Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
I usually do provide references but for something that should be as well known as the 10 Commandments, I assumed that any Christian worthy of that claim would know where to find them.....I was wrong apparently....?
Were Jesus's brothers born of another woman?
- Thread starter NotTheRock
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You're a Jewish monotheist Unitarian?
Ok. Well, the title "Jewish monotheist" is redundant because monotheism is the belief in one God, and Judaism is a monotheistic religion as it's centered in the belief of one God, and thus religious Jews are expected to believe in and worship the one God. Therefore, you may as well just call yourself a practicing Jew.
Oh, but you're not one.
So, you're really just a Unitarian who is misleadingly also going by the title "Jewish monotheist" since you don't practice Judaism. You shouldn't call yourself by a title that gives the impression you're a practicing Jew when you're not.
Jesus was a religious Jew who practiced Judaism/Christianity (Catholicism), not Unitarianism.
Supposedly, and even if you know all those Catholics, it doesn't mean anything, because if it were true that Catholics are taught "You must believe this", and if it were true that you, a non-Catholic, were told that by dozens of Catholics over the past 40 years, then at least one fellow Catholic would've told me that over the past 30+ years. It would be hard to find a Catholic who will say, "I believe this because I'm told to". Out of the countless Catholics that I've talked to and have known throughout my life thus far, there hasn't been one who would say such a thing. So, clearly you're misunderstanding or lying about something within Catholicism.
Catholics have reasons for why we have dogmas. Teachings and beliefs that are dogmas, such as the Marian dogmas, are truths passed down orally and traditionally from Jesus, His Mother, the apostles, and their successors for over two thousand years.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
No. To the country, I came across this yesterday in Devotional reading and thought of this thread.
Luke 2:7
7 And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no place in the guest room
Language Usage. It's funny to me how people attempt to twist Scripture to fit their doctrine. Using the beginning of a series, "first" has only one purpose, to indicate like to follow.
If you only married once, you would not use language to indicate a certain woman is your first wife. If you only ate one cookie at the party, you would not use language to indicate a certain cookie was your first cookie.
There are other verses that speak of Jesus brothers and sisters and Jesus replies metaphorically who his "real" brothers and sisters are. This implies the first reference to his brothers and sisters are his literal brothers and sisters, consistent with the implication of Luke 2:7.
Because IDOLATRY is rampant in Christiandom, people are loathe to accept this obvious use of language. They insist their doctrine is correct and only an explicit text to the contrary could assuage them of their belief. This is an invented standard. There is nothing wrong with inductive logic, with implication.
Yes, it is circumstantial evidence. However, most court cases are decide on circumstantial evidence. There is nothing wrong with it. Cases do not have to have the highest form of proof to be proven - to be more likely than not (a civil standard) and even beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal standard). It is absurd to hold reading (textual criticism, some say), to a standard of criminal error, let alone accepting only explicit text on point.
Moral behavior. So far, I've talked about language usage and logic. The context of the question from a moral perspective is fascinating. The ongoing obsession people have with the sex life of a 1st century Jewish teen who was married is fascinating. It's normal for young married people to have sex and children (plural). Not only, is there nothing wrong with it, it is morally expected.
The reverse is the case. It would be abnormal and immoral to get married and NOT have multiple children. In fact, in that society, wives received a lot of shame for NOT doing so. In conclusion, language usage, logic and morals are all powerful arguments in the negative, that Jesus siblings were NOT born of another woman. Only tradition that became IDOLATRY counters this.
Last edited:
You're conflating two separate roles when you give your scenario in which you are writing a letter to me in Italian. Those two roles are that of author and translator. The original author (you) is going to be writing in a way that will be understood, hopefully, within the context and culture around you, with the understanding that the audience (myself) is in a similar context and culture. The translator comes along later, sometimes much later, and has to not only provide approximate definitions in a different language of the words that you used, but must also make the translation for a whole new audience who might not be steeped in the same context and culture.
The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, and there are multiple words in this language that can be used to refer to a cousin, such as "ἀνεψιός" (anepsios), "συγγενίς" (syngenis), "συγγενής" (syngenēs), "ἀδελφός" (sing. adelphos, pl. ἀδελφοὶ;adelphoi), and " ἀδελφή" (sing. adelphē; pl. αδελφαι;adelphai). All of these words have the direct definition "cousin," except "ἀδελφός" and "αδελφαι" which have the broad-ranging familial definition "kinsman/kinswoman, or relative", and thus can be used to refer to various types of family members, including cousins, indirectly. The Koine Greek words used in Matt. 13:55-56 and Mk. 6:3-4 were "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi) and "αδελφαι" (adelphai), and there's evidence to show that Joseph, Simon, James, and Judas (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle, and that the unnamed women were His aunt and the wives of His cousins, and thus their application is apt.
