Questions about when people get "saved"


I see what you are saying here. But I think you have your argument wrong. It isn’t about the word brother not meaning brother. The argument is that there was no word for cousin. So the word brother could mean cousin or relative or even spiritual brother.

I just wanted to point out that this is why your arguments are so weak.

You stated…**

but when most of the N.T. uses this Greek word for brother, (meaning brother), while the passage about Mary’s children becomes an exception, even though it is the exact same Greek word.

You are arguing that The word adelphous means brother in other parts of scripture. Yes we agree. However, you are claiming we are laying down and stupid if we don’t believe that it also means brother in the passage about Mary.

Can you see the stupidity of your argument???

You used the word “MOST” in your argument.

The word most means many or much. It doesn’t mean all. In your argument you’ve already admitted that their are exceptions to the rule. You’ve already admitted that adelphous doesn’t mean brother every time it is used in the Bible.

Wouldn’t you actually be the one who is laying down and being stupid for blindly following what you were told, without weighing all other aspects of the Bible as well as historical and cultural facts of the day?

Feel free to look this up on your own, in the Jewish encyclopedia, if you don’t believe me.

After betrothal the parties were regarded as man and wife; and the act could be dissolved only by death or by a formal bill of divorce. If the woman proved unfaithful during the period of betrothal she was treated as an adulteress, and her punishment (that of stoning; Deut. xxii. 23, 24; Sanh. 66b) was considered to be much more severe than that (strangulation) inflicted upon the unfaithful married woman (Deut. xxii. 22; Sanh. 52b). The parties were not, however, entitled to conjugal rights, nor were they bound by the obligations of married life (see Husband and Wife).

Mary and Joseph were betrothed.

Mary was pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Even though it was an act of God it was not Joseph’s child so under the law she was considered an adulteress. That’s why scripture tells us Joseph was going to divorce her quietly.

Under the law Joseph had one other option he could keep her as his wife, but had to give up his conjugal rights.

Joseph was a righteous man. He would have never broken the Mosaic laws.

Not to mention. Mary became pregnant by the Holy Spirit. Can you honestly say you would have no problem using Jesus entrance to the world to satisfy your sexual pleasure?

Dude come on think about it. If Jesus came to diner at my house I don’t think I would ever wash the wine glass he drank from, let alone use it as my own.


Yeah. Water. And what is water associated with? Cleansing. Beginning. We read in Genesis that God’s Spirit hovered over the waters. We read of the Great Flood, of how the earth was cleansed of sin through the Deluge. We read in Exodus how the Israelites passed through the Red Sea and the Egyptians drowned. Those events all foreshadowed Baptism, not the cleansing of the body, but an appeal to God for a clear conscience.


okay… once again I’ll give you evidence. The reason it is such a difficult task for you is because you do not want to believe it. That’s the bottom line.

Okay… here it is… "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is BORN OF WATER, AND, the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Do not marvel that I said to you, YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN. "

BORN OF WATER is the pre-curser to being born of the Spirit. Why?.. because it is part of the statement giving by Jesus in its context. Why is it? because that is the way he structured his statement.

But… I’m sure you will go into another rant again about how I don’t answer, or how it is such a difficult task. I give you clear answers you say it is not evidence. Is that all you’ve got my friend? deflect and divert?

  1. Scripture is clear. Once you say yes to Jesus as your Lord. Believe God raised Him from the dead. You are saved Rom10:9. Joining a church and studying the bible alone or in group is highly suggested! We can not trust the church to teach us all we need to know!
  2. Do we have to continue asking Jesus to save us? NO! But. We should confess our sins to Jesus. Pray to stop sinning. Work toward not sinning. That is called sanctification. Ephesians 1:13 and 2Corinthians1:21-22. makes it clear. We Have a guarantee. A promise!!! We are sealed!!
    1Jn1:9 if we confess He is faithful and just to forgive us. Oh but what if we forget one or dont get around to it?!
    We still have a seal. Promise. Guarantee. We are adopted.(Jesus was adoped by Joseph) God doesnt have a shredder for His childrens documents!!


