Baptism

[mjrhealth]

So, I conclude Yeshua had half siblings. What say you?

Probably did, but it doesnt matter, as after Christs Virgin birth it is irrelevant, doesnt change or add to ones salvation. What it has come down to, is the need to justify ones religious doctrines.

 

[EndTimeWine]

Probably did, but it doesnt matter, as after Christs Virgin birth it is irrelevant, doesnt change or add to ones salvation. What it has come down to, is the need to justify ones religious doctrines.

I agree. It doesn't. But it sure does clear up a lot of false doctrine. And for me, I think it is important for His chosen to know Him well to silence all the misconceptions and false doctrines established. I must have misunderstood your reason for bringing it up. Anyways helps me with both Protestants and Catholics of which I am neither. I am simply a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ. God Bless!

 

[mjrhealth]

I agree. It doesn't. But it sure does clear up a lot of false doctrine. And for me, I think it is important for His chosen to know Him well to silence all the misconceptions and false doctrines established. I must have misunderstood your reason for bringing it up. Anyways helps me with both Protestants and Catholics of which I am neither. I am simply a Christian, a member of the Body of Christ. God Bless!

Amen why do you think i dont take sides. What has God got to do with religion, all mens religions are from men.. And the y all need to be justified..

 

[FHII]

I don't see a literal water baptism as necessary, but don't see harm in it either. In fact, it is a biblical custom. Jesus baptized with the HS and with fire (Mat 3:11) and sanctifies and clenses his Church with the washing of water by the Word (Eph 5). With that in mind, Jesus did baptize the Apostles and Mary.

BUT....for those of you who need a good ole fashioned water baptism... Circumstancial evidence suggests that 3 (and possibly 4 or 5) were baptized by John the Baptist.

Consider John 1:

Verse 35 and 37 says John had two disciples who left John to follow Jesus. Verse 40 identifies one of the two as Andrew. Who was the other? Bo one knows for sure, but it is reasonable to speculate he is one of the 12. Perhaps John the Apostle himself (wishing to remain anonymous for whatever reason... Maybe as to not draw attention to himself).

Andrew introduced his brother to Jesus. Again, speculating but Peter being in close contact may have been a follower of John as well.

There was also Phillip and Nathaniel near by who lived in Bethsaida where Peter and Andrew were from.

I realize this is all speculation... Only 2 were listed as disciples of John and it never says they were baptized by John. But the possibility does exist for thes 5.

 

[101G]

So, I conclude Yeshua had half siblings. What say you?

I agree.

But it sure does clear up a lot of false doctrine. And for me, I think it is important for His chosen to know Him well to silence all the misconceptions and false doctrines established.

yes it do clear up a lot of false doctrine. and as the apostle Paul said many times, "I have you not ignorant". ignorance breeds confusion, hence comes arguments. we as christians need to get pass petty arguments. the early Church christians did it so can we.

with that said, I went back to the dictionary, here I used, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words to confirm what I have been saying about the term "brother" and how it is used with the word, G80 ἀδελφός adelphos (a-d̮el-fos')
G80, adelphos denotes a brother, or near kinsman;" in the plural, "a community based on identity of origin or life." It is used of:
(1) male children of the same parents, Matt 1:2; Matt 14:3; (2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, Acts 7:26; Heb 7:5; (3) male children of the same mother, Matt 13:55; 1Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19". I'll Stop here. these three verses, two of which I used confirmed without a doubt as how the Greek word is used in describing children of the same mother.

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? Matthew 13:56 "And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?".

1 Corinthians 9:5 "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? 1 Corinthians 9:6 "Or I only and Barnabas, have not we power to forbear working?". here was one I didn't see and Glad to find. because it also confirm the Gal 1:19 scripture, below. here again it's the Lord "brethren", more that just one brother. is not Cephas a brother, if G80, adelphos is used here as (of faith). no, it's separate and different. context.

Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother". this is clearly distinctive as a brother of the same parents.

so to me without doubt, Mary had other children after the Lord Jesus. these scriptures scriptures certify my stance on the subject. so other can argue all the day long, if they do they will be arguing by themselves.

Peace in Christ Jesus/Yeshua.

 

[bbyrd009]

Some people love circles, ever heard of Spirograph????

ha i make them out of large circular trash, old hula hoops and whatnot, and do wall sized ones lol, keeps kids absorbed for all day

 

[bbyrd009]

Look - the onus is on all of YOU who say that Mary had "other" children to provide the proof for this claim.

c'mon bro, you have to assume a sterile marriage to Joseph there, all kinds of other problems, deifying Jesus not least among them. I mean believe Mary as Perp Virgin if you like, but you can at least contemplate the other pov, God won't zap you for it, ok.

 

[bbyrd009]

I don't see a literal water baptism as necessary, but don't see harm in it either.

yes, at least until the ritual replaces the real thing

 

[BreadOfLife]

c'mon bro, you have to assume a sterile marriage to Joseph there, all kinds of other problems, deifying Jesus not least among them. I mean believe Mary as Perp Virgin if you like, but you can at least contemplate the other pov, God won't zap you for it, ok.

