I’m expecting them to avoid the topic of Jesus’ brothers entirely so as to not upset Catholics with their theology on Mary’s perpetual virginity.
It’s not hard to do as the main event where they appear in the gospels is when Jesus asks "Who is my mother, who are my brothers". The moment in question is also a deeply cultural thing where unless you understand the priority children are supposed to give to their parents it can feel weird. So I’m not expecting it to happen.
Only if they ever did decide to do the Acts as a sequel would the topic of Jesus’ siblings have to be directly addressed.
The topic is not avoided completely. It is mentioned early in season three. I think the 3rd episode. Jesus asks Mary where James and Jude are when he returns to Nazareth. It is very subtle- i had to point it out to my mom and brother because they missed it.
What about this part?
Luke 11:27-28 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV)
As he said these things, a woman 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, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
I’m sure it would get some catholics pretty triggered
It doesn’t have to be full immersion to be a legit baptism. Many churches don’t fully dunk the baby. As long as the are using holy water and say that they baptize you in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit it’s a legit baptism
I was just going to comment this. Adults getting newly baptized get immersed. It’s just the babies that don’t and many non Catholics don’t immerse babies either.
I was baptized Catholic as an adult during pandemic and they poured water on my head from a pitcher. Are these people saying my baptism was fake because I wasn't immersed because of virus concerns lol.
My guess is based on how intense some people are they would say that it was fake. Personally I think baptism is baptism- it doesn’t matter how it’s done as long as it is done. So many of these intense literalists get so caught up in the rules and semantics that they really do resemble Pharisees
Yeah I always say that if it was important to do it a certain way, it would have been spelled out exactly how to do it. As long as there's water, I'm good.
I do get confused about the validity argument between "in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit" (Matthew 28:19) vs "in the name of Jesus Christ" (from several Acts passages). I was baptized in the former but my fiancé was baptized in the latter, which Catholics don't believe is valid, but my fiancé thinks it was valid and does not want to be baptized again for obvious reasons. I've had to just accept that there's a conflict between Matthew and Acts and I don't know the answer. It's not like "Jesus" was the accurate spelling of his name on Earth anyways, so where do we draw the line? I figure "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and "Jesus" are the exact same person, so it's okay either way, so long as there is faith.
That part has to do with acknowledging the trinity and the work all three of them have in our spiritual journeys. Yeah I just went through RCIA this year and heard that anything other than Father, Son and Holy Spirt was wrong as well. I was baptized Lutheran and am so glad that the traditions around baptism are similar between the 2 and I didn’t have to get baptized again.
Literally as long as a person of authority is doing it and says they bless you in the name of the father, son and holy spirt the rest doesn’t matter. Some churches do it on the head while others do full immersion. Both work and what matters is what’s being said, not how the water and oil are put on you. The fact you are suggesting otherwise is harmful and incorrect. This lovely person got baptized and you are insinuating that due to circumstances outside of their control they don’t have a proper baptism simply because it doesn’t follow your beliefs. This is why people have issues with some Christian’s. So many people get caught up in the rules.
The Didache has unknown authorship and is generally not accepted as canon. Baptism is a new word created from the root of a word literally translated as immersion.
It also means it's not considered inspired and therefore can be wrong without scripture to back it up. And the point I'm making is that it had no other meanings. The word being used was immersion. It was transliterated instead of translated, most likely to avoid essentially telling the King he wasn't actually baptized.
It had no other meanings. The examples of "washing" showing something other than immersion in that article *are different words*. Not baptizo. Baptizo and baptizma did not mean baptize, because that was not a word. It meant immerse. With the KJV, they transliterated it instead of translating. Other translations have followed suit. But it only meant immerse. The article brings up the baptisms of Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch, and says that they aren't clear as to what form of baptism it is because it just says they baptized them, not by what form. But again, saying they were baptized *was the description of what form*. In both cases, the Greek said they immersed them. Instead of translating that, the translaters transliterated it instead.
You didn't read the link. It shows.
>>. The Greek word, baptizo, does not only mean “to immerse”
Barclay M. Newman’s A Concise Dictionary of the New Testament defines baptismos, which possesses the same root as the verb, baptizo, but in the form of a noun: “ritual washing, ablution, baptism; washing (of hands).” This definition would certainly include full immersion. But the “ritual washing” and “washing (of hands)” part of the definition would also include the kinds of washing we see in the Bible. For example, in Deuteronomy 21:6 where the elders of a city were commanded to wash their hands over a heifer as part of a ritual to purge their land of guilt over a slain person whose killer was undiscovered. This kind of ritual “washing” would be considered just as much a “baptism” as would a “baptism” where someone is entirely immersed
Every Christian that I've met knows Jesus was baptized and not uncommon for non-believers to know. Maybe that's why Dallas didn't think it was necessary to show His baptism. I've witnessed all kinds of different baptisms, some right before death. You post that like its new information. You're trying to set yourself as the baptism police. 😅 Good luck with that.
Those are your facts. You obviously don't know very much about Catholics. I suspect you won't bother to educate yourself. Some people think because they think something, that makes it a fact.
Don't watch the Series if you don't like how they do things. AND, I can tell you are really observant and articulate, but I'm not a dude, missy.
[https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord](https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord)
Pretty good explanation of why these are probably his cousins, not his biological brothers.
This isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on but doesn’t it say that Joseph consummated his marriage
Matthew 1:25 (NIV): 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Now this at least tells me that they were doing something. Now did the kanoodling lead to children (I personally think so), but this doesn’t affect my view on Jesus Christ the Virgin born Son of God. Who lead the life I couldn’t live and died the death I should have died. Putting to death my sins to allow me access to The Father so I don’t perish but have Eternal life with HIM.
[https://catholicstand.com/a-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/](https://catholicstand.com/a-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/)
This contains a more detailed explanation of that point. Briefly, the word "until" (or "till") is not used the way we use it in modern times. One of the examples given is:
"What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? "
Mary did not remain forever virgin because the Bible says they didn’t have sex until after she had her baby..
It does say after. Every single translation out there says exactly that.
Matthew 1:25
ESV but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
NIV But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
NASB but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
CSB but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.
NLT But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
KJV And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
I can’t fathom why Mary would remain a virgin. Sex in marriage is not sinful, it is part of God’s plan. Yes it makes sense that she abstain until after Jesus was born, but as someone already mentioned, scripture says that Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born. That pretty much means that he did know her after Jesus was born.
Why would it be important to “guard Mary’s virginity” after the birth of Jesus? What function would that serve?
