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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   
right she was boffed by a ghost, a spectre, a non corporeal being. This is better than date rape. even paul who was an egotistical heritic says jesus was
concieved "acording to the flesh.


DATE LINE Jerusalem
Young Woman claims intercourse with Ghost, date rape suspected. News at 11:00.

[edit on 6-5-2005 by stalkingwolf]




posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
any sex is rape whether a woman is married or not because a woman cannot fully, knowingly consent to having sex. - Dr. Jordan, Professor for Philosophies of Life, University of Delaware

Are we done being with mislabelling things or should I claim all atheists are selfish egotists? I think we both know better.



[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
any sex is rape whether a woman is married or not because a woman cannot fully, knowingly consent to having sex. - Dr. Jordan, Professor for Philosophies of Life, University of Delaware

Are we done being with mislabelling things or should I claim all atheists are selfish egotists? I think we both know better.



[edit on 6-5-2005 by saint4God]


There are also those that would claim that according to christianity the age of
consent is between 7 & 11 years of age. Therefore their "relationships" with
minor children are legal and acceptable.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
There are also those that would claim that according to christianity the age of
consent is between 7 & 11 years of age. Therefore their "relationships" with
minor children are legal and acceptable.


That's pretty messed up. :shk:



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Netchicken
just how long will the Catholic church deny the actual text of the bible?


Just how long will non-Catholics continue to ADD to the bible?
Answer - probably until the end of time ... If you WISH to
believe that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, please go right
ahead. But there is absolutely no proof that He did.

BRETHREN

The Greek word for brother in the New Testament is adelphos. The PROTESTANT linguistic reference – An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says –

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or a near kinsman; in the plural a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents …
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26, Heb 7:5
4 people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22, Romans 9:3 …
5 any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3
6 persons united by a common interest, Matt 5:47
7 persons united by a common calling, Rev 22:9
8 mankind, Matthew 25:40; Heb 2:17
9 the disciples, and so by implication, all believers, Matt 28:10; John 20:17
10 believers, apart from sex, Matt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Tim 5:2) …

- In the KJV, Jacob is called the ‘brother’ of his Uncle Laban
(Gen. 29:15; 29:10).
- Lot and Abraham (Gen 14:14; 11:26-27)
- RSV uses “kinsman” at 29:15 and 14:14
- Use of brother or brethren for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7;
2 Sam 1:26; 1 kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14; Jeremiah 34-9;
Amos 1:9

Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for COUSIN. The NT was written in Greek which does have such a word, but it was written from the Hebrew and Aramaic which had already used the word brethren - brother word.

- Matthew 23:8 Jesus calls the crowds and disciples (23:1) his brethren.
- Matthew 12:49-50 He calls the disiples who do the will of His father
– my brothers.


[edit on 5/10/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
it does not say anywhere in the Bible to Worship the Pope - Catholics should try to get around to actually reading the Bible one of these days!

And no where in the Catholic Catechism does it say to
worship the pope either. Non-Catholics should try to get
around to actually reading the Catechism (and educating
themselves as to what the Catholic Church really
believes) one of these days! (instead of reading those
funky Jack Chick tracts)



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
FIRSTBORN - a term to indicate a position of pre-eminence ...

So again ... being called 'firstborn' is not in itself definitive of
meaning that there are others afterwards ...

Quote from the book - A Biblical Defense of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong

Firstborn. The use of this term to assert that Mary had 'second-borns' and
'third-borns' proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek
'prototokos' is "pre-eminent". to illustrate: David is described by God as
the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (ps. 89:27). Likewise,
God refers to Ephraim (Jer. 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as
"my firstborn". Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians
1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-
eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers
even called God the Father Bekorah Shelalam, meaning "firstborn".
Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isa 41:4, 44:6, 48:12
cf Rev 1:8, 21:6-7). Christians are called "the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23.
Literally speaking, however, among Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the
child who was first to open the womb (Exod 13:2), whether there were
older children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matt 1:25, in which
case, hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all,
contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
UNTIL

And finally ... another quote that some point to ... trying to
say it proves that there were other children by Mary and
Joseph after Jesus. And once again, just like 'firstborn',
the word 'until' is not definitive.

Mary didn't have relations with Joseph 'until' after Jesus was born -

The word 'till' does not necessarily imply that they lived on a different
footing afterward - as will be evident from the use of the same word in
1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20; also Romans 8:22,
1 Timothy 4:13, 6:14, and Rev 2:25. All these also use the word
'until'. The situations do not change after the word 'until' in any of
these instances.

'Until' can not be pointed to as an absolute proof of change, since
'until' didn't change the courses in other situations in the bible.
It's just a point of reference. It's not necessarily a point of change
like in our 21st century American English.

Protestants who believed in Mary's perpetual virginity (and thus
no 'other children') - John Calvin, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Bullinger
and John Wesley. Also - It was absolute belief in the early church
until the fourth century when a fellow named Helvidus tried to argue
against it .. against St. Jerome. Jerome cleaned his clock.

In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. None. If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because ... (drum roll) ..
there are NO absolute biblical references to any blood brothers
or sisters of Christ. None.

Deny ignorance.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. None.


Other than the repeated references in the gospels...


Originally posted by FlyersFan
If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because ... (drum roll) ..
there are NO absolute biblical references to any blood brothers
or sisters of Christ. None.


Other than the repeated references in the gospels...


Originally posted by FlyersFan
Deny ignorance.


I'm trying. Hey, what's the issue again with Jesus having brothers? I don't understand why this is a problem. How does any of this change what Jesus was or what he said?



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Other than the repeated references in the gospels...


READ what I posted.

No Saint4God. There are no references to blood siblings.
None. Read what I posted. It explains the term used,
the biblical language used, and the FACT that absolutely
NO sons or daughters of Mary and Joseph are spoken of.
It also explains the REPEATED REFERENCES of how the
term 'brethren' is used in scripture to describe relatives
other than siblings.

None. Zero. Zip. There are no references ... let alone
repeated references. Absolutely none.




[edit on 5/11/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God
Hey, what's the issue again with Jesus having brothers?

It was the topic of this thread thus I posted the FACTS that
there are absolutely no siblings discussed in scripture. None.
As to WHY the person started this thread... dunno ... you'll
have to ask him/her. The person may have been honestly
interested in that topic, or it could be just another excuse to
post tiresome anti-Catholic drivel.


I don't understand why this is a problem.

I don't have a problem. It's the militant anti/non-Catholics who have
a problem with the Catholic church recognizing the FACT that
scripture doesn't reference any siblings for Christ. It's those
that repeatedly (and mistakenly) ADD to scripture saying that
it absolutely states siblings. It doesn't. That has been debunked
over and over. Some folks just don't want to listen.


How does any of this change what Jesus was or what he said?

If Christ had siblings or not changes nothing of what He said.
Understanding that He had none just makes you understand
Him and His life better.

If you (people in general, not pointing at you) look at what He said
when He gave His mother over to the care of John at the crucifiction
... you'll see that any discussion of siblings is absurd. Christ wouldn't
have done that if He had siblings. So to understand that Christ
had no siblings is to futher understand who Christ was and His life
... just a bit more.

I don't care if He had them or not. It's just a fact that there is no
proof that He had any. None. The FACTS that we do have show
His behavior while on the cross pointing in the direction that He didn't
have any. I'm not going to add ficticious siblings to His life. There is
no need. It's a waste of time and effort. And the only reason that
people do that is to have something to point at the Catholic church
with and to claim that it's wrong.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by saint4God
Other than the repeated references in the gospels...


READ what I posted.


I did. The problem I'm having is what you're telling me and what is written in the Bible are two different things whereas what you're telling me is an assumption based on other situations where the word 'brother' is used figuratively. I think the Bible is pretty clear on making these distinctions.


Originally posted by FlyersFan
No Saint4God. There are no references to blood siblings.
None. Read what I posted. It explains the term used,
the biblical language used, and the FACT that absolutely
NO sons or daughters of Mary and Joseph are spoken of.
It also explains the REPEATED REFERENCES of how the
term 'brethren' is used in scripture to describe relatives
other than siblings.

None. Zero. Zip. There are no references ... let alone
repeated references. Absolutely none.


Okay, here we go. Follow along please:

John 19:25 "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. How many Mary's does that make? Well 3, here's why:

Matthew 27:56 "Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons." Now, the mother of Zebedee's sons is not the same as Mary the wife of Clopas, right? So that leaves Mary the mother of James and Joses the mother of Jesus, yes? Then cross-reference Mark 15:40 "Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome." Which again, is not the mother of Zebedee's sons.

Not good enough? Okay, How about Luke 8:19 "Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.
He replied, 'My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice." Okay, then, the brothers in this case CANNOT be Jesus' disciples nor followers because he would not have said this, denying his biological family. It also denotes his disappointment with his family at this time.

I'm not anti-catholic and refuse to accept any implication that I am. If a person is John 3:16, then I'll see you again. This squabbling doesn't have anything to do with salvation and eternity.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.


[edit on 11-5-2005 by saint4God]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFanJust how long will non-Catholics continue to ADD to the bible?
Answer - probably until the end of time ... If you WISH to
believe that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters, please go right
ahead. But there is absolutely no proof that He did.
There is also no proof that Mary was a virgin; that a census happened in that year; that there was a Nazareth; that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote the books in their names, that Jesus, John, Simon were not the same killers as described in Josephus, that Jesus managed to ride a mule and a horse at the same time, that Jesus was either 30 or 33 when he was crucified, that he was in fact crucified, that Magdelena was a prostitute, that Mary, Mary and Mary were not in fact, Marianme, Marianme, and Mariaune, the relatives of Herod the great, and at least a hundred other claims.

[edit on 5/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
UNTIL

And finally ... another quote that some point to ... trying to
say it proves that there were other children by Mary and
Joseph after Jesus. And once again, just like 'firstborn',
the word 'until' is not definitive.
Oh come on! this is nothing but apology and obfuscation. Find me one person in all of the Bible who had one child born to them, and one child only, where it is referred to as the firstborn and I will submit to this point.


Mary didn't have relations with Joseph 'until' after Jesus was born -
Mary was in fact having extra-marital relations with Joseph her brother-in-law, if you follow the plot behind the play correctly.


'Until' can not be pointed to as an absolute proof of change, since
'until' didn't change the courses in other situations in the bible.
It's just a point of reference. It's not necessarily a point of change
like in our 21st century American English.
Cyril of Jerusalem had a take on 'until' as well, I wonder if the two of you are in agreement?


In the end - there is NO biblical proof of blood brothers and sisters
of Jesus. None. If anyone wishes to believe there were such relatives
... go right ahead. However, it is a belief based on your thoughts
and not on absolute biblical reference because ... (drum roll) ..
there are NO absolute biblical references to any blood brothers
or sisters of Christ. None. Deny ignorance
Indeed! I say deny ignorance also.

[edit on 5/13/05 by SomewhereinBetween]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   
On Until:

Until and unto speak only of the time up to a point in time.

For example: 2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

Did Michal have a child after the day of her death? Of course not. That would not be possible.

Possibility does not mean an event did take place.


On firstborn:

I don't think one needs to have siblings to be the firstborn. Simply given to biological terms, I'd find it rather odd if the deaths of the firstborn of Egypt excluded those that didn't have siblings.

On a spiritual level, Jesus is the firstborn even without biological siblings.

Rom 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 1:18
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.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Now theres the difference.
You are looking at another verse that uses a translation that fits the context, and then trying to move it to Mat 1:25 where it doesnt fit.

There is just no getting around the context in 1:25.

Now taking what you said..it means they didnt have sex until after Jesus was born.

Need more ?

Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

Now you can try to chop that one up so you can remake it, or you can take it for what it says.

Someone showed up and wanted to talk to Jesus.
Who?
Mother and brothers.

Who is with Jesus at the time? the Apostles and strangers. Those same people felt compelled to make a distinction between those present, and those who showed up.

