In another blog, I was asked this question: Do you believe a person must be Catholic to get to Heaven?
The short answer is I believe the only requirement for a person to get to Heaven is that person's soul must be completely free of sin.
Regarding the Church, Christ developed the image of the Good Shepherd and His Church through the image of the flock or sheepfold and who will be in it. Read St. John 10 only 42 short verses.
"I am the Good Shepherd; and I know mine and mine know me" v. 14 ..."And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also, I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." v. 16 "As the Father knoweth me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep" v. 15 ....the Father and I are one." v. 30.
As far as the Church, I believe it cannot be a matter of indifference to which Church I belong. I have examined the reasons for my Catholic faith and also the claims of the Catholic Church. She is the only possible Church historically, Scripturallly, and logically and that she must be infallible in her official teachings in faith and morals. Once I knew that the Catholic Church is divinely qualified to speak the truth in religious matters, I accept her decisions and definitions. As far as I'm concerned nothing could be more wise than that. In fact, it would be sheer folly to do otherwise.
I believe that since Christ established one Church, I am not free to belong to any other. I believe that nevertheless, all those outside the Church through no fault of their own will be saved if they follow their conscience and do not die in mortal sin.
I cannot conscientiously say that one religion is as good as another. I believe that those who labor under ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance be invincible, are not before the eyes of God burdened with guilt for this thing. I believe that those will be lost who are convinced that the Catholic religion is the true religion and yet refuse to embrace it.
I believe that is what I mean when I say: "Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation."
Is it not God's will that all should be Catholic?
I believe it is. For Christ established the Catholic Church, and commanded her go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the SOn and of the Holy Spirit. But He said also, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved, he that believes not shall be condemned." He thereby tells us that not all who hear the truth will accept it. He Himself did not convert all to whom He preached. In individual cases, we must refuse to judge in which even those who have heard the truth concerning the Catholic Chruch apprehend its significance. Their responsibiliity in remaining non-Catholics must be left to Almighty God.
Meantime, we Catholics pray for them realizing that God's time is the best time. It is for us to pray that He give them the grace of the Catholic faith, and that they may correspond with that grace despite all difficulties when it becomes clear to them where God is calling them.
it's age Lula. BT is correct. I have the KJV which says "world" but going to the Greek, the word is "aion" which is best translated age. Look in a dictionary. In other parts of scripture like Matt 13 it talks about the end of the harvest which is the same idea.
My dictionary says,, "aion" means "an age, a period of time and is sometimes translated "world." the RV marg always has "age" The phrase "the end of the world" should be rendered "the end of the age." in most places
Aion is always to be distinguished from "kosmos"
Remember the Greek has different words for our one English word. We have just "world" but in the Greek that can be "kosmos" "aion" or oikoumene" which means "the inhabited earth."
Look what I said carefully. I said the Messiah would come again. He's still the Messiah. Don't get huffy. You're playing word games.
I agree he's coming back as Judge..but that wasn't my point in my comment.
he never said we couldn't know the approximate time. That's why he gave us the signs. He only said we wouldn't know the exact day or hour. But he gave us very specific signs to watch for. There are three parts of the end according to Matt 24.
1. Birth pangs- which can last for quite a long time. I believe we most likely are in this stage.
2. The Great Tribulation- which is when the AC will wreak havoc on the world persecuting the Christians and Jews like no other time.
3. The Day of the Lord-this is the time when God will unleash his cup of wrath or trembling as it reaches to overfilling. This will come immediately AFTER the cosmic disturbance which in effect means the lights are going out. Almost every OT prophet addressed this as well as Jesus and John in the NT. I know you don't believe in the rapture but I believe, from studying scripture that the rapture will occur right around the time of the cosmic disturbance. It's going to happen very quickly.
This stage is looking more and more probable to me...
Hey Leauki.nice to see you again. I wanted to tell you that I did go to Israel and spent time in Jerusalem. I've been pictured for the last 3-4 months in the magazine Zion's Fire which comes out of Marv's organization because we participated in a Servant's Heart program in the heart of Jerusalem. I even went to the Gaza Strip to deliver pallets of food to the town of Sederot because they are the ones being bombed almost daily by the Palestinians. We couldn't believe what we saw there. I should blog on this.
Anyhow yes, the stage is being set as we speak. The time has got to be drawing close. Everything is lining up. One big thing to look for is all the nations going up against Israel and that is not far fetched these days.
Sorry that you took me as being "huffy" and playing word games. I'm simply trying to be precise.
If we are going to be precise, Christ is coming again as Judge of the living and the dead, not as Messias.
