James, brother of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Razanir
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
steve53 said:
Proving?

Men were dominant then. He called Antipas and Philip brothers and they shared a father in Herod the Great.

It was relatively rare for a woman to have children from two different men.

I’m through with this.
Click to expand...
Um … it really was not rare for women to have children from different fathers … ever hear of widowhood? … today the majority of widows are elderly - back then [and in reality not even back that far] death from accident was common and few people lived to old age …

Josephus was Jewish - his use of the word “brother” would be within the Jewish understanding of the term … it could mean blood sibling or sibling by marriage … but it also meant Uncle, cousin, kinsmen, from the same village or geographic area - a coreligionist … Thus I believe asking you to prove that Josephus was using only a limited meaning - blood brother is appropriate …

And … By the way - if his meaning meant that they had to share at least the same father … well that means that they are not related - necessarily by blood - as Joseph was not Jesus’ father by genetics
 
YADA said:
Um … it really was not rare for women to have children from different fathers … ever hear of widowhood? … today the majority of widows are elderly - back then [and in reality not even back that far] death from accident was common and few people lived to old age …

Josephus was Jewish - his use of the word “brother” would be within the Jewish understanding of the term … it could mean blood sibling or sibling by marriage … but it also meant Uncle, cousin, kinsmen, from the same village or geographic area - a coreligionist … Thus I believe asking you to prove that Josephus was using only a limited meaning - blood brother is appropriate …

And … By the way - if his meaning meant that they had to share at least the same father … well that means that they are not related - necessarily by blood - as Joseph was not Jesus’ father by genetics
Click to expand...
Has anybody ever advanced the theory that God may have plucked Joseph’s genes out of his body and magically fertilized the egg in Mary’s body? Then God’s magic would have allowed baby Jesus to grow inside Mary’s womb and then magically pluck Him out without opening the womb and causing any pain to Mary and avoiding the destruction of her virginity. If that happened, then Joseph would indeed be the genetic father of Jesus, and therefore entitled to the title Messiah because he was of the house of David according to Jewish law. That way Joseph could be the biological father and God could be the spiritual father.
 
nmgauss said:
Has anybody ever advanced the theory that God may have plucked Joseph’s genes out of his body and magically fertilized the egg in Mary’s body? Then God’s magic would have allowed baby Jesus to grow inside Mary’s womb and then magically pluck Him out without opening the womb and causing any pain to Mary and avoiding the destruction of her virginity. If that happened, then Joseph would indeed be the genetic father of Jesus, and therefore entitled to the title Messiah because he was of the house of David according to Jewish law. That way Joseph could be the biological father and God could be the spiritual father.
Click to expand...
Um, what? No, that theory has never been advanced by anyone, to my knowledge, and I doubt that it ever will.
 
nmgauss said:
Has anybody ever advanced the theory that God may have plucked Joseph’s genes out of his body and magically fertilized the egg in Mary’s body? Then God’s magic would have allowed baby Jesus to grow inside Mary’s womb and then magically pluck Him out without opening the womb and causing any pain to Mary and avoiding the destruction of her virginity. If that happened, then Joseph would indeed be the genetic father of Jesus, and therefore entitled to the title Messiah because he was of the house of David according to Jewish law. That way Joseph could be the biological father and God could be the spiritual father.
Click to expand...
Well - actually No! - and Never! … at least in Christian thought …

The Son of God - The Word - the 2nd Person of the Trinity - exists from the beginning of time to the end of time … God from God - Light from Light - True God from True God …Heavenly Father - no earthly mother involved …

