James, Brother of Jesus?

[jpaul1953]

** tobeinatorstark, you want examples from bible? I had written the following:**

Please point out what needs examples or quotes. At one place in bibleNT, he is said to be a dull minded person (as said by Jesus himslef). At the other place, Peter is said to have cursed the Lord Jesus three times. It all goes against the good status of Peter, the Rock. The Rock on which the church was built.

Planten,

Do you know any legimate history of the Church. You surely know a large amount of illegitimate history of my faith. What would you say if I just said without any real knowlege something with a negative impact on your faith. How would you feel? Or, is that okay to do, Mr no-nothing- at-all- about- the-Church.

jpaul1953

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I was actually trying to add to my post but my time to edit ran out. Anyway, here’s my additional comments:

Obviously there’s also the problem of Luke, who was a gentile convert to Christianity, who allegedly authored both Luke and Acts. Luke obviously would of had minimal if any exposure to the Old Testament (whether the Septuagint or Mosaic text). Luke was also said to be a physician so assumably he was well educated. In passages such as Luke 8:20 he uses the Koine Greek word for “brother” NOT cousin (and of course there was a commonly used word for cousin in Koine Greek).

Gabriel of 12;

What you fail to realize here is that St.Luke was a Gentile, who was RECORDING the actual events that took place from the living eyewitnesses who spoke Aramaic/Hebrew, Luke himself did not walk with Jesus, he became a disciple of Paul. So Luke being loyal to the detail of the Holy Spirit who gave witness, meaning Luke recorded verbatim from the Hebrew custom verbage without distorting it with his learned Greek. When Luke gives account from his eyewitness accounts the better greek is seen. Luke being a Christian records that nothing can be added or taken from the inspired Word of God. Had Luke and the Church fathers done such a thing to the scriptures as you pretend they did, we would be debating the validity of the scriptures from God, not the transliteration from Hebrew/Aramaic thought to Greek to Latin to English.

Secondly; you fail to finish the context of Luke 8:20-21 Where Jesus gives his Hebrew idiom of the nationality of who is true brothers and Mother are; disqualifying your assertion that these brothers were siblings of Mary. From the Hebrew context (from which Luke records) these brothers mean "tribal or relatives accompanied Mary his Mother. In no way does this Hebrew (not greek content) expresses Mary’s children.

humble in doubt;

Moreover, in Col. 4:10 Paul uses the Greek word for cousin, so obviously he didn’t take his cues from the Septuagint writing style 100% of the time. So the better view is probably that Jesus indeed had siblings – but on the other hand the RC view probably isn’t as implausible as you think either. Now whether or not these siblings were step siblings or blood siblings is another matter entirely. It does seem important from a typological standpoint that Jesus be rejected by his siblings – just as David was.

Gabriel of 12;
St. Paul records in Greek from his captivity epistles; Depending on his audience, Paul addresses both Gentile and Jews. Understanding of whom he is addressing, you will see Paul relate his topic from a Hebrew mindset when addressing the Jewish community, and the fulfillment of Judaism to the Greek audience. Your Col. 4:10 only proves that the Greek transcriptions survived the Aramaic/Hebrew content unchanged.

Paul is addressing a gentile/converted Colossian Church obviously “greek”, thus the greek verbage and thought pattern follow from Paul. Who is well educated to correct their teachings that the “Shadows” they are preaching about to refrain from these because now they have become a “Reality” in Jesus Christ.

humble in doubt;

Anyone who has even a rudimentary familiarity with the bible knows David is the most important Old Testament “type” who prefigures Jesus. At 1 Sam. 17 David is rejected by his brothers; and as we see at John 7:5 Jesus was initially rejected by his own brothers (of course the bible also avers that the risen Jesus appeared to his brother James, and subsequently James played a pivotal role in building and administering the early church).

I guess the idea is that although the rejection of David does prefigure the rejection of Christ (by his own brothers) – the resurrection of Christ (and his appearance to his brother James) reverses this (keeping with the theme of reversal i.e. Jesus as the new Adam reverses the harm done to mankind by Adam & rebuilds our bridge to god; just as Jesus, once risen, reverses the shame of rejection to the royal Davidic line … or something to that effect).

