Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[BreadOfLife]

You're gonna have to explain that one to me! Just sounds like an honorific title . . .

That's because you don't believe that Jeus is God.
If you were to believe that He is God - thn you wouldn't have any probkem with ths title.

Mary is not the Mother of the Troinity. She is the mother of Jesus, the Son - the 2nd Person in the Trinity. All 3 Persons in the Trinity are the ONE God.

 

[RedFan]

That's because you don't believe that Jeus is God.
If you were to believe that He is God - thn you wouldn't have any probkem with ths title.

Mary is not the Mother of the Troinity. She is the mother of Jesus, the Son - the 2nd Person in the Trinity. All 3 Persons in the Trinity are the ONE God.

What??? Where are you deriving this from? I DO believe Jesus is God. I am a Trinitarian. I just don't worship Mary. (Or to use your phrase, I don't "venerate" Mary.) And I see "Mother of God" as an honorific title.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What??? Where are you deriving this from? I DO believe Jesus is God. I am a Trinitarian. I just don't worship Mary. (Or to use your phrase, I don't "venerate" Mary.)

Where do I get this from??

From the Word of God that tells us Jesus is God:
Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 14:9, John 20:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13, Rev. 22:13.

As for “worshipping” Mary – I don’t do that either.
That’s just an idiotic falsehood vomited out by ignorant, hate-filled anti-Catholics. We Catholics worship God and God ALONE . . .

And I see "Mother of God" as an honorific title.

Again - YOU find it "horrific" because you don't really believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Matthias]

 

[RedFan]

Where do I get this from??

From the Word of God that tells us Jesus is God:
Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:6, Matt. 4:7, John 1:1, John 1:3, John 8:58, John 10:30, John 14:9, John 20:28, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Phil. 2:6, Col. 2:9, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 1:8, Titus 2:13, Rev. 22:13.

As for “worshipping” Mary – I don’t do that either.
That’s just an idiotic falsehood vomited out by ignorant, hate-fille anti-Catholics. We Catholics worship God and God ALONE . . .


Again - YOU find it "horrific" because you don't really believe that Jesus is God.

I mean, where do you derive the notion that I deny Jesus is God? I am a Trinitarian. Nothing I have said calls that into question.

Jesus is both God and man. In his human aspect, he has a mother. In his God aspect, he does not. Mary is the mother of Jesus the human being. Mary is not the mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. Calling her "Mother of God" is honorific, but not technically accurate.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I'm just saying that it is not the exclusive source of doctrine, or of "Truth

Yeah some folks believe Jesus lied when He said

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

According to Jesus, Truth can only be found in God's Word and only the Holy Ghost can reveal it to us.

Extra biblical sources of information are not of the Lord... but, satan is very high interested in seeing people believe like you and consider extra biblical sources of information to be equal with God's Word.

This is exactly how satan tricked Adam and Eve... and now, he is using that same tactic on you!

Gee, you wouldn't know it, considering how often Leviticus 18:22 is quoted on this forum.

The New Testament also prohibits sexual relations between men so what the Lord said in Leviticus 18:22 is also applicable to the human race under the New Testament.

Have you been reading the Epistle of Barnabas?

Extra biblical and not inspired writings of the Lord Jesus thru the Holy Ghost

This is a cool website, for those are interested in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

Extra biblical and not inspired writings of the Lord Jesus thru the Holy Ghost

I just don't worship Mary

Good for you... that would be idolatry and would put you on the highway to hell.

 

[RedFan]

Yeah some folks believe Jesus lied when He said

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

I don't think he lied. But both propositions are consistent with there being valid oral tradition not recorded in the Bible.

 

[Dan Clarkston]

I don't think he lied. But both propositions are consistent with there being valid oral tradition not recorded in the Bible.

The part you are missing is... any doctrine that is not in God's Word, is NOT of the Lord.

Unless you think Jesus FAILED to provide mankind with true and correct doctrine in His Word and He somehow forgot a few things and has to now rely on so called "oral tradition" to get the rest of the story to mankind.

That's part of satan's plan to do to us what he did to Adam and Eve... which is to claim God is holding out on us and we need to pay attention to what satan is saying thru so called "oral tradition"

I'd like to hear about some examples of so called "oral tradition" that you think is true and correct and inspired of God that... cannot be found in His written Word. ( this ought to be good )

 

[BreadOfLife]

I mean, where do you derive the notion that I deny Jesus is God? I am a Trinitarian. Nothing I have said calls that into question.

