it because Mary did not obey God or is it because those who hear and do what the Lord says are more important than Mary, I'll take my chances believing in Jesus than believing in Mary. Mary needed to be save as much as we need it, in the book of Acts we read again Mary with the brothers of Jesus and the disciples praying and awaiting for the Holy spirit just as Jesus told them to do.
Do NOT forget that the angel Gabriel pronounce her to be: 'FULL of GRACE'. This means that the GRACE of GOD on her is so abundant that NOT only she does NOT need any more blessing but she, also, may, on her own will, give from this never-ending GRACE to us (her earthly children and the brothers of her ONLY son our ONLY LORD/GOD JESUS CHRIST. MAY OUR ONLY LORD/GOD JESUS CHRIST THE GREATEST EVER AND THE MOST HIGH, bless you and protect you for ever...Amen.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism: When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord"). A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40 The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha". José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
The link to the video without the background music is posted in the comments below and pasted here as well: ua-cam.com/video/bfWsQDOC1NA/v-deo.html Thank you.
very important clarification thanks Dr. Brant. Some Protestant Christians take all this literally and see them as children of the Virgin, or of Joseph by a previous marriage. In cultures such as the Chinese where the so-called "extended family" still exists today they often call others, who are merely close friends but not real kin, brothers or sisters. I wonder if it was the same in Jesus' time
The New Testament writing had a very specific word for cousins “Anepsios” Paul uses “Adelphoi” in 1 Corinthian 9:5 when discussing Jesus brother James. Paul then uses “Anepsios” for cousin in Col 4:10 (Barnabas, cousin of Mark)” In addition, Although scripture is the only authority on a topic, I will indulge you and if we bring in some texts of the early Christians of the Church, we must make the same observation. For example, Hegesippus (2nd century) uses the expression "brothers of the Lord" to speak of James, while elsewhere he also speaks of Jesus' uncles and cousins. In summary, on the purely historical level, it must be admitted that brothers and sisters of Jesus refers to brothers and sisters of blood. Since we name four brothers, and speak of sisters in the plural, we must recognize at least six persons. This conclusion is based on the criterion of multiple attestation (Paul, Mark, John, Matthew, Josephus). It is also established on the philological meaning of the word adelphos, which never has the meaning of cousin in the whole New Testament. To sum up, until the council of Chaldean in 325 A.D., it was understood by predominantly most writings, including the Word of God-The Bible, see Mathew 27:56, Mark 15:40 and more, that indeed James and Joseph (Joses), were sons of Mother Mary and were the blood Brothers of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Blood in antiquity meant full blood. No differentiation was used) Either way the official Roman Catholic view, the Hieronymian view, is incorrect as You now agree and you have retreated to the Epiphanian view of the Eastern Orthodox Church. At best, the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint is teetering on end. Reasonably, as biblical Christian’s we take the preponderance of evidence, including the only authority on topics of theology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, the Word of God. We then reach a reasonable conclusion that they are true blood relatives. I take my study of God‘s word seriously, so the final thing I want to say on this topic is for us to remember, this determination is not essential for salvation. Some Christian doctrinal differences are more important than others. This is of lesser importance. Let’s keep that in mind. Salvation comes only through true faith that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God and our Lord and Savior, faith that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the father. John 3:16, Romans 3:23-26, and many more. Much love brother ✝️
Matthew 12:46 says "While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold- His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, “Behold- Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You”. 48 But the One, having responded, said to the one speaking to Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And having stretched-out His hand toward His disciples, He said “Behold- My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in the heavens- he is My brother and sister and mother”." -> Are we cousins in the Lord then? Like, we're not brothers and sisters, but cousins in the body of Christ? And God is our uncle? (I'm genuinely asking how you interpret this passage).
@@aglayamajorem9546 Yes, it was. And he didn't even get the inscription correct that he's trying to cite. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary It actually said: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". And it's been proven to be a forgery.
This was online here: www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/findings-reignite-debate-on-claim-of-jesus-bones.amp.html The above source also suggests that another ossuary was found of Judah the son of Jesus, so that raises questions...: "A burial box, or ossuary, with the inscription “Judah son of Jesus” was found in the East Talpiot district of East Jerusalem." From Biblical Archaeology: www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/james-brother-of-jesus-the-forgery-trial-of-the-century/
Since there are so many Marys around? How do we know "the other Mary" is the same one as the Mary mentioned as the mother of Joseph and James? Then, how do we know the James and Joseph are the same?
@po18guy See, that's why I use question marks. That would indicate that I am asking questions...questions would indicate that I don't know something. So no, I don't. Is that explanation enough? So, maybe answer my question instead of being argumentative.
@@morelmaster: This is true. The only thing we can say is the POJ, while not inspired is the only document that gives us a look at the early life of Mary as well as her parents, Anne and Joakim. While we are not required to believe, I would admit that it does serve as evidence to the perpetual virginity of Mary. At least in the sense that it does not contradict, rather supports Church teaching.
@@taswindler There certainly can be some truth's contained in the POJ even though it is not inspired, but how do we know what statements are true and which are false? If something written in the POJ is found in Scripture also, then obviously we know it is true, but otherwise we cannot prove anything else to be true. Even Jerome and Pope Gelasius I rejected the POJ, and Jerome for one, is a highly respected theologian in the Church. The POJ states that the brothers of Jesus were children from a previous marriage of Joseph, which I believe the Church rejects, and instead the Church teaches the brothers of Jesus were cousins, as Jerome claimed. There are also numerous contradictions between the POJ and what is recorded in Scripture, which further makes it an untrustworthy document to base teachings off of. JMO.
Well, they did. The Greek Septuagint uses "adelphos" to mean blood brothers and cousins. If you look at all the places in the Bible where the Greek "adelphos" is used, you will see that it doesn't always mean blood brothers.
This is still common in some cultures. I'm from Serbia which has been influenced by early Greek Christian culture, & first cousins are routinely referred to as brother or sister, only further defining "sister from my aunt" when necessary.
NT Koine Greek is generally considered to be a kind of pidgin language. Something akin to Judeo-Greek. The sentence structures and phrases of the NT are heavily influenced by Aramaic, so it would make sense that there wouldn't be words distinguishing "brother" and "cousin" given that no such distinct words existed in either Aramaic or Hebrew.
Many nonsequitors The Greeks had terms for cousins and relatives. Why were they never used. Also while some fathers believed as he says others believed these were in fact biological siblings. It was debated as it was unclear.
@@hesedagape6122 Hi Nii. thanks for the reply. Would you believe that "lost writing"? I was asking, did you find "children of Mary (the Mother of Jesus) in the bible.
@@domingomelchor4902 Let's see the Gospels, James, Jude, the Talmud, Josephus, Church Fathers. James son of Joseph of Nazareth and Brother of Jesus Christ was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. You cannot hide that. Nearly impossible. The Perpetual Virginity legend solved the Primacy Problem for Rome. However truth is that in a United Church the Papacy will just have to concede to the Patriarch of Jerusalem
@pepe bastardes the beauty of not being a Roman Catholic is the ability to read the Bible with honesty. Several times James is referred to us Jesus' brother and here you claim what? Besides that Joseph offered the sacrifice of the firstborn for Christ. Last but not least these guys followed Mary around not another woman. Excuse me but that is the biblical evidence. And Ezekiel has no Messianic prophesy concerning perpetual virginity. Maybe u mean Isaiah but even there you have to question your Bible literacy and comprehension. I am not here to defend doctrine. Look at what the Bible says.
It is logical that this person speak as a Catholic, but I am 100% Jewish and 100% believer in Yeshua. Within Judaism the First Mitzvot (Commandment) that God is of reproduction, is in the first chapter of Genesis. Jose and Maria was a marriage, they were human beings who felt like any other, none of the apostles were there at the crucifixion because they were afraid of the Romans as well, and the brothers had had problems with Yeshua because all the people said he was crazy and Both Maria and the brothers were looking for him because they were afraid that he would be killed, that's where the relationship broke down and Yeshua continued with his mission. John was at the crucifix because he was the youngest and the Romans did not see him in danger, for the same reason Yeshua asked Juan to comfort his mother at that moment, because his brothers were not there.
Yes, but the Essenes didn't reproduce, so they do give an example in Judaism where chastity mattered vs marriage. Aquí hay una pregunta para tí: si Yeshua tuvo hermanos, por qué no estuvieron presentes para llevar María a sus propios hogares siguiendo la Ley? Ciertamente con Yeshua muriendo en la cruz, los otros hermanos tuvieran la responsabilidad en acuerdo con la Ley para cuidar a su madre...Pero no están presentes...Por qué Yeshua entregó su madre en cuidado de un discípulo en vez de un hermano?
@@kainosktisis777 Exactly, the Essenes lived a life of celibacy, but everything had a reason, at that historical moment and even Paul himself said it, that it was not good to get married, it was because they were living a very difficult time, a lot of corruption within the impostor priests, there was hungry everywhere, they sold their children as slaves as long as they were fed, who were going to suffer the most were the babies and small children. Yeshua himself had said that this generation was going to be judged and it would end with the fall of Jerusalem.
@@seamoscomplices Yeshua HaMaschiah also said the following in Mattityahu 19:12 NIV (BibleHub): For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others- *and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven* . *The one who can accept this should accept it* .” He made no stipulations for situations of crises. In 1 Cor 7 NIV (BibleHub), St. Paul agrees with Him, & he doesn’t say that celibacy is merely because of present crises: 5 *Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time,(C) so that you may devote yourselves to prayer* . *Then come together again so that Satan(D) will not tempt you(E) because of your lack of self-control* . 6 *I say this as a concession, not as a command* .(F) 7 *_I wish that all of you were as I am_* .(G) *_But each of you has your own gift from God_* ; *_one has this gift_* , *_another has that_* .(H) 8 *Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do* .(I) 9 *But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,(J) for it is better to marry than to burn with passion* . 17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them.(R) This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.(S) 25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,(AA) but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy(AB) is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.(AC) 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.(AD) 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned;(AE) and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. *But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this* . 29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that *the time is short* .(AF) 32 *I would like you to be free from concern* . *An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs(AH)-how he can please the Lord* . 33 *But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife* - 34 *and his interests are divided* . *An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs* : *Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit* .(AI) *But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband* . 35 I am saying this *for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided(AJ) devotion to the Lord* . 36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, *and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants* . He is not sinning.(AK) They should get married. 37 *But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin-this man also does the right thing* . 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right,(AL) *but he who does not marry her does better* .[c] 39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.(AM) But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.(AN) 40 *In my judgment,(AO) she is happier if she stays as she is-and I think that I too have the Spirit of God* .
Missed the Prophecy through David's mouth ( Psalms 69:8) fulfilled in John 7:5 Missed the Mathew 1:25 which says not knew her till the first born If God says Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son than why not the writers Mathew and mark wrote till she gave birth to only son Jesus? ( Mathew 1:25/ Luke 2:7) Firstborn word they used to show Mary had 2nd , 3rd or 4th because Mathew and Luke knew Mary very well.
@po18guy you need to understand the meaning of sanctification which means set apart which again means separated. And the Scriptures is the final authority and proof . Gods word doesn't require your certificate. For your understanding read 2 Corinthians 6::14-17 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.” II Corinthians 6:14-17 These Scriptures draw lines between Believers and Unbelievers.
I really enjoyed very much the detailed teaching presented here! Thank you for taking the time to meticulously explain the scriptures. I would like to suggest that the music acted as a distraction from the talk. It makes it hard to focus. Otherwise it is very helpful!! Thank you.
Interesting presentation, but I find the repetitive background music extremely annoying. I kept listening because of the quality of the argument, but my head felt like it was going to explode after hearing the same notes over and over and over and over again. Please stop doing this. It really sabotages the show and has turned me off completely from your channel, however attractive the themes of your videos are. No more background music, please.
7:30m. in, there is discrepancy in my Catholic Bible which shows 4 separate women not 3. John “{19:25} And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene”. I’m confused about this discrepancy. Edit: I realize that after reading my physical Bible, my digital one is probably mistyped.
I’ve been reading over all the comments and find the “back and forth” conversation very interesting. At the age of 42, 26 years ago (yes, I am old) I converted to the Roman rite of the Catholic Church after questioning Christian dogma and doctrine as taught in the United Methodist Church in which I was raised. When I realized the Methodist community was created from a split from the Episcopal community which was created from a split with the Anglican community which was created from a split with the Roman rite of the Catholic Church I began to wonder WHY all the splits when Jesus prayed we should all be one and St. Paul wanted no divisions in the faith communities he had established SO..... to make a very long story short, I came home to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in 1993. I find all this bickering totally a waste of time. People will twist and turn the Scriptures into any meaning they, personally, want to believe and after more than 500 years of one community after a another, after another after another after another after another after another (you get my meaning) splitting from the ONE Church Jesus established, only the Holy Spirit can stop this tragedy of divided Christendom. Pray that all our brothers and sisters in Christ come home to the fullness of the Faith. God bless.
Well said, totally agree with you. 🔥🔥🔥💒🙏😃
I’m Jewish. I believe that people of good will of all religions can and must get together in faith, in brotherhood and sisterhood. Jews and Christians are not so different. Jews are waiting for the Messiah to Come. Christians (including Catholics) are waiting for the Messiah to Come Back. Do you want the Messiah to Come soon? Then be good to members of his tribe! Jesus was Jewish when he was a man on Earth. What religions will He be if & when He Comes Back? Wait and see!