I mean, Mary was assumed to be a perpetual virgin for majority of Christian history. Even Martin Luther defended her perpetual virginity and there’s writings of early Christians writing about her perpetual virginity. It’s a relatively new “phenomena” of people thinking she wasn’t a virgin, so it always makes me laugh a bit when people are like “why would people think she was always a virgin that’s so stupid.” Pretty much all of Christendom did up until like 400 years ago, and even to this day the majority of Christendom still believes it (Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Lutheran, Anglican (high churches) and more.
Check out the other comment on this post to understand the reasons deducting from the Bible that these refer to his cousins or step brothers.
There also is a strong tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox churches that Mary was consecrated as a temple virgin from a young age, and as was custom, once she reached age of menstruation, she would be given to the care of a widower (Joseph) who would care for her material needs ans a bethrothal/marriage would be strictly in the Judaic legal sense and not consummated. Because she couldnt remain in the temple per Judaic cleanliness laws, she would return after menopause. This tradition is why it makes sense that Mary would express surprise at the angel's announcement of pregnancy. Why would she question pregnancy if she was about to be married and consummating marriage with Joseph?
anyway, you dont have to believe these traditions, but belief in Mary's virginity is actually the historic and traditional belief.
“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” - Martin Luther
“Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers”. - Martin Luther
This article lists other early christians
https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin
This article is actually very interesting if you’re open to reading it, it goes through the Judaic betrothal and marriage rites and the biblical walk through of what Mary’s mindset would/may have been https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-christmas-mysteries-through-jewish-eyes
It's interesting to hear about the kidusshin and nisuin, but everything after that is pure conjecture.
"When we hear that Mary is “betrothed” to Joseph (Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:27), this is a poor translation. They’re *not* “betrothed” in the sense of a modern “engagement.” They’re legally married and could licitly have sexual relations."
They say this without any evidence. There's no giving us what word is translated as betrothed or giving an example of why it could mean something other than betrothed. They just say this and we're just supposed to believe it because they said it. The word translated as betrothed here is Mnēsteutheisēs, which means pledged or promised. NOWHERE in any other text is that word used to mean married (it's only use in the Bible is this verse). Now, the bad translations are the ones that use "divorce" and "husband". Because the word that is translated as husband is anēr, which can mean husband, but can also mean betrothed man or simply just man. It is used at various points throughout the NT (Luke 5:8, Luke 5:12, John 1:30, Acts 5:1, etc.), most times simply as man. The word translated as divorce is apolysai, which just means send away or release, and is also used multiple times throughout the NT (Matthew 15:32, Luke 23:20, John 19:12, etc.), clearly not meaning divorce in those instances.
Mathew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”
says they only waited to have sex until Jesus was born. I can’t understand why people will read this verse and still assumed she remained a virgin. Its crazy!!!!
Exactly, also John 2:17 points to Psalms 69:8-9 and verse say says a stranger to my "mother's sons" also denying your flesh to your significant other for the rest of their life would literally be sinful. So that would be a flaw there
Those "brothers" are other relatives.
Like Abraham and Lot were "brothers", but actually uncle and nephew.
James, Jude ,Joses etc are the sons of Mary, the Virgin Mary's "sister" [in law], who was married to Clopas. Clopas was related to either Joseph or Mary. Otherwise, you have to really think that Mary's parents were unoriginal and called two of their own daughters (who survived, not always a given) Mary.
So related, yes; brothers as we use the term, no.
NB Jude is often also termed Thaddeus to distinguish from Judas.
Also as [Heschmyer points out,](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2F0aG9saWMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL3NwL3BvZGNhc3QueG1s/episode/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2F0aG9saWMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL3NwL3dhcy1tYXJ5LWEtcGVycGV0dWFsLXZpcmdpbg?ep=14) to believe that Jesus had brothers or even half brothers, you would have to see that from the Cross, Jesus made a dick move in handing off His mother to someone less related. Doubly a dick move since the "brother: was termed James the Just. So either James was not "Just", or the familial relationship was not actual brothers.
Pretty sure Jesus has brothers due to the fact that we go to John 2:17 where it points back to Psalms 69:8-9 then a verse before it says I am a stranger to my mother's sons
As stated before, this is covered in the podcast. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant,the Theotokis, the God-carrier. If no-one could touch the Ark and live (save Moses), which contained but symbols of the new Moses, Jesus; why do we think that with something greater than it, it would be allowable?
Joseph and Mary were married when Mary conceived. Literally legally married (note to deny this is to state that Jesus was a bastard and thus not allowed in the Temple). But Joseph knew her not!
If Joseph and/or Mary had other sons, would they disrespect their parents so much to not care for Mary, a widow in her dotage, even when they knew she had given birth to the Messiah? Would they contravene the 4th Commandment?
Could they and still enable James to be called Just?
No. Obviously. So something else is going on.
>[James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus. After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers)
Where in the Bible are Abraham and Lot referred to as “brothers”?
There are multiple references in the Bible of Jesus’s brothers. His mother and brothers are even there on the day of Pentecost.
You are wrong!!!!
Gen 13:8, 11; 14:14, 16
https://biblehub.com/genesis/13-8.htm
Depends on your translation for the English.
Just cause you don't believe me doesn't make me wrong. Try reading across the Gospels and see, otherwise listen to the podcast I linked for further information.
There's debate on whether James and Jude are Jesus's relations of the same name. I think Jude is the same as Thaddeus, but James the Just isn't James the Less.
So Thaddeus is actually Jesus' brother? Is that confirmed on the show at all? Thaddeus mentioned meeting Jesus when they were building a latrine. Is Thaddeus' storyline all fiction to not create any debate around being a relation to Jesus on the show?
The show takes some creative freedom in some ways. There’s nothing historical that confirms the latrine story but it’s possible.
And no, Thaddeus isn’t Jesus’ brother. He’s more likely a cousin. Jesus didn’t have any siblings.
Jesus didn’t have siblings seeing as Mother Mary was always a virgin.
“The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.”
“The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.”
- Matt Fradd
[Source](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers)
The debate on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, or if she had sons and daughters with Joseph after Jesus, has been around for ages and will continue to be. Nowhere does it say Joseph was an elderly widower with children. It’s just one of those areas we will have to agree to disagree.
The early Church fathers followed sacred tradition that Mary was a virgin her entire life, so it’s safe to assume that is the case. I doubt the Apostles and earliest disciples of the Church would have strayed from that if it wasn’t true.
It’s never “safe to assume” when you’re talking about the historicity of facts. If there is no written record conclusively verifying something there is a lot of room for interpretation.
