KFC, 

You may have given the reason or at least one of the reasons why Jesus chose St.John for the care of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  

Who is St.John? St.John is the blood brother of James, son of Zebedee. St.Matt. 4:21. Mary Salome is the wife of Zebedee and therefore their mother. Salome stood with the other women on Calvary beside the Cross of Jesus. 15:40-41 and on the Resurrection morning went to anoint the body of Our Lord. 16:1. For her sons, she asked Jesus to give them the first place in the kingdom He was to establish, but Jesus turned the request into an invitation to suffer with Him. 20:20; St. Mark 10:35. St.John accepted the invitation to the point that he was the only Apostle of the Twelve who stayed by His side "suffering with Him".

Another reason may have been because St. John was Jesus' "most beloved" Apostle.    

Another reason may have been that the other Apostles were older while St.John was the youngest, 18 years old when he became an Apostle and 12 years younger than Our Lord.  After the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 58AD, Saint John went to Ephesus. He preached in Asia Minor and was dragged to Rome by the emperor. In 95, he was tried in Rome and condemned  to be thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil by which God's providence did him no harm. He was then exiled to the isle of Patmos where he wrote the Book of the Apocalypse. The he returned to Ephesus where he wrote the 4th Gospel in 96, and later his 3 epistles. He died in Ephesus in the year 100. 

St.John was a relative of Jesus too. 

Remember I said, 

Saint Cleophas was one of the greatest brothers, husband, father and grandfather of the first century. Cleophas was the brother of Saint Joseph, the husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cleophas' wife was Mary of CLeophas. I've just provided the Scripture which shows that the 3 sons of Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas were Simon, James (the Less) and Jude. 

Two of his grandsons are St. James (the Greater) and St.John, sons of Zebedee. Cleophas' daughter,  Mary Salome is their mother. 

Here is the list of the Twelve Apostles:

St. Simon Peter

St. Andrew

St. James, son of Zebedee (Catholics call him St.James the Greater). 

St. John

St. Philip

St.Bartholomew (Nathaniel)

St.Thomas

St.Matthew (Levi)

St.James, son of Cleophas (also spelled Alpheus) (Catholic call him St.James the Less). Acts: 

St.Jude (Thaddeus)

St.Simon the Cananean, also called the Zealot. 

Judas Iscariot 

The reason why I said St.Cleophas was one of the first century greatests is that his 3 sons, Simon, James and Jude and two grandsons, James and John, sons of Zebedee were Apostles of Jesus! 

Cleophas was murdered because of his devotion to the risen Christ. 

Saint Mary of Cleophas was put in a boat by the Jews in 47 AD and pushed out to sea without sails or oars. With her were Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint Martha, Saint Mary Salome (her daughter), Saint Lazarus, Saint Maximin, Saint Sidonius (the man born blind in Scripture), and the body of Saint Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary and grandmother of Christ. After that journey, Saint Mary of Cleophas died where she landed on an island in France, they later named les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (the Holy Marys of the Sea).

 ............................

So now the Apostles are "boys"? 

................................................

Not in those times, KFC. In the Hebrew language the word "brethren" indicates a relative. 

As far as the sisters, you are right , my bad, I should have quoted the whole thing..I got wrapped up in the four names...

St.Matt. 13:55-56 says, "His brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, and His sisters, are they not all with us?"

Even so, the Jewish expression "brothers and sisters in the Lord" in Scripture  merely refers to relationship in the same tribe or stock. Cousins often came under that title. 

And in doing some more research on this, I learned that in St.John 19:25, that "there stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas", even here, Mary of Cleophas need not have been a sister of the BLessed Virgin Mary in the first degree of blood relationship, but rather in the same lineage in a more remote degree of either consanguinity or affinity. 

No Jesus didn't have brothers (or sisters) in the first degree blood relationship sense. I just proved that by providing Scripture, common sense and understanding that the Hebrew language used in the days of Josephus and the Gospel writers didn't have a word for Cousin and that their word for "brethren" was meant in a general way to mean familial relationship, tribe or stock.

The Blessed Virgin Mary had no other children of her own. Christ as He died on the Cross would not have ever entrusted His Mother to St.John, the son of zebedee, if His Mother had actually had other children. She would have gone to live with them. From every angle, this is as basic as it gets, that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no other children.

