Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?

[RedFan]

There are certain things about God that man cannot wrap his mind around.

We can believe in God, we can love God- but we’ll never completely understand His purpose, His will OR His nature.

If YOU think you have God “all figured out” - you’d be the first person in history to make this arrogant claim – and you’d be as wrong as Arius, Nestorius and Sabellius . . .

I certainly don't think I have God "all figured out." But nor am I content to just throw my hands up when somebody claims "it's just a mystery." I want to understand as much as I can.

Sir Isaac Newton once commented, “It is the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least.” Well, that's not the way I am wired.

 

[GodsGrace]

First of all – there was nothing “demeaning” in my post. Just facts.

And, coming from a person who spreads as many lies about the Catholic Church as YOU do – your sanctimonious tone should be turned inward . . .

Oops.
There ya go.....
Being demeaning again.
Old habits die hard.

Guess what....
No skin off my back.

But you sure do harm the church you claim to be
Defending.

Oh. Right.
It doesn't need defending.
You just have a good time being mean.

You'll take it up with God when the time comes.

End.

 

[RedFan]

d. His two natures are inseparable.

Some day, over a beer perhaps, you can tell me what you think He "emptied himself" of (Phil 2:7) during the 30-odd years he walked the planet. Then once we've isolated that, we can have a discussion of what "inseparable" really means in the kenosis context -- and maybe put this Mary-Mother-of-God business to bed.

 

[Verily]

Here it speaks about his nature

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Hebrews 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

Since Luke 20:36 Jesus tells us Angels do not die

Heb 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Jewish monotheism doesn’t have this problem. The Jewish law of agency explains how Jesus himself can be called elohim / theos in scripture without himself literally being the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Jesus himself has a God. There is no God besides the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel. His God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

Blessed be the God and Father of our lord Jesus Christ = Blessed be the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

This simple Bible based truth is lost on those who insist on a doctrine that the Bible itself never mentions.
They are so indoctrinated by the church that they cannot see past that…..what Scriptural reasons do we have for rejecting this doctrine?

1) God created logic and is therefore not illogical in his thoughts or actions. The trinity is completely illogical.
It is nonsensical if you try to explain it. Never does the Bible present three “persons” in one “godhead”. The church invented that along with all the other things it teaches without scriptural foundation.
Mary is not called anything other than “the mother of Jesus”…..”the son of God”….not once is he referred to as “God the Son”...the church invented that title.

2) Nowhere does Christ change the monotheism of the Jews who, at that time were still his people, until Christ gave his life and the gradual separation began between the Jews and the Christians…ostensibly worshipping the same God….the God of our Lord Jesus. Yahweh remains the God of Jesus even in heaven as Rev 3:12 clearly states…written well after his return to heaven Jesus calls his Father “my God” four times in that one verse.

3) To suggest that Jesus has always exited is also not Scriptural.
As an eternal Being, God never had a “beginning”, whereas Jesus did. John 1:1 states that he was “with God” “in the beginning”…..”the beginning” of what? God’s firstborn son is “the beginning of God’s creation”. (Rev 3:14) Col 1:15 calls him “the firstborn of all creation”…..God’s firstborn son is “the beginning of God’s creation”. He is unique as he is the only direct creation of the Father…all other creation came through the agency of the son. (Col 1:16-17)

4) Misinterpretation of the Scriptures to suggest that “theos” (god) only refers to the Father, when it is plainly stated that others can be called “gods” with reference to their divine appointment as God’s representatives.
John 10:31-36 is where Jesus tells his Jewish accusers that God himself called human judges in Israel “gods” (theos) without even hinting that they were somehow part of God. He then identified himself as “the son of God”.

5) Misinterpretation of the word “pro·sky·neʹo” which can be rendered either “worship” or “obeisance” depending on the context. Only God is to be worshipped, so as God’s divine representative it is appropriate that Jesus received obeisance even from the angels….who know exactly who he is.

6) Misunderstanding of the redemption. There is a reason why God himself could not provide it….redemption requires equality…like for like. Atonement is “at one ment” the payment for what was forfeited had to be the exact equivalent paid to redeem it.
The Creator could never be the exact equivalent of his own creation. As an immortal, God cannot die. Jesus was not immortal and willingly offered his life for ours.

7) The apostle were the ones who knew who their God was, and who Jesus was in his role as Messiah/Redeemer.
Collectively, they said…..”For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6  there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him.”

They never once offered worship to Jesus Christ, but worshipped the Father through him as the mediator that God provided. (1 Tim 2:5-6)
There are many scriptural grounds upon which to challenge this controversial teaching perpetrated by a rogue Church carried away with its own power.…but only those who can see past it will come to a knowledge of truth.

To put another deity in place of the Father is a breach of the first Commandment.….and that doesn’t even tackle the supposed third party, MIA in almost every mention of the Father and his son together.
Like John 17:3…
”This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.”
Do we not need to “know” the third person at all?