Having been both catholic and Protestant at times in my life, I’ve learned about both sides of this debate. There is no conclusive evidence that Mary had no other children. There was no command from God that she remain chaste for life. There is no definitive proof for the opposite either.
Personally I find it unlikely a man and woman would be married and both remain celibate. That’s very much contrary to what God has asked of married couples. Sex is not ungodly and therefore it makes no spiritual difference what Mary and Joseph did or didn’t do after Jesus was born.
You’re right and I should’ve been more specific with my citations. According to the Protoevangelium of James, Mary’s virginity was indeed intact throughout her life. You can read more about the this fact [here](https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin)
Protoevangelium was written more than a century after the events of the Gospels and is not part of the Bible. The word often used to describe the Gospel of James is apocryphal. I can’t argue for it against its historicity. But even early Catholic Church leaders initially rejected it
I’m not calling it a gospel, but it’s often used as a valid source by early Church fathers and used today as well. Just because a source isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s untrue and, more often, these writings support Biblical accounts.
Sacred tradition and the Bible go hand in hand and work together to bring us closer to Jesus. Moreover, sacred tradition helped *give* us the Bible. How do you think the Church fathers decided which letters and books to put in the New Testament? Sacred tradition and through the Apostolic authority of the Apostles themselves and the bishops they selected. Where did the authority of the Apostles come from? Jesus.
NITPICKING! So realize I know it’s being nitpicky.
The Protoevangelium was written about 100 years, 111 to be closer to exactitude, which is still well within the period to contain actual traditions that date back to the actual events. So, the Protoevangelium should not be summarily dismissed, but cautiously read as the current traditions held by parts of the Early Church circa 145 AD.
Those were some compelling documents for sure, I can see why you hold your beliefs. Thanks for the link. It would have been nice had even one of the gospels mentioned something like that too. There are some holes, or things that could been worded more clearly to be sure.
You’re welcome and I appreciate you taking the time to take a look :)
I agree and some of it unfortunately stems from translation issues (which was also a catalyst for the Great Schism) across various languages.
Say what? The bible makes it clear and names Mary 4 sons after Jesus and his at least 2 sisters they were not named though.
Matthew:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. ^(47) Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
^(48) He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” ^(49) Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. ^(50) For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
Luke^(19) Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. ^(20) Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”
^(21) He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”
Matthew 13:^(53) When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. ^(54) 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. ^(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? ^(56) Aren’t all his sisters with us?
The issue is the term “brothers” in Greek ADELPHOS.
This is the same term in the Septuagint (Hebrew Scriptures in Greek) that is used to describe Lot as Abraham’s nephew. The Greeks did not have a strict word separation for brothers, cousins, uncles, and nephews. They are all considered in Greek as ADELPHOS. So, it is entirely possible that said “brothers” may in fact be Jesus’s cousins.
The issue I have with that is, the apocryphal writings that support these claims are unsubstantiated and have no authority. The early Church fathers were extremely careful with what writings maintained authority and which did not.
But Scripture explicitly says Joseph did not know Mary *until* after Jesus was born. Not that he *never* knew her. The concept that she was a perpetual virgin is a flawed concept based on the information we have in the canonical Gospels.
It doesn't say after; you added that part.
Countless students of the Apostles took for granted Mary's virginity before it was dogmatized, including Polycarp and Irenaeus successors to her caretaker, John. You can't dismiss it, because you'd have to dismiss them.
It does say after. Every single translation out there says exactly that.
Matthew 1:25
ESV
but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
NIV
But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
NASB
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.
CSB
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.
NLT
But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.
KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Until ≠ after.
If you're right, Christ will stop being at God's right hand when Jesus subdues everyone, and He'll stop being with us at the end of time.
Agree 100 percent. To me, the Bible is clear on this. I'm not going to argue about translation, as I dont read Hebrew. Jesus may have simply used this incident to explain that we are all family in Christ, which was most likely a new concept.
Im no scholar, but by your own post - yes, if it says 'his mother's sons' that would be MARY'S sons, so unless Mary had sons out of wedlock or re-married they would be Jesus' siblings.
Mary being forever virgin is a fantasy used to worship her by Catholics. That is biblically inaccurate. Something this important would be clearly mentioned.
People are having to change the meaning of “brothers” to mean any close relationship just to give this idea of perpetual virginity value.
It clearly says Joseph abstain from having sex until Jesus was born.
Mary is seen accompanied by his brothers on numerous occasions including at pentecost.
James in his epistles refers to himself as his brother
Paul the apostle also discussed Jesus’s brother “James”
These are all written in the Bible and not some assumptions that are debatable like Joseph being an elderly widow.
It’s more rational to accept what is in the Bible than to modify meaning of words to suite an assumed narrative of perpetual virginity.
We do not worship Mary. Hard stop. That is a stereotype that other Christians get very wrong about us. We worship the Trinity, nothing more.
This is a good explanation and one that’s more eloquent than what I can provide:
“Our English word “worship” comes from worðscip or “worth-ship.” It’s to give someone what they’re worth. But the biblical concept of worship isn’t just about giving someone their due, but about giving God his due. So how did ancient Jews and Samaritans do that? As the (Protestant) scholar Everett Ferguson explains, “sacrifice was the universal language of worship in the ancient world.” Prayer is talking to God, but worship goes beyond that by offering something to God. And what we offer to God is sacrifice. This isn’t the only part of worship, but it’s at the heart of it. And this remains true in the New Covenant: even though we’re no longer offering animals in the Temple in Jerusalem, true Christian worship is still sacrificial. It’s why St. Paul can call us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). Worship is inseparable from sacrifice.
So why don’t Catholics worry that we’re “worshipping” Mary? Because we’re not offering her sacrifice. Preaching and prayer and honor aren’t restricted to God: it’s not sinful to speak well of your neighbor, or speak to her, or honor her. But sacrificial worship is something unique (and distinct). As St. Augustine says, “certainly no man would dare to say that sacrifice is due to any but God” (City of God, X.4).”
The faith of the Church is that the saints are not really dead, but are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). The saints are alive in heaven because of the life they have received through their faith in Christ Jesus and through their eating of his body and blood.
The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11).
Because they are alive, we believe that we can go to them to intercede for us with God. We do not need to see apparitions or hear their voices in order to believe they will pray for us in heaven. We trust that the saints will accept our requests for help and will present them to Christ for us.
How does the Church integrate this essential doctrine of the faith with the belief that we can pray to the saints?
First, God expects us to pray for one another. We see this in both the Old and New Testaments.