The OT Messianic prophecies indicated the Great Deliverer would come to save His people. The Messianic prophecies fulfillment is affirmed in the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus, the Christ, our Messianic Lord and Savior. Christ fulfilled His Messias-ship and reigning in Heaven as King of kings and Lord of lords.
That's why I said, when He returns, it will not be as the Messias, not as the Great Deliverer. not coming to save, for that time will be over. He comes again as Judge.
........................................................
Yes, Leauki,
Glad you are posting once again.
Excellent! I would love to read about your experiences near the Gaza Strip, in Sderoth. I have never been there!
I watched a video of Marv talking. He was quite amazing, starting his speech with something along the lines of "the king is coming, and I can warn you, he will be a Jewish king!". It was a great reminder to Christians of what it actually is Christians believe and a big shock to those who'd rather deny that fact.
I have been quiet for a while, not only because I posted more on Facebook (which I shouldn't do so much) but also because I moved to Zurich (although at the very moment I am back in Dublin for the weekend). I will be back in full force soon, I am sure. But the last two months have been very stressful. I work for a bank now.
Glad to be back.
I really think you would like Marv. If you go on his website you will see his latest magazine on the left side called "Covenant With Death." On the second page you'll see a large picture of us overlooking Jerusalem. I'm the dark haired one in the middle. Marv says I stand right out and am in the middle of things which is not surprising!!
He's doing a series on the book of Daniel right now.
I'm more on FB these days as well. But I really should blog on being near the Gaza Strip and that little town that has been under so much turmoil. About 12 of us went and it was the first time ever Marv's group went there. Even Marv himself was not with us that day but his son was. I also have pictures of us being right there. I could see the settlement just a few hundred feet away from where we were standing and the Mediterranean on the other side of it.
We are thinking of going back in the spring for three weeks to do some more missionary work, helping the Jewish Redemption Assembly which is in the middle of Jerusalem. That's where that picture was taken. On the roof of the building.
I also spent the day with Tony in Tel Aviv. He's a real-life John the Baptist type who has been jailed countless times, roughed up even because he hands bibles and materials out to the Jewish refugees mostly streaming into Israel. Marv bought him a nice van (very costly) because he beat up his last one so much he was tying parts of it together with string to keep it going. We want to work again with Tony. He even sneaks into Iraq and Turkey with materials. He's relentless.
It was very intimidating for us at first to evangelize cold in Tel Aviv with Tony. Most were young black men hungry for the Word of God. We found them all over the park lying on the grass reading these bibles in their own languages. Many spoke no English or broken English at best. We had bibles in all different languages including Arabic for them to have their own.
@ Lula...sorry for hijacking your blog...but I did have a question for you.
I was reading Josephus this week and noticed he clearly mentions James as Jesus' brother. Now remember Josephus is a historian living in that time period and his writing is outside of all religious opinion or dogma. What do you say to that? I believe it's just another outside verifiable source to go on.
I know the RCC's position on Jesus not having siblings but here's it's quite plain (as I believe scripture is as well) and I was wondering what you do with Josephus and his plain speaking about James being Jesus' brother.
I am not fond of attempts to convert Jews. And in Israel attempts to convert people are not taken lightly.
Those black people in Tel Aviv, however, were likely refugees from Sudan. They are Muslims, Christians of various tupes, and pagans and bringing Christianity to them can in fact help.
Anyway, here is something for both of you, a scene from The Little World of Don Camillo, a story written by an Italian satirist in the 1950s about the fight between a local priest (Don Camillo) and the local communist mayor (Peppone) in a town in northern Italy.The Don Camillo stories are famous on the continent and especially among anti-communists.
Don Camillo stories are usually about a specific event where Don Camillo and Peppone fight out among each other. And while Don Camillo usually wins, the satirist also criticises the Church and religion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwA3u941trA
well we're working with Jews there. Tony is a Jewish Christian. He is risking his life daily for this cause.
You're right. They told us NOT to go near any of the Orthodox Jews or anyone under the age of 18. Do you know ZVI? He has a book out called ZVI. He lost his whole family to the holocaust. His mother put him in an orphanage when he was 10 and his story is one of wandering, heartache and terror until he found himself in Israel in 1948.
Anyhow he's an old man now. He speaks 12 languages and said hello to us in all of them. I met him there. His sons are all Christians now as well as he. When the kids were growing up they said they did not know any other Jews that believed in Jesus as Messiah. They are Jews telling other Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah they missed the first time.
He lost three brothers and one sister to the Holocaust. When he married years later, He said God gave him three sons and one daughter to replace what he lost.
