Did Jesus have brothers and sisters?

[nvalleyvee]

Of course he did. It is in the writings. Did his father Joseph die when he was a teen - yes he did. Did Jesus have to care take his mother - a widow of NO power - yes he did. Did Jesus leave home at about 20 years old to follow his spirit God......Yes he did. Did Jesus leave us all with his spirit.......yes he did....Did he require us all to follow him or DID he give us all a spirit path to follow....YES He GAVE each one of us a spirit path to follow.........He did not care how we achieved that path............He just gave it to us. What a blessing to remember this time of year.

[Ted]

nvalleyvee:-6

Indeed a very interesting post. I might question some of the facts such as the death of Joseph. In fact there is nothing known about him other then the trip to Bethlehem and that he was a carpenter.

Did Jesus have brothers and sisters? Absolutely.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Snooze:-6

I would suggest that you are correct. It was probably Joseph who was his natural father but that is questionable and was so right from the very beginning. Thus Jesus was called a mamzer, a person of questionable parentage, which would haunt him in his home town of Nazareth.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

Snoozecontrol:-6

HI :-6 :-6

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Lon]

nvalleyvee wrote: Of course he did. It is in the writings. Did his father Joseph die when he was a teen - yes he did. Did Jesus have to care take his mother - a widow of NO power - yes he did. Did Jesus leave home at about 20 years old to follow his spirit God......Yes he did. Did Jesus leave us all with his spirit.......yes he did....Did he require us all to follow him or DID he give us all a spirit path to follow....YES He GAVE each one of us a spirit path to follow.........He did not care how we achieved that path............He just gave it to us. What a blessing to remember this time of year.


Jesus had three sisters, two brothers and a half sister, numerous aunts and uncles.

[chonsigirl]

Lon wrote: Jesus had three sisters, two brothers and a half sister, numerous aunts and uncles.
Lon, may I ask where you got this information from, respectfully.

The Bible says the names of Jesus' four brothers, and said he had sisters-which is plural, so we know there were at least 2. Jesus had at least 6 siblings, but nowhere in the Bible that I know of does it say he had half-siblings, or that Mary ever remarried. When Jesus died on the cross, her care was given to the apostle John. At that period of time, she was not married, and her care was given to this beloved disciple.

[chonsigirl]

Biblical sources for the siblings of Jesus:

http://www.trosch.org/the/brothers.html

Matthew 13:55 Is he not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

Mark 6:3 Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

In the four gospels there are a total of four women listed as being at the foot of the cross:

Mary – mother of Jesus

Mary Magdalene – listed in all four gospels.

Mary (the wife of Clopas), the mother of James (the younger), Joseph (Joses), and Salome.

Joanne, the sister of Jesus's mother (Jesus's aunt) who was the mother of James and John, the sons' of Zebedee.

Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of the younger James and of Joses, and Salome.

Mark 16:1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint him.

Luke 24:10 The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles,

John 19:25 Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.

From the above it is ascertained that James and John were the first cousins of Jesus.

[chonsigirl]

Mark 6: 3

Ούκ οΰτος έστιν ο τέκτων, ο υιος της Mαρίας καί άδελφός ‘Iακώβου καί

Not this one is the carpenter’s son of Mary, and brother of James and

‘Iωσητος καί Ã¢â‚¬ËœIούδα καί Σίμωνος: καί oύκ έστιν αί άδελφαί αυτου ωδε πρός

Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not the sisters of him here with

ήμας:

us?

[Ted]

Chilton does comment on the family relationships between Jesus and his brothers "While a Catholic scholar and a priest (Meier) insists that if Jesus'older siblings are called bis brothers they were the children of the same parents, Joseph and Mary." P295 "Rabbi Jesus" by Bruce Chilton.

John Drane in his book "Introducing the New Testament" p51 also creds Jesus with having brothers and sisters and not just half brothers or cousins etc.

Achtemeier, Green, Thompson in their book "Introducing the New Testatment p493 takes the same position.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Teach4life]

Jesus was seen as having questionable linage. Joseph was is step father...that is my belief. He did not have a regular manhood ceremony as other jewish boys as his father's identity was unknown. In the bible and when Jesus was at the temple the Lord came to him "like a dove" saying "this is my son and with him I am well pleased" These are the words that a father would say at a manhood ceremony.

