Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: what's up; safisoft
I stand corrected. Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Jude and James had the same parents; although Jude refers to himself as James' brother and several other verses in Scripture identified him as such.

So, I will focus on the parentage of James.

1. Mark 15:40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
This is at the Crucifixion. Mary the mother of Jesus was not "afar off" as we know from John; additionally, if she was the mother of Jesus, why not just refer to her as this, obviously, this is the "other" Mary from the Gospels.

2. Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
John 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

This clearly establishes that there is a third or "other" Mary, the wife of Cleophas, and the mother of James among others. She is probably the Virgin Mary's sister in law or close relative.

Additionally, the second chapter of Matthew clearly indicate that Mary, Jesus and Joseph go into Egypt and only the three of them come out. In Luke 2, speaks of the Holy Family of three going to the temple in Jerusalem with no other children.

In middle east culture, it is unheard of for a younger sibling to rebuke an older sibling and certainly not the oldest. As James, could have been no more than a teenager if he had been born after the journey to the temple, it again makes sense that these "brothers" were older relatives. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:16, Lot is called the "brother" of Abram, yet 11:27 indicates that Lot was Abram's nephew.

Why did the writers of Scripture not make this clearer? Simple, they didn't see the need. This was accepted fact and only centuries later did anyone ever question Mary's Perpetual Virginity. They never foresaw the occasion when this would be questioned. And in fact it wasn't until very recently. ALL of great Protestant Reformers accepted this (I have already posted links to this, so any further ones would be pointless).

Invariably the question then turns to, "why wasn't this spelled out better in scripture?" "God should have foreseen the questions and inspired the authors to spell it out better." To which I offer this for your consideration:
Nowhere in scripture is the Trinity explicitly defined, and probably no tenet of faith is more difficult to comprehend than the Trinity. Wars have been fought, people have died over this controversy, yet the Bible is silent.

274 posted on 05/31/2005 2:13:20 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies ]


To: wagglebee
Nowhere in scripture is the Trinity explicitly defined

No, quite the opposite from Deut 6:4: Sh'ma Yisra'el, HaShem Elokeinu, HaShem echad.

Anytime someone prefaces an explanation of a Scriptural position with, "this will be complicated" you can know one of two things:

1. They don't know what they are talking about, but think they do.
- or -
2. It was devised by committe (or in this case a 'church council')

The attempts at creating a doctrine (sic, dogma) regarding the ontology of the Creator of the Universe, will always be in error. Better to leave what is unknown, and in this matter also unsaid, instead of creating unScriptural dogma to answer questions posed by the puny human intellect.
279 posted on 05/31/2005 4:44:49 PM PDT by safisoft (Give me Torah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson