MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[farouk]

But will continue to search

I don't think the names of any sisters are canonical within Scripture.

 

[GodsGrace]

Couldn’t agree with you more sister GodsGrace, at least the Roman Catholic Church is still holding firm against homosexuality, I think one of the problems with the RCC, as a friend of mine once told me is that it was infiltrated by Christian hating Jews, not the original Christian Jews, to undermine it.

Hmmmm. I've never heard of this.
What year is your friend speaking about?
Ask him where he got his information....
Just curious...not that it really matters.
The early church had enough problems ----
no need to add to them with Christian hating Jews!

I can say that eventually the Christian Jews were no
longer welcome in the synagogue. This happened about the middle of the
first century or slightly later.

 

[BreadOfLife]

OK BoL,,
We can agree on the above.
Once the CC gave the title of POPE to ONLY ONE BISHOP...the BISHOP OF ROME, in about 600 ? (can't remember) the church went back and gave that honorary title to ALL THE BISHOPS of ROME.

This is history.

There were 5 main areas of Christianity in the early church:
Rome
Antioch
Alexandria
Constantinople
Jerusalem

The bishops of these areas were the highest authority in the heiracrchy.
They became affectionately to be known as PAPA to DISTINGUISH them from all the other Bishops in all the other important areas.

In, I believe, 600 or so, the church decided to give a special title to the Bishop of Rome and make him the Head of the church. Thus,,,they thought to give ONLY HIM the title of PAPA...Pope.

Then the church went back retroactively and gave the title of POPE to all the bishops of Rome.

I think if we're clear, catholic history will be better able to be accepted.

This is nonsense – not “history” . . .

As I stated earlier – “Pope” or “Papa” is NOT an official title of the earthly leader of the Catholic Church. This is simply a term of endearment and nothing else.

As I presented earlier - he has 8 official Titles – and NONE of them are “Pope” or “Papa”:
- Bishop of Rome- Vicar of Jesus Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the Vatican City State
- Servant of the servants of God

As you can see, however, “Bishop of Rome” is an official title.

 

[GodsGrace]

This is nonsense – not “history” . . .

As I stated earlier – “Pope” or “Papa” is NOT an official title of the earthly leader of the Catholic Church. This is simply a term of endearment and nothing else.

As I presented earlier - he has 8 official Titles – and NONE of them are “Pope” or “Papa”:
- Bishop of Rome- Vicar of Jesus Christ
- Successor of the Prince of the Apostles
- Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church
- Primate of Italy
- Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province
- Sovereign of the Vatican City State
- Servant of the servants of God

As you can see, however, “Bishop of Rome” is an official title.

Huh?
What are you talking about?
The Pope is the bishop of Rome even today.....

What does that have to do with PETER NOT being the FIRST POPE but the BISHOP OF ROME.

Come on BoL.....
pull out your history books.

 

[JohnPaul]

Hmmmm. I've never heard of this.
What year is your friend speaking about?
Ask him where he got his information....
Just curious...not that it really matters.
The early church had enough problems ----
no need to add to them with Christian hating Jews!

I can say that eventually the Christian Jews were no
longer welcome in the synagogue. This happened about the middle of the
first century or slightly later.

I’m not in contact with that friend of mine anymore so I cannot ask him.

I’m not a Jew hating Christian, though I know their only salvation is them accepting Christ.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Highlighting a huge assumption here: that the Christian church is supposed to be a singular giant worldly institution, and that man's history (aka imperfect recounting of sinners being sinners) will prove the "truthfulness" of God we should look for such a political power.

And again, Catholics aren't unique in playing the "historical" card.

I don't understand.
I DID NOT speak of a one-world religion which seems to be where you're going.

The Catholic Church is a centralized institutional church. It's an international giant.
Some Christians would agree that Christ's church needs to be such centralized institutional. Instead they would argue that Christ's church is an invisible body, such as a bunch of home-churches just teaching the Gospel (a model which lacks big institutional structure).

Note: I'm just explaining a bunch of different views on the subject.

I don't know what you mean by the recounting of sinners being sinners.

History by definition is the imperfect recounting of what sinners did. A recounting which is then made by and interpreted by much sinners did, each adding an additional level of tale-wrapping. Add to that that these stories are told by those in political power with that agenda...

Also, do you think there is ANY church that can be traced back to the beginning of Christianity?

There are several churches that claim it (it's not an exclusively Catholic thing at all). You also have Orthodox churches making the claim, Restorationist churches, etc.



Speaking personally now: I do believe that there should be a centralized institutional church. However, this was loss early in history (~200ish) due to apostasy of early church members and persecution. It was later restored in the 1800's by God, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I completely acknowledge that this is a uncommon view and totally acknowledge different perspectives here. But that is my personal answer to your question.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Huh?
What are you talking about?
The Pope is the bishop of Rome even today.....

What does that have to do with PETER NOT being the FIRST POPE but the BISHOP OF ROME.

Come on BoL.....
pull out your history books.

Not really sure what game you’re playing but Peter WAS the first Pope.

For the third time - it is a term of endearment – not an official title like “Bishop of Rome”.

In other words, it is just a nickname for the Bishop of Rome – period.
You’re trying to say that just because the nickname was not in use in the 1st century – Peter was NOT the first Pope. This is nonsense . . .

 

[101G]

The roots of the catholic church started after the ascension of Jesus.
Peter was around way before Paul...by years.

What's the problem with accepting history?
Would you care to explain a little bit of history from about 27 AD to about ...
I don't know ... 200 AD?

I was speaking of the RCC

PICJAG

 

[101G]

I still don't believe Jesus had brothers or sisters in the biological sense.

that's your opinion. but think about the scriptures given

PICJAG.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

The Bible does not give the names of Jesus sisters. The Apocrypha was not accepted as Jewish Canon of scripture which is only what Jesus quoted. The Apocrypha was not considered God-breathed therefore, not reliable. may as well rely on the Readers Digest for info.

