Erroneous additons to the Word of God !

[Free]

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

Wow. On closer reading, this is definitely the wrong way to go about proper biblical interpretation. There is absolutely no reason for the belief that Jesus would have had to serve a younger brother just because Aaron served Moses. There is absolutely no connection there.

 

[Mysteryman]

I don't believe this. Brother in Gal.1.19 is a singular accusative.

Meaning that this James was "one" of the (plural) brethren ? < Am I understanding you correctly ?

As an Oxford don replied to "Henry Root",

Sir, you are either an extremely ingenious hoaxer or suffering from a massive delusion.

It must have been that spiritual blow to the head, that the good Lord gave me then . :halo -

 

[Mysteryman]

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

Wow. On closer reading, this is definitely the wrong way to go about proper biblical interpretation. There is absolutely no reason for the belief that Jesus would have had to serve a younger brother just because Aaron served Moses. There is absolutely no connection there.

Short memory ? LOL

I said that it was a "principle" within the Word of God. Study up on King David. And let me know which of his brothers was he in number. (Hint I Samuel 17:12 - 14) And also ask yourself, does a kingdom serve the King ?

 

[Free]

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

Wow. On closer reading, this is definitely the wrong way to go about proper biblical interpretation. There is absolutely no reason for the belief that Jesus would have had to serve a younger brother just because Aaron served Moses. There is absolutely no connection there.

Short memory ? LOL

I said that it was a "principle" within the Word of God. Study up on King David. And let me know which of his brothers was he in number. (Hint I Samuel 17:12 - 14) And also ask yourself, does a kingdom serve the King ?

What? I know what you said. There is no principle. There is absolutely no support for your argument that "If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses."

 

[Mysteryman]

Another principle in the Word - Not only is the elder (older) suppose to serve the younger - Romans 9:12

Here is another reason why Jesus didn't have any other brother or brothers literally.

Here is another principle that holds true throughout the Word of God >

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" (Romans 9:13) < This again, is another principle within the Word of God.

Jacob was the younger whom God loved, while Esau was the oldest (elder) whom God hated.

There are two Adams in the Word of God. The First Adam of this earth , and the second Adam which is the Lord from heaven. Both were called sons of God.

The eldest son Adam God hated, and the youngest God loved.

If Jesus had another brother, the principle would still have to hold true , because the Word of God does not change, because God is a God that changes not.

IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

Another principle in the Word - Not only is the elder (older) suppose to serve the younger (youngest) - Romans 9:12

Here is another reason why Jesus didn't have any other brother or brothers literally.

Here is another principle that holds true throughout the Word of God >

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" (Romans 9:13) < This again, is another principle within the Word of God.

Jacob was the younger whom God loved, while Esau was the oldest (elder) whom God hated.

There are two Adams in the Word of God. The First Adam of this earth , and the second Adam which is the Lord from heaven. Both were called sons of God.

The eldest son Adam God hated, and the youngest God loved.

If Jesus had another brother, the principle would still have to hold true , because the Word of God does not change, because God is a God that changes not.

IN Christ - MM

Again, these have nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had brothers. As I have stated already, a plain reading of the texts shows that Jesus had brothers.

 

[Sinthesis]

What? I know what you said. There is no principle. There is absolutely no support for your argument that "If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses."

Yep! :biglaugh

• Gen 46:19 - The sons of Rachel Jacob's wife; Joseph, and Benjamin.

So it is not really a principle, is it? Or else Joseph would have had to serve Benjamin.

 

[Drew]

Another principle in the Word - Not only is the elder (older) suppose to serve the younger (youngest) - Romans 9:12

How does this establish a principle?

It seems that you are taking one particular choice made by God- that the elder Esau would serve the younger Jacob - and inferring that this sets some kind of time immutable pattern or template for "elder - younger" relations. That's like taking the story of Balaam and generalizing to expect all donkeys to speak.

 

[Mysteryman]

What? I know what you said. There is no principle. There is absolutely no support for your argument that "If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses."

Yep! :biglaugh

• Gen 46:19 - The sons of Rachel Jacob's wife; Joseph, and Benjamin.

So it is not really a principle, is it? Or else Joseph would have had to serve Benjamin.

Joseph is the eleventh son of Jacob, Benjamin is the youngest son of Jacob.

Are there any searchers of the scriptures to see if those things are so or not type people in here ?

Joseph is the first son of Rachel, not Jacob

 

[Mysteryman]

The elder shall serve the younger < Why are there elders in the church ?

 

[Free]

Looking at one of the passages in question:

Matt 13:53-57, 53 And when Jesus had finished these parables, he went away from there, 54 and coming to his hometown he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" 57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household." (ESV)

The context is clear that Jesus' "brothers" really means his literal, flesh and blood brothers; brothers from the same mother. Jesus goes to "his hometown" where he is recognized and they mention his father, mother, brothers, and sisters--they list off his immediate family. If you deny that these were Jesus' literal brothers, then you must also deny that he had sisters and that he was the son of a carpenter.

 

[Free]

The elder shall serve the younger < Why are there elders in the church ?

1 Tim 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching. (ESV)

1 Pe 5:1-5, 1 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (ESV)

 

[Mysteryman]

There are three different James boys in the gospels.