Gabriel of 12;
You are not far from the KIngdom; Although, the picture of “typology” is not limited in the way you have portrayed here; For one the “brothers” Tribes of Israel were divided and against David beginning not with David’s blood brothers, but his Son who began the revolt against his Father dividing the Tribes “Brothers”.

Jesus on the other hand fulfills the prophets who proclaimed that “his own did not accept him”. Meaning his own people from which Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, not just his village, but the whole of Isreal religous and political communites, thus not a “typology” as you suggested, but a true “fulfillment of the prophets” coming to pass in the person of Jesus.

 

[Tanner9188]

Hi, humble_in_doubt.

Sorry, but the Bible does not posit a 6,000 year old Earth, or any denial of evolution. If you look in those texts with 21st century literalistic eyes, you become nothing but a fundamentalist, ignoring the social context. It’s poetry, not directly history. Before you knock something, please research it a little more thoroughly.

Angels I don’t have a problem with. I have not ever personally seen an angel, but I take the Bible’s word on it. As for the “talking snakes”, the snake (singular) in Genesis was Satan, who obviously possessed the snake or came in the form of a snake.

But to the real matter: In the Gospel accounts, they’re translated from Armaic, and in Armaic there is no word for “cousin”, so the word for “brother” was used. Therefore, this carries over into the Greek.

In the letters of Paul, I just assumed that the James they talk about was Jesus’ spiritual brother, just like in Acts 1:15: “In those days Peter stood up among the brothers (the company of persons was in all about 120) and said…” Brothers refers to spiritual brothers.

God Bless,

You have errored in 2 ways, first bringing the Hebrew to the Greek concerning the NT as opposed to the other way around. Secondly; you concluded that brother always is used as a spiritual brother, when the fact is that it used for blood brothers as well; like the example of Simon and his “brother” Andrew (blood brothers). Given the context of references to Jesus’s brothers and his mother and also his sisters; the only logical conclusion is blood relatives in light of Scripture and the marital covenant that all believers are to adhere to. God did not say He made an exception for Mary and Joseph concerning the marital covenant…did he?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

You have errored in 2 ways, first bringing the Hebrew to the Greek concerning the NT as opposed to the other way around. Secondly; you concluded that brother always is used as a spiritual brother, when the fact is that it used for blood brothers as well; like the example of Simon and his “brother” Andrew (blood brothers). Given the context of references to Jesus’s brothers and his mother and also his sisters; the only logical conclusion is blood relatives in light of Scripture and the marital covenant that all believers are to adhere to. God did not say He made an exception for Mary and Joseph concerning the marital covenant…did he?

You’re forgetting that overall I agree with your position. I simply say that the Catholic view is not so out of sorts (and certainly not as far fetched as you imply). You’re right … the word brother being used alongside sister & considering both words are clearly used in a familial context – leaves little doubt in my mind that the bible says Jesus had brothers.

Whether they were step brothers or blood brothers, however, is entirely unclear. Frankly I’m not even sure why protestants are so bothered by the idea of perpetual virginity; given both Luther and Calvin never disputed the idea – and it seems pretty clear that the idea of perpetual virginity has been around for a while (although I do admit the view that Joseph was also a virgin is not only impossible in light of the relevant scriptures – but it really is absurd). The bigger problem, it seems to me, from a scriptural and Christological standpoint is how the Catholic view of Mary has evolved (i.e. mediatrix of all graces, co-redeemer, queen of heaven, spouse of the Holy Spirit, etc.). However, it’s a pretty complex topic (and the only basis to refute these sort of ideas is by arguing the tenor of scripture rails against this sort of worship practice – and “tenor” is a pretty abstract concept). You can use the “one mediator” argument (which is a good one); but the Catholics will be quick to say they also agree that Jesus is the only mediator between man and god. They would simply add that the saints and Mary can mediate between man and Christ (and use passages like “the great cloud of witnesses” in Hebrews to bolster their position). They’re also quick to point out veneration is distinct from worship & therefore their worship practices cannot be fairly described as some sort of quasi-paganism.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Gabriel of 12;
You are not far from the KIngdom; Although, the picture of “typology” is not limited in the way you have portrayed here; For one the “brothers” Tribes of Israel were divided and against David beginning not with David’s blood brothers, but his Son who began the revolt against his Father dividing the Tribes “Brothers”.