KFC posts:

This is the gist of it for most, not all, Protestants today. At all costs, to them, Jesus must have siblings. Goes against Scripture, goes against common sense and goes against understanding the Hebrew expression of "Brethren". 

Why do some Protestants kick against the goad?  They want to drag the Blessed Virgin Mary down from her true dignity and even worse, they drag Jesus down to the level of ordinary men in order to show their contempt for Catholicism. 

I'm afraid that in some Protestants faith in the Gospels and in Jesus Christ runs a bad second to their dislike of the CC and Catholicism. 

Also speaking of Martin Luther.....

The fact is the belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity was universal and consistent within Christianity in the fifteen centuries prior to the Protestant Revolution. In proclaiming Mary's perpetual virginity, even Martin Luther and John Calvin, the progeniters of 2 of the 3 major branches of Protestantism acknowledged it. Yep, they both held firmly to this Catholic doctrine. 

If necessary I can provide their statements, All this should make one think just how far modern day Protestantism has drifted from its moorings. But more importantly, how far modern Protestantism has drifted from the 15 centuries of the historic Catholic Faith that proceeded the Protestant Revolution....oops "Reformation". 

Lula's interpretation of the word "brethren" here seems to be correct.

The oldest definition I can find is on the Hebrew Union College's Aramaic dictionary Web site which gives the following meanings for the word:

1 brother Com. --(a) pl.: siblings Syr. 
2 kinsman OfA, OfA^Sam, Qum, Jud. --(a) a royal functionary Palm. 
3 one another PTA.

(Look for ")x".)

In modern Hebrew "ach" (= "brother") also means "comrade" in the communist sense (i.e. Zionists addressed each other as "achim" = "comrades" as all socialists do). The word always had connotations from (biological) "brother" to "anyone who is with me".

Jesus strikes me as someone who would have addressed followers and friends (and complete strangers) as "brother".

However...

It would have been ridiculously unlikely for a fertile woman in Judaea at the time not to have more than one child. Judaism doesn't even allow it (Jewish families must have two children or more).

Matthew 13:55-56 states:
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"

This is from the Greek, of course, and I don't know what meanings the word "brother" can have there. However, from context it is clear that the text is referring to biological (or at least adopted) brothers.

Jesus' family is summarised here. Nobody would introduce a guy with words that mean "This is Ernest, his mother is Penelope, and his best friends are Kyle and Blake and Tyler and Todd" , at least not outside a Protestant country club in Connecticut.

The NT was written in Greek and the word is "adelphos" and when you go to the Greek dictionary it means:

1.  male children of the same parents, Matt 1:2

2.  male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5

3.  male children of the same mother, Matt 13:55, 1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19

4.  people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Rom 9:3

5.  any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29, Matt 5:22, 7:3

6.  persons united by a common interest Matt 5:47

So it is true that the words for brother and sister can mean close relative.  This must be determined by the context and from other Scriptures.  The context indicates in Matt 13:55 that they were his real brothers and sisters.  

Nowhere does the Bible affirm the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.  There is NO statement anywhere in the Bible that supports that teaching.  That's why ORAL tradition is so important in the RCC.  They can make stuff up with no scriptural backup. 

When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father and/or mother then it doesn't mean cousins but actual blood brother and sisteres.  

Also..there are OTHER references in the Bible to His brothers.  John tells us that "even His brothers did not believe in Him."  (7:5) and Paul speaks of "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19).  On another occasion Mark refers to Jesus brothers and His mother (3:31).  John spoke of "his mother, His brothers and His disciples" (2:12) and Luke mentions "Mary the mother of Jesus, with His brothers" being in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14).  

so Leauki you nailed it head on.  One thing we must drill into our minds is 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.  

It's very important when you read and draw out the correct interpretation of scripture.  

You're NOT getting it Lula.  I don't care what Martin Luther says or statements from other Protestants.  I don't care what the RCC says.  WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH?  

It doesn't go against the "common sense" because as Leauki wrote from the Hebrew and I wrote from the Greek the first definitions mean close relative or how we use brother/sister today.  You have to go down further to find non relatives listed.  

You believe what you believe because they tell you so and then you twist and turn to make the scriptures make what you want them to say.  But like I said... 

Lula posts :

Leauki posts:

It is correct because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, as well as Josephus) had a special word meaning "cousin". So the speakers of those languages used the word for "brother" or "brethren" (which included sister or sisters). 