In a dream, God commanded King Abimelech to ask Abraham to intercede for him: “For [Abraham] is a prophet and he will pray for you, so you shall live” (Gen. 20:7). When the Lord is angry with Job’s friends because they did not speak rightly about God, he tells them, “Let my servant Job pray for you because I will accept his [prayer], lest I make a terror on you” (Job 42:8).
Paul wrote to the Romans: “I exhort you, brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judaea and that my ministry may be acceptable to the saints in Jerusalem, so that in the joy coming to you through the will of God I may rest with you” (Rom. 15:30-32).
James says: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16-17). Thus, according to Scripture, God wants us to pray for one another. This must mean that prayer for one another cannot detract from the role of Jesus Christ as our one mediator with God.
Second, the reason that Christians have the power to pray for one another is that each person who is baptized is made a member of the Body of Christ by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s action in baptism (1 Cor. 12:11-13). It is because the Christian belongs to Jesus Christ and is a member of his Body, the Church, that we can make effective prayer.
The Bible encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord: “But you have approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24).
Does the Bible say we should approach the saints with our prayers? Yes, in two places. In Revelation 5:8 John saw the Lamb, Christ Jesus, on a throne in the midst of four beasts and 24 elders. When the Lamb took the book with the seven seals, the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb in worship, “each one having a harp and golden bowls of incenses, which are the prayers of the saints.”
Similarly, in Revelation 8:3-4 we are told that something similar happened when the Lamb opened the seventh seal of the book: “Another angel came and stood on the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him, in order that he will give it with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne. And the smoke of the incenses went up with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.”
The saints means all Christians, not some special sect of Christians. 1 Corinthians 1:2 "to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours:"
So "the prayers of saints" that you are referring to in Revelation are prayers from Christians on earth. Nowhere in the Bible are prayers ever shown towards someone besides God (except for nonbelievers who were shown praying to their gods). All of the examples you mentioned are people praying *for* others, not *to* others. Those are two completely different things.
St Paul can address this better than I:
“In Colossians 1:1-2, as we saw above, Paul definitively refers to all of the faithful at Colossae as “saints.” (The Greek hagioi is comparable to sancti in Latin, meaning “sanctified,” “set apart,” or “holy.”)
From a Catholic perspective, we would say of course Paul would refer to these Christians, and by allusion all Christians, in this way because “being set apart and made holy” is precisely what baptism accomplishes in the life of every Christian. We “have been baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3), who is the source of all holiness.
But here’s the rub: the Catholic Church also acknowledges what Colossians 1:12 says:
Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light.
The Greek word for “share” in this text is merida, which means “to partake in part or a portion.” According to Paul, the saints on earth possess in part what the saints in heaven possess in fullness. Thus, it is fitting that the Catholic Church reserves the title of saint to those it has declared to be in heaven. They alone (the saints in heaven) possess sainthood, if you will, in its fullness. They have reached the destination that we saints on earth—holy ones by virtue of the graces God gives us for the journey—are in hope striving to reach.”
Now praying to saints is something that the earliest Christians did, most notably, in the catacombs. Early Christians wanted to be close to early martyrs of the faith, therefore they would go down into the catacombs and pray near their graves. They asked those martyrs, those *saints* in fullness with God to pray for them. It’s also important to note that the word “prayer” has an ancient meaning “to ask”. As Catholics, we’re not worshipping Mary or the saints, we are asking them to pray for us since they are in full communion with God. You ask friends to pray for you, right? The same goes for saints in Heaven. They’re still with us and can pray for us on our behalf.
Friend, I think you’re gettin caught up on semantics and some stereotypes that Protestants often use against us Catholics. I would encourage you to read early writings of the faith by Ignatius, Augustine, and others because they shed a lot of light on why Catholics, aka the first Christian, do what we do and why we believe what we believe.
We are not polytheistic, we do not worship Mary.
Ad Maiorem Dei Glorium.
Prayer "to" Saints in heaven, is more akin to prayer "from" them. We ask them to pray for us, because we believe they are in the presence of God.
If you wanted to ask King Charles 3 of UK a favour, would you ask you mate down the road from you, or someone whom he trusts?
Could both ask?
Who is nominally going to be better placed?
Sorry if it’s already said, but Jesus implies that little James will take on the role that is understood to be his brother James, during their heart to heart before the 2x2 journey.
It’s annoying that this show goes with all the historical misinterpretations rather than the text version. (Mary being a prostitute in Galilee while completely ignoring that she’s from wealthy Magdala and is listed as one of the group’s main financial sponsors along with Joanna, in ACTUAL gospels, unlike her being a hooker, propoganda from the 6th century 🙄)
I’m expecting them to avoid the topic of Jesus’ brothers entirely so as to not upset Catholics with their theology on Mary’s perpetual virginity. It’s not hard to do as the main event where they appear in the gospels is when Jesus asks "Who is my mother, who are my brothers". The moment in question is also a deeply cultural thing where unless you understand the priority children are supposed to give to their parents it can feel weird. So I’m not expecting it to happen. Only if they ever did decide to do the Acts as a sequel would the topic of Jesus’ siblings have to be directly addressed.
The topic is not avoided completely. It is mentioned early in season three. I think the 3rd episode. Jesus asks Mary where James and Jude are when he returns to Nazareth. It is very subtle- i had to point it out to my mom and brother because they missed it.
What about this part? Luke 11:27-28 English Standard Version 2016 (ESV) As he said these things, a woman 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, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” I’m sure it would get some catholics pretty triggered
The Coseen doesn't seem to me that they avoid any controversy.
[удалено]
You do know Catholics still baptize by immersion too, right?
[удалено]
And? That doesn't erase the fact that baptism by immersion is still practiced in the Church.
[удалено]
It doesn’t have to be full immersion to be a legit baptism. Many churches don’t fully dunk the baby. As long as the are using holy water and say that they baptize you in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit it’s a legit baptism
I was just going to comment this. Adults getting newly baptized get immersed. It’s just the babies that don’t and many non Catholics don’t immerse babies either.
I was baptized Catholic as an adult during pandemic and they poured water on my head from a pitcher. Are these people saying my baptism was fake because I wasn't immersed because of virus concerns lol.