About Assia and Lydia, If interested in reading,


Commentary: Mark 6:3 below:

Mark 6 Commentary - James Burton Coffman Commentaries on the Bible

The History of Joseph the Carpenter.

History of Joseph the Carpenter - Wikipedia

 

[JohnPaul]

that's your opinion. but think about the scriptures given

PICJAG.

It’s my belief.

 

[GodsGrace]

I’m not in contact with that friend of mine anymore so I cannot ask him.

I’m not a Jew hating Christian, though I know their only salvation is them accepting Christ.

Maybe when the Jews got banned from the synagogue there was some hatred involved because the Jews felt threatened?

I would have like to know a bit more about this.

Blessings.

 

[GodsGrace]

The Catholic Church is a centralized institutional church. It's an international giant.
Some Christians would agree that Christ's church needs to be such centralized institutional. Instead they would argue that Christ's church is an invisible body, such as a bunch of home-churches just teaching the Gospel (a model which lacks big institutional structure).

Note: I'm just explaining a bunch of different views on the subject.

History by definition is the imperfect recounting of what sinners did. A recounting which is then made by and interpreted by much sinners did, each adding an additional level of tale-wrapping. Add to that that these stories are told by those in political power with that agenda...

There are several churches that claim it (it's not an exclusively Catholic thing at all). You also have Orthodox churches making the claim, Restorationist churches, etc.



Speaking personally now: I do believe that there should be a centralized institutional church. However, this was loss early in history (~200ish) due to apostasy of early church members and persecution. It was later restored in the 1800's by God, in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I completely acknowledge that this is a uncommon view and totally acknowledge different perspectives here. But that is my personal answer to your question.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion.
The reason I can't agree with it is because Jesus was the ultimate and last revelation of God.

John Smith and Muhammad and all the others that claim to have received special insight did not receive it from God. Jesus said a Kingdom divided is a Kingdom lost...a house divided against itself cannot stand.

If Jesus taught something and then others teach something else and Jesus was the last revelation...that means the others are wrong...not Him.

If a person is living a christianly life and believes they are obeying our God, I do believe they are saved even if their doctrine is wrong. Can we be sure any doctrine is correct unless the bible specifically speaks to it?
I don't think so.

 

[GodsGrace]

Not really sure what game you’re playing but Peter WAS the first Pope.

For the third time - it is a term of endearment – not an official title like “Bishop of Rome”.

In other words, it is just a nickname for the Bishop of Rome – period.
You’re trying to say that just because the nickname was not in use in the 1st century – Peter was NOT the first Pope. This is nonsense . . .

Whatever BoL.
Believe what you will.
You know I study church history and am not antagonistic toward the CC.
I'll agree with you IF YOU agree that there were FIVE bishops in the early church that were called PAPA.

ROME
JERUSALEM
ANTIOCH
ALEXANDRIA
CONSTANTINOPLE

five.

The other bishops did not have the endearing term of PAPA given to them.

 

[GodsGrace]

I was speaking of the RCC

PICJAG

So was I.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Whatever BoL.
Believe what you will.
You know I study church history and am not antagonistic toward the CC.
I'll agree with you IF YOU agree that there were FIVE bishops in the early church that were called PAPA.

ROME
JERUSALEM
ANTIOCH
ALEXANDRIA
CONSTANTINOPLE

five.

The other bishops did not have the endearing term of PAPA given to them.

“Papa” simply means “Father” – and EVERY Bishop and Priest is called “Father”.

The OFFICE of the Papacy, however, has ONLY been in Rome and the unofficial title of “Pope” has ONLY been given to the Bishop of Rome.

The onus is on YOU to disprove this and show that it was also used for others.

 

[JohnPaul]

Maybe when the Jews got banned from the synagogue there was some hatred involved because the Jews felt threatened?

I would have like to know a bit more about this.

Blessings.

I’ll see if I can find some information on it GodsGrace.

 

[JohnPaul]

@GodsGrace

I found this piece of information:
~The Phenomenon Of Jewish Infiltration Into The Clergy~

 

[GodsGrace]

“Papa” simply means “Father” – and EVERY Bishop and Priest is called “Father”.

The OFFICE of the Papacy, however, has ONLY been in Rome and the unofficial title of “Pope” has ONLY been given to the Bishop of Rome.

The onus is on YOU to disprove this and show that it was also used for others.

BoL
I don't even understand what you said above.

I think you need to calm down and take it easy.

I know what PAPA means. It doesn't mean FATHER.
It means papa or dad.
EVERY PRIEST IS NOT CALLED papa.
THIS IS WRONG.
ONLY THE POPE IS CALLED PAPA.
The title Father given to a priest HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR CONVERSATION.
A priest in romance languages is called PADRE......NOT PAPA.

The POPE IS THE BISHOP OF ROME.

Everything else you quoted is WRONG!

You want me to send you copies of my notes?
I'll try to find something by Mr. Google....

Title and etymology
The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops[19] and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century.[20][21][22][23][24] The earliest record of the use of this title was in regard to the by then deceased Patriarch of Alexandria, Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232–248).[25] The earliest recorded use of the title "pope" in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to the 7th century Roman Pope Vitalian in an Old English translation of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum.[26]

source: Pope - Wikipedia


This is a very good article.
Have fun.,

History of the Papacy


PS
I insist that papa does NOT mean father.
It means papa or dad. (NOT pop or daddy).

 

[GodsGrace]

@GodsGrace

I found this piece of information:
~The Phenomenon Of Jewish Infiltration Into The Clergy~

Thanks!