(click on link to original post below to find source of these info)

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not only a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus but that she remained a virgin ever after. Most Protestant Christians today deny this – but do they know that many of their early leaders believed it?

Here are 5 examples of major Protestant leaders who rejected huge swaths of Catholic dogma, but – you may be surprised to learn that they defended the perpetual virginity of Mary:

1) Martin Luther

Martin Luther is usually considered to be the person who sparked the Protestant Reformation. He rejected core Catholic dogmas like the papacy, transubstantiation, and even parts of the traditional Bible. But he kept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Here’s what he said about it in a sermon:

“Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that. […] Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.” (Sermons on John)

2) John Calvin

John Calvin started what is now known as the Reformed theological tradition, which reject many key Catholic dogmas. Though he warned that those who take time to argue about it simply have an “extreme fondness of disputation,” he also argued that those who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity based on Scriptural passages that mention Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” show “excessive ignorance.”

3) Huldrych Zwingli

Huldrych Zwingli was a Swiss Reformer during the lifetime of Martin Luther. He not only rejected the authority of the Church, but, unlike Luther, actually went so far as to deny the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist altogether.

But on the topic of Mary’s perpetual virgin, he wrote:

“I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424)

4) Thomas Cranmer

Thomas Cranmer was the Archbishop of Canterbury during Henry VIII’s schism from Rome and thereafter and was a major figure in building Anglicanism. Yet he and other major Anglican leaders maintained the perpetual virginity of Mary “on the basis of ancient Christian authority.”

5) John Wesley

John Wesley’s teachings and ministry led to the worldwide Methodist movement. He strongly rejected Catholicism – but the perpetual virginity of Mary wasn’t one of the things he saw as problematic.

In his Letter to a Roman Catholic, he wrote:

“I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.”


http://www.francismary.org/5-protestants-who-surprisingly-defended-marys-perpetual-virginity/

What Is The Immaculate Conception Of The Blessed Virgin Mary?

http://www.francismary.org/what-is-the-immaculate-conception-of-the-blessed-virgin-mary/

Most of the early reformers didn't have a problem with the teaching on perpetual virginity.

FMary:
(click on link to original post below to find source of these info)

It is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Blessed Virgin Mary was not only a virgin when she conceived and bore Jesus but that she remained a virgin ever after. Most Protestant Christians today deny this – but do they know that many of their early leaders believed it?

Here are 5 examples of major Protestant leaders who rejected huge swaths of Catholic dogma, but – you may be surprised to learn that they defended the perpetual virginity of Mary:

1) Martin Luther



http://www.francismary.org/5-protestants-who-surprisingly-defended-marys-perpetual-virginity/

Just a few questions.

1. Do you know that Jesus had brothers and sisters (at least two of His younger brothers were named in the scriptures)?

2. If Mary had other siblings, were they also immaculately conceived? (I.e. Joseph never ever slept with Mary)?

3. Is there any scriptural evidence to suggest the perpetual virginity of Mary?

4. Suppose I say that Joseph was perpetually a virgin, would you agree?

I wish other Catholics will clear these questions above.

Cc: SalC

shadeyinka:



Just a few questions.

1. Do you know that Jesus had brothers and sisters (at least two of His younger brothers were named in the scriptures)?

2. If Mary had other siblings, were they also immaculately conceived? (I.e. Joseph never ever slept with Mary)?

3. Is there any scriptural evidence to suggest the perpetual virginity of Mary?

4. Suppose I say that Joseph was perpetually a virgin, would you agree?

I wish other Catholics will clear these questions above.

Cc: SalC

Who are the brothers named?

SalC:
Who are the brothers named?

If I do, will you change your mind about Marys perpetual virginity?

You child of Mary, that some deluded people believed a thing doesn't translate it to the truth. Mary was/is not a perpetual virgin!

At least, this much is made clear in the scriptures. Here:

Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us...? (Matt 13:55-56)

Plain! And there's no twisting of this truth that will change the facts!

shadeyinka:



Just a few questions.

1. Do you know that Jesus had brothers and sisters (at least two of His younger brothers were named in the scriptures)?

2. If Mary had other siblings, were they also immaculately conceived? (I.e. Joseph never ever slept with Mary)?

3. Is there any scriptural evidence to suggest the perpetual virginity of Mary?

4. Suppose I say that Joseph was perpetually a virgin, would you agree?

I wish other Catholics will clear these questions above.

Cc: SalC

let me help you...
Cc syncan
italo
ubendictus...
Would like to see syncan's reply on this tho..


I think the bible supports their position tho...but i dont think its possible in a real life setting...

shadeyinka:


If I do, will you change your mind about Marys perpetual virginity?