Jesus - the Word Made Flesh - the 2nd Person of the Trinity - entered time - born of a Virgin Mary - who was over shadowed by the Holy Spirit [3rd Person of the Holy Trinity - earthly mother - no earthly Father involved … Jesus - Truly God** and Truly Human …
 
nmgauss said:
Has anybody ever advanced the theory that God may have plucked Joseph’s genes out of his body and magically fertilized the egg in Mary’s body? Then God’s magic would have allowed baby Jesus to grow inside Mary’s womb and then magically pluck Him out without opening the womb and causing any pain to Mary and avoiding the destruction of her virginity. If that happened, then Joseph would indeed be the genetic father of Jesus, and therefore entitled to the title Messiah because he was of the house of David according to Jewish law. That way Joseph could be the biological father and God could be the spiritual father.
Click to expand...
Quite heretical if I may say so. Scripture clearly states that Jesus was the Son of God not the son of Joseph. And if you are a true sola scripturist then that is all you need. Joseph is the putative father by means of his relationship to the Blessed Virgin. Today we might call him the foster father of Jesus. But all of Jesus’ human DNA came from the Blessed Virgin.
’
 
ezeekl said:
But all of Jesus’ human DNA came from the Blessed Virgin.
’
Click to expand...
That is biologically impossible. Otherwise, Jesus would be a female.

Also, recessive imperfect genes would become dominant in Jesus. Any genetic imperfections lurking in Mary’s genome would come to the fore, and Jesus would not be a healthy human. He would likely have a genetic disease. Genetic diseases were supposed to have happened in Egypt when brothers and sisters married, and both had one or more of the same recessive genes. Many of their children were abnormal.

The best way to have a healthy male is to have exchange of genes between a human male and a human female neither of whom is related to the other. By this modality inbreeding can be avoided.
 
nmgauss said:
That is biologically impossible. Otherwise, Jesus would be a female.

Also, recessive imperfect genes would become dominant in Jesus. Any genetic imperfections lurking in Mary’s genome would come to the fore, and Jesus would not be a healthy human. He would likely have a genetic disease. Genetic diseases were supposed to have happened in Egypt when brothers and sisters married, and both had one or more of the same recessive genes. Many of their children were abnormal.

The best way to have a healthy male is to have exchange of genes between a human male and a human female neither of whom is related to the other. By this modality inbreeding can be avoided.
Click to expand...
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

I don’t think genetics would be a big problem for a Being Who created the Universe.
 
nmgauss said:
That is biologically impossible. Otherwise, Jesus would be a female.

Also, recessive imperfect genes would become dominant in Jesus. Any genetic imperfections lurking in Mary’s genome would come to the fore, and Jesus would not be a healthy human. He would likely have a genetic disease. Genetic diseases were supposed to have happened in Egypt when brothers and sisters married, and both had one or more of the same recessive genes. Many of their children were abnormal.

The best way to have a healthy male is to have exchange of genes between a human male and a human female neither of whom is related to the other. By this modality inbreeding can be avoided.
Click to expand...
Uhmmm - perhaps so is the primordial slime theory of evolution …

Assuredly so would be a “virgin birth” …

but as another poster said … with God all things are possible … He is the Alpha and the Omega - the creator of all that is in Heaven and Earth 👍
 
prodromos said:
As biologically impossible as God creating Eve from Adam’s flesh?
Click to expand...
Which of the two versions of Adam and Eve are you referring to?

"And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.

And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth."

"Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam: and when he was fast asleep, he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it.

And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man."

The first version makes no mention of a rib. The second version says he filled a rib from Adam with flesh. Where did get the flesh? Which one is more believable?
 
nmgauss said:
The first version makes no mention of a rib. The second version says he filled a rib from Adam with flesh. Where did get the flesh? Which one is more believable?
Click to expand...
I believe both accounts, don’t you?
 
prodromos said:
I believe both accounts, don’t you?
Click to expand...
I am a fan of orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. What I believe is irrelevant.

But you can’t have Adam and Eve created together in one chapter and have Adam created alone in another chapter. Besides, there is no implication that taking a rib from Adam to create Eve is the same process as creating both of them simultaneously from the start.
 
The second account goes into all the detail about how God did what was described in the first account. They are not contradictory accounts as you seem to imply.
 
nmgauss said:
I am a fan of orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. What I believe is irrelevant.