Actually. no because Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant.
She is the Ark of the NEW Covenant (Rev. 11:19-Rev. 12:1-6).

OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

The Ark wasn't to be handled or defiled by man - and Joseph, being a faithful Jew knew it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually the bible as you full well know, speaks of Jesus brothers and sisters, no one can say wheter or not they where or not His blood brothers or sisters or not, so that leaves you to prove they where not, could care less about what "learned" people think. very few of them know Jesus at all, all teh care to do is prove to teh world how clever they are, and in tey end, before God they are all just fools.

Okay - we'll go from there . . .

First of all - in the places where these "Adelphoi" are named - they are later sahown to be the sons of the "other Mary" standing near the cross. What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Secondly - there is not ONE Early Church Father who testifies to Mary having had children other than Jesus.

Now - YOU still have to show me where the Bible says that MARY had "other" children. I'll make it easier for you - I'll take extra-biblical evidence from ANY Early Church Father . . .

 

[mjrhealth]

Okay - we'll go from there . . .

First of all - in the places where these "Adelphoi" are named - they are later sahown to be the sons of the "other Mary" standing near the cross. What do the Scriptures have to say about the women standing at the cross and their children?

Matt. 27:56 says, "…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome").

Finally, John 19:25 states, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

When you compare the different accounts of the crucifixion, they clearly show the mother of James and Joseph to be the wife of Clopas (also called, Alphaeus) – not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Any attempt to connect these people as uterine brothers of Jesus are squashed by the Bible.

Secondly - there is not ONE Early Church Father who testifies to Mary having had children other than Jesus.

Now - YOU still have to show me where the Bible says that MARY had "other" children. I'll make it easier for you - I'll take extra-biblical evidence from ANY Early Church Father . . .

You still have proven nothing, all you are trying to do is justify your religious doctrines, it makes no difference to any ones salvation, but makes teh religious happy.

Mat_15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar_7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Col_2:22 Which all are to perish with the using after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Going to enjoy my lovely sunday with teh Lord and no religion, because I can.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Ark wasn't to be handled or defiled by man - and Joseph, being a faithful Jew knew it.

what is it with the Catholic hang-up about sex? Sex in marriage is "defiled" now? Defiling? Joseph gets no progeny, so God can have a Son? That he did not lay with Mary, until after Jesus was born, is not enough for you? Your religious perspective is great, ok, as long as you leave it in church, and don't expect it to translate to IRL. But in IRL it is revealed to be twisted, just wadr like many Catholics take on sex as defiling.

 

[Helen]

c'mon bro, you have to assume a sterile marriage to Joseph there, all kinds of other problems, deifying Jesus not least among them. I mean believe Mary as Perp Virgin if you like, but you can at least contemplate the other pov, God won't zap you for it, ok.

How on earth could any woman be pronounced "a virgin" after delivering a baby??? Jesus was born of Mary...right? Born naturally...

We know the hymen is a small, membrane just inside the opening to the vagina ..it would have been broken as she delivered Jesus!!
Hence- no longer a virgin.
That is how I see it!

 

[bbyrd009]

The Ark wasn't to be handled or defiled by man

so then Mary bears some similarities to the Ark, yes, but also there are some pretty obvious differences, that you just will not acknowledge i guess, like the circumcision thing; "this is the law, and the reality is irrelevant." ok

 

[101G]

How on earth could any woman be pronounced "a virgin" after delivering a baby??? Jesus was born of Mary...right? Born naturally...

We know the hymen is a small, membrane just inside the opening to the vagina ..it would have been broken as she delivered Jesus!!
Hence- no longer a virgin.
That is how I see it!

It take a woman to get us men straight. way to go BG. case closed.

 

[bbyrd009]

How on earth could any woman be pronounced "a virgin" after delivering a baby??? Jesus was born of Mary...right? Born naturally...

We know the hymen is a small, membrane just inside the opening to the vagina ..it would have been broken as she delivered Jesus!!
Hence- no longer a virgin.
That is how I see it!

well, i guess that is a valid perspective...if a girl breaking her hymen riding a horse is also "no longer a virgin," too. As a prospective husband, i am personally more interested in whether she has had orgasm with another man, myself.

 

[bbyrd009]

but as we can see it is not so black/white as any one of us might wish to make it i guess

 

[bbyrd009]

case closed.

arg lol. ok, if you say so.

No other perspectives will now be allowed, per 101g, everyone pls be advised


lol

 

[101G]

arg lol. ok, if you say so.

No other perspectives will now be allowed, per 101g, everyone pls be advised


lol

if it's close No other perspectives is needed.........

 

[bbyrd009]

Actually. no because Mary is the fulfillment of the Ark of the Covenant.

she might be an embodiment, the embodiment, of it, but that does not address that she was also a human being, BoL.
Jesus is the Word made flesh, but He was also able to be tempted. So the perspective just strikes me as a very forced one, not that i personally care whether you venerate Mary or not, understand