Jesus' Brothers

[hellopeople]

lol, you guys are funny. So someone says that Jesus had siblings (something that is basically universally held to be true by Protestant and Secular scholars alike) and he is a hack?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

On Christian Teaching is by Augustine.

I believe it’s **On Christian Doctrine, **it’s an absolutely execellent work on Interpretation of Scripture.

 

[hellopeople]

I believe it’s **On Christian Doctrine, **it’s an absolutely execellent work on Interpretation of Scripture.

My translation is called “On Christian Teaching.” I guess its just a difference in translation. It is published by the oxford world’s classics. I think I will start reading it soon. When I learned about Augustine I really liked his view on scripture (ESPECIALLY his view that any interpretation of the Bible should increase either your love of God, or love of neighbor, or both…and if it does not, you are interpreting it wrong. THAT is the basis of Christianity IMO).

 

[DavidFilmer]

My translation is called “On Christian Teaching.” I guess its just a difference in translation. It is published by the oxford world’s classics.

Oxford is one of the more reputable protestant publishing houses, but I am surprised they would translate the actual name (“De Doctrina Christiana”) so poorly. The Latin word which would normally be translated as “teaching” would be “eruditio” Although “Doctrina” *could *be translated as “teaching,” it is not the first choice, and would only be appropriately translated as “teaching” if context demanded it. There is no context here to prefer the word “teaching” to “doctrine” in translation. But the word “doctrine” is taboo in many protestant denominations, so they picked a word that was more agreeable but less accurate.

This calls into question the quality of the entire book. May I suggest that, if you want to take the time to read this excellent work, that you choose an edition from a Catholic publishing house? Augustine was a Catholic, and a Catholic publishing house has no motivation to “tweak” the translation - you will read his words in the most faithful and accurate translation possible…

(ESPECIALLY his view that any interpretation of the Bible should increase either your love of God, or love of neighbor, or both…and if it does not, you are interpreting it wrong. THAT is the basis of Christianity IMO).

Well, it’s good stuff (and true), but is that the *basis *of Christianity? What about the centuries of Early Christians who had no Bible? (or, at least, no New Testament). How did they get by? Just curious.

Tell ya what - here’s a little Pop Quiz to go along with your finals. It has just one question, and it’s a Scripture question - right up your alley. I’ll put it in quote tags to make it stand out:

The New Testament contains 27 “books.” Who was the first person to propose a list of 27 books (ie, a canon) which is the same 27 books as those found in our modern Bibles?

 

[hellopeople]

Oxford is one of the more reputable protestant publishing houses, but I am surprised they would translate the actual name (“De Doctrina Christiana”) so poorly. The Latin word which would normally be translated as “teaching” would be “eruditio” Although “Doctrina” *could *be translated as “teaching,” it is not the first choice, and would only be appropriately translated as “teaching” if context demanded it. There is no context here to prefer the word “teaching” to “doctrine” in translation. But the word “doctrine” is taboo in many protestant denominations, so they picked a word that was more agreeable but less accurate.

This calls into question the quality of the entire book. May I suggest that, if you want to take the time to read this excellent work, that you choose an edition from a Catholic publishing house? Augustine was a Catholic, and a Catholic publishing house has no motivation to “tweak” the translation - you will read his words in the most faithful and accurate translation possible…

Well, it’s good stuff (and true), but is that the *basis *of Christianity? What about the centuries of Early Christians who had no Bible? (or, at least, no New Testament). How did they get by? Just curious.

I meant that loving your neighbor and loving God is the basis of Christianity.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I meant that loving your neighbor and loving God is the basis of Christianity.

On that, we are agreed. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I do hope you’ll take the pop quiz at the end of my message - I added it as an edit and you responded so quickly that you may have missed it.

 

[inkaneer]

lol, you guys are funny. So someone says that Jesus had siblings (something that is basically universally held to be true by Protestant and Secular scholars alike) and he is a hack?

The Protestants hold many things to be true that aren’t. Things such as sola scriptura, private interpretation of scripture, and the list goes on and on. As for the so called secular ‘scholars’ if they only knew what they were talking about they would no longer be secular now would they? There is zero evidence of any other child by Mary. The allegation of siblings rests on a restrictive interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling. But as the protestant KJV lexicon points out and in the process contradicts these so called protestant and secular ‘scholars’, the word *adelphos *has about six different meanings in the New Testament and to force one singular meaning on the word is to do violence to the scriptures.

And where are these alleged siblings of Jesus? Can anyone name me one person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to be related to Jesus as either a brother, sister or some descendant thereof? If one was a name dropper what other name to drop than the name of Jesus? But, no one has, no one has.

 

[hellopeople]

On that, we are agreed. Sorry if I misunderstood you. I do hope you’ll take the pop quiz at the end of my message - I added it as an edit and you responded so quickly that you may have missed it.

I believe it was Augustine. I do know that he made a canon that was the same as the Catholic Bible, but I am not positive if he was the first one.

 

[hellopeople]

The Protestants hold many things to be true that aren’t. Things such as sola scriptura, private interpretation of scripture, and the list goes on and on. As for the so called secular ‘scholars’ if they only knew what they were talking about they would no longer be secular now would they? There is zero evidence of any other child by Mary. The allegation of siblings rests on a restrictive interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling. But as the protestant KJV lexicon points out and in the process contradicts these so called protestant and secular ‘scholars’, the word *adelphos *has about six different meanings in the New Testament and to force one singular meaning on the word is to do violence to the scriptures.

And where are these alleged siblings of Jesus? Can anyone name me one person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to be related to Jesus as either a brother, sister or some descendant thereof? If one was a name dropper what other name to drop than the name of Jesus? But, no one has, no one has.

Jesus having brothers or not is not really a matter of faith. You could say that it is because the church claimed infallibly that Mary had no other children, but I don’t really think that most of these scholars are just trying to prove Catholicism wrong. In terms of interpreting the Bible in a way that shows the faith and morals behind the words, I would go with a Christian scholar for sure…in terms of finding out the history behind the Bible, I think that secular scholars are the best. For this reason I am going to have to trust secular scholars on this one.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Protestants hold many things to be true that aren’t. Things such as sola scriptura, private interpretation of scripture, and the list goes on and on. As for the so called secular ‘scholars’ if they only knew what they were talking about they would no longer be secular now would they? There is zero evidence of any other child by Mary. The allegation of siblings rests on a restrictive interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling. But as the protestant KJV lexicon points out and in the process contradicts these so called protestant and secular ‘scholars’, the word adelphos has about six different meanings in the New Testament and to force one singular meaning on the word is to do violence to the scriptures.

And where are these alleged siblings of Jesus? Can anyone name me one person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to be related to Jesus as either a brother, sister or some descendant thereof? If one was a name dropper what other name to drop than the name of Jesus? But, no one has, no one has.

Jesus having brothers or not is not really a matter of faith. You could say that it is because the church claimed infallibly that Mary had no other children, but I don’t really think that most of these scholars are just trying to prove Catholicism wrong. In terms of interpreting the Bible in a way that shows the faith and morals behind the words, I would go with a Christian scholar for sure…in terms of finding out the history behind the Bible, I think that secular scholars are the best. For this reason I am going to have to trust secular scholars on this one.

No, the church’s claim that claim Mary had no children is not based on faith. The claim is made because the evidence supports the claim. Name me one person who claimed to be a brother or sister of Jesus or one of their descendants. These secular ‘scholars’ that you trust are the ones who base their conclusions on faith. They have no evidence to support their claim. The only thing they have is the misinterpretation of the Greek word *adelphos *in the scriptures. They start with error they end with error or in modern terminology, garbage in, garbage out, Christians have evidentiary proof. In addition, to be considered a secular scholar they must be devoid of any belief in God. They are atheists. That you would agree with them tells me why you don’t list your religious affiliation in your signature block.

