Jesus had brothers??????

[Tom]

How could she be giving much deep thought if this conversation with the angel certainly gives the impression that it went quite quickly and she was not able to stop and think deeply after she asked the angel.

Well, Luke says you’re not correct here, she did ponder and think about what was happening:

Once she asked the question the angel answered her question.

The whole point is her question makes no sense for a woman soon to be married planning on having sex!

 

[Tom]

This is where you are failing to the entire context into your conclusion. Even though she may not have had any idea before the question she certainly did after the angel answered her. There was no doubt that it was not to be by her husband but by the Holy Spirit.

No, I’m just not jumping ahead. If you’ll follow we will finish discussing Luke, and move on to Matthew and Numbers where we will show Joseph did indeed know of her vow of virginity, and prove that even after the birth of Jesus they did not have sexual relations, and all of this solely from Scripture.

 

[Tom]

Luke 1, 26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. 30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. 32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. 33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.

Where in this discussion is there ANY indication that Joseph is not the natural father?
If a young woman is engaged, soon to be married and is told the above, you think she’d suddenly forget how children are concieved?
She forgot? That’s your theory? She forgot she was soon to be married? She forgot how children are concieved? Come on, I know you don’t want to admit this but give me a real reason.

 

[Tom]

This is where you are failing to the entire context into your conclusion. Even though she may not have had any idea before the question she certainly did after the angel answered her. There was no doubt that it was not to be by her husband but by the Holy Spirit.

This is where you’re refusing to answer the question. Her being told the Holy Spirit would overshadow her was the answer to her question, not the reason for it. If she hadn’t asked the angel would have continued on to explain who the true Father was. So why that question? Perhaps it’s just filler in Scripture? Maybe Mary just wanted to make the story interesting? It’s the Word of God we’re discussing here, it’s not a mistake.

 

[prodromos]

Guys, I wouldn’t bother. Justasking4 won’t concede anything. When shown he was in error about celibate marriages being unheard of, rather than admit it he immediately changes the subject. You may as well engage in a debate with a tape recording.

John

 

[Tom]

Guys, I wouldn’t bother. Justasking4 won’t concede anything. When shown he was in error about celibate marriages being unheard of, rather than admit it he immediately changes the subject. You may as well engage in a debate with a tape recording.
John

LOL, well JA did admit that Mary didn’t have any idea of being overshadowed before she asked her question.

Even though she may not have had any idea before the question she certainly did after the angel answered her.

Which begs the question; if she had no reason to question how she would conceive, why’d she ask?

 

[guanophore]

Lets assume you are correct here. Mary must be a virgin until the conception of Christ in her body. Correct?

Yes, of course. But your are not really assuming that this reasoning is “correct” . You are not willing to do the role play. This question is identical to the question “did God say, you shall not eat of the tree”?

It is not a question that is relevant to the discussion. The discussion is about why Mary asked how the conception would happen. She had no reason to ask. She knew she was betrothed, and would expect that she would concieve after the manner of all married women…

Unless she had made a vow…

 

[guanophore]

Couple of questions:
1- was this group basing their beliefs on the OT?

It is hard to say, since OT had not been canonized. This did not happen until 66 - 70 years after Christ, and excised many scriptures that pointed to Christ. It is clear that they believed in the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and “the Writings” (proverbs, psalms, and histories{

2- do you have any info to think that she was part of this group?

No one has asserted that Mary was an Essene. What has been asserted is that having a vow of celibacy, and still being married, is not “unheard of” as you state. There is some evidence that John the Baptist may have been an Essene, or stayed with them for some time.

 

[guanophore]

Of course it matters. Do you think that she had in mind this group in supposedly being a virgin after she was married? Do you think they somehow influenced her thinking rather than the OT Scriptures that do in fact promote having your own children when you are married?

The Protoevangelium of James is clear that it was culturally customary at the time for temple virgins, when they reached the age of puberty, were placed in the care of a chaste steward.

