|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 24, 2008 19:28:14 GMT -5
Prove it...scriptrually that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Mar 25, 2008 17:35:04 GMT -5
Jesus had no brothers and sisters. He called his apostles brothers. Jesus came to Judea for one purpose and one purpose only. To die for our sins. He did not come for anything else. He was Divine. period.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 25, 2008 18:15:16 GMT -5
Ive never heard of Him having siblings until just recently, but i dont believe that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 25, 2008 21:29:44 GMT -5
Well, when the Bible says "brothers of Jesus", some take "that" literally (yet when it says "this is truly My body", that they can't take literally.
Of course, Scripture goes on to explain that those called Jesus' brothers are the sons of the "other" Mary (The Virgin Mary's cousin, daughter of Saint Elisabeth and sister of Saint John).
I wonder how come they don't consider it "literal" when Saint Peter addresses 3,000 converts as "brothers"?
Saint Peter's mother would've had to have given birth to 3,000 human beings.
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Mar 25, 2008 21:36:06 GMT -5
Yeah, i dont understand some things being literal and others not when it does not benefit your faith..
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Mar 25, 2008 23:52:22 GMT -5
To me...it's allllll literal.
Even when Jesus is telling a parable,
we are to take His telling a parable literally.
(Not the parable itself, but what Jesus says)
|
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 7, 2008 23:35:52 GMT -5
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
Mar 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? And they were offended at him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 0:01:01 GMT -5
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? Mat 13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. Mar 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? And they were offended at him. Proof that Jesus had no brothers: www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htmNone of those are called "The sons" of The Virgin Mary, are they? Not one. On top of that, those same names are attributed to the "other" Mary at the cross (The Virgin Mary's cousin). They are Jesus' cousins. Why are only the "brothers" named and "not" the sisters? Because only the "brothers" are attributed to Mary (The Virgin Mary's cousin). Saint Peter called 3,000 converts "bretheren". Does that mean that his mother had 3,000 kids? Also, the ultimate proof comes from Jesus own mouth: When Jesus died, He gave the care of His Blessed Mother over to John, a complete stranger. Why? If Jesus had brothers, He, by The Law, "had" to give her over to the next eldest brother. That was The Law. But He didn't. My question is...Did Jesus break The Law and therefore contradict His own Word? Of course not. No where in scripture will you ever find the following (this is for all you sola scripturists and bible literalists): Mary had other sons Mary had daughters Mary had sex Mary sinned Mary was given to Jesus' brother when she died You do know that there is no Aramaic word for "cousin" right? That's why they used the word "bretheren" to refer to a cousin relationship. Since there is no Biblically historical evidence that Mary ever had other children (much less sex), then the only logical conclusion is that those mentioned were his "kinsmen" which is literally what the Aramaic word for brothers means. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 0:01:18 GMT -5
Then of course, there's this:
Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen
Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."
Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.
Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.
Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.
Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.
Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.
Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.
Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."
2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.
2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.
1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.
Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."
Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."
Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 8, 2008 8:05:35 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter IMO. I personally believe she did because she was married and could have if she wanted to...but it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 9:03:42 GMT -5
It doesn't really matter IMO. I personally believe she did because she was married and could have if she wanted to...but it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things. That's true. Technically, it wouldn't have been wrong if Mary had children (according to The Law), but there is no biblical evidence that Mary and Joseph had actually been married. They were never officially married. It's "not" in The Bible. No wedding ever took place. No ceremony. In fact, when she was approached by Gabriel, Mary and Joseph weren't even living together, but were only engaged. No where in The Bible does it ever say that Mary and Joseph were actually married. So one cannot not automatically assume that they had sexual relations. As far as scripture is concerned, Joseph and Mary were never married. |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 8, 2008 13:18:56 GMT -5
So they would have just stayed engaged forever and never get married?
Not everything is recorded in the Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 13:25:07 GMT -5
No...the Bible doesn't teach us that. They ended up living together without getting married. Again, there is no scriptural evidence for the belief that the actually got married (in fact, nobody even talks about it really). Exactly. So I guess you're not a Sola Scripturist then? Now you're talking like a universal Christian and not a denominational Christian. Well done.  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 8, 2008 13:43:28 GMT -5
Isn't living together without being married a sin...?
i believe everything in the Bible...and I also use my brain. So I'm a sola scripturist and brainist?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 13:55:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 13:59:58 GMT -5
Isn't living together without being married a sin...? i believe everything in the Bible...and I also use my brain. So I'm a sola scripturist and brainist?
Having sex outside of wedlock is a sin. By the way...here is what the creator of "Sola Scriptura" (Martin Luther) also taught: =============================================Martin Luther:Mary the Mother of GodThroughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God: "She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."1 Perpetual VirginityAgain throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone. "It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."2 The Immaculate ConceptionYet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning: "But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."3 AssumptionAlthough he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption: "There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."4 Honor to MaryDespite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days. "The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."5 "Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."6 Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546. ===========================================Can you still trust Martin Luther and his teachings now after having read that? |
|
jacee
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by jacee on Apr 8, 2008 15:28:24 GMT -5
As I said....when you add to the word, you open yourself up to spirits not of God. Spirit of error can bring in many along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 15:30:40 GMT -5
As I said....when you add to the word, you open yourself up to spirits not of God. Spirit of error can bring in many along with it. Hay JC, What do you think...Can you still trust Martin Luther and his teachings now after having read that? |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on Apr 8, 2008 16:21:27 GMT -5
i don't trust Martin Luther...I try God and His Word.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 8, 2008 20:40:41 GMT -5
i don't trust Martin Luther...I try God and His Word. So if you don't trust Martin Luther, how can you trust other humans? And if you don't trust Martin Luther, how can you be a Sola Scripturist? He was the one who invented that theory. Until Martin Luther invented it, it didn't exist in Christian history. It is not an Apostolic teaching, but a Protestant teaching. Since Jesus wasn't a Protestant Christian, it is an unChristian teaching. |
|
