Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47722 | ||
Brothers of Jesus? Final proof! Ok, I've done a bit more digging with regards to the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus. Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 list as brothers of Jesus - James, Joseph (Joses), Simon and Jude. James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, as they are identified as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the "son of Alphaeus", in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13) In John 19:25 we read "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.". Mary, the wife of Clopas is named as the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Now we are pretty certain from tradition that Mary was an only child, but beyond that no one would give both their children the same name, so Mary, the wife of Clopas must be a close relative of Jesus' mother. Note that she is called her sister, just as James, Joseph (Joses), Simon and Jude are called Jesus' brothers. Now the bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas), as the mother of Jesus' "brothers". The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. So we see that the so called brothers of Jesus identified in Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the "sister" of the Virgin Mary. Thus the scriptures show that the "brothers" of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God. |
||||||
2 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Ray | 47770 | ||
Hi jawz, You speak about being "pretty certain from tradition" so I don't want to look at your final proof. But I would like to look at and compare a couple of verses with you. Matthew 1:25, King James, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus." Matthew 1:25, NASB, "and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Matthew 1:25, NKJ, "and did not know her until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus." A marginal note from an Interlinear Greek by Tyndale has this: "1:25 text: ASVRSVNASBNIVNEBTEVNJBNRSV. var.Greek (her firstborn son) [see Luke 2:2]: KJVNRSVmg." Thus a number of translations have "her firstborn son". The most important thing to notice is that the thing that was begotten in her was of the Holy Spirit. She bore a son, the First-born. That which was conceived in her was fully man and fully God. The other thing that we can gather from this verse is that Mary would be with child again, but not as a virgin. Luke 2:7, King James, "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke 2:7, NASB, "And she gave birth to her first-born son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke 2:7, NKJ, "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger..." I find that the NASB is inconsistent in comparing these two verses. I would go with the NKJ rendering as far as capitalization is concerned. I want everyone to realize that this Son or this First-born should be recognized in their hearts as Deity; whether you can see that on paper or not. The other children of Mary are not recognized as Deity for she is the mother [sic] only. From the heart, Ray |
||||||
3 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47954 | ||
Ray, I assume that you are saying that the term "firstborn" implies that there will be a 2nd born (and a 3rd, 4th,...). This is not the case. An only child is also a firstborn. Matthew 1:25 could be understood as saying that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, or as most here assume, Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. The early church (which lived and breathed the Greek language) understood the first to be the meaning of the verse. The latter interpretation has only come into being in our 'enlightened' age. |
||||||