Jim Parker
Member
I don't get your point.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Who made God?
- Thread starter OzSpen
- Start date
Jim Parker
Member
Except for 2000 years of teaching of the church.
That is not at all necessary. The language used by the people who spoke those words would include all members of the clan (cousins, 2nd cousins, aunts, uncles, etc.) as "brothers" and "sisters." A perfect example of such is Abraham's use of the word "sister" at Gen 20:12.
“But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife."
Another example id found at Gen 14:16 where Abraham's nephew Lot is identified as his brother.
"So he brought back all the goods, and also brought back his brother Lot and his goods, as well as the women and the people."
That meaning for the word "brother" or "sister" is still in current usage in the Middle east.
You have made the very common mistake of applying a western, Modern English, technical meaning to an ancient, middle eastern, non-technical language. That's similar to saying that when Jesus used the example of trying to get a camel through the eye of a needle, He was talking about a cigarette.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph were no "ordinary family" by any stretch of the meaning of the word "ordinary."
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic being discussed.
iakov the fool
Last edited:
Jim,
Chest and head pains, severe diarrhoea and nausia. I feel lousy today. A gastroenterologist sees me today.
Thank you for your prayers.
Oz
Mary was married with a son.
Whats not needed is a Mary who "remained a virgin". As Jesus is the one who is needed.
Most protestants don't agree. Ref:chruch Because they believe as was stated Jesus had siblings. You rejected that because it didn't fit your theology. I read it and believed. The context was very clear. Jesus was in His home town. Isn't this the carpenters son? He had a family
Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
I assure you Jesus and His family would have appeared as nothing special to the world. Ordinary. The carpenters son. In a sense Jesus was kept hidden until around 30 years of age when Jesus started preaching He would have then shown the Son who was before the world began. But though the world was made through Him the world did not recognize Him.
As the Mother of the Christ child Mary is considered blessed through all generations. And Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to the Christ Child. -That we can agree on.
calvin
Member
Wasn't going to post in this thread again, but..........
Rest up Oz, ozzie Doctors are as good as any anywhere.
You are in good hands,
Get well soon mate.
Jim Parker
Member
OK
Mary was married to a man named Joseph.
She had a son by the Holy Spirit who they named Jesus.
Jim Parker
Member
No, Jesus was NOT the carpenter's son.
Jesus was the son of God, not Joseph.
As I have already stated: the word "brother", in that culture did not mean one having the same parents. It meant anyone in the clan or tribe.
Paul addressed the crowd of his accusers at Acts 22:1 as "brothers". Should we believe that all the men in the mob were Paul's siblings?
At Acts 3:17 Peter addressed the man in the temple who had seen the lame man healed as "brothers". Does that mean they were all Peter's siblings?
You insist on forcing the meaning of a Modern English word from a modern western culture into the ancient Greek word of an ancient middle eastern culture. And, apparently, you have no clue as to why that might be a problem.
So what? Protestantism has teaching that is based on little more than the hatred of the RCC. Many of the foundational teachings of the Original Church are rejected by those calling themselves "Protestant Christians." There isn't even a basis in scripture or in the teaching of the apostles which validates the very existence of a sect called "Protestants" who separated themselves from the historic Church which Jesus founded and reformed it according to their own desires.
SO, "Most Protestants don't agree" is a useless bit of information in any attempt to support your view.
iakov the fool
.
I see the question "Who Made God," and normally ignore this type of question because I have absolutely no idea as how to answer it. No matter what I would say would just show my ignorance somewhat akin to what I think of scientific proof.
I stumbled across this following item I'd saved, and I don't have the author's name, or if it was something I was in discussion of. I have not read all the replies on this thread, and this may be a repeat of something already posted.
What or how did all things come to be?
"In the beginning God . . "
Well what was before Him?
"In the beginning God . ."
What about all the scientific discoveries?
"In the beginning God . ."
I see the question "Who Made God," and normally ignore this type of question because I have absolutely no idea as how to answer it. No matter what I would say would just show my ignorance somewhat akin to what I think of scientific proof.
I stumbled across this following item I'd saved, and I don't have the author's name, or if it was something I was in discussion of. I have not read all the replies on this thread, and this may be a repeat of something already posted.
