R
rinnie
Guest
Good, yes ok, now why is Philip explaining this to the eunuch?
Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?
- Status
J
justasking4
Guest
This is bizarre to say the least. I see this kind of thing and it makes me View attachment 4042
Not sure what passage you are referring to. What He most likely was referring to was that those who followed Him and believed in Him would a new kind of family that was based on Him. These brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers would be those who are truly in Christ and our relationship with other believers would be like brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers.
Paul is not saying here that Rufus mother was his by blood but that she was like a mother to him also.
These mothers and fathers need to be kept in their proper contexts. It is true that we can have brothers and sisters in Christ but it is not the same as a blood brother and sister where the brother and sister share the same parents by birth.
J
justasking4
Guest
The eunuch does not understand what he is reading and he wants to know what it means.
R
rinnie
Guest
Ok Perfect, Now why doesnt he understand what he is reading?
M
maryj
Guest
And yet Matthew 15:40 tells us that these two “brothers” James and Joseph are sons of another Mary. Not the mother of Jesus.
John 19:25 identifies this other Mary as the wife of Clopas
Acts 1:13-14…Simon the zealot and Judas the son of James.
Do you deny this?
J
justasking4
Guest
Matthew 15 ends at verse 39. What verse are you referring to?
true
Here is the passage:
13 When they had entered the city, they went up to the upper room where they were staying; that is, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the son of James.
14 These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.
The key to the Mary having sons is in verse 14 which reads–“and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” This alone shows Jesus had brothers through Mary.
No
J
justasking4
Guest
Ignorant of the Scriptures of them.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
But. . .but. . .but. . .it doesn’t matter what **another **verse says. 
If this one verse says these people were Jesus’ brothers, then by gosh and golly they were children of Joseph and Mary, even if other verses make it clear they weren’t. Even if Christian teaching for over 1600 years makes it clear they weren’t.
Nope, some ‘man’ a couple of hundred years ago read this ‘one’ verse and decided to lop it right out of the Bible and hold it up as ‘This means Mary and Joseph had children’.
In spite of St. Peter’s careful teaching against the error of this sort of thinking of ‘private interpretation’–especially when the interpretation flatly contradicted authentic and continual Christian teaching. . .some people will still stubbornly insist that this means Mary and Joseph had other children.
They’ll ignore reason, they’ll ignore the plain Scriptural evidence. They’ll hold blindly to one verse, and ignore the rest of Scripture which gives the correct context to this verse.
This is the (pardon the pun) f**undamental **error of those Christians who engage in ‘private interpretation of Scripture’, and it’s one of several good reasons that Scripture itself discourages this error. Blindly reading a text without considering its relation to the Bible itself leads to egregious errors. This ‘modern’ heresy which denies the Perpetual Virginity is one of the worst of those errors. God help those who hold to it, because the longer they do and the more they ‘uphold’ it, the farther they go from the Christ they purport to worship.
If this one verse says these people were Jesus’ brothers, then by gosh and golly they were children of Joseph and Mary, even if other verses make it clear they weren’t. Even if Christian teaching for over 1600 years makes it clear they weren’t.Nope, some ‘man’ a couple of hundred years ago read this ‘one’ verse and decided to lop it right out of the Bible and hold it up as ‘This means Mary and Joseph had children’.
In spite of St. Peter’s careful teaching against the error of this sort of thinking of ‘private interpretation’–especially when the interpretation flatly contradicted authentic and continual Christian teaching. . .some people will still stubbornly insist that this means Mary and Joseph had other children.
They’ll ignore reason, they’ll ignore the plain Scriptural evidence. They’ll hold blindly to one verse, and ignore the rest of Scripture which gives the correct context to this verse.
This is the (pardon the pun) f**undamental **error of those Christians who engage in ‘private interpretation of Scripture’, and it’s one of several good reasons that Scripture itself discourages this error. Blindly reading a text without considering its relation to the Bible itself leads to egregious errors. This ‘modern’ heresy which denies the Perpetual Virginity is one of the worst of those errors. God help those who hold to it, because the longer they do and the more they ‘uphold’ it, the farther they go from the Christ they purport to worship.
R
rinnie
Guest
Sorry i dont understand what you said.
J
justasking4
Guest
The eunuch was ignorant of the Scriptures. That’s why he did not understand. He could have also been poorly taught. Both would result in his questions.
J
Jeremiah333
Guest
R
rinnie
Guest
BINGO well kind of. How could the eunuch be poorly taught though, according to you, we dont need a teacher. What in the world is the difference between the eunuch and you. He could read, correct, so he understood the words. He believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God right. But he knew enough to know he needed to be Baptised didnt he. So he wasnt totally ignorant. So he understood the Words, (what i mean is he understood what they said but he did not understand what God was wanting him to know did he. He was ignorant, or poorly taught, see I dont see it that way at all. If he was ignorant he would not let Philip teach him, he had the sense to let someone who had the power of the Holy Spirt who understood scripture teach him didnt he. But why did the angel ask Philip to teach him, because the angel knew he would listen, and learn, he was ready to accept the truth revealed to him. That is why God showed it to him. You just blew your sola scripture out of the water. You see you and I are the eunuch. That is why we need teachers to teach us, That is why you are getting so messed up now, you will not see what people are trying to tell you. They are not smarter than you, they just know that we do not have the power to understand this. Go back and read the chapter before this now. See how the Laying of Hands on them and receiving of the Holy Spirt. Kinda sounds like Holy ORders doesnt it.
K
KenEOTE
Guest
Actually if you read the story of Philip and the eunuch you see that he was a Jew from Ethiopia. He was reading Isaiah and at the time he was reading he did not know that Jesus was the Son of God. He was reading a Prophecy and did not understand what it meant. Philip explained to him that the Prophecy was about Jesus. So he was not a Christian, but a Jew who had just come back from the Temple.
Acts 8
32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”[e]
34The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
36As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?”[f] 38And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.
I wanted to just clarify the situation because it sounds like some here are saying that the Eunuch was a believer in Christ before Philip talked to him that was not the case. I do not believe that the Ethiopian Eunuch was poorly taught, he knew the OT scriptures he just didn’t know who the Prophecy was referring to.
J
justasking4
Guest
M
maryj
Guest
Oops should have proof read that Mark 15:40, sorry for any misunderstanding that may have caused. “And with His brothers” where does it say “sons of Mary”, it does say Mary mother of Jesus though doesn’t it!
J
justasking4
Guest
Yes it does say Mary was His mother. Keep in mind that its also connect “with His brothers.” This alone tells us He had brothers and Mary was their mother.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, it tells us that Mary was the mother of Jesus. The brothers mentioned here were children of the “other Mary” (the “sister” of Jesus’ mother).
R
rinnie
Guest
But see what my point was Philip is brought alongside the carriage at the very moment when the ethiopian is pondering the meaning of Christianity. from its earliest origins, has applied to Christ. If Philip had not stopped to explain to him the passage he would not have proclaimed Jesus to him. There is no way that the eunuch was a believer in Christ, but he had the sense to accept the ORAL TEACHINGS, and then get Baptised. Jesus was the Sheep lead to the Slaughter but he had no way of knowing this. untill Philip taught him. That is why we cannot define scripture on our own. Again there is no way he would ever understand what that meant if it was not taught to him. Philip tied the ot into the nt. But again my point oral teachings. And my other point even though it was written the eunuch had the sense to admit HOW CAN I UNLESS SOMEONE INSTRUCTS ME? And what i am saying just because he didnt have the smarts to understand the passage he had the sense to understand he needed to be baptised. By Again Oral Teachings! Now where did it say in the Bible any of this. Again it couldnt not at that time, The bible was long after Christ.
R
rinnie
Guest
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Strong’s concordance is a Protestant work originally based on the King James Bible. And it doesn’t matter what a concordance, dictionary, or footnote says. Scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and it reflects Tradition from whence it comes. Concordances, dictionaries, and commentaries are uninspired. Thus the meaning of an inspired text cannot rely upon an uninspired text, especially not a biased Protestant concordance.
A meaning of a word in Scripture isn’t set in stone. A word has a range of meaning that varies according to context. And the Bible, as the only inspired text, is a unique context. The meaning of brothers and sisters in Scripture in the context of the brothers and sisters of Jesus, in accord with Tradition and Magisterium, refers to members of the extended family, who include cousins.
Strong fails to include the extended family in his list of definitions for the word ‘adelphe’ because there is no clear reference made in the New Testament to female relatives in general. And as a Protestant he probably believed that the brothers and sisters of Jesus taken together are his siblings. Hence, the above list reflects a fallible Protestant bias. The Catholic Church has no need for concordances. Sacred Tradition stands for itself alongside Sacred Scripture.
It is obvious that Strong’s concordance is influenced by a faulty Protestant belief system. He ignores the fact that the word “sister” (adelphe) does clearly refer to female relatives other than siblings and to tribe members on occasion in the Old Testament. Here are a couple of examples:
They (Rebekah’s mother and brother) blessed Rebekah, and said to her, “May you, our sister (kin), become thousands of ten thousands, and may your desendants possess the gate of those who hate them.”
kai euloghsan Rebekkan thn adelfhn autwn kai eipan auth adelfh hmwn ei ginou eiv xiliadav muriadwn kai klhronohmsatw to sperma sou tav poleiv twn upenantiwn.
Genesis 24:60
“And now, O Lord, you know that I take my ‘sister’ (tribal relation) in conjugal union, not by reason of worldly pleasure, but solely for the love of posterity, in which your name may be blessed forever an ever.”
Tobit 8:9
Like I stated above in this thread, the word “sister” (adelphe) does not strictly apply to female siblings in Semitic usage. And it makes no difference whether the Book of Tobit is considered an apocryphal text by Protestants. This OT book still accurately reflects ancient Jewish culture. This practice of employing a wide range of meaning to a word or term surfaces in the New Testament with regard to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Strong’s personal bias means zilch to us Catholics.
PAX
- Status