I converted at age 28 at the Easter Vigil of 2010, no turning back. It's good to be home!
Mike T5 Yes, Jews and Christians are brothers and sisters! St. Paul writes:
Romans 9:3-4 “For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises”.
prayerfully study bible . Holy Spirit lead, Jesus Vs multy billion industrial corporate church though God allowed Jesuits and Carmalites ( education ) and medical service. Study prayerfully and reflect if this is the church of Christ with all its antisemetic activities . Crucifixion wss a Roman punishment and jews were under Romans in Christ’s tims . Pray for truth .
This site produces one thing that is rarely witnessed or experienced these days. Truth. Keep up the good work Brothers and Sisters.
@Patrick Montgomery : Learn to read the gospel of barnabas, especially the aramaic one. Barnabas is 1 of the 12 disciple of jesus.
@Patrick Montgomery keep taking the medication. It takes a while for it to kick in.
@Patrick Montgomery Cop on, Patrick. If I belive in a coven of gunner-eyed witches, what has that to do with you?
A
Orthodox Ethos 🙏🏻✝️🌷
Also, Jesus would have known John would be the ONLY Apostle who would not be martyred.
This proves Mary had no other children.
Jesus said to John, the disciple he loved; “behold your mother.” Notice Jesus did not say; “ John, behold your mother.” Why? Because John represents Christians throughout all time. We are called, to behold Mary as our spiritual mother and to take her into our home. Where is that home? That home, is where your heart is.
@@Michael-vj2ub That is a terrible case of eisegesis. Read Paul's letters, FAITH ALONE.
Maximilian Thomas Faith is the most important part of a Christian life, but God doesn’t call us to faith alone. God calls us to service, to good works, to many obligations to make our world better and to serve others. We need Mary and the Saints to help us on our walks with God. The argument of faith alone also oversimplifies thousands of years of Christian tradition and theology that has been universally accepted; where in the Bible is the Holy Trinity mentioned? Where does Jesus say he is fully man and fully God? Faith is important, but we need the theology and truths divinely revealed to us through the church in order to grow closer to God.
@@maximilianthomas3006 the faith alone in Romans was in fact added by Martin Luther, he admitted to that. St. James reads, "faith without works is dead."
"Bible believers" do not know the bible. It's like having a family photo album stolen and then the thief tries to piece together stories based only on what he thinks he understands from the pictures.
That is exactly what the teacher above is doing. Changing history to fit his beliefs.
No hes clearying the which mary is who.
@@angelsanchez-kx6oj And he is getting things messed up. Scriptures point toward Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born. Matt. 1:18-25
@@bcalvert321 No it doesn't. See 1 Timothy 4:13: "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching."
Ka-bong!!
@@ElKabong61 What reading of scripture is that. The Old Testament, not the New. Timothy was written many, many years before the NT. 1 Timothy 4:10-14
10 For to this end we toil and strive,[a] because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe.
11 Command and teach these things. 12 Let no one despise you for your youth, but set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity. 13 Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation, to teaching. 14 Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you. This is talking to a New Testament Church. Not something 300 years later. The elders were the leaders of the local church.
In middle eastern culture cousins are referred to as "brothers" and "sisters".
It's that simple
Your cult bastardizes the true word of God to suit your idolatry. Tsk tsk
Not only in Middle East in South Asia also we call our cousins as brothers and sisters ....
He could also be a step brother due to Joseph
Same in many Eastern European, Slavic countries.
In Africa as well. In my African language there's no actual word for brother of sister we only have the gender neutral "my mother's child" or "my father's child" which also mean my mother's brother's or sister's child, yep, my cousins on my mother's side and same thing on my father's. Translated into English like the Greek? Well, that would often result in a narrow and often misinforming.
Why would Jesus ask John at the Calvary to take care of Mary? In those days I think... it would be greatly offensive to her real sons....if there were any. This argument makes sense.
Ivana Tokár Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion.
As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas.
This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9).
There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.”
The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
arcunap7 have you considered reading the Holy Bible it says “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Isaiah 7:14)
Matthew 1:21-23, records the fulfillment of the prophecy:
"And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Matthew 1:21-23)
On the contrary Now I can better understand why she lost Jesus if she had younger children.
arcunap7 The explanation is that Mary and Joseph have faith in their 12 year old son. If he had been an irresponsible child, his parents would never have gone a whole day without knowing his whereabouts. They trusted him and knew he had good judgment. This suggests that Jesus' motive in staying behind was not carelessness or disrespect. Evidently he intentionally let them go in order to demonstrate something more forcefully.
The other kids are not mentioned.
@@acunchevy54 I can not conceive the Idea of Mary braking up with her sons and or daughters because they didn't believe in Jesus, to start with.
Mary is not braking up with her sons and or daughters.
John stood at the foot of the cross and received Christ’s command to care for His mother.
John 19:26 So when Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing there, he said to his mother, “Woman, look, here is your son!” 27 He then said to his disciple, “Look, here is your mother!” From that very time the disciple took her into his own home.
@@acunchevy54 I am pointing out you do not need to accuse blessed Mary for braking up with here sons and daughters, she would never do that.
This is the best explanation I have heard about that so far. Sincerely, thank you
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
@@jeanlucaspc😂🤣😂🤣
What a sensational video. Quite enlightening. I'm Brazilian, ex-protestant, I'm 17 years old and I'm studying about the Catholic faith. I discovered this video thanks to Fábio Salgado de Carvalho's blog.
P.S.: I wrote using Google translator. I am still not fluent in the English language.
He has a video explaining purgatory a very informative for those who study Catholicism. With Dr. Barnt Pitre, you will be enlightened. I also recommend the contents of Dr. Scott Hahn a former protestant theologian who converted to the Catholic Church and Marcus Grodi a former Pastor and also theologian who runs an EWTN Journey Home Program. Greetings from your brother in the Catholic faith from the Philippines. Viva Cristo Rey.
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
@@jeanlucaspc
Turtullian is human, his conclusion is in no way superior to interpretations concluded from councils such as the Lateran council, let's not even go far to early Church Apologists who supported Mary's perpetual virginity like Origen who was there during Turtullian's time, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine just to name a few.
A write up from the University of Dayton👇
[The classic text on this question remains that of Joseph Blinzler. After a careful study of all the relevant texts, he offers this conclusion:
The so-called brothers and sisters of Jesus were male and female cousins. The relationship of Simon and Jude with Jesus occurs through their father Clopas and thus, these were of the lineage of David.]
I'm Greek and I was NEVER taught that Jesus had Brothers or sisters who were blood related, this is NOT what the scriptures are saying, AT ALL. Jesus called his disciples and acquittances Brothers just like WE all do to people who are very close to us, without being blood related to them, as simple as that......
!
They are children of Joseph’s first wife.
@ChiefCowpie No, they are not. They are children of Joseph's brother, Cleophas, and his wife, Mary ("the other Mary" who is mother of James and Joses) as the Scriptures and the Early Church show. Dr. Pitre has made it very plain in this video. The story of Joseph being an old widower with children is apocrypha. The early Church clearly knew these were cousins of Christ, related to him through both his parents. St. Joseph's brother, Cleophas, was married to Our Lady's cousin/relative, "the other Mary" and their children were called Jesus's brothers.
@@ChiefCowpie No, you didn't watch the whole video. Brant refutes that claim.
So you never saw didymos which is Greek for twin or Thomas which is Hebrew for twin when it was talking about judas, Jesus twin brother doubting Thomas is called Thomas judas didymos
Another point not mentioned about "adelphos", according to the “Greek expression” used by John (1:41) “Andrew (after his encounter with Jesus) went to look for his brother (Peter) “ton adelphon ton idion” (John 1:41). John considers insufficient the word “adelphos” (=brother) to express the relationship between Andrew and Peter who were true blood brothers of the same parents. This is why John says “ton adelphon ton idion.” ( "[Andrew’s] very own brother") This expression is in contrast with the different expression “hoi adelphoi autou” used a little later to describe the meaning of the “brothers of Jesus” (John 2:12; 7:3-10). This is the key to grasping why “adelphos ” can signify “cousin,” “countrymen” (4,45), “townspeople” (7:5). The brothers of Jesus in the gospel of John are his “fellow countrymen,” not true siblings.The terminology that John uses in using the word adelphos thus differs between the way John refers to Jesus’ brethren, and the way John refers to the blood brothers Peter and Andrew. The phraseology makes a distinction in the way adelphos is used. But the fact that Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, this was a euphemism for a marital bond, thus Joseph could not and would not touch her, the Ark of the New Covenant.
Brother can be used to as can word that means close friend or a relative. John the Apostle was not a relative but was as close as a brother to Jesus.
@Patrick Montgomery Ark of the Covenant will have the presence of God himself, Mary is the Ark of the Covenant because she had Jesus Himself in her Womb from the day of her Immaculate Conception If you believe that Jesus is God, you should agree that no one in this world could have been so close to Jesus except Mary.
Just to make it more clear your mother who had brought you into this world is the only person by the will of God was the only person could explain even more clearly to you.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
@@mariaaugustine2675 wow, Mary was special, chosen by God. But was just another sinner. This is the beauty of it, that God the Father would use a sinful women to bear His Son. For all have sinned.
Sorry brother, you are wrong.
The New Testament writing had a very specific word for cousins “Anepsios”
Paul uses “Adelphoi” in 1 Corinthian 9:5 when discussing Jesus brother James.
Paul then uses “Anepsios” for cousin in Col 4:10 (Barnabas, cousin of Mark)”
In addition, Although scripture is the only authority on a topic, I will indulge you and if we bring in some texts of the early Christians of the Church, we must make the same observation. For example, Hegesippus (2nd century) uses the expression "brothers of the Lord" to speak of James, while elsewhere he also speaks of Jesus' uncles and cousins.
In summary, on the purely historical level, it must be admitted that brothers and sisters of Jesus refers to brothers and sisters of blood. Since we name four brothers, and speak of sisters in the plural, we must recognize at least six persons. This conclusion is based on the criterion of multiple attestation (Paul, Mark, John, Matthew, Josephus). It is also established on the philological meaning of the word adelphos, which never has the meaning of cousin in the whole New Testament.
To sum up, until the council of Chaldean in 325 A.D., it was understood by predominantly most writings, including the Word of God-The Bible, see Mathew 27:56, Mark 15:40 and more, that indeed James and Joseph (Joses), were sons of Mother Mary and were the blood Brothers of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Blood in antiquity meant full blood. No differentiation was used) Either way the official Roman Catholic view, the Hieronymian view, is incorrect as You now agree and you have retreated to the Epiphanian view of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
At best, the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint is teetering on end. Reasonably, as biblical Christian’s we take the preponderance of evidence, including the only authority on topics of theology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, the Word of God. We then reach a reasonable conclusion that they are true blood relatives.
I take my study of God‘s word seriously, so the final thing I want to say on this topic is for us to remember, this determination is not essential for salvation. Some Christian doctrinal differences are more important than others. This is of lesser importance. Let’s keep that in mind. Salvation comes only through true faith that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God and our Lord and Savior, faith that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the father. John 3:16, Romans 3:23-26, and many more. Much love brother ✝️
I am a cradled Catholic but i want to be defender of Catholic Faith! God bless you all!
May God bless you too, and give you the wisdom to do so
I am sure there are many "born" into a faith, no matter what church, that really don't know what their church teaches. I am happy to finally wake up and get away from the false episcopal church to come home to Rome.
God bless you too, Brother
Punk33: Every time you go to church and every good you do as a consequence, you're proclaiming to the world you are a believer in Jesus Christ and his holy Roman Catholic church; consequently, a defender of the faith.
I was a brought up a Catholic, can you explain revelations 17.4
What more proof do we need than the meticulous studies you have done of the gospels and of the church fathers to show that the heresies about the " brothers of Jesus" were clever concoctions of the protesting variety, just in order to insult the mother of the saviour. They are the very people who argue that Catholics do not know the scripture, when they them selves have not read the scripture with wisdom and discernment.
The Catholics do not use the scriptures as they should. The scriptures are not definite enough for me to say one way or the other. But The scriptures do say Joseph had sexual relations with her. Matthew 1:25 Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after the baby boy was born. He could well have brothers and sisters. Mark 6:3 ESV / 13 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. Matthew 12:46 ESV
While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Matthew 13:55 ESV
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? Luke 8:19 ESV
Then his mother and his brothers came to him, but they could not reach him because of the crowd. There are several more, the Greek does the word adelphos means brother. Cousin in Geek is xáderfos. The x is very important and it is used in the original greek of the Bible. The church fathers do not want you to know these things.
@@bcalvert321 I am greek and can read from the original text.You are 100 percent right.!!!
Interesting point since Simeon prophesied that a sword would pierce Mary's heart, in order that the hearts of men may be revealed.
John P. Meier, former president of the Catholic Bible Association of America wrote: "In the New Testament 'adelphos' [brother], when used merely figuratively or metaphorically but rather to designate some sort of physical or legal relationship, means only full or half-brother, and nothing else!" Jesus did have brothers and sisters who were born to Joseph and Mary.
plus catholics wrote the scripture, so if they don't believe catholics why do they believe the book written by catholics?
Excellent breakdown! The evidence is all in The Bible and early Church history. #Truth
I offer for your consideration: ua-cam.com/video/YHGak3tRQwY/v-deo.html, listen, at least, to Dr. White's opening statement, it speaks volumes.
