There are many things here.
Let us start with a simple one: I am aware that Jesus did have brothers. Why would you think otherwise?
Let us cover one thing at a time.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
There are many things here.
Let us start with a simple one: I am aware that Jesus did have brothers. Why would you think otherwise?
Let us cover one thing at a time.
Nope, you only mentioned it off-hand the first time when you named "Walter". Then, after I mentioned it without condemnation, you doubled down and boasted that, yes indeed, you yourself did it.
Lol, you do realize that it is not just Rhema that is the Son but that the Logos is the Seeker and the Judge? Yes, the Logos is He who is the Judge: for the Father judges no one but has committed all judgment unto the Son. No, I do not think you realize that: and your slicing the Word in half to steal away with your own select little portion, (and discard the rest like refuse), is surely not "right dividing", but once again, corrupt balances and wicked scales. And you call me the Pharisee?
John 12:47-48
47 And if anyone hears my sayings, [rhema] and keeps them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to deliver the world.
48 The one rejecting me, and receiving not my sayings, [rhema] has one who judges him: THE LOGOS-WORD that I have spoken, THAT ONE shall judge him in the last day [Rev 19:11-16].
Zenn
New member
You keep saying this, and yet you never leave. (Not that I wish you to.)
Personally, I don't think cobra is Charismatic. He just doesn't deny the possibility of such. But then again we're also not that conversant with one another, so don't paint us as twins or comrades in collusion. As of right now, (and I hope I don't offend cobra) our relationship might best be categorized as mere acquaintances.
As for me, no, I am not Charismatic. I am reluctantly charismatic in perspective because of what has truly happened in my life (1Co 2:5). I don't pretend nor make a pretense to these things. I've met many people who embrace the appellation of Charismatic and champion their doctrine and drink the Kool-Aid, but really have no power in these things. Unfortunately, since that seems to be the majority of Charismatics, I can hardly identify with such.
Zenn
glorydaz
Well-known member
No problem. I'm used to being falsely accused by people who think they can tell others how they should respond to posts. I don't have time or the inclination to read all your drivel, or that of the other fools who attempt to mock God's Holy Word, so I'll just stick to the method that works for me.
Zenn
New member
So it happened. How in God's name can you then arrive at the conclusion that because of this, everything I post is imprimatur? Or that I believe I am inerrant? You impute these things. YOU do. I have made no such claim.
Again, you keep saying this, but never really do it.
Mat 11:6
Zenn
PS: Walter's quite happy he isn't dead. Perhaps you think he should be?
linger:I spent many years attending charismatic churches and appreciate the charismatic gifts. I don’t have those gifts.
My wife has on occasion had the gift of interpretation and has had prophetic dreams.
I am acquainted with Zenn, and I have a healthy respect for his expertise. I hope to get to know him better.
Zenn
New member
No. I think she just spiritualized it into ineffectiveness, like the rest of the doomed Christian church.
Since she has no experience with a literal raising from the dead, then the text Must mean some kind of theological metaphor to mean "getting saved". This way doubt and unbelief can be excused "in this age of Grace".
It rather grieves the Spirit.
Zenn
PS: Hmmm, then again. Yeah, that would be a denial. I wonder if she would also deny what daqq implies.
Did I imply? I stated it: the kingdom of Elohim is within you, and those are the words of the Master in Luke 17:20,21, where he even tells you that the kingdom of Elohim does not come with ocular-visual observation, and therefore your physical manifestations are deceiving you; and it is indeed strong delusion for the carnal mind, just as badly as such delusion is for those who end up thinking they are "Michael the Archangel" or one of "the two witnesses" or an end times prophet. You cannot internalize the things I have been speaking about so long as you hold to your physical mindset which tells you that you are right. The outward manifestation of what I say is abundantly clear because you very clearly lean entirely on your own understanding, which is why you have no problem subverting one passage so as to use it against another; pitting scripture against scripture with malicious intent.
glorydaz
Well-known member
What...no center stage for you? Poor baby. :chuckle:
glorydaz
Well-known member
That is quite nasty again.
Just like the pharisees, aren't ya? White on the outside, but filled with dead men's bones.