 

[hellopeople]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
The Protestants hold many things to be true that aren’t. Things such as sola scriptura, private interpretation of scripture, and the list goes on and on. As for the so called secular ‘scholars’ if they only knew what they were talking about they would no longer be secular now would they? There is zero evidence of any other child by Mary. The allegation of siblings rests on a restrictive interpretation of the Greek word adelphos as meaning a sibling. But as the protestant KJV lexicon points out and in the process contradicts these so called protestant and secular ‘scholars’, the word adelphos has about six different meanings in the New Testament and to force one singular meaning on the word is to do violence to the scriptures.

And where are these alleged siblings of Jesus? Can anyone name me one person in the last 2,000 years who claimed to be related to Jesus as either a brother, sister or some descendant thereof? If one was a name dropper what other name to drop than the name of Jesus? But, no one has, no one has.

No, the church’s claim that claim Mary had no children is not based on faith. The claim is made because the evidence supports the claim. Name me one person who claimed to be a brother or sister of Jesus or one of their descendants. These secular ‘scholars’ that you trust are the ones who base their conclusions on faith. They have no evidence to support their claim. The only thing they have is the misinterpretation of the Greek word *adelphos *in the scriptures. They start with error they end with error or in modern terminology, garbage in, garbage out, Christians have evidentiary proof. In addition, to be considered a secular scholar they must be devoid of any belief in God. They are atheists. That you would agree with them tells me why you don’t list your religious affiliation in your signature block.

You don’t have to be an atheist to be a secular scholar. That is nonsense. You can be a priest and be a secular scholar, but when you are writing historical commentaries on the Bible you are supposed to leave your faith (and the bias that goes with it) out of it. As I said, in terms of the history of the Bible, I am going to trust secular scholars more, but in terms of what the text actually means, or the point that the author was actually trying to make, I will look at Christian theologians.

As for why my religion isn’t listed, it is because my religious beliefs could not be summed up in a few short words…I believe in God, I don’t really know how I feel about the trinity, or Jesus being God, but I really am not sure…you could say I am a Jesus agnostic I guess. But I do believe in God and I do believe that Jesus was sent by Him.

 

[NHInsider]

Keep reading . . . but keep an open mind.

The position “if it’s based on faith it can’t be true” is just as much a bias as any that says “if it’s contrary to faith it can’t be true.”

 

[DavidFilmer]

I believe it was Augustine. I do know that he made a canon that was the same as the Catholic Bible, but I am not positive if he was the first one.

OK, that’s a good answer, but you only get partial (but significant) credit.

Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria (sometimes called the “African Pope” due to his strong influence, though he was never Pope - and, FWIW, he is my personal Catholic hero) was the first to propose exactly the same (NT) books as what would become our modern New Testament, He did this in an Easter epistle issued in 367 AD.

You get partial credit for your answer because it was Augustine attended the Synod of Hippo, and who presided over the Councils of Carthage, which established this Canon as authoritative (but not infallible) teaching.

 

[ATL_Granny]

As for why my religion isn’t listed, it is because my religious beliefs could not be summed up in a few short words…I believe in God, I don’t really know how I feel about the trinity, or Jesus being God, but I really am not sure…you could say I am a Jesus agnostic I guess. But I do believe in God and I do believe that Jesus was sent by Him.

HelloPeople: You truly seem sincere in your questioning, which is refreshing. Now that you are finished with the actual schooling part of your learning curve, I’d like to suggest a secular book which may help you further on the question of Jesus being God. It’s called “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Lee-Strobel/dp/0310609240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271599592&sr=8-1 It takes on the question of whether there is historical evidence for Christ outside of the Christian scholars. Lee Strobel was not a Christian when he wrote it and, as a matter of fact, attacked the question of Christ’s Divinity to disprove his wife’s newfound Christian faith. It’s an easy read.