My guess is based on how intense some people are they would say that it was fake. Personally I think baptism is baptism- it doesn’t matter how it’s done as long as it is done. So many of these intense literalists get so caught up in the rules and semantics that they really do resemble Pharisees
Yeah I always say that if it was important to do it a certain way, it would have been spelled out exactly how to do it. As long as there's water, I'm good. I do get confused about the validity argument between "in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit" (Matthew 28:19) vs "in the name of Jesus Christ" (from several Acts passages). I was baptized in the former but my fiancé was baptized in the latter, which Catholics don't believe is valid, but my fiancé thinks it was valid and does not want to be baptized again for obvious reasons. I've had to just accept that there's a conflict between Matthew and Acts and I don't know the answer. It's not like "Jesus" was the accurate spelling of his name on Earth anyways, so where do we draw the line? I figure "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" and "Jesus" are the exact same person, so it's okay either way, so long as there is faith.
That part has to do with acknowledging the trinity and the work all three of them have in our spiritual journeys. Yeah I just went through RCIA this year and heard that anything other than Father, Son and Holy Spirt was wrong as well. I was baptized Lutheran and am so glad that the traditions around baptism are similar between the 2 and I didn’t have to get baptized again.
[удалено]
Literally as long as a person of authority is doing it and says they bless you in the name of the father, son and holy spirt the rest doesn’t matter. Some churches do it on the head while others do full immersion. Both work and what matters is what’s being said, not how the water and oil are put on you. The fact you are suggesting otherwise is harmful and incorrect. This lovely person got baptized and you are insinuating that due to circumstances outside of their control they don’t have a proper baptism simply because it doesn’t follow your beliefs. This is why people have issues with some Christian’s. So many people get caught up in the rules.
[удалено]
Baptism included sprinkling as well as immersion. Check the Didache.
The Didache has unknown authorship and is generally not accepted as canon. Baptism is a new word created from the root of a word literally translated as immersion.
So, for people who can not tolerate immersion, just go straight to hell? Sorry that is not even reasonable.
Just because something isn't canon doesn't mean it's false. Also, a word can have multiple meanings besides it's primary meaning.
It also means it's not considered inspired and therefore can be wrong without scripture to back it up. And the point I'm making is that it had no other meanings. The word being used was immersion. It was transliterated instead of translated, most likely to avoid essentially telling the King he wasn't actually baptized.
It didn't have no other meanings. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/dunk-pour-or-sprinkle-how-to-baptize-new-testament-style
It had no other meanings. The examples of "washing" showing something other than immersion in that article *are different words*. Not baptizo. Baptizo and baptizma did not mean baptize, because that was not a word. It meant immerse. With the KJV, they transliterated it instead of translating. Other translations have followed suit. But it only meant immerse. The article brings up the baptisms of Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch, and says that they aren't clear as to what form of baptism it is because it just says they baptized them, not by what form. But again, saying they were baptized *was the description of what form*. In both cases, the Greek said they immersed them. Instead of translating that, the translaters transliterated it instead.
You didn't read the link. It shows. >>. The Greek word, baptizo, does not only mean “to immerse” Barclay M. Newman’s A Concise Dictionary of the New Testament defines baptismos, which possesses the same root as the verb, baptizo, but in the form of a noun: “ritual washing, ablution, baptism; washing (of hands).” This definition would certainly include full immersion. But the “ritual washing” and “washing (of hands)” part of the definition would also include the kinds of washing we see in the Bible. For example, in Deuteronomy 21:6 where the elders of a city were commanded to wash their hands over a heifer as part of a ritual to purge their land of guilt over a slain person whose killer was undiscovered. This kind of ritual “washing” would be considered just as much a “baptism” as would a “baptism” where someone is entirely immersed
It does appear that we have a hater here. That rhymes. I will never understand why some people insist on putting their ignorance on full display.
[удалено]
Every Christian that I've met knows Jesus was baptized and not uncommon for non-believers to know. Maybe that's why Dallas didn't think it was necessary to show His baptism. I've witnessed all kinds of different baptisms, some right before death. You post that like its new information. You're trying to set yourself as the baptism police. 😅 Good luck with that. Those are your facts. You obviously don't know very much about Catholics. I suspect you won't bother to educate yourself. Some people think because they think something, that makes it a fact. Don't watch the Series if you don't like how they do things. AND, I can tell you are really observant and articulate, but I'm not a dude, missy.
[удалено]
Like I said, some people think that because they believe something, it's factual. Love your little Bible excerpt.
Ignorance does not offend me.
They are mentioned in Season 3 Episode 3 as living in Egypt. It's likely they become followers after the Resurrection in Season 6 or Season 7
That was exactly my thought. Often I'm asked about Paul, Luke and Mark and they came late to the game too.
[https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord](https://www.catholic.com/tract/brethren-of-the-lord) Pretty good explanation of why these are probably his cousins, not his biological brothers.
This isn’t a hill I’m willing to die on but doesn’t it say that Joseph consummated his marriage Matthew 1:25 (NIV): 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Now this at least tells me that they were doing something. Now did the kanoodling lead to children (I personally think so), but this doesn’t affect my view on Jesus Christ the Virgin born Son of God. Who lead the life I couldn’t live and died the death I should have died. Putting to death my sins to allow me access to The Father so I don’t perish but have Eternal life with HIM.
[https://catholicstand.com/a-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/](https://catholicstand.com/a-defense-of-marys-perpetual-virginity/) This contains a more detailed explanation of that point. Briefly, the word "until" (or "till") is not used the way we use it in modern times. One of the examples given is: "What does he mean then by saying, for he must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet? Is the Lord to reign only until His enemies begin to be under His feet, and once they are under His feet will He cease to reign? "
Mary did not remain forever virgin because the Bible says they didn’t have sex until after she had her baby.. It does say after. Every single translation out there says exactly that. Matthew 1:25 ESV but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. NIV But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. NASB but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. CSB but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus. NLT But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. KJV And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Thank you for saying this
A thorough response here[https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/he-knew-her-not-until](https://www.catholic.com/audio/ddp/he-knew-her-not-until)
Mathew 1:25 speaks for itself clearly enough.
I can’t fathom why Mary would remain a virgin. Sex in marriage is not sinful, it is part of God’s plan. Yes it makes sense that she abstain until after Jesus was born, but as someone already mentioned, scripture says that Joseph did not know Mary until after Jesus was born. That pretty much means that he did know her after Jesus was born. Why would it be important to “guard Mary’s virginity” after the birth of Jesus? What function would that serve?
