Was Jesus an Only Child? w/ Tim Staples

[@emilyharrison631]

I always love how happy and exited Tim Staples is to answer a question

[@bincyxavier3495]

Brother this video was a answer to my prayer. Thank you for the video.. 👍

[@teodormajewski3566]

Wow U'r obviously a brother of Matt Fradd! :-P

[@Hamann9631]

I recommend you pray to God. If this answered a prayer it answered by giving you a false doctrine. God wouldn't give false doctrine to you.

[@calebnwafor2549]

​@@Hamann9631 Or you don't have the right doctrine.

[@shell..47]

Me too!!

[@JohnShaw]

Love your channel! Thank you for sharing your videos!

[@MystoRobot]

I remember Epiphanius in his Panarion _(early 300's);_ the guy was PISSED at anyone who dared suggest that Mary had other children.

[@catholicrugbyfan1635]

Hi Matt just came across your channel, awesome.. have just subscribed. Have you done a video on the Saints? I love the Communion of Saints. GOD bless!

[@nicolettelindsey6902]

Love these quick clips. Great channel.

[@soulosxpiotov7280]

Justification and Luke 18 is considerably more important, since with a wrong understanding people end up in the Lake of Fire. Whether Mary had children or not is tertiary.

[@jannmutube]

----> Some people will try to claim that the brothers of Jesus inherited divinity from Mary like some do with King David. 1) The Lord Jesus, The Holy One, became the father of David by God's decree, the firstborn in the line of David. Firstborn means the "first in authority" in the line of David and in all things within creation (Romans 8: 28). In Psalm 2: 6-7 David would not be the Lord's king. Some try to say this is prophecy about David becoming the son of God but David was already a son of God from Israel from Exodus 4: 22, . In Jewish tradition, the "firstborn" is the "first in authority" in a family and not necessarily one born first. This is what is meant by "the flesh". And since he is the risen Lord, he is David's King and the true King of Zion for ever more..... The holy hill of Zion is a reference to Christ's sacrifice, the fulfillment of God's promise of salvation.. . .. John 19: 17-27, Matthew 22: 41-45 . 2) Jesus could not be half from Adam who fell. Without sin must, necessarily, mean without original sin because the purpose of his death and resurrection, (foreshadowed with Isaac) was, first and foremost, to overcome original sin; to pay the price himself for his judgment against us. He did for us what we could not do for our self. (1 Corinthians 15: 45-48, Deuteronomy 17: 1 , The Lord Jesus said he was NOT of this world (John 8: 23).. The Promised Seed was the Word of God (Luke 8: 11). God provided the full seed not just a Y chromosome. (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 6: 13 -7: 24 .... Hebrews 7: 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually".

[@PedroAntonioLea-PlazaPuig]

To the people disappointed with the argument: the idea is to show that the doctrine of perpetual virginity is not contrary to the Bible. The idea is NOT to demonstrate that the doctrine is true.

[@Proximityillusions]

Nevertheless, on both it fails.

[@Mila-kz8tt]

@@Proximityillusions How ?

[@Proximityillusions]

@@Mila-kz8tt the Bible says that Mary had not known a man before she conceived Jesus (virgin) and that she had children after her marriage with Joseph (Jesus had at least six half siblings).

[@Mila-kz8tt]

@@Proximityillusions where it says about six children after Jesus ?

[@Proximityillusions]

@@Mila-kz8tt Matthew 16. “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 as well?”

[@dharteetops5759]

It doesn't matter if Jesus had siblings or not. If Mary had other children so what? It is not like God forbid Joseph and Mary to have more children. They were married people so they had every right.

[@spongebobseyelashes8548]

Masterclass in clarity, love it

[@GalaxiaTokyo]

The Mary mentioned as the mother of James in Matthew 27:56 isn't necessarily the mother of James brother of Jesus, because in Mark 15:40 it says: "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome," so this James is most probably the youngest of the two apostles called James. And it seems to me that saying that James the Less and James Brother of Jesus are the same person is a convenient fix without any real foundation. 1 Corinthians 15 states in regards to the resurrection of Christ: "5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born." Which seems to imply clearly that this James (the Brother of the Lord) wasn't one of the original apostles, so he's not James the Less.

[@tryhardf844]

In the original Greek the words used are adelphoi "(brothers") and adelphe ("sisters"). The words adelphoi and adelphe can refer to real brothers. However, the Bible also uses these words to describe people who are not brothers, but cousins ​​or relatives or close neighbors. Jesus himself has said that those who follow him are his "brothers"

[@Justas399]

@@tryhardf844 When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 and John 1:40. There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.

[@tryhardf844]

@@Justas399 This Greek translation of the Old Testament, the seventieth, is quoted about 300 times by inspired New Testament writers. That means that the New Testament writers accepted the seventieth. In the seventieth, the same Greek word adelphos is used to describe Lot as Abraham's brother. Adelphos is the singular of adelphoi, the word used in the New Testament for the "brothers" of Jesus. Therefore, the Old Testament uses adelphos to describe someone who is not literally a brother. But the point can also be proved in the New Testament. In Acts 3, 17 and Romans 9, 3 we see that adelphoi (brothers) is used to describe people of the same nationality who are not brothers. Consider these verses to top off the Protestants' argument about it. On the other hand, in Luke 10, 29, and Matthew 5, 22, we see that adelphos ("brother") is used to refer to the neighbor, not necessarily the brother. The number of Jesus' "brothers" ( adelphoi ) mentioned in the Bible seems to indicate that some of them were not even relatives by extension, but were considered part of the family in another way. If at least one or some of them were not cousins, but more extended relatives or neighbors or close friends of the family, then the word adelphoi would have been used . Therefore, the fact that the word cousin has not been used in no way proves that Mary had other children. [1/2]

[@tryhardf844]