There are many OT references to people called of God that have forsaken natural sexual relation for the Kingdom of God. Jesus is our greatest example, and Paul the Apostle, who wrote “I wish that all were as I am”.

Why is this so hard? One wonders if the renuciation of sexual pleasures is some kind of idol for some, that they cannot conceive of living without?

 

[guanophore]

Now this is where you are losing me.

There were Jewish people who gave themselves completely to God, forswearing marriage. This is the people that Jesus was talking about when He was teaching on celibacy:

Matt 19:12
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Mary was able to receive it, and did so. That is why,when the woman said “blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts that gave you suck”, Jesus responded “Blessed even more so is the one who hears the Word of God, and does it”.

Mary was blessed to bear the Son of God. But EVEN MORE (rather) she was blessed because she heard and obeyed the Word of God.

Secondly, did Mary have time to think deeply about her question to the angel—“how can this be since I am a virgin?”

Mary had thought deeply upon the prophesies of the Messiah all her short life. Are you implying that her response was impulsive, and therefore, false?

If she had time to “think deeply” maybe she would not have asked such a silly question?

" But Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart."Luke 2:19

Do you imagine that Mary was some sort of rash and impulsive person?

 

[guanophore]

How could she be giving much deep thought if this conversation with the angel certainly gives the impression that it went quite quickly and she was not able to stop and think deeply after she asked the angel. Once she asked the question the angel answered her question. Tha’ts the context.

Are you considering this?

Yes. We are considering that God prepared Mary before the foundation of the world to walk in His good works. We are considering that she was a devout young lady of devout parents, waiting for the salvation of the Lord. We do not consider, as you seem to do, that she was an impulsive and thoughtless teen who did panicked when the angel came to her.

This is where you are failing to the entire context into your conclusion. Even though she may not have had any idea before the question she certainly did after the angel answered her. There was no doubt that it was not to be by her husband but by the Holy Spirit.

It is clear that your anti-Catholic bigotry prevents you from examining this passage objectively.

You are discounting the entire reason that she found it necessary to ask the question. Yes, it was clear after she had the answer. She had made a vow to keep herself pure for God (perpetual virginity). This is why she could not understand what the angel was saying. She never intended to have children after the manner of all women.

And after the Spirit came to overshadow her, she never had any desire to have any intimate relation other than that with the HS, who is her Spouse. That is why she is a virgin forever.

 

[Good_Fella]

Lets assume you are correct here. Mary must be a virgin until the conception of Christ in her body. Correct?

And Mary remained a virgin after she conceived Jesus, for she begot the child by the power of the Holy Spirit.

JA4, I’m still waiting for you to elaborate on your abstract allusion to the NT Greek Lexicon and to specify which Protestant version.

And please read Zechariah 12, 10.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Tom]

Now, we’ve gotten to the point, that you agree, Mary had no knowledge or suspicion that her conception of a child would be anything other than normal. Let’s see if you agree with this:

1. If she had planned on having a normal sexual relationship with Joseph she would have naturally known that the child she would conceive would be from her husband Joseph, but, that is only if she planned a normal sexual relationship after her marriage. Prior to her question in verse 34, the angel Gabriel had given no indication that her conception would not be from natural sexual relations with her husband. Agree or disagree?

If you agree we can proceed to verse 34 where she not only asks a question but also makes a statement about her future, perpetual virginity.

 

[Tom]

Getting back to where we left off, Luke 1, 33, next is :
Luke 1, 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

When Gabriel tells her what “shall” happen, he’s referring to the future. A future, which holds for Mary a marriage to Joseph (in fact in ancient Jewish custom the betrothal was considered being married already).
When Mary answers she’s answering in this same context; the future, not her present state, but her future virginity. When she says: “How SHALL this be done, she’s indicating what will happen in the future, not what is happening then nor what happened in the past. When she says “I know not man”, she isn’t referring to her current state of virginity, (that would be out of context to the angels proclamation,) she’s answering about her future. It’s a state of being which will not change in the future, which the angel is referring to.

