It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesus' Brothers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
there has been untold amounts of ink, paper,and bandwidth expended
on discussions of Jesus, his marraige ( for and against), and his offspring
( for and against), his survival, etc. etc..

nowhere however do i recall any discussion of his brothers James, Thomas the Twin, or Jude/Judas.
Did they marry?
Did they have children?
Are there any records?


anyone know? seen or heard anything?




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It would seem that everyone is as lacking of information on this topic as i am.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I'm not Catholic, but from what I understand the Catholics continue to push the issue that Mary remained a virgin even after Christ's birth. The references to John, James, Joseph and a few others are to Jesus' cousins.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Unfortunatly this is a topic where the Catholic church's statements are blatenty false.

It even contradicts explicit verses in the bible.

Sad that errors like this can't be admitted, but its an aspect of Marian idolotry (seeing mary as someone extra special, super human, or extra spiritual) that is just unbiblical, and syncretic - coming from other belief systems at the time.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Yep. He wouldn't have had to left Mary to John if he had siblings.

AND the 'blatent' quote of the bible about Jesus 'brothers' in the
original is 'brethren' which could mean anything from cousins to
full blood brothers. Fact is - there is absolutely no strong evidence
to suggest that he had any siblings however there ARE suggestions,
such as him leaving Mary to John, that show that he didn't.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
If you analyze this verses from the bible itself it tells you that she indeed had more children but due to the lack of importance in the eyes of the church it was totally by pass, but the church writers because it would not have look good to have others like the “Christ” or sharing the same blood of the “son of god”

Matthew 13:55"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Matthew 27:56
"Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children

Mark 3:31
"There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."

Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."

Mark 15:40
"There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;"

Mark 16:1
"And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the Mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him."

Matthew 1:24-25
"Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him HIS WIFE:

And knew her not Until she had brought forth her firstborn Son: and he called His name, Jesus!"

Matthew 12:46
"While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him."

John 2:12
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He, and His Mother, and His Brethren, and His disciples: and they continued there not many days."

Acts 1:14
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren."

Galatians 1:19
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

Remember that Jesus the Nazareth the man was as real as you and me.

The church icon and the base of the christian believes is the Christ an only son with divine qualities.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   
marg what you dont realise is that the word brother, or brethren in these circumstances can be (and should be) translated as cousins



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Nonsence, Ashler, just how long will the Catholic church deny the actual text of the bible?

Here are 10 versions, www.blueletterbible.org... not one translates "bretheren" as "cousins".

So every writer of these 10 versions is wrong, and has mistranslated it wrong?

Well what do the other disciples say?

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Now thats pretty plain, isn't it, brothers AND sisters.

The word translated bretheren is adelphos

It comes from "a" -( connected), and delphus (the womb), so the person referred to is connected from the womb.

pretty easy to work out. If you argue this one, what about when we start on his sisters as well?

In the contest of the bible, just look at the NEXT verse....

Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?

In one block we talk about brothers AND sisters.

Its the old "I was told by someone that .... " type of lie that denies reality.

Here's a good take on it which also helps explain why catholics are forced to deny what is written in front of them..

www.straightdope.com...

[edit on 7-3-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
here is the theory, (according to the catholic, and orthodox beliefs)

Mary the virgin had a sister also named Mary

John 19:25-Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, *and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas*, and Mary Magdalene.

Jesus' "siblings" where actually the children of this Mary.

Netchicken; WHY whould jesus entrust his mother to someone if she already had people to look after her?

I much prefer the theory of the orthodox church which have kept their traditions since the first churches were built. (who would be closest to the truth? who would know better than the earliest christians?)



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Netchicken, you are actually right, but as usuall many meannings were lost through translations.

How convienent to had now another sister for mary that was no virgin this is the first time I heard something like that.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
The reason that the Christ was striped from brothers and sisters lay in the Roman Catholic church, in their accounts and versions of the bible they based their whole Christian religion on the Myth of a virgin woman that give birth to an Infant son to be of divine conception.

So for that reason the whole concept of keeping the Christ as the only son, and Mary a virgin until death has to be the priority of the Christian beliefs.

Is nothing wrong with that after all I always separate the “historical Jesus” to the “ The divine Christ” is easier to understand the difference between the two.

One was human and had mother and father with brothers and sisters, the other one was of divine conception and occurs the icon of the Catholic church at the time, and later the whole base of Christianity as we know it today.

Now even the bible contradict the facts, and no even translations have been able to take the fact away that the Historical Jesus had indeed brethren.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
from your link

"The words in the Greek original are adelphoi, brothers, and adelphi, sisters. *They can be used in a metaphorical, brotherhood-of-man sense, just like their English equivalents.* But the context strongly suggests the strict sense, i.e., children of the same mom."



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
How convienent to had now another sister for mary that was no virgin this is the *first time I heard something like that*.


then you never read the bible

John 19:25-Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, *and his mother's sister, Mary the [wife] of Cleophas*, and Mary Magdalene.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ashlar
the fact that Jesus left His mother in the care of the apostle John (John 19:26-27) rather than with one of His brothers strongly implies that Mary had no other children.
Well, we do not know that for sure. we presume the disciple whom he loved was a John who was not the son of the Mary to whose house Peter called on after he escaped. In Acts, the Mary of that house was the mother of John Mark. The fourth gospel is attributed to the son of Zebedee without proof, hence they can be the same John.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Thank you Ashlar



The reason to deny that Jesus has siblings is that Mary had to be a virgin her entire life.

But there is no need for that dramatic theology, only that she was a virgin when Jesus was concieved.. This is important because it shows that Joseph is not the father.

After Jesus was born the entire situation around Mary becomes redundant. Its doesn't matter what she did, or if she had more children, The principle player in the history is now Jesus, Mary was just the "carrier" to put in a blunt term.

Anyway, what happened to his brothers and sisters?
Paul talks of some of them having large families (Peter and others) but otherwise they disappear into history, mere mortals like mary ....



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:55 PM
link   
But it was also a problem with a single women of the time "to be with child" she was a fallen women and in the Jewish tradition would had been stone to death.

Now that Joseph came around and married her and took the child as his own is obviously the fact that he was actually the father.

See in order to understand the people of the time you have to know the history and traditions of the time also.

And we know that the new testament was written under the zealot watch of the new Christan believers and not under the Jewish believes.

And Ashlar, I suggest you get to know your historical facts of the time and do not accused me of no knowing the bible.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Now that Joseph came around and married her and took the child as his own is obviously the fact that he was actually the father.


Wow a crazy new theory! it must be true then!

do you think you are the first to level that accusation? the jews have been saying that for centuries



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Its, very simple you can either accept the historical Jesus or stick with the mythical Christ, that is your choice.

Now so far is a fact that the bible itself mentions that the “historical Jesus” had three brothers and two sisters.

Their names as in the bible are, James, Joses, Simon and Judas, and one of the sister's names was Salome. We are unaware of the name of the other.

The facts are as clear as they can be in the bible itself, that religion has denied the fact well it’s a reason for it, The christ is the son of god and mary was a virgin until death and that is the church bread and butter without it it will starve.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Quote: "brothers James & Thomas the Twin"

Well I brought it up on ATS a while back. I was a little confused about Jesus' message in the Gospels were at one point he says "Peace & Turn the Other Cheek" & @ another point he says "I've come to bring
Fire & Sword". I posed the Theory that Jesus could have had a Twin Brother (as suggested above). One was for Peace & the Other was for War. Since the Gospels were written some Decades after the Death of Jesus (and his possible Brother) - and since they might have looked similar (Twins) - BOTH Sayings or Positions might have been attributed to Jesus! Personally I believe that Jesus was a Pacifist! You can't have Peace & Love & Brotherhood with War constantly being Waged. On the other hand Jesus was pretty dead set against the Occupying Romans & the Jewish Elite Rabbihood - which he viewed at Corrupt - that they Corrupted the Faith in addition!

BTW - nobody really responded to my suggestion!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join