If you can convince me they are the sons of Mary why not?

And if i can prove they are not the sons of Mary will you change your disbelief in Mary's perpetual virginity?

SalC:


If you can convince me they are the sons of Mary why not?

And if i can prove they are not the sons of Mary will you change your disbelief in Mary's perpetual virginity?

Mat 13:55-56
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? Where then did this man get all these things?”


Mark 6:3
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.”

The two scriptures above are self explanatory isn't it.
4 Brothers and at least 2 sisters.

MrMontella:

let me help you...
Cc syncan
italo
ubendictus...
Would like to see syncan's reply on this tho..


I think the bible supports their position tho...but i dont think its possible in a real life setting...

Why would you say you think the bible support their position?
Consider these two scriptures:

Mat 13:55-56
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? Where then did this man get all these things?”

Mark 6:3
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.”

The Brothers were named with at least two sisters.

MrMontella:

let me help you...
Cc syncan
italo
ubendictus...
Would like to see syncan's reply on this tho..


I think the bible supports their position tho...but i dont think its possible in a real life setting...

Who dey call me 4 dis matter? it has been discussed severally syncan, italo, francis and many others. infact d blog in d op has an article titled brothers of Jesus.

una know d truth, una wan just disturb. the perpetual virginity of mary is a truth consistently taught in christianity for 1800yrs, these new less than 100yrs old later days doctriners are d ones always disturbing.

Am sure you did not read the post or at least read well. YOU should read the preaching of the early protestants before you bring up the topic of the "brothers of Jesus" which they actually did speak about.

shadeyinka:


Mat 13:55-56
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? Where then did this man get all these things?”


Mark 6:3
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.”

The two scriptures above are self explanatory isn't it.
4 Brothers and at least 2 sisters.

You have to read this article titled The “Brothers” Of Jesus

http://www.francismary.org/the-brothers-of-jesus/

FMary:
Am sure you did not read the post or at least read well. YOU should read the preaching of the early protestants before you bring up the topic of the "brothers of Jesus" which they actually did speak about.

All Human beings are fallible including the early protestant church fathers. My source is the Scriptures and testimonies from those who knew Jesus firsthand.

Other than this, one can always find people who could even say that Jesus was married and had one daughter.

So, my Bro, let's use the scriptures as the basis of our conclusions.

2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians

20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: John

I have just given you 2 Scripture verses to teach you that it must not be in the Bible for it to be the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

In the first verse, Saint Paul is teaching us(the Thessalonians) to hold unto all traditions that has been taught whether by Word or by their Epistle.

Here by Epistle, he meant the Scriptures as we have it today. Remember that in those days they did not have the Bible as we have it today, they had different books written to different Christian communities which the Church(Catholic Church) eventually put together as the Bible over time.

By Word, Saint Paul meant other teachings which were not written down which today is part of what the Church regards as Tradition.

In the second verse, Saint John is telling us everything Jesus did while on earth was not written in the Bible.

So I wonder even where it is written that the Scripture MUST be the basis of every Christian conclusion.

Did Jesus not tell us that He will send the Holy Spirit after He left this world? HE specifically said that He could not tell everything to His disciples but that when the Holy Spirit comes, He the Holy Spirit would lead them into all TRUTH.

What would the Holy Spirit be teaching us again if all the basis of our discussion has been written down

shadeyinka:


All Human beings are fallible including the early protestant church fathers. My source is the Scriptures and testimonies from those who knew Jesus firsthand.

Other than this, one can always find people who could even say that Jesus was married and had one daughter.

So, my Bro, let's use the scriptures as the basis of our conclusions.

FMary:
2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians

20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: John

I have just given you 2 Scripture verses to teach you that it must not be in the Bible for it to be the truth as revealed by the Holy Spirit.

In the first verse, Saint Paul is teaching us(the Thessalonians) to hold unto all traditions that has been taught whether by Word or by their Epistle.

Here by Epistle, he meant the Scriptures as we have it today. Remember that in those days they did not have the Bible as we have it today, they had different books written to different Christian communities which the Church(Catholic Church) eventually put together as the Bible over time.

By Word, Saint Paul meant other teachings which were not written down which today is part of what the Church regards as Tradition.

In the second verse, Saint John is telling us everything Jesus did while on earth was not written in the Bible.

So I wonder even where it is written that the Scripture MUST be the basis of every Christian conclusion.

Did Jesus not tell us that He will send the Holy Spirit after He left this world? HE specifically said that He could not tell everything to His disciples but that when the Holy Spirit comes, He the Holy Spirit would lead them into all TRUTH.