Grumpy Oldfart your name is fitting.
@Grumpy Oldfart haha.. thats what happened when you got slap on your face of the truth!
@Grumpy Oldfart yes but then back up with historical records written by the early Church fathers who really were eye witnesses of the Apostles and so its a fact!
@Grumpy Oldfart haha. just another story? and what is your source to say its just a story?
Dr Brant Pitre is simply outstanding! A man filled with the Holy Spirit...A great gift for the Catholic church!
He is indeed a gift. I listen to him everyday. He inspires my priestly life.
Mary did not stay a virgin and the scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters as well as cousins.
@@bcalvert321 I hope you can read Mark 6:3 and mark 15 onwards and compare it please don't judge it by yourself
@@shiduschannel5151 Mark 6:3 still could mean His sisters.
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 15 does not say anything about cousins either. There is not one commentary that says, cousins. There is no solid proof either way. It seems funny to me that the scriptures seem to use 2 different words for Jesus' kin. It uses cousin for John the Baptist but brothers for everyone else according to you and your church. This does not make any sense in any way.
@@bcalvert321 Did you even watch the video? If Mary was a consacrated virgin (and the evidence is as strong as it gets), she would have not have had children even later in life.
Thank you Father. You clarified all my doubts. I am a Roman Catholic and have deep faith on the Bible , church and all its teachings. Yet some believers tried to brainwash me and you enlightened my mind. Thank you so much and God bless you and the Catholic church. Amen
Why would you have doubts? The bible never claims that Marry did not have other children after Jesus. You say you have deep faith in the bible, well then, believe what the bible says. Look at 2 John: "To the lady chosen by God and to her children , whom I love in the truth-and not I only, but also all who know the truth- 2 because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever"
Who is John writing to here? To Marry and to her children. No brainwashing needed. The only brainwashing is from the catholic church. But the bible is very clear. Marry was a good wife to Joseph, do you also believe Joseph was a virgin all his life? Because if not, did he cheat on Marry? Of course not. Joseph and Marry were one flesh in marriage as God ordained and had other children. Nothing bad with it at all. Marry was chosen lady by God, blessed servant of the Lord who obeyed the will of the father perfectly. But, Marry is not God. I just dont understand, why catholics have a problem with this. Its not a sin to have kids with your husband/wife you know? Its a blessing.
Hi dear one, well the facts are those are the children of Mary. She was not a perpetual virgin. Even if she didn't have other children why would she have remained a virgin and been married.
The Virgin Mary is your mother too Liz
@@stevesawicki2062 How is Mary our mother too? You mean to say she is a heavinly mother? Where did you get that from? There is no such thing as a heavenly mother. Only heavenly Father - God
@@ahojahojish since dying breath wish every word out of his mouth was excruciating, our Lord said take this your mother, to the unnamed disciple. To all of us
Simply brilliant. It is right there in the bible! No confusion. It is clear. Can’t be disputed, so evident and yet we pass over it and let other “sects “ insert doubts and confusion. Thank you Dr Pitre!
ua-cam.com/video/Bw74dQTCWyA/v-deo.html
It's so stupid how they can gloss over the facts with a straight face
The Catholic interpretation that Jesus' brothers are cousins and that Mary had no other children is indirect and forced, without clear support in the Scriptures, ignoring the most common, direct, and natural sense of all the passages that speak on the subject. The Bible mentions "brothers" of Jesus, and redefining them as cousins is based on complex inferences and the interpretation of the word "adelphos" as cousins or relatives, grounded in an Old Testament context. The fragility of this interpretation is evident because Jesus entrusted his mother to John, not to a biological brother, suggesting the absence, disbelief, or inadequacy of these mentioned brothers, besides the immediate need for Mary's care and Jesus' emphasis on the superiority of the spiritual family over the earthly family. Moreover, the Catholic interpretation ignores (or pretends to ignore) that John 19:25, which mentions "Mary, the wife of Clopas," does not have a single interpretation and can include other people. Tertullian, one of the earliest Church Fathers, argued that Jesus had biological brothers. Later Church Fathers forced the view of "cousins" or "half-brothers" to harmonize their belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, disregarding the more direct biblical evidence. Therefore, the Catholic interpretation is more fragile than other interpretations based on a straightforward and natural reading of the biblical texts and a more unbiased reading of the patristics.
In Australia, the word 'Brother' is often used as a term of endearment. This is especially so within the Indigenous population. The people often refer to someone as their brother showing that their love for and wish to be close to a certain person is like that of a beloved brother. We also have a famous football club called 'Brothers'.
"Brother" or "Bro" are common terms between two male close friends. It's also used casually, kind of a throwaway term, a place marker, if you will. When I was young , "brother" was not a casual term between two post-adolescent men. Accordingly, its value can be easily degraded or worthless.
Than You Very Much Brother Brant. very Much satisfying answer ❤ May God Bless You Abundantly and keep us on right path
Jesus did not have brother or sister. Bible says , when Jesus was teaching, someone said your Mother and brother are waiting . In Middle East , cousin brother or sister are called BROTHER OR SISTER. Even now , they dont call their cousins , cousin brother or cousin sister. I met so many people in Oman, UAE and Qatar and these guys introduced to me their cousin as BROTHER or SISTER. I asked them why they dont says cousin brother or sister, they informed their custom is to call all cousins BROTHER or SISTER. This is even now. I heard some of Indian still call their cousins 'BROTHER or SISTER'.
Stretch.
@@michaeldukes4108 Nope. Same can be said for certain Latino cultures, though it is more archaic, it is still a thing.
#GetCultured
You know what IS a stretch though? Believing "sola scriptura" when there are 7 books missing from your Bible and the Bible itself says that there are things not recorded in it that Jesus did.
@@michaeldukes4108 I don't think it's a stretch. My siblings are much older than I am and I grew up with my 2 cousins who are my age. Even now I consider them as my sisters even more than my siblings who left home when I was little. My aunt always said I was her 3rd daughter. She and my uncle were like 2nd parents to me. I love my siblings but my cousins are more like sisters to me. So no, no stretch at all.
Thank you for your videos 🙏. Dr Brant Pitre how can we contact you?
Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion.
As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas.
This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9).
There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.”
The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
Can you provide one verse that says CHILDREN OF MARY MOTHER OF JESUS in the bible. Or where the brothers say OUR MOTHER and clearly defining its Mary the Mother of Jesus. Be aware that Jewish tradition would be that he who is the head of the home - which Jesus would be since he would be the oldest - would have not given John that responsibilities when he had tons of brothers or sisters that they would have inherited by Jewish culture. Furthermore Jesus and the Apostles being semetic - the very usage of the word brother isnt the same as English as you know could mean something different...it not only can mean literal but also can mean spiritual or Cousins - see Gen 13:8 and also 14:12.Heck according to your interpretation Mary had 100s of children 1 Cor. 15:6. In John 2:1; Acts 1:14 these "sons" are never called Mary's children but Jesus is the ONLY one called that. In John 20:7 talking to Mary Magdalene- tell her to go tell his BROTHERS...who were the brothers in the following verse but the Disciples..he never says to tell the Disciples but she clearly understood it was the Disciples. Nevertheless the First Churxh Fathers who were whom the ORIGINAL apostles had taught never taught them that he had blood brothers from Mary..
@@rhdtv2002 one verse Matthew 13:55 Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
no in brothers like fellow Christians
Let me ask you something, do you think all mothers and their grown children agree about everything? And when they disagree about something, does their mother go and live with someone else? Besides, do you really think Jesus would tell his own mother what to do IF she had other children she could live with. Don't you think he would leave it up to her IF she had other children? Honestly, the only logical way to look at the incident at the cross, is that Mary had NO other children. Trying to explain it any other way like many try to do involves too many improbable scenarios.
@@morelmaster I think we can glean two important things from our Lord's decision:
1) as the elder brother, the care of His sole remaining parent was Jesus' responsibility. He wasn't about to leave it to others to decide, given the opportunity to arrange the matter Himself (even though He had to do so from the cross). Since none of the 12 really "got it" before Jesus was crucified and resurrected, it would not have been prudent of our Lord to entrust this responsibility to John before the cross, any more than it would have been fair to expect the charge and responsibility to fully register before John saw Jesus hanging there. There is a proper time and place for everything (Eccl.8:5-6; cf. Eccl.3:1-8). Even though there are some things that weigh so heavily upon us that we would like to settle them ahead of time, if we are prudent and wise we will, like our Lord, wait patiently for just the right time.
2) There can be no stronger testimony as to the importance of faith over all other worldly considerations than this decision of our Lord. In our own scale of priorities, some of us would put family first in such situations (the principle of "blood being thicker than water"). Others would consider the material aspects: "Who could best provide for her?" John was not family. Our Lord was clearly more concerned with His mother's spiritual welfare than with either family considerations or economic welfare (and letting His brothers take care of her would have been better on both of these other two counts). For our Lord was concerned that His mother continue in an environment of faith, her eternal life and spiritual growth being even more important to Him than her physical life and financial security. If we really love someone, we should live by this example and put their spiritual welfare ahead of all other considerations. For even if we see to it that they are happy, healthy, and know no financial want, if they are suffering spiritually because of our focus on these other issues - far subordinate in God's eyes to maintaining healthy faith, growing in the truth, and drawing closer to Him and His Son - then we have made a poor bargain indeed.
John was, as it says in this context, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" (cf. also Jn.13:23; 20:2; 21:7; 21:20). Since our Lord's judgment was perfect, this means that John certainly had a lot going for him relative to the other disciples. And the qualities which attracted our Lord to John must have been primarily spiritual. We certainly see His great humility and responsiveness to the leading of the Spirit in his gospel and his epistles. And John, of course, lived longer than any of the rest, penning the final book of the Bible, the book of Revelation, apparently just before his death in circa 64-68 A.D. For all these reasons, John seems to have been the best choice and indeed the perfect choice to look after Mary.
the fact is that our Lord had a number of brothers and sisters, although technically they were of course half-brothers and half-sisters, all of them being the biological seed of Joseph while our Lord was virgin born. See: Matthew 12:46-49; Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-31; 2:12; 7:3-5; 7:10; Acts 1:14; 1Cor.9:5. We don't know anything about most of them from other than the little that can be gleaned from scripture. James was Jesus' brother (Gal.1:19), this makes Jude also a brother of the Lord by blood (Jude 1:1). We know about James and Jude both from the epistles that bear their names, and about James in particular from both the book of Acts (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18) and Paul's epistles (1Cor.15:9; Gal.1:19; 2:9; 2:12). Mark also mentions, in addition to James and Jude, Simon and Joses (i.e., Joseph) as brothers of Jesus (Mk.6:3).
Of course, if someone wants to think a brother is not a brother, it is difficult to see how to defend against that sort of studied denial of plain words. In the Mark 6:3 passage, two of the brothers are mentioned by name, and I know of no precedent in Greek literature where a "brother" when named might not even possibly be a brother indeed. The point that these people may be "misinformed" is mitigated by the fact that Mark, an evangelist after all, does not serve his purpose in any way that I can see by reporting this fact if it were not true (which he surely could have left out; he leaves out a lot under the guidance of the Spirit; cf. the abrupt end of the book).
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in their own towns and in their own homes are prophets without honor." And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.
Matthew 13:53-58 NIV
While, "brothers" is only used metaphorically in the NT to refer to "community of believers", in the passage above Jesus' skeptics are clearly not dealing in metaphor but are talking about Jesus' literal, physical family in order to "prove" that He is not the Messiah, since "no one knows where the Messiah comes from" but they know his family, his brothers and sisters (Jn.7:27). That the Messiah would have an unknown origin was the understanding of events current at the time and still prevalent in much of Judaism today (i.e., He is thought to be an angel or something of the sort - which helps to explain the necessity or the book of Hebrews). If these siblings were "made up" the argument would be nonsensical both for contemporaries and for inclusion into Matthew.
@@paulfromthefaroeislands5761
YOU: as the elder brother, the care of His sole remaining parent was Jesus' responsibility.
ME: There was more to the scene at the cross than just finding a place for his mother to live. LOOK at the words of Jesus, "Woman, behold your son", and to John, "behold your mother." Don't know about you, but it seems a rather unconventional way to tell someone to take care of your mother for you.
In my culture, if your father has a brother or your mother has a sister, the Children of that Uncle or Aunt would be identified as your brothers and sisters.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Here is a good document I found that basically sums up what this video is all about.
MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?"
(Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary')
Some people refer to these verses as 'proof', that Mary had other children. See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5.
Now using the Bible, we are about to explode forever, the myth that Christ had siblings.
The word: 'Brethren'...appears over 530 times in the Bible. 'Brother' - appears over 350 times. 'Sister' - appears over 100 times. 'Sisters' - appears over 15 times.
BRETHREN: This is a plural word for 'brother'.
BROTHER: The Hebrew word 'ACH', is ordinarily translated 'brother'. The Jews at that time, used it in a broader sense to express kinship. Even today, the word is used in a larger meaning, so that friends, allies, fellow believers, and fellow citizens can be included in the same brotherhood. It was no different in the time of Christ.
There are four classes of meanings of the word 'brother'.
The first class is BROTHER BY NATURE (sons of the same parents)
Genesis 4:1-2 Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD." And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground.