@@Justas399 There were three women at the foot of the cross: 1) the Blessed Virgin Mary (the mother of Jesus), 2) Mary, the wife of Cleopas (who is said to be the sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary), and 3) Mary Magdalene. John 19, 25: "They were next to the cross of Jesus [1] his Mother and his Mother's sister, [2] Maria de Cleofás and [3] María Magdalena". Mary, the wife of Cleopas, is also described as "the other Mary", in Matthew 28, 1. The Bible tells us that James and Joseph are the children of this Mary: Matthew 27, 56: "Among them Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee." Therefore, James and Joseph (who are called "brothers" of Jesus) are not his brothers, but at least his cousins. However, they are probably not even first cousins. This is because Mary of Cleopas (the mother of James and Joseph), who is said to be the "sister" of the mother of Jesus (John 19:25), is also called Mary. It is highly unlikely that two sisters from a Hebrew family are given the same name. Most likely, they were not sisters, but members of the same clan, who are called "sisters" in the same way that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas were called "brothers" of Jesus. John 19, 26-27: “Jesus, seeing his mother and the disciple whom he loved, who was there, said to the mother: Woman, behold your son. Then he said to the disciple: Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple [Juan] received her in his house ”. Scholars point out that this was a formal custody order (Gerry Matatics, Op. Cit. ). Jesus entrusted his mother to Saint John so that he could take care of her. If Mary had had other children, as the Protestants maintain, Jesus would not have told Saint John to take Mary as her mother. She would have been placed in the care of one of her many "brothers". The fact that Jesus has entrusted Mary to Saint John shows that he had no other children. Protestants try to answer this by arguing that Jesus' "brothers" were not believers, and that is why Jesus entrusted her to Saint John. However, this is refuted by Acts 1, 14. There it is indicated that Jesus' "brothers" were believers. Jesus certainly knew that they were or would become believers and, therefore, He would not have entrusted her to Saint John if they were his brothers. It is also very significant that when Jesus was found in the temple at 12 years of age, there is no indication that Mary and Joseph had other children (Luke 2: 41-51). That indicates that He was an only child. He is also designated as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6, 3), not as a son of Mary. Not once is it said that Mary had other children.

[@Justas399]

@@tryhardf844 Matthew 4:18 says that Peter and Andrew were brothers. Do you believe they were actually cousins? The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 and John 1:40. There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.

[@debbiegraham5585]

Thank you, Matt, Tim

[@meltingpopsicle5842]

But the purpose for which she was consecrated was fulfilled once she gave birth to Jesus... or at least fulfilling would not have been prevented by her having another child...

[@thebiblicalfaith8054]

Thanks for the video and thank you Mr Staples for your explanation. I had a look at Calvin’s commentary on Galatians, and though what you said about Galatians 1:19 was a possibility, when read in context Calvin’s point is not about Mary’s perpetual virginity, but his desire to make the James mentioned one of the disciples. The verse reads, ‘I did not see any of the apostles except James, brother of our Lord Jesus.’ As I said it is possible that Calvin could be implying Mary’s perpetual virginity at this point in his commentary, but he doesn’t say it explicitly. Calvin appears to want to make Paul’s words ironclad, because Paul says that he saw none of the apostles except James. As Paul was referring to the apostles, Calvin clearly thinks that Paul believes this James to be an apostle. I think Calvin was wrong here. I think the language is perfectly clear, he saw none of the apostles except Peter and James. Though referencing James, this does not necessarily refer to him being explicitly of the twelve, as we would use language in exactly the same way for convenience. If Paul meant James son of Alpheus, why did he not reference him this way? Why mention explicitly that he was the LORD’S brother? I am not saying that you are wrong, but that Calvin doesn’t necessarily back you on this point. Concerning Mark 3 your argument about brother not necessarily referring to a flesh brother, though possible, you are reading your presupposition of Mary’s perpetual virginity into the text. I think your argument from Mark 3 is particularly weak, as the reading of a fleshly set of brothers makes far more sense in context. I am not saying definitively that you are wrong, as I have not read your book. But on the presentation of this brief argument in the video, and I think you are reading into the Calvin’s Galatian commentary what you hope is there, I’m not convinced. Anyway thank you for your work and the video, it was very good to learn what you believe and understand it even briefly from your perspective. In Christ, Adam.

[@ramezaziz2336]

Jesus has loads of brothers. We call them the poor.

[@joefear]

And mothers too I guess... those who does THE FATHER's WILL (Mat 12:46-50)

[@qualitypaversinc]

The early church understood and accepted that Mother Mary was a Virgin. If Mary had more children why did Jesus, as hes dying on the cross, entrust his mother to John his beloved deciple. If Jesus had all these brothers and sisters as people try and say there would be no need for him to do that. Also in scripture sometimes when people are mentioned as brother doesnt automatically imply blood. Abraham calls his brother Lot and we know that is his cousin. Brother is used as relative. Also if your ever in Mexico City. Check out the Virgin de Guadalupe miracle in that city it will blow your mind

[@theupsidedownminddickens7242]

Well where were his brothers at the cross? Nowhere? Oh ok then. I guess that narrows down the field. He left his mother to his faithful follower, not his faithless blood.

[@qualitypaversinc]

​@@theupsidedownminddickens7242Mary only Had Jesus. Everyone believed this. Even the first protestants Luther and Calvin agreed that Jesus was an only child and believed in the Ever Virgin Mary.

[@theupsidedownminddickens7242]

@@qualitypaversinc what? Calvin and Luther? Oh that changes everything. It's not like they were brought up from birth believing that. Oh wait. Sorry. Constant obsessions and stretches like this is what sent me to Anglican over Rome. "Those that do the will of my Father are my mothers and brothers."

[@qualitypaversinc]

Theupsidedown- glad to hear brother. God bless the Catholic Church, mother Mary, the Archangel Micheal and all the saints in heaven.

[@katiehav1209]

They kept asking for a scripture so i found two prophetic in the OT that are pretty clear and prove biblically by direct quotes, that Mary didnt have other children. Proverbs 4 1 Hear, O sons, a father’s instruction, and be attentive, that you may gain insight, 2 for I give you good precepts; do not forsake my teaching. 3 When I was a son with my father, tender, THE ONLY ONE IN THE SIGHT OF MY MOTHER, 4 he taught me and said to me, “Let your heart hold fast my words; keep my commandments, and live. ------ And this was has a pieced heart reference that if you think through that Mary was pierced in heart at the cross has profound depth to think about Zechariah 12 10 “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an ONLY CHILD, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a FIRSTBORN.