What would the Holy Spirit be teaching us again if all the basis of our discussion has been written down

2Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The two scriptures above warn us of where to take out standards from. It assumes a standard: "that which The apostles had taught". This we find in the scriptures.

Now, if there are traditions, those traditions can only have weight if and only if they can be traced to people who lived with Jesus, who heard His messages and who are witnesses to the events of the life of Jesus.

If they were Born after the death of Christ, their testimonies could have been embellished and thus not trustworthy irrespective of who they are.


Matthew 1:23
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

Another scripture is
Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

This same James was mentioned in Mk6:3 and Mat 13:55-56

The Scripture is plain on this. The earliest doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary occurred around 150 AD. That is a long time for distortions to come in. But, we have the scriptures: at least I have given you three.

Now, are traditions bad?
No!
Except the traditions go in contradiction of what had been revealed through the apostles in the scriptures. Part of the traditions we have inherited fro the church fathers include wedding couples in the church, the institution of the clergy etc.

If we are not careful, we will rate traditions above the scriptures and thus be guilty

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



Shalom

shadeyinka:


Mat 13:55-56
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? Where then did this man get all these things?”


Mark 6:3
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.”

The two scriptures above are self explanatory isn't it.
4 Brothers and at least 2 sisters.

There was a time i could've believed these verses were a proof that Jesus Mary had other children. I even thought Gal1 :19 was a further proof that the James mentioned in Matt 13:55 was also one of his apostles but when i looked at the list of Jesus' apostles in Mark 3: 16-19 i discovered that the two apostles named James are the sons of Zebedee and Alpheus, non was the son of Joseph or Mary the mother of Jesus. On the other hand i kept seeing another Mary who the mother of James and Joseph.

So that they were called Jesus' adelphos doesn't mean they were the sons of his mother.

SalC:

There was a time i could've believed these verses were a proof that Jesus Mary had other children. I even thought Gal1 :19 was a further proof that the James mentioned in Matt 13:55 was also one of his apostles but when i looked at the list of Jesus' apostles in Mark 3: 16-19 i discovered that the two apostles named James are the sons of Zebedee and Alpheus, non was the son of Joseph or Mary the mother of Jesus. On the other hand i kept seeing another Mary who the mother of James and Joseph.

So that they were called Jesus' adelphos doesn't mean they were the sons of his mother.

AMEN

shadeyinka:


2Corinthians 11:4
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Galatians 1:8-9
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

The two scriptures above warn us of where to take out standards from. It assumes a standard: "that which The apostles had taught". This we find in the scriptures.

indulge me brother...
How do you define ''scriptures''?

Now, if there are traditions, those traditions can only have weight if and only if they can be traced to people who lived with Jesus who heard His messages and who are witnesses to the events of the life of Jesus.[quote]
pls..explain ''heard his messages''..
@the underlined...paul didnt witness any of the underlined...did he?

[quote]
If they were Born after the death of Christ, their testimonies could have been embellished and thus not trustworthy irrespective of who they are.

some new testament epistles are like that..
Gospel of luke
2 peter...
Epistle of james etc

[b]Matthew 1:23
23 “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us).
24When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

this doesnt prove she was not a virgin...it seems to be normal writing style at that time
examples

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of
Saul had no child to (until) the day of her
death. (Does this mean she had children after
she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the
public reading of scripture, to preaching, to
teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should
stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign
until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
(Does this mean Christ’s reign will end?)

so it doesnt prove she had children with joseph..

Another scripture is
Galatians 1:19
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

This same James was mentioned in Mk6:3 and Mat 13:55-56

First and formost...you have to note that jesus's native language is aramaic..and aramaic has no distinct word for hebrew...
also the james here is an apostle
Jesus had two apostles named james...taking the context of the text...the person paul saw was an apostle named james...i.e James the son of alphaeus/cloephas (Matt 27:56) and john 19:25 says the wife of cloephas was named mary..but was a sister to Jesus's mother..
In the epistle of jude..he calls himself a brother to james...but not to jesus...
I dont know bout the simon mentioned there(Matt 13:56) but i dont think what happened in
John 19:26-27 would be possible if she had other children..

The Scripture is plain on this. The earliest doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary occurred around 150 AD. That is a long time for distortions to come in. But, we have the scriptures: at least I have given you three.

even some new testament in the biblical scriptures were written around that time..like timothy,titus

Now, are traditions bad?
No!
Except the traditions go in contradiction of what had been revealed through the apostles in the scriptures. Part of the traditions we have inherited fro the church fathers include wedding couples in the church, the institution of the clergy etc.

If we are not careful, we will rate traditions above the scriptures and thus be guilty

Mark 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



Shalom

how do you define ''scriptures''?