One of the sons Victor is in charge of the Bible Society of Jerusalem (which we visited). They are doing a great work there. Another Son Meno is the Pastor of this church which I think has 350 Jewish Christians now in it. He's written a book about Christ in the Hebrew Scriptures.
The service is in Hebrew and English. We attended one of the services and it was very spirit filled with a lot of Jewish feel to this Christian Service. You should attend when you go there just to see what's going on and would give you a tour of the place they are very proud of. They are on a top floor of a 4 story building and just finally after 10 years getting their own space.
They are distributing the book of Psalms with all the Messianic prophesies highlighted in red. When one Jewish man opened the book, he started reading just the highlighted scripture and said, "hey, this sounds like the Christian Jesus." Exactly the point. If you go to Jerusalem you can get a free copy of this Psalm book in the bible Society right downtown. I think it's near the big mall. Tell them I sent ya! LOL.
When we were there, we spent a lot of time with Holocaust victims that are very very poor and old. We bought them washing machines, desks, food, etc. We dropped more than 100K on this church and the mission work going on there. We also filled hundreds of food bags with about $50 worth of food in each bag, not to mention the pallets of food/supplies we drove to to Sderot. I was lucky enough to get that assignment.
Some came from Sudan and different parts of Africa. I know we were told some were from Egypt where they had been persecuted. I'm not sure how many were Jews/Muslims or what but they were very hungry for the books and DVDs we were handing out. We only spent one day doing this and want to go back. Tony goes every week to this same park area in Tel Aviv. Sometimes they are lined up waiting for him. He told us how to tell who came from where by the darkness of their skin or their curly or straight hair. He was very good at knowing which country they came from just by looking at them closely.
Ha, it happens!
................................................
I agree. I've read various accounts of Josephus' life and parts of his writings about the Jewish Wars up to and including 70AD. His works are of great historical value that's for sure. I know you aren't going to like this but Josephus supports what the Apostles said that didn't make it into Scripture...Tradition. Excatly like Josephus writings, Apostolic Tradition is also outside verifiable sources to go on and confirmed by the writings of the Church Fathers and Doctors.
Flavius Josephus lived from 37 to 101 during the time of the Apostles had been sent out to preach and teach all nations. Like them he spoke and wrote in Aramaic and Greek.
The word used in Scripture is not brother but rather "brethren". The Scriptural passages that speak of "the brethren" of Jesus are St.Matt. 12:46-50; 13:55, St.Mark 3:31-35; St.Luke 8:19-21; St.John 7:3-10; Acts 1:14 and 1Cor. 9:5.
St.Matt. 13:55-56, ""Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Judas?"
Bear in mind that Jesus had 2 different kinds of relatives, in 2 groups...some on His mother's side and some on St.Joseph's side.
St. Matt. 13:55-56 mentions as living in Nazareth, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas ("His brethren"). But in St.Matt. 27:56, were told that James and Joseph were sons of a Mary distinct from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that Simon and Judas were ot brothers of James and Joseph, but seemingly children of a brother of St.Joseph.
As for "brethren", it turns out ancient Hebrew, (we know this from the Septuagint translation of the OT), Aramaic and other languages had no special word for brothers, cousins, etc. such as we have in modern language. Back then, in general, all those who belonged to the same family, clan and even tribe were kinsmen, "brethren".
It's clear the term "brother" has a wide meaning in the Bible. In Genesis 14:14, Lot is called Abraham's brother even though being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother, Lot was actually Abraham's nephew.
Genesis 29:15, is similiar in that Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban. Kish and Leeazar were the sons of Mahli, Kish had sons of his own, but Eleasar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren", the sons of Kish. These brethren were really their cousins. 1Chr. 23:21-22.
And the term for 'brother", "brothers" and even "sister" didn't refer only to relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9 as in the reference to the 42 "brethren" of king Azariah 2Kgs. 10:13-14.
So, it's clear the word "brother" in itslef proves nothing for it had a very wide meaning among the Jews. Becasue neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and His disciples and Josephus too), had a special word meaning "cousin", speakers of those languages couud either use the word for brother or "the son of my uncle", but we see they used the word for "brother".
Now reading the Scriptures keeping in mind context.
Jesus grew up in Nazareth and the people of Nazareth referred to Him as "the son of Mary". St.Mark 6:3, not as "a" son of Mary. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons, not even when they are called Jesus' "Brethren".
Also, in doing some research on this, I learned that the attitude taken by "the brethren of the Lord" implies that they are Jesus' elders..that is they are older than He is. During that time in Palestine, older sons give advice to younger, but younger seldom give advice to older for then it was considered disrespectful to do so.
