James, Brother of Jesus?

[Tanner9188]

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.

Jefferson understood the moral precepts taught in the Bible were of great benefit to the new nation. “All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution.” & "With his scientific bent, Jefferson sought to organize his thoughts on religion. He rejected the superstitions and mysticism of Christianity and even went so far as to edit the gospels, removing the miracles and mysticism of Jesus (see The Jefferson Bible)** leaving only what he deemed the correct moral philosophy of Jesus.**

Again you say to have read and studied, but concerning the manuscripts of both the OT and NT; we have more copies of these writing copied over vast amounts of time with out the benefit of a printing press and maintain 99.9% consistency. Nothing comes close to that.

 

[Tanner9188]

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.

Hello,

A plain reading of Scripture and a knowledge of the marriage covenant, which God ordained, and blessed between Mary and Joseph can only lead to normal marital relations, after the supernatural birth of Jesus. The use of Greek in the past tense form of the verb “came”, “before they came together”, was used to show that something was so sure; it is as though it already happened. There is no mistaking the contextual meaning used in this phrase and in light of the whole of Scripture and the expectations God commanded concerning the marriage covenant can only leave, even the casual reader, one rendering to the meaning. All the people who knew Joseph and Mary seemed to know they had other children; why don’t you?

May God bless you and His word.

 

[Hesychios]

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.

You have quoted this before.

But actually, women were not allowed in the temple, they could not really even get close. They were not allowed beyond the court of women. And, as I stated above, the temple mount was a construction zone for a long time, beginning in about 20BC. Regular laborers were not involved in rebuilding the actual temple itself, only members of the priesthood were involved. Because of the way it had to be done some scholars have speculated that the work of finishing and dressing the building continued all the way up until the destruction in the first Jewish war.

The temple mount, the very large platform, was something of an urban park. The biggest space was the court of the Gentiles, described as something like a big bazaar where animals were offered for sale. With all this movement of great stone ashlars, columns and lintels with winches and timbers, and of course men and animals everywhere it was not an environment for raising raising little girls.

As to the temple ‘mount’, even in the best of times when construction was finished the closest thing I can think of in modern terms would be a convention center with a trade show going on.

So there has to be another explanation. If Anna the prophetess “never left the temple” it has to be understood in context, like ‘she visited morning and evening’ or, like Jews praying at the wailing wall today, hung around a lot.

The scriptural quote looks like a bit of hyperbole.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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

Gabriel of 12;

Lol… from the pages of the scripture from face value, it is easy for one without any responsible authority to come away with many biblical interpretations. This proves that “sola scriptura” can not work, because you need an authoritative teacher to interpret the biblical books outside the scriptures, thus no “sola scriptura”. Without the root of the mustard tree from which the Holy Spirit first revealed these mysteries of God. Man cannot come along 1900 years later and change what the Holy Spirit has already revealed and confirmed from the Apostles, Saints and Martyrs that Mary was a perpetual virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Jesus.

You know the phrase; to be “steep in history” “is to cease to be protestant”. Every questioned answered here about Jesus and brothers, will continue to be answered by an evolution process or breakdown of biblical interpretations from antiquity. What works, is when the individual who is true to himself and is really in search of truth, steps back from all that is revealed and pray to the Holy Spirit for revelation to the soul that does not change in Jesus Christ. Pride of men will prevent the blind from ever seeing.

 

[elvisman]

You have quoted this before.

But actually, women were not allowed in the temple, they could not really even get close. They were not allowed beyond the court of women. And, as I stated above, the temple mount was a construction zone for a long time, beginning in about 20BC. Regular laborers were not involved in rebuilding the actual temple itself, only members of the priesthood were involved. Because of the way it had to be done some scholars have speculated that the work of finishing and dressing the building continued all the way up until the destruction in the first Jewish war.

The temple mount, the very large platform, was something of an urban park. The biggest space was the court of the Gentiles, described as something like a big bazaar where animals were offered for sale. With all this movement of great stone ashlars, columns and lintels with winches and timbers, and of course men and animals everywhere it was not an environment for raising raising little girls.

As to the temple ‘mount’, even in the best of times when construction was finished the closest thing I can think of in modern terms would be a convention center with a trade show going on.

So there has to be another explanation. If Anna the prophetess “never left the temple” it has to be understood in context, like ‘she visited morning and evening’ or, like Jews praying at the wailing wall today, hung around a lot.

