Zone1 Question for the Catholics: is This True?

[ding]

Jesus had a twin brother named Thomas. Conspiracy theorists say that Thomas was the one crucified. I don't believe that, just throwing it out there.

The way I look at all of this is that if Jesus didn't perform the miracles attributed to him and rise from the dead the only possible explanation for these accounts is that it had to be a conspiracy of epic proportions.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Say what makes you feel good, but Jesus was one of eleven children. And his name was Joshua.

.

Just like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, aunt and relative.

Depending on what Bible you're looking at.

.

 

[Meriweather]

.

I'd like to know why those who think Catholics are wrong, cannot just let Catholics be wrong, and mind their own collection baskets?

.

Some may not be aware of how the New Testament stories are connected to the Old Testament. Matthew and Luke's genealogy is a part of this; but small accounts of Mary also connect to the Old Testament books of Exodus and Kings (I think). The Gospel of John connects Mary to Genesis.

Some Catholics also take an interest in the Apostles and early Church Fathers, which provide additional information. All of this takes a lot of time in study for simple background information. Jesus' teachings and parables take a much higher place in my life as a person of faith because they all guide me in living my life. Stories about Mary, although certainly of interest to me, play a small role in guiding me through Jesus' Way.

 

[Zebra]

But Jesus had 4 older brothers.

One, two, four, or eleven?
What is right now?

 

[d0gbreath]

.

Just like Elizabeth was Mary's cousin, aunt and relative.

Depending on what Bible you're looking at.

.

It's best just to have faith, and try not to read too much into it.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

It's best just to have faith, and try not to read too much into it.

.

That's what the word "faith" means".

.

 

[hadit]

I would note that Jesus is cited as God's ONLY son while also cited as Mary's FIRSTBORN. Would it not have been more accurate to call Him Mary's ONLY child if she really had no others?

 

[Meriweather]

I would note that Jesus is cited as God's ONLY son while also cited as Mary's FIRSTBORN. Would it not have been more accurate to call Him Mary's ONLY child if she really had no others?

Here is another example where etymology is to be considered. In Hebrew/Aramaic 'firstborn' is more than just a birth order. It is status and designates the child who is given a double portion. It does not signify he had other brother/sisters but his place in society. Keep in mind, a 'first born' was sometimes used as the first born male. The female had no special status or a double portion.

The King James English and modern Western culture often overlooks Hebrew etymology and Biblical culture(s).

 

[hadit]

Here is another example where etymology is to be considered. In Hebrew/Aramaic 'firstborn' is more than just a birth order. It is status and designates the child who is given a double portion. It does not signify he had other brother/sisters but his place in society. Keep in mind, a 'first born' was sometimes used as the first born male. The female had no special status or a double portion.

The King James English and modern Western culture often overlooks Hebrew etymology and Biblical culture(s).

A bit of a problem with that:

Scripture does not state that God designated Jesus as the "first born" of the family like He did David, nor does it state that Joseph agreed He was the first born of the family. Did a teenaged woman not yet completely married to her betrothed husband have the authority to name one of her children the "first born" and thus entitled to the family's honor, or did the husband and man of the house have that right? If Joseph was an older man with other children already in his family (as some are claiming to explain away Jesus' siblings. The alternative would be that Joseph took another wife and had children with her later, which is not supported in Scripture), one of his other children would have already been designated the "first born" of the family and not Jesus. Remember Mary's position. She was a young girl, not yet fully married to Joseph, and thus had no standing to designate one of her children to be the "first born" in the face of other children being there in an established family. Would Joseph have taken the birthright from one of his other children and given it to Jesus?

Given that she had no position or authority in society to title one of her children as the "first born" in Joseph's family, it's far simpler to agree that Jesus was literally her first born child, the first of others. That is, of course, if you contend that the title was for Jesus' status in society to avoid it being literal. IOW, being the "first born" of Mary but not Joseph would not have carried a lot of weight in society at the time. In fact, it would have carried the stigma of illegitimacy.

 

[Zebra]

And where did Jesus change water into wine?
One German bible says Kana, the other says Kanaan.

 

[hadit]

And where did Jesus change water into wine?
One German bible says Kana, the other says Kanaan.

The location bears no significance in Scripture. The title of first born, however, does mean something. Are you insinuating that the Bible does not specifically call Jesus Mary's first born?

 

[Zebra]

The location bears no significance in Scripture. The title of first born, however, does mean something. Are you insinuating that the Bible does not specifically call Jesus Mary's first born?

I said nothing of the sort.
Why do you disregard location?

 

[hadit]

I said nothing of the sort.
Why do you disregard location?

Because it's not related to what I was saying or the thread topic.

 

[Meriweather]

A bit of a problem with that:

No

 

[hadit]

No

That's very simplistic and not very credible. What part do you disagree with and why?

