No, Seriously you need to watch this.
Did Jesus have a Twin Brother?
Sounds very much like he did.

He had an older brother named James of which little is said.

Cheers

(02-15-2022, 09:40 AM)F2d5thCav Wrote: He had an older brother named James of which little is said.

Cheers

He had a brother, but he couldn't be Older, Mary was suppose to be a Virgin, Right?
And he wrote books about Jesus younger years that were left out of the Bible.

(02-15-2022, 04:12 PM)guohua Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 09:40 AM)F2d5thCav Wrote: He had an older brother named James of which little is said.

Cheers

He had a brother, but he couldn't be Older, Mary was suppose to be a Virgin, Right?
And he wrote books about Jesus younger years that were left out of the Bible.

Re: virgin, that's why little is said about James, and when something is said, the relationship topic is either avoided or denied.

Robert Eisenman, who is quite a name in the research of the Dead Sea Scrolls, wrote a 1,000+ page book on the topic-- "James, the brother of Jesus".

Of course, that does not preclude the existence of Jesus or question what the events of his life, other than the "miracle of the virgin birth".

Cheers

So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

(02-15-2022, 06:08 PM)Kenzo Wrote: So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

Kenzo,

(assuming what information is available is accurate)

I think it is like the "books" omitted from the Bible by decision of the meeting of bishops (I think that was a few hundred years after the life of Jesus); information that did not support a particular point of view was suppressed.  That what is essentially became of almost all of Gnostic Christianity -- excluded from the "standard narrative" and known today only to a few people.

Similar are the assertions that Jesus married and had children (hardly surprising for a Jewish man back then).  It doesn't support the preferred narrative, so it is only seldom mentioned and usually is considered heresy.

As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me.

Cheers

(02-15-2022, 06:15 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 06:08 PM)Kenzo Wrote: So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

Kenzo,

(assuming what information is available is accurate)

I think it is like the "books" omitted from the Bible by decision of the meeting of bishops (I think that was a few hundred years after the life of Jesus); information that did not support a particular point of view was suppressed.  That what is essentially became of almost all of Gnostic Christianity -- excluded from the "standard narrative" and known today only to a few people.

Similar are the assertions that Jesus married and had children (hardly surprising for a Jewish man back then).  It doesn't support the preferred narrative, so it is only seldom mentioned and usually is considered heresy.

As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me.

Cheers

Yeeh we are litle bit late to find out all the details . The official form has to me looked allways odd, in 1400s Spanish Inquisition and vatican/ pope are all rotten evill work ...

@"F2d5thCav"  "As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me."
It's Okay with me too. 

(02-15-2022, 04:12 PM)guohua Wrote: He had a brother, but he couldn't be Older, Mary was suppose to be a Virgin, Right?
And he wrote books about Jesus younger years that were left out of the Bible.

I always thought the whole "virgin" thing was just a result of the mis-translation of the old Hebrew word for "young girl" though? (When it was translated into Greek it was misrepresented as "virgin", no??)

Hang on... I'll try and find a linky....

Here we go:

Quote: it has been discovered that in the original Hebrew text the word “ha-almah” was used, a word similar to the English “young” or “maid”. The mistranslation occurred when this text was translated into Greek, where the word “parthenos” meaning virgin is used. The Hebrew word for virgin is “bethulah” and cannot be found anywhere in the original Hebrew text, meaning that the original writer did not intend for it to be read as “virgin” but as “young” girl.

LINK to source article

Kind of changes the whole "miracle birth" narrative too though doesn't it?


G

(02-15-2022, 08:45 PM)gordi Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 04:12 PM)guohua Wrote: He had a brother, but he couldn't be Older, Mary was suppose to be a Virgin, Right?
And he wrote books about Jesus younger years that were left out of the Bible.

I always thought the whole "virgin" thing was just a result of the mis-translation of the old Hebrew word for "young girl" though? (When it was translated into Greek it was misrepresented as "virgin", no??)

Hang on... I'll try and find a linky....

Here we go:

Quote: it has been discovered that in the original Hebrew text the word “ha-almah” was used, a word similar to the English “young” or “maid”. The mistranslation occurred when this text was translated into Greek, where the word “parthenos” meaning virgin is used. The Hebrew word for virgin is “bethulah” and cannot be found anywhere in the original Hebrew text, meaning that the original writer did not intend for it to be read as “virgin” but as “young” girl.

LINK to source article

Kind of changes the whole "miracle birth" narrative too though doesn't it?


G

Oh no, don't say that!!! It means I'll have to go back to the story 'The First Christmas' and change a few words!

Troubling.

"The Infancy Gospel of Thomas" was one of the seeds of Islam. Snippets of it can be found in the Qur'an. Mohammed evidently got bits and pieces of what he perceived as "Christianity" from all over, and blended them together - the right and the wrong alike - into his newly invented religion.

On a more personal level, my genealogical paper trail has branches leading straight to God through the daughter of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (shades of Dan Brown!) on both my mother and my father's sides of the family - now all that is in turmoil!

Just kidding - the paper trail is really there, but whomever worked it out based it entirely on hearsay and mythology. They didn't really have birth certificates back then to keep track of things, now did they? It is interesting to note, though, that I do have DNA that links me to the Merovingians (comparison between my DNA and DNA extracted from some Merovingian graves), alleged to be descendants of that same daughter, so who the hell knows? It could also be that that DNA just links us both to Ukrainian Scythians from long, long ago.

On the subject of James, brother of Jesus, we know that he did actually exist, as he was the first leader of the Jerusalem Christian-Jews before Christianity branched off from Judaism, but after Jesus died. James took over. I had never heard the claim he was an older brother, though. That's news to me.