Let’s use you (justasking) as an example!
Think about it, tonight an angel tells justasking

Tom 1, 26 “You shall fly a helicopter across the Jordan”

Now we know you’re not planning on becoming a helicopter pilot, so you might ask “how shall this be since I’m not a pilot?” You’re not referring to the fact that today you aren’t a pilot; you’re stating the fact that you never plan to be a pilot, not today, not tomorrow, never.
If on the other hand you had always dreamed of being a helicopter pilot, and your training was to begin soon, say within a year, when the angel tells you that you “shall fly a helicopter across the Jordan”, it would make perfect sense. The angel was talking about the future, when you would be a pilot, no need to ask how it shall be, in fact asking would make no sense at all.
Sound logical? If you planned on being a helicopter pilot, and you were soon to start your training, the angels proclamation that you would fly a helicopter across the Jordan makes perfect sense.
If on the other hand you never had any intention of flying helicopters the angels proclamation makes absolutely no sense, you’d have to ask “how”.

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3257934]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Lets assume you are correct here. Mary must be a virgin until the conception of Christ in her body. Correct?

Good Fella
And Mary remained a virgin after she conceived Jesus,

Not so. I thought i sent you 3 passages that shows otherwise. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19

for she begot the child by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Agreed.

JA4, I’m still waiting for you to elaborate on your abstract allusion to the NT Greek Lexicon and to specify which Protestant version.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

And please read Zechariah 12, 10.

I did and not sure what you are getting at here. Can you explain?

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3257732

Originally Posted by justasking4
How could she be giving much deep thought if this conversation with the angel certainly gives the impression that it went quite quickly and she was not able to stop and think deeply after she asked the angel. Once she asked the question the angel answered her question. Tha’ts the context.

Are you considering this?

guanophore
Yes. We are considering that God prepared Mary before the foundation of the world to walk in His good works. We are considering that she was a devout young lady of devout parents, waiting for the salvation of the Lord. We do not consider, as you seem to do, that she was an impulsive and thoughtless teen who did panicked when the angel came to her.

You missunderstand what i meant here. What i’m saying this conversation with the angel is going at a normal clip which would not give her the time to reflect at this point what all this means. Keep in mind that when angels appear in the Scriptures there is usually fear on the part of humans when they encounter them. I would think that Mary was nervous and perplexed by the visit and during the visit with angel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
This is where you are failing to the entire context into your conclusion. Even though she may not have had any idea before the question she certainly did after the angel answered her. There was no doubt that it was not to be by her husband but by the Holy Spirit.

guanophore
It is clear that your anti-Catholic bigotry prevents you from examining this passage objectively.

You are discounting the entire reason that she found it necessary to ask the question. Yes, it was clear after she had the answer. She had made a vow to keep herself pure for God (perpetual virginity). This is why she could not understand what the angel was saying. She never intended to have children after the manner of all women.

In regards to Jesus this would be true i.e. to be a virgin until the birth of Christ. On her suppoesed perpetual virginity you are reading catholic doctrine into the passage instead of letting the passage speak plainly and clearly.

And after the Spirit came to overshadow her, she never had any desire to have any intimate relation other than that with the HS, who is her Spouse. That is why she is a virgin forever.

Again you read catholic doctrine into this passage. There is no mention of her vowing to be a virgin the rest of her life. The other claim that she is the spouse of the Holy Spirit is another reading into the text. You will never find such a claim for her in the entire Scriptures.

 

[Schabel]

Not so. I thought i sent you 3 passages that shows otherwise. See Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19

Nope. Rather, you interpret these verses (according to your protestant tradition, which developed much later than the constant understanding of the Church, later even than protestantism itself!) to mean that.

Question: Is the plain meaning of the text below that Lot was Abraham’s Brother?