Of course, there’s also the famous “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.

Neither of these authors are Catholic, but they make excellent aguments nonetheless for the Divinity of Christ.

It appears that the schooling you have received has not been of a formal university-type education, but more along the lines of a smaller school with a biased approach to teaching Bible history. There are a slew of such Bible Schools here in the states. For anyone who was seriously studying the Bible to come so far as graduation without a belief in Christ’s Divinity, I honestly question the objectivity of the professors – “famous Bible Scholar” or not.

 

[hellopeople]

HelloPeople: You truly seem sincere in your questioning, which is refreshing. Now that you are finished with the actual schooling part of your learning curve, I’d like to suggest a secular book which may help you further on the question of Jesus being God. It’s called “Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Lee-Strobel/dp/0310609240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271599592&sr=8-1 It takes on the question of whether there is historical evidence for Christ outside of the Christian scholars. Lee Strobel was not a Christian when he wrote it and, as a matter of fact, attacked the question of Christ’s Divinity to disprove his wife’s newfound Christian faith. It’s an easy read.

Of course, there’s also the famous “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis.

Neither of these authors are Catholic, but they make excellent aguments nonetheless for the Divinity of Christ.

It appears that the schooling you have received has not been of a formal university-type education, but more along the lines of a smaller school with a biased approach to teaching Bible history. There are a slew of such Bible Schools here in the states. For anyone who was seriously studying the Bible to come so far as graduation without a belief in Christ’s Divinity, I honestly question the objectivity of the professors – “famous Bible Scholar” or not.

The school I graduated from has about 20,000 students. I was in a religious studies program, not a theology program. The professors are not supposed to convince me on matters of faith.

I have read case for christ a few years ago. It was alright, and I remember it to be quite convincing, but it is an extremely biased book. I have a feeling that if I went back and read it now I would be pretty skeptical about its claims. I don’t really think it is something I really have to worry about. Unlike many Christians, I don’t believe it is necessary for my salvation to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I have also contemplated that Jesus was divine, but was not unique. It is quite possible people like the Buddha were also divine.

 

[ATL_Granny]

The school I graduated from has about 20,000 students. I was in a religious studies program, not a theology program. The professors are not supposed to convince me on matters of faith. \QUOTE]

I don’t mean any disrespect – honestly! – but I had a good chuckle when I read the sentence above. I’m a grandma now, but “back in the days” when I was in college, a “religious studies program” went into great, in-depth study of all the major religions. Christianity was studied from the perspective that Jesus was the Son of God. Likewise, other major religions were tackled with the basic premise of their beliefs as the bedrock of the dialogue. From there each religion was compared and contrasted with one another. Today, though, it seems that a “religious studies program” attempts to show how each religion is similar. Students in these programs OFTEN leave with more confusion than when they entered, fully convinced that all religions just blend with one another and what you proclaim to be “truth” is open to personal preference.

I have read case for christ a few years ago. It was alright, and I remember it to be quite convincing, but it is an extremely biased book. I have a feeling that if I went back and read it now I would be pretty skeptical about its claims. I don’t really think it is something I really have to worry about. Unlike many Christians, I don’t believe it is necessary for my salvation to believe in the divinity of Jesus. I have also contemplated that Jesus was divine, but was not unique. It is quite possible people like the Buddha were also divine.

I guess I would question whether you are a Christian if you can say *“Unlike many Christians, I don’t believe it is necessary for my salvation to believe in the divinity of Jesus.” * As I said in the paragraph above, students who take today’s “religious study programs” often come away with a very lovey-dovey view of Christianity where they can pick and choose what to believe as if Christianity were a cafeteria line.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Hi everyone!

The Brethren of the Lord by J.B. Lightfoot is a very instructive historical and Biblical survey on this question.