But we find Jesus' "brethren" saying to Him that Galilee was no place for Him and that He should go to Judea so He could make a name for Himself. ST.John 7:3-4.
Another time they sought to restrain Him for His own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize Him, for people were saying, "He is beside Himself" St.Mark 3:21.
This kind of behavior would make sense for the Jews only if the "brethren" wqere older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as His biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary's "first-born Son". St.Luke 2:7.
ANd then consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When Jesus was dying He entrusted His Mother to the Apostle John. Yet, the Gospels mentioned 4 of His "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. It's really hard to imagine that Jesus would have totally disregarded family ties as it were and made provision for His Mother with John if these four were also her sons.
So James and the other "brethren of the Lord" weren't Jesus' biological brothers or even half brothers...they were His cousins and this is the most commonly accepted view.
If we put St.Matt. 27:56; St. Mark 15:40; St.John 19:25 and St.Matt. 10:3 together, we see that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed VIrgin Mary's children.
you went around everything with a long explanation. I know how the RCC twists the scripture. That's not what I was asking. Nor am I going to counter you on it because it wouldn't matter.
I asked you about Josephus calling James Jesus; brother. He meant brother. He didn't mean anything else but brother as we use it today.
You didn't answer the question.
like what? What did Josephus support that didn't make it into scripture? Mary being assumpted? Mary being a virgin forever? Purgatory? Praying to Saints? Praying to Mary?
And you know as Christians we are NOT supposed to go to outside sources ABOVE what is written in scripture. We are NOT to take man's word and usurp God's right?
James is Christ's brother inside scripture and outside scripture. Josephus verified scripture there. You can twist and manuever it all you want, but in the end, the truth is Jesus had siblings. Mary had a first-born son (not only). His brothers thought he was a nut until after the resurrection. I'm sure they wanted no part of his crucifixion. Jesus said himself "a prophet is with honor except in his own country." That's why they were not at the cross. John was the only faithful one left standing when all was said and done.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85I asked you about Josephus calling James Jesus; brother. You didn't answer the question.
OH YES I did answer your question only it isn't the answer you want.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85He meant brother. He didn't mean anything else but brother as we use it today.
I agree Josephus said "brother" but he meant it as "kinsman", meaning cousin as we use it today.
I proved that Jesus and James (as well as Joseph, Simon and Jude) were cousins using Scripture, common sense, understanding and knowledge that in the days of Josephus, the Jews used the expression "brother" or "brethren of the Lord" for any near relatives without intending the first degree of blood relationship.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85James is Christ's brother inside scripture and outside scripture. J
Inside Scripture, St. James is Christ's first cousin.
St.Matt. 13:55-56, "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Judas?"
then go to 27:55-56 that names 3 woman..."There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him: among whom was Mary Magdalen, and Mary (of Cleophas) mother of James and Joseph, and the mother (Salome) of the sons of Zebedee."
St.John 19:25-27 tells us that "there stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother and His Mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 26 When Jesus therefore had seen His Mother and the disciple standing whom He loved, He said to His Mother, woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, He said to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own."
We agree James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were called the brethren (brothers) of Jesus. Yet we know from 27:56 that James was the son of Mary of Cleophas. This James also was the blood brother of Jude. St.Jude begins his epistle with the words, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James...." Here Jude makes a critical distinction. He used the word "brother" in the strict sense of first degree blood relationship, and knows that in that first degree blood relationship sense, he cannot call himself the brother of Christ. Why? Because he wasn't.
According to Scripture, the mother of James and Joseph and Jude was Mary of Cleophas, sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which makes them cousins of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Now, let's read Scripture St.John 19: 25-27 with common sense.
Specifically note Verse 27 ".... After that, He said to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own."
If James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were direct children of the Blessed Virgin Mary (and they most surely were not), why did Jesus as He died upon the Cross commit His Mother to the care of St.John after His death so that John took her as his own mother?
Common sense tells us that would be totally unnecessary if she had other children to look after her.
It was precisely becasue Christ knew that His Mother Mary had no other children to care for her that He committed her to the care of His loved disciple St.John asking him to regard her as if she were his own mother. Common sense tells us this final act of Christ giving His Mother to St. John's care proves He had no siblings.
The most Josephus verified was that Jesus and James were kinsmen, descendants of the same tribe is why the Jews of that day called them "brothers" or "brethren". At no time did Josephus ever verify they were first degree blood brothers. He did not verify Jesus and James were first degree blood brothers because they were not.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85James is Christ's brother inside scripture and outside scripture.
