Luk 8:19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
Luk 8:20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee.
According to you, Jesus' mother shows up with Jesus' spiritual brethren...But, they can not get any where near him...
Luk 8:21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.
According to you then, Jesus denies his spiritual brethren along with his mother, points to the crowd and says 'these are my spiritual brethren, right here in front of me...THEY (not the spiritual brethren outside with my mother) hear the word of God and do it...So then we have to conclude the 'other' spiritual brethren did not hear the word of God and do it...
And of course to do that would be ridiculous...It doesn't make the least bit of sense...It's not believable...The idea that your theory could be correct is well beyond the realm of possibility...
Movin' too fast...Forgot to add:
If Jesus' spiritual brethren who were with his mother did not hear the word of God AND DO IT, as Jesus indicates, they then could not have been Jesus' spiritual brethren...Just his natural brothers...
Nice try at moving the goal posts and to change the argument with “SQUIRREL!”
The comments were regarding Paul’s usage of the word brother in Galatians when speaking of the Apostle James. It has been proven that James is not a uterine brother of Jesus, but possibly a first cousin, the son of Mary’s sister who was the wife of Clopas or Cleophas.
The use of the term brethren in this passage from Luke does not definitively mean blood brothers or children of Mary.
The argument can be made that brethren here specifically refers to the twelve who are often set apart from the disciples. This is evident earlier in this very chapter where the twelve are spoken of separately from His disciples.
******According to you then, Jesus denies his spiritual brethren along with his mother, points to the crowd and says ‘these are my spiritual brethren, right here in front of me...THEY (not the spiritual brethren outside with my mother) hear the word of God and do it...So then we have to conclude the ‘other’ spiritual brethren did not hear the word of God and do it...******
That Jesus rejected His mother and brethren in this passage is also a wrong understanding of what is being related by the author. Jesus does not reject them. Instead, He uses the moment to illustrate that all who hear the word of God and obeys are His mother, brothers and sister.
Jesus here is introducing the concept that all who believe in Him are children of God and so are brothers and sisters in that belief.
This passage says nothing about rejection, therefore, what you proffer here is an interpretation or an opinion based on what one wishes to see here rather than what actually is written.
It has been amply proven that the use of brother, brothers, brethren, sister etc....is different in context and by the various authors throughout Scripture. There is simply no proof from Scripture that any of those called such in regards to Jesus are born of Mary.
It is the protestant way to isolate verses and expound upon them without regard to other verses which may contradict or at the very least, throw into doubt what is meant in that one isolated verse.
When one takes into account extra Biblical writings from the times closest to the events of Jesus’ life, those who were immediate successors to the Apostles and other disciples, there is no mention of descendents of Mary or Joseph. There is no mention of these brothers and sisters.
Considering those people would have hugely important to the earliest Christians, this is a glaring omission especially in light of the known references to Mary and the Apostles in those writings.
Now, I understand that extra Biblical writings are an enormous red flag to protestants, though to Catholics they are a window into the earliest thoughts, doctrines and theologies of the emerging subsequent Christian communities and thinkers.
I might find the protestant position relevant but for two things; we know from Scripture that heresies arose very early on and needed to be addressed and; protestants feel no such revulsion of extra Biblical writings of protestants as an acceptable means to understand and interpret Scripture.
One would have to accept that no other heresies arose post Scripture to believe there is nothing in early Christian writings that could be used to dispute those heresies using what is implicitly addressed in Scripture and not explicitly.
John tells us in his Gospel that the world could not contain the books that could be written of all that Jesus did. It is the same regarding the Church, her history and the heresies that had to be corrected. Scripture could not contain them all as Scripture would have to then be constantly added to as they arose.
That is why the early writings of the Christian community are so important in Catholic history. It is the Church who the Holy Spirit guided in the formation of the canon and it is the Holy Spirit who guided, and continues to guide, the Church in sifting through individual theologies, doctrines and interpretations of Scripture to declare what is true.
It appears that Jvette is experiencing the kind of panic that ensues when it becomes obvious one has entered the wrong ramp, and traveling the wrong way on a long bridge.
(in fact that is an excellent parallel to finding one’s self in the catholic church)