I am sorry if this is upsetting you I’m not sure how else I can explain this any clearer.

Let me try this one more time.

You say…

What you say here is what you BELIEVE the statement is saying.

The definition of belief is…

  1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
    “his belief in the value of hard work”
  2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.

You trust and have confidence that the way you are interpreting that statement is how it is suppose to be interpreted.

I don’t doubt YOUR belief. You don’t have to prove to me this is what you believe.

Now what I am asking you for is the EVIDENCE for this belief.

Evidence is defined as…the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I’m not asking you for the evidence, in scripture, to prove this is what you believe. I am asking you to prove what you believe is how John wanted us to believe it. I’m looking for evidence what you believe is what the early Church believed.

The evidence I am looking for can’t be found in the text when you are the one defining the text. The evidence I am looking for is someone who defined John the way you do in the first century. Because that is your claim here. You are claiming the Catholic Church changed the interpretation in the second century.

Basically we supply you with evidence…

Irenaeus…"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

You say, nope to far removed they taught differently before that.

We say we weren’t aware of that and ask who taught differently?

You remain silent.

Does this make sense? I’m not sure how else to explain the meaning of evidence.


The only question I’m going to ask is, what if 20 years from now something happens and you get mad at God to the point you turn from Him and actually set up an organization that pulls thousands away from God. You spend every waking moment for the rest of your life preaching against God. Your only goal in life is to prove to the world that their is no God.

Are you still saved?


O my goodness MT. None of that was necessary. You haven’t said anything significant to the debate at all. And NO… the Greek word for brother can never be used for cousin or relative. You are dead wrong again. … this is why you argue from the standpoint of a custom.

I have stated on this web site, not sure if I stated it to you, but to others… the Greek word in Matthew 13:55 for brother, is used in many other places in the N.T. The context determines how it is used. WHY?.. because the word brother can refer to a spiritual brother (one who shares in the faith or family of God,) OR… natural brother. But the word never crosses over to mean cousin or relative in ANY PASSAGE!!! If so… please cite that passage where it does? I’d love to see it.

However, Mark’s account of Mary’s children adds significant information that Matthew left out.

Mark uses the same Greek word for brother, (Greek=80) as Matthew does, but when he records Jesus’ rebuke he adds the word relative or cousin (Greek=4773)

Let me quote it for you.

"A prophet is not without honor except in his HOMETOWN, among his RELATIVES G=4773

The word AND is significant because it shows the authors intent to add more information to what he already said. He has no honor where? In his hometown. I’m sure not everyone in the town was a blood relative. Secondly, no honor among his relatives. Guess what this word means?.. it means relatives, cousins, kin. Can you believe it? … But lastly, He received no honor in his own HOME!! Mark records three distinct places where honor was absent.

This word translates 92 times into the word HOUSE. I would argue that it connects with the listing of brothers = G 80 and sisters, G79 at the beginning of the dialog where the question was: Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary? In other words, there was no honor where Mary and her children lived. Where was that? In a house.

So… what will you do with all of this evidence? … I’m sure you will dismiss it as NON evidence. This is what you do MT

So, seeing how it is used in it’s context will give a clue as to how the author intended to use the word. Why? … because the word brother means brother. The English counterpart is an exact equivalent.

4773 syngenes = cousin=kin= from 4862 (sun) and 1085 (genos) ;a relative


Awesome advice. Thank you.


Well stated. I agree.


Yeah. You are right on one point. I do make an interpretation based on what the Apostles said. But I begin with the premise that the original record was recorded in common Greek. All the gospels and letters were written in a universal, common language for all people to interpret and enjoy.

It was not written in classical Greek for the experts to tells us what it means. The RCC spent centuries keeping the word of God away from common folks. Only the Catholic leaders could interpret correctly, it was believed.

Finally through the impact of the Reformation, people began to risk their lives to get a translation into the hands of the rest of the world, without the commentary of the RCC. This was something that changed all of Europe for the good.