As far as outside Scripture, that would be understanding the Jewish usage of the term brother, brethren at the time of Josephus and the Gospel writers. It is certain that there was no word in Hebrew or Aramaic for cousin. The Hebrew and Aramaic words used decribed brothers, half brothers, nephews, cousins and relatives in general.
It's certain that any cousins of Jesus would have been described in Aramaic as "brethren". That Josephus mentioned St. James as Jesus' brother is no argument whatsoever that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children besides Jesus.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85His brothers thought he was a nut until after the resurrection. I'm sure they wanted no part of his crucifixion. Jesus said himself "a prophet is with honor except in his own country." That's why they were not at the cross.
These "brethren of the Lord" weren't Jesus' brothers in the sense you imagine. And this goes to another point....Critical scholarship or taking everything into consideration. It demolishes the idea that these 'brethren' were other children of Mary the Mother of Jesus. One observation which cannot be dismissed if one seeks truth, is that these brethren are depicted as older than Jesus and it is certain that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no children prior to Jesus.
That passage you quoted goes to the fact that Jesus was not accepted, not honored and opposed by His own people, the Jews. I'd say Saints James, Joseph, Simon and Jude accepted Christ, yet they were weak and afraid and abandoned Jesus at the Cross for "fear of the Jews", but this is for another discussion.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85 I know how the RCC twists the scripture.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 85You can twist and manuever it all you want, but in the end, the truth is Jesus had siblings.
Well, Scripture is the truth and Scripture teaches that Christ's "brethren" were His cousins. Scripture also clearly shows dozens of references from the OT proving the Jews had to use the word "brethren" for the description of any kinsmen by descent.
In the end as in the beginning, the infallible truth is Jesus is the only Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
You are deluding yourself to believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.
The RCC Inc. was built on moral and religious fraud and continues to be contaminated by materialism and financial gain to present. Been looking into Martin Luther and detected a sour note from Lula, hehehe. Got to love Martin though; “… The RCC may throw you out, but that has no bearing on your relations with God”, hehehe. I am going to hate myself, but I am going to go to the RCC encyclopedia (misnomer that) and see what they think of Mr. Luther …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther this one comes free period.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438b.htm this one comes with a 20% off Sale and free shipping if you act now? Oh those capitalists in the RCC never quit hehehe.
One reads like a rag sheet and the other reads well like an encyclopedia … guess which one is which, hahaha. You decide for yourself but philosophically, Luther had the right of it … Yep, just as expected … little more than RCC trash talk. So, Jesus had brothers too, I guess I just never gave it a thought till now is all, interesting that.
I don't have much time and will come back... but you also wrote this scripture down..
I'll answer your question with a question...
why didn't he commit his Mother to what you call (in error) his cousins? Why go to someone outside the family when he had other "brethren?"
It was quite common to go to a brother or the next closest living relative to stand in for the deceased. Read Ruth when it comes to the kinsman redeemer; the relationship between Ruth and Boaz and how that all worked out. Obviously from looking at this one scripture it's clear these boys are in direct connection with Mary and "the carpenter".
to understand them as cousins of Jesus is contrary to the usual sense of "brethren."
Also, one other quick point. Mary visited her "cousin" Elizabeth. Remember? The word in scripture is Cousin and is a diff word than "brethren." So why didn't it just say "cousins" here in Matt 13 when it mentioned these boy's names? Why call them brethren but Elizabeth cousin when they were ALL cousins? You're reaching Lula.
and I noticed you skipped (how convenient) v56 although you included the reference for it above..but this is the rest of the story you didn't put down..
v56-"and His sisters, are they not all with us?"
are "sisters" cousins too? And if so, why not call them cousins like Elizabeth?
it's all part of the agenda. Goes back to the whole Babylonian mother-son worship (thru diff cultures and centuries) I wrote about on my blog.
KFC,
You may have given the reason or at least one of the reasons why Jesus chose St.John for the care of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Who is St.John? St.John is the blood brother of James, son of Zebedee. St.Matt. 4:21. Mary Salome is the wife of Zebedee and therefore their mother. Salome stood with the other women on Calvary beside the Cross of Jesus. 15:40-41 and on the Resurrection morning went to anoint the body of Our Lord. 16:1. For her sons, she asked Jesus to give them the first place in the kingdom He was to establish, but Jesus turned the request into an invitation to suffer with Him. 20:20; St. Mark 10:35. St.John accepted the invitation to the point that he was the only Apostle of the Twelve who stayed by His side "suffering with Him".
Another reason may have been because St. John was Jesus' "most beloved" Apostle.