[@annakisakye32]

Seriously? He looked at me like the only child? Solomon became king after his father David? Ofcourse David paid attention to him...

[@katiehav1209]

@@annakisakye32 Solomon wasn't an only son to his mother. He was actually a 2nd son. Usually a mother doesn't forget a child they lose. And scripture is prophetic in nature. And i showed two scriptures. You seem to have ignored the other. Prov 4 3 When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only son in the sight of my mother,

[@nickhanley5407]

Did you know we found James’ casket (or ossuary) and on it it says “James, Son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”? There’s some pretty good proof outside the Bible for all you people. And it’s practically undeniable unless you like your traditions more than truth.

[@kdmdlo]

Yes, this has been floated as "evidence" for the fact that Mary didn't remain a virgin throughout her life. However, a couple of things are worth noting that undermine this argument. First, "brother" can mean any number of things in Aramaic; it can mean literal blood-brother. It can also mean step-brother or cousin. This is the same issue that comes up in the text of Mark 6 and Matthew 13. So, even presuming that the ossuary contains the remains of James the Just (which is far from certain), it doesn't produce any new arguments that claim to refute Mary's perpetual virginity then already exists in the gospels. In other words, "nothing new to see here." Second, the ossuary in question contains two different engravings made at two different times. The first simply says, "James, son of Joseph". As these were common names ... this could be anybody. The second, made in entirely different script quite sometimes later, added the "brother of Jesus". This, of course, begs the question: was this addition made to enable relic fraud? There was good money in such fraud in the early Church and, so, this was entirely possible. Third, St. Jerome was emphatic that James the Just's burial place was near the temple and was very clearly marked (see his "On Illustrious Men 2"). This early Church father's assertions undermines the veracity of the claims of this ossuary to contain the remains of James the Just. In short, there's nothing new here (if it truly his ossuary) ... though there is serious questions regarding these "relics".

[@shell..47]

Thank you. I needed this.

[@EternalSeraphim73]

One of the best arguments for Mary’s perpetual virginity is her response to the angel Gabriel; she responded “how can she have a child if she was a virgin?”. If a woman were told of a prophecy of them getting pregnant they would ask “when or with whom?” not “how if I am a virgin?” unless they plan on staying a virgin for life.

[@AFR0MAMBA]

Respectfully, that’s a bit of a reach

[@EternalSeraphim73]

@@AFR0MAMBA lol how is that?

[@Hamann9631]

8:40. Those could be 2 different Jameses. There is no middle name, last name, or date of birth to give us more details.

[@protochris]

There's two James given for Jesus' apostles; James the son of Zebedee, and James the less (small James).

[@Justas399]

Here is how we know she had other children of her own after Jesus was born: When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; Galatians 1:19 The same word for brothers in Matthew 13:55 is the same word used for brothers of Peter and Andrew in Matthew 4:18 and John 1:40. There are Greek words for cousin-anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36. Never used for the brothers of Jesus.

[@ramezaziz2336]

So... Why is it that non of her own children was available to look after her and why did Jesus task John with looking after her at the cross?

[@Justas399]

@@ramezaziz2336 Could be her other sons were not aware of what was happening. The trial and crucifixion happened very fast. Her sons may not had even been in the city where this was happening.

[@matthiasalexander9921]

@@Justas399 that's a big could be

[@Justas399]

@@matthiasalexander9921 not really. It would explain why they were not there. After all, we know He had other brothers and sisters who shared the same biological mother as He did.

[@matthiasalexander9921]

@@Justas399 no because why would jesus say this is your Mother to John? He could have said please look after her until her sons return?

[@ZTAudio]

Tim goes right to the Protoevangelium of James as a source authority, failing to mention that even The Catholic Church itself does not accept that book as canonical. It was even condemned by Pope Innocent the First. Pope Gelasius later condemned it as well, and told Catholics to not even so much as read it.

[@dpunch5192]

Right?! I did a double take as soon as I heard him say that and then continue on.

[@rafaelcesar3571]

Suppose Mary remain a virgin after she give birth to Jesus Christ. Is this an attribute to idolize her? Never in the Bible that Jesus Christ encourage us to idolize her earthly mother for us to be saved.

[@katiehav1209]

Accusing idolatry is a Judgment of another's motivation. That really is not in your ability yo judge another's motive and intent.

[@jannmutube]

@@katiehav1209 ---- > Nevertheless, the "perpetual virgin" claim may have been a way to keep people from idolizing Mary and the brothers of Jesus. 1) My perspective is that Jesus could not be half from Adam who fell. Without sin must, necessarily, mean without original sin because the purpose of his death and resurrection, (foreshadowed with Isaac) was, first and foremost, to overcome original sin; to pay the price himself for his judgment against us. He did for us what we could not do for our self. (1 Corinthians 15: 45-48, Deuteronomy 17: 1) The Lord Jesus said he was NOT of this world (John 8: 23). The Promised Seed was the Word of God (Luke 8: 11). God provided the full seed not just a Y chromosome. (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 6: 13 -7: 24 .... Hebrews 7: 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually". 2) My understanding is that a virgin is also someone who has never bowed to Ba'al or a false god (1 Kings 19: 18, Romans 11: No sense in speculation. Is there any writing that says whether the brothers of Jesus were the offspring of Joseph and Mary or Joseph's offspring from a former wife? It shouldn't matter; it looks to me that God provided the full seed not just a Y chromosome.

[@csongorarpad4670]

who's telling you to idolize Saint Mary? Worshipping is not the same as idolozing and need I remind you that Our Blessed Virgin of Fatima asked us to pray the rosary daily?

[@augustvonmacksen2526]

There goes the goalpost moving again. Christ gave us Mary from the cross. You don’t have to “idolize” her but to minimize her is biblically untenable and in conflict with Church history.

[@kookoonutchim3538]

They have a great defense which actually convinced me to pray to Mary, not idolize her, but to bring me closer to Jesus. If you think about it, Mary birthed the Messiah and it has a parallel with Eve birthing Cain. If you pray to Mary with the thought of her interceding for us to Jesus then it's not idolatrous, but if you pray to her thinking she's God, then that's a sin.

[@Hamann9631]

2:40. Actually, the first christian to deny the false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary was Jesus Christ.