But by faith I look for a face-value interpretation of the words. Unless there are signs of a figure of speech, all that is read should be read at face value. If you do not agree with that. Okay… nothing I can do about that.



There are plenty of passages in the OT, but it seems you have already said you refuse to accept that the NT writers would write the same as it was penned in the Septuagint. So I will have to get back to you on this one. Why didn’t they use the Greek word for cousin when they translated the Septuagint?

I think this is a very well thought out and thoroughly researched theology. The part that I really liked is pointing out the part in Mark about in his home. That is very meaningful and does make you think.

However, you make a claim here…

Where does mark make account of Mary’s children? Even if I was to say OK you are correct these are the brothers of the lord, which I’m not quite there that they are biological brothers. Mark outright says that Jesus is “the” son of Mary, not a son of Mary. He goes on to list brothers and sisters of Jesus, but no where in scripture does it refer to Jesus brothers and sisters as Mary’s son.

There, is tradition that Jesus might have had half brothers. Which is more likely considering Jewish customs…

The one custom I pointed to in my last post. It’s hard to believe a righteous man would break the Jewish law.

Someone else already mentions that Jesus would not have given his mother to John if he had brothers. By Jewish law the next eldest sibling would have to care for Mary. It’s hard to believe Jesus would take his mother from his brothers and be disobedient to the law.

Also, these brothers in Mark 6 are also mentioned in Mark 15, but they are not Mary’s children. How do you account for these same men being mentioned twice. It seems highly unlikely he was talking about different men.

Thanks for the response. I can see where you are coming from, but how do you deal with the customs of the time?


I am tryinng to follow your explanation of the Biblical verse.To my knowledge there is nowhere in the Bible where it says humans are made of 98 percent water. I doubt the learned of Jesus’ days were aware of this too but in any case, I have not heard anyone from those era spoke about human being 98 percent water.

Put yourself in my shoe. If you find our understanding of the Bible is wrong because of our explanation/justification, then similarly we see it as a leap when your reason seem to be so far-fetched. It’s like you picking something out of thin air to explain the Bible. You can make analogy, then I am fine with it, but I cannot find it anywhere where there is mentioning about humans being 98 percent water in explaining this verses, so it is something new to me, something that you said.


Why do you make statements like this? You prove over and over again you no nothing of history. Do a google search. Over 90% of the world was illiterate when the Bible was written. And remained illiterate until the invention of the printing press in the 1400’s. How do illiterate people interpret and enjoy the Gospels.

Why are you buying into this nonsense? The world was illiterate who were they keeping it away from? Of course only the Catholic theologians could interpret, because they were the only ones who could read.

You might want to study a little more history and the Reformation. The Catholic Church had many translation long before the Reformation.

And there is nothing I can do about your willful ignorance of historical facts.

God luck. But until you learn at least a little history you are in for an uphill battle.


Aramaic, the language Jesus spoke did not have any word for “cousin”. “Brothers” and “sisters” in their culture can just to mean male and female relatives of the clan, not necessary blood borthers and blood sisters. The Bible’s usage of “brother” to mean a male relative is common in the Bible as has been pointed out.

But of course, they can be Jesus’ real brothers. However, the Gospel show otherwise. We mentioned about Jesus giving his mother to John, who is not his brother. That would not be so if Jesus had blood brothers, as the culture of the Jews dictated, and he was a good Jew.

Of course, we have the Church Tradition since the beginning of Christianity, that maintains that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

So those are our explanations of the verse.


My example of 98 percent water was not a bible quote. I never said that the bible says this. But I have heard this many times. okay… perhaps it is not 98 percent water. We do know that our bodies time-frame especially as we get older, we cannot afford to get dehydrated. Why? Because we need water for our bodies. contain water and must be hydrated almost in a moment to moment

But as mentioned before, I cannot prove that “born of water” means physical birth. So, I cannot exhaustively conclude this is what Jesus meant in Jn. 3 But He did go on to say in verse 6 “that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit,” drawing a contrast in the immediate context, as if to say, let me explain what I said in verse 5 with verse 6.