[justcathy]

Jesus' brothers and sisters grew up to have children of their own. And the children had children. They were no longer mentioned in the bible. The desended of there children are around to this day. But because no records were kept of them we don't know which way the family line went.

[Lon]

chonsigirl wrote: Lon, may I ask where you got this information from, respectfully.

The Bible says the names of Jesus' four brothers, and said he had sisters-which is plural, so we know there were at least 2. Jesus had at least 6 siblings, but nowhere in the Bible that I know of does it say he had half-siblings, or that Mary ever remarried. When Jesus died on the cross, her care was given to the apostle John. At that period of time, she was not married, and her care was given to this beloved disciple.


An angel visited me in my sleep and passed on this piece of info to me.

[Bronwen]

chonsigirl wrote: Biblical sources for the siblings of Jesus:

http://www.trosch.org/the/brothers.html

EXCELLENT link, chon, thank you!

I would only amplify a couple of points which you've already addressed:

1. This is always an interesting discussion, but a rather futile one because Mary either had other children or she did not. It's a matter of fact and not of faith. Nothing said on either side will ever change that.

2. The belief that Mary remained a virgin was one of Christianity's most ancient traditions and remained so until the Protestant Reformation, and of course, remains so today in Catholicism and, I believe, in Eastern Orthodoxy. On the other hand, there is no reason why she might not have had other children, but pre-Reformation Christian tradition always held that she did not.

3. Other indications that she did not have other children are:

a. In the gospels she is never specifically referred to as the mother of any other named person.

b. All of the 'brothers and sisters' mentioned in the gospels can be otherwise accounted for, as your link does.

c. It's unlikely that the dying Jesus would have entrusted her to John the Apostle if she had had other children to care for her.Far Rider wrote: .... if there is no virgin birth then Jesus is not messiah.

If just one prophetical statement is unfulfilled then Christ Jesus is not Christ at all.

Virgin Birth. No exceptions.

There sir is where a literal view and whatever you hold stand diametrically opposed.FR, this could be the basis of a whole 'nother thread. The OT, mostly in Isaiah but in many other books as well, makes HUNDREDS of predictions regarding the Messiah. Very few of these can be applied to Jesus without considerable bending, folding, spindling and mutilating, and of course, that is precisely why so few Jews become Christians.

In the first place, the OT never says that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Virgin birth was a pagan concept, presented at a time when Christianty was becoming less and less Jewish and more and more Gentile.

Secondly, according to Jewish belief, one becomes the Messiah not by claiming to be, but by bringing about the Messianic Age on earth, the era of world peace and the delivery of the Jews from earthly bondage and persecution. That has clearly not occurred.

Thirdly, Jesus' own prophecy, that he would return quickly, within the lifetime of at least some of His contemporaries, remains unfulfilled nearly 2000 years later.

But, as I said, this is a separate discussion. If you'd like to start a new thread on the Christianity forum, I'll be happy to participate.

[Ted]

Bronwen:-6

Some good points.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[nvalleyvee]

I have often wondered why any prophet or messiah had to be of virgin birth. It bothers me because I don't believe it is possible. A person who has some knowledge of the world and a great spirit to relate this personal belief is enough for a prophet for me. It is thrown up to me whether I believe it or not.

[Teach4life]

Bronwen wrote:

In the first place, the OT never says that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. Virgin birth was a pagan concept, presented at a time when Christianty was becoming less and less Jewish and more and more Gentile.

.


I think you are mistaken

The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

[Bronwen]

Teach4life wrote: 1. I think you are mistaken

2. The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin...

3. ...but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case.

4. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."1. I don't think so, Teach.

2. Clearly. I am not disputing that.

3. Correct, and one assumes that, as a Gentile, Luke would not have been familiar with those scriptures.

4. No, here is where you go astray, as the Hebrew uses the word 'almah', which means 'young woman', without respect to her sexual history. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'bethulah'. Most of the MODERN translations of Isaiah use the term 'young woman'. For example, here is the verse from the online New English Translation (NET):7:14 For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.And of course, Mary did not name Him Immanuel, so that is two examples in one verse of Hebrew prophecy NOT being fulfilled. ('Immanuel' means 'God is with us'; 'Jesus' means 'Yahweh saves' or 'Yahweh helps'.)

Don't get me wrong - as a Christian I accept the virgin birth as a matter of faith. But it does not fulfill Hebrew prophecy, nor as far as I know is there any Jewish tradition of virgin birth or of the Messiah being born of a virgin. If I am wrong, and there are Jewish posters here, I hope that they will correct me.

[Ted]

According to Spong and others the birth stories are midrashic and are not to be taken literally.

The evangelists writing with hindsight are able to go back through the scriptures and apply verses that seem to fit what they had come to understand about Jesus. This was a legitimate style of writing back in ancient times especially as it relates to the Bible.

If you look at the writings of Paul and Pseudo-Paul you will find no references to the birth of Jesus. The early church was simply not interested. It was later on in the first century that people wanted to know about Jesus birth.

There are all kinds of virgin birth stories from the east: Buddha, the Caesars, Egyptian rulers etc. It was a common motif for many.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

Ted wrote: If you look at the writings of Paul and Pseudo-Paul you will find no references to the birth of Jesus. The early church was simply not interested. It was later on in the first century that people wanted to know about Jesus birth.True, nor does Mark's gospel (c. AD65) nor John's (c. AD100) make any suggestion that Jesus' birth was anything out of the ordinary.

[Teach4life]

Even if the word Almah is debated, After doing some internet surfing, I can see that it is...One point is still true, even if it is more accurate to translate, "young woman" why is that significant. Why would God choose that to be a sign of the Messiah? Phoaroh's sister, to one who took in Moses, still lived in her family's home. The word Almah is used for her as well. She was not married and therefore a virgin. I am in no position to have theological discussion with you guys who clearly have tons of knowledge. The Lord our God fullfilled more than 300 prophacies with his birth and life. Many of which were not within his control. He couldn't have faked it.

It is my belief that you can't have it both ways. You can't be a Christian and say you don't believe in the Bible. EVERYTHING that christianity stands for is based in that book alone. While we can debate the translations, the canon, the prophets, it doesn't change a thing. The bible only promises infalibility to the origonal writers. But the esance of the faith is not tainted by posible translation mistakes.

[Benjamin]

Ted wrote: According to Spong and others the birth stories are midrashic and are not to be taken literally.

There are all kinds of virgin birth stories from the east: Buddha, the Caesars, Egyptian rulers etc. It was a common motif for many.


I read that, too. Back in the days when the bible (New Testament) was being compiled, stories of virgin births and resurrections were common and ubiquitous. Paul took the stories of Jesus and came up with the concept that belief in Jesus as the messiah was all that was necessary to attain salvation. Those were tumultuous times and people needed some comfort in their lives. One reason Christianity caught on so quickly was because it was much easier than Judaism. It was difficult for many to follow the laws in the Torah (there are 613 of them, not just the Top 10) and Christianity provided hope at a time when things seemed hopeless.

[Teach4life]

Benjamin wrote: I read that, too. Back in the days when the bible (New Testament) was being compiled, stories of virgin births and resurrections were common and ubiquitous. Paul took the stories of Jesus and came up with the concept that belief in Jesus as the messiah was all that was necessary to attain salvation. Those were tumultuous times and people needed some comfort in their lives. One reason Christianity caught on so quickly was because it was much easier than Judaism. It was difficult for many to follow the laws in the Torah (there are 613 of them, not just the Top 10) and Christianity provided hope at a time when things seemed hopeless.


Actually, back in the day it was believed that you had to be Jewish in order to be a Christian. It was only later that Gentiles were accepted.

With all due respect, with the deep and meaningful philosophy that the Bible holds, it is faulty for you to say that Paul just came up with it ....

[Teach4life]

[QUOTE=Bronwen]

4. No, here is where you go astray, as the Hebrew uses the word 'almah', which means 'young woman', without respect to her sexual history. The Hebrew word for virgin is 'bethulah'. Most of the MODERN translations of Isaiah use the term 'young woman'. For example, here is the verse from the online New English Translation (NET):And of course, Mary did not name Him Immanuel, so that is two examples in one verse of Hebrew prophecy NOT being fulfilled. ('Immanuel' means 'God is with us'; 'Jesus' means 'Yahweh saves' or 'Yahweh helps'.)QUOTE]

Okay...Here is my take on this point

In Isaiah 7:14, we encounter a prophecy about the Messiah stating that his name will be Immanuel. Immanuel literally means "God is with us." This is a significant because Jesus is God in flesh.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1,14).