Jesus on the other hand fulfills the prophets who proclaimed that “his own did not accept him”. Meaning his own people from which Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah, not just his village, but the whole of Isreal religous and political communites, thus not a “typology” as you suggested, but a true “fulfillment of the prophets” coming to pass in the person of Jesus.

Yes and no … frankly it’s unclear (although David was scorned and rejected by his brothers). With regard to the assertion that Luke, although a Greek (who spoke, wrote, and thought in the Greek language) was translating Aramaic to Greek … I think that’s entirely fallacious reasoning. Sure Peter, John, etc. did speak Aramaic. However, think about it practically. Assume I’m dictating events and was surrounded by Spanish speakers. Assume I’m of European ethnicity (which I am) and don’t know more than ten words of Spanish (which I don’t). Assume Spanish doesn’t have exact words for certain things or concepts the English language does … and has dual uses for certain words the English language has precise words for. How would I write my dictation? Obviously I would write it in the English manner – being as precise as possible (particularly if I was well educated, which I am … AS WAS LUKE). So frankly I think it’s absurd to think Luke would have taken an inaccurate or confusing dictation simply because ancient Hebrew was a less developed language as compared to Koine Greek.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The reason you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that the Bible is the very word of God is you love your sin; if I had to guess without knowing you, I would say you live in such sin that you know is contrary to the word of God; that the idea of giving it up seems impossible and undesirable. One day you will see the truth, for in your heart you know there must be something beyond the grave, it is built into every mans conscience, and there is, but you will be condemned unless you repent and turn to God.

since you obviously don’t me … let me help allay your preconceived notions. Do I love sin? I’m a lawyer, soldier, served this country in Iraq, do not have a criminal record, and I’m generally far better behaved than most Christians I’ve come in contact with. I say the idea that there’s a devil who tempts us shifts part of our personal responsibility for poor behavior to some imaginary spirit. So if anything I think Christianity provides many with an excuse. Hey, we’re all sinners right? Well, no we’re not … or at least we don’t have to be.

Inversely you might say I don’t define poor behavior in the same way you do; and you would be correct in that assumption. I was on my way back to my hotel last night in a taxi cab & the driver had a Christian radio station on. The speaker was talking to an atheist trying to convince him he’s a sinner. He asked the atheist do you ever have lustful thoughts when you see a pretty woman? Of course being a normal guy (like myself) the atheist responded … of course I do. Obviously the Christian will try and convince me I should feel guilty for those sort of thoughts, which are after all natural (at least for heterosexuals). Well, try it on someone else … I ain’t buying it. There’s nothing wrong with thinking about sex, or for that matter having responsible sex. As long as you’re not a slime bag and con girls into sleeping with you, there’s no false pretenses, and its by mutual consent (and of course both are adults) then it’s fine (and usually a good time for both parties).

I’m wonder why you are even here; curiosity and the love for debate?

May God open your eyes and heart!

Mark

PS Most everyone that is a true believer was once in your shoes. If you really want proof that the Bible is for real…one word “Israel” - it should not exist and should have gone by the wayside like all the other cultures and societies have, but God promised to preserve her.

dude … I don’t even want to get on the subject of Israel or why she exists (much less the fallacious notion that it exists because of some sort of fictitious divine mandate). I simply hope Israel can find peace in a tumultuous part of the world (a part of the world I’m unfortunately all too familiar with). I also hope those who are struggling for freedom in Iran will get their wish (although practically speaking I think they will face some very rough days in the near future).

 

[Tanner9188]

You’re forgetting that overall I agree with your position. I simply say that the Catholic view is not so out of sorts (and certainly not as far fetched as you imply). You’re right … the word brother being used alongside sister & considering both words are clearly used in a familial context – leaves little doubt in my mind that the bible says Jesus had brothers.

Whether they were step brothers or blood brothers, however, is entirely unclear. Frankly I’m not even sure why protestants are so bothered by the idea of perpetual virginity; given both Luther and Calvin never disputed the idea – and it seems pretty clear that the idea of perpetual virginity has been around for a while (although I do admit the view that Joseph was also a virgin is not only impossible in light of the relevant scriptures – but it really is absurd). The bigger problem, it seems to me, from a scriptural and Christological standpoint is how the Catholic view of Mary has evolved (i.e. mediatrix of all graces, co-redeemer, queen of heaven, spouse of the Holy Spirit, etc.). However, it’s a pretty complex topic (and the only basis to refute these sort of ideas is by arguing the tenor of scripture rails against this sort of worship practice – and “tenor” is a pretty abstract concept). You can use the “one mediator” argument (which is a good one); but the Catholics will be quick to say they also agree that Jesus is the only mediator between man and god. They would simply add that the saints and Mary can mediate between man and Christ (and use passages like “the great cloud of witnesses” in Hebrews to bolster their position). They’re also quick to point out veneration is distinct from worship & therefore their worship practices cannot be fairly described as some sort of quasi-paganism.

I have no problem with Catholic persons beliefs, even if I disagree with them. But the idea of perpetual virginity, when God ordained the marriage between Joseph and Mary and God authored the marriage covenant; and the statement in Matthew 1:18 states “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together **she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” This is another use of the past tense verb (came), which the Greeks used often to imply something was so sure; it is as though it has already happened. This is a s plain as day and in light of the whole of the NT; should not leave any crack as to whether Mary and Joseph had children. Why care? If you change the word of God; what do you make God? You also open the pandora’s box of imposing your beliefs on the Scripture rather than seeing of your belief is in line with Scripture.

 

[Tanner9188]

since you obviously don’t me … let me help allay your preconceived notions. Do I love sin? I’m a lawyer, soldier, served this country in Iraq, do not have a criminal record, and I’m generally far better behaved than most Christians I’ve come in contact with. I say the idea that there’s a devil who tempts us shifts part of our personal responsibility for poor behavior to some imaginary spirit. So if anything I think Christianity provides many with an excuse. Hey, we’re all sinners right? Well, no we’re not … or at least we don’t have to be.

Inversely you might say I don’t define poor behavior in the same way you do; and you would be correct in that assumption. I was on my way back to my hotel last night in a taxi cab & the driver had a Christian radio station on. The speaker was talking to an atheist trying to convince him he’s a sinner. He asked the atheist do you ever have lustful thoughts when you see a pretty woman? Of course being a normal guy (like myself) the atheist responded … of course I do. Obviously the Christian will try and convince me I should feel guilty for those sort of thoughts, which are after all natural (at least for heterosexuals). Well, try it on someone else … I ain’t buying it. There’s nothing wrong with thinking about sex, or for that matter having responsible sex. As long as you’re not a slime bag and con girls into sleeping with you, there’s no false pretenses, and its by mutual consent (and of course both are adults) then it’s fine (and usually a good time for both parties).

dude … I don’t even want to get on the subject of Israel or why she exists (much less the fallacious notion that it exists because of some sort of fictitious divine mandate). I simply hope Israel can find peace in a tumultuous part of the world (a part of the world I’m unfortunately all too familiar with). I also hope those who are struggling for freedom in Iran will get their wish (although practically speaking I think they will face some very rough days in the near future).

Have you ever lied; even a small one? Then you are a liar in God’s view, which is the view that counts. Ever taken something that wasn’t yours? You are a thief in God’s eyes.
Ever have sex with a man or woman outside of marriage? Then God sees an adulterer.
The list can go on. The moral foundation of this country was based on Biblical principals and our country has been blessed; more than any other country in history. We have pissed all over God and now we are under the wrath of abandonment; where God removes His restraining grace and leaves us to our own choices as a nation; this also can apply to individual; Sampson is the perfect example.

Romans 1 starting in verse 18 to the end is the history of most all nations; but particularly nations founded on Christian principles.

Does this sound like our country, which is the collective individuals that make this nation?
Romans 1: 28-32 -
“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

Welcome to the wrath of abandonment!

As far as you comparing yourself to others; as to your character, you error is using that moral standard if it is worked out to the end, meaning you are better than person A, but A seems himself better than person B, but person B sees himself as better than person c…to person Z; the standard you end with is the worse of the worse; whereas the standard God sets is the highest of the high. Which standard will result in a better society?