The other Apostles spread out into the world, going here and there, but James stayed in Jerusalem and took over the shop there.

.

(02-15-2022, 06:15 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 06:08 PM)Kenzo Wrote: So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

Kenzo,

(assuming what information is available is accurate)

I think it is like the "books" omitted from the Bible by decision of the meeting of bishops (I think that was a few hundred years after the life of Jesus); information that did not support a particular point of view was suppressed.  That what is essentially became of almost all of Gnostic Christianity -- excluded from the "standard narrative" and known today only to a few people.

Similar are the assertions that Jesus married and had children (hardly surprising for a Jewish man back then).  It doesn't support the preferred narrative, so it is only seldom mentioned and usually is considered heresy.

As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me.

Cheers

The Canon was arrived at over a long period of time. Different "Church fathers" had entirely different lists of what they considered to be canonical and non-canonical. Over several decades, a consensus emerged, but in the final analysis all of them were picked by mere fallible mortals as either "true" or "not true". Some of them can be falsified via internal inconsistencies, others not so much.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with it, just as the gent in the video says. the Council of Nicea established the false doctrine of "The Trinity" as Church doctrine, and gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with the Canon, it steered Christianity away from it's Jewish Christian roots into Roman pagan territory. It's actually because of that doctrine, among others, which have no support in the Bible that Catholics have to rely on "traditions" as well as the Bible, and why they fight so hard against "sola scriptura".

Regarding Jesus' alleged marriage, the facts are sparse, but there, to indicate that he probably was, and that bit was just lost in the narrative because it had no bearing on the main message of the Bibile. For example, many folks referred to him as "rabbi", and at that time, in order to be considered a rabbi, a man had to be "the husband of but one wife" - i.e. he had to be married.

But as far as that - or anything else - being "heresy", I tend to let folks believe what they want. It's not my call whether any particular notion is "heresy" or not. that is between the believer and his God, none of my business. I'm only responsible to answer for my own beliefs.

.

(02-15-2022, 10:57 PM)Ninurta Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 06:15 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote:

(02-15-2022, 06:08 PM)Kenzo Wrote: So was this James the black sheep of the famiily ?

Kenzo,

(assuming what information is available is accurate)

I think it is like the "books" omitted from the Bible by decision of the meeting of bishops (I think that was a few hundred years after the life of Jesus); information that did not support a particular point of view was suppressed.  That what is essentially became of almost all of Gnostic Christianity -- excluded from the "standard narrative" and known today only to a few people.

Similar are the assertions that Jesus married and had children (hardly surprising for a Jewish man back then).  It doesn't support the preferred narrative, so it is only seldom mentioned and usually is considered heresy.

As with all matters of faith, people will believe what they wish to believe, which is okay by me.

Cheers

The Canon was arrived at over a long period of time. Different "Church fathers" had entirely different lists of what they considered to be canonical and non-canonical. Over several decades, a consensus emerged, but in the final analysis all of them were picked by mere fallible mortals as either "true" or "not true". Some of them can be falsified via internal inconsistencies, others not so much.

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with it, just as the gent in the video says. the Council of Nicea established the false doctrine of "The Trinity" as Church doctrine, and gave birth to the Roman Catholic Church. It had nothing to do with the Canon, it steered Christianity away from it's Jewish Christian roots into Roman pagan territory. It's actually because of that doctrine, among others, which have no support in the Bible that Catholics have to rely on "traditions" as well as the Bible, and why they fight so hard against "sola scriptura".

Regarding Jesus' alleged marriage, the facts are sparse, but there, to indicate that he probably was, and that bit was just lost in the narrative because it had no bearing on the main message of the Bibile. For example, many folks referred to him as "rabbi", and at that time, in order to be considered a rabbi, a man had to be "the husband of but one wife" - i.e. he had to be married.

But as far as that - or anything else - being "heresy", I tend to let folks believe what they want. It's not my call whether any particular notion is "heresy" or not. that is between the believer and his God, none of my business. I'm only responsible to answer for my own beliefs.

.

I have to agree with you.
Plus, when the Roman Catholics took over religion, they wanted it to be a Male Dominated Society, women in the Bible were forgotten or nothing more than a Follower of the Men.
So, Jesus Mother was seldom heard about in his life and they refuse to believe Jesus could have been Married or at least had a Woman as a Companion.

(02-16-2022, 12:59 AM)guohua Wrote: I have to agree with you.
Plus, when the Roman Catholics took over religion, they wanted it to be a Male Dominated Society, women in the Bible were forgotten or nothing more than a Follower of the Men.
So, Jesus Mother was seldom heard about in his life and they refuse to believe Jesus could have been Married or at least had a Woman as a Companion.

Well, they did deify Mary the mother of Jesus, in contravention to the Bible itself. On the other hand, they also minimized Biblical women's contributions, such as Judith, among many others. They created a goddess, and hid all the rest of the women behind her.

Yes, you heard me right - deified Mary. Mary was not a god nor a goddess, yet they teach that she should be prayed to. One does not pray to mortals, they pray to deities. So, yeah, they deified Mary and have even developed shrines to her. To my way of thinking, that minimizes her actual contributions, hides them behind a smoke screen of deity, but then I'm not a Catholic, nor even really a Christian in the modern sense of Christianity (I find no evidence to support a trinity in the Bible, and ample evidence that teaches against such a notion), so I suppose my opinion really ought to be overlooked.

I also believe that Jesus was likely married, but that too is just my own opinion, not at all relevant to the core message of the Bible, and as Paul says in one of his books, "if any man be contentious, we have no such customs, neither the Churches of God". In other words, people may believe as they wish, because I'm going to.

.