Who did the apostles say was their “one God“……it was “the Father” alone…..their one “Lord” (Master) was their teacher, who tried to prepare them for what was coming…an apostasy that was “already at work” whilst they were still alive. But once the restraining influence of the apostles was gone and the last of the Christian Scriptures was written, the “weeds” of Jesus parable took the Church to a very dark place….it has remained there ever since.

There is but one truth….

 

[Verily]

What would you say she should be called?
The Mother of Jesus?
So was Jesus just another man?

Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of my Lord.

God having sent forth his son, made of her

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Luke 1:33 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Same is shown in David speaking by the Spirit

Psalm 110:1 [[A Psalm of David.]]
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Jesus acknowledges that David called him Lord

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

The apostles tell is that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Before Jesus ascended he said,

"I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"

And we are told here

1 Cr 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

 

[Wrangler]

the biblical teaching of The Trinity

There is no such thing BUT it is a prohibited topic.

 

[Wrangler]

The 1-Sentence Definition

Are you aware of the fact that some definitions are invalid?

 

[TigersPaw]

Absolutely correct.
Jesus, as the 2nd Person of the Trintiy - Now called The Son - existed from the beginning.
He always existed.
It's just the human form,,,Jesus,,,that was born 2 thousand years ago.
So Mary birthed Jesus, as you've stated.
OK.
But we have to ask, WHO was Jesus?
Was He just a man?
Was He really God?
IF He was God,,,,then why can't we call Mary the Mother of God?

I understand some of the problems with this...but I see no way out.
Did you read @RedFan 's post no. 667?
He has the philosophy right,,,,which I don't even understand 100%.....
but can we simplify?
Or am I just so naiive to think I understand it somewhat??

Amen

 

[Lambano]

I don't see it as that simple. If X has a status at time t-1 (say, God) and receives a second status (say, incarnation) at time t-2, with Y being drafted to deliver that status to X at time t-2, Y clearly did not deliver that status to X at time t-1. The fact that X is the same X before and after the added status does not make Y the deliverer of X in his prior status of God.

Wouldn't it be more representative of the theory we're not allowed to talk about to say that Persons P1, P2, and P3 have Essence E1. At time T1, P2 picks up Essence E2. Now, Philippians 2 says that both P1 and P2 had Form F1 from time t = -∞ to T1, but from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2). After T2, P2 had Form F3 but still Essence (E1+E2) and will continue from t= T2 to ∞. We currently have Form F2 and Essence E2, but we are promised that from time T3 we will have Form F3 like P2 but still Essence E2, unless Theosis is true, in which case we will have Essence (E1 + E2) like P2.

Clear?

 

[Aunty Jane]

Elizabeth calls Mary the mother of my Lord.

God having sent forth his son, made of her

Gal 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

Luke 1:33 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

Same is shown in David speaking by the Spirit

Psalm 110:1 [[A Psalm of David.]]
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Jesus acknowledges that David called him Lord

Mat 22:45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?

The apostles tell is that God made Jesus both Lord and Christ

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Before Jesus ascended he said,

"I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God"

And we are told here

1 Cr 8:6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

I think you need to do a little research into the title “Lord” to see that it is not another name for God.

In Genesis the title “LORD” is followed by the divine name “Yᵊhōvâ”...(Jehovah)

e.g……Gen 2:4...”This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD H3068 God made earth and heaven.”

So if the divine name had still been in use, it would have read….”the Lord Jehovah made earth and heaven”.

But the title “Lord” when applied to Jesus is a title of respect, not deity. It essentially means “Sir” or “Master”.
Sarah called Abraham “Lord”…(1 Peter 3:6)….did she think he was God?

 

[RedFan]

Wouldn't it be more representative of the theory we're not allowed to talk about to say that Persons P1, P2, and P3 have Essence E1. At time T1, P2 picks up Essence E2. Now, Philippians 2 says that both P1 and P2 had Form F1 from time t = -∞ to T1, but from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2). After T2, P2 had Form F3 but still Essence (E1+E2) and will continue from t= T2 to ∞. We currently have Form F2 and Essence E2, but we are promised that from time T3 we will have Form F3 like P2 but still Essence E2, unless Theosis is true, in which case we will have Essence (E1 + E2) like P2.

Clear?

The last sentence is a bit off point, but yes, it's another way to portray the issue. However, it doesn't account for Phil. 2:7's "emptied himself" comment -- suggesting that "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2)" might not be as accurate as "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as a portion of Essence (E1) as well as all of (E2)."

 

[Lambano]

However, it doesn't account for Phil. 2:7's "emptied himself" comment -- suggesting that "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2)" might not be as accurate as "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as a portion of Essence (E1) as well as all of (E2)."

Or maybe E=(E1+E2)/2? That begs the question, what percentage of P2's Essence was E1. "Emptied" implies E=(0*E1+1*E2).