I asked if a teenaged girl betrothed to a man who just gave birth to a child not fathered by the man to whom she was betrothed would have authority in first century Jewish culture to name that child the "first born" of the family, even though He was not the offspring of her husband to be. You did not answer, though you really want the title Mary's "first born" as applied to Jesus to mean the standing of the honored child in the family, not the first of multiple children born to her. Let's start with that one. Who gave Jesus the title of Mary's Firstborn?

Scripture makes it clear Jesus is God's ONLY son, yet Mary's FIRSTBORN. You tried to make the point that He was designated as such so as to be the "honored" child, the inheritor with the birthright. I simply asked how that could be, as there is no record of Joseph naming Him that, especially if, as some are claiming, Joseph was an older man who already had children from a previous marriage and therefore would already have a child with the birthright. He would have been insulted in that culture as illegitimate, not honored.

 

[ding]

That's very simplistic and not very credible. What part do you disagree with and why?

I asked if a teenaged girl betrothed to a man who just gave birth to a child not fathered by the man to whom she was betrothed would have authority in first century Jewish culture to name that child the "first born" of the family, even though He was not the offspring of her husband to be. You did not answer, though you really want the title Mary's "first born" as applied to Jesus to mean the standing of the honored child in the family, not the first of multiple children born to her. Let's start with that one. Who gave Jesus the title of Mary's Firstborn?

Scripture makes it clear Jesus is God's ONLY son, yet Mary's FIRSTBORN. You tried to make the point that He was designated as such so as to be the "honored" child, the inheritor with the birthright. I simply asked how that could be, as there is no record of Joseph naming Him that, especially if, as some are claiming, Joseph was an older man who already had children from a previous marriage and therefore would already have a child with the birthright. He would have been insulted in that culture as illegitimate, not honored.

How is any of this germane to your walk?

 

[Meriweather]

What part do you disagree with and why?

I am not the one disagreeing with scripture nor the culture/how people thought of that day. Your argument is with the Gospel writer, Matthew--and that he should have used the word 'only'. I presented what the words "first born" meant in that day and culture. Now you want to argue with me, when you should go back in time and argue with how those in the Biblical community should have understood what Matthew was saying.

You want it known that you could have done better at writing that passage, and that you understand better what was meant to be conveyed. I am not going to argue with anyone who claims he would have been better at writing the original scripture and that he, not the early Christians, understands best what scripture says. After all, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, and I am not going to argue if your claim is this is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you. I can only present what the etymology and culture reveal.

 

[hadit]

I am not the one disagreeing with scripture nor the culture/how people thought of that day. Your argument is with the Gospel writer, Matthew--and that he should have used the word 'only'. I presented what the words "first born" meant in that day and culture. Now you want to argue with me, when you should go back in time and argue with how those in the Biblical community should have understood what Matthew was saying.

You want it known that you could have done better at writing that passage, and that you understand better what was meant to be conveyed. I am not going to argue with anyone who claims he would have been better at writing the original scripture and that he, not the early Christians, understands best what scripture says. After all, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways, and I am not going to argue if your claim is this is what the Holy Spirit revealed to you. I can only present what the etymology and culture reveal.

You are arguing what the Catholic Church believes and I was simply asking how it made sense that "first born" in that context meant the honored child and not literally the first of Mary's children. There are occasions in the Bible where God selects a child not born first as the "first born", but that's not in evidence here, nor is it in evidence that Joseph, the patriarch of the family, selected Jesus as HIS "first born". No, Jesus is MARY'S first born. I see nowhere else in the Bible where a young mother, not yet fully married, was allowed to designate her child as "first born" and due privileges. Don't forget, you stated that the "first born" received the double portion. Do you see in Scripture where Joseph gave Jesus the double portion? That's why I asked if the mother had authority to make her child the "first born".

When I pressed you on your disagreement, instead of stating precisely what you disagree with, you fall back into claiming I disagree with the Gospel writer. That is disingenuous as it sheds no light on what you believe and why. It is also dishonest because you are creating a strawman out of something I did not say.

 

[hadit]

How is any of this germane to your walk?

I am secure in my walk. What is amiss with discussing points of theology? Are you saying that this is not a subject worth talking about?

 

[ding]

I am secure in my walk. What is amiss with discussing points of theology? Are you saying that this is not a subject worth talking about?

This isn't a discussion and you aren't just talking about it. It's you criticizing the dogmatic beliefs of a faith not your own as a means to rationalize yours. You don't recognize the traditions established by the early church. We do. We believe they work in concert with scripture. The beliefs you are arguing over were established early on in the church by Christians who were much closer to the events than we were.

To make matters worse you ignore scripture that warns against arguing over foolish disputes such as 2 Timothy 2:23, 1 Timothy 1:4 and Titus 3:9 just to name a few.