Scholars found first known copy of Jesus’ forbidden teachings to his bro James in original Greek

[hillelslovak87]

Traditionally, Mary was perpetually virgin. Early Greek interpretation says James is Jesus' cousin. This is still debated by masters of Greek today.

That is odd, especially seeing the erroneous translations the biblical authors made translating from Greek to Hebrew. The Greek word, parthenos, can be translated into maiden, or virgin. Who knows.

It seems odd that certain christians would see Mary as perpetually a virgin. It does not make much sense, especially for a diaspora Jew living as a subsistence toiler, like the Galilee Jews were.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Yep but they not want to hear it. Christianity also invented hell which judaism not have. Oh and gay is still inferior and women still subrodinate to man.

No. Second Temple Judaism, which comes directly from a time in which Jews were enslaved by Persians, clearly adopts Zoroastrian ideas like a redeeming messiah, and a sense of the messiah creating the world anew. It's easy to see what Jews got from a religion that believed a river of fire would swallow the globe, and spare the believers their place on the renewed Earth.

 

[Spoken]

That is odd, especially seeing the erroneous translations the biblical authors made translating from Greek to Hebrew. The Greek word, parthenos, can be translated into maiden, or virgin. Who knows.

It seems odd that certain christians would see Mary as perpetually a virgin. It does not make much sense, especially for a diaspora Jew living as a subsistence toiler, like the Galilee Jews were.

Nothing weird about it considering the Hebrew word for young woman in Isaiah 7:14 could well imply virginity. Erroneous or not, the Septuagint's interpretation of Isaiah was used as an authoritative text.

That said, perpetual virginity of mary was a later thing isn't necessarily supported in scripture. As I said earlier, some folks treat James as a cousin based on possible interpretations of Greek. Early ideas asserted it was Joseph's first marriage that gave him multiple children. Admittedly, it's a bit weird. But the necessary virginity of Mary in a messianic narrative isn't particularly weird

 

[hillelslovak87]

Nothing weird about it considering the Hebrew word for young woman in Isaiah 7:14 could well imply virginity. Erroneous or not, the Septuagint's interpretation of Isaiah was used as an authoritative text.

That said, perpetual virginity of mary was a later thing isn't necessarily supported in scripture. As I said earlier, some folks treat James as a cousin based on possible interpretations of Greek. Early ideas asserted it was Joseph's first marriage that gave him multiple children. Admittedly, it's a bit weird. But the necessary virginity of Mary in a messianic narrative isn't particularly weird

It's certainly weird to me. Jewish belief was quite clear. A man's lineage went through the generations through the semen. The prophecies are quite clear: The Messiah is to be from the line of David. If Jesus has no link tot he line of David, he in fact cannot be the Messiah. This seems an odd, rather foundational tenet to ignore for over 2000 years.

 

[Spoken]

No. Second Temple Judaism, which comes directly from a time in which Jews were enslaved by Persians, clearly adopts Zoroastrian ideas like a redeeming messiah, and a sense of the messiah creating the world anew. It's easy to see what Jews got from a religion that believed a river of fire would swallow the globe, and spare the believers their place on the renewed Earth.

Yeah, jewish apocalyptic is well older than Jesus, lol. Pretty sure a 30 second internet search (and reading, like, Daniel and parts of Ezekiel, would affirm that. You ever read Enoch. FUCKING NUTS.
A lot of it was pretty fringe--like, Priests would study and read it but it wasn't really part of official canon in the larger religious communities. And beyond the Messiah figure, Persian religion opened up the idea of resurrection, which is obviously essential to Christian ideas.

What's really interesting about "mainstream" Judaism in the exile is how critically they appropriate stuff from other religions. Judiasm never goes dualistic, abandons the body, or anything like that. There's a lot of lit on how their identity is reshaped, and yet, it's core remained intact in some historically surprising ways.

 

[Spoken]

It's certainly weird to me. Jewish belief was quite clear. A man's lineage went through the generations through the semen. The prophecies are quite clear: The Messiah is to be from the line of David. If Jesus has no link tot he line of David, he in fact cannot be the Messiah. This seems an odd, rather foundational tenet to ignore for over 2000 years.

