Jesus Christ was Born of Woman . . . fact or fiction?

[Particular]

This was already refuted here ---> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-5#post-2546488

Scripture shows James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were the sons of Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth.

---> Mt 27:56
---> Mk 15:40


Thus they could not be uterine siblings of Jesus since they have a different mother. As you have been taught in these threads, the use of “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use than we use today. You see "brother" and erroneously impose your Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture.


Here are scholars describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel affirming this..

"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14


"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16


"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106

Source


Now, do you have Scripture identifying uterine siblings of Jesus?

That is not a refutation. That is a church dogma twist to deny the clear truth.
I know you need crutches to prop up your church dogma. I don't expect you to stop leaning on your crutch.

 

[Particular]

Would God have countenanced the Ark of the Covenant to be used to carry within it normal everyday things? Of course not. Mary could really have been the new "Ark of the Covenant" and as such would never had been allowed to produce any other normal everyday children. Her mission in life was to bear the Redeemer and raise Him up without any other responsibilities.

The same for her husband Joseph who was more likely to have been an older man, perhaps a widower, whose sole mission in life was to help raise and protect the Redeemer. As for those "brothers and sisters" that you brought up that are mentioned in the Holy Writ could the words actually mean Jesus's half - siblings?

Yep, that's it, so now I have resolved the argument and now we can all sleep soundly tonight.

The ark of the covenant has nothing to do with this. Plus, the ark was just a wooden box with gold overlay and the relics inside were symbols of God's work.
Your attempted correlation is silly non-sence. Enough with the foolish typology of your dogmas.

 

[Particular]

sin is not physical and thus not inheritable, It is spiritual, Did you get your soul from your Father?

Eze 18:20

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Shooting a child in the head is apparently not a sin in your mind since the physical act of murder is not sin.
Your claim is horrific.

 

[loDebar]

Jesus Christ was not hypostatic union of God and man? What kind of thing was Jesus Christ?

I think you should re-read my previous post if you are interested in understanding what was said.

JoeT

you are also spiritual being and physical body, He was like us. He is God incarnate

Heb 2:14

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

 

[loDebar]

Shooting a child in the head is apparently not a sin in your mind since the physical act of murder is not sin.
Your claim is horrific.

sin is not the physical but the spiritual, Wanting to shoot a child is a sin,, Shooting a child by accident is not a sin

Jesus said of adultery

Mat 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The body does nothing, yet it is sin

 

[JoeT]

The ark of the covenant has nothing to do with this. Plus, the ark was just a wooden box with gold overlay and the relics inside were symbols of God's work.
Your attempted correlation is silly non-sence. Enough with the foolish typology of your dogmas.

It's not nonsense at all, it was the mode of transportation across a sea of sin from Adam's sin to the birth of our salvation, Jesus Christ. He chose sail a Holy Ark across the dark water, Mary. She is indeed a very special vessel of God whose place is in the Holy of Holies.

JoeT

 

[loDebar]

It's not nonsense at all, it was the mode of transportation across a sea of sin from Adam's sin to the birth of our salvation, Jesus Christ. He chose sail a Holy Ark across the dark water, Mary. She is indeed a very special vessel of God whose place is in the Holy of Holies.

JoeT

she did not say so. She only glorified God

Luk 1:46¶
And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
Luk 1:47
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Luk 1:48
For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luk 1:49
For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
Luk 1:50
And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation.
Luk 1:51
He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
Luk 1:52
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
Luk 1:53
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
Luk 1:54
He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy;
Luk 1:55
As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever.

 

[robycop3]

Where were those 7 at the cross? Jesus tells John that is his mother and John takes her to his home. Why not back home with her 7 other actual children?

Scripture doesn't tell us, mentioning only James. Jesus had His reasons, whatever they were, to commend her care to John. Maybe He wanted John to replace Him as her son? We don't know.

 

[robycop3]

Okay - here is the FULL context:

Matt. 13:54-57
Coming to his hometown, he (Jesus) began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?” they asked. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at him.

But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town and in his own home.”

Sooooo, where does it says that they are the uterine siblings of Jesus??
Where does it say that Mary is their mother?
Where does it say that Joseph is their father??

Thee ONLY one who paternity is answered by these verse is that of JESUS.
When you read the accounts of the women at the foot of the cross with Mary – it shows that these men are the sons of the “other Mary”, who ic called Mary’s “sister” (Adelphe) and wife of Clopas/Alphaeus.

We KNOW that they aren’t uterine sisters because they are BOTH named Mary – even though “Adelphe” is used here.

You’ve got a LOT of ‘splainin’ to do . . .

COMMON SENSE says Jesus' bros.& srs. all came from the same mother.

 

[robycop3]

This was already refuted here ---> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-5#post-2546488

Scripture shows James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were the sons of Mary Cleophas and not Mary of Nazareth.

---> Mt 27:56
---> Mk 15:40


Thus they could not be uterine siblings of Jesus since they have a different mother. As you have been taught in these threads, the use of “brother” in Jewish culture in antiquity had a much broader use than we use today. You see "brother" and erroneously impose your Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture.


Here are scholars describing early archaeological excavation of homes in Israel affirming this..