In the ancient Hebrew language, there was no word for "cousin." That's why in the Old Testament you'll find the ancient Hebrew words "אחים" ('âchiem) and "אָח" ('âch) used to refer to cousins, and other various types of family members.
In the Septuagint—the earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew—the translators, for example, substituted the Hebrew words "אחים" ('âchiem) in Gen. 13:8 with the Greek equivalent "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi), and "אָח" ('âch) in Gen 14:14 with the Greek equivalent "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) to show the kinship between Abraham and Lot, which lineage shows were that of uncle and nephew: (I) "εἶπεν δὲ Αβραμ τῷ Λωτ Μὴ ἔστω μάχη ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ σοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων μου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῶν ποιμένων σου. ὅτι ἄνθρωποι ἀδελφοὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν" (Gen. 13:8), and (II) "ἀκούσας δὲ Αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται Λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ, ἠρίθμησεν τοὺς ἰδίους οἰκογενεῖς αὐτοῦ, τριακοσίους δέκα καὶ ὀκτώ, καὶ κατεδίωξεν ὀπίσω αὐτῶν ἕως Δαν". (Gen. 14:14)
The Septuagint translators substituted the Hebrew word "אָח" ('âch) in Gen. 29:15 with the Greek equivalent "ἀδελφός" (adelphos) to show kinship between Jacob and Laban, which lineage shows were that of uncle and nephew: "Εἶπε δὲ Λάβαν τῷ ᾿Ιακώβ· ὅτι γὰρ ἀδελφός μου εἶ, οὐ δουλεύσεις μοι δωρεάν· ἀπάγγειλόν μοι, τίς ὁ μισθός σου ἐστί;"
The Septuagint translators substituted the Hebrew word "אחים" ('âchiem) in 1 Chr. 23:21-22 with the Greek equivalent "ἀδελφοὶ" (adelphoi) to show it was kin the daughters of Eleazar married, which lineage shows was their cousins: "καὶ ἀπέθανεν Ελεαζαρ, καὶ οὐκ ἦσαν αὐτῷ υἱοὶ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ θυγατέρες, καὶ ἔλαβον αὐτὰς υἱοὶ Κις ἀδελφοὶ αὐτῶν".
I hope you now understand the reasons for why whenever the word "ἀδελφός" (sing. adelphos, pl. ἀδελφοὶ;adelphoi), or "brother(s)" in English, is used in any given verse where its familial definition applies, that people shouldn't just automatically assume that it refers to siblings, or any type of family member, based on the word itself.
How do the scriptural verses and early Christian Church father testimonies shown in post #4 not collectively show that Jesus's brothers (kinsmen/relatives) Joseph, Simon, James, and Jude (Jude/Thaddeus) were the sons of Jesus's uncle Alphaeus, and his wife, Mary?
The original sin was disobedience, and both Eve and Adam disobeyed God, and because of them sin, suffering, and death of the body and spirit, entered this world. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to only blame Adam and not also Eve. To do so is based on a misinterpretation of certain scriptural verses.
Jesus was referring to the apostles who fell asleep in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:36-46, Mk. 14:32-42).
Jesus was referring to when John and Peter followed Him to the High Priest after His arrest (Jn. 18:12-27).
I did reply to it. Again, we believe it because it's the truth. Catholics have reasons for why we have dogmas. Teachings or beliefs that are dogmas, such as the Marian dogmas, are truths passed down orally and traditionally from Jesus, His Mother, the apostles, and their successors. In modern times, Jesus, on February 13th, 1949, reconfirmed the perpetual Virginity of His Mother to His spokesperson Maria Valtorta saying, "Can it be admitted that She who was preordained to be the divine form for the Second Person to become flesh could accept the seed of a man in Her womb, which had been divinised by God taking form in it, and have a human son conceived in original sin through inheritance from Adam? How could the Immaculate have generated an impure son from Her womb? How could the eternal Virgin accept human intercourse after having known the embrace of God? She Who from eternity we thought of as "our dwelling" could only be of God. Only God Incarnate could be formed and born from the Most Holy Mary". (The Little Notebooks)
Nowhere in Scripture does it say that revelations ended after Jesus's Ascension to Heaven. In fact, Jesus warned us about there being true and false spokespersons (Matt. 24:24), but do not fear because He also showed us how to discern between the two, and He will always make known who His true and false spokespersons are, just as He's always done.