Another reason may have been that the other Apostles were older while St.John was the youngest, 18 years old when he became an Apostle and 12 years younger than Our Lord. After the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary in 58AD, Saint John went to Ephesus. He preached in Asia Minor and was dragged to Rome by the emperor. In 95, he was tried in Rome and condemned to be thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil by which God's providence did him no harm. He was then exiled to the isle of Patmos where he wrote the Book of the Apocalypse. The he returned to Ephesus where he wrote the 4th Gospel in 96, and later his 3 epistles. He died in Ephesus in the year 100.
St.John was a relative of Jesus too.
Remember I said,
Saint Cleophas was one of the greatest brothers, husband, father and grandfather of the first century. Cleophas was the brother of Saint Joseph, the husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Cleophas' wife was Mary of CLeophas. I've just provided the Scripture which shows that the 3 sons of Cleophas and Mary of Cleophas were Simon, James (the Less) and Jude.
Two of his grandsons are St. James (the Greater) and St.John, sons of Zebedee. Cleophas' daughter, Mary Salome is their mother.
Here is the list of the Twelve Apostles:
St. Simon Peter
St. Andrew
St. James, son of Zebedee (Catholics call him St.James the Greater).
St. John
St. Philip
St.Bartholomew (Nathaniel)
St.Thomas
St.Matthew (Levi)
St.James, son of Cleophas (also spelled Alpheus) (Catholic call him St.James the Less). Acts:
St.Jude (Thaddeus)
St.Simon the Cananean, also called the Zealot.
Judas Iscariot
The reason why I said St.Cleophas was one of the first century greatests is that his 3 sons, Simon, James and Jude and two grandsons, James and John, sons of Zebedee were Apostles of Jesus!
Cleophas was murdered because of his devotion to the risen Christ.
Saint Mary of Cleophas was put in a boat by the Jews in 47 AD and pushed out to sea without sails or oars. With her were Saint Mary Magdalen, Saint Martha, Saint Mary Salome (her daughter), Saint Lazarus, Saint Maximin, Saint Sidonius (the man born blind in Scripture), and the body of Saint Anne, the mother of the Blessed Virgin Mary and grandmother of Christ. After that journey, Saint Mary of Cleophas died where she landed on an island in France, they later named les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (the Holy Marys of the Sea).
............................
So now the Apostles are "boys"?
Not in those times, KFC. In the Hebrew language the word "brethren" indicates a relative.
As far as the sisters, you are right , my bad, I should have quoted the whole thing..I got wrapped up in the four names...
St.Matt. 13:55-56 says, "His brethren James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, and His sisters, are they not all with us?"
Even so, the Jewish expression "brothers and sisters in the Lord" in Scripture merely refers to relationship in the same tribe or stock. Cousins often came under that title.
And in doing some more research on this, I learned that in St.John 19:25, that "there stood by the Cross of Jesus, His Mother, and his mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas", even here, Mary of Cleophas need not have been a sister of the BLessed Virgin Mary in the first degree of blood relationship, but rather in the same lineage in a more remote degree of either consanguinity or affinity.
No Jesus didn't have brothers (or sisters) in the first degree blood relationship sense. I just proved that by providing Scripture, common sense and understanding that the Hebrew language used in the days of Josephus and the Gospel writers didn't have a word for Cousin and that their word for "brethren" was meant in a general way to mean familial relationship, tribe or stock.
The Blessed Virgin Mary had no other children of her own. Christ as He died on the Cross would not have ever entrusted His Mother to St.John, the son of zebedee, if His Mother had actually had other children. She would have gone to live with them. From every angle, this is as basic as it gets, that the Blessed Virgin Mary had no other children.
KFC posts:
This is the gist of it for most, not all, Protestants today. At all costs, to them, Jesus must have siblings. Goes against Scripture, goes against common sense and goes against understanding the Hebrew expression of "Brethren".
Why do some Protestants kick against the goad? They want to drag the Blessed Virgin Mary down from her true dignity and even worse, they drag Jesus down to the level of ordinary men in order to show their contempt for Catholicism.
I'm afraid that in some Protestants faith in the Gospels and in Jesus Christ runs a bad second to their dislike of the CC and Catholicism.
Also speaking of Martin Luther.....
The fact is the belief in the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity was universal and consistent within Christianity in the fifteen centuries prior to the Protestant Revolution. In proclaiming Mary's perpetual virginity, even Martin Luther and John Calvin, the progeniters of 2 of the 3 major branches of Protestantism acknowledged it. Yep, they both held firmly to this Catholic doctrine.
If necessary I can provide their statements, All this should make one think just how far modern day Protestantism has drifted from its moorings. But more importantly, how far modern Protestantism has drifted from the 15 centuries of the historic Catholic Faith that proceeded the Protestant Revolution....oops "Reformation".
Lula's interpretation of the word "brethren" here seems to be correct.
The oldest definition I can find is on the Hebrew Union College's Aramaic dictionary Web site which gives the following meanings for the word:
1 brother Com. --(a) pl.: siblings Syr. 2 kinsman OfA, OfASam, Qum, Jud. --(a) a royal functionary Palm. 3 one another PTA.
(Look for ")x".)
In modern Hebrew "ach" (= "brother") also means "comrade" in the communist sense (i.e. Zionists addressed each other as "achim" = "comrades" as all socialists do). The word always had connotations from (biological) "brother" to "anyone who is with me".
Jesus strikes me as someone who would have addressed followers and friends (and complete strangers) as "brother".
However...
It would have been ridiculously unlikely for a fertile woman in Judaea at the time not to have more than one child. Judaism doesn't even allow it (Jewish families must have two children or more).
Matthew 13:55-56 states: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?"This is from the Greek, of course, and I don't know what meanings the word "brother" can have there. However, from context it is clear that the text is referring to biological (or at least adopted) brothers.
Jesus' family is summarised here. Nobody would introduce a guy with words that mean "This is Ernest, his mother is Penelope, and his best friends are Kyle and Blake and Tyler and Todd" , at least not outside a Protestant country club in Connecticut.
The NT was written in Greek and the word is "adelphos" and when you go to the Greek dictionary it means:
1. male children of the same parents, Matt 1:2
2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5
3. male children of the same mother, Matt 13:55, 1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19
4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Rom 9:3
5. any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29, Matt 5:22, 7:3
6. persons united by a common interest Matt 5:47
So it is true that the words for brother and sister can mean close relative. This must be determined by the context and from other Scriptures. The context indicates in Matt 13:55 that they were his real brothers and sisters.
Nowhere does the Bible affirm the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. There is NO statement anywhere in the Bible that supports that teaching. That's why ORAL tradition is so important in the RCC. They can make stuff up with no scriptural backup.
When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father and/or mother then it doesn't mean cousins but actual blood brother and sisteres.
Also..there are OTHER references in the Bible to His brothers. John tells us that "even His brothers did not believe in Him." (7:5) and Paul speaks of "James the Lord's brother" (Gal 1:19). On another occasion Mark refers to Jesus brothers and His mother (3:31). John spoke of "his mother, His brothers and His disciples" (2:12) and Luke mentions "Mary the mother of Jesus, with His brothers" being in the Upper Room (Acts 1:14).
so Leauki you nailed it head on. One thing we must drill into our minds is
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.
It's very important when you read and draw out the correct interpretation of scripture.
You're NOT getting it Lula. I don't care what Martin Luther says or statements from other Protestants. I don't care what the RCC says. WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH?
It doesn't go against the "common sense" because as Leauki wrote from the Hebrew and I wrote from the Greek the first definitions mean close relative or how we use brother/sister today. You have to go down further to find non relatives listed.
You believe what you believe because they tell you so and then you twist and turn to make the scriptures make what you want them to say. But like I said...
Lula posts :
Leauki posts:
It is correct because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and His disciples, as well as Josephus) had a special word meaning "cousin". So the speakers of those languages used the word for "brother" or "brethren" (which included sister or sisters).
Another way we know it is correct is by the OT Jewish Scriptures. The OT shows that the word for "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning. It was not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or even half-brother. Rather it could refer to any male/female relative from whom you are not descended, as well as kinsmen, those who are members of the family by marriage, or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies. Check out 2Samuel1:26and Amos 1:9.
Exactly. Both the Hebrew and the Greek word had a wide range of meanings.
The writers of the NT were brought up using the equivalent of "Brothers'", "brethren" to mean both cousins and children of the same parent---plus other relatives and even non-relatives.
When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the 72 translators did when they translated the OT Hebrew to the Greek Septuagint. In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers, cousins, etc. was translated as "adelphos" as you say. The writers of the NT did just as the translators of the Septuagint and used "adelphos" even for cousins.
……………………………………
Both the Catholic Douay Rheims and the Protestant King James Version has St.Matt. 13:55-56 as having the word "brethren", not "brothers".
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon and Jude: And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?"
The word used in both the DR and the KJ Version is not "brother" but rather "brethren". The Scriptural passages that speak of "the brethren" of Jesus are St.Matt.12:46-50;13:55, St.Mark 3:31-35; St.Luke 8:19-21; St.John 7:3-10; Acts1:14and 1Cor. 9:5.
