Jesus had brothers??????

[celticcrusader]

there are other issues in the jewish culture at that time to be looked at also. if you look at greek translations, if you change one letter in a word ,brother could mean a relitive or like a brother ie: some one who is a close friend ,follower,or like fraternity bros. everybody plays with words. Amazing what one letter can do to support your argument

 

[guanophore]

Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?

I am curious why you keep asking the same questions over and over again in different threads, over the course of many months. Do you have a memory problem, or are you just trying to be intractible?

The angel told Mary how she would conceive the child after she had asked him “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?” - not before. You don’t make any sense at all, which makes having a discussion with you impossible.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

Indeed, I have found this to be true as well. But, he is not here to learn, so that works out fine. He is here to provide detraction against Catholic teachings, and seems to be successful in that.

 

[Tom]

Mary was told by the angel that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her which was the source of her pregancy. See Luke 1:35. She had no reason to think it would be by Joseph.

We’re reading this narrative as it happens. You’re getting ahead of her question. Luke 1, 26 – 31 says nothing about being overshadowed. The statement of being overshadowed is in response to her question, not the reason for it. Up until she asked the question she had no reason to believe it would be anything other than a normal conception, that’s the point!

 

[Tom]

Justasking, understand how you’re reading this. You know the rest of the story, she didn’t. Trust me, I read these verses for years and never saw it, then one day it clicked and it’s true. Once you see it you’ll understand, please be patient. Again, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance, seriously. The Jews were not expecting a Son of God, they were expecting a human king, a great military leader. They had no concept of God being born among them, that’s a big reason they didn’t believe Jesus was the Son of God, it was blasphemy to them. Prior to being told who the true Father of Jesus would be (only AFTER she asked how) she had absolutely no reason to suspect anything other than a normal conception, why would she? This had never happened, and was not understood in any writings. We understand the Old Testament in light of the New, the Jews still to this day don’t read the Old Testament in the light we do.

 

[Tom]

So again Luke 1, 26-31, any reason she would expect anything other than a normal conception? Any question, other than being “full of grace” or “highly favored”?

 

[justasking4]

Good Fella;3225690]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Mary was told by the angel that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her which was the source of her pregancy. See Luke 1:35.

She had no reason to think it would be by Joseph.

Good Fella
The angel told Mary how she would conceive the child after she had asked him “How shall this be, seeing I do not know a man?” - not before. You don’t make any sense at all, which makes having a discussion with you impossible.

What did i miss?

 

[Schabel]

What did i miss?

Chronology. Causality.
Her question came before and probably precipitated the angel’s explaination. Therefore, the angel’s explaination can’t be assumed to be part of Mary’s knowledge in her asking that question.

 

[justasking4]

We’re reading this narrative as it happens. You’re getting ahead of her question. Luke 1, 26 – 31 says nothing about being overshadowed. The statement of being overshadowed is in response to her question, not the reason for it. Up until she asked the question she had no reason to believe it would be anything other than a normal conception, that’s the point!

If the story ended here you would have a point. However we must understand this in the entire context since we know what is to follow. Otherwise you will arrive at the wrong conclusion.

 

[justasking4]

So again Luke 1, 26-31, any reason she would expect anything other than a normal conception? Any question, other than being “full of grace” or “highly favored”?

Was Mary having a normal conversation with the angel? They are having a dialogue until verse 38. This is the way to understand this passage in context rather than trying to interject Mary’s thinking at particular points.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3226051]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?
guanophore
I am curious why you keep asking the same questions over and over again in different threads, over the course of many months. Do you have a memory problem, or are you just trying to be intractible?

i’m just plain dense.

Now can you answer the question. Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?

 

[guanophore]

What did i miss?

He asked you to walk through the passage with him step by step. You agreed, but then you did not do it. You jumped ahead, and therefore, missed the whole point.

Gabriel comes to tell Mary she will have a child. She is not ignorant, and being of marriagable age, has most likely been instructed by one of her female elders about the manner of men, women, and children. Since she is betrothed, is there any reason to think that she will not get pregnant in the normal manner?

 

[Tom]

If the story ended here you would have a point. However we must understand this in the entire context since we know what is to follow. Otherwise you will arrive at the wrong conclusion.

We will understand in it’s full context. I’m not ending our conversation here. We will cover every verse and it will be in its proper context. Actually there are some very important issues we will discuss. Luke gives the discourse in its proper order, so let’s take it in that order. Up until Luke 1, 31 has the angel said anything to confuse Mary or to have Mary think the conception would be anything except normal?

 

[Tom]

Was Mary having a normal conversation with the angel? They are having a dialogue until verse 38. This is the way to understand this passage in context rather than trying to interject Mary’s thinking at particular points.