You are my enemy, and I will not treat you as anything else.
jsanford108
New member
Great idea. If we can each reference my post as a starting point, that will keep us organized.
Now, you realize we are about to focus on a specific, rather than a general application, correct?
I assume you base your awareness on two things: 1.) You have been taught that/heard that. 2.) It says "brethren," "sisters," or "brethren" in the Gospel accounts. It is noteworthy here to denote which translated version from which vocabulary is attained, such as KJV, NIV, etc. (I, myself, cut my teeth on the KJV; so that is the version I utilize for various discussions. I personally use the Douay-Rheims as a devout study, as well as, RSV for personal study and reference).
The term of "brethren" in its Hebrew, Aramaic usage refers to any close relative. This is historical and cultural contextual information. Taking that into consideration, we see the Greek transcription being "brother/brethren," and "sister" respectively.
So, how would we be able to accurately determine if the original language was referring to what we attribute as blood brother, or if it was a close relative, such as a cousin? Here, we must use logical extrapolation, utilizing cultural and historical context, in order to attain a greater focus on correct interpretation.
We know that Jesus was begotten of Mary and the Holy Spirit. Let us examine the Annunciation of Jesus, by the angel, in Luke's account. We see Mary greeted, "Hail, full of Grace. The Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women." Immediately, we see the phrase "full of Grace." No person has ever been greeted in such a manner in all biblical history (now, I know this gets into Catholic doctrine, but I will avoid it as best I can). The angel goes on to tell Mary that she will conceive and bear a child. Mary's response, worthy of note, is "How shall this be done, because I know not man?" Now, mind you she has been betrothed to Joseph at this point. If a soon to be married woman is told she will bear a child, this would not strike them as a "how can this be" moment; it would make sense. However, Mary responds, "How shall this be done," immediately questioning how this can be done in the future.
From this, we can deduce that there is some reason that Mary assumed there would be no conception in her future, prior to the angel announcing Jesus' coming. But, this is not the only proof. take for example, reference to Mary as "Virgin Mary," or "The Virgin." Such a title implies applicable nature. You don't call someone "Virgin" if they are no longer a virgin. Constant reference, for literal centuries, to Mary as "Virgin Mary" logically points to a maintained state of virginity, thus applicable attribution of "Virgin."
We could also look to the Crucifixion, for further proof. Why, did Jesus tell the Apostle John to "behold your mother." If one says that this is Jesus charging John to take care of His mother, this is ignorant of historical and cultural context. Hebrews entrusted the care of parents/widows, to surviving children. Thus, upon Jesus' death, care for Mary would have passed to His blood brethren. Yet, we see this is not the case. Furthermore, if one argues that Jesus is demonstrating His teaching of care for the widows/sick/etc, this would be superfluous, as John would have already known this teaching. Jesus spoke seven recorded times while on the Cross. Does one really think that Jesus, knowing the gravity of this event, would have just used His next to last words as reiterating teaching to an Apostle who already knew it? Or, is it more likely, and logically, much more profound (this would get into Catholic doctrine, so I will leave it at this point)?
Lastly, who were the brothers, if they were blood brothers as we understand today, of Jesus?
I would argue that these various points lead one to logically conclude that Mary was a lifelong virgin, and that Jesus had no siblings.
Zenn
New member
daqq, I never said anything about what Matthew "intends". It was about what YOU believed. Let's look at what I actually said.
This is rather easy to settle.
DO you think (teach, preach, believe, pick your synonym) that Jesus actually rode upon two beasts?
Zenn
PS: I thought your view on this was rather clear, and my apologies for not asking first so that you could clarify what you believe.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Of course I "sound" self important ....because I speak the truth. I take no credit for the truth, however.
Oh, before I forget....the next time you want to call someone a liar because you have seen what time they answer certain posts, and imagine what they were doing in between (like giving thanks or looking things up), you'd be wise to look at that person's profile and see what threads they were busy posting in between those posts you noted. It gets back to the stupidity of one who sees only what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
As I've said in the past, "nasty", like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. :chew:
Zenn
New member
jsanford108
New member
I would also argue that this has very little to do with doctrine of inerrancy. So, this is more tangential.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Zenn
New member
Personally, I believe the whole "censer" / thumiatérion discussion should be spun off into its own thread, but I've spent some time looking at the passage in Hebrews 9:4 and the aktionsart of the verb ἔχω (link) rendered 'had', and it's looking more like "kept in" or "inhabited" as opposed to "allowed inside".