The scriptural quote looks like a bit of hyperbole.

Again, it says:
She never left the temple, but worshiped night and day with fasting and prayer.

Why on earth would I believe you over Scripture? Were you there?
It always amazes me how people will twist the scriptures to fit their own ideas of what THEY think it should say.

 

[BrianH]

Gabriel of 12;

Lol… from the pages of the scripture from face value, it is easy for one without any responsible authority to come away with many biblical interpretations. This proves that “sola scriptura” can not work, because you need an authoritative teacher to interpret the biblical books outside the scriptures, thus no “sola scriptura”. Without the root of the mustard tree from which the Holy Spirit first revealed these mysteries of God. Man cannot come along 1900 years later and change what the Holy Spirit has already revealed and confirmed from the Apostles, Saints and Martyrs that Mary was a perpetual virgin, before, during and after giving birth to Jesus.

You know the phrase; to be “steep in history” “is to cease to be protestant”. Every questioned answered here about Jesus and brothers, will continue to be answered by an evolution process or breakdown of biblical interpretations from antiquity. What works, is when the individual who is true to himself and is really in search of truth, steps back from all that is revealed and pray to the Holy Spirit for revelation to the soul that does not change in Jesus Christ. Pride of men will prevent the blind from ever seeing.

Interpreters are not the problem. There are plenty of those. Just because someone claims infallible interpretation, does not make it so. That is not a Sola Scriptura issue but an authority issue. People can claim authority. Does not make it convincing for those who are not part of that organization.

 

[elvisman]

Interpreters are not the problem. There are plenty of those. Just because someone claims infallible interpretation, does not make it so. That is not a Sola Scriptura issue but an authority issue. People can claim authority. Does not make it convincing for those who are not part of that organization.

I couldn’t agree with you more.
Some of these issues do come down to a matter of authority. The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15).
All of the Protestant sects received their “authority” from men who came later.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello,

A plain reading of Scripture and a knowledge of the marriage covenant, which God ordained, and blessed between Mary and Joseph can only lead to normal marital relations, after the supernatural birth of Jesus. The use of Greek in the past tense form of the verb “came”, “before they came together”, was used to show that something was so sure; it is as though it already happened. There is no mistaking the contextual meaning used in this phrase and in light of the whole of Scripture and the expectations God commanded concerning the marriage covenant can only leave, even the casual reader, one rendering to the meaning. All the people who knew Joseph and Mary seemed to know they had other children; why don’t you?

May God bless you and His word.

Gabriel of 12;
This marriage covenant of the Old Testament cannot be compared to the Sacred Sacramental New Covenant of Holy Matrimony of which Jesus established returning Marriage to its orginal sense Holy before God. These two have very different relationship tendencies.

The old covenant marriage does not equate always sexual relations. Although the theme of marriage since the time of Moses is equated as a “contract” not a covenant. Terminology is critical here. This contractual marriage included Men taking multiple wives as property not lovers. We are not discussing “concubines” here. A Hebrew man by law was to marry his dead brothers wife, if he did not have any sons to carry his name. While the brother was still married. Although Moses allowed divorce, this was not intended by God. So for one to enter into a “contractual” marriage did not always equate them as lovers, but the obedience of the laws of Moses which included “divorce” and wives were considered as property not lovers as you explained.

Your argument of the old covenant “contractual” marriage does not force one into sexual relations as you stated. The male married many wives by arrangement, inorder to support maidens from poor families, taken in by marriage contractual laws, widows which displayed ones blessing from God or wealth. Not neccessarily every marriage contracted forced sexual relations unless the males first wife could not bare him sons.

The word “came”? I dont have this translation in my bible of Matthew 1:25, or are you referencing another scripture? from which translation are you referencing from? In any tense, Matthew is addressing his Jewish audience that Mary concieved as a Virgin, and remained a virgin after she bore a son, there is no evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth. This is a misreading into the ancient transcribe letter.

A casual reader of the bible, would come away misinformed, and misinterpreted trying to read the bible without a teacher, or simply would reject the incredible divine written revelations. Just as the Ethiopian expressed to St. Philip.

 

[Tanner9188]

Gabriel of 12;
This marriage covenant of the Old Testament cannot be compared to the Sacred Sacramental New Covenant of Holy Matrimony of which Jesus established returning Marriage to its orginal sense Holy before God. These two have very different relationship tendencies.