For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col. 2:9).

When it came time to name the Lord, an angel the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and told Joseph to call his new son "Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:21). The word "Jesus" means "Jehovah is salvation." This is appropriate since Jesus is Jehovah, second person of the Trinity, who became flesh and is our salvation.

[Bronwen]

Teach4life wrote: 1. Even if the word Almah is debated...why is that significant.

2. The Lord our God fullfilled more than 300 prophacies with his birth and life. Many of which were not within his control. He couldn't have faked it.



3. You can't be a Christian and say you don't believe in the Bible. EVERYTHING that christianity stands for is based in that book alone.

4. The bible only promises infalibility to the origonal writers. 1. Well, I think your point here is that 'almah' certainly describes Mary, and of course you are correct. But a prophecy that 'a young woman will conceive and give birth' is really no prophecy at all. That happens millions of times every day. Now, a VIRGIN conceiving and giving birth, that is something special indeed, but Isaiah does not say nor imply that. Also, he says that the young woman will name the child 'Immanuel', which Mary did not do.

2. Can you name FIVE, and give the OT chapters and verses?

3. A person becomes a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as the model for his/her own life and by follwing His teachings. Christians view the Bible in many different contexts, but they are all Christians nonetheless.

4. Where do you find such a promise?

[Teach4life]

To answer this:

2. Can you name FIVE, and give the OT chapters and verses?

1- The "seed of a woman": Genesis 3:15.... Galatians 4:4.

Jesus was born of Virgin Mary without any man involved in His conception (Is.7:14, Mat.1:23, Lk.1:27).

- Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

- Gal.4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law. (Luk.2:7; Rev.12:5)

2- Descendent of Abraham: Genesis 12:3, 18:18.... Acts 3:25, Matthew 1:1.

- Gen. 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. (Gen. 12:3)

- Act. 3:25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, "Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed." (Mt.1:1; Lk.3:34)

3- Descendent of Isaac: Gen.17:19, Luc.3:34.

- Gen.17:19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."

-Mt.1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. (Lk.3:34)

4- Descendent of Jacob: Numbers 24:17...... Luke 3:34, Matt.1:2.

- Num.24:17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.

- Lk.3:34 The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor. (Mt.1:2)

5-- From the Tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10, Luke 3:33.

- Gen.49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

- Lk.3:33 The son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah. (Mt.1:2-3)

6- Hair of the Throne of David: Isaiah 9:7.... Luke 1:32-33.

- Isa.9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isa.11:1-5; 2Sam.7:13)

- Luk.1:32-33: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." (Mt.1:1, 1:6)

As for the bible and belief in Jesus......If one becomes a Christian due to the qualities of Jesus and wanting that influence in their life. How do they know that Jesus was REALLY like that. You must accept that the Bible is true as it is where you get the notion and charactor of Christ.

In the case of infailibility....I apologise for my error the Bible does not state that directly..The Bible is a product of two free agents, human and divine. Through (fallible) human authors, God manifested the infallible and errorless writings, which convey His messages. Although God is sovereign and can do anything by Himself, He chooses to have humans interact in His plan. This is one of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions; with God reaching down to man, instead of man reaching up to Him.

[nvalleyvee]

Ted wrote: According to Spong and others the birth stories are midrashic and are not to be taken literally.

The evangelists writing with hindsight are able to go back through the scriptures and apply verses that seem to fit what they had come to understand about Jesus. This was a legitimate style of writing back in ancient times especially as it relates to the Bible.

If you look at the writings of Paul and Pseudo-Paul you will find no references to the birth of Jesus. The early church was simply not interested. It was later on in the first century that people wanted to know about Jesus birth.

There are all kinds of virgin birth stories from the east: Buddha, the Caesars, Egyptian rulers etc. It was a common motif for many.

Shalom

Ted:-6


I must agree with you Ted. What is a Virgin birth? The Eastern religions do not account for their current leaders as virgin births but rather reincarnation.

