It is obvious that within the context of the verses I pointed out that the the plain meaning of the verses was that they were his brothers.
The context in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 shows that the definition “kinsman/relative” of the Koine Greek word “ἀδελφοί” (adelphoi/brothers) used in those verses applies.
Where you err is…
(I) assuming that Jesus’s brothers in those verses were His siblings when the definition “kinsman/relative” can refer to not only siblings, but also cousins, nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, etc. Therefore, one needs more to go on before determining which type of kinsmen/relatives they were.
(II) ignoring that in all of the New Testament only Jesus is called the son of Joseph and Mary (Matt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3), as well as the scriptural verses and crossover agreement between all my sources (early Christian Church Fathers), that collectively confirm that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were Jesus’s brothers as in “kinsmen/relatives”, by showing that they were the sons of Jesus’s uncle and aunt, and thus His cousins.
The Bible doesn’t say “kinsman/relatives”. The bible says :“brothers”. Brothers means brothers. Have you ever taken an I.Q. test?
You people here desperately need to do some serious research and learning about all of this. Your level of knowledge and intellectual prowess is on the level of an adolescent catholic high school student.
Have you ever taken a language class? I’m asking in all seriousness, because you’re saying things that demonstrate you haven’t. Here’s a mini lesson:
A “word” means “a single distinct meaningful element of speech or writing, used with others (or sometimes alone) to form a sentence and typically shown with a space on either side when written or printed”. An example of a word in a langauge called Koine Greek is "ἀδελφοί” (adelphoi), and is translated as “brothers” in English (no, this isn’t the same as a definition).
A “definition” means “what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action”. The following are definitions of the Koine Greek word "ἀδελφοί” (adelphoi/brothers): "fellow-countryman,” “disciple/follower,” “one of the same faith,” and “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative,” e.g., sibling, nephew, niece, uncle, aunt, cousin, etc.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, and the Koine Greek word above is used in Matt. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3. How do we know which of its definitions above applies in those verses? Well, we look at what is known as “context”, which means “the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed”. The context of the aforementioned verses indicates that the definition “kinsman/kinswoman, or relative” applies, and this broad familial definition can refer to not only siblings, but also nephews, nieces, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. Therefore, one needs to determine which type of family members Jesus’s brothers were to Him. I’ve already done that for you in previous posts, where I’ve provided scriptural verses, early Church father writings, and others that show Jesus’s brothers Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas were the sons of His uncle and aunt, and thus His cousins.
It is my opinion that the catholic obsession with sex is the reason for the church’s insistence that Mary was a “perpetual virgin”. Sex is sinful. Sex is immoral. Sex is unholy. This sad and pathetic mentality has been responsible for people like Soul who is proud of the fact that she has been abstinent and sexless for all these years.
No man in his right mind would want a woman like her. She will die single and alone secure in the belief that her sexlessness has guaranteed her a place in heaven.
When one can’t speak the truth, they can only speak lies, as you have just done. Satan is the father of lies (Jn. 8:44). God doesn’t create anything evil, and thus intercourse in and of itself isn’t sinful, immoral, or unholy. What’s sinful, immoral, and unholy is disobeying God, and one disobeys God in many ways, for example, by making a natural and supernatural law an immoral act by deforming its purpose.
A man not in his right mind wouldn’t want, nor want a woman, to have intercourse in holiness, and for the purpose it’s intended for, because such a man wouldn’t have a mind of God.
Sorry but it seems to me, now, that you are just here to be argumentative and not to be accepting of what folks are trying to tell you.
I am sorry that you don’t like or accept the Church’s teachings. You are free to do as you please. I hope that you will spend time with a priest and do what he tells you that you must do in your situation even if it’s extraordinarily difficult and not what you want to hear.
I did talk to our parish priest. He was surprisingly understanding after I explained my wife’s condition and prognosis. He did not “tell me what I must do”. In fact the opposite. He said that I am the only one qualified to make this decision and that whatever I decided we would be welcome in the congregation and no more questions would be asked.
I’m doubtful that a priest said that because, for example, a priest wouldn’t and shouldn’t leave God out of the conversation. And, if you have a problem with being told what should and shouldn’t be done, then what do you think of God and His commandments??
Your dilemma isn’t “My wife and I want children, but another pregnancy could be fatal for her, what do we do?”, but rather “Another pregnancy could be fatal for my wife, so we want to refuse children, and not by killing them, but we don’t want to refuse pleasure. So, should we get a vasectomy or tube ligation?”
Well, God’s answer is this: Neither of those. If because of illness or imperfections, it is advisable or permissible not to have children, people must then manage to be continent and deprive themselves of the sterile satisfactions which are nothing but sensual pleasure. If, on the other hand, no obstacle to procreation intervenes, why do you make a natural and supernatural law an immoral act by deforming its purpose?
What does the Bible say is the “pillar” and “bulwark” of truth?
Jesus did not come to earth to hand out Bibles. He founded a Church in the Apostles and breathed onto them the authority & responsibility to share and protect the truth (Jon 20:22-23; Acts 2; Matthew 16:18-19).