The old covenant marriage does not equate always sexual relations. Although the theme of marriage since the time of Moses is equated as a “contract” not a covenant. Terminology is critical here. This contractual marriage included Men taking multiple wives as property not lovers. We are not discussing “concubines” here. A Hebrew man by law was to marry his dead brothers wife, if he did not have any sons to carry his name. While the brother was still married. Although Moses allowed divorce, this was not intended by God. So for one to enter into a “contractual” marriage did not always equate them as lovers, but the obedience of the laws of Moses which included “divorce” and wives were considered as property not lovers as you explained.

Your argument of the old covenant “contractual” marriage does not force one into sexual relations as you stated. The male married many wives by arrangement, inorder to support maidens from poor families, taken in by marriage contractual laws, widows which displayed ones blessing from God or wealth. Not necessarily every marriage contracted forced sexual relations unless the males first wife could not bare him sons.

Marriage covenant that God ordained has not changed; ceremoniously there are differences among cultures Jewish vs Christian; even today, but the overall vows are the same and virginity is not one of them…can’t someone apply just a little “common sense”?

The word “came”? I don’t have this translation in my bible of Matthew 1:25, or are you referencing another scripture? from which translation are you referencing from? In any tense, Matthew is addressing his Jewish audience that Mary conceived as a Virgin, and remained a virgin after she bore a son, there is no evidence that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary after she gave birth. This is a misreading into the ancient transcribe letter.

Matt 1:18 Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, **before they came together she was found to be with child **by the Holy Spirit.

Matt 1:25 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Therefore, Joseph kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a son, then what? She gave her virginity to Joseph and had other children as the Bible plainly states in reference to Jesus having other brothers and sisters.

A casual reader of the bible, would come away misinformed, and misinterpreted trying to read the bible without a teacher, or simply would reject the incredible divine written revelations. Just as the Ethiopian expressed to St. Philip.

I agree, I see a lot of casual reading and misunderstandings concerning the Bible. But without the resident Spirit-teacher; no one can understand the message…can they?

 

[Tanner9188]

I couldn’t agree with you more.
Some of these issues do come down to a matter of authority. The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15).
**All **of the Protestant sects received their “authority” from men who came later.

Has it ever occurred from the reading of Scripture that it is the Holy Spirit that leads a believer to ever increasing knowledge or truth of God? Concerning men as teachers; Jesus had something to say concerning this as well - paraphrasing - “A disciple will be like his teacher” or “a blind guide will lead the blind and both will fall into a pit” & again paraphrasing “quit being so many teachers” One can have the most devout and pious religius teacher in the world and miss the entire message of the gospel because they never had the basics, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus day the Pharisees and Scribes were perfect examples nad throughout history, even today, we find the same scenario. I’m not suggesting that we cannot learn the truth from men, but only from Holy men of God; regardless of the religious affiliation.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

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

And now back to our regularly scheduled program of doctrinal debate interspersed with evolution…

 

[elvisman]

Has it ever occurred from the reading of Scripture that it is the Holy Spirit that leads a believer to ever increasing knowledge or truth of God? Concerning men as teachers; Jesus had something to say concerning this as well - paraphrasing - “A disciple will be like his teacher” or “a blind guide will lead the blind and both will fall into a pit” & again paraphrasing “quit being so many teachers” One can have the most devout and pious religius teacher in the world and miss the entire message of the gospel because they never had the basics, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus day the Pharisees and Scribes were perfect examples nad throughout history, even today, we find the same scenario. I’m not suggesting that we cannot learn the truth from men, but only from Holy men of God; regardless of the religious affiliation.

And those men must be from the Church that Jesus esablished - because he only estabished ONE Church - not thousands. They must have the guarantee that Jesus gave his Church - the ONE Church he established and the same Church to whom he gave all of the Authority.

 

[freedomwriter]

Has it ever occurred from the reading of Scripture that it is the Holy Spirit that leads a believer to ever increasing knowledge or truth of God? Concerning men as teachers; Jesus had something to say concerning this as well - paraphrasing - “A disciple will be like his teacher” or “a blind guide will lead the blind and both will fall into a pit” & again paraphrasing “quit being so many teachers” One can have the most devout and pious religius teacher in the world and miss the entire message of the gospel because they never had the basics, which is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus day the Pharisees and Scribes were perfect examples nad throughout history, even today, we find the same scenario. I’m not suggesting that we cannot learn the truth from men, but only from Holy men of God; regardless of the religious affiliation.