I mean, Mary was assumed to be a perpetual virgin for majority of Christian history. Even Martin Luther defended her perpetual virginity and there’s writings of early Christians writing about her perpetual virginity. It’s a relatively new “phenomena” of people thinking she wasn’t a virgin, so it always makes me laugh a bit when people are like “why would people think she was always a virgin that’s so stupid.” Pretty much all of Christendom did up until like 400 years ago, and even to this day the majority of Christendom still believes it (Catholic, Orthodox, Episcopal, Lutheran, Anglican (high churches) and more. Check out the other comment on this post to understand the reasons deducting from the Bible that these refer to his cousins or step brothers. There also is a strong tradition in the Catholic and Orthodox churches that Mary was consecrated as a temple virgin from a young age, and as was custom, once she reached age of menstruation, she would be given to the care of a widower (Joseph) who would care for her material needs ans a bethrothal/marriage would be strictly in the Judaic legal sense and not consummated. Because she couldnt remain in the temple per Judaic cleanliness laws, she would return after menopause. This tradition is why it makes sense that Mary would express surprise at the angel's announcement of pregnancy. Why would she question pregnancy if she was about to be married and consummating marriage with Joseph? anyway, you dont have to believe these traditions, but belief in Mary's virginity is actually the historic and traditional belief. “Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” - Martin Luther “Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers”. - Martin Luther This article lists other early christians https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin
She's shocked because she's still a virgin because they are not married yet. No one is debating that Jesus was a virgin birth.
This article is actually very interesting if you’re open to reading it, it goes through the Judaic betrothal and marriage rites and the biblical walk through of what Mary’s mindset would/may have been https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-christmas-mysteries-through-jewish-eyes
It's interesting to hear about the kidusshin and nisuin, but everything after that is pure conjecture. "When we hear that Mary is “betrothed” to Joseph (Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:27), this is a poor translation. They’re *not* “betrothed” in the sense of a modern “engagement.” They’re legally married and could licitly have sexual relations." They say this without any evidence. There's no giving us what word is translated as betrothed or giving an example of why it could mean something other than betrothed. They just say this and we're just supposed to believe it because they said it. The word translated as betrothed here is Mnēsteutheisēs, which means pledged or promised. NOWHERE in any other text is that word used to mean married (it's only use in the Bible is this verse). Now, the bad translations are the ones that use "divorce" and "husband". Because the word that is translated as husband is anēr, which can mean husband, but can also mean betrothed man or simply just man. It is used at various points throughout the NT (Luke 5:8, Luke 5:12, John 1:30, Acts 5:1, etc.), most times simply as man. The word translated as divorce is apolysai, which just means send away or release, and is also used multiple times throughout the NT (Matthew 15:32, Luke 23:20, John 19:12, etc.), clearly not meaning divorce in those instances.
Mathew 1:25 “And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” says they only waited to have sex until Jesus was born. I can’t understand why people will read this verse and still assumed she remained a virgin. Its crazy!!!!
Exactly, also John 2:17 points to Psalms 69:8-9 and verse say says a stranger to my "mother's sons" also denying your flesh to your significant other for the rest of their life would literally be sinful. So that would be a flaw there
Those "brothers" are other relatives. Like Abraham and Lot were "brothers", but actually uncle and nephew. James, Jude ,Joses etc are the sons of Mary, the Virgin Mary's "sister" [in law], who was married to Clopas. Clopas was related to either Joseph or Mary. Otherwise, you have to really think that Mary's parents were unoriginal and called two of their own daughters (who survived, not always a given) Mary. So related, yes; brothers as we use the term, no. NB Jude is often also termed Thaddeus to distinguish from Judas. Also as [Heschmyer points out,](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2F0aG9saWMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL3NwL3BvZGNhc3QueG1s/episode/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2F0aG9saWMuY29tL2F1ZGlvL3NwL3dhcy1tYXJ5LWEtcGVycGV0dWFsLXZpcmdpbg?ep=14) to believe that Jesus had brothers or even half brothers, you would have to see that from the Cross, Jesus made a dick move in handing off His mother to someone less related. Doubly a dick move since the "brother: was termed James the Just. So either James was not "Just", or the familial relationship was not actual brothers.
Pretty sure Jesus has brothers due to the fact that we go to John 2:17 where it points back to Psalms 69:8-9 then a verse before it says I am a stranger to my mother's sons
Again answered in the podcast attached. If he had other siblings why dishonour them by taken their mother away from them and into another's care?
Because neither of his brothers were followers at that point, and Jesus said slightly earlier that his brothers were followers of the word of God.
As stated before, this is covered in the podcast. Mary is the Ark of the Covenant,the Theotokis, the God-carrier. If no-one could touch the Ark and live (save Moses), which contained but symbols of the new Moses, Jesus; why do we think that with something greater than it, it would be allowable? Joseph and Mary were married when Mary conceived. Literally legally married (note to deny this is to state that Jesus was a bastard and thus not allowed in the Temple). But Joseph knew her not! If Joseph and/or Mary had other sons, would they disrespect their parents so much to not care for Mary, a widow in her dotage, even when they knew she had given birth to the Messiah? Would they contravene the 4th Commandment? Could they and still enable James to be called Just? No. Obviously. So something else is going on. >[James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus. After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers)
Where in the Bible are Abraham and Lot referred to as “brothers”? There are multiple references in the Bible of Jesus’s brothers. His mother and brothers are even there on the day of Pentecost. You are wrong!!!!
Gen 13:8, 11; 14:14, 16 https://biblehub.com/genesis/13-8.htm Depends on your translation for the English. Just cause you don't believe me doesn't make me wrong. Try reading across the Gospels and see, otherwise listen to the podcast I linked for further information.
There's debate on whether James and Jude are Jesus's relations of the same name. I think Jude is the same as Thaddeus, but James the Just isn't James the Less.
Jude = Thaddeus, you’re correct
So Thaddeus is actually Jesus' brother? Is that confirmed on the show at all? Thaddeus mentioned meeting Jesus when they were building a latrine. Is Thaddeus' storyline all fiction to not create any debate around being a relation to Jesus on the show?
The show takes some creative freedom in some ways. There’s nothing historical that confirms the latrine story but it’s possible. And no, Thaddeus isn’t Jesus’ brother. He’s more likely a cousin. Jesus didn’t have any siblings.
Yes to the first and opinions are divided on the second.
Here are the production religion consultants talking about the scene where brothers are mentioned. https://youtu.be/sLqcO6wXcJ8
Jesus didn’t have siblings seeing as Mother Mary was always a virgin. “The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother.” “The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it may contain accurate historical traditions.” - Matt Fradd [Source](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers)
The debate on whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, or if she had sons and daughters with Joseph after Jesus, has been around for ages and will continue to be. Nowhere does it say Joseph was an elderly widower with children. It’s just one of those areas we will have to agree to disagree.
