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

[Osculater]

So then would christians refer to his brothers as brothers of God?

The father, the son, the bro, and the holy ghost, amen!

 

[colby25]

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.



Flat Earther alert.

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

Lol you take my posts out of context probably as much as you do with the Bible.

Not a flat earther, that comment was sarcastic. Idk if you could tell or not

 

[Seaside]

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.

Practical judaism does not orthodox jews do not believe in it even today. Jewish Christians did but not jews.

 

[KnightTemplar]

The father, the son, the bro, and the holy ghost, amen!

Reps for Jesus!

 

[badascan]

The father, the son and the goalie post...

 

[Andy Capp]

Really? The bible has a few verses about his family, siblings, and especially James. Why would Catholics think he had no siblings? There's even a gospel passage about his family being so large, it was a talked about thing in the Nazareth community.

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

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

I don't think it's all that controversial, more a matter of which interpretation you wish to accept, but I can see why others might feel differently.
There's the Catholic interpretation:
"James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40)."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
The protestant interpretation just appears to take it more literally, and I am sure there is scholarly support for both ideas. E.g. neither the ossuary of James nor the inscription on it has been definitively proven to be a fake but there is certainly plenty of room for doubt.

 

[Andy Capp]

Written around 400AD. It's where they get all that gospel of Thomas and Judas from if you watch the history channel.

They're dated late 3rd / early 4th century.

These statements are contradictory, by the way. Sorry to nitpick, but early 4th century would be around/a little after 300AD. Also, the history channel is crap, according to some scholars.

 

[Andy Capp]

There's evidence against big foot and superheroes. No serious evidence against the concept of god.

This is your dumbest post, pretty much ever, except for the not believing in god being different from not believing gods exist post which is somehow on a whole other level of dumb, and that's saying something. You need to lay off the drugs.

 

[Andy Capp]

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'm curious to hear your take on my post above, to wit,

"James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40)."
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Greece didn't rule Egypt until 300 A.D.

Nope.

Egypt was conquered by Alexander. It wasn't directly ruled by Macedonia, but was run by a Macedonian elite who spoke Greek. So it is accurate enough to say that Egypt was run by Greeks from 323-31 BC.

 

[jefferz]

Nope.

Egypt was conquered by Alexander. It wasn't directly ruled by Macedonia, but was run by a Macedonian elite who spoke Greek. So it is accurate enough to say that Egypt was run by Greeks from 323-31 BC.

That was already pointed out. Try to keep up skippy.
I thought you were banned.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That was already pointed out. Try to keep up skippy.
I thought you were banned.

It was your egregious factual error not mine, so please don't get snippy with me. What made you think I was banned?

 

[jefferz]

It was your egregious factual error not mine, so please don't get snippy with me. What made you think I was banned?

I thought you were banned during the OT/Nostromo fiasco.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

So what does it say?

Here's the text in English: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/1ja.html

Most of the so-called lost books of the bible aren't lost and are easily accessible online. I've read a large number of the Gnostic Gospels.

 

[colby25]

I'm curious to hear your take on my post above, to wit,

Looks good. Seems you take a more balanced and neutral approach to the idea which is wise.

Personally I believe Jesus had half brothers but if I'm wrong? No big deal. I personally don't think it should cause division among believers if some choose to believe had other children or not.

 

[Andy Capp]

Looks good. Seems you take a more balanced and neutral approach to the idea which is wise.

Personally I believe Jesus had half brothers but if I'm wrong? No big deal. I personally don't think it should cause division among believers if some choose to believe had other children or not.

In my opinion, it should really only matter to Catholic clergy since they use the distinction to support their dumb ideas about celibacy. I can't see why anyone else would give a crap, except as a matter of historical accuracy.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

These statements are contradictory, by the way. Sorry to nitpick, but early 4th century would be around/a little after 300AD. Also, the history channel is crap, according to some scholars.

Yeah, 0 to 100 is 1st cenruty - My bad.

What you don't accept ancient astronaut theory? lol

The history channel did a series on the gnostic gospels and sort of left out the dates on them, and presented it as written by the disciples.

 

[tramendous]

These statements are contradictory, by the way. Sorry to nitpick, but early 4th century would be around/a little after 300AD. Also, the history channel is crap, according to some scholars.

Ya the history channel is crap because people who watch TV don't care about real history as much as say "Hitler's Flying Saucers" and "ancient aliens"

 

[hillelslovak87]

Practical judaism does not orthodox jews do not believe in it even today. Jewish Christians did but not jews.

Practical judaism is something quite new. In the time of Jesus, if you were even hellenized in the least, you would run a real risk of being murdered by some pious jew if you went near the temple.

 

[Seaside]

Practical judaism is something quite new. In the time of Jesus, if you were even hellenized in the least, you would run a real risk of being murdered by some pious jew if you went near the temple.

i mean it make sense though from they view. they need to stick to their 613 commandments and for you to not do that and go near their holy temple is bad. It like a non pious muslim going to mecca and trying to get near or touch the kaaba. Non muslims cannot enter mecca or medina. good luck being some half dressed blonde in non hijab getting near or some western dressed non muslim man.