The second class is BROTHER BY KINSHIP
Genesis 13:8 Then Abram said to Lot, "Let there be no strife between you and me, and between your herdsmen and my herdsmen; for we are brothers (i.e. related, as uncle and nephew)
The third class is BROTHER BY RACE
Genesis 19:4-7 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them." Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly.
The fourth class is BROTHER BY LOVE
2 Sam 1:26 I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant have you been to me; your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (David of his friend Jonathan)
Rom 12:10 love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor.
Rom 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother (Paul speaking of Christians)
How many times have you seen T.V. Evangelists address their audiences as 'Our brothers and sisters'? Marian detractors accept the last three meanings to suit themselves, but when it comes to Mary, the mother of GOD, they always refer to the first meaning. Is this fair to her? How do you explain this?
In 1Cor 15:6, Jesus appeared to five hundred 'brothers' at one time. Could all of these be blood brothers? Hardly. Then there is Peter speaking before one hundred and twenty brothers in Acts 1:15-16. Paul speaks of a 'brother or sister' in 1 Cor 5:11 when referring to a fellow believer. The Bible has many more similar verses.
Now we have four 'brothers', JAMES, JO'SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for as written in Mk 6:3.
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO'SES, and Salome." These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." Mt 10:2-3, "...'JAMES' the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus." Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "...JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo'tes, and JUDE the brother of JAMES." From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus's 'brethren', JAMES (the less), and JO'SES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JO'SES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3. To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary (the mother of Jesus), then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite (Mk 3:18) also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13.
Jude, who authored the Epistle of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called 'Thaddeus' in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas Iscariot.
Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, "And Judas (Jude) the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor."
Jn 19:26-27, "When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing by, whom He loved..." The disciple was John, the author of the Gospel of John. "Then He said to the disciple, BEHOLD THY MOTHER." Was John a child of Mary and blood brother of Jesus?
Read the following verses to see... Mk 1:19, "...He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN', his brother."
Mk 3:17, "And James the son of Zebedee, and 'JOHN' the brother of James."
In neither of these passages is it said that Jesus saw a blood brother or even recognized them as men that He knew.
Mt 27:56, "Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James Mt 20:20, (the less) and Jo'ses, and the mother of Zebedee's children." Mk 15:40, "...among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James (the less), and Salome (mother of Zebedee's children)."
Lk 24:10, "It was Mary Magdalene...and Mary ('the other Mary') the mother of James (the less)..." A comparison of Mt 27:56, and Mk 15:40, clearly shows that Zebedee had a wife whose name was Salome. She is called the 'mother of Zebedee's children' in Mt 27:56, and 'Salome' in Mk 15:40. They had two children, JOHN and JAMES, (Mk 3:17). JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would have demanded it...
GENEALOGY:
Zebedee + Salome > begat James and John
Cleophas (Alphaeus) + Mary (the other "Mary" in Mt 27:56, 61, 28:1, Jn 19:25) > begat James (the less), Jo'ses, and Jude
THE HOLY SPIRIT + Blessed Virgin Mary > begat JESUS THE CHRIST
This 'Genealogy' shows who the real parents of the 'brothers' in Mark 6:3, and Matthew 13:55, are, and makes the word 'brother' a non-argument.
Additional notes...
Mt 1:25, "And knew her not till...". The old meaning of the word 'till' or 'until', meant an action did not occur up to a certain point. It does not imply the action did occur later. Gen 8:7, "He sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, 'until' the waters were dried up off the earth." 2 Sam 6:23, "...the daughter of Saul had no child 'until' the day of her death." Did she have a child after she died?
Lk 1:34, "Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" This shows Mary had no relations with a man before and was virgin.
Lk 2:7, "And she brought forth her 'firstborn' Son and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes..." Firstborn, at the time of the writing of the Gospels, meant, 'the child that opened the womb'. See Ex 13:2 and Num 3:12. Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'.
NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS, HAD OTHER CHILDREN. WHY THEN, DO SOME INSIST THAT SHE DID?
Bible References:
Gen 8:7, Gen 25:21-26, Gen 29:5,15, Ex 13:2, Num 3:12, Num 8:26, Deut 23:7, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26,6:23, 1King 9:13, 2King 10:13-14, 2Chron 29:34, Mt 1:25, Mt 4:21, Mt 10:2-4, Mt 12:46, Mt *12:50, Mt 13:55-56, Mt 20:20, Mt 26:26, Mt 27:56,61, Mt 28:1, Mk 1:19, Mk 2:14, Mk 3:17-21,31,35, Mk 6:3, Mk 15:40,47, Lk 1:34, Lk 2:7 Lk 2:41-51, Lk 5:10, Lk 6:16, Lk 8:19, Lk 24:10, Jn 7:2-7, Jn 19:25-27, Acts 1:13-16, Rom 8:29, 1Cor 5:11, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:6, Gal 1:19, 1Pet 5:12, Jude 1:1
Why Does This Matter?
A reasonable question, though, is why any of this matters. Ultimately, it would seem that Mary’s virginity or not is unrelated to anything that would have to do with our salvation, and while that might be technically correct, per se, the danger comes from the disobedience that such a belief causes.
If we can deny the Church’s teaching on this, pretending even to use the Bible to do it, then this leads to doubts elsewhere. If we can be led to believe that the Church is wrong about this, what else might she be wrong about? Bit by bit, brick by brick, our faith is eroded, until one day we decide the Church is wrong about everything, and leave. From there, we have spoken Satan’s mantra “I will not serve,” which is exactly what he wants for us to say and do.
The Church has made it infallibly clear that Mary was ever-virgin, and the Bible clearly indicates that she bore no other children. Unfortunately, we have only closed one argument that Satan uses to lead souls out of the Church. He will simply find other means to do so now. Our hope is that someone will read this article and ask instead, “Hmm...what else is the Church RIGHT about?” and come to know and love the very church that Christ established on earth, so that salvation can be theirs.
MATTHEW @-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO'SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?"
(Note! Only the 'carpenter' is called 'THE Son of Mary', not 'A Son of Mary')
In the exact statement THE brother of James , Joseph and of Jude and Simon and not a brother of James. How did you missed the "The" when it came to list of brothers? Also they were not making the argument of perpetual virginity but proclaiming Jesus was just an average person with a father, mother , brothers and sister just like everyone else. It makes a lot of sense that Jesus came down not as a king's son but came down and lived in a poor and average family just like his own people. Trying to make his family different from the rest of his people in the first century is denying that Jesus purpose to lived totally as we do. If he had super duper parents then Jesus wouldn't be growing up in a normal home like the average person in that day.
02:21 - 02:30 I strongly disagree with what Dr. Pitre says here. I disagree that Mary has taken some kind of vow of virginity. At that time she was *betrothed* to Joseph but NOT actually married to him. They had not solemnized, nor, obviously, consummated the marriage. As a good, well brought-up Jewish girl she had kept her virginity until this point, as girls were expected to be virgins when they married. There is no need to infer any special vow of virginity at that point: she had simply kept herself pure and virgo intacta as girls were expected to do, at least those girls who expected to marry a respectable man.
Apparently there was a betrothed marriage situation that would normally have involved sexual relations in Jewish customs. I think Pitre explains it in a book.
How confused was that group when someone called "Mary"
😂 true
I have often used that point to confirm the historical truth of the bible. Iit points to authenticity of scripture. Any fictional tome would identify characters with completely different names to avoid confusion. The story of Jesus is, therefore, not fiction.
Lutheran who upholds Semper Virgo here. It is a shame to see our numbers dwindling...
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Hello Brother- thank you for enlightening me that there are Semper Virgo Lutherans! Maybe you know this- but I believe there is documentation to show Luther was also of this belief. If so, one has to wonder what happened?
2 siblings with the same name? This only happens in George Foreman's family!
It's not sibling.. Stop being dumb.
It does not make sense that Mary's sister would also be called Mary. Mary's sister was Salome the wife of Zebedee. See comparisons of parallel accounts below:
(Matt 27:55-56) And many women were there watching from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Galʹi·lee to minister to him; 56 among them were Mary Magʹda·lene and Mary the mother of James and Joʹses and the mother of the sons of Zebʹe·dee.
(Mark 15:40) There were also women watching from a distance, among them Mary Magʹda·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joʹses, and Sa·loʹme, 41 who used to accompany him and minister to him
(John 19:25) By the torture stake of Jesus, however, there were standing his mother and his mother’s sister; Mary the wife of Cloʹpas and Mary Magʹda·lene.
So, watching Jesus were 4 women, three named Mary and Salome. Mary the wife of Clopas is therefore the mother of James the Less and Jo'ses. This only leaves Salome as Mary's sister, the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Jesus' Apostle's James and John.)
The only reason this video argument is being made is that Catholic doctrine holds that Mary was a Virgin ALL of her life and find inconvenient that the Bible indicates Jesus had brothers and sisters. There is nothing in the Bible which says Mary had to remain a virgin forever despite being a married woman. She only refrained from relations with Jesus UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus. (This was to make clear Jesus was not Joseph's fleshly son.) His brothers and sisters were younger than him.
(Matt 1:24-25) Joseph woke up from his sleep and did as the angel of Jehovah had directed him, and he took his wife home. 25 But he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus.
KJV And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son.
(As another point, "Firstborn" son seems to indicate there were more sons later.)
Considering how important having children was to Jewish women back then (remember Samuel's mother?) I'd like some proof of Dr. Pitre's claim married women could take a vow of abstinence. I doubt the husbands would go along with that. What would be the point of marrying. Even though it says Joseph was planning on secretly divorcing her, back then being engaged was considered like being already married. This is why they had not started having sex yet, they hadn't had the official ceremony yet.
The Greek Scriptures use distinct words for “brother,” “relative,” and “cousin.” (Luke 21:16; Colossians 4:10) so brothers did not mean cousins.
Jesus entrusted Mary's care to John, his cousin, rather than to his fleshly brothers, because they were not believers yet and he was caring first for her spiritual welfare.
(John 7:5) His brothers were, in fact, not exercising faith in him.
After his resurrection, Jesus appeared to his fleshly brothers and this convinced them. They thereafter became his followers. Thus, they were with Mary at Pentecost.
(Acts 1:14) With one purpose all of these were persisting in prayer, together with some women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with his brothers.
Here are some relevant links showing what the Bible teaches on these matters.
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/was-jesus-married/
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/virgin-mary-immaculate-conception/
www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/about-jesus/
ElKabong61 they're just trying to explain away the Mary continuous virgin myth and keep Jesus as God, so of course thy e got to try and scramble something together ....Mary, Mary...oh, please.....
What do you expect the video to say? He is defending the official teaching of the Church? You, on the other hand, are giving the view of a different group.
Ewan Kerr aren’t we all?
At 2:30 he said that Mary is already married ??????????
Can someone tell me where it says that Mary was already married when the angle first visited her ?????
I believe he meant "married" as in betrothed. She was "pledged to be married" to Joseph.
You are correct in questioning this. Joseph and Mary were engaged, not married, when she got pregnant with Jesus by the Holy Spirit. Matt 1:18 states: "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." They weren't married yet. This was how they proved that she was still a virgin. My guess is that they weren't together yet, like an arranged marriage. I'm guessing that family verified this.
Addressed at the beginning of this video: ua-cam.com/video/LqdV3WjfYms/v-deo.html
Remember the mystical Body of Christ is called the Bride, and that Jesus says He is going to "prepare a home" for us John 14:3 .
@@paxcoder
What exactly are you trying to say, your post is confusing
@ What you said, and relating it to our relationship with Christ
"There's always been a longstanding debate among early Church fathers." Then that is ignored and we get that the early Church fathers were agreed.
@@icxcnika2037 You guys literrally believe almost the exact same things we do about the Theotokos.
This was thorough. Thank you. But many minds nay be blocked from discernment. God bless you always ✝️📿
I’m just going to put what I believe on here and you guys can take what you want from it. First of all, in Luke 2:7 it is stated that when Jesus was born, Mary gave birth to “her first born son”. Now assuming this was the only child of Mary, it would not seem logical to refer to Jesus as the first born. Also, in Matthew 1:25 it states that Joseph “knew her not” or “had no relations with” Mary until after she bore Jesus. This wording can be used as sexual relations, like in Genesis when it is stated that “Adam knew Eve, and they bore Cain and Abel”. Now assuming Mary had other children with Joseph, the claims of Jesus’ brothers and sisters would make sense.
Referring to the claim that the word brother refers to cousin or distant relative is strange because we can see in the gospel of Luke that there was a distinct difference in brothers and relatives. “And you shall be betrayed by both parents, and brothers, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall cause to be put to death” (Luke 21:16).
I do not believe the brothers of Jesus were referring to his followers as well. This is because of the distinction in John 2:12 where it states “ After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.”
Don't confuse these delusional catholics with clear logic and facts... they cannot stand it.
Referring to the First born son this is an idiomatic phrase meaning the HE "opened the womb"
From Matthew 1 (BibleHub):
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
From Luke 3 (BibleHub):
23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,
24 the son of Matthat,
Why in neither of these genealogies were no other siblings mentioned if Jesus did in fact have blood siblings...?
[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." (Pringle, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 107)
-John Calvin
"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." (Luther’s Works, vol. 45:212-213 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew [1523] )
-Martin Luther
"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity." (Pringle, Calvin's Commentaries, vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3] )
-John Calvin
The last argument doesn't hold much weight for me. Why isn't it possible that the author felt like distinguishing Jesus' cousins amongst his disciples? Why would their distinction indicate a blood relationship at all?