Why do you believe in the validity of the Bible? The Church teaches that it is the “inspired word of God” (CCC 135). If you think the Church is wrong about matters that you find insignificant, then why would you believe the Church when she says that the Bible is the inspired word of God?
The canon of the Bible was affirmed by the Council of Rome (382 AD), the Synod of Hippo (393 AD), the Councils of Carthage (397 AD & 419 AD), the Council of Florence (1431-1449 AD) and finally, as an article of faith, by the Council of Trent (1545-1563 AD).
The Bible is a Catholic Book. The Apostles, who’s authority given them, talked about in their letters, has been passed on to their successors.
We have the writings of some of the successors of the Apostles. You can read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and Councils. You can read how some of the Early Christians worshiped & taught (read “The Didache,” which means teachings of the Apostles). We have the Book of Acts that describes the early Church.
You can frame it as “The Church vs. The Bible,” but the reality is, “The Bible and the Church” are of God and part of the Deposit of Faith. It is your interpretation of the Bible vs. the Authority of Christ’s Church’s interpretation.
“But if I [referring to St. Paul] should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the ‘pillar’ and ‘bulwark’ of truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2 Thes. 2:15).
It does not say that DavidHarper is the pillar and bulwark of truth, nor does St. Paul say to hold fast to the traditions of DavidHarper taught by him orally or by a forum post of his ; )
1 Like
St. Paul never knew Jesus. He never saw Jesus. He never heard a single thing that Jesus said. Everything he wrote was a product of his own imagination. I’m asking myself why I continue this discourse in the face of the same stubborn stupidity that Iv’e experienced all my life from the church. You people don’t know anything. You’ve never taken the time or invested the energy to research and learn anything of the facts about Jesus and the bible. All you know is catholic “teaching”. The only reason I’m still here is because I despise ignorance and I feel determined to tell the truth. Your inferior and childish religion isn’t good enough for me. I need a better god than yours.
Peace to all,
Peace always,
Stephen
You didn’t answer my question(s). I guess I will read between the lines since you won’t give me a direct answer. You believe the Old Testament to be inspired and some of the New Testament, but none of St. Paul’s writings. Am I interpreting what you believe about the Bible?
As far as St. Paul not knowing Jesus, he encountered the Risen Christ on the road to Damascus. Jesus chose Paul, originally known as Saul of Tarsus, to be an Apostle.
A quick update. I recieved a vasectomy last week. It was an outpatient procedure and was very quick and painless. The psychological fear of it was greater than the procedure warranted. I’ve now joined the ranks of over a million catholic men who have gotten a vasectomy. It’s the best decision I ever made. My wife and I no longer have to worry about unintended pregnancy. Thank god we now live in an age that has outgrown the ignorant and childish beliefs of the past. I am now very happily “broken”.
Some say the same about abortion. Sad 
The right thing is usually the hard thing and the wrong thing is often the easy thing. If we base all of our decisions on what is quick and easy, we become disordered.
1 Like
So, you’ve chosen self-will and sensuality over obeying God’s will and holiness. Satan would want you to think that’s “the best decision you’ve ever made”.
1 Like
You have no idea what “God’s will and holiness” is. Everything you think and say is an excuse or rationalization for your own pathetic sexual inadequacy and failure.
I think your reply above is uncalled for, David. You are the one who started this discussion asking for opinions and thoughts. You argue with anyone who doesn’t agree with your premise (which is that you want to continue having relations not to create life, but for pleasure, and also prevent pregnancy). I’m not going to judge you on that, but in my case I felt I needed to confess having had a vasectomy (decades before becoming Catholic and understanding that contraception is a mortal sin) to the Lord. Also I ceased all sexual activity at the time I made the decision to become a Catholic. Those are things I strongly felt I needed to do.
I appreciate your candidness. It is not easy to share our faults and poor choices in our life.
I have to push-back a little (and maybe we agree), but pleasure is a part of the Marital act and is not a bad thing. But, as I think you were saying, if we are participating in the Marital act and not open to the possibility of life, then I agree that it is sinful.
But, if one does not only have to participate in the Marital act only to create life (for this would be separating the unitive from the procreative).
Getting broken is the reverse of this (separating the procreative from the unitive) is also disordered and sinful.
Have you ever considered getting a reversal? A friend of mine’s brother got a vasectomy prior to getting Married and never told his Wife who wanted to have children. He did ultimately go have the surgery to get it reversed and they had a beautiful little girl. I do not know if he ever told her, which is an entire different topic we can have.
What does your Wife say about your decision not to be intimate (honoring God’s design and her soul really)? Is she understanding or does it cause resentment in your Marriage?
No judgement on my part, but I think if I were in your situation, I would get the reversal and restore the unitive and the procreative aspects of this gift that I had (out of ignorance) broken apart. Thank you again for sharing. I think it could help someone else who comes across this thread. And thank you @DavidHarper for bringing up the topic.