[@georgepierson4920]

Jesus was his own follower?

[@Hamann9631]

@@georgepierson4920 Jesus Christ believed the truth about Himself.

[@Menzobarrenza]

Welp. Looks like I have to take this Catholic doctrine seriously and actually look into it.

[@AlexS-ke4yf]

Please do, My Friend. When seeking the truth of the Faith, before I had converted to Catholicism, I never had been able to find the answers from Protestantism. The Apostolic Church had all the answers that I was searching for! God Bless You!

[@paradisecityX0]

Josephus clearly refered to James as his brother. We have to go where the evidence leads

[@isaacosahon4352]

Your evidence is the witness of one man.....Hmmmm. Especially one who is not even a follower of Jesus. By the way, Josephus got a number of stuffs wrong. So, his statement alone is not good enough as evidence.

[@jeremysmith7176]

I'm getting this from Brant Pitre's "The Jewish Jewish Roots of Mary" that the Greek word in question adelphoi could and was used as a synonymn for cousin or a close familiar relation. Josephus even the word adelphoi in this manner.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@isaacosahon4352 He also got a number of stuff right

[@jackryan7369]

Josephus is a great source for a lot of the big stuff, but he also wrote in ways to refute the divinity of Christ, as he was a Jewish historian. If you wish to look at good Christian sources on the topic, St. Jerome wrote on this in his refutation of Helvidius, St. Irenaeus wrote on this in his refutation of heresies, and St. Ignatius of Antioch, the disciple of St. John the Apostle, wrote about her virginity in his letters.

[@marcihf217]

There's a video in Spanish by a Venezuelan priest explaining the "brothers" of Jesus. He was able to show with the Bible who the parents (mother and father) of these "brothers" were and NONE were children of Mary (Jesus's mother).

[@kelvinvillegas5310]

Could you share the video here? Thanks!

[@marcihf217]

@@kelvinvillegas5310 I don't know how to share videos. I'm not tech savvy at all. 😪😥 Look up Padre Luis Toro. I can't remember if the video is called "hermanos de Jesus" or "hijos de Maria".

[@magnus8704]

I also know similar contents in Portuguese. They are way better than what's shown in this video here.

[@ThiagoCT9]

Magnus poderia me indicar esses vídeos?

[@mariemiller8740]

Traditional priests explain it really well to God bless Mary had no other children

[@joefear]

Any quotes from early Apostolic Fathers regarding Mary being perpetual virgin?

[@danieljohnas]

As being married to St. Joseph, mother Mary was under the authority of her husband as per levitical law. So as being her wife, there could be a chance they could have other children. Just a thought

[@pistum]

Yes, but the church fathers , being close to the jewish culture, saw in Mary a vow of perpetual virginity. As such, if her husband knowingly accepted it, it is valid. Numbers 30.

[@Davis_Carlton]

The whole argument about the meaning of "brothers" in entirely unconvincing. It's true that Hebrew and Aramaic don't have specific words for cousin or relative, but they did have ways in expressing the concept. The reason that we know that Lot was Abraham's nephew rather than his brother in spite of being called "adelphos" in the Greek Septuagint version of Genesis is because Lot is earlier identified as the son of Abraham's brother. The primary meaning of "adelphos" (literally from the same womb) in Greek is and remains a literal brother just as "adelphe" means sister. The New Testament is written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, and had words that do convey the relationship of cousins or kinsmen. We know that Mary and Elizabeth were cousins, not sisters because Luke uses the word suggenes (cousin/kinswoman) to describe their relationship rather than "adelphe" (sisters). This raises the question that Tim never addresses in this clip; why didn't the Evangelists describe Jesus' brothers and sisters as as cousins (suggenes) rather than using words that primarily convey that they actually were Jesus' brothers and sisters? He had the linguistic tools at his disposal, so why not use them? The word for cousin isn't limited to Luke as a Gentile third party, but are placed in the mouth of Jesus himself! "And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives (suggenes) and in his own household.'" - Mark 6:4, ESV Jesus even uses the word for brethren and cousins in parallel, making a distinction between them! "He said also to the man who had invited him, "When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers (adelphos) or your relatives (suggenes) or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid." - Luke 14:12, ESV There's no getting around this. If these words of Jesus were originally spoken in Aramaic then he must have used the standard circumlocutions in that language to convey cousin, in which case the Evangelists have faithfully translated this concept into the Greek word for cousin. The other alternative is that Jesus spoke these words in Greek, a language with which he was familiar, and his words have been recorded by the evangelists verbatim. To deny these options would imply that the inspired Evangelists mistakenly applied these words to Jesus and thus to reject the divine inspiration of the Scriptures! All of this raises the question as to why the Evangelists couldn't have simply called Jesus' brothers and sisters his cousins when they were able to easily convey that concept in the Greek and do so in describing Mary's relationship to Elizabeth. I'd love to hear Matt's insights into this question!

[@jeremysmith7176]

One counterpoint. The Nazarenes say don't we know his brothers and sisters. Jesus responds that that a prophet is not without honor except in his country or among his kin. The Greek word translated as Kin is syngeneusin, cousin would also be a good translation. In fact syngeneusin is the word the angel Gabriel uses in Luke's gospel when talking about Mary's cousin Elizabeth. It seems to me the people of Nazareth are stating themselves to be close to Jesus as they know him and his family well. Jesus then says their relationship is more distant as kinsmen and not brothers.

[@protochris]

I'm open to the doctrine of Mary's virginity, but I'm not seeing it from scripture based on your same conclusions. The circumlocutions could have easily been used, but weren't. Why were these family members "adelphoi", so close to Jesus that the travelled to Cana together. Cana was very close to Nazareth, and the thought of kinfolk attending wouldn't have stood out. There can be no question that these "adelphoi" of Jesus were part of his immediate household. The text also seems to imply they came with Mary, and not Jesus and his disciples.

[@8javed]

Wooowww! Thank you for this vid. Thank you Matt, thank you Tim. I have one wish though: In the near future could you please upload a video about whether or not Mary had siblings? Like, was Mary, the mother of James the Less, a bio sister of the Virgin Mary? Is there any remote possibility? And why is it important that Mary should be considered as an only child, if indeed she was?