I agree that most people reading the Bible would take away the idea that Jesus had blood brothers. But when you read it very carefully, Matthew 27 and Mark 15 clearly indicates these individuals are not sons of Mary. It doesn't follow from this specific argument that Mary was perpetually a virgin, but it shouldn't be controversial that these individuals are not blood brothers of Jesus.
@John in PA What is plain, is twisted by those who won't give up their false agenda... the context of "first born" is clear when taken with the rest of what the Bible says about Jesus and his family... keep twisting.
Thank you for this very detailed and informative video. God bless
Lord Jesus did not have brothers and/or sisters for one reason, when He was on the Cross he told one of his disciples to take his Mom as his mother, and to his mother to take this disciple as her son. If Mary had other children, they should care for her, not the outside family discipline. Please correct me if I am wrong.
1000% correct.
"They will look at the one who was pierced and mourn for him as for an ONLY CHILD, weeping bitterly as for a FIRSTBORN."
(Zechariah 12,10
)
Who was PIERCED? Jesus... and Mary mourned for Jesus as Her only child, and She wept for Jesus as Her firstborn.
Huuun! It's illogical to be a FIRSTBORN and ONLY CHILD. Being a firstborn assumes their were others.
@@lolasobande8663illogical?
- Hi, what's your name?
- Sarah
- And this is...?
- He's my son Isaac
- Is he your firstborn?
- No, I have to wait until I have a second child before I can call him that.
So Sarah never had a firstborn because she didn't have a second child, and Isaac was an only child but never a firstborn because his mother didn't have a second child.
@@nicaman1953 😃 🤣 great explanation
If a woman had 3 children, if one dies she will mourn as if it were her only child. Again I ask why is the sex life of a married woman with her husband a BIG DEAL?
lola sobande the phrase "first-born of all creation" proclaims Christ’s preeminence. As the eternal Son of God, He created the universe. He is the Ruler of creation!
Wow! well done Father. As a Middle Eastern Catholic, your explanation is simply perfect and Biblical. As a Middle Eastern, pls allow me to add what is also missing is all of the 4000 years of Eastern traditions that is so difficult for a western world to grasp. I believe that when the disciples wrote the Bible they did not know that this would become a big issue 2000 years later. Example: it just wouldn't be fair to Americans for a foreigner to come in to the US and interpret its laws without studying the culture and the 200 Yr old traditions... The same way, it just wouldn't be fair for us Middle Eastern Christians to have some Protestant pastor who knows nothing about Middle East customs and 4000 Yr old traditions to pick up a bible and run his mouth about the Holly Family. "Roy Schoeman" a converted Jewish Harvard Professor who was a devoted Jewish who memorised the Tora, and after his conversion to Catholics he explains this particular subject in the most profound traditional way.
Thanks for the taking the time to make an excellent commentary. I have always been of the opinion that you have to know and understand the culture of the time. By reading Mathew 19 Verse 16 - 24 (" 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.")
The Question is, What is the Eye of a needle and what is it's actual meaning? Understanding the culture and language of the time leads you to geat a clearer meaning.
@@oramairiza2004in the " Aramaic Bible" Jesus is talking to his Apostles who are fishermen and he actually says that it's easyer for a "rope" not a camel, to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter Heaven" very similar meanings.
he is not a Priest
@@petrospetros5835 The Greek word is kamilon not camel
@ Who is not?
Hello all, due to the praise for the background music ;-), we uploaded a new version without it. You can check it out at the link below. Thanks for your feedback:
ua-cam.com/video/bfWsQDOC1NA/v-deo.html
Like peddling abusive bullshit I see.
Now you tell me? Too late.
@@DonVueltaMorales nope. You still alive you got time
Why don't you read Matthew 1:18-25?
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Glory to God for these informations and clarification as well..God bless you more Brother.( knowing more about the Lord Jesus is a fulfilling big achievement for me..I wish to know more about Jesus..😍😍😍)
That background music is distracting and un-necessary.
Its so wonderful to know that our Lady devoted herself to God so much that she didn't think about having another offspring, but followed and loved her only son of God so devoutly.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
So Joseph and Mary did not have normal marital relations? I don't see how that would make sense.
Matthews' gospel states Joseph did not know her until after Jesus was born.
@@donnaberube5480 The word "until" in english is a translation of the word "heos" of the Greek version. "Heos" does not imply a reversal like until does in English. Some other examples of "heos" in Matthew's gospel include:
Matthew 28:20 "I am with you all the days "Heos" the completion of the age."
Matthew 11:13 "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied "Heos" John (the Baptist)."
Even the Reformers like John Calvin thought "until" was neither for nor against her virginity: "no just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words of the Evangelist (Matthew), as to what took place after the birth of Christ."
Excellent as always!
Interesting video. Turns out, just yesterday someone was telling me Jesus had brother and sisters and the Catholics are wrong. The Spirit clearly guided me to this video and I shared it with them. Whether or not they watch it is entirely between them and God. Thank you.
The more you research the more Catholic you’ll become
Exactly! I just spoke to someone over the weekend who said the same thing.
Does there generation increased after Jesus Christ.. brother's generation...
Please answer..wr r they now
Very enriching and enlightening! Thank you Dr
Pitre! God bless you! God bless the Catholic Church!
Bro. Ed Miranda Jesus’ brothers did not become believers until after His resurrection (John 7:5). Further, Jesus’ brothers were not present at His crucifixion. Jesus was entrusting Mary to John, who was a believer and was present, rather than entrusting her to His brothers, who were not believers and who were not even present at His crucifixion.
As the oldest son in His family, Jesus had a cultural obligation to care for His mother, and He passed that obligation on to one of His closest friends. John would have certainly obeyed this command. Mary was most likely one of the women in the upper room and was present when the church was established in Jerusalem (Acts 1:12-14). She probably continued to stay with John in Jerusalem until her death. It is only later in John’s life that his writings and church history reveal John left Jerusalem and ministered in other areas.
This is also confirmed by Acts 8:1 that reads, “On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria.” John was still in the city at this time (perhaps one or two years after the resurrection) and was still there three years after the conversion of Paul (Galatians 2:9).
There is no contextual proof within Scripture itself that would point to Jesus broadening Mary’s role as “mother” of all Christians. In fact, Catholic teaching can only point to early church leaders as proof that Jesus meant to establish Mary’s “motherhood” to all believers in Christ or that Mary was a cooperative participant in salvation. John took Mary into his home to care for her. The Bible does not say “from that time on Mary became the mother of all believers.”
The beauty of John 19:26-27 is reflected in the care Jesus had for His mother, as well as the care John provided for her. Scripture clearly teaches the importance of caring for widows and the elderly, something Jesus personally applied during His final hours of His earthly ministry. James, the half-brother of Jesus, would later call such care for widows “pure religion.” “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (James 1:27).
@@jacobsenh7383 John 21: 25 makes your argument, and sola scriptura as a whole, completely invalid.
Roman Flores 25 There are many other things that Jesus did. If every one of them were written down, I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Does it say we must obey and follow these other things .
Are sure that they are rightly qouted I do no think so it is only the Bible that is inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16 Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.
17 that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.
Revelation 22: 18
If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city that are described in this book.
I offer for your consideration: ua-cam.com/video/YHGak3tRQwY/v-deo.html, listen, at least, to Dr. White's opening statement, it speaks volumes.
Bro. Ed Miranda what can you expect from a protestant view? They are a modern liberals today.
Fabulous and very clear explanation. So much for Luther!
The question of whether or not Mary gave birth to other children besides Jesus is one that has been debated throughout the history of the church. Passages in which the other children of Mary are mentioned are Matthew 12:46-50; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3 (mentioning sisters as well as four brothers); Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; John 7:3-10; and Acts 1:14. Several interpretations of these passages were given by early church leaders. Epiphanius believed they refer to the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage. Jerome said they are cousins. Helvidius believed that they are the sons of Joseph and Mary (young half-brothers of Jesus).
There are several reasons to prefer Helvidius’s view. In the first place, it is the simplest and most natural interpretation of the text. If Mary was so much younger than Joseph that he had a large number of children by an earlier marriage while refraining from a normal marital relationship with her, why would children from an earlier marriage be mentioned repeatedly in close connection with Mary without any indication that they were step-brothers and sisters? It seems most likely that Luke’s reference to Jesus as Mary’s “firstborn” (Luke 2:7) and the statement in Matthew 1:24-25 (“Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took her as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus”) implies that she and Joseph had a large natural family following the Savior’s birth. This, after all, would be the normal and honorable pattern within Jewish culture.
The view that the brothers and sisters (Greek: adelphos, adelphe) mentioned in these passages are actual brothers and sisters confirms Paul’s references to James as “the Lord’s brother” in Galatians 1:19 and to “The Lord’s brothers” in 1 Corinthians 9:5. If they were cousins rather than brothers, Paul would have used the Greek word for “cousins” (anepsioi; see Colossians 4:10).
In light of these factors, those who would depart from the simplest and most natural meaning of the text carry the burden of proof. The reverence for celibacy and the exaltation of Mary that occurred within the early church is more likely an explanation for Epiphanius’s and Jerome’s interpretations than genuine historical fact.
If Jesus had actual siblings, what would be the purpose for many of the early church fathers to lie about it (as you are implying) and say Jesus didn't have siblings? Why not just tell the truth? Nothing would have changed about Jesus and his mission. So what if he would have had brothers and sisters. Many of the church fathers who said Mary had no other children were from the second century, not that long after the last Apostle died, surely they would have known the truth, being so close in time to the events of the NT. It's not like there would have been confusion about whether or not Jesus had siblings, as he had as many as 6-7 of them according to some interpretations.
John, u have to consider the words used to define them as "brothers" that came from the greek word "adelphos" well you are going to say that the word "brother" is often associated with cousin in the jewish culture specially in the old testament and that's right because there is no specific word for cousin in hebrew and in aramaic but u have to consider tht the new testament is written in greek wherein thre's a specific word for cousin which is "anepsios", the commentary and interpretations of the early church fathers must not be equated with the interpretation and truth of the scriptures itself, we need to evaluate the interpretations based on what really the bible says
@@tomsepulchre7945
At first glance, your comment might make some sense to some, but what you are not taking into consideration is that the NT writers were Jewish and probably spoke both Hebrew and Aramaic, which had no special word for cousin. The Septuagint always translated the word for blood brother or cousin as "adelphos", so when writing the NT, these Jewish authors simply used "adelphos" also. What you and others try to do is use backwards logic. You deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, believe she had other children with Joseph based on an incorrect "singular" meaning for the word "adelphos" (blood brother), instead of the fact that it had multiple meanings (a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother, cousin, kinsman, fellow believer, fellow man). You are putting much weight on the belief that because "anepsios" was not used in reference to the "brothers" of Jesus, that they must be blood brothers, or siblings of Jesus. It always amazes me how many people incorrectly believe that "adelphos" can only mean a sibling from the same womb.
@@jzak5723 Hi John.
The normative meaning of the word adelphos is brother in a strict sense, and if those mentioned in Matthew 13 where not the brothers of Jesus, then Matthew could have used the word anepsios (wich the other guy already pointed out) and there is another word he could have used, suggenis wich means relative. So yeah, they were jewish writers, but they could have used two diferent words instead of adelphos, and the context for example in Matthew 13 mentions Jesus´ human father, his mother and brothers. That is clearly a full family and it would be unnatural to read the passage like: "Is not this the carpenter´s son? Is not his mother called Mary? Are not his COUSINS or KINSMEN James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?". This the man in the video did not consider, and clearly went away of the text, to ch. 27, to "prove" that the James and Joseph mentioned in ch. 13 were not his blood brothers, wich clearly is an invalid argument because it could be simply said that the James and Joseph of ch.27 are not the same of ch.13 , and, the argument leaves out Judas and Simon. What about them? Are they sons of another Mary too? Or are we going to let text speak for itself and recognize that the text most naturally calls all 4 of them brothers in the normative brothers sense?
The word adelphos could have meant a lot of diferent things in the OT, but the point is that in the NT they used specific words to differentiate between brother, cousin, and relative, and Matthew used brother. And the word for blood brother or cousin as you say, could have been always translated in the Septuagint as adelphos, but since now in NT writings there are three diferent words for each three kinds of people, then most probably Matthew would have used one of the other two words if those mentioned in Mt. 13 were not in fact the brothers of Jesus, even if he was a jewish writer.
@@AndresMartinez-tx6hc
Just because there was a specific Greek word for cousin doesn't necessarily mean that the writers had to use them. The Greek Septuagint was written in Koine Greek, as was the New Testament, but in the Septuagint, the word "adelphos" was used to indicate not only blood brothers or siblings, but also other relationships including cousins. If there was a word for cousin in Koine Greek at the time of the writing of the Septuagint, then you have to ask yourself why it wasn't used to refer to cousins when translating the Hebrew OT? This has to be answered, if possible, before you can insist that the word "anepsios" or "suggenis" should have been used. The most likely answer is that the NT writers simply used "adelphos" to refer to cousin or some type of relative which would be normal historical usage of the word. You have to understand, different Christian groups today probably are making a "mountain out of a mole hill" when is comes to the "brothers of Jesus" debate in the use of the word "adelphos", compared to the intentions of the NT writers, who were most likely not trying to prove a point back then with the use of the word.
All this is fine and well but Matthew's words do not support the idea that Mary had some kind of vow. Matthew writes, "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit." It was understood that as a married couple the time would come when they would consummate their marriage. So there is no need to try to force a view of virginity here. I don't see the early church's need to have her remain in her virgin state while still married.
Mary said to the angel, "how can this be since I know not man." You think Mary didn't understand how babies were made??? Remember, at this point, the angel had not yet told Mary HOW she would conceive her child.
YOU:So there is no need to try to force a view of virginity here. I don't see the early church's need to have her remain in her virgin state while still married.
ME: The Church had no "need" to have her remain a virgin, as if the Church had a say in the matter, it's simply the reality of what happened, that's all.
john mizak I think before marriage she could have had first born miraculously conceived but your quote says nothing after after she was married. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity
@@suem6004
There is nothing to support that she wasn’t a consecrated virgin either. No siblings of Jesus are apparent.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Bible says she was a virgin until after she was married.
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him. Mark 6:3
@@suem6004
Those were cousins just as Pitre laid out. Listen to the video! Sheesh!
“Until” does not imply a change either. Watch the video!
Absolutely fantastic explanation. You have handled this discussion from a very fresh perspective, and a convincing one too. Great insights. Thanks
THANK YOU! Excellent explanation. God bless the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church!!!
Ezekial 44:2, says the gate which God passes though would be shut .
So no way Mary's womb can be the gateway for others to come into the world.
Chizzle Maestro If you are asking whether Catholic pray to Mary yes, if you ask if we worship her, no. Mary (and all the other Saints) is able to, through the power of God (in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit), hear our prayers and can intercede on our behalf’s. It’s God’s power that makes everything. It is like asking a friend to pray for you, asking a friend for advice, or just having someone to talk to.
@@Christian-ut2sp Captious question. Actually you should read Eusebius. This video is somewhat tedious father Luis Toro explained this much more vividly, all the men called the brothers of Jesus were relatives or spiritual brothers.
Lol..the temple gate has nothing to do with Mary. She was a virgin for the birth of Jesus. .but after that was exactly the wife of Joseph. .and had children.
Some people are like Pharisees. They saw for themselves the miracles that Jesus did but still refuse to believe in him partly because he chastised them for their hypocrisy. Many people are like that. Even if the facts are laid before them the refuse to accept. As Jesus did say “Do not cast pearls among ( a certain kind of animal)” but to “shake the dust from your feet and sandals” as you leave them. (And by the way I am a Catholic and a Legion of Mary member . Someone thought I was a non-Catholic and verbally attacked me because I quoted the Bible!)
@@supershooter20 Shame..by deeper investigation you'll find that the apparitions of "Mary" to the children was one of Satan's coolest deceptions. ..So much like those that deny Jesus. .you may have similar inclinations regarding "Mary"...yet at its roots under the deception is idolatry..repetitive useless prayer..false intercessorship and more.
Mary was blessed highly...saw out her assigned task, and like all needed a saviour. .And she now rests. Contrary to what you may imagine. .she's not privy to any deep secrets of YHWH. .nor can intercede for people in any form.
I encourage you to find your way to Jesus erasing all DISTRACTION.
Mary is the virgin mother of Jesus and is blessed..but there ends her task. So..maybe you'll figure things out in time..or perhaps not.
Excellent presentation, however, I find the background music, even though very subtle, to be distracting.
Kindly see the link to the non-background-music version below this comment.
My point exactly!!!
Also the Epistle of Jude -he says Jude BROTHER OF JAMES and not Jude brother of Jesus!!!!!
Mary didn't have any more children.
Also :
Isaiah 66:7 "Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she delivered a son."
Thank you for a clear explanation of these relatives of Jesus. I was wondering, I think I heard that in Jewish law, when a husband died, the wife was married off to her brother-in-law, who was legally responsible for her.( And multiple wives were still allowed in the Roman territories until about the 5th century. So, St. Joseph died sometime after Jesus's 12th BD, so maybe Cleopas as Joseph's brother had the legal care of Mary, so all the cousins were grouped as brothers and sisters.
An insightful observation. Thank you for that.
I wonder if this would also explain the Eastern view that Jesus’ “brothers” were sons of Joseph. Basically it would be known that his cousins lived in the same household, and some thought they were the sons of Joseph as a result.
I wonder why and how did you came to a conclusion that St. Joseph died after Jesus’ 12 birthday. I read somewhere that the popular view is, St. Joseph died at around when Jesus started his ministry which means St. Joseph died when Jesus was 30 years old. Also it was not Cleopas that took care of Mother Mary, it was John the disciple that took care of her. In the Gosple of John (Jn 19:26-27)
26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.
It is obvious it was the disciple that took care of Mother Mary and not Cleopas.
@@keytonbush3925 According to Catholic teaching, St. Joseph also kept his virginity until his eternal rest.
@@RogerCanda
More likely that Jesus took care of his mother when Joseph died, and then when Jesus died, he gave his mother to John the Apostle.
Excellent commentary, Dr. Pitre...but please have your production people nix the incessant and irritating background music. My goodness, that is distracting.
i love the background music! 🤣🤣🤣 sorry, this might offend you but i really do love the bckgnd music
The thing that bothered me is when you started talking about eusebius but showed a picture of Augustine
@@smurfsflamanggo7809 yes the music background is good.
I agree: the music is distracting.
YES, Christ Jesus had (Half/Step) Brothers and Sisters... R.C.C. attested that the Greek word ADELPHOS does not mean "Brothers and Sisters" but COUSIN... if that was Biblically TRUTH?... then, why did the Bible refer to ELIZABETH as COUSIN?... It should have been written as "Sister Elizabeth" and not Cousin Elizabeth...
Do the Native Nazarene Jews who lived and known St. Joseph as the Carpenter by profession and his family members, falsely attested to Christ Jesus, "Look here is your Mother, Brothers, and Sisters standing outside seeking for you." (ref. Mark 3:31-35 / Matt. 12:46-50 / Luke 8:19-21)...
Three (3) Gospel Writers ATTESTED to this Biblical TRUTH... that Blessed Mary had children from St. Joseph before he died... Christ Jesus' Half-Siblings.
According to the Bible, 2 or 3 or more who have attested/witnessed in PUBLIC, therefore, the SUBJECT MATTERS (Testimony) is honestly TRUTHFULL...(ref. Matt. 18:16 / 2 Corinthians 13:1 / Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15 / Numbers 35:30)... Amen.
Were the Israelite Jews who lived in Nazareth WRONG by using the words "Mother, Brothers, and Sisters" instead of COUSINS???... NOPE...
The R.C.C. interpretation was WRONG to favor their Dogma of the "Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary"... R.C.C. also interpreted that that was the Children of Joseph from his previous marriage, referring to Joseph as a WIDOWER... but NOTHING was found in the Bible that Joseph was a widower when he married Mary... Totally NOTHING/NADA...
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen and Amen...
according to Luke 1:36(ESV) " And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren" so the angel Gabriel used "relative" not cousin even in (NIV) .
second thing i think we both agree that the angel Gabriel wasn't Jewish to adhere to Jewish culture and call a cousin brother or sister he literally told her your "RELATIVE" as aa fact unlike jewish people calling The Christs cousins as his brethren or brothers
regarding you brought 2 or 3 testimonies this is just a fallacy you only brought one "ELIZABETH as COUSIN one" from luck. Where is the others ??????????????
The Evidence that Mary remained a virgin is over the place .
God bless you
@@CopticPrince-hh2yi Take Note: the Original Gospel of Matthew was Originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic Language before it was copied and translated into Greek... Apostle Matthew (former tax collector) was a native Hebrew-speaking literate Jew... "DOD" in Hebrew or "BRAW" in Aramaic means Uncle's/Aunt's Son or Daughter which means in plain words, COUSIN...
"BEN DOD" means Uncle's Son... "BAT DODA" means Aunt's Daughter... both means COUSIN in English...
The English word "RELATIVE" (SYNGENIS in Greek) in connection to Blessed Mary... was either ELIZABETH was her AUNT or her COUSIN... Only 2 Blood Relationships and nothing else...
Therefore, if ELIZABETH was Mary's Aunt, then John the Baptist was Jesus' Uncle... if ELIZABETH was Mary's cousin, then John and Jesus were also COUSINS either 2nd or 3rd degree.
However, according to the Early Christian Tradition of the 1st Cent. A.D., the Early 7 Churches in Asia Minor had accepted and acknowledged, that Christ Jesus and John the Baptist were both COUSINS in the 3rd Degree...
In that case, we can conclude that St. Elizabeth and Blessed Mary were also both Cousins in the 2nd degree... as attested/claimed by the Original Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew-Aramaic... not in Greek...
Praise be to God in Christ Jesus... Amen.
@@jvlp2046 so now you remembered that there is early Christian Traditions , so why are you cherry picking brother ??
In Slavic languages brother means any male to whom you're related within your own generation. So I've had someone tell me some man is her brother only to find out she has no brothers and he is a cousin or a second cousin, but young enough to be in her generation.
I think the music is very good and for me it helps keeping the message interesting and dynamic. Of course Dr. Pitre is fantastic!!!
Sounds like a conclusion drawn from the presupposition of the Catholic doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. But Matthew 1:25 states, "But he did not consummate their marriage UNTIL she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." So Mary was not a virgin! And we know that birth control wasn't used back then and the pull out method was considered sinful (since God killed Onan for it in Genesis). We also know that Mary was fertile. The only way to say that Mary had no kids, yet had sex with her husband, was to assume that Joseph was sterile. But even this seems like an argument from silence. Regarding the Mary the mother of James and Joses in Mark 16:1, it is clear in Mark 15:40, that this James the Less - Son of Alphaeus. This is not Jesus Mother. Otherwise Mark would have said so. She is more well known in connection with the Son of God than unbelieving James (James didn't convert until after the resurrection). I think the best explanation is that the Church fathers he quotes were already predisposed (as many Catholics) to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and want to change the plain meaning of the Greek word "Adelphoi" (brothers) to mean cousins. But if the Holy Spirit meant to call these people Jesus cousins, he certainly could have used the Greek word for cousin: "xaderfos". This is another case of Catholic Apologists appealing to the Church Fathers who frequently contradict the truth - and themselves, like the Pope and church councils on the reg. Trust in Scripture alone and you won't need to resort to defending unbiblical doctrines.
This is nothing "fresh" but the same old Roman Catholic doctrine attempting to justify the doctrine of the "perpetual" virginity of Mary. There are two perfectly good Greek words that can be properly translated "cousins," and they are never used to describe the "brothers" and "sisters" of Jesus. We see one being used in Luke 1:36 to describe the "relative" of Mary name Elizabeth, and another being used in Colossians 4:10 to describe the "cousin" of Barnabas. So let's not pretend that this is not a significant fact here. Had the Gospel writers wanted us to understand that they were referring to "cousins" of Jesus, then they had two specific Greek words they could have used but chose not to.
The next problem in this video is the assumption that the James and Joseph of Matthew 27 are the same people mentioned in Matthew 13:55. This is not a valid assumption just because the names are similar or identical. If that were the case, then why only mention two of the four brothers? No, this is another woman who had two kids with the same names of Jesus' mother who also had two sons named James and Joseph. This sounds strange to us, but in the ancient world, families did strange things like this.
Going to fourth century works like Eusebius to establish who the brothers of Jesus were is also not conclusive, since Jesus and the apostles were from the FIRST century, not the fourth. And since the first century apostles never referred to these "brothers" of Jesus as "cousins," far be it from us to stray from their writings to make things up that simply don't hold up to the actual words we find in Scripture from the first century apostles.
The normative meaning of the word "brothers" in the New Testament speaks of blood relatives, and to misconstrue the New Testament usage to mean "cousins" in this way is an exercise in eisegesis (reading INTO), not exegesis (reading out of).
Jesus founded the catholic church. name one first century source that isn't from a heretic that says Mary had other children.
@@Personaje123 Nonsense. The Gospels are first century, and they clearly teach that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and this was said in the immediate context of His biological mother. Thus, the brothers and sisters had to be what the context reveals - biological. Jesus did not found the "catholic" church. He found the church, which is composed of many people from all nations all over the world.
This was far better information than the guy who asserts they could be Joseph’s children from a previous marriage (where we lack their attendance in Bethlehem at the nativity and the flight to Egypt).
The most compelling was actually pointing out that Jesus put Mary in John’s care. This past week, we studied Ruth and the redeemer bridegroom but I had pointed out it wasn’t just the levirate bridegrooms that redeemed the motherless, but their sons that redeem them. Tamar and Ruth are foreshadows of Mary. They were redeemed by their sons, Mary’s son redeems the whole world. Tamar, especially, as she is “married” to Judah but never “knows” him again.
Lol idk why but lacking Joseph’s “other children” on the census just is so funny to me. You nailed it.
Jesus was 12 when the went up to festival. No mention of his brothers,sisters?
Well, if Joseph was a widower his children could have been adults and responsible for themselves to register at a different time. It appears from Scripture that neither Mary nor Joseph shared with others (except for Elizabeth) the miracle of the divine conception of Jesus. We must remember that the Gospels are not a "biography" like we have today, but a presentation of the good news as taught by the apostles.
@@theresamc4578 there’s some belief that Luke got his information from Mary.
