Saw a great show on the Discovery Channel

[Pitt Gorilla]

about Jesus' family. It was very well done and interesting, regardless of your religious ties. Here's a link to the video.

http://www.discoverychannelstore.org/product-58055.html

From the Discovery site:

Most people know very little about Jesus' family members – who they were, how many there were and what role they played in his life as rebel leader and founder of a new religious movement. For the first time, a team of archaeologists and biblical historians reveal that Jesus was part of a large extended family – a network of relations that played a critical part in his upbringing and in the rise and success of Christianity.

Learn how, in a society that promoted the "extended family," Jesus was well supported and even inspired by his cousin John the Baptist, his grandfather Joachim, his uncle Clophas and more. Evidence from the gospels and recent archaeological finds reveal that Jesus' family was a dynastic clan that believed it was descended from King David. Like all dynasties, it did everything in its power to promote and perpetuate its lineage. But what they would never know is how well they would succeed.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

Got it.

What's considered the cutoff between the two (BCE / CE)?

Same as BC & AD.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Donger

Before the Common Era & Common Era.

Unless things have changed, it's politically incorrect to use BC and AD in academic circles. Cuz, you know, not everyone's a Christian.

I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

First I had heard of it too.

Learn something new everyday I guess.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

Well, maybe it has changed since I was in school, like I said. But, in the early 1990s, it was commonplace. In fact, I had a few papers reviewed by profs that actually scratched out BC/AD and scribbled in BCE/CE.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I pretty much dwell in "academic circles" and have never heard anything but BC and AD.

Out of curiousity, keep your eyes open, particularly around historians and theologians. I'd be truly surprised if the practice has gone away.

[tiptap]

Have you all ever tried to document lineage? Queen Elizabeth II has the most documented lineage. It only goes to about the 1000 AD. You know the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. It is just difficult for me to imagine that anyone of normal standing could have real understanding of true lineage from Jesus back to King David at app. 1000 BC. Records of important people are kept and you end up having to tie yourself to them in order to progress further back in time. And some of that includes exile to Babylon? It is convenient to claim divinity based upon heritage. Royalty of Europe use to invent connection to King David. Now if you think the Bible is inerrant. . . will nothing of reason or likelyhood will deter your bias.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

First I had heard of it too.

Learn something new everyday I guess.

Jesus evidently was born in the month of September-October(Ethanim Jewish calendar) of the year 2 B.C.E., was baptized about the same time of the year in 29 C.E., and died about 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the 14th day of the spring month of March-April (Nisan Jewish calendar), 33 C.E.

BTW Both terminologies are still used, but the BC and AD are slowly phasing out.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Have you all ever tried to document lineage? Queen Elizabeth II has the most documented lineage. It only goes to about the 1000 AD. You know the time of the Norman Invasion of 1066. It is just difficult for me to imagine that anyone of normal standing could have real understanding of true lineage from Jesus back to King David at app. 1000 BC. Records of important people are kept and you end up having to tie yourself to them in order to progress further back in time. And some of that includes exile to Babylon? It is convenient to claim divinity based upon heritage. Royalty of Europe use to invent connection to King David. Now if you think the Bible is inerrant. . . will nothing of reason or likelyhood will deter your bias.

Good point.
It is beneficial to know that the historical accuracy's of the bible helps give credence to itself when appying linages.

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Just curious, how do you view the biblical account of Mary with Jesus having half brothers and sisters?

The kicker is, there is no real proof that the brothers and sisters mentioned are really blood brothers. It is also possible that Joseph had other children.

I hate to use a cut and paste, but I'm man enough to admit when I do:

Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother.

Since there is no diffinitive proof otherwise, I defer to the Church and its teachings on the matter. I know that will drive some people nuts, but hey, to each their own.

So to answer your question, how do I view the biblical account of Mary with Jesus having half-brothers and sisters, well like I said there is a possibility that he didn't have them. Not in the way people think nowadays as outlined above. As such, it does not affect the idea of perpetual virginity.

The church has answers for all of her "weird" doctrines and they are all biblically based. I don't have the answers to everything at my fingertips cuz I'm not much of an apologist, but everything I've looked into is answered satisfactorily by the Church, insomuch as their reason for their beliefs. In other words, I don't think the Church just made stuff up (as so many others believe) and a little research proves that I'm right.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

The kicker is, there is no real proof that the brothers and sisters mentioned are really blood brothers. It is also possible that Joseph had other children.