Jesus dictated to Maria Valtorta about many various topics, some of which we've heard Him talk about before, but more in-depth. Other topics that we haven't. And, not all of what He said was directed specifically at her but rather mostly at everyone. I, and others, take what was said by Him as His holy Word and the truth. He's also given His reasons for why He revealed all that He did to Maria Valtorta as well. See the first four links in my signature for proof that Maria Valtorta was Jesus's spokesperson.
Last edited by a moderator:
His God is only one person, the Father.
***
For readers interested in learning about Jewish monotheism:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I don't see the necessity for this. It's not as though The Stain of original sin could be transmitted through the placenta. Jesus was coming into a sin-stained world to deal with a bunch of sin-stained human beings. He was isolated from The Stain in Eternity-Past; why would he need to be isolated for the first 9 months before spending 30 years in close contact with the world?
Last edited:
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Though perhaps that explains the need for performing an unnatural act on Matthew 1:25. According Leviticus 15:18, the act of giving to her husband his "due benevolence" (1 Corinthians 7:3) makes both of them "unclean" until evening. I guess the act stains the soul as well as the bedsheets.
No matter. After Jesus's birth, there would be no reason to keep Mary stain-free. Nor need we leave her open to the charge of defrauding Joseph, though 1 Corinthians 7:5-7 says this is a concession subject to mutual consent, not a requirement.)
No matter. After Jesus's birth, there would be no reason to keep Mary stain-free. Nor need we leave her open to the charge of defrauding Joseph, though 1 Corinthians 7:5-7 says this is a concession subject to mutual consent, not a requirement.)
Last edited:
“Judaism has always been rigorously Unitarian.”
(Jewish Encyclopedia, “Deism”)
Deism - The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia -
;A system of belief which posits God's existence as the cause of all things, and admits His perfection, but rejects Divine revelation and government, proclaiming the all-sufficiency of natural laws. The Socinians, as opposed to the doctrine of the Trinity, were designated as deists (F.
www.studylight.org
You could contact the Catholic Diocese of Tyler, Texas. I’m confident they would respond to you if you did.
What Catholics Must Believe About the Blessed Virgin Mary - The Catholic Diocese of Tyler
During a recent trip back to Tyler, I was driving down Broadway Avenue with a non-Catholic friend when we spotted a bumper sticker that read: “No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus.” He didn’t know what to make of it, and I was soon flooded with all kinds of questions. As our diocese...
www.dioceseoftyler.org
M,,,I think that what @asoul is saying is that no matter what Catholics say....one should still go by what the CC teaches.You could contact the Catholic Diocese of Tyler, Texas. I’m confident they would respond to you if you did.
What Catholics Must Believe About the Blessed Virgin Mary - The Catholic Diocese of Tyler
During a recent trip back to Tyler, I was driving down Broadway Avenue with a non-Catholic friend when we spotted a bumper sticker that read: “No Mary, No Jesus. Know Mary, Know Jesus.” He didn’t know what to make of it, and I was soon flooded with all kinds of questions. As our diocese...
Very few Catholics are correctly catechesized (?).
Not only that, but many Catholics I know do not believe all the dogmas that the church has declared.
So what Catholics think is neither here nor there and is of no importance in these discussions.
IMO.
PS I don't know any Catholic that believes something just because he's "told to"....
(although, actually, that's how it should be).
I’m not the one telling him what he must believe. The Catholic Diocese of Tyler (representing the Catholic Church) is.
What Catholics think is of no importance in these discussions? It is to me. I wouldn’t bother speaking with him if it wasn’t.
It's one thing to deal with sinful humanity.I don't see the necessity for this. Jesus was coming into a sin-stained world to deal with a bunch of sin-stained human beings. He was isolated from The Stain from Eternity-Past; why would he need to be isolated for the first 9 months before spending 30 years in close contact with the world?
It's another thing to be conceived in a sinful container...for lack of a better word.