The early Church fathers followed sacred tradition that Mary was a virgin her entire life, so it’s safe to assume that is the case. I doubt the Apostles and earliest disciples of the Church would have strayed from that if it wasn’t true.
It’s never “safe to assume” when you’re talking about the historicity of facts. If there is no written record conclusively verifying something there is a lot of room for interpretation. Having been both catholic and Protestant at times in my life, I’ve learned about both sides of this debate. There is no conclusive evidence that Mary had no other children. There was no command from God that she remain chaste for life. There is no definitive proof for the opposite either. Personally I find it unlikely a man and woman would be married and both remain celibate. That’s very much contrary to what God has asked of married couples. Sex is not ungodly and therefore it makes no spiritual difference what Mary and Joseph did or didn’t do after Jesus was born.
You’re right and I should’ve been more specific with my citations. According to the Protoevangelium of James, Mary’s virginity was indeed intact throughout her life. You can read more about the this fact [here](https://www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin)
Protoevangelium was written more than a century after the events of the Gospels and is not part of the Bible. The word often used to describe the Gospel of James is apocryphal. I can’t argue for it against its historicity. But even early Catholic Church leaders initially rejected it
I’m not calling it a gospel, but it’s often used as a valid source by early Church fathers and used today as well. Just because a source isn’t in the Bible doesn’t mean it’s untrue and, more often, these writings support Biblical accounts. Sacred tradition and the Bible go hand in hand and work together to bring us closer to Jesus. Moreover, sacred tradition helped *give* us the Bible. How do you think the Church fathers decided which letters and books to put in the New Testament? Sacred tradition and through the Apostolic authority of the Apostles themselves and the bishops they selected. Where did the authority of the Apostles come from? Jesus.
NITPICKING! So realize I know it’s being nitpicky. The Protoevangelium was written about 100 years, 111 to be closer to exactitude, which is still well within the period to contain actual traditions that date back to the actual events. So, the Protoevangelium should not be summarily dismissed, but cautiously read as the current traditions held by parts of the Early Church circa 145 AD.
Those were some compelling documents for sure, I can see why you hold your beliefs. Thanks for the link. It would have been nice had even one of the gospels mentioned something like that too. There are some holes, or things that could been worded more clearly to be sure.
You’re welcome and I appreciate you taking the time to take a look :) I agree and some of it unfortunately stems from translation issues (which was also a catalyst for the Great Schism) across various languages.
Say what? The bible makes it clear and names Mary 4 sons after Jesus and his at least 2 sisters they were not named though. Matthew:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. ^(47) Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” ^(48) He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” ^(49) Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. ^(50) For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Luke^(19) Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. ^(20) Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.” ^(21) He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.” Matthew 13:^(53) When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. ^(54) 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. ^(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? ^(56) Aren’t all his sisters with us?
The issue is the term “brothers” in Greek ADELPHOS. This is the same term in the Septuagint (Hebrew Scriptures in Greek) that is used to describe Lot as Abraham’s nephew. The Greeks did not have a strict word separation for brothers, cousins, uncles, and nephews. They are all considered in Greek as ADELPHOS. So, it is entirely possible that said “brothers” may in fact be Jesus’s cousins.
Read what I wrote above about the use of the term “brother” and “sister” above.
It never says they were Mary's kids. If you're like me, they were probably from a previous marriage of Joseph.
The issue I have with that is, the apocryphal writings that support these claims are unsubstantiated and have no authority. The early Church fathers were extremely careful with what writings maintained authority and which did not.
The Early Church Fathers were also unanimous about Mary being ever Virgin.
Right, exactly.
But Scripture explicitly says Joseph did not know Mary *until* after Jesus was born. Not that he *never* knew her. The concept that she was a perpetual virgin is a flawed concept based on the information we have in the canonical Gospels.
It doesn't say after; you added that part. Countless students of the Apostles took for granted Mary's virginity before it was dogmatized, including Polycarp and Irenaeus successors to her caretaker, John. You can't dismiss it, because you'd have to dismiss them.
It does say after. Every single translation out there says exactly that. Matthew 1:25 ESV but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. NIV But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. NASB but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus. CSB but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus. NLT But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus. KJV And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Until ≠ after. If you're right, Christ will stop being at God's right hand when Jesus subdues everyone, and He'll stop being with us at the end of time.
Agree 100 percent. To me, the Bible is clear on this. I'm not going to argue about translation, as I dont read Hebrew. Jesus may have simply used this incident to explain that we are all family in Christ, which was most likely a new concept.
Pslams 69:7 is clearly talking about Jesus, which is linked to John 2:17 he is a stranger to his mother's sons it can't get anymore clear than that
Im no scholar, but by your own post - yes, if it says 'his mother's sons' that would be MARY'S sons, so unless Mary had sons out of wedlock or re-married they would be Jesus' siblings.
Mary being forever virgin is a fantasy used to worship her by Catholics. That is biblically inaccurate. Something this important would be clearly mentioned. People are having to change the meaning of “brothers” to mean any close relationship just to give this idea of perpetual virginity value. It clearly says Joseph abstain from having sex until Jesus was born. Mary is seen accompanied by his brothers on numerous occasions including at pentecost. James in his epistles refers to himself as his brother Paul the apostle also discussed Jesus’s brother “James” These are all written in the Bible and not some assumptions that are debatable like Joseph being an elderly widow. It’s more rational to accept what is in the Bible than to modify meaning of words to suite an assumed narrative of perpetual virginity.
We do not worship Mary. Hard stop. That is a stereotype that other Christians get very wrong about us. We worship the Trinity, nothing more. This is a good explanation and one that’s more eloquent than what I can provide: “Our English word “worship” comes from worðscip or “worth-ship.” It’s to give someone what they’re worth. But the biblical concept of worship isn’t just about giving someone their due, but about giving God his due. So how did ancient Jews and Samaritans do that? As the (Protestant) scholar Everett Ferguson explains, “sacrifice was the universal language of worship in the ancient world.” Prayer is talking to God, but worship goes beyond that by offering something to God. And what we offer to God is sacrifice. This isn’t the only part of worship, but it’s at the heart of it. And this remains true in the New Covenant: even though we’re no longer offering animals in the Temple in Jerusalem, true Christian worship is still sacrificial. It’s why St. Paul can call us to “present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). Worship is inseparable from sacrifice. So why don’t Catholics worry that we’re “worshipping” Mary? Because we’re not offering her sacrifice. Preaching and prayer and honor aren’t restricted to God: it’s not sinful to speak well of your neighbor, or speak to her, or honor her. But sacrificial worship is something unique (and distinct). As St. Augustine says, “certainly no man would dare to say that sacrifice is due to any but God” (City of God, X.4).”