[@Hamann9631]

10:00. I'm not a Calvinist so Calvin's comments aren't persuasive. Calvin's comment assumes a perfectly complete record. We don't know that.

[@hunterfortruth6036]

Amazing

[@maxstone3779]

Our of curiosity, does the answer impact anything? I have seen the argument before. But I have not understood what difference/impact the answer .makes.

[@kdmdlo]

I'm no expert. But I think statements about who and what Mary are tell us about who and what Jesus is. Mary always points to Christ. So by being the Mother of God ... means that Christ was wholly God (while also being wholly man). As a perpetual virgin, Mary is the perfected Ark of the Covenant ... indicating that Christ Himself is the covenant. He was the word and law (the perfected "tablet of the law", which would be written on men's hearts) made flesh. Truths about her tell us about Him.

[@sugansugan56]

What Joseph was celibate?

[@Fiscacondaniel]

I find the response unsatisfactory. And it's sad becuase I want so much to become catholic, but theologically is not a sound doctrine. In the beginning you quote early church fathers as if people in positions of power/fame validate divine doctrine. If I look to what pope Francis says in the daily basis that hole argument falls apart. Now the hypothesis that the word brother is used in far-distance-relative rather than close-distance-relative is based on the hypothesis that Mary is the new temple. If one doesn't believe the first the he doesn't need to believe the second. Scripture is not clear as water as to the virginity of Mary. It is not spoken anywhere in scripture aside from what catholics belive in Ezekiel.

[@Born1976]

You want to become Catholic? Should the desire not rather be to be a follower of Jesus and trusting in his finished work on the cross. Saved by grace alone and filled with the Spirit which leads to the fruit of a righteous life. Rather then sign up to a huge religion of man made traditions. You are a tree that can only bear good fruit in Christ alone. Read your Bible and pray to the Lord each day and be careful of a system of religion that has to twist scripture to justify their traditions.

[@isaacosahon4352]

The spread of information from the clergy to the laymen in the early church is not the same as it was today. Whenever the bishops and the popes want to declare or teach a dogma, it was transmitted by letters or via messengers. Some popes voices are not even heard in years. Whereas in this century, the Pope's opinion is heard on a daily basis and is broadcasted to the world with info tech. My point is this, not everything you hear from the pope is infallible. If he wants his statements to be authoritative and binding to the Church, he will let us know. And Pope Francis has rarely done this (unless you have video clips that show the contrary). That said, about the virginity of Mary, you said that it is not a theologically sound doctrine. Well, if you use the information from the bible alone, it doesn't explicitly show that Mary is a perpetual virgin. The arguments of the "Lord's brothers and sisters" won't cut it because the bible didn't mention that Mary gave birth to them. And brothers and sisters doesn't necessarily imply biological brothers and sisters. The "until" argument is not just good enough. Read through the following: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus. Matthew 1:25 RSV-CI. By your interpretation Joseph knew Mary after Jesus was born. Till I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. 1 Timothy 4:13 RSV-CI. By your interpretation, Paul is advising Timothy to stop preaching, teaching...... when he comes. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 1 Corinthians 15:25 RSV-CI. By your interpretation, Christ must stop reigning after all His enemies are under his feet. If your friend greets you with this, "God be with you till (until) we meet again". Does he/she means that God won't be with you when you all meet again? Now can you see the problem with the "until/till" argument? The word 'until' does not infallably define what happens after. You need more context for that.... What hinted my faith in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was the bible verse below: And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no husband?” Luke 1:30‭-‬31‭, ‬34 RSV-CI This brought up my question: Mary got the news that she will bear a son, but she was betrothed to Joseph. If she actually planned on having kids with him, why would she ask, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" Is it that she didn't acknowledge Joseph as her husband (unfortunately some Christians accept this)? Or is it that she has already vowed to be a virgin despite being married to Joseph? After all she was a woman under the law of Moses, who was free to obey the law in Numbers 30 concerning vows. I arrived at yes to the latter question with the unanimous statement of the early church fathers.

[@inmyhead6206]

Here is a girl that convinced lots of people that Mary was a perpetual virgin (she explains also what the Bible says): kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z5WaZaWZistjm9k

[@tryhardf844]

In the original Greek the words used are adelphoi "(brothers") and adelphe ("sisters"). The words adelphoi and adelphe can refer to real brothers. However, the Bible also uses these words to describe people who are not brothers, but cousins ​​or relatives or close neighbors.

[@psalm5188]

Astrum watch videos by Scott Hahn. He too had doubts on Marian doctrine. As a cradle Catholic I was amazed at his research and his tenacity to find the truth about Mary and the Holy Eucharist.

[@Justas399]

Matthew 13:55-56 proves Mary was not a perpetual virgin but had other children after Jesus was born.

[@bijogeojose7209]

Watch the whole video. This issue is addressed at 4:45.

[@jimmys6566]

listen to the video - are you deaf?

[@deanhardwick548]

Ancient peoples were based on tribal societies so the language of brothers is consistant. In modern America the individual is supreme, tribal is not conceived of in our modern minds. Mary is daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, spouse of the Holy Ghost so automatically turns St Joseph into a step-father an earthly protector of the child Jesus. He respects and knows that the Holy Ghost is her sole/soul spouse

[@iguesi]

John 2:16-17 And He [Jesus] said to those who sold doves, “Take these things away! Do not make My Father’s house a house of merchandise!” Then His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up.” Let's check the Messianic Psalm where this is written: Psalm 68:8-9 I have become a stranger to my brothers, And an alien to my mother’s children; Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. The Psalm stated the Messiah's mother [aka Mary] had children. Luke 2:6-7 While they were there, the time came for her to have her child, and she [Mary] gave birth to her firstborn son. If she only had one chlid, why didn't Luke write, "she gave birth to her only child"?

[@georgepierson4920]

If she had other children after Jesus, why does scripture not specifically state that those alleged brothers and sisters of Mary were also children of Mary? How is it that nobody questioned Mary's virginity until the Reformation? How is it that even the Reformers denied that Mary had other children? How is it that if she had children after Jesus, that her children, grans children, great grandchildren, et cetera, never came forth and challenged the claim that Jesus was an only child? Where are her descendants? There is no way that could have been kept a secret for thousands of years.