I hate to use a cut and paste, but I'm man enough to admit when I do:

The church has answers for all of her "weird" doctrines and they are all biblically based. I don't have the answers to everything at my fingertips cuz I'm not much of an apologist, but everything I've looked into is answered satisfactorily by the Church, insomuch as their reason for their beliefs. In other words, I don't think the Church just made stuff up (as so many others believe) and a little research proves that I'm right.

Mk 6:3 says, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?" We need to realize a few things here about these "brothers and sisters": #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic - the words that the Jews used in all those instances were "brother" or "sister". An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham's nephew, is called his brother.

Yes you are correct, but even though no word for cousin is found in the Hebrew(Old Testament), the relationship is clearly indicated "They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother". (Gen 14:12)
There was a word used for cousin in the Greek(New Testament), the word "anepsios" (cousin) is found at Colossians 4:10, where Paul calls Mark “the cousin of Barnabas.” The Greek term means primarily “first cousin,” but in a wider sense, any cousin.
The word "anepsios" (cousins) also occurs in the Septuagint translation(Old Testament) at Numbers 36:1 and supporting that expression in Hebrew, the Masoretic translation, the text is rendered literally “sons of their father’s brothers".
In Luke 21:16, the Greek words "syggenon" (relatives, such as cousins) and "adelphon" (brothers) both occur, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately within the Greek (New Testament).
Noting that the relationship these "brothers" of Jesus had with his mother Mary could easily indicate they were her children rather than more distant relatives because they are usually mentioned in association with her. Also statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), and that Joseph “had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children. (Mt 1:25) Of coarse as the scripture you quoted even their neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”(Mr 6:3).
I can appreciate your argument, but perhaps with a little more research and a little more reasoning, it would lend more to the reality that Jesus most likely indeed had half brothers and sisters.

[Sully]

I'm in school right now, a history major, and all they use now is BCE/ CE.

Guess what, it starts at 0

[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by C-Mac

Yes you are correct, but even though no word for cousin is found in the Hebrew(Old Testament), the relationship is clearly indicated "They also took Lot, the son of Abram’s brother". (Gen 14:12)
There was a word used for cousin in the Greek(New Testament), the word "anepsios" (cousin) is found at Colossians 4:10, where Paul calls Mark “the cousin of Barnabas.” The Greek term means primarily “first cousin,” but in a wider sense, any cousin.
The word "anepsios" (cousins) also occurs in the Septuagint translation(Old Testament) at Numbers 36:1 and supporting that expression in Hebrew, the Masoretic translation, the text is rendered literally “sons of their father’s brothers".
In Luke 21:16, the Greek words "syggenon" (relatives, such as cousins) and "adelphon" (brothers) both occur, showing that the terms are not used loosely or indiscriminately within the Greek (New Testament).
Noting that the relationship these "brothers" of Jesus had with his mother Mary could easily indicate they were her children rather than more distant relatives because they are usually mentioned in association with her. Also statements to the effect that Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn” (Lu 2:7), and that Joseph “had no intercourse with her until she gave birth to a son,” also support the view that Joseph and Mary had other children. (Mt 1:25) Of coarse as the scripture you quoted even their neighbors recognized and identified Jesus as “the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon,” adding, “And his sisters are here with us, are they not?”(Mr 6:3).
I can appreciate your argument, but perhaps with a little more research and a little more reasoning, it would lend more to the reality that Jesus most likely indeed had half brothers and sisters.

The thing is, I've heard all your arguments as well. I frequent a website called protestwarrior.com and pretty much live in the religious forum. Like I said earlier, I typically don't back down from such discussions, but I usually don't get into them here on the Planet. Usually this place is just for my team.

But, hey, rules are meant to be broken.

In the Mark quote above, James and Joses (or Joseph) is mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. But in Matthew 27:56, it says:

"Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons".

Soooo...it's not Mary the mother of Jesus, but the mother of James and Joses, the same dudes that everyone says are Jesus' "brothers". Surely you can see that this doesn't make sense.

Also, when Jesus is on the cross and appoints John to take care of his Mother and all of that, it would make no sense to do that if he had surviving siblings. (Actually that scene has alot to do with Catholic Marian teachings, but that's for another discussion.) THis action would have been hugely insulting. It would be like you telling your best friend to take care of your mom when you have brothers and sisters to do that. That alone was the argument that first got me to thinking about this issue.