The Holy of Holies had both the censer and the ark kept in it according to the author of Hebrews.
Zenn
PS: Clean out your Inbox.
Lon
Well-known member
No thanks. I'm out of thread so a lot of this unfortunately is a waste of your time anyway. I'm not into internet mindreading or assessing anyway. Thank you for the free advice though. MOST often on the internet, we have three fingers pointing back at us. It means most of this is 'advice' we probably should be following three times as much as we freely give it (not always, but more often than not).
No. This is one of the reasons I'm out of thread. Charismatics think they 'have the gift' of discernment and almost always get me completely wrong. As soon as I found out you guys are into that 1) I realized this conversation was over and 2) that I'd be mislabeled, misrepresented, gossiped about, and maligned. It 'can' be a baiting technique to get a guy to post. I'm not really interested in that. You folks lambaste me and misrepresent me as you like. God will have to be my Defender from fiery arrows. Afterall, I 'deserve' them, no? :wave:
I understand that have completely bought into the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity, an idea which developed long after Mary had died as the good wife of Joseph and a mother.
I will provide some scripture to counter that view:
Matthew 1 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife,25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
Matthew is exceedingly clear that Mary was not a perpetual virgin.
In Matthew 12, Jesus himself contrasts the brothers of the flesh and blood with the brothers of likemindedness or distant relations:
Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.
In Matthew 13, it is very clear that the townspeople were talking about brothers of flesh and blood:
When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. 54 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? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?” 57 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.”
Note that there was a brother Joseph, named after his father, and James the brother of the Lord. James went on to lead the church at Jerusalem.
I could go on with proof.
Much of this rewriting of history by the RCC comes from the Protoevangelium of James, something of a second century fairy tale.
But, if abandoning that myth of the Roman Catholic Church about the perpetual virginity of Mary is too much for you to bear, you could just consider the brothers of Jesus to be sons of Joseph from a former marriage — with Joseph being a widower before his engagement to Mary.
So, why did I bring up John 7?
Because it shows that our Western aversion to stating something false is inconsistent with the evidence in scripture. in John 7, Jesus clearly misstated His plans to go to the festival. As Jesus does not sin, misstating your plans for your own protection or for a good mission is not sin. In short, Jesus made a false statement for noble reasons.
After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He did not wish to go about in Judea because the Jews were looking for an opportunity to kill him. 2 Now the Jewish festival of Booths was near. 3 So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4 for no one who wants to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world." 5 (For not even his brothers believed in him.) 6 Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. 7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify against it that its works are evil. 8 Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come." 9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10 But after his brothers had gone to the festival, then he also went, not publicly but as it were in secret.
So Jesus was willing to misstate the situation to achieve His goal. It is clear in scripture. He told His brothers that He was not going to the festival and then He did.
If I were in my house and a group of unsavory characters invaded my house and my wife was hiding in a closet upstairs, I would lie and say that I was home alone. This would not be sin. It is not sin to misstate the situation for the good of the Kingdom of God. The nature of God is not to avoid lying at all cost. A Western mentality might lead you to the wrong conclusion about this.
I remember back in 1975 when I was taking an officer quality test as an enlisted man in the Air Force. There were many questions that related to lying being a sin. They were a struggle for me to answer, because I knew the truth of scripture. I still scored very high. I was later commissioned in the US Army Reserve.
You asked about the midwives. Here is the passage from Exodus 1:
The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, 16 "When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live." 17 But the midwives feared God; they did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but they let the boys live. 18 So the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and said to them, "Why have you done this, and allowed the boys to live?" 19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous and give birth before the midwife comes to them." 20 So God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21 And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families.
God blessed the midwives for lying. Our knee jerk reaction of God’s ways are not always right. We should have the mind of Christ.
The point that I am trying to make is that your premise “Jesus can’t mislead” is contrary to the evidence in scripture.
As you can see from the above post, it is not tangential.
You are free to respond to post 1998 or to specify a particular topic on which we should focus next.