Jesus is both God and man. In his human aspect, he has a mother. In his God aspect, he does not. Mary is the mother of Jesus the human being. Mary is not the mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity. Calling her "Mother of God" is honorific, but not technically accurate.

WRONG.

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures – and these two natures are indivisible.
He us fully God and fully Man. He is always God and always man on His hypostasis.

Mary carried GOD in her womb – NOT just a human person.
This is Christianity 101 . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Yeah some folks believe Jesus lied when He said

Jesus said the Holy Ghost would lead us in to ALL Truth (John 16:13),
and Jesus said God's Word IS Truth (John 17:17)

Actually - Jesus was talking about the Church as a whole - NOT the individual.

According to Jesus, Truth can only be found in God's Word and only the Holy Ghost can reveal it to us.

WRONG again.

Jesus saud:
John 14:6
"I an the way, the TRUTH and the light..."
Jesusm who IS truth itself quates the Church with His very SELF (Acts 9:4-5):

Paul wote that the Church: is
The pillar and foundation of TRUTH (1 Tim. 3:15).
The FULLNNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

I suggest you do sone serious Scripture study . . .

Good for you... that would be idolatry and would put you on the highway to hell.

That's why Catholics don't worship Mary . . .

 

[RedFan]

I'd like to hear about some examples of so called "oral tradition" that you think is true and correct and inspired of God that... cannot be found in His written Word. ( this ought to be good

)

For starters, most of the gospel accounts are based on prior oral tradition. The interstitial period between Pentecost and the publication of the various books of the NT in the latter half of the first century C.E. was a time when oral tradition was all there was. For its first 20+ years, Christianity was spread largely through Paul’s missions and through the preaching of the original apostles – but with no NT writings to point to. Paul starts to write letters to particular churches in the late 40’s C.E., but they don’t get instantly copied (think about how tedious the copying process was back then!) nor instantly shared throughout the Mediterranean world (think about how long it took to travel from, say, Antioch to Rome in those days!).

Paul’s letters actually incorporated some earlier credal or liturgical formulas. Call them didache (“teaching”) or kerygma (“proclamation”) or paradosis (“tradition”) or, probably most accurately, homologia (“confession” or “agreement”), these confessions of faith served as the shared dogmas identifying the earliest post-resurrection believers as acknowledging Jesus’s status both as Son of God and as Lord. They were used in practice as baptismal and eucharistic confessions, but at bottom they were short expressions of the core of the faith, serving much the same role as the Shemā did for Jews.

Slowly, gospel-like stories began to emerge, first as written collections of “sayings” (it would have been quite natural for the earliest Christians to write down the teachings and sayings of the Lord, particularly hortatory sayings like those referenced in 1 Tim. 5:18 and in Acts 20:35, which would have been useful even for Christians in the immediate aftermath of Pentecost). The Sermon on the Mount may not have been preserved in exactly the canonical form now found in Matthew, but it would not be surprising if some such collections were around quite early, simply because of their utility as a manual for how to live while awaiting the presumably imminent Second Coming.

Later come the full-blown biographies or narratives of Jesus’s deeds, as those who were promised eternal life started physically dying with regularity (the “scandal” that may have sparked First Thessalonians, perhaps the earliest NT writing we have), which led to the emerging realization that the parousia might not be imminent after all, and there could indeed be many future generations to “save” – likely the impetus for the gospel genre. Narratives like the synoptics began to spring up in order to preserve eyewitness accounts, first for local consumption and eventually for wider liturgical usage. We don’t know how many there were, although it is safe to presume that Luke 1:1 used the word “many” (Gk. polloi) properly. We don’t know how many gospels beyond the four we now view as canonical were used liturgically, or where. Justin Martyr’s First Apology describes Christian worship in mid-second century as incorporating readings of “the memoirs of the apostles, called gospels,” but doesn’t identify which ones. His reference in his Dialogue with Trypho to the birth of Jesus in a cave, a datum not mentioned in any of the four canonicals, suggests that he credited at least one other (perhaps the Protoevangelium of James, which mentions a cave birth.)

