[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

OK, lets look at a few verses starting in John 15

1 "I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser. ( obviously this is Jesus speaking)..........20 Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you. If they kept My word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things they will do to you for My name's sake, because they do not know Him who sent Me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates Me hates My Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would have no sin; but now they have seen and also hated both Me and My Father. 25 But this happened that the word might be fulfilled which is written in their law, 'They hated Me without a cause.'

Okay Psalm 69 verse 4 foreshadows the passage above. I got that.

Psalm 69 4. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Then in John 2 12 After this He went down to Capernaum, He, His mother, His brothers, and His disciples; and they did not stay there many days. 13 Now the Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14 And He found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers doing business. 15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers' money and overturned the tables. 16 And He said to those who sold doves, "Take these things away! Do not make My Father's house a house of merchandise!" 17 Then His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Your house has eaten Me up."

And here the same psalm verse 9, refers to the passage above. I've got that.

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Both the passages in John are clearly talking about Jesus and both are found in Psalm 69, so it appears that Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm.

Yes.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

So why is this important.... well, lets look at a few more verses in Psalm 69 6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. 7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. 8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children...... Now you can argue that brethren are not brothers or sisters, but some other relation, however you cannot do the same with " my mother's children"....... It would make no sense at all to say " I am a stranger to my 'cousins/relations', and an alien unto my mother's 'cousins/relations', clearly " my mother's children" are just that, Jesus' mothers ( Marys ) children.

That was pretty good actually. However, you should note that the first two verses that you gave, 4 and 9, were practically identical even in wording to the passages that they foreshadow. These verses are not so. Sure, they mention brothers and sisters. However, it doesn't say anything like "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children."
You bring up....

[/QUOTE] To show that He was indeed a " an alien unto His mother's children".....John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him. [/QUOTE]

However, unlike verses 4 and 9, one needs to put upon this one an interpretation that would make it much more obscure. There are no word matches between Psalm 69:8 and John 5:7. This is completely unlike verses 4 and 9 where the whole of the verse is seen within the passage. 4 and 9 are messianic verses, 8 is not. In reality, any novice reader can see that it is the author of the Psalm, David, that is referring to his own family. The psalm certainly has some messianic verses(such as 4 and 9). Clearly not EVERY verse in the psalm is messianic, because there is no correlation between certain verses and other passages, such as there is between 4 and 9 and the passages you gave.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"

Okay let’s look at the passage…

Matt 13:55-56
Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not his sisters all with us? Where did this man get all this?"

Okay, see James and Joseph? They show up again…

Matt. 27:56 “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
This is a scene at the burial of Christ. The mother of James and Joseph is here. Is this Mary the mother of God? If so, then why isn’t this mentioned? Instead, this woman is simply known as “the other Mary”(verse 61). Again in verse 1 in chapter 28. “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, 2 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.” The other Mary, mother of James and Joseph, again is mentioned with Mary Magdalene as she was the last few times. Yet, not identified as Jesus’ mother. Very peculiar… If this woman was Jesus mother, why wouldn’t it say so? It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, 2:21). So why not here? Because it’s a different woman who is the mother of James and Joseph.

Now look at Mark 6:3 “Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.” This is another verse you would probably like to use against me. However, if you compare it with Matt. 13:55-56 it is virtually identical. It’s the same situation being recounted in the next gospel. The only difference is that Joseph is being called “Joses”. They are really the same people, since they are the same Hebrew name (Yoshef). Now go to Mark 15:40 “There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.” Again, virtually the same exact verse in a different gospel. Mark just chooses to spell Joseph’s name a little differently. And what do we see? Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and of Joses(Joseph). Neither does Mark see it important to say that this Mary was the mother of Jesus(if it were true).

Mark 15:47 -- “Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.” No mention of being “Jesus’” mother. Kind of interesting since it is JESUS that they are burying.
Mark 16:1 “When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.”
Again… this time associated as the mother of James(not Jesus).
Luke 24:10 “The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...”
Again, the “mother of James,” but not the mother of Jesus. As did Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus’ mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14). But not here or with the other verses I’ve been giving.

Now things get interesting…
John 19:25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.”
Here is Mary(Jesus’ mother) along with her SISTER, a Mary who is the wife of a Clopas, and again Mary Magdala. Look at that second woman, Mary the wife of Clopas. Either this verse is talking about four women or three.
Now, let’s go back to the original question… Is “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” also Jesus’ mother? If so, then why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?(Remember, this woman is mother of 2 out of the 4, not regarded as mother of all of them). Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph? Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene? Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1. Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary.
I believe that the term “brothers” refers to the males that He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related(besides having the same mother).

Also, explain to me why Jesus is always called "THE son of Mary" and not "A son of Mary".