I'd have to look up the argument against the "firstborn" argument, I remember having that discussion before but off the top of my head I can't recall the argument.

There's alot of good websites that explain the Catholic position better than I can. The one I used above is called BibleChristianSociety.com but there is also CatholicAnswers.org. If nothing else, it explains clearly the Catholic postions on all of these issue that seem to be points of contention between us and Protestants (or non-denoms, how ever you want to be labled).

I challenge you to the same research that you challenge me on. It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...

I guess I don't understand why a position is needed. Jesus had siblings, he didn't, it really doesn't matter. In terms of being a Christian, Christ is pretty much all you need to know.

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by InChiefsHell

The thing is, I've heard all your arguments as well. I frequent a website called protestwarrior.com and pretty much live in the religious forum. Like I said earlier, I typically don't back down from such discussions, but I usually don't get into them here on the Planet. Usually this place is just for my team.

But, hey, rules are meant to be broken.

In the Mark quote above, James and Joses (or Joseph) is mentioned as the brothers of Jesus. But in Matthew 27:56, it says:


Soooo...it's not Mary the mother of Jesus, but the mother of James and Joses, the same dudes that everyone says are Jesus' "brothers". Surely you can see that this doesn't make sense.

Also, when Jesus is on the cross and appoints John to take care of his Mother and all of that, it would make no sense to do that if he had surviving siblings. (Actually that scene has alot to do with Catholic Marian teachings, but that's for another discussion.) THis action would have been hugely insulting. It would be like you telling your best friend to take care of your mom when you have brothers and sisters to do that. That alone was the argument that first got me to thinking about this issue.

I'd have to look up the argument against the "firstborn" argument, I remember having that discussion before but off the top of my head I can't recall the argument.

There's alot of good websites that explain the Catholic position better than I can. The one I used above is called BibleChristianSociety.com but there is also CatholicAnswers.org. If nothing else, it explains clearly the Catholic postions on all of these issue that seem to be points of contention between us and Protestants (or non-denoms, how ever you want to be labled).

I challenge you to the same research that you challenge me on. It's not as easy to simply dismiss the Catholic position once you really become familiar with it...

Being raised Catholic, going to all Catholic schools and attending church till I was around 26, allows me to be somewhat familiar with many positions. Although it didnt allow me to be too familiar with the bible since it was rarely used for teaching.
Back to the discussion.
One must use good discernment because there are many names used in the bible that are the same but definetly not the same person. For example John (the Baptist) and John the apostle. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus. Names like Judas and Joshua were very common names, in fact Jesus' name more properly translated should be Joshua.
The scripture you mention reads "Moreover, many women were there viewing from a distance, who had accompanied Jesus from Gal´i·lee to minister to him;among whom was Mary Mag´da·lene, also Mary the mother of James and Jo´ses, and the mother of the sons of Zeb´e·dee." This scripture appears very clear to me, why is it you feel it must be referencing Jesus mother?
In the folowing verses in 61 its states "But Mary Mag´da·lene and the other Mary continued there, sitting before the grave".
In Mark 15:40 it states"There were also women viewing from a distance, among them Mary Mag´da·lene as well as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Jo´ses, and Sa·lo´me, who used to accompany him and minister to him when he was in Gal´i·lee, and many other women who had come up together with him to Jerusalem."
So I cant see how anyone can properly conclude that this "other Mary" is Jesus mother?

[C-Mac]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I guess I don't understand why a position is needed. Jesus had siblings, he didn't, it really doesn't matter. In terms of being a Christian, Christ is pretty much all you need to know.

Knowledge is deep and wide. Ever wonder why supposedly God left this big book to explain himself? Ever wonder why this Jesus you speak of rebuked the religious leaders in his time and called them hypocrites and children of the devil? Ever wonder why there is only one book, yet a zillion different Christian religions. For those in whom it matters, sometimes a position or accurate knowledge is needed to discern whats truth and whats not, whats acceptable in Gods eyes and whats not. For example, today many churches claim to know God and Jesus, yet some of these support homosexuality and even have them as ministers. No matter how you feel about it, the book they claim to follow and represent is very clear on that subject, thus making them just as hypocritical as the religious leaders of Jesus day.
So you just have to ask yourself if truth or proper understanding even matters to you. As for myself, my interest and curiousity got the best of me.