My point is simply that for a generation or longer, the only writings that Christians had as inspired “Scripture” (graphē) was the OT. And chances are that they viewed it pretty much the way 2 Tim. 3:16 does, as useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, but not as salvific. The gospel of salvation through Christ was initially a matter of oral transmission alone, premised on the authority of eyewitness apostles long before they were declared by the four canonical gospels to possess such authority, and premised on the authority of those they commissioned to carry on their preaching.

Question: why should the writing of the NT have ended that apostolic authority? I see no reason it should. Whether evangelicals are right to challenge the RCC as the repository of that authority today is a separate matter – but I am curious to understand evangelical thinking regarding the replacement of apostolic authority with the NT canon. It makes no sense to me.

 

[RedFan]

WRONG.

Jesus unites to Himself TWO natures – and these two natures are indivisible.
He us fully God and fully Man. He is always God and always man on His hypostasis.

Mary carried GOD in her womb – NOT just a human person.
This is Christianity 101 . . .

Sorry, but the union of two natures --though true -- doesn't make Mary the mother of GOD. The Son of God existed long before the Son of Mary existed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sorry, but the union of two natures --though true -- doesn't make Mary the mother of GOD. The Son of God existed long before the Son of Mary existed.

This is heresy.

The Son of God IS the Son of Mary. She carried and gave birth to the Son of GOD (Luke 1:32).
This is because YOU don’t understand that the very nature of God us a divine mystery,

 

[RedFan]

This is heresy.

The Son of God IS the Son of Mary. She carried and gave birth to the Son of GOD (Luke 1:32).
This is because YOU don’t understand that the very nature of God us a divine mystery,

This is illogical. The Son of Mary cannot exist qua Son of Mary before Mary herself existed. Women don't have children before those women are born, last I checked.

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes. Please see my post #631 in this thread. The link will take you to the Gregory of Nyssa quote.

Matthias....
This is from your link on post 631:

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

As I can understand it....it confirms the Holy Trinity.
It states that Polytheism is incorrect and also that the monotheism of the Jews is incorrect.

I love the last sentence:
The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

Also, I don't know why you're posting Gregory of Nyssa for support....

Here's some of his writing on the topic in discussion:

In Gregory of Nyssa’s defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, he resolutely denies their accusations of entertaining lofty conceptions about the Trinity. Instead, Gregory insists that he and his cohorts have merely held to the biblical teaching of the Trinity, including the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, adding nothing new of their own invention.

Gregory explains his view using a torch analogy. If we see three torches all burning, then they are all fire. It doesn’t matter if the first torch was used to light the second and then the second was used to light the third, if they are all fire then they are all equally fire. Similarly, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all equally divine, it doesn’t matter than the Spirit is named third, or that the Son is begotten of the Father, just as each torch is equally fire, so the three persons of the Trinity are God.

source: Gregory of Nyssa on The Doctrine of The Trinity.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is illogical. The Son of Mary cannot exist qua Son of Mary before Mary herself existed. Women don't have children before those women are born, last I checked.

Here's the problem as I see it RedFan:

When we say MOTHER OF GOD,,,,what comes to our mind is the mother of God Father since when we refer to Him we tend to always think of God Father.

Jesus is the 2nd Person of the Trintiy.
He is the Son of God.
Being the Son of God,,,,He IS God, as we who believe in the Trinity accept.

So here's the problem.....
We either have to accept that Jesus is God and thus Mary is the mother of God...
or
We create a problem with Jesus being God.

It's as simple as that.

During the third century, the use of “Theotókos” (“Mother of God” in Greek) became more widespread. Origen († c. 254) was the first to apply this title to Mary. Among the prayers of supplication, the title first appeared in the prayer “Sub tuum praesidium” that, as mentioned earlier, is the oldest known Marian prayer. During the fourth century, in opposition to the doctrine of Arius, the confession of faith of bishop Alexander of Alexandria contains the same title. Since then, it gained universality and many were the Holy Fathers who reflected and studied in depth the truth that Mary is the Mother of God. Among them were St. Ephrem, St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Proclus of Constantinople, etc. Because of these, “Mother of God” became the most frequent title applied to Mary.

source: The Devotion to the Virgin Mary in the Early Church

 

[Matthias]

Matthias....
This is from your link on post 631:

The Christian conception of God, argues Gregory of Nyssa, is neither the polytheism of the Greeks nor the monotheism of the Jews and consequently it must be true, for ’the truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet, accepting what is useful to it from each. The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

As I can understand it....it confirms the Holy Trinity.
It states that Polytheism is incorrect and also that the monotheism of the Jews is incorrect.