Here are some posts I’ve written on the subject for your consideration. I’ve tried to dress up the titles to make them as enticing as possible.

Origen: Denial of Perpetual Virginity is Heresy; Clement of Alexandria
The Authenticity of the Preceding Quote from Origen; Clement Again
Still Thinking It’s Authentic…
Mary Does Not Know Man and Is Uniquely Related to Joseph
Unwitting Fulfillment of Prophecy
Isaiah 7:14 Was Already Fulfilled; Justin and Trypho
More of the Same and the Vision of the Wonderworker
God Miraculously Fulfilling Isaiah 7:14 in an Unexpected Way, John’s Gospel Considered, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alexandria
Joseph, His Kingly Ancestor, and Heos Hou
Various Correlations, Jesus in the Temple, and Brothers as Mature Adults
Mary Is the Church in Archetype
Mary Is Disciple-Antitype and Virgin Bride of Christ; Quodvultdeus

If you didn’t enjoy my posts, please enjoy some music by Matt Maher!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[NHInsider]

Unlike many Christians, I don’t believe it is necessary for my salvation to believe in the divinity of Jesus.

All Christians believe in the divinity of Jesus. It’s part of the definition of Christian (unless you are using “Christian” just as social designation, as in “not Jewish or Muslim.”)

I have also contemplated that Jesus was divine, but was not unique. It is quite possible people like the Buddha were also divine.

The Buddha never claimed to be divine and would have been horrified at the suggestion.

 

[inkaneer]

You don’t have to be an atheist to be a secular scholar. That is nonsense. You can be a priest and be a secular scholar, but when you are writing historical commentaries on the Bible you are supposed to leave your faith (and the bias that goes with it) out of it. As I said, in terms of the history of the Bible, I am going to trust secular scholars more, but in terms of what the text actually means, or the point that the author was actually trying to make, I will look at Christian theologians.

As for why my religion isn’t listed, it is because my religious beliefs could not be summed up in a few short words…I believe in God, I don’t really know how I feel about the trinity, or Jesus being God, but I really am not sure…you could say I am a Jesus agnostic I guess. But I do believe in God and I do believe that Jesus was sent by Him.

A priest, if he were a scholar would not be a secular scholar. He would be a religious scholar. Religious scholars can and do leave their faith and bias behind. Being secular does not rule out bias and prejudice. In fact secular sholars in their zeal to ‘debunk’ anything religious are very biased.

As for your religious beliefs, why are you here? And I mean specifically here, on a Catholic forum and not a secular forum?

As for you religious views so why are you here?

 

[ATL_Granny]

Grace & Peace!

I’ll give an example–scholarship increasingly suggests that the exodus out of Egypt did not actually happen. Or if it did, it did not happen along the lines of how we think it happened if we are to take the account in Exodus literally. However, the story of the Exodus remains a powerful narrative pointing to the Reality of God’s saving grace, his love, his forbearance. It also provides a particularly powerful self-understanding–we were slaves once, and we should treat others with the dignity which we lacked so that all forms of bondage can be overcome. This reveals a truth about humanity. If the Exodus were somehow proven never to have happened, it does not change anything about what the story is actually about, what it points to, what it symbolizes, what it crystallizes in terms of an understanding of the Divine or of the human.

I apologize for seeming to hijack the thread here (especially since this post was made on the 15th), but when I read this earlier today my eyes bugged out. “Scholarship increasingly suggests that the Exodus out of Egypt did not actually happen.”

REALLY? I not only have never heard that, but would question where it came from. There are copious amounts of information about finding chariot wheels and other artifacts in the Red Sea. These chariot wheels are dated to the time of Pharoah. You can just Google the words “Red Sea Crossing” to find lots of videos and articles.

Personally, I find that information fascinating and an affirmation of my faith. Deo Volente, I sure would love to know what kind of scholarly work has been done lately that disproves the Exodus!