WHY cannot Christianity divine a prophet as one of true heart and soul in their belief. This will seem blasphomous(sp) to some people but WHY cannot the divine spirit come to the mind and soul of very special people? Do you not think of this as the spirit becoming the Father (God if you need to think that way).

The world was in such uphealval at that time. Egypt had fallen to Rome. Rome was falling because of the pressure from the Eastern lands. It seems to me that the mix of all the cultures because of "world domination" attempts by the strong cultures of the time were actually bringing down the classic civilization - education was stopped and Europe was plunged into the dark ages because of Christianity and Catholicism.

When a culture decides it has to have every aspect of its life mandated and controlled by a religious belief - rather than world domination - (yes I'm laughing) we always get into trouble. We, as a world culture, still have religion as our major difference - and as far as I'm concerned - religion is very personal - it should never matter.

[Ted]

nvalleyvee:-6

The spirit indeed has come to the "mind and soul" of some very special people. They were called prophets. They enjoyed a very special relationship with the Divine. They didn't just know about him/her but experienced the Divine. Jesus was in the same position.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Ted]

teach:-6

It seems to me that one of the great problems that some Christians face today is idolatry of the Bible. The Bible is a book the "Word" is a person whom we understand to be Yeshua of Nazareth.

The Bible is a very human project and is man's response to his understanding of the Divine. In interpreting the Bible we need to consider: who the writer is, his purpose in writing, the culture of the day, the conceptualization ability of the writier, the language, the history, the fund of knowledge of the day, the belief systems, the writers style, which in the case of the Bible is a special style called midrash and probable a host of others that have skipped my mind at the moment.

The Canon of scripture we now have is not an accurate copy of the original autographs but a copy of copies of copies of copies etc. The scribes often made mistakes in copying and some of them deliberately changes the wording to make it fit with their own theology and understanding. We do not have the entire copies as the authors intended. Scholars are working on that (Bart Ehrman) and hope eventually to turn out a copy that was in use at the time of the Council of Nicea which will not be exact copies of what the author wrote. "Misquoting Jesus" Bart Ehrman.

This is why some churches accept three sources of authority: the councils, tradition, and the Bible. Along with those they apply their intellect and their common sense.

This does not negate the value of the Bible because God still speaks to us through the very imperfect work of men. Thus for Christians it becomes the "Word of God" not by virtue of its authorship but by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through it.

A Christian is one who is in a developing transforming relationship with the Risen Lord of if a non-Christian with God.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Bronwen]

Teach4life wrote: 1- The "seed of a woman": Genesis 3:15.... Galatians 4:4.

Jesus was born of Virgin Mary without any man involved in His conception (Is.7:14, Mat.1:23, Lk.1:27).

- Gen.3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.

- Gal.4:4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law. (Luk.2:7; Rev.12:5)

2- Descendent of Abraham: Genesis 12:3, 18:18.... Acts 3:25, Matthew 1:1.

- Gen. 18:18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. (Gen. 12:3)

- Act. 3:25 And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, "Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed." (Mt.1:1; Lk.3:34)

3- Descendent of Isaac: Gen.17:19, Luc.3:34.

- Gen.17:19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."

-Mt.1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers. (Lk.3:34)

4- Descendent of Jacob: Numbers 24:17...... Luke 3:34, Matt.1:2.

- Num.24:17 I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near. A star will come out of Jacob; a scepter will rise out of Israel. He will crush the foreheads of Moab, the skulls of all the sons of Sheth.

- Lk.3:34 The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor. (Mt.1:2)

5-- From the Tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10, Luke 3:33.

- Gen.49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.

- Lk.3:33 The son of Amminadab, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah. (Mt.1:2-3)

6- Hair of the Throne of David: Isaiah 9:7.... Luke 1:32-33.

- Isa.9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this. (Isa.11:1-5; 2Sam.7:13)

- Luk.1:32-33: He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end." (Mt.1:1, 1:6) Before commenting on the individual items, here once again is your previous statement:The Lord our God fullfilled more than 300 prophacies with his birth and life. Many of which were not within his control. He couldn't have faked it.First, Teach, I appreciate the time you spent selecting and posting these. Let's examine them one by one:

1. Well, Teach, you are off to a rocky start here. None of these references suggests, to use your own words, that 'Jesus was born of Virgin Mary without any man involved in His conception', nor can I see any other reference specific to Jesus. We are all born of women, obviously.