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

To argue here that "His brothers" are some male relation doesn't fit in the context of this passage. It is quite specific, carpenters son (Joseph), His mother ( Mary ) and his brothers (James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas).... if you wish to very clearly identify a person, you give precise details that will point to only the person you are speaking of ( details that are well known about them, like who their brothers are). I can imagine that there were many in the crowd who had cousins/ male relations named James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas... but I doubt there were any others who had 4 brothers with those 4 names.

Please explain away what I wrote above then, because that is just what I am suggesting. These men are some relation to Jesus as a result of being the son of another Mary. And make my point exactly you said "if you wish to very clearly identify a person, you give precise details that will point to only the person you are speaking of..." Well, then explain to me how the "other mary" that is always with Mary Magdalene, show me how she is Jesus mother and not just the mother of James and Joseph. Because those are the exact details pointing her out, she is the mother of James and Joseph, not mentioned as the mother of Jesus. And unless you can effectively explain away the above, I don't necessarily have to believe that all four of them were "brothers" in the sense that you are implying. I think that James and Joseph were blood brothers, they were close relatives of Jesus and Simon and Judas(both of which are cousins also of Jesus). Three different mothers of the people mentioned.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Mark 6 1 Jesus left that part of the country and returned with his disciples to Nazareth, his hometown. 2 The next Sabbath he began teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astonished. They asked, "Where did he get all his wisdom and the power to perform such miracles? 3 He's just the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." They were deeply offended and refused to believe in him. 4 Then Jesus told them, "A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family. Jesus Himself is saying that HIS RELATIVES AND HIS OWN FAMILY ( his brothers) did not believe in Him. Why if " his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon" were relations, did Jesus give 2 classes of people here: RELATIVES AND OWN FAMILY"?????

Addressed above. This passage helps to explain my point. So read all that I wrote above. He gives 2 relations because there were two relations there, family(his mother and possibly father) and then his other close relatives(James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, and female relations as well). Two classes are present. That is why it is mentioned. That just helps me even more. It explains that these people are his immediate family along with his relatives.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

I suppose one could claim that " HIS OWN FAMILY" just meant Mary and Joseph, because obviously if Jesus had no brothers or sisters then His "family" only included His mother and father. However, I doubt the Catholic church would make a claim that Mary and Joseph did not " honor" Jesus, or that Jesus was wrong in his claim that " His own family" did not honor HIm.

I addressed this just above. I will study more about the honor thing. But that is way off topic right now.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

A question to ask about this verse , is why was the word " firstborn" used, and not a word meaning " only" if indeed Jesus was Mary's only child???

The Greek "monogenes"
( Strongs : 1. single of its kind, only
1. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
2. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God )

is used in the following verses:

Luke 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with her.
Lu 8:42 For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him.
Lu 9:38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Joh 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Hebrews 11:12 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

1 John 4:9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

The Greek word used for " firstborn" is Prototokos
( Strongs : 1. the firstborn
1. of man or beast
2. of Christ, the first born of all creation)

and is used in the following verses:

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Hebrews 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 11:28 Through faith he kept the passover, and the sprinkling of blood, lest he that destroyed the firstborn should touch them.
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,

Here we have first born among many brethren, of every creature, from the dead.... which shows there were those who followed after this " first born". Why should we believe that the usage of this word in Matthew ( and in Luke) means something different???

When saying that Jesus was God's only son , the word used is monogenes, when saying that Jesus was Mary's first born son , the word used is prototokos

I cannot go to much into this right now, but here is a condensed explanation. Jesus is definitely called Mary's "firstborn". Why? Because He is! Why would you think that there would be more to follow later? As it says in Exodus 13:2 "Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among the Israelites, both of man and beast, for it belongs to me." Now, what happens for all those people who have only one child? Do they not consecrate their child? Of course, they do because it is the 'firstborn' regardless of what comes/or doesn't come later. Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS a 'FIRSTBORN SON'. Most often it was a legal term. I'll get into this more, if this discussion ever slows up and I have some time to type something up.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

It certainly does matter how you come to the conclusion that Mary was a virgin her entire life. If you get this because someone tells you its true, and you then have to explain away every time Jesus's brothers and sisters are mentioned, instead of taking the Bible as the authority, then you are following false teaching. Try reading those passages without first setting your mind on believing they are speaking of some other relations, and come to your own conclusion from the Word of God.

I believe it because the Holy Spirit has said so through the Church and through the Scriptures. How one explains this truth is optional.

[ICTHUS]

I should point out, to be fair to our Roman brothers, that 'prototokos' doesn't necessarily mean that there was a second-born child.