You define your own standards; thus you are your own god. Funny that you had the moral inclination to say that having consensual adult relations was okay, but you stopped short of underage girls or same sex. Why? You have a moral compass!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I have no problem with Catholic persons beliefs, even if I disagree with them. But the idea of perpetual virginity, when God ordained the marriage between Joseph and Mary and God authored the marriage covenant; and the statement in Matthew 1:18 states “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together **she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” This is another use of the past tense verb (came), which the Greeks used often to imply something was so sure; it is as though it has already happened. This is a s plain as day and in light of the whole of the NT; should not leave any crack as to whether Mary and Joseph had children. Why care? If you change the word of God; what do you make God? You also open the pandora’s box of imposing your beliefs on the Scripture rather than seeing of your belief is in line with Scripture.

I’m not sure your last statement is very accurate … since my belief is that scripture is largely untrue mythology (but anyways). Like I said you raise good & fair points; including Matt. 1:18. On balance I do think you hold the better view on this issue, as I’ve said repeatedly.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The moral foundation of this country was based on Biblical principals and our country has been blessed; more than any other country in history. We have pissed all over God and now we are under the wrath of abandonment; where God removes His restraining grace and leaves us to our own choices as a nation; this also can apply to individual; Sampson is the perfect example.

oh golly … I always love Christian revisionist history. Try researching Jefferson’s view of scripture, or the many other founding fathers who were “soft” theists (at best). Moreover, a better choice of words might be more appropriate for this sort of forum? Finally, if you hate America so much … no one is forcing you and your counterparts to stay here (in fact I’ll gladly give you guys the directions to your nearest airport – where you can fly to the theocratic country of your choice).

I think America is doing just fine; though obviously we still have plenty of problems. Perhaps you dream of returning to those good old Jim Crow days (not to distant in our past). Or maybe the good old days when women lacked the right to vote and had to opt for life threatening back alley abortions. How about those jolly old days when we were such a moral and upstanding country that our clergymen molested little boys unimpeded, or incest and spousal abuse went on behind closed doors (and the cries of those victims fell on deaf ears). Ahhh the good old days.

Your true colors are starting to shine … and they’re not very pretty from where I sit. Frankly, you couch potato patriots always tick me off. Have you ever lifted a finger for this country? Have you ever sacrificed anything for anyone … while you sit there with all your sanctimony? I strongly doubt it …

 

[Hesychios]

…

 

[SalomeBintullah]

…

I vaguely recall when this thread used to be about St. James the brother of Jesus…

 

[Tanner9188]

oh golly … I always love Christian revisionist history. Try researching Jefferson’s view of scripture, or the many other founding fathers who were “soft” theists (at best). Moreover, a better choice of words might be more appropriate for this sort of forum? Finally, if you hate America so much … no one is forcing you and your counterparts to stay here (in fact I’ll gladly give you guys the directions to your nearest airport – where you can fly to the theocratic country of your choice).

I think America is doing just fine; though obviously we still have plenty of problems. Perhaps you dream of returning to those good old Jim Crow days (not to distant in our past). Or maybe the good old days when women lacked the right to vote and had to opt for life threatening back alley abortions. How about those jolly old days when we were such a moral and upstanding country that our clergymen molested little boys unimpeded, or incest and spousal abuse went on behind closed doors (and the cries of those victims fell on deaf ears). Ahhh the good old days.

Your true colors are starting to shine … and they’re not very pretty from where I sit. Frankly, you couch potato patriots always tick me off. Have you ever lifted a finger for this country? Have you ever sacrificed anything for anyone … while you sit there with all your sanctimony? I strongly doubt it …

On the contrary; I’m ticked that God, who blessed this nation is under assault by this same nation, but under different generations of people. I suggest you read the following: “5000 year leap”, “The real George Washington” , The real Thomas Jefferson" and then “Liberty and Tyranny”; then come back and say I am not Patriotic. I love this country and hate what ungodly people are doing to destroy it from the inside-out. As a side note, my Pastor is a “former” US Navy Seal and served in Iraq and has a published book titled “Meeting God Behind Enemy Lines”; you might want to pick that one up as well.