Great explanation, even though I've never had any doubts. What I wanted to comment on is the background music, I found it distracting. Thank you.
Curiosity question. Had Greek changed that much from the writing of the Gospels to Eusebius' time that the word "cousin" wasn't available to the Gospel writers? If they meant cousin why didn't they just say cousin?
Because the Greek word for brother, "adelphos", can mean cousin among other relationships. Hebrew and Aramaic had no special word for cousin, so when the Koine Greek Septuagint translation of the OT was written, the translators used "adelphos" to refer to relationships other than blood siblings, and one of these relationships was of cousins. When the NT Jewish Gospel authors wrote, they followed not only the Septuagint's use of "adelphos", but also how it was still being used in their current Jewish culture. It is true that at the time of the Gospels, there was a specific word for cousin in Koine Greek, which was "anepsios", but that Greek word only appears a total of ONE time in the whole NT, which shows that it wasn't commonly used in writing, and instead the more common word "adelphos" was used because it had historically been the predominant way of addressing cousins both in speech and writing.
@@morelmaster Still a somewhat strange choice given the availability of a word as evidenced by your citation. Seems they' d have wanted to make it clear the ones mentioned were cousins if they knew Mary to be a perpetual virgin. It would have strengthened the Catholic argument.
@@fordmaidenamill5196
Of course it would have solidified the Catholic argument if the Greek "anepsios" was used, but we cannot argue from that point alone, nor do we need to, because of the historical use of the word "adelphos" to also mean cousin.
YOU: Seems they' d have wanted to make it clear the ones mentioned were cousins if they knew Mary to be a perpetual virgin.
ME: We shouldn't just assume that the authors KNEW she would maintain perpetual virginity throughout her life when they were writing. Let's not forget, the NT is about JESUS, not his family and other things. As Catholics, we don't believe that ALL TRUTH comes from Scripture alone. The Bible is TRUTH, but so is the authority of the Church to teach from the Holy Spirit, and some teachings are not explicitly revealed in Scripture, but only implicitly, and the Church through the Holy Spirit later shed more light on some things that were not quite as clear. The PVM is one of those teachings.
@@morelmaster What about Gal. 1:19. Granted Paul was certainly Jewish, but he bent over backwards to reach and accommodate his gentile converts. Why would he not have used "cousin" speaking to a predominantly Greek audience in that region?
@@fordmaidenamill5196
I'm not going to try to get into the mind of Paul and question why he said things the way he did, are YOU in a better position to do that?
Very enlightening! Thanks Dr. Pitre for your faith-filled research! Very interesting and helpful as always! God bless!
If Joseph and Clopas were brothers (true blood brothers) then James the Just and Simeon the son of Clopas were not true cousins of Jesus as they were cousins through the male side of the family. Since Joseph was only step father to Jesus (not his biological father) then surely that would mean James and Simeon were simply step cousins. The only way they could be true biological cousins would be if the Virgin Mary and Mary the wife of Clopas were sisters but then you have the problem with two children called Mary in the same family.
AWESOME! Thank you Dr Brant, extremely helpful 😊
Psalm 69:8 I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children; (messianic prophecy)
John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him. (Prophecy fulfilled by Jesus Christ)
Psalm 69:8 doesn't relate to Jesus. Read the entire psalm 69
@@icxcnika2037 It's not a prophecy lol. It's a poem by David. Don't you think that if Jesus had brothers they would actually know he's the Son of God lmao
@@icxcnika2037 I know. While that may be a prophecy fulfilled by Christ, it still doesn't prove that these "brethren" were actually sons of Mary.
Awesome! Thank you Dr. Pitre
Valiant effort, but not fully convincing.
1. If Mary had no sexual relations with Joseph then why does the New Testament not just say so?
2. Brant says they were married when the angel spoke to Mary in Matthew 1. My understanding is that they were betrothed but not yet married. Betrothal is/was not the same as modern engagement: a legal divorce was needed to break off a betrothal.
3. Matthew 1:25 says Joseph "knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." The implication is that after Jesus was born they married and had sexual relations.
4. The whole purpose of marriage is for the fulfilment of sexuality. If Joseph and Mary married but did not consummate they were sinning (1 Corinthians 7:3-5) - unless it was by special decree: there is no special decree found in the New Testament.
It will never fit in the context of how things work in the current times... Try understanding the context in the eyes of a first century Jew. In those times, weddings had two parts: betrothal and the wedding proper. Observing an Orthodox Jew wedding should help us understand, as this is currently the nearest as we can get to old Jewish traditions.
Sounds as if we agree together, (except I don't know how Orthodox Jews get married). Every blessing.
There are a whole lot of things the New Testament doesn't say because the New Testament is not the entire Christian faith. It is a collection of writings of the early Church (which was Catholic). The authority is the Church. Christianity is not just the New Testament. Jesus established a Church, not a book. The Church is the primary authority and the New Testament is some writings that the Church produced from TRADITION. The Bible tells you to keep the oral traditions, the Bible tells you to hear the Church, the Bible tells you that the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of the truth. For the first 400 years of Christianity there was no New Testament. The Catholic Church compiled the New Testament, using its traditions to decide what went in it.
@@Prancer1231 Joseph KNEW Mary... clear and to the point, enough of the denial.
@@aerosurfer0524 So what did 'knew' mean with Joseph and Mary in this context? Catholic interpretation is flawed and I'm Catholic.
Blessings to you.
Mary was NOT married to Joseph yet when the angel came to her to tell her that she would bear a child! Joseph had NOT yet taken her to be his wife! If you are going to start off with that error, then there's reason to listen from thence forth!
She was legally married to Joseph according to Jewish betrothal custom.
Very informative. I would lose the background rhythms, however. The background became rather distracting.
Thank you... This is what I needed to reply the Protestant fellow.
I am trying to find the references you used, Eusebius Church History I went to Bk 4 and could not find the reference. Where did I miss it??
Here is another proof: Blessed is the fruit of your womb. If the fruit, obviously the offspring, is blessed then all her children would be blessed as Jesus was blessed. If they would be bleased as He is blessed, then they would have done as Jesus did. You know the tree by the fruit. Mary brings forth bleased fruit. There is no one like Jesus, therefore He is the only child.
So now you are saying the God had no control over His own grave or powers?
Quite a stretch. Consider:
1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
2) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
3) the word for brother used in Matthew in 13:55-56 is the same word for brothers Matthew 4:18 of Simon and Andrew.
4) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
5) There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
Quote;
1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19
This is your just your interpretation. Show me how that supposed logic is proof? You can't.
Quote;
2) In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
The best way for "you" to understand is what you mean to say, isn't it?
Quote;
3) the word for brother used in Matthew in 13:55-56 is the same word for brothers Matthew 4:18 of Simon and Andrew.
Yes, adelphos or adelphoi can be used to mean blood brother or brother's. But it is not limited to those meanings. Look it up.
Quote;
4) Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
Yep. Adelphos again, it can be blood brother, but not limited to that meaning. Look it up.
Quote;
5) There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36
Yes, but in Aramaic and Hebrew, the language Jesus and his disciples most likely spoke, there is no special word for cousin. But the main point you are missing is that the writers of the New Testament were Jewish and were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of "brothers" to mean both cousins, and sons of the same father-plus other relatives and even non-relatives. In the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was transliterated as adelphos. This is why anepsios is not used in some of the verses you cited.
HEBREW TEXT - PROVERBS 4:3 : For I was my father's son, tender and an ONLY SON (Yachid) before my mother. -----כי־בן הייתי לאבי רך ויחיד לפני אמי׃ king Solomon (the writer of Proverbs) was not Yachid יחיד - the only son - of his mother - 1 Chronicles 3:5 : These were born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon, four by Bath-shua, the daughter of Ammiel. In Proverbs 4:3 is speaking Jesus as in Proverbs 8:22 - The LORD possessed me at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. JESUS IS THE ONLY CHILD OF HIS MOTHER
Justas399
quote;
1) When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters.
No, it doesn't have to mean blood siblings. If you look at Mark 3:21 and cross reference Mark 3:31 you will see that these people were called friends or relatives that came to see him. Although it mentions "his mother" in verse 31, we cannot say with certainty that those that accompanied her were blood siblings based on verse 21. Assumptions are not necessarily based on fact.
It would behoove you to study why Catholics Call The Blessed Ever Virgin Mary The "Ark of the New Covenant" so if you would clearly be struck dead if you even touched the Ark of the old Covenant then can you imagine how Holy and pure She is She is Daughter of God The Father Mother of God The Son and SPOUSE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! St Joseph Knew his role in his marriage it was one of protection not one of procreation!!! If you remember King David had 10 concubines that his son absalom "knew" and when King David reclaimed his kingdom he took care of the 10 concubines but never went into them!! It would behoove you to look at the Holy Scriptures through anxient Jewish lenses and understand the laws that they adhered to. Peace be with you.
Amazing amazing beloved brother this clarifies a long pending question. God Bless you Immensely !!!
I only have a question, does that mean Jesus left her mother by her self for olmost three years knowing that He was the only one that she depend on?
Where was Mary or with whom was Mary for all those years when while Jesus went all over preaching repentance , Jesus came out of His house knowing that nobody believed in Him including Mary.
Mary appears again when Jesus is about to be crucified, Luke 11:26,27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.”
But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”
Someone wanted to praise Mary but, "Jesus reply in the contrary blessed those who hear the word at God and observe it"
Why would Jesus said that, was it because Mary did not obey God or is it because those who hear and do what the Lord says are more important than Mary, I'll take my chances believing in Jesus than believing in Mary.
Mary needed to be save as much as we need it, in the book of Acts we read again Mary with the brothers of Jesus and the disciples praying and awaiting for the Holy spirit just as Jesus told them to do.
Do NOT forget that the angel Gabriel pronounce her to be: 'FULL of GRACE'. This means that the GRACE of GOD on her is so abundant that NOT only she does NOT need any more blessing but she, also, may, on her own will, give from this never-ending GRACE to us (her earthly children and the brothers of her ONLY son our ONLY LORD/GOD JESUS CHRIST. MAY OUR ONLY LORD/GOD JESUS CHRIST THE GREATEST EVER AND THE MOST HIGH, bless you and protect you for ever...Amen.
Hail Mary Immaculate, EVER Virgin!
Why omit luke 2 -7 saying he was her firstborn son not only son?
@po18guy Because the singular son is the only God becoming human that she would bear.
She's not a virgin. Matthew 1:25 clearly states that
Thanks for explaining these relationships to us. God bless your work.
GOD'S DETRACTORS, THROUGH THE SEVERAL MALICIOUS DOCUMENTARIES, USE SOME PASSAGES FROM THE GOSPELS AND INTENTIONALLY HIDE AND OMITT OTHER PASSAGES, WHICH ARE VERY CLEAR AND EXPLICIT, REGARDING THE "PREVIOUS HALF-BROTHERS" OF OUR LORD: Mary was always a Virgin. The 6 children belonged to José, the elderly Carpenter, with his wife Melcha, who passed away (and the 6 were much older than the girl Mary, barely 14 years old): José el Carpintero was an old man when he married Mary, 15. He was a widower of the Melcha woman, having six (6) children with her, 4 men and 2 women, obviously all of them older than Mary: The Catholic Encyclopedia, citing the texts contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, writes that Joseph had six children (2 women and 4 men) with a marriage prior to Mary, who, upon becoming a widower, would marry Mary, at the suggestion of the Rabbi of Nazareth, "as a Tutor", since she had lived all her life in the temple with other girls, also virgins, as was obvious and absolutely traditional to Judaism:
When he was forty years old, José married a woman named Melcha or Escha for some, Salomé for others, with whom he lived for forty-nine years and with whom he had six boys, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was Santiago (the Lesser, called "the brother of the Lord").
A year after the death of his wife, when the priests announced throughout Judea that they wanted to find in the tribe of Judah some respectable man to marry Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who already had in At that time ninety years, he went to Jerusalem among the candidates, a miracle manifested the election of Joseph made by God, and two years later, the Annunciation took place.40
The Gospel of pseudo-Matthew, establishes that Jesus' brothers were clearly "children of Joseph's previous marriage with Melcha".
José began to speak shyly, saying: "I am an old man, and I have children; Why are you giving me this young lady, that she is younger than my grandchildren?" And on a certain day, José called his first-born son, Santiago, and sent him to the garden to gather vegetables. And Joseph, who had come to a party with his sons, James, Joseph, Judah, and Simeon and their two daughters, also attended Jesus, with Mary, his mother, together with his sister Mary of Cleopas. 41 "Whoever believes in Me, is not condemned, but whoever does not believe in Me, stands condemned already, because they have not believed in the Name of God’s one and only Son" Jesus in John's Gospel. AZG
Love your message Dr. P., but the irritating background music throughout has to go. Ugh!
The link to the video without the background music is posted in the comments below and pasted here as well: ua-cam.com/video/bfWsQDOC1NA/v-deo.html
Thank you.
I also found the "background" music intrusive and distracting, and was wondering why you used it.
Thank you Dr Pitre. I have learnt a lot.
Good research. Thanks a lot.
I offer for your consideration: ua-cam.com/video/YHGak3tRQwY/v-deo.html, listen, at least, to Dr. White's opening statement, it speaks volumes.
She was betrothed, in effect married, but not consummated!!
A very clear explanation... Thanks a lot...