Same thing with all these passages. The Douay Rheims and the King James version has “brethren” not “Brothers”.
Leauki posts: Quoting Leauki, reply 94Matthew 13:55-56 states: "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?" This is from the Greek, of course, and I don't know what meanings the word "brother" can have there. However, from context it is clear that the text is referring to biological (or at least adopted) brothers.
KFC posts: Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 96so Leauki you nailed it head on. One thing we must drill into our minds is CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT.
I must agree. Context is important.
However, been there done that.
Back in my #84 post; the one you complained Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 84you went around everything with a long explanation.
About half way down I wrote:
Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 84Now reading the Scriptures keeping in mind context. Jesus grew up in Nazareth and the people of Nazareth referred to Him as "the son of Mary". St.Mark 6:3, not as "a" son of Mary. In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary's sons, not even when they are called Jesus' "Brethren". Also, in doing some research on this, I learned that the attitude taken by "the brethren of the Lord" implies that they are Jesus' elders..that is they are older than He is. During that time in Palestine, older sons give advice to younger, but younger seldom give advice to older for then it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus' "brethren" saying to Him that Galilee was no place for Him and that He should go to Judea so He could make a name for Himself. ST.John 7:3-4. Another time they sought to restrain Him for His own benefit: "And when his family heard it, they went out to seize Him, for people were saying, "He is beside Himself" St.Mark 3:21. This kind of behavior would make sense for the Jews only if the "brethren" wqere older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as His biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary's "first-born Son". St.Luke 2:7. ANd then consider what happened at the foot of the Cross. When Jesus was dying He entrusted His Mother to the Apostle John. Yet, the Gospels mentioned 4 of His "brethren": James, Joseph, Simon and Jude. It's really hard to imagine that Jesus would have totally disregarded family ties as it were and made provision for His Mother with John if these four were also her sons. So James and the other "brethren of the Lord" weren't Jesus' biological brothers or even half brothers...they were His cousins and this is the most commonly accepted view. If we put St.Matt. 27:56; St. Mark 15:40; St.John 19:25 and St.Matt. 10:3 together, we see that the Bible demonstrates that they were not the Blessed VIrgin Mary's children.
Above I gave two solid arguments from context. They still stand. Take the context and apply common sense and we see that assuming Mary had children other than Jesus is incorrect.
I'll give two more.
When Jesus was found in the temple at age 12, the context suggests that He was the only son of Mary and and There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the Holy Family. St.Luke 2:41-51.
Also, St.Luke 1:34, when the Angel Gabriel appeared to the Blessed Virgin Mary and told her that she would conceive a Son, she asked, "How shall this be done, because I know not man?"
Mary's question meant she had taken a vow of life long virginity even in marriage. Now, this wasn't common, but not unheard of either and we are talking about the Mother of Jesus, God in the flesh. If she had not taken such a vow her question would make no sense. If she had aniticpiated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity she would have hardly have to ask HOW she was to have a child.
A careful look at the Scriptures shows that the Blessed Virgin Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
That's why I told you that when you put St.Matt. 27:56; St. Mark 15:40; St.John 19:25 and St.Matt. 10:3 together, we see that the Bible demonstrates that "the brethren", James, Joseph, Simon and Jude were not the Blessed VIrgin Mary's children.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 96It's very important when you read and draw out the correct interpretation of scripture.
Yes, indeed. Try it with those passages and you should see that Scripture testifies that the "brethren of the Lord" were Jesus' cousins.
Kfc posts: Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 96It's very important when you read and draw out the correct interpretation of scripture.
Yes, indeed. Try it with those passages and you should see that Scripture testifies that the "brethren of the Lord" were Jesus' kinsmen, meaning cousins.
Quoting KFC Kickin For Christ, reply 97I don't care what the RCC says. WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE TEACH?
SCRIPTURE TEACHES that James is the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas and Cleophas (Alphaeus) was Jame's father.
We know that Alphaeus was James' father from reading St.Matt. 10:2-3 and Acts 1:13,
"And the names of the twelve apostles are these: THe first Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother. James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother. Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, and James the son of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed Him."
"And when they were come in, they went up to the upper room where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James."
Cleophas and Alphaeus were the same person since the Aramaic name for Alphaeus was rendered in Greek as Cleophas.
SCRIPTURE TEACHES that the words for "brother", "sister" and "brethren" have a wide range of meaning used to designate many different relationships, as well as that of common parentage.
In the case of the passage "the brethren of the Lord" James, Joseph, Simon and Jude SCRIPTURE TEACHES they were Jesus' distant relatives, what we call cousins.
………………………………..
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