I’m very grateful for people like you who are willing to risk their lives for liberty and freedom - God bless you and thank you for your service!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

On the contrary; I’m ticked that God, who blessed this nation is under assault by this same nation, but under different generations of people. I suggest you read the following: “5000 year leap”, “The real George Washington” , The real Thomas Jefferson" and then “Liberty and Tyranny”; then come back and say I am not Patriotic. I love this country and hate what ungodly people are doing to destroy it from the inside-out. As a side note, my Pastor is a “former” US Navy Seal and served in Iraq and has a published book titled “Meeting God Behind Enemy Lines”; you might want to pick that one up as well.

I’m very grateful for people like you who are willing to risk their lives for liberty and freedom - God bless you and thank you for your service!

Jefferson didn’t believe in any of the miracles described in scripture, nor did he even believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact he ripped all such references out of his bible & authored his own bible (a collection of sections out of the bible that only discuss the philosophy of Christ and his altruistic nature). How do we know this … we still have the thing for goodness sake (much more than we can say about the manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments).

Washington, on the other hand, was a devout Christian.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes and no … frankly it’s unclear (although David was scorned and rejected by his brothers). With regard to the assertion that Luke, although a Greek (who spoke, wrote, and thought in the Greek language) was translating Aramaic to Greek … I think that’s entirely fallacious reasoning. Sure Peter, John, etc. did speak Aramaic. However, think about it practically. Assume I’m dictating events and was surrounded by Spanish speakers. Assume I’m of European ethnicity (which I am) and don’t know more than ten words of Spanish (which I don’t). Assume Spanish doesn’t have exact words for certain things or concepts the English language does … and has dual uses for certain words the English language has precise words for. How would I write my dictation? Obviously I would write it in the English manner – being as precise as possible (particularly if I was well educated, which I am … AS WAS LUKE). So frankly I think it’s absurd to think Luke would have taken an inaccurate or confusing dictation simply because ancient Hebrew was a less developed language as compared to Koine Greek.

Gabriel of 12;
Question? Are you confusing Joseph son of Jacob brothers who scorned and rejected him, with David’s brothers? David was the youngest of his brothers. Probably most of his “Older Brothers” (Jesus had no older brothers or younger siblings) were already dead, by the tiime David ruled as King, and had his son “Absolum” who revolted the Brothers (tribes) against his father David… Again I dont see your typology here from scripture, only a fulfillment of Jesus from the prophets of God of “his own did not accept him”. This prophetic phrase alone (“his own did not accept him”) speaks volumes of “Brothers of Jesus” being his tribesman or relatives not siblings of Jesus.

The Gospel transliteration topic is much intense for this topic that requires much depth and facts to bring out here. So I am trying to be brief here; Lukes Gospel account differs from the other synoptic accounts, where Luke freely uses his good Greek style. Where Luke repeats the stories of the synoptic Gospels, It is believed by biblical historians that Luke may have copied from an original trascript. From these scholary biblical views, we begin a road down the document of “Q”. I am not sure if you are familiar with these types of biblical debates which “authenticate” the New Testament as being inspired of God. So in summary Lukes Gospel transcribes from the other existing Gospels much older than his, where Luke reveals other events more in detail such as the “annunciation” Luke records not from an existing document but from a living eyewitness who gave him the detail testimonies for his Gospel where the other synoptic accounts dont.

Although I agree with your assertion in translating from “today’s technology and view of understanding”, but if someone has given you a legal document signed by a judge, you will do your best to keep the validity of that court document from any changes be it language or thought in the translation if you had to transcribe the legal document, without the tools of the late century. Ones goal in this example would be to record every thought, custom, verbal interpretation to the letter, without hindering it with ones own language or thought. Had Luke done such a thing, his Gospel would probably never been canonized as inspired of God by the Catholic Church from the third-fourth centuries.

This false belief that Jesus had siblings, appears to be 19th- 20th century interpretation of scripture without this knowledge of how the New Testament came to be. One can fall victim easily from this late century mindset which can lead anyone to interpret scripture to their liking, which will result in thousands of christian faiths and denominations which exist to date, outside the One Holy Catholic Church surviving these past 2000 years

 

[Hesychios]

I vaguely recall when this thread used to be about St. James the brother of Jesus…

[sign]Proud to also be Polish :aok:[/sign]

 

[humble_in_doubt]

1. David was not in Jesse’s memory bank when the Prophet Samuel came to choose a King of Israel!
2. David was rejected by his Brothers when he came with supplies to the battlefield – Eliab voiced his rejection of David. I Samuel 17:28.
3. Kin Saul tried to Kill David repeatedly…
4. David’s wife – Michal, despised him. II Samuel 6:20.
5. David’s sons, Absalom and Adonijah tried to overthrow him.