What or how did all things come to be?
"In the beginning God . . "
Well what was before Him?
"In the beginning God . ."
What about all the scientific discoveries?
"In the beginning God . ."
Jesus "is" the Son of God. We know that. They didn't.
The context I see is as written Jesus's siblings and Mother. Half brothers and half sisters. But they didn't know He was Gods Son so His brothers and sisters. So they name his exact Father's work (this is the town Jesus grew up in) and His exact Mother Mary but when it comes to His brothers and sisters it means something else? Ha!
Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. 55“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57And they took offense at him.
Jim Parker
Member
Ha???
I have explained to you that the meaning of the word "brother" in that culture did not necessitate it meaning siblings from the same parents.
If you don't want to know then you won't know.
I know the meaning of the word brother and sister. And it clearly is used in that context in the passage I quoted. Not the one you imply as a "alternative possibility" because the "text" that was written doesn't support a Mary who remained a virgin.
The "text" states Jesus had brothers and sisters. Therefore Mary had other children by her husband Joseph. The importance is that with Jesus she was a virgin as she conceived by the Holy Spirit and Jesus is the Son of God not the Son of Joseph.
I am reasonable but in this case I don't agree with your take on the "text" in regard to brother and sister. And its much more reasonable to believe Mary had lawful relations with her lawful husband resulting in Jesus having siblings. And again we agree Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit and as a virgin gave birth to the Christ Child. (Jesus)
Randy
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Hi Jim,No it doesn't.
But it does challenge the simplistic notion that the 6 days of creation in Gen.1 are to be taken literally rather than as the standard ancient middle eastern literary device of beginning a story with a genealogy.
The 6, 24 hour days of creation are also demonstrated to be an erroneous understanding by modern astrophysics by which we know that the universe is about 13.7 billion years old, not a few thousand years.
And, just to let you know, the doctrines of "original sin" and our "sin nature" are ideas that were developed by the Roman Catholic scholastics following the lead of insertion of Platonic and Aristotelian Greek philosophy into Christian hermeneutics by Augustine of Hippo.
The idea that all of mankind is guilty of Adam's sin is explicitly refuted by scripture and mankind does not have a "sin nature". Sin is an infection in the good nature with which God endowed man. You see the evidence of that good nature in Paul's description of the war between the flesh and the mind.
IMO, if you believe the Bible is an historical report a literal six day creation and a literal garden with a literal tree of life and a literal tree of the knowledge of good and evil then you are probably missing a lot of the story.
But, if it works for you, then, enjoy.
Just reading along.
You say something above that I was surprised to hear you say.
I agree that we are not personally responsible for Adam's sin. It's called Original Sin because it was the first sin.
Call it what you will. We only are suffering from the EFFECT of that sin....the loss of our intimate relationship with God...the distance created between us and Him.
But how do you say we don't have a sin nature? Paul spoke to this.
Romans 3:23 --- 5:12 --- 7:5 --- 7:18
Ephesians 2:1 --- 2.3
2 Peter 1:4
Mark 7:23
If we don't have a nature that tends toward sin, what makes us sin?
Corn Pop
Member
"And he knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus"
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas."
"And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things."
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days".
"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas."
"And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things."
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days".
Last edited:
You're probably just lacking in your understanding Dan of Aramaic or Hebrew, and translated to Greek later. If you learn all the exceptions used in other languages, you'll probably come to the real understanding that Mary only had Jesus, and come to believe that the word Firstborn really had the meaning of Onlyborn, and was probably used figuratively. Don't we all know that Mary remained ever virgin? Just ask the majority of Christianity.
Jim Parker
Member
OK
Went right over your head again.
Cygnus
Member
The context of the scripture clearly indicates brothers meaning children of Joseph and Mary.
Cygnus
Member
Clear distinction between Jesus mother and brothers, that is, his direct family, and his diciples in scripture.
"After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and they stayed there a few days".
Once again content says brother means just that...a brother. Mary's other children
Jim Parker
Member
Funny how no one saw it that way until the Protestants, in their rebellion against the Church which Christ founded, found it to be "too Catholic" 1600 years later.