[goldenchild]

Okay, cool. Yeah I haven't had time to look over the Greek stuff. I'm really not very good with that yet. If anyone else would like to go into the prototokos/monogenes thing that would be cool.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Addressed above. This passage helps to explain my point. So read all that I wrote above. He gives 2 relations because there were two relations there, family(his mother and possibly father) and then his other close relatives(James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon, and female relations as well). Two classes are present. That is why it is mentioned. That just helps me even more. It explains that these people are his immediate family along with his relatives.


I addressed this just above. I will study more about the honor thing. But that is way off topic right now.

In no way is it off topic. If , as is claimed by the Catholic church, Mary had no other children, then Jesus is saying here that His mother did not honor Him. We can see from the times Mary is mentioned , that indeed she did honor her son. So who was Jesus referring to??? We do have scripture however telling us that His own brothers didn't even believe in Him, thus, the lack of honor from His family.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Okay Psalm 69 verse 4 foreshadows the passage above. I got that.

Psalm 69 4. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.

And here the same psalm verse 9, refers to the passage above. I've got that.

9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Yes.

That was pretty good actually. However, you should note that the first two verses that you gave, 4 and 9, were practically identical even in wording to the passages that they foreshadow. These verses are not so. Sure, they mention brothers and sisters. However, it doesn't say anything like "I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children."

However, unlike verses 4 and 9, one needs to put upon this one an interpretation that would make it much more obscure. There are no word matches between Psalm 69:8 and John 5:7. This is completely unlike verses 4 and 9 where the whole of the verse is seen within the passage. 4 and 9 are messianic verses, 8 is not. In reality, any novice reader can see that it is the author of the Psalm, David, that is referring to his own family. The psalm certainly has some messianic verses(such as 4 and 9). Clearly not EVERY verse in the psalm is messianic, because there is no correlation between certain verses and other passages, such as there is between 4 and 9 and the passages you gave.

.

Not true, any novice reader can see that Christ spoke of his own not receiving him and that His relatives and His family did not give Him the honor due Him. This was foretold in Psalm 69

Look at these verses... Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psalm 69:7 For it is for thy sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face.

Romans 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

This entire section is Messianic, it would be odd for one portion in the middle of this to suddenly be about David's family when what surrounds it is about Jesus. Can you show any support for you saying this is about David's family?? How David became a stranger to his brethren and an alien unto his mother's children?

Here is some of what was said of David: 1 Samuel 18 14 And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the LORD was with him. 15 Wherefore when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he was afraid of him. 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.

1 Samuel 22:1-5 1 David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father's house heard it, they went down thither to him. 2 And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men. 3 And David went thence to Mizpeh of Moab: and he said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, come forth, and be with you, till I know what God will do for me. 4 And he brought them before the king of Moab: and they dwelt with him all the while that David was in the hold.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Also, explain to me why Jesus is always called "THE son of Mary" and not "A son of Mary".

.

Ok, when you explain to me why all these say " THE son"
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

Matthew 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Luke 3 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, ...... which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, ....... which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, ...... 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham,

I could go on with this for quite awhile.... but the point is rather clear that just because it says " the son" does not mean there were no other sons.....We all know that David was not the only son of Jesse, or James the only son of Zebedee... I guess you will need to answer to me why these do not say " a son" if you feel that it saying " the son" has some significant meaning.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

In no way is it off topic. If , as is claimed by the Catholic church, Mary had no other children, then Jesus is saying here that His mother did not honor Him.

Can you explain what Mary's virginity has anything to do with it? She is mentioned in this verse, regardless of whether or not it says she has other children. I said I would explore this. But I must be missing something if you see this as so important. If you could show me it's importance from the passage more clearly I'd appreciate it.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

We can see from the times Mary is mentioned , that indeed she did honor her son. So who was Jesus referring to??? We do have scripture however telling us that His own brothers didn't even believe in Him, thus, the lack of honor from His family.

I don't want to sound disrespectful but I don't really see the logic here. These brothers probably are in his family, just his extended family. How does this prove that these men were his blood brothers? I don't see it.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

I should point out, to be fair to our Roman brothers, that 'prototokos' doesn't necessarily mean that there was a second-born child.

No, but I am sure Luke knew whether or not Christ had brothers. He used the term for first born, where several other times when there WAS only one son he used the term for only, so why did he do that if indeed Christ was an only son???

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

Can you explain what Mary's virginity has anything to do with it? She is mentioned in this verse, regardless of whether or not it says she has other children. I said I would explore this. But I must be missing something if you see this as so important. If you could show me it's importance from the passage more clearly I'd appreciate it.

I don't want to sound disrespectful but I don't really see the logic here. These brothers probably are in his family, just his extended family. How does this prove that these men were his blood brothers? I don't see it.

Jesus made the distinction between relatives ( cousins, aunts, uncles, etc) and family ( mom , dad , sister , brother) ... I think we all know the difference between our family and our relatives.. IF Jesus had no blood sisters or brothers, then His reference to " a prophet having no honor among his family" MUST mean that He is saying that either His father or His mother did not honor Him.. or He could not have made that statement and it be true. If Mary was a virgin as you claim, then Jesus would have to be talking about either her or Joseph when He says this, they would be His only family. I think we can clearly see from scripture that even though Mary and Joseph may not have fully understood who their son was, Mary, at least, clearly honored Him. ( and I can find nothing in the Bible to indicate that Joseph didn't) But we do have passages about his " brothers/brethen" that show that they did not believe in Him and thus Jesus was without honor among His family and His statement was true.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Not true, any novice reader can see that Christ spoke of his own not receiving him and that His relatives and His family did not give Him the honor due Him. This was foretold in Psalm 69

Then how come the verses you used don't match their foretold passages? Verses 4 and 9 matched practically word for word. The ones you are trying to fit, don't. They simply share the same chapter in Scripture.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Look at these verses... Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

Psalm 69:7 For it is for thy sake that I have borne reproach, that shame has covered my face.

Romans 15:3 For even Christ pleased not himself; but, as it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.

These 2 verses correspond.

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

This entire section is Messianic,

Woah, okie then. Can you specifically tell me that EVERY single verse in the psalm has a prophetic fulfillment to Jesus elsewhere, in the same sense as 4 and 9 do?

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

it would be odd for one portion in the middle of this to suddenly be about David's family when what surrounds it is about Jesus. Can you show any support for you saying this is about David's family?? How David became a stranger to his brethren and an alien unto his mother's children?

Do you really think it that strange. David is the one writing the psalm and we know that Scripture is first read for what it says, and then read for it's deeper connections to other passages. The direct reading shows David in a prayer to God for His protection. David was accused of a crime he did not commit. This is the most obvious meaning. He had become outcast to his family because of the crime that he did not commit. When you look deeper into the passage one can see that there are certain verses, some verses, that refer to Jesus(after all, David is a TYPE of Jesus).

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Here is some of what was said of David: 1 Samuel 18 14 And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the LORD was with him. 15 Wherefore when Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he was afraid of him. 16 But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them.

1 Samuel 22:1-5 1 David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father's house heard it, they went down thither to him. 2 And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him; and he became a captain over them: and there were with him about four hundred men. 3 And David went thence to Mizpeh of Moab: and he said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, come forth, and be with you, till I know what God will do for me. 4 And he brought them before the king of Moab: and they dwelt with him all the while that David was in the hold.

I see, but what's your point exactly, besides trying to get away from psalm 69. The psalm shows that he was wrongly accused("Must I now restore what I did not steal?") Clearly this is what David is directly distressed about, and the accusation has made many enemies for him.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Ok, when you explain to me why all these say " THE son"
Matthew 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Matthew 4:21 And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, in a ship with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them

Matthew 10:2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 10:3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

Matthew 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

Mark 2:14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.

Luke 3 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, 24 Which was the son of Matthat, ...... which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, ....... which was the son of David, 32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, ...... 34 Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham,

I could go on with this for quite awhile.... but the point is rather clear that just because it says " the son" does not mean there were no other sons.....We all know that David was not the only son of Jesse, or James the only son of Zebedee... I guess you will need to answer to me why these do not say " a son" if you feel that it saying " the son" has some significant meaning.

Okay, I'll let this one go for awhile. That is a sufficient explanation for me, for now. I'll look into it and see if I find something interesting. Good explanation. Fair enough?

[P3chrmd]

I know Im jumping in the middle here...but I would like to add some things that may or may not have been pointed out! And just so everyone knows...Im Catholic...so you know where my opinion stands..Mary was a virgin before and after the birth of Christ! PERIOD!

There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."
John Calvin; "Sermon on Matthew", published 1562



For all you out there...JOHN CALVIN!!! ONE OF THE REFORMERS FULLY believed in Marys perpetual virginity...as did Martin Luther!

[P3chrmd]

Also...

SO WHO WERE THESE "BROTHERS OF JESUS?"

A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus's brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

This "other Mary" at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus's so-called "brothers", James and Joses.

B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. "But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene." The precise positioning of the ANDs makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary's sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to "brother" with reference to Jesus.

C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn't he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly as servant of Jesus. To have identified himself as Jesus's blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but he doesn't so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus's so-called "brothers" is eliminated.

D. James "Brother of Jesus" is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, "brother of Jesus" cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.

A few more points:


In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary"
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?