2, 3 & 4. All Jews, except converts, are descendants of Abraham, many of them also through Isaac and Jacob. How is that specific to Jesus?

5. Joseph was of the tribe of Judah, Mary of Levi. Again, how does this OT verse apply specifically to Jesus? Am I missing something here?

6. Now we're getting somewhere. These verses certainly fortell the Messiah and the Messianic Age. But Teach, that has not yet occurred. There is no world peace, no Kingdom of God on earth. Jesus promised to return quickly in this regard, within the lifetime of at least some of His contemporaries (Mt 16:27-28 and several other verses. Even Paul advises people not to marry because he thought that there was so little time left until the end of the age). Nearly two thousand years later, the promise remains unfulfilled.

A. As for the bible and belief in Jesus......If one becomes a Christian due to the qualities of Jesus and wanting that influence in their life. How do they know that Jesus was REALLY like that. You must accept that the Bible is true as it is where you get the notion and charactor of Christ.

B. In the case of infailibility....I apologise for my error the Bible does not state that directly..The Bible is a product of two free agents, human and divine. Through (fallible) human authors, God manifested the infallible and errorless writings, which convey His messages. Although God is sovereign and can do anything by Himself, He chooses to have humans interact in His plan.

C. This is one of the biggest differences between Christianity and other religions; with God reaching down to man, instead of man reaching up to Him.A. I understand what you are saying here and as a Christian I agree to some extent. But the NT has many inconsistancies with regard to Jesus, including two very different genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Both cannot be accurate, and most modern Bible scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, consider both to be fictitious. That has little bearing on Christ's life and teachings as reported in the Gospels, but much to do with not trusting the Bible as a source of fact, as in that regard it is often inaccurate.

B. As stated directly above, the Bible contains MANY errors of fact. It is 'inerrant' in the sense that it always leads us to God rather than away from Him. I have no problem with describing it as 'divinely inspired', because that can mean about anything that one wants it to mean. It is nonetheless a book of faith and not, in every case, of literal fact.

C. I'm not sure what you mean here. If you are saying that Christianity is a religion of personal relationship with the Almighty rather than just worship, I agree with you wholeheartedly. At the same time, I'm not sure that Christianity is unique in this respect.

[Ted]

Bronwen:-6

Excellent post.

Shalom

Ted:-6

[Teach4life]

Thank you for your posts. I must say that you have many points that I must give some thought over.

The major point that I feel I must make is that it is a matter of faith. How I understand faith is that it has two levels. A base that is based on those things that can be proven and a second level for those that cannot. All the historical information in the Bible is accurate. Based on that I have no reason to believe that the rest would not be. I know this may sound shallow to you. Maybe it is. I know that before I was a Christian I was very critical of people who are like me. No one ever questions the accuracy of the Iliad and that is far older and no origonal texts exhist.

[Bronwen]

Teach4life wrote: 1a. All the historical information in the Bible is accurate.

1b. Based on that I have no reason to believe that the rest would not be.

2. No one ever questions the accuracy of the Iliad and that is far older and no origonal texts exhist.1a. I can assure you that this is not true. I have already mentioned the two contradictory genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. These are certainly 'historical', one going back to Abraham, the other all the way back to Adam, the 'first man', yet modern scholars believe both to be fiction, and even if one were accurate (which neither is) the other would then have to be inaccurate. And of course, human beings walked the earth for over a million years before the time frame of 'Adam'. Of course, that was not known in Biblical times.

1b. 1b falls with 1a. You are making the mistake of believing that the Bible must be literally true in order to be valid. That is a false assumption. Much of the Bible is allegorical and literary, never intended as fact.

2. I'm not sure what you mean here. The Iliad features many fictional characters, including Greek gods. Some of the background material in the Iliad is more or less accurate.

[Ted]

Teach:-6

The following is an archaeological review article. I have read the book "The Bible Unearthed" It is an excellent book based n the latest archaeological findings.

http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm

The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman

It might help you understand the Bible a little more clearly.

Shalom

Ted:-6