I love the last sentence:
The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

Also, I don't know why you're posting Gregory of Nyssa for support....

Here's some of his writing on the topic in discussion:

In Gregory of Nyssa’s defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, he resolutely denies their accusations of entertaining lofty conceptions about the Trinity. Instead, Gregory insists that he and his cohorts have merely held to the biblical teaching of the Trinity, including the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, adding nothing new of their own invention.

Gregory explains his view using a torch analogy. If we see three torches all burning, then they are all fire. It doesn’t matter if the first torch was used to light the second and then the second was used to light the third, if they are all fire then they are all equally fire. Similarly, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all equally divine, it doesn’t matter than the Spirit is named third, or that the Son is begotten of the Father, just as each torch is equally fire, so the three persons of the Trinity are God.

source: Gregory of Nyssa on The Doctrine of The Trinity.

Proof that what @asoul said about Jewish monotheism is, as I pointed out to him but he was unable to acknowledge, incomplete. You’ve seen - and even loved - what he hasn’t yet seen.

Jesus himself is a Jewish monotheist. It is his monotheism (and mine), it is his dogma (and mine), that Gregory is pleased with having destroyed. I want the whole world to know it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is illogical. The Son of Mary cannot exist qua Son of Mary before Mary herself existed. Women don't have children before those women are born, last I checked.

That’s why I said in a previous post that YOU don’t understand that the very nature of God is a mystery.

Again – the mystery if the Trinity is Christianity 101 . . .

 

[RedFan]

That’s why I said in a previous post that YOU don’t understand that the very nature of God is a mystery.

Again – the mystery if the Trinity is Christianity 101 . . .

If it's a mystery, I assume you can't solve it -- but feel free to try. Meanwhile, kindly stop telling me what I don't understand about the difference between birthing and mothering the human being named Jesus, and birthing and mothering the all powerful Creator of the Universe.

 

[GodsGrace]

Proof that what @asoul said about Jewish monotheism is, as I pointed out to him but he was unable to acknowledge, incomplete. You’ve seen - and even loved - what he hasn’t yet seen.

Jesus himself is a Jewish monotheist. It is his monotheism (and mine), it is his dogma (and mine), that Gregory is pleased with having destroyed. I want the whole world to know it.

I'm sorry Matthias....I'm not understanding you.
What Gregory is saying is that he holds to the biblical teaching of The Trinity...incl the full divinity of the Holy Spirit....and that he and his coherts add nothing new of their OWN INVENTION....meaning that everything they believe is from the NT.

Gregory does NOT entertain lofty conceptions of the Trinity....but holds merely to NT teaching.


In Gregory of Nyssa’s defense of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit against the Macedonians, he resolutely denies their accusations of entertaining lofty conceptions about the Trinity. Instead, Gregory insists that he and his cohorts have merely held to the biblical teaching of the Trinity, including the full divinity of the Holy Spirit in the Godhead, adding nothing new of their own invention.

Here's the part I love:

The Jewish dogma is destroyed by the acceptance of the Word and by the belief in the Spirit, while the polytheistic error of the Greek school is made to vanish by the unity of the nature abrogating this imagination of plurality.’”

The Jewish dogma is DESTROYED....what is the Jewish dogma in your view?
To me it's the Shema.
This dogma is destroyed by acceptance of THE WORD, and by belief in the Spirit.

Also, the polytheistic error of the Greeks vanishes by the UNITY doing away with plurality.

IOW,,,,God is not plural....He is a unit.
But Gregory accepts the Word and the Spirit.

Thus destroying this Jewish dogma.

What don't I understand?

Here's something else he wrote on the Holy Spirit:

Gregory defends his position with a firm disjunction, either the Spirit is on the side of Creator, and thus God, or else he is on the side of creation, and thus not God. He argues that there can be no middle ground of half created, half uncreated. And since it would be monstrous to claim that the Holy Spirit is part of Creation, we must affirm that the Holy Spirit is truly God, and if truly God then He can’t be any less than God, he can’t be diminished in anyway.

source: Gregory of Nyssa on The Doctrine of The Trinity.