Another way we know it is correct is by the OT Jewish Scriptures. The OT shows that the word for "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning. It was not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or even half-brother. Rather it could refer to any male/female relative from whom you are not descended, as well as kinsmen, those who are members of the family by marriage, or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies. Check out  2Samuel1:26and Amos 1:9.  

Leauki posts:

KFC posts:

Exactly. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word had a wide range of meanings. 

The writers of the NT were brought up using the equivalent of "Brothers'", "brethren" to mean both cousins and children of the same parent---plus other relatives and even non-relatives. 

When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the 72 translators did when they translated the OT Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers, cousins, etc. was translated as "adelphos" as you say. The writers of the NT did just as the translators of the Septuagint and used "adelphos" even for cousins.

……………………………………

Both the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Protestant King James Version has St.Matt. 13:55-56 as having the word "brethren", not "brothers". 

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"

The word used in both the DR and the KJ Version is not "brother" but rather "brethren". The Scriptural passages that speak of "the brethren" of Jesus are St.Matt.12:46-50;13:55, St.Mark 3:31-35; St.Luke 8:19-21; St.John 7:3-10; Acts1:14and 1Cor. 9:5.

KFC posts:

Same thing with all these passages. The Douay Rheims and the King James version has “brethren” not “Brothers”.

Leauki posts:

KFC posts:

I must agree. Context is important. 

However, been there done that.

Back in my #84 post; the one you complained  

About half way down I wrote: 

Above I gave two solid arguments from context. They still stand. Take the context and apply common sense and we see that assuming Mary had children other than Jesus is incorrect. 

I'll give two more. 

When Jesus was found in the temple at age 12, the context suggests that He was the only son of Mary and and There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the Holy Family. St.Luke 2:41-51.

Also, St.Luke 1:34, when the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary and told her that she would conceive a Son, she asked, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?"

Mary's question meant she had taken a vow of life long virginity even in marriage. Now, this wasn't common, but not unheard of either and we are talking about the Mother of Jesus, God in the flesh. If she had not taken such a vow her question would make no sense. If she had aniticpiated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity she would have hardly have to ask HOW she was to have a child.

A careful look at the Scriptures shows that the Blessed Virgin Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.  

That's why I told you that when you put St.Matt. 27:56; St. Mark 15:40; St.John 19:25 and St.Matt. 10:3 together, we see that the Bible demonstrates that "the brethren", James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were not the Blessed VIrgin Mary's children.

Yes, indeed. Try it with those passages and you should see that Scripture testifies that the "brethren of the Lord" were Jesus' cousins. 

Kfc posts:

Yes, indeed. Try it with those passages and you should see that Scripture testifies that the "brethren of the Lord" were Jesus' kinsmen, meaning cousins. 

SCRIPTURE TEACHES that James is the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas and Cleophas (Alphaeus) was Jame's father.  

We know that Alphaeus was James' father from reading St.Matt. 10:2-3 and Acts 1:13,

"And 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. Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him."  

"And when they were come in, they went up to the upper room where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James." 

Cleophas and Alphaeus were the same person since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus was rendered in Greek as Cleophas. 

SCRIPTURE TEACHES that the words for "brother", "sister" and "brethren" have a wide range of meaning used to designate many different relationships, as well as that of common parentage. 

 In the case of the passage  "the brethren of the Lord" James, Joseph, Simon and Jude SCRIPTURE TEACHES they were Jesus' distant relatives, what we call cousins.  

………………………………..

In answer to your question Lula, NO ... Catholics are not the only ones that may go to Heaven ... were it real. As a matter of fact, I can think of no hell worse than spending 'eternity' surrounded by nothing besides Catholics, call it what you will. The question has never been about my believing in the supernatural as this is impossible with a sound mind. The question is "Why do you refute the sciences which can be proved accurate?”  It is one thing to 'just' believe something but it is foolhardy to disbelieve anything real because of it. The only time science and theology but heads is when you religious folk try to bend the sciences to fit into your ethereal beliefs. By definition alone it isn’t going to happen … so stop trying.

That's the same word. The word "brother" has two plurals. This is due to how Germanic languages work. There are two different declension systems and some words fit both and in some of those cases both plurals survived, even though one will seem archaic.
 
English has -s and (a few) -n plurals ("houses", "oxen").

German shows the same phenomenon with four plurals, -s (rare), -n, umlaut-r, and -e. Some words have two plurals, like "Mann" (man) which features both "Maenner" and "Mannen" and "Wort" (word) with "Worte" and "Woerter".

A really annoying case is "Magnet" (magnet), where both declension systems are actually in use, whereas in most other cases one sounds archaic.

Again, it is important not to read Biblical meaning into the grammatical quirks of languages the text has been translated into!

Whether it says "brothers" or "brethren" simply depended on the translator's will and the time he lived in. It does not channel any useful information from the original Greek, most likely.

We agree.

I've already said that as far as I know the only requirement for a person to get to Heaven is that person's soul must be completely free of sin. Apoc. 21:27.

God is Infinitely Just and He metes out just judgments. Therefore we must assume that God judges the actions of each individual person and rewards or punishes him for his actions according to his consciousness of right and wrong, good and evil. 

Now, I do assume that the chances of Catholics getting to Heaven are the best as they have the Christ instituted Sacramental means that fortify them for the journey through life to the Eternal Jerusalem.

If Heaven (and Hell) were not real (and they are), what say you as far as what happens to us after our death?

...........................

Atheists will be condemned justly after having refused every proferred grace of God. There are bad Catholics in Hell. We know Heaven isn't a solitary place, but Hell may be.

.....................

You know I've said this before but it's worth saying again. There are many evidences of God's existence. Men do not have to persuade themselves that there is a God. They have to try to persuade themselves that there is no God. Yet, no one who has attained such a temporary persuasion has been able to find a valid reason for it. Why don't you believe in God? What is your valid reason (s)?

Thanks Leauki. Very interesting indeed.

The point that cannot be overlooked  is that the words "brothers", "brethren", and "sisters" in the Holy Bible have a very wide significance. I've already referred to Genesis 13:8, where Abram says to Lot, we are "brethren", when in actuality Lot was Abram's kinsmen. In Leviticus 21:16, tribesmen were called brethren. Also in Ex. 2:11, brethren were men belonging to the same nation.

The word "brethren" has an extensive meaning even in our own English language and time. Friends, members of the same lodge, club or union are called brethren. Even preachers address their congregations as brethren when none are blood relatives and often many are women! 

Lula, I remember what you said before (I wonder how, hehehe) but you do like to repeat yourself a lot for sure. What you didn’t mention was who do you know that has a “pure soul” whatever that is? Sounds to me that the fabled Heaven is destined to be a very lonely place... Aha, there is the fabled purgatory where you guys are to spend your fair share of eternity in … to punish people for behaving like people … those who are not even ‘people’ anymore, go figure. It is certainly not my fault, your inability to prove God exists I mean, so stop blaming me please. The words “…Therefore we must assume …” are totally inappropriate if you are trying to actually make a valid point. I do not see what good and bad has to do with this nonsense of yours because in the final analysis (IYO) your specific mysticism is the only truth there is period and that has nothing to do with good and bad ... only what is Catholic. You take it upon yourselves (as you always do) to self-procure this ‘option’ exclusively for Catholics.

When I die, I am going to see absolutely nothing … just like you are silly. If man is destined for geological longevity (there is nothing pointing that way yet), then we are going to have to do it ourselves because religions like yours are were what is was standing in the way of enlightenment. Truth be told … if Heaven and Hell were REAL … we wouldn’t be having this discussion now would we? So let’s get real too, ok.

“We know Heaven isn't a solitary place, but Hell may be.” Pray tell, how do we know this and maybe that (God help me)? Have you been talking to Elvis again, hahaha? Lula, your logic is something else for sure. This is not rocket science here. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in voodoo, magic, Islam or any other mysticism and it should be obvious why. I do not need a valid reason for not believing in something I don’t believe in (here is that circular logic of yours). Simply put, if you were born, raised and educated in say India … we again would not be having this discussion and Catholic would take on a whole new meaning … get my drift.

I read this passage somewhere (???) but I liked it: “You Can Safely Assume You’ve Created God In Your Own Image When It Turns Out That God Hates All The Same People You Do.” You might want to think about this more IMO.

This one was in my notes too: "People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want. The central feature of a compass, however, is that it points north no matter what direction a person is facing. This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about God's beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."      By Ed Yong on scienceblogs.com