[@budjeansonne4482]

So you're saying that Mary was a bad Jewish wife. She, as a wife, is told in no uncertain terms that she must have sexual relations with her husband as the husband is reminded to do the same. Try reading 1 Cor. 7 sometime instead of what the catholic church tells you to read. Or you can just remain happy repeating the catholic church line. You know, thinking for yourself is really a good thing, try it sometime.

[@georgepierson4920]

Jesus said to listen to the Church and to the Apostles. You are saying not to listen.

[@budjeansonne4482]

@@georgepierson4920 Please give me the biblical citation where Jesus said to listen to the church and to the apostles. I would like to research that.

[@budjeansonne4482]

@@georgepierson4920 Please give me the biblical citations showing where Jesus said to listen to the church and the apostles, I would like to research this.

[@georgepierson4920]

Matthew 10:14 If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Matthew 18:17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax-collector. Mark 6:11 If any place will not welcome you and they refuse to hear you, as you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.’ Mark 9:7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!’ Luke 9:5 Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.’ Luke 9:35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’ Luke 10:11 “Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.” Luke 10:16 ‘Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.’ John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, Acts 13:51 So they shook the dust off their feet in protest against them, and went to Iconium.

[@astrol4b]

Couldn't the evangelist be more precise? Like x brother of Jesus son of y.

[@kbeetles]

astrol4b - you could pick up an argument with them...?

[@johnflorio3576]

Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Knox, and Henry VIII - all the founders of Protestantism - believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

[@cherokeegypsy2617]

Both “brothers” and “sisters” are given in the Greek text. How simple would it have been to just say “cousins” of Jesus? Moreso, in Luke 2:7 we clearly see a descriptive note that gives Jesus a prominence amongst Jewish families, he was the first-born male. This indicates he later had younger siblings. He was the eldest child of Mary, as she had to have had other children with her husband, Joseph. and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

[@isaacosahon4352]

First-born does not imply other kids. You are taking quite a leap with your post. Or is someone a First-born only because he has siblings? Of course not. He/she is a First born because he/she first came out of the womb of his mama.

[@jimmys6566]

This indicates nothing of the sort. First born, does not mean others were then born. The Greek is PRŌTOTOKOS, and in the Septuagint primarily concerns priority of rank, viz., he who has all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of an heir; one who enjoys a special relationship with God. It does not concern priority in time or origin. This focus continues into the time of the New Testament and so provides the most likely background to the meaning of PRŌTOTOKOS. We even see that Psalm 89:27 supports the NT use of PRŌTOTOKOS concerning Jesus as our Messianic king.

[@isaacosahon4352]

I live in a culture in Nigeria where I call my cousins my brothers and my sisters.

[@jimmys6566]

@@isaacosahon4352 and we are brothers in Christ

[@isaacosahon4352]

@@jimmys6566 That's a wonderful thought.

[@jannmutube]

---- > I don't know how this is relevant. The only reason to defend the idea of Mary being "perpetual virgin" as meaning physical abstinence is to deflect individuals who want to claim that the brothers of Jesus inherited divinity from Mary. However, in Hebrews 7: 1-3, we see that God provided the full seed.. not just a Y chromosome. 1) My perspective is that Jesus could not be half from Adam who fell. Without sin must, necessarily, mean without original sin because the purpose of his death and resurrection, (foreshadowed with Isaac) was, first and foremost, to overcome original sin; to pay the price himself for his judgment against us. He did for us what we could not do for our self. (1 Corinthians 15: 45-48, Deuteronomy 17: 1) The Lord Jesus said he was not of this world (John 8: 23). The Promised Seed was the Word of God (Luke 8: 11). God provided the full seed not just a Y chromosome. (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 6: 13 -7: 24 .... Hebrews 7: 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually". 2) My understanding is that a virgin is also someone who has never bowed to Ba'al or a false god (1 Kings 19: 18, Romans 11: 4). Speculation just makes division. Is there any writing that says whether the brothers of Jesus were the offspring of Joseph and Mary or Joseph's offspring from a former wife?

[@irreview]

Also in Genesis , Abraham is married to his sister, but later he tells the evil King, it is really his half-sister. Not by his mother but by his father. So it was indeed a Jewish phrase used more loosely than we have in nuclear family culture that we have today.

[@princeamoakwa4057]

The infatuation with Mary is really strange. It's a distraction from Jesus. Mary Mother of God is also a bad name. I get the point but it is deceptive. Finally, the arguement that Joseph didn't touch Mary after Jesus' birth is not satisfying. In my Christian conscience, it is not blasphemy to have your wife back after Her Creator had used her as a vessel. Mary is not the ark of the covenant. I would rather give that title to Jesus. He represented the presence of God. He was the very image of God. He was God. Mary had no power. Her only significance is being the bearer of God's Child. We give her respects and honour for that but that's where it ends. Our attention is fully engaged on the Son and that's where her attention is also.

[@kdmdlo]

So you buy into the virgin birth ... which is clearly miraculous. But you can't buy into perpetual virginity, which any human being can accomplish without the need for a miracle? Why is that so hard to believe? As for Joseph, put yourself in his shoes. He saw an angel, for crying out loud. His wife was impregnated by the Holy Spirit. By Jewish custom, she belonged to the Holy Spirit ... not Joseph. Wouldn't you be the least bit hesitant to have relations with a woman who was consecrated to God? Maybe many modern people wouldn't hesitate ... but I certainly would. And I certainly think a 1st century Jew would, as well. I don't just think it's possible ... I think it's thoroughly and entirely likely that she was a perpetual virgin. As for Mary's power, you're right. She and he are like the moon and the sun. She reflects Christ's light but does not produce any herself. She is certainly not a goddess. But her significance goes beyond just being a temporary womb for Jesus to hang out in. She raised him from a baby. He honored her, as required by the law. She was (and continues to be) an integral part of His life. So let's not just cast her to the side like yesterday's garbage.

[@princeamoakwa4057]

@@kdmdlo, take your time please. 1. I never called Mary garbage. He is blessed and deserves honour for the high calling God gave her but she is not the moon as Christ is the sun. She is not the Queen of Heaven. She was Mary a servant of God who called God her Saviour because she was a sinner and an ordinary human like you and I. 2. Mary was married to Joseph and not the Holy Spirit. 3. The Holy Spirit or God didn't have sex with Mary. He just supernaturally put a baby in her womb. 4. Mary was not the only parent of Christ. Joseph was a father to Jesus also. Where is Joseph's honour and praise? 5. I respect Mary but Jesus said His family including Mary were no special people compared to those who live according to God's word. Luke 11 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed RATHER are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”

[@jayschwartz6131]

@@princeamoakwa4057 so in your opinion after speaking to God in the burning bush, Moses wouldn't have minded chopping that bush and use it for cooking or heating? Do you think that ancient righteous jews wouldn't have utmost reverence for things made Holy by God presence? How did jews behave in regards to the Ark and the Temple? Why? Did they dare to touch or enter in God's place? Neither the Ark nor the Temple were God. if the Ark were to be found do you think Jews would use it to store stuff? After all it's just a wooden box! How do you think Joseph would dare to touch Mary after he knew with certainty that her body had been made sacred by God himself. Would he dare to touch her?

[@princeamoakwa4057]

@@jayschwartz6131 😂 Don't make me laugh. Even when the bronze serpent became an obsession in Israel, God punished the people. No one idolized the burning bush. The Ark had explicit instructions about it. The burning bush didn't. Also, Mary was someone's wife before she was used by the Holy Spirit. God even spoke to her husband about the plan of God to use his wife. God didn't marry Mary. God didn't have sex with Mary. God simply put a holy Child in the womb of an ordinary human and sinner marked for special mercy and use.

[@jzak5723]

@@princeamoakwa4057 quote; 27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed RATHER are those who hear the word of God and obey it.” Jesus was not saying Mary was not blessed. In fact she is, see Luke 1:48.

[@sivad1025]

I feel like Catholics do some serious mental gymnastics to add their traditions into the the Bible. Why is so important for Mary to be a perpetual virgin? God clearly instructed her to marry Joseph and clearly stated that sex is to be enjoyed between husband and wife. The virgin birth is supposed to be a miraculous birth, showing Jesus is not of this world. Why should that stop Mary from having sex with her husband and having other children? The bible says "brothers" so it's the Catholic's burden to show that the obvious interpretation is wrong. Yet, these arguments are at best plausible.

[@pboyle3723]

Hi Davis, you also need to consider the historical context when you try to rationalise the "mental gymnastics" you think Catholics do in order to provide a foundation for beliefs and doctrine. Jesus entrusted His authority to His church established on earth (Matt16:18,19"... you are Peter and upon this rock I build my church" plus many other passages on the working of the church). Jesus did not call on the Apostles to write down their teachings so a "book" would be left as "The Authority" for the Christian believers. Indeed the bible tells us the "teaching" included both the written word and spoken word in many places e.g. 2Thes 2:15 "stand fast and hold to tradition as taught - either by word of mouth or by letter". This makes much sense since so many new converts to Christianity would not have been literate ... in the earthly centuries, or even into the middle ages. In the early centuries, before the canon of the New Testament was agreed, there were many authors who documented the briefs of the Christian believers, as they tried to make sence of Jesus and his teachings. The Catholic church is spreading and becoming established further from the Holy Land. Some of these writings include material about Mary (as well as everyday topics such as the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, worship on the Sabbath, authority of the Church etc etc etc) and what these early Christians believed, some of whom were taught by the apostles, or next generation disciples. This is all before the canon of the Bible is even agreed. So the "mental gymnastics" that you say Catholics do, are based on the teaching, wisdom and knowledge of the early church before the canon of the bible was agreed, as well as the Divinely Inspired writtings in the Bible. To me there may be faults in Catholic teaching, but which is more likely to be correct ... (A) teaching that can be directly referenced from those passed on from Jesus and the Apostles to the church Jesus established ...the church that was guided by the Holy Spirit to agree the canon of the bible (to which all Protestants agree) nearly 400 years after Jesus ministry on earth .... or (B) one of the Protestant interpretations of what Jesus taught and early church believed) as interpreted by individuals from the Bible (Alone) 1500 or 2000 years after Jesus ministry? Even Martin Luther and John Calvin honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible!! As do some modern Protestants. Here is reference material for some early Church writings on the subject of Mary: www.catholic.com/tract/mary-ever-virgin.

[@Rose-xk5sy]

@@pboyle3723 very well explained. I hope our non-Catholic brothers and sisters open their minds a bit more. Right now, they're arguing for the sake of proving the Church wrong..and not for the sake of finding the truth. Its blinding them.

[@AveChristusRex]

Luke 1:34.

[@courag1]