Radical inbreaking of revelation is pretty Jewish though.... also, Matthew's lineage is mostly concerned with David.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Yeah, jewish apocalyptic is well older than Jesus, lol. Pretty sure a 30 second internet search (and reading, like, Daniel and parts of Ezekiel, would affirm that. You ever read Enoch. FUCKING NUTS.
A lot of it was pretty fringe--like, Priests would study and read it but it wasn't really part of official canon in the larger religious communities. And beyond the Messiah figure, Persian religion opened up the idea of resurrection, which is obviously essential to Christian ideas.

What's really interesting about "mainstream" Judaism in the exile is how critically they appropriate stuff from other religions. Judiasm never goes dualistic, abandons the body, or anything like that. There's a lot of lit on how their identity is reshaped, and yet, it's core remained intact in some historically surprising ways.

That's the weird part about the Bible. The God of the old testament is a fucked up psycho who literally demands you call him Jealous. But when you're dead, he's done with you.

Only with gentle Jesus do we hear about punishment after the grave. So peaceful.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Radical inbreaking of revelation is pretty Jewish though.... also, Matthew's lineage is mostly concerned with David.

Well, the gospel writers knew of the prophecy, which was the thought that the Messiah must come from the lineage of David. This is why they scrambled at the fact that Jesus was not from Bethlehem, but Nazareth. That is where the nativity narrative comes from. It makes zero sense historically, and in no shape or form happened in anything like the story says, but their goal, and their views, were quite clear on the matter.

John 7:42 addresses this quite clear.

 

[Spoken]

That's the weird part about the Bible. The God of the old testament is a fucked up psycho who literally demands you call him Jealous. But when you're dead, he's done with you.

Only with gentle Jesus do we hear about punishment after the grave. So peaceful.

...mostly priests and scribes in hell according to Jesus. Also, some rich folks.

 

[Spoken]

Well, the gospel writers knew of the prophecy, which was the thought that the Messiah must come from the lineage of David. This is why they scrambled at the fact that Jesus was not from Bethlehem, but Nazareth. That is where the nativity narrative comes from. It makes zero sense historically, and in no shape or form happened in anything like the story says, but their goal, and their views, were quite clear on the matter.

John 7:42 addresses this quite clear.

Not so simple. A majority of NT scholars think John knows about Jesus' birth story in Bethlehem, but he's not particularly concerned with Jesus' earthly connection (hence, epic prologue). John has an ironic function regarding folks who think they know what Jesus is about, but often miss the larger picture (again, think epic prologue). No doubt, Gospel authors (really, it was the redactors) stretch stuff to make Jesus fit the narrative perfectly, but this particular thing is less heated than you'd assume.
Check out commentaries on John from Bruner, Wescot, Bernard, Beasley and Murray, and, my own blood, Lightfoot.
Folks fought about this a lot in the 19th century and into the early 20th with the rise of text criticism, only to find that, in fact, history interpreted with less conspiracy ends up ringing more true.

 

[ElKarlo]

Actually if you do some research you'll find that there have been fragments discovered which are dated at or before AD150. Ignatius' writings reference the divinity of Christ and quote other NT sources, and he died in AD108. Your theory is fine, especially since something similar can be shown to have happened with early writings about Islam and Muhammed. But the facts don't bear your idea out in the case of the New Testament writings.

It's been a while since I looked it up. But most ancient manuscripts are medieval copies. Very little exists from the ancient world thst wasn't written in rock. The belief that the bible was written well after the events occurred is poor science at best. Most of what was written was done between 60-90AD.
I think even Alexander the great, his oldest existing documents are from 300Ad or so

 

[ElKarlo]

More human lives have been taken in God's name than all war combined.. But yeah great message

Really? That is incredibly Un sourced right there.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Really? That is incredibly Un sourced right there.

Religion plays an important role in division and war. Even in secular wars, it provides ready labels in which to blandish the other side.