Ge 14:14 (KJV) And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained [servants], born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued [them] unto Dan.

 

[justasking4]

Schabel;3260660]Nope. Rather, you interpret these verses (according to your protestant tradition, which developed much later than the constant understanding of the Church, later even than protestantism itself!) to mean that.

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not automatically mean its correct. Your response does not come close to refuting what i have written and shown from the Scriptures themselves. Thats what you want to deal with. To refute my case you must show that these words mean something like cousins or relative. Can you do that?

Question: Is the plain meaning of the text below that Lot was Abraham’s Brother?

The word “brothers” appears in Gen 13:8. Where in Genesis does it mention Abraham and Lot as having the same parents?
Its best to understand Abraham when he says “brothers” as being in a close relationship in which Lot was his newphew. See Gen 12:5.

 

[Schabel]

Just because something has been believed for a long time does not automatically mean its correct.

No, but temporal proximity is certainly one factor in determining whether one opinion holds greater sway. Also, the beliefs of the greatest Christians, martyrs even, and men in the position to know these facts factor into this.

Your response does not come close to refuting what i have written and shown from the Scriptures themselves. Thats what you want to deal with. To refute my case you must show that these words mean something like cousins or relative. Can you do that?

I just did. In Genesis 14:14, the very same Greek word is used in the LXX for “brother” (thanks to this site for providing the translation):

Genesis 14:14
akousas de abram hoti Echmalwteutai lwt ho adelphos autou ErithmEsen tous idious oikogeneis autou triakosious deka kai oktw kai katediwxen opisw autwn hews dan

Yet we know from Genesis 11:26 and 14:12 that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Get that? Abraham’s nephew was called Abrahams adelphos in inspired scripture.

The word “brothers” appears in Gen 13:8. Where in Genesis does it mention Abraham and Lot as having the same parents?

Curiously, in the very same place that it mentions Jesus and James as having the same mother. IOW, it doesn’t.

Its best to understand Abraham when he says “brothers” as being in a close relationship in which Lot was his newphew. See Gen 12:5.

Hmmm … this is the fallacy of special pleading, is it not?

 

[justasking4]

Schabel;3260789]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Just because something has been believed for a long time does not automatically mean its correct.

Schabel
No, but temporal proximity is certainly one factor in determining whether one opinion holds greater sway. Also, the beliefs of the greatest Christians, martyrs even, and men in the position to know these facts factor into this.

How so? Did these people have access to a written NT in the 2nd-3rd centuries?

Quote:justasking4
Your response does not come close to refuting what i have written and shown from the Scriptures themselves. Thats what you want to deal with. To refute my case you must show that these words mean something like cousins or relative. Can you do that?

Schabel
I just did. In Genesis 14:14, the very same Greek word is used in the LXX for “brother” (thanks to this site for providing the translation):

Quote:
Genesis 14:14
akousas de abram hoti Echmalwteutai lwt ho adelphos autou ErithmEsen tous idious oikogeneis autou triakosious deka kai oktw kai katediwxen opisw autwn hews dan

Yet we know from Genesis 11:26 and 14:12 that Lot was Abraham’s nephew. Get that? Abraham’s nephew was called Abrahams adelphos in inspired scripture.

True. The reason we know that brother means nephew here is because the context states it. It call Lot explicitedly and clearly his nephew.

Quote:justasking4
The word “brothers” appears in Gen 13:8. Where in Genesis does it mention Abraham and Lot as having the same parents?

Schabel
Curiously, in the very same place that it mentions Jesus and James as having the same mother. IOW, it doesn’t.

What does IOW mean?
We do have text support though in Matthew 13:55-56 that where brothers are mentioned in conection with a mother or father it denotes blood relationships.

Quote:justasking4
Its best to understand Abraham when he says “brothers” as being in a close relationship in which Lot was his newphew. See Gen 12:5.

Schabel
Hmmm … this is the fallacy of special pleading, is it not?

How so?