What do you suppose happened when Sarah who was way to old to have a child was made able by God's promise? God provided the living egg and made her womb a place the egg could grow. God can make the dead come back to life and the leper clean. The Miracle of the virgin birth depends not upon Mary but upon God. If a mother sins during pregnancy and I assure you women are not exempt even when pregnant, does this corrupt the child? The child is a separate life growing inside of her. If Jesus was so pure He could not be carried by a normal woman but only a woman preserved from all sin, how could He have been able to stand being with people after his birth? They would not have been perfect either. The Holy Spirit is given to Christians despite that they sin occasionally. He does not abandon us. Jesus promised to never leave us nor forsake us. Apart from pregnancy, virgins don't lactate. Girls before puberty don't have periods but the periods begin before the mammary glands mature. According to the way Jews saw the monthly cycle, this made girls and women "unclean" and they had to offer a sacrifice to be "clean" after their cycle and after giving birth. All of this was to cleanse from sin. They would not consider a birth could be otherwise. Yes, it is important to wash the blood away for health reasons but they saw this as making the woman an "untouchable" and would never consider her "pure". BTW dairy cows cannot give milk unless they become pregnant and they also come into season in other words, to show they are fertile then the farmer impregnates them artificially. All cows milk is produced because the cow was either pregnant or after the birth, without this no milk is produced. Cows are not impregnated by the bull, and no one carries on about them being preserved intact and virginal. Maybe all this stuff sounded plausible in other centuries but really, your teaching is really strange. When a woman nurses a child, let me tell you when I nursed my three children when they were babies that this was viewed in itself as perverse though no one saw anything, I was discrete. But as men have the idea that the woman's breast is a source of arousal and the baby would find it such, what an obnoxious thought. The ones here with the filthy mind are the men and women who view the human breast as a sex object and not for what it is, the best way to feed an infant from birth until they can begin to eat and are weaned. With the perverse ideas people have, how could any part of woman be "holy" including her eggs? If Mary was preserved from original sin then how with her mother giving birth to her, could she be pure enough to give birth to Mary? BTW, Jesus was born in a stable and the animals in pens would have had their BMs just like horses in their stables today. The stable would not have been a pristine place. But God can overcome sin, death and the grave. He was born among the animals because He loves the animals too. Meanwhile we should be loving towards animals, Jesus drove out the money changers, have you not wondered what the money changers were there doing except that people needed the right currency to pay for the animal sacrifices. Jesus was the perfect Lamb of God, no other killing of animals is needed. How was your steak? Why do you think we have all these diseases? Vegans don't get heart disease and cancer. We cannot see that Jesus was John the Baptist's cousin and they were Essenes. James the Just, Jesus' brother, was vegan from birth. Mary and Joseph would have raised all the children this way as the Essenes did not eat meat at all, they did not even eat lamb at Passover. Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus had brothers and that Joseph did not know his wife until after Jesus was born? Mary gets more divine by the day. Your religion is evolving. BTW, Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is the Gospel. It is not open to you turning it into a story acceptable for the pagans who longed for a Mother-Goddess. It is not Mary who intercedes for us, it is Jesus. If Jesus could not handle that we are impure, He never would have touched any of us. But He did not shrink back. He healed lepers. He put his hands on the dead and they were raised. God is not made impure when He shows up via the Holy Spirit and answers our prayers. If you don't like the biblical narrative because even with the blood of Jesus, you still are not sure your will go to heaven. Goodness, I believe what Jesus said. It isn't that hard. He's made us a kingdom of priests unto His God, you need to read Hebrews.

[@patrickchapko6693]

Tim Staples is awesome on the way he explains the Bible. He does his homework and breaks things down that is very understandable. Such a great gift to the Catholic church.

[@SLVBULL]

Nothing more amusing that a non Greek trying to teach a Greek how to interpret his own language.

[@gamers7800]

Ya! that’s Seminarys are good for. Well maybe they should be pulling down statues in stead

[@JohnchapterVersesand]

Like you interpreting everything in day today life as an expert from all those fields????

[@edwardvanzandt9714]

Language and the semantic meaning of specific words changes over time as different concepts and linguistic creations alter or render obsolete old words or meanings over time; 1st century Greek is not identical to 21st century Greek, just as Roman Latin is different from modern-day Church Latin (the changed pronunciation of “g” and “c” and the adoption of the letter “j” from the Germanic languages are some basic examples). An easy linguistic example is how the word “pilot” is currently used to refer almost exclusively to aeronautical pilots, when the term originally meant exclusively the pilot of a nautical ship, and was briefly used during the First World War to refer to landship pilots (before the popular adoption of the words “tank” and “driver”). I know modern-day English, but I wouldn’t be able to read Old English documents, as Old English is more similar to modern-day German or Flemish than modern English. The fact that the modern Greek language has different words for familial relations is well-established, and is unsurprising, considering how normal the evolution of semantics is in the course of human history.

[@euge.sosa.b]

You guys are very creepily concerned about this woman's virginity

[@charis128]

Yes

[@mikewilliams6025]

The Protoevangelium of James is written by a liar who was rejected by the majority of the Fathers and Aquinas. It seems that the lore of James won out in the Cyril v. Nestorius debates of the 5th century. It doesn't make for a good source. Both Aramaic and Hebrew had words for cousin. The Septuagint uses them. There are no extant sources of anyone in the culture conflating the term "brother" and "cousin." This was a 19th century invention. Certainly there are better arguments than these two. I would stick with those. These two only hurt the case.

[@jzak5723]

Sure, it was rejected as not inspired, but there is plenty of factual information in the POJ, confirmed by early church fathers. Have you read it? The Hebrew also uses "adelphos" in the Septuagint for relations other than siblings, so the precedent was set. quote; There are no extant sources of anyone in the culture conflating the term "brother" and "cousin." Seriously, I know better than to believe that. The word "brother" was, and still is used for relationships other than siblings.

[@stephenmatthews161]

This is why I protest. Idolatrous mumbo jumbo,'this is what tradition states and the church fathers affirm ' why go to all this effort when you just pick up your new testament and read for yourself that mary had a normal married life.

[@JohnchapterVersesand]

Let me be clear here, plain high clear. "Whoever insults Lord's Mother, stating she had other children are directly insulting the womb that carried the sinless son of THE GOD the father. Insulting Mother Mary = Insulting The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. The one God who became flesh and took human form with the power of holy spirit through EVER VIRGIN MOTHER MARY. DO NOT INSULT THE BLESSED WOMB that carried Jesus.

[@Hamann9631]

John chapter19 Verses 26 nd 27. What are you defining as insulting? Is stating truth about a person insulting? Mary had sins. I don't see that statement as an insult because only Jesus was perfect. Mary had children by sex with her husband after her first child was born without sex. I don't see that as an insult because it isn't a sin to have sex with one's spouse. Joseph was her only spouse.

[@Moe-bb3bm]

They did not agree deceivers, James was his half brother. He had siblings were were not believers either until he rose. They were not cousins either buddy. Many scholars can refute you so stop

[@crsmith9988]

Who cares?

[@samueltopping7812]

I mean no

[@brando3342]

Yes.

[@princekrazie]

Subhanallah.😇

[@atzuricher6218]

🙄

[@marshallsmillie3888]

Please interview Bart Ehrman,very well done

[@nariko47]

Yup!

[@Moe-bb3bm]

Sorry Mary is not a god or to be worshipped by praying to her. You guys are blasphemers.

[@georgepierson4920]

Why are you claiming that we believe that Mary is a deity and should be treated as such?

[@Moe-bb3bm]

Stop with the semantics and word twisting. Experts and scholars who know the biblical languages know better buddy

[@geedfaith]

God has NO mother!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@georgepierson4920]

Jesus is not God?

[@samueltopping7812]

Yes