However, I doubt religion is the principle cause for most of the world's suffering. It has a lot on it's plate, though. It's hard to count the many millions that died in famines, pogroms in Russia, for example, under the czars, or how much the protocols of the elders of Zion lost in point of life.

 

[Codpiece]

It's been a while since I looked it up. But most ancient manuscripts are medieval copies. Very little exists from the ancient world thst wasn't written in rock. The belief that the bible was written well after the events occurred is poor science at best. Most of what was written was done between 60-90AD.
I think even Alexander the great, his oldest existing documents are from 300Ad or so

That's absolutely true. The biographies of Alexander are from around 400 years after his death.

If some people applied the same standards regarding all ancient writings as they do to early Christian ones then they'd not be able to believe in any history predating photographs.

 

[colby25]

"If" is the operative word here. It is by no means settled she had other kids. It is a very controversial and alternative understanding.

It's not controversial or alternative understanding.

Any study of the scriptures of the Holy Bible tell of Jesus having brothers and sisters. They're obviously Half Brothers and sisters though.

Mark 3:31:

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Galatians 1:19

I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

 

[MicroBrew]

It's not controversial or alternative understanding.

Any study of the scriptures of the Holy Bible tell of Jesus having brothers and sisters. They're obviously Half Brothers and sisters though.

Mark 3:31:

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Galatians 1:19

I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

What theologians argue is that "brothers" is not to be taken literally. Just like when any guy says "my bro" , he doesn't mean the guy he is referring to is his biological brother. Monks and religious Christians have been known to say "brother so and so" when referring to a fellow Christian they know.

 

[tramendous]

"If" is the operative word here. It is by no means settled she had other kids. It is a very controversial and alternative understanding.

I can see a lot of opposition from Christians even if its true.

 

[colby25]

What theologians argue is that "brothers" is not to be taken literally. Just like when any guy says "my bro" , he doesn't mean the guy he is referring to is his biological brother. Monks and religious Christians have been known to say "brother so and so" when referring to a fellow Christian they know.

Read the context of matthew and Luke that I posted and see for yourself. If that's how you want to interpret it then be my guest...but from reading the text it would seem that those were in fact his real mother and brother's coming to see him. From Luke 8:

Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”​

Also Mark 6:3 indicates that He not only had brothers but also sisters:

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.
​

It really isn't a controversial statement to say that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. His brothers and sisters had no part in His divinity as Jesus was born of a virgin, begotten from God. His brothers and sisters were earthly from Joseph and Mary.

​

 

[MicroBrew]

Read the context of matthew and Luke that I posted and see for yourself. If that's how you want to interpret it then be my guest...but from reading the text it would seem that those were in fact his real mother and brother's coming to see him. From Luke 8:

Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.”

He replied, “My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.”​

Also Mark 6:3 indicates that He not only had brothers but also sisters:

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.
​

It really isn't a controversial statement to say that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. His brothers and sisters had no part in His divinity as Jesus was born of a virgin, begotten from God. His brothers and sisters were earthly from Joseph and Mary.

​

I have read that before, and that doesn't make it clear they are his bio brothers. The could be his disciples and close believers.

 

[Juventud]

It's perfectly logical to believe there's no god because there's no proof of one. The same applies to Bigfoot, snipes and super heroes.

There's more 'proof' for believing in Bigfoot over Jesus IMO. <Lmaoo> At least Bigfoots reported to have been seen in the last 100 years.
All i know is there's a guy who dresses as Jesus and walks around Hollywood.

It's not controversial or alternative understanding.

Any study of the scriptures of the Holy Bible tell of Jesus having brothers and sisters. They're obviously Half Brothers and sisters though.

Mark 3:31:

Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him.

Galatians 1:19

I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother.

Flat Earther alert.

So in reality in order to find out one needs to fly NOT east to west...but south to north and do a complete 360 around the earth to find out if this theory is true or not.

Someone on sherdog must have a rich uncle or something with a private jet and needs to settle this once and for all.

Boy your threads were fun. I have to admire your craziness.