The overall point was actually between me and MT who insisted that salvation requires more than to just “believe.” For him, and I’m sure you too, it also requires to be baptized. So that baptism plays a role in the salvation process.

This is where we both were headed but never got there because we got bogged down on too many other things.



I suppose under normal circumstances. Do we know what their personal circumstances were that led Jesus to give his mother to John instead of his brothers? … I have not heard anything solid. We simply do not know what happened to those brothers with the exception of James.

We do know they did convert after the resurrection but what else do we know about them? Only speculations. Why should be build doctrine on traditions of speculation?

I was always taught we should speak when the bible speaks, and we should keep silent when the bible is silent.

If we speak, as if we know a matter, and the bible is silent on this particular matter, we then have spoken ahead of God.

If God wanted the world to get an exhaustive and satisfying answer as to why Jesus gave his mother to John, it was all within His power to do so. But He did not. Therefore the bible is silent on this issue. We’ll know when we get to heaven.


Ok, thanks for discuss with us anyway. I find it is a good thing.

If you cannot prove something, probably you can just leave it that way, until you can prove it.

“Flesh” and “spirit” are being explained by Paul in his epistles. The former our human tendencies, sinful nature while the latter, from the Holy Spirit, God’s nature.

In Baptism, which is a word we use to denote a “born again” person, that now after being baptized, he dies to his old nature of the flesh and given a new nature, the Spirit. This has been explained, I am just saying it in a nutshell.


If I understand this correctly, the RCC sees the 2nd Kings story as a baptism for lepersy. Yes, we too make those connections. However natural lessons were given to a natural people. Our sin problem is spiritual just as our baptism is spiritual. 1st Cor 12:13. Water baptism serves only as a natural reflection or a ceremony pointing to a spiritual reality. But someone in the RCC interpreted John 3 not as a birth, but as a water baptism. It is your right to believe that interpretation. I do not see it in scripture. My evidence can only be found in the actual words recorded by the Spirit of God in Jn. 3 by faith I believe those words to be true in meaning and understanding. I am not alone in my interpretation. Theologians around the world agree with how I see it. It is okay with me if you see water baptism as part of the condition to being saved. But those believe only verses in Jn. do not mention water baptism as part of the salvation act. You will have to explain why.


[quote=“Reuben_J, post:258, topic:457722, full:true”]

Ok, thanks for discuss with us anyway. I find it is a good thing.

If you cannot prove something, probably you can just leave it that way, until you can prove it.

“Flesh” and “spirit” are being explained by Paul in his epistles. The former our human tendencies, sinful nature while the latter, from the Holy Spirit, God’s nature.

In Baptism, which is a word we use to denote a “born again” person, that now after being baptized, he dies to his old nature of the flesh and given a new nature, the Spirit. This has been explained, I am just saying it in a nutshell.

Then I direct you to Reuben’s response. He explains it pretty well.


Because I do not believe we can pull one verse out of scripture and base our entire theology around that one verse.

OK let’s give this a try…The first verse you mentioned in John was 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

OK I read that verse and I’m sure we can both agree that it says eternal life will comes to “those who hear the word” and “those who believe”. I’m good with that. I have no problems. I’m not saying no this is wrong.

The thing I don’t agree with is you are saying this verse doesn’t mention water Baptism, therefore it is not necessary.

This I don’t understand because you also said…

Well this verse is silent on water baptism. So why are you speaking and saying this verse proves that baptism isn’t necessary? That’s what is confusing.

I’m following your rule here, not mine. The bible is silent on Baptism in this verse therefor I should keep silent and not use this verse to judge whether or not Baptism is necessary for salvation. Just think it through here. This verse is silent on murder and adultery and fornication and theft, it doesn’t even say we have to love or honor God in this verse. Can we automatically conclude none of those bear any weight on our salvation, because they are not mentioned in that verse?

When I read this passage I see the word believe and when I read it my mind tells me, OK I’m not done yet now I need to read the rest of the Bible and see what it means to believe.

Do you even remotely understand what I’m saying here?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit