Jesus Older Brother

[mako]

Hey Gid, Hey PA...just passing through and noticed this thread...I have been having a dialogue with a (believe this or not) Cathar Minister on the various beliefs of the Cathars and Gnostics and this little tidbit came up...Jesus had a twin brother named Thomas Judas Didymus! So I did a little research and this is what came from it, as I posted it on another forum explaining to a Christian friend about their beliefs:

You can find it in the Book of Thomas the Contender, a Gnostic text that was part of Nag Hammadi library. This document centers on a dialogue which can also be read as an internal conversation between Jesus and his lower self, Judas Thomas, the twin (contender for supremacy of the soul). The New Testament's "doubting" Thomas and Judas "the betrayer" could also be symbolic and descriptive of this internal battle between the Christ Self and ego identity. This is probably the origin of the legend of Judas Thomas Didymus, Jesus’ twin...it was found in many of the Adoptionist and Gnostic texts.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Hey Gid, Hey PA...just passing through and noticed this thread...I have been having a dialogue with a (believe this or not) Cathar Minister on the various beliefs of the Cathars and Gnostics and this little tidbit came up...Jesus had a twin brother named Thomas Judas Didymus! So I did a little research and this is what came from it, as I posted it on another forum explaining to a Christian friend about their beliefs:

You can find it in the Book of Thomas the Contender, a Gnostic text that was part of Nag Hammadi library. This document centers on a dialogue which can also be read as an internal conversation between Jesus and his lower self, Judas Thomas, the twin (contender for supremacy of the soul). The New Testament's "doubting" Thomas and Judas "the betrayer" could also be symbolic and descriptive of this internal battle between the Christ Self and ego identity. This is probably the origin of the legend of Judas Thomas Didymus, Jesus’ twin...it was found in many of the Adoptionist and Gnostic texts.

I find these new texts to be so fascinating.

I wonder why they are largely ignored by mainstream Christianity ?

But I guess that is off-topic.

[wolfieboy]

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

i think joseph was a widower when he wed mary

[SilverCougar]

Hey Gid, Hey PA...just passing through and noticed this thread...I have been having a dialogue with a (believe this or not) Cathar Minister on the various beliefs of the Cathars and Gnostics and this little tidbit came up...Jesus had a twin brother named Thomas Judas Didymus! So I did a little research and this is what came from it, as I posted it on another forum explaining to a Christian friend about their beliefs:

You can find it in the Book of Thomas the Contender, a Gnostic text that was part of Nag Hammadi library. This document centers on a dialogue which can also be read as an internal conversation between Jesus and his lower self, Judas Thomas, the twin (contender for supremacy of the soul). The New Testament's "doubting" Thomas and Judas "the betrayer" could also be symbolic and descriptive of this internal battle between the Christ Self and ego identity. This is probably the origin of the legend of Judas Thomas Didymus, Jesus’ twin...it was found in many of the Adoptionist and Gnostic texts.

MAKO!! *tackles*

And er.. yeah I don't have anything to make this post ligit to the thread aside..

Unless we somehow find something that is diffinitive proof.. all we can do is speculate.

[+Link of Hyrule]

Why is it laughable that the author (or editor) of Matthew made a mistake?

It's not the so-called mistake I find laughable, Gid. It's your claims that it was a 4th Century mistake. That is laughable since Matthew was in circulation in the 1st Century AD.

The section of the Septuagint Greek translation of the Tanach containing Isaiah was written long after Jesus was dead. Quoting it in Matthew is clearly an anachronism. A Jewish writer, writing shortly after Jesus's death, would have known what "almah" meant, and would not have needed to rely on a Greek translation of the Nevi'im, written later on, any way. Almah, to review, is based on the hebrew root alef lamed mem, which refers to youth. There is a male counterpart, "elem" which simply means a youth. "Betulah", based on Beth Lamed Heh, is rooted in meaning in the hymen, and clearly refers to a virgin. Sigh! The writer of Isaiah surely knew the difference, especially as the prophecy referred to his own wife being pregnant, as a prophecy for his king, and had nothing to do with the messiah.

Thanks for the review of this, but you're not telling me anything I haven't already heard. I do see the wisdom in what you are saying. But I have also read alternative viewpoints and they also make compelling cases (some moreso than others). Whether Isaiah prophesied it or not, it doesn't make the virgin birth (if it happened) any less meaningful.

Besides, neither the other gospel writers, nor "Paul" seem to know about the Heraclean virgin birth. I find it mind-boggling that you guys can't accept that the author of Matthew simply made an error. He was not a god. Just accept it. This is similiar to the kjv typo that has thusands of people believing that Moses parted the Red Sea, instead of the Sea of Reeds (a one-letter error).

You mean Heracles was born of a virgin? I could have sworn there was a physical union between Zeus and a mortal woman. I wasn't aware that Heracles existed with Zeus since the beginning of creation. These would appear key similarities between the two in order to be related. There was no physical union of Mary and the Holy Spirit, and Jesus existed before the creation of everything, so I can't see how there are any similarities.

As for the Sea of Reeds/Red Sea issue, I don't really think it matters where it happened. Could be a typo, could be really that it was the Red Sea. I wasn't there so I can't say. Likewise Matthew. I am not saying he got it right, but I'm not saying he got it wrong either. I personally believe that he got it right, and I have seen strong evidence argued both ways on the issue - you could be right, i admit I'm not perfect. But I also see the possibility of it being right.

All the best,

[Karlis]

...

The "virgin" reference is found only in Matthew, and nowhere else in the n.t. It is a misquote of Isaiah 7, anyway, since Isaiah does not use the word "virgin", and is making a prophecy about occurences in his own lifetime. ...

Hi Gideon – not that I think the following is likely to convince you, but as I see it, Matthew 1:23 applies to a literal virgin birth. Luke 1:30-35 affirms the virgin birth also.

... Matthew doubtless understands it as denoting that the Messiah was really “God with us,” or that the divine nature was united with the human. He does not affirm that this was its meaning when used in reference to the child to whom it was first applied [isaiah 7:14], but this is its signification as applicable to the Messiah. It was suitably expressive of his character; and in this sense it was fulfilled.

When first used by Isaiah, it denoted simply that the birth of the child was a sign that God was with the Jews to deliver them. ... But Matthew evidently intends more than was denoted by the simple use of such names. He had just given an account of the miraculous conception of Jesus: of his being begotten by the Holy Spirit. God was therefore his Father. He was divine as well as human. His appropriate name, therefore, was “God with us.” And though the mere use of such a name would not prove that he had a divine nature, yet as Matthew uses it, and meant evidently to apply it, it does prove that Jesus was more than a man; that he was God as well as man. ...

(Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Below is a detailed excerpt from “Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” to back up the above.

I would be interested in reading your comments -- and comments by others, of course -- on these opinions.

My apologies for the long copy-pasted segment, below, as I do not have a URL available. (BTW, if you are interested you can download Barnes and other reference books to your hard drive from “e-sword” for free. Really worth doing, *if* you are serious about Bible study.)

BTW, I have highlighted some phrases for "attention catching" purpose.

Opinions on the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14-16

A great variety of opinions have been entertained by interpreters in regard to this passage Isa_7:14-16. It may be useful, therefore, to state briefly what those opinions have been, and then what seems to be the true meaning.

(i)The first opinion is that which supposes that by the ‘virgin’ the wife of Ahaz is referred to, and that by the child which should be born, the prophet refers to Hezekiah. This is the opinion of the modern Jewish commentators generally. This interpretation prevailed among the Jews in the time of Justin. But this was easily shown by Jerome to be false. Ahaz reigned in Jerusalem but sixteen years 2Ki_17:2, and Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign 2Ki_18:2, and of course was not less than nine years old when this prophecy was delivered.

Kimchi and Abarbanel then resorted to the supposition that Ahaz had a second wife, and that this refers to a child that was to be born of her. This supposition cannot be proved to be false, though it is evidently a mere supposition. It has been adopted by the Jews, because they were pressed by the passage by the early Christians, as constituting an argument for the divinity of Christ. The ancient Jews, it is believed, referred it mainly to the Messiah.

(ii) Others have supposed, that the prophet designated some virgin who was then present when the king and Isaiah held their conference, and that the meaning is, ‘as surely as this virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, so surely shall the land be forsaken of its kings.’ Thus Isenbiehl, Bauer, Cube, and Steudel held, as quoted by Hengstenberg, “Christol.” i. p. 341.

(iii) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was not an actual, but only an ideal virgin. Thus Michaelis expresses it: ‘By the time when one who is yet a virgin can bring forth (that is, in nine months), all will be happily changed, and the present impending danger so completely passed away, that if you were yourself to name the child, you would call him Immanuel.’ Thus Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, and Ammon understand it; see “Hengstenberg.”

(iv) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was the prophet’s wife. Thus Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Faber, and Gesenius. Against this supposition there is only one objection which has been urged that is of real force, and that is, that the prophet already had a son, and of course his wife could not be spoken of as a virgin. But this objection is entirely removed by the supposition, which is by no means improbable, that the former wife of the prophet was dead, and that he was about to be united in marriage to another who was a virgin.

In regard to the prophecy itself, there have been three opinions:

(i) That it refers “exclusively” to some event in the time of the prophet; to the birth of a child then, either of the wife of Ahaz, or of the prophet, or of some other unmarried female. This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah. This was formerly my opinion; and this opinion I expressed and endeavored to maintain, in the first composition of these notes. But a more careful examination of the passage has convinced me of its error, and satisfied me that the passage has reference to the Messiah. The reasons for this opinion I shall soon state.

(ii) The second opinion is, that it has “exclusive and immediate” reference to the Messiah; that it does not refer at all to any event which was “then” to occur, and that to Ahaz the future birth of a Messiah from a virgin, was to be regarded as a pledge of the divine protection, and an assurance of the safety of Jerusalem. Some of the objections to this view I shall soon state.

(iii) The third opinion, therefore, is that which “blends” these two, and which regards the prophet as speaking of the birth of a child which would soon take place of someone who was then a virgin - an event which could be known only to God, and which would, therefore, constitute a sign, or demonstration to Ahaz of the truth of what Isaiah said; but that the prophet intentionally so used language which would “also” mark a more important event, and direct the minds of the king and people onward to the future birth of one who should more fully answer to all that is here said of the child that would be born, and to whom the name Immanuel would be more appropriately given. This, I shall endeavor to show, must be the correct interpretation. In exhibiting the reasons for this opinion, we may, first, state the evidence that the prediction refers to some child that would be born “soon” as a pledge that the land would be forsaken of its kings; and secondly, the evidence that it refers also to the Messiah in a higher and fuller sense.

*** I. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to Some Event Which Was Soon to Occur - To the Birth of a Child of Some One Who Was Then a Virgin, or Unmarried

(i) It is the “obvious” interpretation. It is that which would strike the great mass of people accustomed to interpret language on the principles of common sense. If the passage stood by itself; if the seventh and eighth chapters were “all” that we had; if there were no allusion to the passage in the New Testament; and if we were to sit down and merely look at the circumstances, and contemplate the narrative, the unhesitating opinion of the great mass of people would be, that it “must” have such a reference. This is a good rule of interpretation. That which strikes the mass of people; which appears to people of sound sense as the meaning of a passage on a simple perusal of it, is likely to be the true meaning of a writing.

(ii) Such an interpretation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. The immediate point of the inquiry was not about the “ultimate and final” safety of the kingdom - which would be demonstrated indeed by the announcement that the Messiah would appear - but it was about a present matter; about impending danger. An alliance was formed between Syria and Samaria. An invasion was threatened. The march of the allied armies had commenced.

Jerusalem was in consternation, and Ahaz had gone forth to see if there were any means of defense. In this state of alarm, and at this juncture, Isaiah went to assure him that there was no cause for fear. It was not to assure him that the nation should be ultimately and finally safe - which might be proved by the fact that the Messiah would come, and that, therefore, God would preserve the nation; but the pledge was, that he had no reason to fear “this” invasion, and that within a short space of time the land would ‘be forsaken of both its kings.’

How could the fact that the Messiah would come more than seven hundred years afterward, prove this? Might not Jerusalem be taken and subdued, as it was afterward by the Chaldeans, and yet it be true that the Messiah would come, and that God would manifest himself as the protector of his people? Though, therefore, the assurance that the Messiah would come would be a general proof and pledge that the nation would be preserved and ultimately safe, yet it would not be a pledge of the “specific and immediate” thing which occupied the attention of the prophet, and of Ahaz. It would not, therefore, be a ‘sign’ such as the prophet offered to give, or a proof of the fulfillment of the specific prediction under consideration. This argument I regard as unanswerable. It is so obvious, and so strong, that all the attempts to answer it, by those who suppose there was an immediate and exclusive reference to the Messiah, have been entire failures.

(iii) It is a circumstance of some importance that Isaiah regarded himself and his children as ‘signs’ to the people of his time; see Isa_8:18. In accordance with this view, it seems he had named one child Shear-Jashub, Isa_7:3; and in accordance with the same view, he afterward named another Maher-shalal-hash-baz - both of which names are significant. This would seem to imply that he meant here to refer to a similar fact, and to the birth of a son that should be a sign also to the people of his time.

(iv) An unanswerable reason for thinking that it refers to some event which was soon to occur, and to the birth of a child “before” the land should be forsaken of the two kings, is the record contained in Isa_8:1-4. That record is evidently connected with this account, and is intended to be a public assurance of the fulfillment of what is here predicted respecting the deliverance of the land from the threatened invasion.

In that passage, the prophet is directed to take a great roll Isa_7:1, and make a record concerning the son that was to be born; he calls public witnesses, people of character and well-known reputation, in attestation of the transaction Isa_7:2; he approaches the prophetess Isa_7:3; and it is expressly declared Isa_7:4 that before the child should have ‘knowledge to say, My father, and my mother,’ that is, be able to discern between good and evil Isa_7:16, ‘the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria’ should be ‘taken away before the king of Assyria.’ This is so evidently a completion of the prophecy in Isa. vii., and a solemn fulfilling of it in a manner that should be satisfactory to Ahaz and the people, that it is impossible, it seems to me, to regard it any otherwise than as a real transaction.

Hengstenberg, and those who suppose the prophecy to refer “immediately and exclusively” to the Messiah, are obliged to maintain that that was a ‘symbolical transaction’ - an opinion which might, with the same propriety, be held of any historical statement in the Bible; since there is nowhere to be found a more simple and unvarnished account of mere matter of historical fact than that. The statement, therefore, in Isa. 8, is conclusive demonstration, I think, that there was a reference in Isa_7:14-16, to a child of the prophet that would be soon born, and that would be a “pledge” of the divine protection, and a “proof or sign” to Ahaz that his land would be safe.

It is no objection to this that Isaiah then had a son Isa_7:3, and that, therefore, the mother of that son could not be a virgin. There is no improbability in the supposition that the mother of that son was deceased, and that Isaiah was about again to be married. Such an event is not so uncommon as to make it a matter of ridicule (see Hengstenberg, p. 342); or to render the supposition wholly incredible.

Nor is it any objection that another name was given to the child that was born to Isaiah; Isa_8:1, Isa_8:3. Nothing was more common than to give two names to children. It might have been true that the name usually given to him was Maher-shalal-hash-baz; and still true that the circumstances of his birth were such an evidence of the divine protection, and such an emblem of the divine guardianship, as to make proper the name Immanuel; see the note at Isa_7:14.

It may be observed, also, that on the supposition of the strict and exclusive Messianic interpretation, the same objection might be made, and the same difficulty would lie. It was no more true of Jesus of Nazareth than of the child of Isaiah, that he was commonly called Immanuel. He had another name also, and was called by that other name. Indeed, there is not the slightest evidence that the Lord Jesus was “ever” designated by the name Immanuel as a proper name. All that the passage means is, that such should be the circumstances of the birth of the child as to render the name Immanuel proper; not that it would be applied to him in fact as the usual appellation.

Nor is it any objection to this view, that the mind of the prophet is evidently directed onward “to” the Messiah; and that the prophecy terminates Isa_8:8; Isa_9:1-7 with a reference to him. That this is so, I admit; but nothing is more common in Isaiah than for him to commence a prophecy with reference to some remarkable deliverance which was soon to occur, and to terminate it by a statement of events connected with a higher deliverance under the Messiah.

By the laws of “prophetic suggestion,” the mind of the prophet seized upon resemblances and analogies; was carried on to future times, which were suggested by something that he was saying or contemplating as about to occur, until the mind was absorbed, and the primary object forgotten in the contemplation of the more remote and glorious event; see the Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. III. (3.)

*** II. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to the Messiah

(i) The passage in Mat_1:22-23, is an evidence that “he” regarded this as having a reference to the Messiah, and that it had a complete fulfillment in him. This quotation of it also shows that that was the common interpretation of the passage in his time, or he would not thus have introduced it. It cannot be “proved,” indeed, that Matthew means to affirm that this was the primary and original meaning of the prophecy, or that the prophet had a direct and exclusive reference to the Messiah; but it proves that in his apprehension the words had a “fulness” of meaning, and an adaptedness to the actual circumstances of the birth of the Messiah, which would accurately and appropriately express that event; see the notes at the passage in Matthew.

The prophecy was not completely “fulfilled, filled up, fully and adequately met,” until applied to the Messiah. That event was so remarkable; the birth of Jesus was so strictly of a virgin, and his nature so exalted, that it might be said to be a “complete and entire” fulfillment of it.

The language of Isaiah, indeed, was applicable to the event referred to immediately in the time of Ahaz, and expressed that with clearness; but it more appropriately and fully expressed the event referred to by Matthew, and thus shows that the prophet designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.

(ii) An argument of no slight importance on this subject may be drawn from the fact, that this has been the common interpretation in the Christian church. I know that this argument is not conclusive; nor should it be pressed beyond its due and proper weight. It is of force only because the united and almost uniform impression of mankind, for many generations, in regard to the meaning of a written document, is not to be rejected without great and unanswerable arguments.

I know that erroneous interpretations of many passages have prevailed in the church; and that the interpretation of many passages of Scripture which have prevailed from age to age, have been such as have been adapted to bring the whole subject of scriptural exegesis into contempt. But we should be slow to reject that which has had in its favor the suffrages of the unlearned, as well as the learned, in the interpretation of the Bible.

The interpretation which refers this passage to the Messiah has been the prevailing one in all ages. It was followed by all the fathers and other Christian expositors until the middle of the eighteenth century (“Hengstenberg”); and is the prevailing interpretation at the present time. Among those who have defended it, it is sufficient to mention the names of Lowth, Koppe, Rosenmuller, and Hengstenberg, in addition to those names which are found in the well-known English commentaries.

It has been opposed by the modern Jews, and by German neologists; but has “not” been regarded as false by the great mass of pious and humble Christians. The argument here is simply that which would be applied in the interpretation of a passage in Homer or Virgil; that where the great mass of readers of all classes have concurred in any interpretation, there is “presumptive evidence” that it is correct - evidence, it is true, which may be set aside by argument, but which is to be admitted to be of some account in making up the mind as to the meaning of the passage in question.

(iii) The reference to the Messiah in the prophecy accords with the “general strain and manner” of Isaiah. It is in accordance with his custom, at the mention of some occurrence or deliverance which is soon to take place, to suffer the mind to fix ultimately on the more remote event of the “same general character,” or lying, so to speak, “in the same range of vision” and of thought; see the Introduction, Section 7.

It is also the custom of Isaiah to hold up to prominent view the idea that the nation would not be ultimately destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; that it was safe amidst all revolutions; that vitality would remain like that of a tree in the depth of winter, when all the leaves are stripped off Isa_6:13; and that all their enemies would be destroyed, and the true people of God be ultimately secure and safe under their great Deliverer; see the notes at Isa. 34; Isa_35:1-10.

It is true, that this argument will not be “very” striking except to one who has attentively studied this prophecy; but it is believed, that no one can profoundly and carefully examine the manner of Isaiah, without being struck with it as a very important feature of his mode of communicating truth.

In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed. It must continue until the Messiah should come, and the eye of the prophet, in accordance with his usual custom, glanced to that future event, and he became “totally” absorbed in its contemplation, and the prophecy is finished Isa_9:1-7 by a description of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isa_9:1-2, and of the child that should be born of a virgin then.

In accordance with the same view, we may remark, as Lowth has done, that to a people accustomed to look for a great Deliverer; that had fixed their hopes on one who was to sit on the throne of David, the “language” which Isaiah used here would naturally suggest the idea of a Messiah. It was so animated, so ill adapted to describe his own son, and so suited to convey the idea of a most remarkable and unusual occurrence, that it could scarcely have been otherwise than that they should have thought of the Messiah. This is true in a special manner of the language in Isa_9:1-7.

(iv) An argument for the Messianic interpretation may be derived from the public expectation which was excited by some such prophecy as this. There is a striking similarity between it and one which is uttered by Micah, who was contemporary with Isaiah. Which was penned “first” it would not be easy to show; but they have internal evidence that they both had their origin in an expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; compare the note at Isa_2:2. In Mic_5:2-3, the following prediction occurs: ‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler over Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity. Therefore, will he give them up, until the time when she which travaileth hath brought forth.’ That this passage refers to the birth of the Messiah, is demonstrable from Mat_2:6.

Nothing can be clearer than that this is a prediction respecting the place of his birth. The Sanhedrim, when questioned by Herod respecting the place of his birth, answered without the slightest hesitation, and referred to this place in Micah for proof. The expression, ‘she which travaileth,’ or, ‘she that bears shall bear’ - ילדה יולדה yôlēdâh yālâdâh, “she bearing shall bear” - refers evidently to some prediction of such a birth; and the word ‘she that bears’ (יולדה yôlēdâh) seems to have been used somewhat in the sense of a proper name, to designate one who was well known, and of whom there had been a definite prediction.

Rosenmuller remarks, ‘She is not indeed expressly called a virgin, but that she is so is self-evident, since she shall bear the hero of divine origin (from everlasting), and consequently not begotten by a mortal.

The predictions throw light on each other; Micah discloses the divine origin of the person predicted, Isaiah the wonderful manner of his birth.’ - “Ros.,” as quoted by Hengstenberg. In his first edition, Rosenmuller remarks on Mic_5:2 : ‘The phrase, “she who shall bear shall bear,” denotes the “virgin” from whom, in a miraculous manner, the people of that time hoped that the Messiah would be born.’

If Micah refers to a well-known existing prophecy, it must evidently be this in Isaiah, since no other similar prophecy occurs in the Old Testament; and if he wrote subsequently to Isaiah, the prediction in Micah must be regarded as a proof that this was the prevailing interpretation of his time.

That this was the prevailing interpretation of those times, is confirmed by the traces of the belief which are to be found extensively in ancient nations, that some remarkable person would appear, who should be born in this manner. The idea of a Deliverer, to be born of a “virgin,” is one that somehow had obtained an extensive prevalence in Oriental nations, and traces of it may be found almost everywhere among them. In the Hindoo Mythology it is said, respecting “Budhu,” that be was born of “Maya,” a goddess of the imagination - a virgin. Among the Chinese, there is an image of a beautiful woman with a child in her arms, which child, they say, was born of a virgin. The passsge in Virgil is well known:

Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna:

Jam nova progenies coelo demittitur alto.

Tu modo mascenti puero, quo ferrea primum

Desinet, ac toto surget gens aurea mundo.

Casta fare Lucina: tuus jam regnat Apollo.

Eclog. iv. 4ff.

Comes the last age, by Cumae’s maid foretold;

Afresh the mighty line of years unrolled.

The Virgin now, now Saturn’s sway returns;

Now the blest globe a heaven-sprung child adorns,

Whose genial power shall whelm earth’s iron race,

And plant once more the golden in its place. -

Thou chaste Lucina, but that child sustain,

And lo! disclosed thine own Apollo’s reign.

Wrangham

This passage, though applied by Virgil to a different subject, has been usually regarded as having been suggested by that in Isaiah. The coincidence of thought is remarkable on any supposition; and there is no improbability in the supposition that the expectation of a great Deliverer to be born of a virgin had prevailed extensively, and that Virgil made it up in this beautiful manner and applied it to a prince in his own time. On the prevalent expectation of such a Deliverer, see the note at Mat_2:2.

(v) But the great and the unanswerable argument for the Messianic interpretation is derived from the conclusion of the prophecy in Isa_8:8, and especially in Isa_9:1-7.

The prophecy in Isa_9:1-7 is evidently connected with this; and yet “cannot” be applied to a son of Isaiah, or to any other child that should be then born. If there is any passage in the Old Testament that “must” be applied to the Messiah, that is one; see the notes on the passage. And if so, it proves, that though the prophet at first had his eye on an event which was soon to occur, and which would be to Ahaz full demonstration that the land would be safe from the impending invasion, yet that he employed language which would describe also a future glorious event, and which would be a fuller demonstration that God would protect the people. He became fully absorbed in that event, and his language at last referred to that alone. The child then about to be born would, in most of the circumstances of his birth, be an apt emblem of him who should be born in future times, since both would be a demonstration of the divine power and protection.

To both, the name Immanuel, though not the common name by which either would be designated, might be appropriately given. Both would be born of a virgin - the former, of one who was then a virgin, and the birth of whose child could be known only to God - the latter, of one who should be appropriately called “the” virgin, and who should remain so at the time of his birth.

This seems to me to be the meaning of this difficult prophecy. The considerations in favor of referring it to the birth of a child in the time of Isaiah, and which should be a pledge to him of the safety of his kingdom “then,” seem to me to be unanswerable. And the considerations in favor of an ultimate reference to the Messiah - a reference which becomes in the issue total and absorbing - are equally unanswerable; and if so, then the twofold reference is clear.

To all who plowed through this post, I hope you found it informative.

Regards,

Karlis

[GIDEON MAGE]

Hi Gideon – not that I think the following is likely to convince you, but as I see it, Matthew 1:23 applies to a literal virgin birth. Luke 1:30-35 affirms the virgin birth also.

(Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Below is a detailed excerpt from “Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible” to back up the above.

I would be interested in reading your comments -- and comments by others, of course -- on these opinions.

My apologies for the long copy-pasted segment, below, as I do not have a URL available. (BTW, if you are interested you can download Barnes and other reference books to your hard drive from “e-sword” for free. Really worth doing, *if* you are serious about Bible study.)

BTW, I have highlighted some phrases for "attention catching" purpose.

To all who plowed through this post, I hope you found it informative.

Regards,

Karlis

When a Xian can show a single prophecy, in the Hebrew scriptures, that is fulfilled twice in the Hebrew Scriptures, I will be impressed. What you have pasted is standard apologetics know as "types and shadows". The bottom line is, that the word almah refers to youth, not hymenal intactness. Even Mary and Joseph, if they knew any Hebrew, would have recognized an angel misquoting Isaiah, based on a Greek translation that had not been written. The more modern example could be a prediction to George Washington's mother that he would be the first president, quoting Benjamin Franklin's writings, that had not been written yet. Are we now clear?

Now answer my question.

Why would two thousand years of Jews know what almah in hebrew means, but not Joseph and Mary? Not a virgin.

The virgin birth myth is one of those universal, all=pervasive things in human culture. Even Quetzlcoatl was a virgin birth!

[seanph]

Amen Gideon! The whole virgin birth nonsense is just that -- nonsense! You can put any kind of spin on it you so wish, but it does not change the fact that the whole virgin birth concept was ancient and applied to many, many gods and individuals -- emperors so forth and so on. And as for Jesus being eternal, this was something that was so hotly debated, that Constantine had to form an ecumenical council to find a solution before it split the burgeoning church in twain (which it was already doing in spades) ... and, most importantly, the newly reunited Roman empire.

As for Isaiah ... This prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. This was in reference to a child to be born during that particular time -- a time in which King Hezekiah was under assault by the Assyrians if I'm not mistaken. That said, when was Jesus ever referred to as Immanuel -- a question, by the way, I never receive an answer to? Also, the Jewish Messiah was never to be born of a virgin, be a miracle worker, die for the sins of mankind, resurrect ... nor anything of the like. Why Christians ignore this, is simply beyond me. Of course, I did the same thing for 15 years ... so there you go!

From the source Jews for Judaism:

Isaiah 9:5-6 says: "For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace; that the government may be increased, and of peace there be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it through justice and through righteousness from henceforth even forever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts does perform this." Who is the child the prophet speaks about?

Answer: Isaiah is known for the method by which he presents many of his messages through the use of prophetic names (Isaiah 7:3, 14; 8:3). In the verse under study, the prophet expounds his message by formulating a prophetic name for Hezekiah. The words of this name form a sentence expressive of God's greatness, which will become manifest in the benefits to be bestowed upon the future king in his lifetime. Thus, the name, though borne by the king, serves, in reality, as a testimonial to God. Hezekiah is called "a wonderful counselor" because this name is a sign, which foretells God's design for him....

Hezekiah is called "the everlasting Father" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God will add years to his life. "Go, and say to Hezekiah: Thus says the Lord, the God of David your father: I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add to your days fifteen years" (Isaiah 38:5). Hezekiah is called "the ruler of peace" because this name is a sign, which foretells that God would be merciful to him. Punishment for lack of faith in the Almighty will be deferred and peace granted during the last years of his rule. "Then said Hezekiah to Isaiah: 'Good is the word of the Lord which you have spoken.' He said moreover: 'If but there shall be peace and security in my days'" (Isaiah 39:8). The fulfillment of the above-stated declarations is foretold in Isaiah 9:6, when, after the Assyrian defeat, Hezekiah's glory increased and peace reigned for the rest of his life (2 Chronicles 32:23). Archaeologists have found that there was a sudden expansion of Judean settlements in the years following the fall of the northern kingdom. This indicates that many refugees fled south, thus giving added significance to the statement "that the government may be increased." Hezekiah's kingdom is declared to be forever, for through his efforts to cleanse the Temple ritual of idolatry, even though apostasy followed under his son Menasseh, the Davidic dynasty was once more confirmed as the only true kingly rule that God would accept over his people "from henceforth and forever." The greatness of Hezekiah lies in his setting the stage for Israel's future. Hezekiah was a true reformer. He cleansed religious worship of foreign influence, purged the palace and the Temple of images and pagan altars, and reestablished pure monotheistic religion. In the long run Hezekiah's achievements would outlive him, leaving an everlasting, indelible impact on the history of his people. Thus, God, through Isaiah, bestows upon Hezekiah this name which honors the king by proclaiming the great things God will do for him, and, through him, for the people of Israel.

SOURCE

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option...&Itemid=360

From the source Jews for Judaism:

If 'almah means "young woman" in Hebrew why did the Jewish scholar who translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek use a Greek word for "virgin," parthenos?

Answer: The Septuagint is not necessarily a literal translation. Therefore, the use of parthenos by the Septuagint translator of the Book of Isaiah may have best represented his interpretive understanding of the physical state of the young woman of Isaiah 7:14 at the time of the annunciation of the sign. Thus, its use does not naturally lead to the conclusion that he was also speaking of virginal conception. In fact, the presence of parthenos as the rendering of 'almah, did not give rise in any Jewish community of the pre-Christian era to a belief in the virginal conception of Immanuel.

SOURCE

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option...&Itemid=360

From the source Jews for Judaism:

Can you give a reason why Jews say Isaiah 9:6 does not refer to Jesus?

Answer: Christian theologians argue that the name "A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace" refers to Jesus, who they allege combined human and divine qualities. They mistakenly believe that such a name can only be applied to God Himself. Moreover, the Christians incorrectly translate the verbs in verse 5 in the future tense, instead of the past, as the Hebrew original reads. Thus, the Christians render verse 5 as: "For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on his shoulders; and his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

While admitting that "wonderful counselor" and "ruler of peace" can be applied to a man, Christian theologians argue that the phrases "mighty God" and "everlasting Father" cannot be incorporated as part of a man's name. Thus, they contend that Isaiah teaches that the Messiah has to be not only a man, but God as well. That this entire reasoning is incorrect may be seen from the name Elihu, "My God is He," which refers to an ordinary human being (Job 32:1, 1 Samuel 1:l, 1 Chronicles 12:21, 26:7, 27:18). A similar Christian misunderstanding of Scripture may be seen in their claims revolving around the name Immanuel, "God is with us." The simple fact is that it is quite common in the Bible for human beings to be given names that have the purpose of declaring or reflecting a particular attribute of God, e.g., Eliab, Eliada, Elzaphan, Eliakim, Elisha, Eleazar, Tavel, Gedaliah.

The fact remains that Jesus did not literally or figuratively fulfill any of Isaiah's words. A wonderful counselor does not advise his followers that if they have faith they can be agents of destruction (Matthew 21:19-21; Mark 11:14, 20-23). A mighty God does not take orders from anyone (Luke2:51, Hebrews 5:8), for no one is greater than he is (Matthew 12:31-32; John 5:30, 14:28). Moreover, he does not ask or need to be saved by anyone (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42), for he cannot die by any means (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37, Luke 23:46, John 19:30). He who is called the Son of God the Father (John 1:18, 3:16) cannot himself be called everlasting Father. One cannot play simultaneously the role of the son and the Father; it is an obvious self-contradiction. He who advocates family strife (Matthew 10:34-35, Luke 12:49-53) and killing enemies (Luke 19:27) cannot be called a ruler of peace.

SOURCE

http://jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option...&Itemid=360

Most kindly,

Sean

Edited November 1, 2008 by seanph

[+Link of Hyrule]

Amen Gideon! The whole virgin birth nonsense is just that -- nonsense! You can put any kind of spin on it you so wish, but it does not change the fact that the whole virgin birth concept was ancient and applied to many, many gods and individuals -- emperors so forth and so on. And as for Jesus being eternal, this was something that was so hotly debated, that Constantine had to form an ecumenical council to find a solution before it split the burgeoning church in twain (which it was already doing in spades) ... and, most importantly, the newly reunited Roman empire.

And you don't perhaps consider the possibility that the council was formed to simply codify what doctrines Christianity had into a unified belief? While it might sound all interesting to suggest an agenda for calling the council, the proof from the period points to a much less radical reason for the council. Not a way to avoid splintering the groups but rather to simply find what all groups had in common and make it a universal belief. The "vote" on the divinity of Jesus seems to be a case-in-point, with a massive vote of 298-2 in favour of his divine heritage.

Far from a disjointed argument of differing beliefs of which Constantine wanted to quash, it appears that the debate was a simple one based on what most groups already believed.

Pointing to the council as proof that the issue was debated and therefore people didn't all believe the same is just a smokescreen to avoid the actual words of the Bible. I of course understand if you don't believe those words in the Bible, but not believing what it says is a far cry from trying to cast aspersions on the reasons why such beliefs were put into doctrine.

*oh, btw - I received your platypus. It hit me in the back of the head a couple of hours ago. The koala and kangaroo both tried to blame each other so I put them both on detention. Looks like I owe them an apology now that I know the truth.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Paranoid Android

[Karlis]

Amen Gideon! The whole virgin birth nonsense is just that -- nonsense! You can put any kind of spin on it you so wish, but it does not change the fact that the whole virgin birth concept was ancient and applied to many, many gods and individuals -- emperors so forth and so on. And as for Jesus being eternal, this was something that was so hotly debated, that Constantine had to form an ecumenical council to find a solution before it split the burgeoning church in twain (which it was already doing in spades) ... and, most importantly, the newly reunited Roman empire.

As for Isaiah ... This prophecy has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus. This was in reference to a child to be born during that particular time -- a time in which King Hezekiah was under assault by the Assyrians if I'm not mistaken. That said, when was Jesus ever referred to as Immanuel -- a question, by the way, I never receive an answer to? Also, the Jewish Messiah was never to be born of a virgin, be a miracle worker, die for the sins of mankind, resurrect ... nor anything of the like. Why Christians ignore this, is simply beyond me. Of course, I did the same thing for 15 years ... so there you go!

~~~ ... (Snip) ...

Hi Sean,

Did you by any chance wade through my post #31, above? If not, would you kindly try to do so, and where you disagree with Albert Barnes, would you please say why you disagree?

I am not a Bible scholar, so I have to rely on those who are scholars for background information. As far as I know, Barnes is a reputable scholar.

Regards,

Karlis

[zandore]

Hi Sean,

Did you by any chance wade through my post #31, above? If not, would you kindly try to do so, and where you disagree with Albert Barnes, would you please say why you disagree?

I think what Sean and Gid is trying to say is....Christianity copied the OT from the Jewish Tanakh and not everything was copied word for word. To get a better overall understanding what better way then to go to the SOURCE

[seanph]

Evening my friend.

And you don't perhaps consider the possibility that the council was formed to simply codify what doctrines Christianity hat into a unified belief?

Yes. That was the purpose for convening the Nicene Council. It was necessary to establish some semblance of orthodoxy. It was also necessary to clarify this very difficult and convoluted problem so as not to undo a newly reunited Roman empire. This was the agenda -- an agenda not having to do with some sort of conspiracy so forth and so on. And I am completely unfamiliar with any scholar worth his salt who would state otherwise. These things were crucial for stability within the burgeoning church and the Roman empire. Constantine might have been a Christian, but he was first and foremost the emperor of the greatest, most powerful, empire on the face of the earth. He knew full-well the ramifications of letting boils fester -- he would be out of power!

Where, my friend, did I even remotely infer that Constantine wanted to quash differing beliefs within the burgeoning church? I do not believe I did so. Again, Constantine saw a very difficult problem that need be solved, and so he went about trying to solve it by convening an ecumenical council. He knew there was a lot at risk if left unresolved. And the debate was far from simple. This was a heated debate, one in which various individuals were actually banished and worse.

Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Professor Ramsay MacMullen (Yale)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300115962/ref=sib_dp_ptu#

Synopsis:

In this study, Ramsay MacMullen steps aside from the well-worn path that previous scholars have trod to explore exactly how early Christian doctrines became official. Drawing on extensive verbatim stenographic records, he analyzes the ecumenical councils from A.D. 325 to 553, in which participants gave authority to doctrinal choices by majority vote.

The author investigates the sometimes astonishing bloodshed and violence that marked the background to church council proceedings, and from there goes on to describe the planning and staging of councils, the emperors' role, the routines of debate, the participants’ understanding of the issues, and their views on God’s intervention in their activities. He concludes with a look at the significance of the councils and their doctrinal decisions within the history of Christendom.

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll

http://books.google.com/books?id=FewzTELyn...ntine%27s+Sword

Just a side note ... Constantine's view of Jesus was not extensive by any means, was a mixture of personal opinion as well as those of his close companion, Lactantius. These views were probably considered heretical by early bishops (Constantine, MacMullen, Ramsay, PP., 127+), but that made no difference to them. The benefits bestowed upon them (bishops) and the early church made it advantageous to simply look the other way.

Constantine could be one nasty SOB, and he used the sword when necessary, for He had just stitched together the Roman empire. There was no room for a soft hand. But he also knew that both sides of the political and religious fence had to be walked somewhat delicately. His strengthening belief in the Christian god made this tough going at points. He did strip many pagans of their temples and looted them of their treasures so forth and so on. Of course, he could not do that to all because most of his subjects were pagans, were responsible for the majority of taxes collected (Ibid. PP, 128-131). To stamp them out would mean to bankrupt the empire -- a notoriously free-spending empire. Constantine had to walk a very fine line between paganism and Christianity -- and he did. He still appointed pagans to various government posts etc. He did the same with Christians. In fact, as mentioned above, it was advantageous to become a Christian under Constantine, for he lavished benefits on those who converted -- including increasing the grain-stores to entire cities whose population promised to convert! This also became a problem. Many converted for the benefits and nothing else -- which Constantine often railed against (Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A. D. 100-400) (A.D. 100-400), MacMullen, Ramsay, PP., 74 +).

Constantine (Crosscurrents in world history) by Ramsay MacMullen (Yale History Emeritus Professor)[/b]

http://books.google.com/books?id=_ocOAAAAQ...he+Roman+empire

Christianizing the Roman Empire: A. D. 100-400) by Ramsay MacMullen

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ysc0oqW1...00-400)#PPP7,M1

Pointing to the council is proof that the issue was beaded and therefore if people didn't all believe the same thing is just a smokescreen to avoid the actual words of the Bible ...

It is?! Why do you call ecumenical council/synod to begin with? You do so because there are differences that need be hammered out. And even then, you still have very significant differences -- hence Catholicism, Protestantism, and thousands of Christian denominations. So this has nothing to do -- nor did I even infer such a thing -- with some sort of smokescreen. It has to do with historical reality -- believers then, and believers now, have different views on the actual words of the Bible and what they mean so forth and so on. Christianity struggled for orthodoxy in its earliest days, and in many ways still does so today.

And just another side note here ... The Arian dispute that motivated Constantine to form the Council of Nicaea, caused him quite the consternation. He, himself -- according to his close friend and confidant Lactantius -- flip-flopped between the views of Arius and Athanasius. Of course, we know which one he finally settled upon.

I just launched another platypus!

Constantine and the Bishops By Professor H. A. Drake

http://books.google.com/books?id=RDqyIcSLJ...and+the+bishops

Synopsis

Historians who viewed imperial Rome in terms of a conflict between pagans and Christians have often regarded the emperor Constantine's conversion as the triumph of Christianity over paganism. But in Constantine and the Bishops, historian H. A. Drake offers a fresh and more nuanced understanding of Constantine's rule and, especially, of his relations with Christians. Constantine, Drake suggests, was looking not only for a god in whom to believe but also a policy he could adopt. Uncovering the political motivations behind Constantine's policies, Drake shows how those policies were constructed to ensure the stability of the empire and fulfill Constantine's imperial duty in securing the favor of heaven. Despite the emperor's conversion to Christianity, Drake concludes, Rome remained a world filled with gods and with men seeking to depose rivals from power. A book for students and scholars of ancient history and religion, Constantine and the Bishops shows how Christian belief motivated and gave shape to imperial rule.

Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times Professor by Michael Grant

http://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Great-Ma...142&sr=11-1

From Publishers Weekly

Constantine I founded Constantinople on the site of Byzantium and converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, yet this first Christian emperor "would hardly be recognized as Christian at all today," asserts renowned classicist Grant in a compelling reassessment. A ruthless despot who strove to be a world-conqueror like Alexander the Great, Constantine (280?-337) murdered his second wife and his son, assassinated friends and advisers and extended the death penalty to minor crimes. While cultivating a reputation for almsgiving, the emperor crushed common people with oppressive taxes to finance his reckless wars, extravagant pomp and vast, corrupt bureaucracy. The Christian God whom Constantine revered was a god of power who presumably enabled him to destroy foes, and as Grant makes clear, the emperor's belief that he was constantly in touch with God made him difficult and dangerous. Illustrated. History Book Club main selection.

Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Since the very day of his death, Constantine the Great has been the subject of conflicting appreciations. Grant, the eminent historian of Greco-Roman times, clearly demonstrates in this latest book the intense partisanship Constantine aroused in biographers. On the one hand, pious Christians routinely overstated his virtues. They admired his support of the church, his ambitious civil building programs, and his military successes while ignoring his predatory taxation, his enlargement of the imperial bureaucracy, and his murders of perceived enemies. On the other hand, pagan (and later secular) historians routinely exaggerated his faults and scanted his real achievements. Grant has pruned away the exaggerations of both sanctifiers and vilifiers to produce a readable and reliable (if sometimes noncommittal) evaluation. Like most of Grant's books, it is directed to educated readers generally and is suitable for both public and academic libraries.

MK,

Sean

Edited November 2, 2008 by seanph

[Karlis]

I think what Sean and Gid is trying to say is....Christianity copied the OT from the Jewish Tanakh and not everything was copied word for word. To get a better overall understanding what better way then to go to the SOURCE

Hi zandore -- yes, I have consulted the "The Holy Scriptures — The Tanakh" at that source quite often, and that source has not contradicted anything that I have posted, to the best of my recollection.

I have copy-pasted from that source into some of my posts, just to reflect the Jewish points of understanding.

Have I missed something that you have noticed, there?

Regards,

Karlis

[zandore]

I have copy-pasted from that source into some of my posts, just to reflect the Jewish points of understanding.

Have I missed something that you have noticed, there?

Maybe some of the original wording of an Isaiah verse or two.

[Karlis]

Maybe some of the original wording of an Isaiah verse or two.

Could you copy-paste some of these verses please, zandore?

Also, could you please point out any aspects that I may have not understood in these verses?

Thanks in advance, and kind regards,

Karlis

[TheEssenceofExcellence]

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

Two possibilities. One Mary was and is still a virgin. James was a son of Josephs from a previous marriage before he married Mary, Joseph was a widower.(there's actually a scriptural basis for that in noncannonical texts) Two Mary was a virgin at Christ's birth, James is younger than Jesus, and is part of the family Joseph and Mary had afrer Jesus was born, in this scenario Mary isn't still a virgin but was when the bible says she was......nothing ever states james was Jesus's older brother.

[seanph]

Hi Sean,

Did you by any chance wade through my post #31, above? If not, would you kindly try to do so, and where you disagree with Albert Barnes, would you please say why you disagree?

I am not a Bible scholar, so I have to rely on those who are scholars for background information. As far as I know, Barnes is a reputable scholar.

Regards,

Karlis

Good morning K. I responded in post #33 -- both with personal opinion and resource material.

Most kindly,

Sean

[fullywired]

Evening my friend.

Yes. That was the purpose for convening the Nicene Council. It was necessary to establish some semblance of orthodoxy. It was also necessary to clarify this very difficult and convoluted problem so as not to undo a newly reunited Roman empire. This was the agenda -- an agenda not having to do with some sort of conspiracy so forth and so on. And I am completely unfamiliar with any scholar worth his salt who would state otherwise. These things were crucial for stability within the burgeoning church and the Roman empire. Constantine might have been a Christian, but he was first and foremost the emperor of the greatest, most powerful, empire on the face of the earth. He knew full-well the ramifications of letting boils fester -- he would be out of power!

Where, my friend, did I even remotely infer that Constantine wanted to quash differing beliefs within the burgeoning church? I do not believe I did so. Again, Constantine saw a very difficult problem that need be solved, and so he went about trying to solve it by convening an ecumenical council. He knew there was a lot at risk if left unresolved. And the debate was far from simple. This was a heated debate, one in which various individuals were actually banished and worse.

Voting About God in Early Church Councils by Professor Ramsay MacMullen (Yale)

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0300115962/ref=sib_dp_ptu#

Synopsis:

In this study, Ramsay MacMullen steps aside from the well-worn path that previous scholars have trod to explore exactly how early Christian doctrines became official. Drawing on extensive verbatim stenographic records, he analyzes the ecumenical councils from A.D. 325 to 553, in which participants gave authority to doctrinal choices by majority vote.

The author investigates the sometimes astonishing bloodshed and violence that marked the background to church council proceedings, and from there goes on to describe the planning and staging of councils, the emperors' role, the routines of debate, the participants' understanding of the issues, and their views on God's intervention in their activities. He concludes with a look at the significance of the councils and their doctrinal decisions within the history of Christendom.

Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews -- A History by James Carroll

http://books.google.com/books?id=FewzTELyn...ntine%27s+Sword

Just a side note ... Constantine's view of Jesus was not extensive by any means, was a mixture of personal opinion as well as those of his close companion, Lactantius. These views were probably considered heretical by early bishops (Constantine, MacMullen, Ramsay, PP., 127+), but that made no difference to them. The benefits bestowed upon them (bishops) and the early church made it advantageous to simply look the other way.

Constantine could be one nasty SOB, and he used the sword when necessary, for He had just stitched together the Roman empire. There was no room for a soft hand. But he also knew that both sides of the political and religious fence had to be walked somewhat delicately. His strengthening belief in the Christian god made this tough going at points. He did strip many pagans of their temples and looted them of their treasures so forth and so on. Of course, he could not do that to all because most of his subjects were pagans, were responsible for the majority of taxes collected (Ibid. PP, 128-131). To stamp them out would mean to bankrupt the empire -- a notoriously free-spending empire. Constantine had to walk a very fine line between paganism and Christianity -- and he did. He still appointed pagans to various government posts etc. He did the same with Christians. In fact, as mentioned above, it was advantageous to become a Christian under Constantine, for he lavished benefits on those who converted -- including increasing the grain-stores to entire cities whose population promised to convert! This also became a problem. Many converted for the benefits and nothing else -- which Constantine often railed against (Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A. D. 100-400) (A.D. 100-400), MacMullen, Ramsay, PP., 74 +).

Constantine (Crosscurrents in world history) by Ramsay MacMullen (Yale History Emeritus Professor)[/b]

http://books.google.com/books?id=_ocOAAAAQ...he+Roman+empire

Christianizing the Roman Empire: A. D. 100-400) by Ramsay MacMullen

http://books.google.com/books?id=_Ysc0oqW1...00-400)#PPP7,M1

It is?! Why do you call ecumenical council/synod to begin with? You do so because there are differences that need be hammered out. And even then, you still have very significant differences -- hence Catholicism, Protestantism, and thousands of Christian denominations. So this has nothing to do -- nor did I even infer such a thing -- with some sort of smokescreen. It has to do with historical reality -- believers then, and believers now, have different views on the actual words of the Bible and what they mean so forth and so on. Christianity struggled for orthodoxy in its earliest days, and in many ways still does so today.

And just another side note here ... The Arian dispute that motivated Constantine to form the Council of Nicaea, caused him quite the consternation. He, himself -- according to his close friend and confidant Lactantius -- flip-flopped between the views of Arius and Athanasius. Of course, we know which one he finally settled upon.

I just launched another platypus!

Constantine and the Bishops By Professor H. A. Drake

http://books.google.com/books?id=RDqyIcSLJ...and+the+bishops

Synopsis

Historians who viewed imperial Rome in terms of a conflict between pagans and Christians have often regarded the emperor Constantine's conversion as the triumph of Christianity over paganism. But in Constantine and the Bishops, historian H. A. Drake offers a fresh and more nuanced understanding of Constantine's rule and, especially, of his relations with Christians. Constantine, Drake suggests, was looking not only for a god in whom to believe but also a policy he could adopt. Uncovering the political motivations behind Constantine's policies, Drake shows how those policies were constructed to ensure the stability of the empire and fulfill Constantine's imperial duty in securing the favor of heaven. Despite the emperor's conversion to Christianity, Drake concludes, Rome remained a world filled with gods and with men seeking to depose rivals from power. A book for students and scholars of ancient history and religion, Constantine and the Bishops shows how Christian belief motivated and gave shape to imperial rule.

Constantine the Great: The Man and His Times Professor by Michael Grant

http://www.amazon.com/Constantine-Great-Ma...142&sr=11-1

From Publishers Weekly

Constantine I founded Constantinople on the site of Byzantium and converted the Roman Empire to Christianity, yet this first Christian emperor "would hardly be recognized as Christian at all today," asserts renowned classicist Grant in a compelling reassessment. A ruthless despot who strove to be a world-conqueror like Alexander the Great, Constantine (280?-337) murdered his second wife and his son, assassinated friends and advisers and extended the death penalty to minor crimes. While cultivating a reputation for almsgiving, the emperor crushed common people with oppressive taxes to finance his reckless wars, extravagant pomp and vast, corrupt bureaucracy. The Christian God whom Constantine revered was a god of power who presumably enabled him to destroy foes, and as Grant makes clear, the emperor's belief that he was constantly in touch with God made him difficult and dangerous. Illustrated. History Book Club main selection.

Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Since the very day of his death, Constantine the Great has been the subject of conflicting appreciations. Grant, the eminent historian of Greco-Roman times, clearly demonstrates in this latest book the intense partisanship Constantine aroused in biographers. On the one hand, pious Christians routinely overstated his virtues. They admired his support of the church, his ambitious civil building programs, and his military successes while ignoring his predatory taxation, his enlargement of the imperial bureaucracy, and his murders of perceived enemies. On the other hand, pagan (and later secular) historians routinely exaggerated his faults and scanted his real achievements. Grant has pruned away the exaggerations of both sanctifiers and vilifiers to produce a readable and reliable (if sometimes noncommittal) evaluation. Like most of Grant's books, it is directed to educated readers generally and is suitable for both public and academic libraries.

MK,

Sean

Nice one Sean very edifying.

fullywired

[Karlis]

Good morning K. I responded in post #33 -- both with personal opinion and resource material.

Most kindly,

Sean

And a good late-evening from Down Under, Sean. Yes, I did read all of your post #33, but I think just about every point that you made in that post was addressed by the source that I posted earlier in #31. I did not notice any points that you made, which were not covered by Albert Barnes. Which did I miss?

So, where do we stand in our discussion, here? Seems both of us may have pretty well covered the same grounds.

Kind regards,

Karlis

[seanph]

Good evening k. I think we would have agree that we have both pretty well covered the same grounds. So, I think, the standard "I think we will have to agree to disagree here" is quite apropos. Agreed?

FW … Thank you my friend. Most kind of you. :nw:

Most kindly,

Sean

[Karlis]

Good evening k. I think we would have agree that we have both pretty well covered the same grounds. So, I think, the standard "I think we will have to agree to disagree here" is quite apropos. Agreed?

Oh well ... yes, it seems like it has come to that. Would have been nice, though, "if" we could have come up with something new to consider. Maybe in the future some other source will come up?

FW … Thank you my friend. Most kind of you. :nw:

Most kindly,

Sean

Kind regards, as always,

Karlis

[randomhit10]

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

there is no suggestion in the KJV Bible that says James is older than Jesus...James being mentioned may be a reference to the eldest child born of Joseph and Mary....Joseph was told in advance concerning Jesus and was told he and Mary should be married, that all was o k...no matter how God elected to handle the situation there will always be those who have names to call or find fault with God's decision...i, however, find no fault....

randomhit10

[+Link of Hyrule]

there is no suggestion in the KJV Bible that says James is older than Jesus...

There is no such suggestion in any other translation of the Bible either - at least, none that I have ever come across.

[TheDreamer]

Jesus' "brothers" — James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses — are mentioned in Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 and by Paul in Galatians 1:19. Since James' name always appears first in lists, this suggests he was the eldest among them.[14] Even in the passage in Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1) the Jewish historian describes James as "the brother of Jesus who is called Christ,".

Paul refers to James, at that time the only prominent Christian James in Jerusalem, as an Apostle, hence his identification by some with James, son of Alphaeus. In Galatians 1:18–19, Paul, recounting his conversion, recalls "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

While Christians believe that Jesus was, as the Son of God, born of a virgin, the relationship of James the Just to Jesus has been rendered difficult by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the belief that Mary's virginity continued even after Jesus' birth.

Now before any of you who do believe say that he's a half brother as some people believe. Wouldn't that have been a sin on Mary and Josephs part? If that's the case wouldn't the bible make mention of that?

God is not of sin, he doesn't sin, so therefore Jesus and James are half brothers. Joseph and Mary were treated horribly by the public, hence the Christ being born in a manger...no one wanted them in their houses.

[Karlis]

God is not of sin, he doesn't sin, so therefore Jesus and James are half brothers. Joseph and Mary were treated horribly by the public, hence the Christ being born in a manger...no one wanted them in their houses.

Hhmmm ... I'm not so sure your argument is well-based, Dreamer. Why? Because at that time there was an important annual Festival, and pilgrims by the tens of thousand flocked into the Jerusalem vicinity, and lodgings would have been nigh on non-existent. In fact, Joseph and Mary would have been extremely blessed by having a roof over their heads.

Kind regards,

Karlis