Moreover, this debate is not a 19th or 20th century creation … it goes back as far as Origen & Tertullian for goodness sake. Anyways … gotta hit the sack (and I’m tired of religious pundits and revisionist history; maybe I’ll have energy for it after a good nights sleep ).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

1. David was not in Jesse’s memory bank when the Prophet Samuel came to choose a King of Israel!
2. David was rejected by his Brothers when he came with supplies to the battlefield – Eliab voiced his rejection of David. I Samuel 17:28.
3. Kin Saul tried to Kill David repeatedly…
4. David’s wife – Michal, despised him. II Samuel 6:20.
5. David’s sons, Absalom and Adonijah tried to overthrow him.

Gabriel of 12;
Ok, I see your corrolation, I disagree with the typology, with Jesus being rejected by his own as foretold by the prophets. Example 2 above does not equate with Jesus and his brothers who rejected him as accused siblings, but that Jesus was rejected for what they seen and heard of Jesus as a community of the same tribal relationship and or relatives from the same clan.

humble in doubt;
Moreover, this debate is not a 19th or 20th century creation … it goes back as far as Origen & Tertullian for goodness sake. Anyways … gotta hit the sack (and I’m tired of religious pundits and revisionist history; maybe I’ll have energy for it after a good nights sleep ).

Gabriel of 12;
You are correct, all those who opposed the perpetual virginity of Mary were ALL labeled heretics, never Christians. This opposition once difused early on, was never heard of again “until” Christians in opposition to Catholic Teaching in the 19th century. This is a new debate, created by non Catholics in the 19th century. In this freedom period and the age of literacy, has opened up many misinterpretations of the Catholic Bible from non catholic circles, suggesting Jesus had siblings from Joseph and Mary. Which was settled against the enemies of Christendom early on in the first four centuries. Why non catholic christians have fallen for this deception from the father of Lies, proves that the Catholic Church has not failed from coming under attack by the one who knows is the Church of whom Jesus built.

Good night.

 

[elvisman]

I vaguely recall when this thread used to be about St. James the brother of Jesus…

Yes - and nobody has been able to prove it.
I guess that’s why the conversation has degenerated into a debate about evolution.

 

[elvisman]

I cannot find anything in writing that suggests there was a custom of allowing young women to live in the temple complex.

Even the priests and levites lived in the town and left the temple at end of day.

There were watchmen overnight. Edersheim states that if a watchman was found asleep he could wake up to find his clothes were set on fire.

Any living quarters would have had to be somewhere else in the temple mount, not in the compartments jacketing the main spaces of the temple. The temple mount has a lot of cavities but nothing that suggests living quarters which I am aware of. Mostly they consist of channels and cisterns for water, plus the necessary channels for bloody waste of the sacrifices and the mess live animals contributed to the environment.

When Mary of Nazareth was a child (she could only have been 13 to 18 years older than Jesus) construction was more than likely in it’s final phases, the whole place was a redo courtesy of old king Herod “the builder”, who had huge ashlars transported to the site and expanded the mount and all of the associated structures, like the porticos.

The story would actually be more plausible if it stated she lived in Qumron, which we know was fitted out for permanent residences and practiced universal celibacy of it’s members. It is considered by some to have been founded by a party of temple priests who lost their station to politics and refused to associate with the old temple. Just a speculation on my part, but if Joachim and Anna were of advanced age she could have been turned over as an orphan to a group like that. The parents may have been affiliated with Essenes, or respected them sufficiently.

An Essene connection is not out of the question, they were present in many places around Palestine, including Jerusalem itself, participating in the local community. During the great Jewish revolt the Qumron community was completely destroyed, there does not seem to be a single survivor, and many if not most of the local Jews were exiled, executed or enslaved. Memory of the community seems to have been lost as Hellenes moved in to repopulate the region.

Michael

Luke 2:36-37
There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived seven years with her husband after her marriage, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.