Thanks for this info. I needed that.🙏
Thank you - very clear and convincing
very important clarification thanks Dr. Brant. Some Protestant Christians take all this literally and see them as children of the Virgin, or of Joseph by a previous marriage. In cultures such as the Chinese where the so-called "extended family" still exists today they often call others, who are merely close friends but not real kin, brothers or sisters. I wonder if it was the same in Jesus' time
The New Testament writing had a very specific word for cousins “Anepsios”
Paul uses “Adelphoi” in 1 Corinthian 9:5 when discussing Jesus brother James.
Paul then uses “Anepsios” for cousin in Col 4:10 (Barnabas, cousin of Mark)”
In addition, Although scripture is the only authority on a topic, I will indulge you and if we bring in some texts of the early Christians of the Church, we must make the same observation. For example, Hegesippus (2nd century) uses the expression "brothers of the Lord" to speak of James, while elsewhere he also speaks of Jesus' uncles and cousins.
In summary, on the purely historical level, it must be admitted that brothers and sisters of Jesus refers to brothers and sisters of blood. Since we name four brothers, and speak of sisters in the plural, we must recognize at least six persons. This conclusion is based on the criterion of multiple attestation (Paul, Mark, John, Matthew, Josephus). It is also established on the philological meaning of the word adelphos, which never has the meaning of cousin in the whole New Testament.
To sum up, until the council of Chaldean in 325 A.D., it was understood by predominantly most writings, including the Word of God-The Bible, see Mathew 27:56, Mark 15:40 and more, that indeed James and Joseph (Joses), were sons of Mother Mary and were the blood Brothers of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Blood in antiquity meant full blood. No differentiation was used) Either way the official Roman Catholic view, the Hieronymian view, is incorrect as You now agree and you have retreated to the Epiphanian view of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
At best, the Eastern Orthodox viewpoint is teetering on end. Reasonably, as biblical Christian’s we take the preponderance of evidence, including the only authority on topics of theology, Christology, ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, the Word of God. We then reach a reasonable conclusion that they are true blood relatives.
I take my study of God‘s word seriously, so the final thing I want to say on this topic is for us to remember, this determination is not essential for salvation. Some Christian doctrinal differences are more important than others. This is of lesser importance. Let’s keep that in mind. Salvation comes only through true faith that Jesus Christ is the living Son of God and our Lord and Savior, faith that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the father. John 3:16, Romans 3:23-26, and many more. Much love brother ✝️
Nice post.
Please address this Catholics evidence from scriptures answering this Question.
Matthew 12:46 says "While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold- His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. 47 And someone said to Him, “Behold- Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to You”. 48 But the One, having responded, said to the one speaking to Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And having stretched-out His hand toward His disciples, He said “Behold- My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in the heavens- he is My brother and sister and mother”." -> Are we cousins in the Lord then? Like, we're not brothers and sisters, but cousins in the body of Christ? And God is our uncle? (I'm genuinely asking how you interpret this passage).
I can see your comment is a year old but how in the world do you think this helps your cause?
But it's written in the stone "Son Of Mary & Joseph, Brother of Jesus"
No, it's not. It was a forgery
@@habituallinestepper9879 It wasn't.
@@aglayamajorem9546 Yes, it was. And he didn't even get the inscription correct that he's trying to cite.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary
It actually said: "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". And it's been proven to be a forgery.
This was online here:
www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/findings-reignite-debate-on-claim-of-jesus-bones.amp.html
The above source also suggests that another ossuary was found of Judah the son of Jesus, so that raises questions...:
"A burial box, or ossuary, with the inscription “Judah son of Jesus” was found in the East Talpiot district of East Jerusalem."
From Biblical Archaeology:
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/free-ebooks/james-brother-of-jesus-the-forgery-trial-of-the-century/
@@habituallinestepper9879 Scriptures say He did have brothers.
Even to this day, don't protestants address each other as brothers/sisters??yet not have a common mother!!
Since there are so many Marys around? How do we know "the other Mary" is the same one as the Mary mentioned as the mother of Joseph and James? Then, how do we know the James and Joseph are the same?
@po18guy See, that's why I use question marks. That would indicate that I am asking questions...questions would indicate that I don't know something. So no, I don't. Is that explanation enough? So, maybe answer my question instead of being argumentative.
Read Papias’s writing on the four Mary’s he clarifies. And their kids. Papias was close to John the Apostle
The Proto-Evangelium of James from the second century states that Mary was a consecrated virgin.
The Catholic church doesn't accept the POJ as inspired, therefore it doesn't base any of its beliefs on it.
She did not remain a virgin. And he did not know her until she gave birth to a Son; and he named him Jesus (Matthew 1:25).
@@bcalvert321
Would you like Scriptural PROOF that Mary never had any other children?
@@morelmaster: This is true. The only thing we can say is the POJ, while not inspired is the only document that gives us a look at the early life of Mary as well as her parents, Anne and Joakim. While we are not required to believe, I would admit that it does serve as evidence to the perpetual virginity of Mary. At least in the sense that it does not contradict, rather supports Church teaching.
@@taswindler
There certainly can be some truth's contained in the POJ even though it is not inspired, but how do we know what statements are true and which are false? If something written in the POJ is found in Scripture also, then obviously we know it is true, but otherwise we cannot prove anything else to be true. Even Jerome and Pope Gelasius I rejected the POJ, and Jerome for one, is a highly respected theologian in the Church. The POJ states that the brothers of Jesus were children from a previous marriage of Joseph, which I believe the Church rejects, and instead the Church teaches the brothers of Jesus were cousins, as Jerome claimed. There are also numerous contradictions between the POJ and what is recorded in Scripture, which further makes it an untrustworthy document to base teachings off of. JMO.
I don't read biblical Greek, but it seems strange that such a precise language would use the same word for brother and cousin.
Well, they did. The Greek Septuagint uses "adelphos" to mean blood brothers and cousins. If you look at all the places in the Bible where the Greek "adelphos" is used, you will see that it doesn't always mean blood brothers.
This is still common in some cultures. I'm from Serbia which has been influenced by early Greek Christian culture, & first cousins are routinely referred to as brother or sister, only further defining "sister from my aunt" when necessary.
See Colossians 4:10. Mark is the cousin (anepsios) of Barnabas, not his brother (adelphos).
I could tell you one thing though this teaching of dr Brant pitre is common in some cultures.
NT Koine Greek is generally considered to be a kind of pidgin language. Something akin to Judeo-Greek. The sentence structures and phrases of the NT are heavily influenced by Aramaic, so it would make sense that there wouldn't be words distinguishing "brother" and "cousin" given that no such distinct words existed in either Aramaic or Hebrew.
Many nonsequitors
The Greeks had terms for cousins and relatives. Why were they never used.
Also while some fathers believed as he says others believed these were in fact biological siblings. It was debated as it was unclear.
Much ado about the "brothers" of Jesus, but do you see anything written about the "other" children of Mary? Nowhere, right?
Some suppressed and lost Christian writings. James and Jude were letters written by two sons of Mary of Nazareth
@@hesedagape6122 Hi Nii. thanks for the reply. Would you believe that "lost writing"? I was asking, did you find "children of Mary (the Mother of Jesus) in the bible.
@@domingomelchor4902 Let's see the Gospels, James, Jude, the Talmud, Josephus, Church Fathers. James son of Joseph of Nazareth and Brother of Jesus Christ was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. You cannot hide that. Nearly impossible. The Perpetual Virginity legend solved the Primacy Problem for Rome. However truth is that in a United Church the Papacy will just have to concede to the Patriarch of Jerusalem
@@domingomelchor4902 unless you don't read your Bible or Church history they are pretty much hiding in plain sight
@pepe bastardes the beauty of not being a Roman Catholic is the ability to read the Bible with honesty. Several times James is referred to us Jesus' brother and here you claim what? Besides that Joseph offered the sacrifice of the firstborn for Christ. Last but not least these guys followed Mary around not another woman. Excuse me but that is the biblical evidence. And Ezekiel has no Messianic prophesy concerning perpetual virginity. Maybe u mean Isaiah but even there you have to question your Bible literacy and comprehension. I am not here to defend doctrine. Look at what the Bible says.
It is logical that this person speak as a Catholic, but I am 100% Jewish and 100% believer in Yeshua. Within Judaism the First Mitzvot (Commandment) that God is of reproduction, is in the first chapter of Genesis. Jose and Maria was a marriage, they were human beings who felt like any other, none of the apostles were there at the crucifixion because they were afraid of the Romans as well, and the brothers had had problems with Yeshua because all the people said he was crazy and Both Maria and the brothers were looking for him because they were afraid that he would be killed, that's where the relationship broke down and Yeshua continued with his mission. John was at the crucifix because he was the youngest and the Romans did not see him in danger, for the same reason Yeshua asked Juan to comfort his mother at that moment, because his brothers were not there.
Yes, but the Essenes didn't reproduce, so they do give an example in Judaism where chastity mattered vs marriage.
Aquí hay una pregunta para tí: si Yeshua tuvo hermanos, por qué no estuvieron presentes para llevar María a sus propios hogares siguiendo la Ley? Ciertamente con Yeshua muriendo en la cruz, los otros hermanos tuvieran la responsabilidad en acuerdo con la Ley para cuidar a su madre...Pero no están presentes...Por qué Yeshua entregó su madre en cuidado de un discípulo en vez de un hermano?
This is true statement, ✋
@@kainosktisis777 Exactly, the Essenes lived a life of celibacy, but everything had a reason, at that historical moment and even Paul himself said it, that it was not good to get married, it was because they were living a very difficult time, a lot of corruption within the impostor priests, there was hungry everywhere, they sold their children as slaves as long as they were fed, who were going to suffer the most were the babies and small children. Yeshua himself had said that this generation was going to be judged and it would end with the fall of Jerusalem.
@@seamoscomplices
Yeshua HaMaschiah also said the following in Mattityahu 19:12 NIV (BibleHub):
For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others- *and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven* . *The one who can accept this should accept it* .”
He made no stipulations for situations of crises.
In 1 Cor 7 NIV (BibleHub), St. Paul agrees with Him, & he doesn’t say that celibacy is merely because of present crises:
5 *Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time,(C) so that you may devote yourselves to prayer* . *Then come together again so that Satan(D) will not tempt you(E) because of your lack of self-control* . 6 *I say this as a concession, not as a command* .(F) 7 *_I wish that all of you were as I am_* .(G) *_But each of you has your own gift from God_* ; *_one has this gift_* , *_another has that_* .(H)
8 *Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do* .(I)
9 *But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry,(J) for it is better to marry than to burn with passion* .
17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them.(R) This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.(S)
25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord,(AA) but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy(AB) is trustworthy.
26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.(AC)
27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife.(AD)
28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned;(AE) and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. *But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this* .
29 What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that *the time is short* .(AF)
32 *I would like you to be free from concern* . *An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs(AH)-how he can please the Lord* .
33 *But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world-how he can please his wife* -
34 *and his interests are divided* . *An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs* : *Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit* .(AI) *But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world-how she can please her husband* .
35 I am saying this *for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided(AJ) devotion to the Lord* .
36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, *and if his passions are too strong[b] and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants* . He is not sinning.(AK) They should get married.
37 *But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin-this man also does the right thing* .
38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right,(AL) *but he who does not marry her does better* .[c]
39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives.(AM) But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.(AN)
40 *In my judgment,(AO) she is happier if she stays as she is-and I think that I too have the Spirit of God* .
Maria was a Perpetua Virgin.
Where does it say they were looking for Him because they were afraid He would be killed?
Missed the Prophecy through David's mouth ( Psalms 69:8) fulfilled in John 7:5
Missed the Mathew 1:25 which says not knew her till the first born
If God says Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son than why not the writers Mathew and mark wrote till she gave birth to only son Jesus? ( Mathew 1:25/ Luke 2:7)
Firstborn word they used to show Mary had 2nd , 3rd or 4th because Mathew and Luke knew Mary very well.
Well done. 👍
@po18guy you need to understand the meaning of sanctification which means set apart which again means separated. And the Scriptures is the final authority and proof .
Gods word doesn't require your certificate. For your understanding read 2 Corinthians 6::14-17
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people.” Therefore “Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”
II Corinthians 6:14-17
These Scriptures draw lines between Believers and Unbelievers.
I really enjoyed very much the detailed teaching presented here! Thank you for taking the time to meticulously explain the scriptures. I would like to suggest that the music acted as a distraction from the talk. It makes it hard to focus. Otherwise it is very helpful!! Thank you.
Interesting presentation, but I find the repetitive background music extremely annoying. I kept listening because of the quality of the argument, but my head felt like it was going to explode after hearing the same notes over and over and over and over again. Please stop doing this. It really sabotages the show and has turned me off completely from your channel, however attractive the themes of your videos are. No more background music, please.
Jean-François Virey i feel ur pain!
Thanks Jean-Francois -- see the link above for the non-background-music version. Much appreciated.
Y’all feel some type of way because of the music . Really tho
@@CatholicProductions AND JOSEPH KNEW MARY... very clear, all your bloviating and circular reasoning doesn't change the FACT.
7:30m. in, there is discrepancy in my Catholic Bible which shows 4 separate women not 3. John “{19:25} And standing beside the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, and Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene”. I’m confused about this discrepancy. Edit: I realize that after reading my physical Bible, my digital one is probably mistyped.
Thank you! Very interesting and informative! God bless you in your ministry!