There are various bible versions

how do you also account for instances in the bible like

Matt 2:23?
Matt 23:2-3?
1 Cor 10:4?
2 Tim 3:8?
1 Peter 3:19?
Jude 9?
James 5:17?

None of these appear in the old testament..

Even Jesus quoted a statement not found in the old testament
John 7:38

SalC:

There was a time i could've believed these verses were a proof that Jesus Mary had other children. I even thought Gal1 :19 was a further proof that the James mentioned in Matt 13:55 was also one of his apostles but when i looked at the list of Jesus' apostles in Mark 3: 16-19 i discovered that the two apostles named James are the sons of Zebedee and Alpheus, non was the son of Joseph or Mary the mother of Jesus. On the other hand i kept seeing another Mary who the mother of James and Joseph.

So that they were called Jesus' adelphos doesn't mean they were the sons of his mother.

When you read in context, the two scriptures can mean nothing other than the blood brothers of Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph).

James was a very common name in Israel and the fact that sisters were mentioned excuses the apostles/disciples.


Paul writing in Galatians sad that he did not see any of the apostles (he mentioned Peter by name, NOT as on of the Lords brothers) but specifically he mentioned James the Lords brother (different from the class of Peter).

James obviously believed in Jesus after His resurrection and was one of the leaders of the early church.

MrMontella:

indulge me brother...
How do you define ''scriptures''?

Scriptures are documents written with the inspiration of God for the edification, teaching, warning and admonition of the elect of God. However, not just any of such are classed as scriptures.

MrMontella:

indulge me brother...
How do you define ''scriptures''?

I am so sorry my reply is coming so late.

I believe you are a student of church history and so, you will agree with me that one of the first major split within the church was not about Jesus but about Mary.

Some said, "Mary is the Mother of God" while the other said "Mary was the Bearer of God". So, the question of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin was a function of which school you belonged to.

Now, my point is any tradition which runs contrary to plain scriptural teachings should not be encouraged. If you look at the theory of perpetual virginity, there isnt one scripture which seems to support it. Instead, whether you believe it or not, there are scriptures which suggests otherwise.

The theory of perpetual virginity of Mary stems from the notion that sex is unholy therefore, it would be unthinkable that the Holy Mary was subject to feelings of mere mortals.

Interestingly, Mary wasnt chosen by God because she was a Virgin (for there were thousands of virgins in Israel), it wasn't because she was the most Holy (for there were many Holy Virgins who were not descendants of David).

Now, Mary was engaged to be Married to Joseph (and sex was to be part of the union) else, Joseph would not have contemplated divorcing her.

Don't also forget that there were other traditions that smuggled them self into the believe system of some Christians eg. Purchase of Indulgence and Purgatory, which has no basis in the Bible.

shadeyinka:


When you read in context, the two scriptures can mean nothing other than the blood brothers of Jesus (son of Mary and Joseph).

James was a very common name in Israel and the fact that sisters were mentioned excuses the apostles/disciples.


Paul writing in Galatians sad that he did not see any of the apostles (he mentioned Peter by name, NOT as on of the Lords brothers) but specifically he mentioned James the Lords brother (different from the class of Peter).

James obviously believed in Jesus after His resurrection and was one of the leaders of the early church.



Scriptures are documents written with the inspiration of God for the edification, teaching, warning and admonition of the elect of God. However, not just any of such are classed as scriptures.

What context?

The verse clearly said " but i did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother"

How does the above seperate hom from the category of the apostles?

Sex is NEVER an unholy act since God created us that we my love Him and multiply the earth. WITH this I don't see sex as unholy in any way. It is unholy for people who indulge in it outside of marriage.

shadeyinka:



The theory of perpetual virginity of Mary stems from the notion that sex is unholy therefore, it would be unthinkable that the Holy Mary was subject to feelings of mere mortals.

FMary:
Sex is NEVER an unholy act since God created us that we my love Him and multiply the earth. WITH this I don't see sex as unholy in any way. It is unholy for people who indulge in it outside of marriage.

I am happy you agree with this. This means that it is NOT demeaning for Mary to have sex after the Birth of Jesus with her husband Joseph.

Except we can find evidence where Joseph is instructed to look but not touch Mary his wife.

I do respect Mary, but you see that even in the New Testament, she wasn't idolized.

SalC:


What context?


The verse clearly said " but i did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother"

How does the above seperate hom from the category of the apostles?

Who do you think are the Sisters of Jesus? If the brothers are apostles, what then are the sisters?

If Paul had referred to Peter as the Lords brother, then we have every reason to believe that James was just another apostle.