Absolutely correct, they are having a diaolouge. In the order represented in Luke, up until verse 31 the angel has said nothing to Mary to lead her to believe the conception would be anything but normal. Mary is a young woman, about to be married to Joseph, she’s told she shall (future tense) concieve a child. Nothing remarkable about that is there? We’ve got about 7 more issues to discuss before she asks her question, so don’t get impatient please.

 

[guanophore]

Was Mary having a normal conversation with the angel? They are having a dialogue until verse 38. This is the way to understand this passage in context rather than trying to interject Mary’s thinking at particular points.

She recounted this herself to Luke. After the Resurrection, Mary went to Ephesus with John. Luke was travelling with Paul when he met Mary there, and got her first hand account. That is why the gospel of Luke has so much more of the detail in the birth stories than the others.

For Mary, this is a conversation. Are you willfully resisting the point because you can see where it is going and you don’t want to go? How about you just role play along for a few minutes? Pretend you are Mary, and go through the conversation one step at a time. at the end of the role play, I am sure will reject the Catholic understanding, but what will it hurt to at least follow along, to see where we go it?

 

[guanophore]

i’m just plain dense.

Now can you answer the question. Did not your church condemn this writing as being heritical?

The book contains heretical ideas. that is not the same as saying it is a useless document. there are orthodox teachings alongside heretical ones in many of the works of the fathers. It was not deemed suitable for the canon for that reason. That does not mean that no truth can be found in it. The Didache was not included either (though I have never understood why) but I don’t see any heretical ideas in it.

You want to reject the traditional teaching that Jesus was an only child. Why argue that? Would you have to realize that your way of interpreting scripture may not mean what the authors intended?

 

[joseph_virgen]

is it me, or is everybody exceedingly preocupied with sex? Contrary to popular belief, there exists a minority of individuals who have absolutely no need to experience the ultimate in earthy expression, the sex act. And it is because it causes a rift in spirituality.

Truth being, the majority of the populace cannnot concieve an existence without sex. To them it is not natural, and that is why they refuse to believe that the Nazarene had no brothers.

John Paul II was correct when he said, “The greatest obsticle to our spirituality is sex.”

 

[Good_Fella]

If the story ended here you would have a point. However we must understand this in the entire context since we know what is to follow. Otherwise you will arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Are you serious?



Guanaphore was too charitable.

Pax vobiscum
Good Fella

 

[Tom]

Mary was told by the angel that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her which was the source of her pregancy. See Luke 1:35. She had no reason to think it would be by Joseph.

This is an historical narrative, it happened in a certain order, the order is very important for understanding. So again read the Scripture:
www.drbo.org:

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:

1. Hail, full of grace
2. the Lord is with thee
3. blessed art thou among women.

So far you had a question about being “full of grace”. She had some questions also, and the angel answered her questions, and yours:
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1,29 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.

Any more questions so far? If not we’ll continue:
www.drbo.org:

Luke 131 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb

Any questions? I’ll continue if you have no questions.

 

[Tom]

This is an historical narrative, it happened in a certain order, the order is very important for understanding. So again read the Scripture:
So far you had a question about being “full of grace”. Any more questions so far? If not we’ll continue:

Items 5 & 6:
(5) it shall be a son, and
(6) you shall call his name Jesus.
www.drbo.org:

Luke 1, 31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

#5 is great news, Jews cherished their first born sons. This news would have made her exceedingly happy, a true gift of God. Certainly warranted a comment. I know I’d have expressed joy.
#6, the name Jesus was a fairly common name, it implied a Godly relationship but would not have indicated a Father/Son relationship with God.
So, as Mary would you have any comments or questions of the angel over items 5 & 6?
Now if you don’t ask I will, could she have thought she was the “virgin” referred to in Isaias chapter 7?
www.drbo.org:

Isaias 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.

Well, certainly she could have thought this, however the Jews, and she was a devout Jew, believed the “virgin” referred to an unspoiled young woman, not a sexual virgin. To this day they think the virgin means a pure young woman. In fact the Hebrew text refers to her as a “young woman”, and not a “virgin”. So she wouldn’t have thought she was going to conceive prior to sexual activity with her husband. I hope you see I’m not trying to just show one side, but seeking an understanding.

 

[justasking4]

She recounted this herself to Luke. After the Resurrection, Mary went to Ephesus with John. Luke was travelling with Paul when he met Mary there, and got her first hand account. That is why the gospel of Luke has so much more of the detail in the birth stories than the others.

For Mary, this is a conversation. Are you willfully resisting the point because you can see where it is going and you don’t want to go? How about you just role play along for a few minutes? Pretend you are Mary, and go through the conversation one step at a time. at the end of the role play, I am sure will reject the Catholic understanding, but what will it hurt to at least follow along, to see where we go it?

i think i’m just to dense to go through this the way i think Tom wants to.
Where is he going with this? What point will be proven up to verese 31?