There was much discussion on this by the ECFs.
I don't claim to know more than they did....but it does make sense to me.
Here are some statements regarding the above:
Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8; Ott, 201)
Citing this source, J.N.D. Kelly asserts:
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled. (Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)
St. Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)
St. Gregory of Nyssa
It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)
[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)
source: The Church Fathers Believed That Mary Is Sinless
M,,,,,,@asoul happens to be a well-informed Catholic.
I was speaking about those that are not.
If you rely on what individual catholics believe---you'll NEVER come to know what the church teaches.
He doesn’t sound well-informed to me. Those whom I’ve spoken with who are have been much more advanced in knowledge than he has exhibited.
Whose fault is that?
What I'm saying is that Catholic teachings and beliefs have been passed down orally and traditionally from Jesus, His Mother, the apostles, and their successors for over two thousand years. We have reasons to show that they have. It's hard to find a practicing lay-Catholic who believes this or that without understanding why those are taught, and doesn't choose to believe because they see it's the truth, but rather out out of fear because they they're told to or else.
Many non-Catholics like Mathias have misunderstandings about Catholicism. Having said that, I've met Catholics ignorant of or mistaken about about this or that concerning Catholicism as well. Not all Catholics and non-Catholics are accurately knowledgeable of the Church history or inner-workings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Why is it another thing when the contents will expand beyond the initial container?
By what mechanism is contact with sin deforming of the Savior's nature at any point of his existence? Seems to be the only pathway is if sin were to penetrate to his heart and any superficial interface with any human being, skin deep, has no impact whatsoever.
I tend to believe that the brothers were from a prior marriage of Joseph.
Clement of Alexandria, 195AD writes that Jude was a brother of Jesus through Joseph.
Origen 245AD The Protoevangelium of James (writings of James) "that the brothers of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary.
Since the NT is not very clear on this matter....I don't know how we could know with certainty whether or not the above is correct.
If it wasn't MARY....the other woman would have been "Mary"....
what's the difference?
Whoever was the MOTHER OF GOD would have had the same honor of being so.
You don't believe in the Trinity so this ends here.
For those that DO believe that Jesus is GOD....
it must be accepted that Mary is the Mother of God...
otherwise serious theological problem will surface.
You've touched on an important point.
But it goes to the birth of Jesus and not Mary's.....so I'll end it here.
Oh my gosh.
You would want that ALL of the writings of the ECFs should have made it into the NT?
There are VOLUMES of their writings. You should read some....you might actually become Christian.
One of the requirements for acceptance as "scripture" was that the writer had to be an eyewitness of the life of Jesus.
Agreed.
Agreed. However, we must acknowledge that not EVERYTHING was written down. You mention John....John is the Apostle that stated that not everything is written.....
Agreed. Thus the need for creeds, which some Christians won't even accept.
The CC kept heresies out of the church.
Could you post some heresies that you believe were retained in the early church?
By early, I mean till about 325 or shortly thereafter.
What you state is heresy.
There are not 3 EXPRESSIONS of Christ.
This is modulism.
Maybe you could start a couple of new threads.
We either have a soul or we don't.
Hell is throughout the NT.
And posting the OT for the soul is not very fair, is it?
The Sadducees did not believe in life after death.
The Pharisees did.
Who was right?
Perhaps JESUS was right?
As I said....please post some of the ideas that were cooked up after the death of the Apostles.
Too much to get into.
You've got 3 threads going on up there.
The Father draws all...
those who accept are given to the Son for salvation.
There is NO CONFLICT in the NT.
I can agree up to a point.
I have no problem with the IC or Jesus not having brothers by Mary.
I DO have a problem with the Assumption...I find no idea of it anywhere but it comes as an outgrowth of the IC and the desire to keep the body from deteriorating.
Confession changed over the first few hundred years....
and purgatory developed and is nowhere to be found in scripture.
But I don't wish to derail and get into other matters.
The only reason I mention anything is because you put the time-frame of 2 thousand years into your post.
I read that slow, twice.
A practicing Catholic believes BECAUSE he understands?
Many practicing Catholics DO NOT believe what the church teaches.
Maybe we need a definition for "practicing Catholic".
I don't know any Catholic that "believes" a dogma for fear of being told to.
They either do or they do not.
Agreed 100%.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Why would you rely on writings from 200 years after the event rather than eye witnesses to the event?
Similar threads