 

[GodsGrace]

Wouldn't it be more representative of the theory we're not allowed to talk about to say that Persons P1, P2, and P3 have Essence E1. At time T1, P2 picks up Essence E2. Now, Philippians 2 says that both P1 and P2 had Form F1 from time t = -∞ to T1, but from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2). After T2, P2 had Form F3 but still Essence (E1+E2) and will continue from t= T2 to ∞. We currently have Form F2 and Essence E2, but we are promised that from time T3 we will have Form F3 like P2 but still Essence E2, unless Theosis is true, in which case we will have Essence (E1 + E2) like P2.

Clear?

Why does essence change at time T1?
(if your second sentence is correct re Philippians).
And your last sentence sounds a little Mormonish??
I guess T3 is after death. I'm confused about E2 in your last sentence.

And we're not really discussing the Trinity but it started with whether or not Mary is the mother of God.

 

[GodsGrace]

The last sentence is a bit off point, but yes, it's another way to portray the issue. However, it doesn't account for Phil. 2:7's "emptied himself" comment -- suggesting that "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as Essence (E1+E2)" might not be as accurate as "from T1 to T2, P2 had form F2 as well as a portion of Essence (E1) as well as all of (E2)."

I don't know....
Is it right to take ONE VERSE....the emptied Himself verse.....and try to tie it into everything else we know?
How can we be absolutely sure about what Paul meant exactly when he stated this?
He could NOT have meant that Jesus emptied Himself of Essence since it's obvious He was both man and divine.
Otherwise the entire concept of the hypostatic union falls apart.

 

[GodsGrace]

There is no such thing BUT it is a prohibited topic.

We're not discussing whether or not the Trinity is valid....
we're discussing whether or not Mary is the Theotokos and, naturally, the Trinity does come up.

 

[GodsGrace]

I think you need to do a little research into the title “Lord” to see that it is not another name for God.

In Genesis the title “LORD” is followed by the divine name “Yᵊhōvâ”...(Jehovah)

e.g……Gen 2:4...”This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD H3068 God made earth and heaven.”

So if the divine name had still been in use, it would have read….”the Lord Jehovah made earth and heaven”.

But the title “Lord” when applied to Jesus is a title of respect, not deity. It essentially means “Sir” or “Master”.
Sarah called Abraham “Lord”…(1 Peter 3:6)….did she think he was God?

Give people a little credit.

Remember that Thomas said. MY LORD AND MY GOD.

The MY GOD clarifies that Jesus was both his Lord and his God.

And LORD could refer to both GOD and what you described above.

 

[GodsGrace]

Some day, over a beer perhaps, you can tell me what you think He "emptied himself" of (Phil 2:7) during the 30-odd years he walked the planet. Then once we've isolated that, we can have a discussion of what "inseparable" really means in the kenosis context -- and maybe put this Mary-Mother-of-God business to bed.

So you're saying that when Jesus was in the womb....He was NOT divine?
That He WAS separated fully and was only a man?

Doesn't KENOSIS have a quantity element to it?
(Jesus was somewhat separated from God, but not fully).

 

[Lambano]

Why does essence change at time T1?
(if your second sentence is correct re Philippians).
And your last sentence sounds a little Mormonish??
I guess T3 is after death. I'm confused about E2 in your last sentence.

I was thinking T2 was resurrection, but I you may have a point. I should make time T2 = death, and add a point in time T3= resurrection. That brings up the question of what P2's F and E was between T2 and T3.

The Philippians reference is interesting because it does state explicitly that P2 changed F, but as I mentioned to @RedFan, "emptying" also implies that E can change, and that E follows F. Then that brings up the question of what is P2's E after t=T3? If P2 had form F2 but not Essence E2, that validates the Docetic heresy. It also has ramifications in Atonement theory which postulates that P2 was the representative of all Ps who have Essence E2 per 1 John.

Philippians also states that P1 has an F, which itself violates the principle behind commandment C2. (Having multiple Ps with Essence E1 may be a violation of C1 anyway.)

There's an active thread on Theosis. I don't know much about Mormon beliefs; I've never discussed religion with my Morman aunt and uncle. You know how these religious discussions always break down into an argument. I've heard Theosis is actually part of Eastern Orthodox theology. I may want to investigate Theosis.

There's also the question of whether P2 possessed E1 from T1, or whether P2 picked up E1 when P3 landed on P2 like a dove at time T1.5. But that's another heresy.

E2 is either "Human", or an error on the Catcher, for those familiar with baseball scoring nomenclature. To err is Human...

(All of which in only peripherally related to the question of whether Mary and Joseph engaged in love-making like a normal happily married couple after Jesus was born. And that is the question-behind-the-question of the OP.)

 

[Wrangler]

Give people a little credit.

Remember that Thomas said. MY LORD AND MY GOD.

The MY GOD clarifies that Jesus was both his Lord and his God.

And LORD could refer to both GOD and what you described above.

Oy vey. Are you aware of the difference in literature between what a character says and the narrative? Thomas said this, yes, about himself. This is not the same as the narrative, that it is the case.

I hold his statement is merely an exclamation. When I drop my toast, I am not literally declaring it is feces.