James the brother of John

James the brother of Joses

James the brother of the apostle Jude

Here is an example of how the translators interchanged these two words - "brethren" and "brother" within the translation >

Matthew 13:55 shows that James here is the brethren, along with Joses and Simon and Judas

Now watch this Matthew 13:55 "Is this not this the carpenter's son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses and Simon, and Judas ? < KJV

I am still using the KJV here -- Watch closely >

Mark 6:3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses and of Juda and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ?"

Not only do different translations , translate these words in the way they want to translate them. But , even in the KJV the two words "brethren" and "brother" are used inter changeable

IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

There are three different James boys in the gospels.

James the brother of John

James the brother of Joses

James the brother of the apostle Jude

Here is an example of how the translators interchanged these two words - "brethren" and "brother" within the translation >

Matthew 13:55 shows that James here is the brethren, along with Joses and Simon and Judas

Now watch this Matthew 13:55 "Is this not this the carpenter's son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses and Simon, and Judas ? < KJV

I am still using the KJV here -- Watch closely >

Mark 6:3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses and of Juda and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ?"

Not only do different translations , translate these words in the way they want to translate them. But , even in the KJV the two words "brethren" and "brother" are used inter changeable

IN Christ - MM

This shows me nothing and doesn't address my argument.

 

[Mysteryman]

There are three different James boys in the gospels.

James the brother of John

James the brother of Joses

James the brother of the apostle Jude

Here is an example of how the translators interchanged these two words - "brethren" and "brother" within the translation >

Matthew 13:55 shows that James here is the brethren, along with Joses and Simon and Judas

Now watch this Matthew 13:55 "Is this not this the carpenter's son ? is not his mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses and Simon, and Judas ? < KJV

I am still using the KJV here -- Watch closely >

Mark 6:3 - "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses and of Juda and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ?"

Not only do different translations , translate these words in the way they want to translate them. But , even in the KJV the two words "brethren" and "brother" are used inter changeable

IN Christ - MM

This shows me nothing and doesn't address my argument.

Hi Free

But, it does make my point !

 

[Free]

But, it does make my point !

All you claimed in the above post is that different translations use "brethren" and "brother" interchangeably which, as far as I can see, has no bearing on this discussion. If your point is that Jesus didn't have literal brothers, then no, it does not make your point. You are neither providing support for your points and you're not substantially addressing others'.

 

[Mysteryman]

But, it does make my point !

All you claimed in the above post is that different translations use "brethren" and "brother" interchangeably which, as far as I can see, has no bearing on this discussion. If your point is that Jesus didn't have literal brothers, then no, it does not make your point. You are neither providing support for your points and you're not substantially addressing others'.

Hi Free

Well, everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds.

But to put all your faith in your translation is not the way one should have faith.

We are to have faith in God, and allow God to reveal unto us. If one claims that Jesus had brothers based upon a translation, which btw can't make up its mind (meaning the translators). One would then be playing Russian Roulette when it comes to reading and believing what they read.

 

[Free]

But, it does make my point !

All you claimed in the above post is that different translations use "brethren" and "brother" interchangeably which, as far as I can see, has no bearing on this discussion. If your point is that Jesus didn't have literal brothers, then no, it does not make your point. You are neither providing support for your points and you're not substantially addressing others'.

Hi Free

Well, everyone needs to be persuaded in their own minds.

But to put all your faith in your translation is not the way one should have faith.

We are to have faith in God, and allow God to reveal unto us. If one claims that Jesus had brothers based upon a translation, which btw can't make up its mind (meaning the translators). One would then be playing Russian Roulette when it comes to reading and believing what they read.

What is your point?

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz

Search the scriptures to see if those things are so or not " ! < :yes

Now , you don't have to do the Word and will of God, especially if you think you know it all, without checking the scriptures ? !

I have done more than "check" the scriptures, and I know enough to understand that Esau didn't serve Jacob. The Lord was speaking of nations and the subjection of the Edomites for many ages to the house of David. So perhaps you should consider your theories from more than one angle in the future.

And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.

To say that Jesus didn't have a younger brother because he would have had to serve him is silly. Jesus served all ofmankind by making Himself an offering for the sins of the entire world. He washed the disciples feet. He lowered Himself as low as man can go...being God, no less. :nag

 

[glorydaz]

Another principle in the Word - Not only is the elder (older) suppose to serve the younger (youngest) - Romans 9:12

Here is another reason why Jesus didn't have any other brother or brothers literally.

Here is another principle that holds true throughout the Word of God >

"Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated" (Romans 9:13) < This again, is another principle within the Word of God.

Jacob was the younger whom God loved, while Esau was the oldest (elder) whom God hated.

There are two Adams in the Word of God. The First Adam of this earth , and the second Adam which is the Lord from heaven. Both were called sons of God.

The eldest son Adam God hated, and the youngest God loved.

If Jesus had another brother, the principle would still have to hold true , because the Word of God does not change, because God is a God that changes not.

IN Christ - MM

My goodness....let's see the verse where God hated Adam.

Once again...God was speaking of the Edomites. Romans 9 makes that clear.
Check out Malachi... Malachi and Paul are using the name “Esau†to refer to the Edomites, who were the descendants of Esau. God chose Jacob ( later renamed Israel) to be the father of His chosen people, the Israelites.

The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever.