Evidence for God from Science

JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?

OK... maybe someone will tell me what I'm missing here; Mat 1:25-and he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstbornson and he called his name Jesus and Lk 2:7...and she brought forth her firstborn son...

The greek word prototokos is used only in Rom.8:29, Col. 1:15-18, Heb 1:6, 11:28, 12:23,and Rev 1:5.Had HE been Mary's only son wouldn't the word have been monogenes?
Ref KJV Dake.

Cross.eyed wrote:

JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?

OK... maybe someone will tell me what I'm missing here; Mat 1:25-and he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstbornson and he called his name Jesus and Lk 2:7...and she brought forth her firstborn son...

The greek word prototokos is used only in Rom.8:29, Col. 1:15-18, Heb 1:6, 11:28, 12:23,and Rev 1:5.Had HE been Mary's only son wouldn't the word have been monogenes?
Ref KJV Dake.

While firstborn can certainly mean the first born male in a family, 1) it does not necessarily follow that there were other siblings, it's a title given to all first born males, and 2) it implies more than just a position of birth, it also implies preeminence, which is the more likely reason why he was called the firstborn.

Byblos wrote:

Cross.eyed wrote:

JCSx2 wrote:Did Jesus have brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary after his birth? If so where is it recorded?

OK... maybe someone will tell me what I'm missing here; Mat 1:25-and he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstbornson and he called his name Jesus and Lk 2:7...and she brought forth her firstborn son...

The greek word prototokos is used only in Rom.8:29, Col. 1:15-18, Heb 1:6, 11:28, 12:23,and Rev 1:5.Had HE been Mary's only son wouldn't the word have been monogenes?
Ref KJV Dake.

While firstborn can certainly mean the first born male in a family, 1) it does not necessarily follow that there were other siblings, it's a title given to all first born males, and 2) it implies more than just a position of birth, it also implies preeminence, which is the more likely reason why he was called the firstborn.

That's true. By the same token, it in itself doesn't imply there were no other children either.

The term "brethren" (Adelphos) is used many, many times in the Bible to indicate other than siblings. There's no reason why it should be taken as such with reference to Jesus' brothers. They could just as well be either his cousins or brothers and sisters by marriage (Joseph's from a different marriage).

Exactly, and by the same token they could just as easily be His true brothers and sisters. However, they would still only be Jesus' half brother and sisters...since Joseph had no part in Mary's conception of Jesus. Having said all that, if it turns out I'm wrong, it really doesn't make any difference to me in the whole scheme of things.

Bart, FFC

Agreed on both counts.

since the bible seems to be so big on genealogies

OK I realize I have butchered out only section of the previous comment But my question is on genealogies.

Isn't the main reason for the genealogies to show the blood line from Adam, to Jesus?

So having said that I think the Bible isn't really big on genealogies, just a specific one.

(yea this is a bit off topic)

JCSx2 wrote:

since the bible seems to be so big on genealogies

OK I realize I have butchered out only section of the previous comment But my question is on genealogies.

Isn't the main reason for the genealogies to show the blood line from Adam, to Jesus?

So having said that I think the Bible isn't really big on genealogies, just a specific one.

(yea this is a bit off topic)

Genealogies are a big deal in the Bible in large part because they are a big deal to the Jewish Nation. The covenant God had with them was extended to the descendents of Abraham and then subsequently narrowed over time to specific branches. Because that was the basis of the covenant, tracking descent was very important culturally and religiously to the national of Israel and you can't separate that from the Bible as that was the context of the nation to which it was originally given.

Why are we debating the fact that Jesus had any Siblings - wasn't James his brother?

Silvertusk wrote:Why are we debating the fact that Jesus had any Siblings - wasn't James his brother?

Because it's a moot point?

Mary did not remain a virgin.She was very human and not supernatural.Note how she is addressed by the angel,'Hail Oh favored one...'.She was righteous not from her birth but by choice of way of life.God created everyone with the tendency to sin or not as one chooses.Not one was created with a fixed destiny.

oscarsiziba wrote:Mary did not remain a virgin.She was very human and not supernatural.Note how she is addressed by the angel,'Hail Oh favored one...'.She was righteous not from her birth but by choice of way of life.God created everyone with the tendency to sin or not as one chooses.Not one was created with a fixed destiny.

I gather you're not Catholic?

Well the denomination I attend is catholic(universal),but we practice what the Bible says.To say that Jesus was not the firstborn sort of creates a brush with the Bible-how then would the virgin concept apply in relation to the birth of Jesus?Yes,siblings He had and that is indubitable.

oscarsiziba wrote:Well the denomination I attend is catholic(universal),but we practice what the Bible says.

Yep, sounds about right for me too.

oscarsiziba wrote:To say that Jesus was not the firstborn sort of creates a brush with the Bible-how then would the virgin concept apply in relation to the birth of Jesus?

Huh? No clue what you're talking about. Whoever said Jesus is not the first born? You just attribute meaning to the term first born that may not necessarily be accurate. I think I've adequately covered that.

oscarsiziba wrote:Yes,siblings He had and that is indubitable.

Well in that case I will have no more to say on the subject (that I haven't already said of course) .

oscarsiziba wrote:To say that Jesus was not the firstborn sort of creates a brush with the Bible-how then would the virgin concept apply in relation to the birth of Jesus?

Huh? No clue what you're talking about. Whoever said Jesus is not the first born? You just attribute meaning to the term first born that may not necessarily be accurate. I think I've adequately covered that.

I was only emphasizing fact that ,and asking too,if Jesus was say, the second born in the family(of course being the first to the boys,would it mean that his mother had to have her virginity restored(after she had given birth to 1 or 2 children that preceded Jesus) so as to fulfill the prophecy of a virgin birth?If that does not sound sensible, then he was the first,indeed ,first born of all the children in his family.God bless

I just happen to stumble onto this while studying another subject;

Mat 13:55-Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his Mother called Mary? And his brethren James and Joses and Simon and Judas?
13:56-And his sisters, are they not all with us...