But you can’t have Adam and Eve created together in one chapter and have Adam created alone in another chapter. Besides, there is no implication that taking a rib from Adam to create Eve is the same process as creating both of them simultaneously from the start.
Click to expand...
The two versions are not logically inconsistent because even if God enfleshed one of Adam’s ribs in the second, he still created both of them. The first version does not say simultaneously, it merely says he created both male and female.

If I told you I bought two cars, there is no logical implication that I bought them at the same time unless that is clearly stipulated. You are reading into the text what is not there.
 
nmgauss said:
That is biologically impossible. Otherwise, Jesus would be a female.
Click to expand...
Biologically impossible but divinely very possible. God is the author of all of the laws of the physical world by the very fact He is the Creator of the physical world. Therefore He can supercede a law that His creation cannot. We all call it a miracle when He does it.
nmgauss said:
Also, recessive imperfect genes would become dominant in Jesus. Any genetic imperfections lurking in Mary’s genome would come to the fore, and Jesus would not be a healthy human. He would likely have a genetic disease. Genetic diseases were supposed to have happened in Egypt when brothers and sisters married, and both had one or more of the same recessive genes. Many of their children were abnormal.

The best way to have a healthy male is to have exchange of genes between a human male and a human female neither of whom is related to the other. By this modality inbreeding can be avoided.
Click to expand...
Where is your faith? You are fixated on the physical world and implicit in such fixation is an inherent denial of the miracaulous workings of the omnipotent divine God.
 
nmgauss said:
That is biologically impossible. Otherwise, Jesus would be a female.
Click to expand...
No more impossible than creating a universe from nothing. Reproduction in the standard form would simply appear to be a more pedestrian form of the same miracle. Why should creating new beings via reproduction even be a reality? Certainly appears to be miraculous to me.

In fact, abiogenesis seems to be a version of the virgin birth as it occurred in nature. Life arising from non-living chemicals, likewise seems “biologically impossible.”

Care to explain how non-living chemicals suddenly took to “living” and somehow figured out they had to reproduce in order to keep this “gig” going? Ever looked into the probability of building a functional protein?
 
Razanir said:
I know that in the Protoevangelium of James, Joseph is described as an older man, and more notably, a widower. Because of this, it could make sense for James and John to be Jesus’ stepbrothers, and Joseph’s sons from a previous marriage. Is this an acceptable Catholic opinion?
Click to expand...
Isn’t uncertain whether Joseph had been married before Mary?
 
Peter_Plato said:
No more impossible than creating a universe from nothing. Reproduction in the standard form would simply appear to be a more pedestrian form of the same miracle. Why should creating new beings via reproduction even be a reality? Certainly appears to be miraculous to me.

In fact, abiogenesis seems to be a version of the virgin birth as it occurred in nature. Life arising from non-living chemicals, likewise seems “biologically impossible.”

Care to explain how non-living chemicals suddenly took to “living” and somehow figured out they had to reproduce in order to keep this “gig” going? Ever looked into the probability of building a functional protein?
Click to expand...
Both *creatio ex nihilo *and *creatio ex materia *have received the attention of philosophers, having been written about in ancient near-eastern and ancient Greek mythologies. Since the Book of Genesis says nothing about either of the two modalities, this lack of specificity is ripe for eisegesis. So one can read into the text one’s own bias.

Primitive abiogenesis has been detected in some research studies of naturally occurring amino acids and peptides, especially when activated by weak electrical currents. But
"A fundamental question is about the nature of the first self-replicating molecule. Since replication is accomplished in modern cells through the cooperative action of proteins and nucleic acids, the major schools of thought about how the process originated can be broadly classified as “proteins first” and “nucleic acids first”.

In conclusion, scientists are working on abiogenesis as we speak.
 
nmgauss said:
I am a fan of orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy. What I believe is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Without orthodoxy, orthopraxy is impossible. What you believe is extremely relevant. Indeed, what one believes has eternal consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top