Jesus himself, makes a distinction. Then Jesus goes on to say that believers are his mother and brothers.

Some people will never see that because of pride. Some will never see it because

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
Now theres the difference.
You are looking at another verse that uses a translation that fits the context, and then trying to move it to Mat 1:25 where it doesnt fit.

There is just no getting around the context in 1:25.

Now taking what you said..it means they didnt have sex until after Jesus was born.


The verse does not say "until after" the verse says "until".

Did you miss what I said? I said "Possibility does not mean an event did take place." While I allow that it is possible the event occurred after the time mentioned, it does not automatically mean that the event did occur.


On Brethen:

The use of brethen or brother in the bible does not automatically mean siblings.

Laban refers to his nephew Jacob as his brother in Gen 29:15.
In 1Ch 23:22, Eleazar's daughters were taken by brethren though they had no male siblings.



Some people will never see that because of pride. Some will never see it because

2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:


2Th 2:10-12
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.


Belief in the existance or non-existance of siblings of Jesus will not save anyone. There is only one truth that will save.



[edit on 13-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I can take one word and say it can mean anything too.

Now put it back in context. Read my post and look at the context

Matt 1:25 says Joe and Mary got together after she had Jesus

Now these verses show that Jesus's mother and brothers showed up.
In context , its all very clear.

Saint asked FF why it matters.

I cant really think of a good reason.
It only makes a difference to catholics.
If mary is not a perpetual virgin,
if mary was not born sinless like Jesus...
if mary was not our co redeemer...
then they could not venerate her and proclaim her
QUEEN OF HEAVEN like they do.

Thats the only difference it makes. I guess that IS something tho. Its the difference between babylon and calvary



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
I can take one word and say it can mean anything too.

Now put it back in context. Read my post and look at the context

Matt 1:25 says Joe and Mary got together after she had Jesus


The verse does not say that.

The verse says "Joe and Mary did not get together before she had Jesus."

The use of until or unto does not infer any events after a point in time.



It only makes a difference to catholics.


It also makes a difference to non-catholics which wish to disprove the validity of Roman Catholic tradition, thus supporting their own view.

I am not a Roman Catholic. I don't have a vested interest in defending their doctrine.

This is what I am saying:

Until does not refer to what happens after a point in time. Either is a possibility, the bible does not say with certainty one way or the other.

Brethren and brothers do not always mean siblings. Either is a possibility, the bible does not say with certainty one way or the other.






[edit on 13-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO

The verse says "Joe and Mary did not get together before she had Jesus."


Mat 1:25

(ASV) and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

(ESV) but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

(GB) But he knew her not, til she had broght forth her first borne sonne, and he called his name JESUS.

(HNV) and didn't know her sexually until she had brought forth her firstborn son. He named him Yeshua.

(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

(KJVR) And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

(MSG) But he did not consummate the marriage until she had the baby. He named the baby Jesus.

You are correct in that it did not happen before...because it happened AFTER.

Later we have the verse about mother and brothers.
Who shows up?
Jesus' mother and brothers.

How do we know that brethren here does not mean ANY OLe relative?
Mother is also added in.
How do we know that it does not mean something else?
Because it doesnt say something else.

You seem to think that brother can mean anything EXCEPT brother. That is comical.

Now what signifigance is this verse?

Joh 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.

It seperates the apostles and his mother (who is a very close relative) from brothers. If brethren in this verse means close relative...then mother would not be apart

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.
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.

So first we have Matt 1:25 which says Joe and Mary had sex after Jesus was born
Now we have a verse that says Jesus mother and brothers showed up.
hmm....

Mar 10:29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's,

What does brethren mean here? Looks like brothers to me.

Mark also has this
Mar 3:31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?

Yep. Same thing. Brothers.
How do we know? It doesnt say aunt or uncle and brothers. It says mother and brothers.

Finally we have
Mat 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?

Finally in Galatians


Gal 1:18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.
Gal 1:19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother.

If this was a debate in the debate forum ...it would be over.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join