"The units comprising the village mispahah, or kinship group, were the families of early Israel. Because these families were agriculturists, their identity and survival were integrally connected with their material world - more specifically, with their arable land, their implements for working the land and processing its products, and their domiciles - as well as with the human and also animal components of the domestic group. In many ways, the term family household is more useful in dealing with early Israelite families (although that would not be the case for the monarchical period and later, when domestic unites were more varied in their spatial aspects and economic functions). Combining family, with its kingship meanings, and household, a more flexible term including both coresident and economic functions, has descriptive merit. The family household thus included a set of related people as well as residential buildings, outbuildings, tools, equipment, fields, livestock, and orchards; it sometimes also included household members who were not kin, such as "sojourners", war captives and servants." - Families in Ancient Israel: The Family in Early Israel, Carol Meyers, pgs. 13-14


"These dwelling clusters constitute evidence for a family unit in early Israel larger than that of the nuclear family (or conjugal couple with unmarried offspring). Each pillared house in a cluster may represent the living space of a nuclear family or parts thereof, but the shared courtyard space and common house walls of the linked buildings indicate a larger family grouping. Early Israelite dwelling unites were thus complex arrangements of several buildings and housed what we might call extended families. Furthermore, thee compound dwelling unites were not isolated buildings within a settlement of single-family homes." - Ibid, pg. 16


"The family was never so 'nuclear' as it is in the modern West." - Families in Ancient Israel: Marriage, Divorce and Family in Second Temple Judaism, John J. Collins, pg. 106

Source


Now, do you have Scripture identifying uterine siblings of Jesus?

How silly! "James, Joseph (or Joses), etc." were very common Jewish names. The other James is even called "James the younger, or less" in Mk. 15:40.

 

[Iconoclast]

First of all, I find it quite ironic that above your screen name is...an icon.

Secondly, if you think you have verses stating Mary's multiple subsequent pregnancies and thus can identify uterine siblings of Jesus, please post them.

Try mark 6:3...always good to look in the bible for answers

 

[Walpole]

Try mark 6:3...always good to look in the bible for answers

Try --> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-5#post-2546488

and

---> www.baptistboard.com/threads/jesus-christ-was-born-of-woman-fact-or-fiction.114091/page-9#post-2546685


Scripture (Mt. 27:56) names a different Mary (Mary of Cleophas) as their mother.

 

[Walpole]

How silly! "James, Joseph (or Joses), etc." were very common Jewish names. The other James is even called "James the younger, or less" in Mk. 15:40.

How silly! If you believe there are two identical pairs of "James and Joses" in the Gospels, perhaps you can show me us the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere. For example, two different "Mary and Marthas" or two different "James and Johns".

You are grasping at straws here!

 

[Walpole]

COMMON SENSE says Jesus' bros.& srs. all came from the same mother.

COMMON SENSE says that if Scripture lists them as the sons of a different mother, then they cannot be uterine siblings of Jesus.

 

[Walpole]

That is not a refutation. That is a church dogma twist to deny the clear truth.
I know you need crutches to prop up your church dogma. I don't expect you to stop leaning on your crutch.

I find it ironic that you dogmatically proclaim Mary's multiple subsequent maternities without offering one single verse of Scripture to support it.

 

[Adonia]

The ark of the covenant has nothing to do with this. Plus, the ark was just a wooden box with gold overlay and the relics inside were symbols of God's work.
Your attempted correlation is silly non-sence. Enough with the foolish typology of your dogmas.

Just a wooden box? I dare say that it is the only wooden box in biblical history that brought instant death if not authorized to touch it! The reality of the scriptures is that not all that happened was written down, so our attempt to bring things that are hidden to the fore for a fuller biblical experience is as valid as anyone else's attempt to likewise figure them completely out.

 

[Particular]

sin is not the physical but the spiritual, Wanting to shoot a child is a sin,, Shooting a child by accident is not a sin

Jesus said of adultery

Mat 5:28

But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

The body does nothing, yet it is sin

So thinking about it is a sin, but actually doing it is not. Got it.
That's twisted.

 

[37818]

As St. Peter says, baptism is the anti-type of the waters of the deluge. The waters of baptism now cleanse not our flesh, but our sin. (cf. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5)

LOL. You are arguing an interpreation which is not agreed upon. The texts you cited teach no such thing. Do you know why Baptists typically would disagree with that type of interpreation you are contending? .Baptists agree with the texts, not your interpretation of them. The Church of Christ sect typically would agree with that type of interpreation of them, alone with some other Protestants. FYI, the Appstle Paul taught that baptism and the gospel were two things (1 Corinthians 1:17). Paul was not denying baptism or that Jesus commanded baptism. Understand? (Romans 1:16.)

 

[MarysSon]

COMMON SENSE says Jesus' bros.& srs. all came from the same mother.

Absolutely.

Common sense states that they are the children of the other woman called “Mary” at the foot of the cross who was the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus. It says that she was Mary’s (Jesus’ Mother) “Adelphe” (sister). However – we know that they weren’t sisters because they have the SAME name. They are some other relation.

So, you see – common sense tells me that MOST people in the NT who are called “Adelphos” are NOT uterine siblings because – of the 344 uses of this word in the NT
41 (12%) occurrences of "Adelphos" clearly or probably refers to a family sibling.
47 (14%) occurrences of "Adelphos" may or may not refer to a family sibling.
A whopping 256 (74%) occurrences of "Adelphos" cannot or almost certainly does not refer to a family sibling.

Another anti-Catholic whopper that is SQUASHED by the Bible . . .

 

[MarysSon]

So thinking about it is a sin, but actually doing it is not. Got it.
That's twisted.

That's NOT what @loDebar said.
Sin is all about INTENT.

NOT that difficult to understand . . .