James the brother of Jesus was obviously not an apostle but one of the respected leaders of the early church.

shadeyinka:


Who do you think are the Sisters of Jesus? If the brothers are apostles, what then are the sisters?

If Paul had referred to Peter as the Lords brother, then we have every reason to believe that James was just another apostle.

James the brother of Jesus was obviously not an apostle but one of the respected leaders of the early church.

Though Jesus referred to the apostles and by extension his disciples as his brothers in John 20:17-18, i don't remember telling you that Jesus' brothers means his apostles, so the idea of Paul not calling Peter the Lord's brother shouldn't come in.

Paul was simply telling us the apostles he saw, He saw only two apostles, Peter and James the Lord's brother.

I don't know "what" Jesus' sisters are except that they are his adelphes.

MrMontella:

let me help you...
Cc syncan
italo
ubendictus...
Would like to see syncan's reply on this tho..


I think the bible supports their position tho...but i dont think its possible in a real life setting...

The person you are trying to help is too proud. What he needs first is humility.
"God resists the arrogant, but he gives grace to the humble." James 4:6.

SalC:


Though Jesus referred to the apostles and by extension his disciples as his brothers in John 20:17-18, i don't remember telling you that Jesus' brothers means his apostles, so the idea of Paul not calling Peter the Lord's brother shouldn't come in.

Paul was simply telling us the apostles he saw, He saw only two apostles, Peter and James the Lord's brother.

I don't know "what" Jesus' sisters are except that they are his adelphes.

Except you clearly define other definition for "Brothers", it can only mean either Apostles or Disciples (of course not all disciples became apostles)

I just found a scripture I've been looking for that will clarify the issue of brothers meaning disciples/apostles and that is

John 7:5
5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Substitution of the word brothers with disciples or apostles changes the meaning. Compared with other scriptures, it can be seen that the blessed Mary had other Children.

Of course, James was also an apostle in the early church (as different from James the disciple). James was also called James the Just. He was martyred about 62AD. He had so much influence over the disciples.

The resurrection of Jesus turned both James and Jude into believers.

shadeyinka:


Except you clearly define other definition for "Brothers", it can only mean either Apostles or Disciples (of course not all disciples became apostles)

I just found a scripture I've been looking for that will clarify the issue of brothers meaning disciples/apostles and that is



Substitution of the word brothers with disciples or apostles changes the meaning. Compared with other scriptures, it can be seen that the blessed Mary had other Children.

Of course, James was also an apostle in the early church (as different from James the disciple). James was also called James the Just. He was martyred about 62AD. He had so much influence over the disciples.

The resurrection of Jesus turned both James and Jude into believers.

Right now i don't know if you are arguing against what i wrote or yourself.

Adelphos which was translated to brothers in the verses you quoted can be blood brothers, cousins, relatives or even kinsmen.

Following other verses we can establish that James and Joseph were his cousins and their mother is the other Mary whom the bible referred to as Mary the mother of James and Joseph, who happened to be the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.

I see you are going a bit extra- biblical

And errm Jude introduced himslf as Jude the servant of Jesus and the brother of James..
Seems he was quick to forget he was the brother of Jesus but he remembered he was James' brother

SalC:
Right now i don't know if you are arguing against what i wrote or yourself.

Adelphos which was translated to brothers in the verses you quoted can be blood brothers, cousins, relatives or even kinsmen.

Following other verses we can establish that James and Joseph were his cousins and their mother is the other Mary whom the bible referred to as Mary the mother of James and Joseph, who happened to be the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus.

I see you are going a bit extra- biblical

And errm Jude introduced himslf as Jude the servant of Jesus and the brother of James..
Seems he was quick to forget he was the brother of Jesus but he remembered he was James' brother

Putting it it context, it has an obvious meaning: blood brothers (sisters clarifies it). After all, the word cousin exists in the new testament.

Wasn't Elizabeth and Mary cousins?

Luke 1:36
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

If you note carefully, in those days, that was a writing style to show humility. Jude a servant of the exalted christ/ the anointed one. Why brother of James? James needed no introduction (as a brother of Christ)

shadeyinka:


Putting it it context, it has an obvious meaning: blood brothers (sisters clarifies it). After all, the word cousin exists in the new testament.

Wasn't Elizabeth and Mary cousins?



If you note carefully, in those days, that was a writing style to show humility. Jude a servant of the exalted christ/ the anointed one. Why brother of James? James needed no introduction (as a brother of Christ)

The word translated to mean sisters is adelphes which in itself has a wide range of meanings beyond blood sisters so that is never a proof.

Are you intentionally leaving the other Mary the mother of James and Joseph?
The relationship between these people and Jesus is there for all to see.