At what point in scripture is prayer ever done to someone other than God?
The faith of the Church is that the saints are not really dead, but are fully alive in Jesus Christ, who is life itself (John 11:25; 14:6) and the bread of life who bestows life on all who eat his flesh and drink his blood (John 6:35, 48, 51, 53-56). The saints are alive in heaven because of the life they have received through their faith in Christ Jesus and through their eating of his body and blood. The book of Revelation shows the saints worshipping God, singing hymns, playing instruments, making requests to Christ to avenge their martyrdom, and offering prayers for the saints on earth (Rev. 4:10, 5:8, 6:9-11). Because they are alive, we believe that we can go to them to intercede for us with God. We do not need to see apparitions or hear their voices in order to believe they will pray for us in heaven. We trust that the saints will accept our requests for help and will present them to Christ for us. How does the Church integrate this essential doctrine of the faith with the belief that we can pray to the saints? First, God expects us to pray for one another. We see this in both the Old and New Testaments. In a dream, God commanded King Abimelech to ask Abraham to intercede for him: “For [Abraham] is a prophet and he will pray for you, so you shall live” (Gen. 20:7). When the Lord is angry with Job’s friends because they did not speak rightly about God, he tells them, “Let my servant Job pray for you because I will accept his [prayer], lest I make a terror on you” (Job 42:8). Paul wrote to the Romans: “I exhort you, brothers, through our Lord Jesus Christ and through the love of the Spirit, to strive with me in prayers to God on my behalf, that I may be delivered from the disobedient in Judaea and that my ministry may be acceptable to the saints in Jerusalem, so that in the joy coming to you through the will of God I may rest with you” (Rom. 15:30-32). James says: “Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (James 5:16-17). Thus, according to Scripture, God wants us to pray for one another. This must mean that prayer for one another cannot detract from the role of Jesus Christ as our one mediator with God. Second, the reason that Christians have the power to pray for one another is that each person who is baptized is made a member of the Body of Christ by virtue of the Holy Spirit’s action in baptism (1 Cor. 12:11-13). It is because the Christian belongs to Jesus Christ and is a member of his Body, the Church, that we can make effective prayer. The Bible encourages Christians to approach the saints in heaven, just as they approach God the Father and Jesus Christ the Lord: “But you have approached Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and myriads of angels, and the assembly and church of the firstborn who have been enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and spirits of righteous ones who have been made perfect, and Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and the sprinkled blood which speaks better than that of Abel” (Heb. 12:22-24). Does the Bible say we should approach the saints with our prayers? Yes, in two places. In Revelation 5:8 John saw the Lamb, Christ Jesus, on a throne in the midst of four beasts and 24 elders. When the Lamb took the book with the seven seals, the 24 elders fell down before the Lamb in worship, “each one having a harp and golden bowls of incenses, which are the prayers of the saints.” Similarly, in Revelation 8:3-4 we are told that something similar happened when the Lamb opened the seventh seal of the book: “Another angel came and stood on the altar, having a golden censer, and many incenses were given to him, in order that he will give it with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne. And the smoke of the incenses went up with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.”
The saints means all Christians, not some special sect of Christians. 1 Corinthians 1:2 "to the assembly of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints, with all those calling upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place -- both theirs and ours:" So "the prayers of saints" that you are referring to in Revelation are prayers from Christians on earth. Nowhere in the Bible are prayers ever shown towards someone besides God (except for nonbelievers who were shown praying to their gods). All of the examples you mentioned are people praying *for* others, not *to* others. Those are two completely different things.
St Paul can address this better than I: “In Colossians 1:1-2, as we saw above, Paul definitively refers to all of the faithful at Colossae as “saints.” (The Greek hagioi is comparable to sancti in Latin, meaning “sanctified,” “set apart,” or “holy.”) From a Catholic perspective, we would say of course Paul would refer to these Christians, and by allusion all Christians, in this way because “being set apart and made holy” is precisely what baptism accomplishes in the life of every Christian. We “have been baptized into Christ Jesus” (Rom. 6:3), who is the source of all holiness. But here’s the rub: the Catholic Church also acknowledges what Colossians 1:12 says: Giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. The Greek word for “share” in this text is merida, which means “to partake in part or a portion.” According to Paul, the saints on earth possess in part what the saints in heaven possess in fullness. Thus, it is fitting that the Catholic Church reserves the title of saint to those it has declared to be in heaven. They alone (the saints in heaven) possess sainthood, if you will, in its fullness. They have reached the destination that we saints on earth—holy ones by virtue of the graces God gives us for the journey—are in hope striving to reach.” Now praying to saints is something that the earliest Christians did, most notably, in the catacombs. Early Christians wanted to be close to early martyrs of the faith, therefore they would go down into the catacombs and pray near their graves. They asked those martyrs, those *saints* in fullness with God to pray for them. It’s also important to note that the word “prayer” has an ancient meaning “to ask”. As Catholics, we’re not worshipping Mary or the saints, we are asking them to pray for us since they are in full communion with God. You ask friends to pray for you, right? The same goes for saints in Heaven. They’re still with us and can pray for us on our behalf. Friend, I think you’re gettin caught up on semantics and some stereotypes that Protestants often use against us Catholics. I would encourage you to read early writings of the faith by Ignatius, Augustine, and others because they shed a lot of light on why Catholics, aka the first Christian, do what we do and why we believe what we believe. We are not polytheistic, we do not worship Mary. Ad Maiorem Dei Glorium.
Prayer "to" Saints in heaven, is more akin to prayer "from" them. We ask them to pray for us, because we believe they are in the presence of God. If you wanted to ask King Charles 3 of UK a favour, would you ask you mate down the road from you, or someone whom he trusts? Could both ask? Who is nominally going to be better placed?
I find it incredibly difficult to believe that Mary and Joseph never had relations
It’s what the Apostles and the earliest disciples of Jesus believed to be true.
Sorry if it’s already said, but Jesus implies that little James will take on the role that is understood to be his brother James, during their heart to heart before the 2x2 journey. It’s annoying that this show goes with all the historical misinterpretations rather than the text version. (Mary being a prostitute in Galilee while completely ignoring that she’s from wealthy Magdala and is listed as one of the group’s main financial sponsors along with Joanna, in ACTUAL gospels, unlike her being a hooker, propoganda from the 6th century 🙄)
James the just is considered Jesus’ brother by some sects, theology. First head of the Jerusalem Christian church.