To say that The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15) is crazy. Nowhere in God’s Word do you see this happening. The theory that Peter was the first pope has already been established. Christ is the Rock. Peter is the small stone. Jesus was talking about himself. He is the corner stone In Matt 16:15-19. In Matt 18:15-18 its just a proclamation of what is already done in heaven. No one can forgive sins other than Christ. That has already been established. The disciples were able to declare that if a person repents, his sins are forgiven in heaven as well as if he doesn’t repent. Then his sins are not forgiven in heaven.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

To say that The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15) is crazy. Nowhere in God’s Word do you see this happening. The theory that Peter was the first pope has already been established. Christ is the Rock. Peter is the small stone. Jesus was talking about himself. He is the corner stone In Matt 16:15-19. In Matt 18:15-18 its just a proclamation of what is already done in heaven. No one can forgive sins other than Christ. That has already been established. The disciples were able to declare that if a person repents, his sins are forgiven in heaven as well as if he doesn’t repent. Then his sins are not forgiven in heaven.

In koine Greek, “petra” meant “rock” not “small stone.” Even in Attic Greek at the time of Jesus, petra meant rock and no longer “small stone.” And in any case, Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. Kepha (rock) = Kepha (Peter). But this is probably a topic for a different thread.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Jesus referred to Peter as “rock” (not small stone).

 

[Bill_Pick]

To say that The Catholic Church was given Authority from Jesus himself - who is God (Matt 16:15-19, 18:15-18, John 16:13-15) is crazy. Nowhere in God’s Word do you see this happening. The theory that Peter was the first pope has already been established. Christ is the Rock. Peter is the small stone. Jesus was talking about himself. He is the corner stone In Matt 16:15-19. In Matt 18:15-18 its just a proclamation of what is already done in heaven. No one can forgive sins other than Christ. That has already been established. The disciples were able to declare that if a person repents, his sins are forgiven in heaven as well as if he doesn’t repent. Then his sins are not forgiven in heaven.

Peter is the LARGE stone,check your greek.

 

[freedomwriter]

Peter is the LARGE stone,check your greek.

The word for Peter is petros meaning a small stone Jn 1:42. Jesus used petra for this “rock”. Who is the rock? None other than Christ. Petra means a foundation boulder Matt 7:24,25. The NT makes it clear that Christ is both the foundation Acts 4:11,12, 1 Cor 3:11 and the head Eph 5:23 of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter

 

[SalomeBintullah]

The word for Peter is petros meaning a small stone Jn 1:42. Jesus used petra for this “rock”. Who is the rock? None other than Christ. Petra means a foundation boulder Matt 7:24,25. The NT makes it clear that Christ is both the foundation Acts 4:11,12, 1 Cor 3:11 and the head Eph 5:23 of the church, it is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter

See my post #308. Bill is right. You need to check your Greek.

 

[jpaul1953]

"brethren of the lord"

when catholics call mary the “blessed virgin,” they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When protestants refer to mary as “virgin,” they mean she was a virgin only until jesus’ birth.

They believe that she and joseph later had children whom scripture refers to as “the brethren of the lord.”

the disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms “brethren,” “brother,” and “sister.”

there are about ten instances in the new testament where “brothers” and “sisters” of the lord are mentioned (matt. 12:46; matt. 13:55; mark 3:31–34; mark 6:3; luke 8:19–20; john 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; acts 1:14; 1 cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term “brother” (greek: Adelphos) has a wide meaning in the bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother.

The same goes for “sister” (adelphe) and the plural form “brothers” (adelphoi). The old testament shows that “brother” had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as “fathers”) and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your “sons”), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 sam. 1:26; amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called abraham’s “brother” (gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of haran, abraham’s brother (gen. 11:26–28), he was actually abraham’s nephew. Similarly, jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle laban (gen. 29:15).

Kish and eleazar were the sons of mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their “brethren,” the sons of kish. These “brethren” were really their cousins (1 chr. 23:21–22).

The terms “brothers,” “brother,” and “sister” did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (deut. 23:7; neh. 5:7; jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two “brethren” of king azariah (2 kgs. 10:13–14).

catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp

continued…

terrific

 

[Tanner9188]

And now back to our regularly scheduled program of doctrinal debate interspersed with evolution…

You are funny!!
:tiphat: