Link to Jesus found? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-22-2002, 07:54 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Normal

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


OK, Even the Catholic Church recognizes that James was the brother of Jesus. Mary had children after Jesus. If I can find my Catholic Bible somewhere in the area of the Book of James, it talks about the fact that James was his brother.


Peace to all.
i've heard that some scholars think that "brother" could refer to half brother or cousin. that's also what they said on the news today.
__________________

__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 08:01 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Screaming Flower


i've heard that some scholars think that "brother" could refer to half brother or cousin. that's also what they said on the news today.
Know what, I have read that somewhere too. If I can finish up my progress reports, I will try and find my two or three sources on this topic.

I love that particular book of the Bible.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 08:09 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


Know what, I have read that somewhere too. If I can finish up my progress reports, I will try and find my two or three sources on this topic.

I love that particular book of the Bible.
very cool. i look forward to reading them. i find this whole discovery really interesting.

__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:14 PM   #19
Banned
 
pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SILVER LINE
Posts: 901
Local Time: 01:17 AM

i don't think this thing has anything to do with Jesus Christ or watever , this ancient box is well as it is , there is nothing special ( age only i guess ) , at that time when this letters were written , can you imagine how many boys there had a name like Jesus , it's like today john , Peter or Jack ...countless numbers ... and they are saying that this freakin box belongs or relates to Jesus .. not a chance in the world ..... Jesus was a cool guy , but people who made a god out of him were not
__________________
pinkfloyd is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:42 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 11,961
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Normal

thank you for such a well thought out comment pink.

__________________
Screaming Flower is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:51 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Mary's perpetual virginity has been the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Council of Constantinople II in 550something (sorry, I suck at dates), and was reaffirmed at later councils. It was also included in the ex cathedra declaration of the doctrine of the Assumption in the 1950's by Pius XII. I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind it is that Mary had to be pure in order to be the Theotokos (hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) and that she didn't cease to be the Theotokos after the birth of Christ. Catholic theologians take the stance that Mary remained a virgin and the Greek word for "brothers" has several different meaning. This view was also stated in some of the early Church writings, and even by some reformers (I think Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary).
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 09:54 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
meegannie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Norwich, England
Posts: 15,798
Local Time: 06:17 AM
I also meant to mention that Joseph is often viewed as an old man, more of a father figure to Mary, sort of entrusted with protecting her virginity. This is portrayed in a lot of religious artwork.
__________________
meegannie is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 10:47 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:17 PM
"I think it could be kind of a marketing gimmick," Gonzalez admitted.

Quote:
I also meant to mention that Joseph is often viewed as an old man, more of a father figure to Mary, sort of entrusted with protecting her virginity. This is portrayed in a lot of religious artwork.
Do these paintings reflect anything more than the artists beliefs or bias?

see below:


Official Image Of Indian Saint Looks Less Indian Than Most
By SUSAN FERRISS / Cox Washington Bureau
07-28-02


MEXICO CITY -- He was supposed to be a copper-skinned Indian.

But to many in Mexico the official image of Juan Diego issued for his upcoming canonization makes him look more like one of Hernan Cortes' Spanish conquistadors than one of their indigenous ancestors.

Indeed, the image of Juan Diego on church-approved posters being sold everywhere is lighter-skinned than the vast majority of modern Mexicans, who identify themselves as mestizo, or mixed-race.

The official Juan Diego also sports a thicker beard than most Mexican Indians, who tend to be less hirsute than Europeans.

Almost apologetically, the church says the image is a copy of an 18th century painting believed to be the earliest rendition of Juan Diego.

"Nope, that's not really what our race looks like," observed Guillermo Alvarez, a construction worker who was examining a giant copy of the poster while visiting Mexico City's Basilica de Guadalupe recently.

The basilica is where Pope John Paul II will declare Juan Diego the first Mexican Indian saint on Wednesday (July 31).

Alvarez touched his face and said, "Most of us don't have that many whiskers."

But Alvarez's friend, Adrian Gonzalez, said the paler image of Juan Diego wasn't enough to shake most people's faith.

He agreed the official image doesn't look Indian. But he stopped short of attributing the church's choice to a current of racism toward Indians -- more than 10 percent of the population -- that still runs deep in Mexico.

"I think it could be kind of a marketing gimmick," Gonzalez admitted. "But what matters most is what we feel about Juan Diego."

Juan Diego is said to have spoken with the Virgin Mary -- the Virgin of Guadalupe -- who instructed him to build a shrine on a hilltop in Mexico City in 1531. As proof she spoke to him, the Virgin told Juan Diego to cut roses she made spring from barren land and take them to the Spanish bishops.

As the Indian opened his cloak, where the roses were stored, the famous image of the Virgin draped in a star-spangled veil appeared on the cloth.

Mexicans have weathered earlier controversy about Juan Diego. In 1999, three priests who worked at the basilica wrote to the Vatican urging the pope not to canonize Juan Diego because it couldn't be proved beyond a doubt that he existed.

But even the skeptical priests, who were quickly silenced, are expected to join the canonization ceremony on Wednesday.
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:09 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
HeartlandGirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 6,834
Local Time: 11:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie
Mary's perpetual virginity has been the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Council of Constantinople II in 550something (sorry, I suck at dates), and was reaffirmed at later councils. It was also included in the ex cathedra declaration of the doctrine of the Assumption in the 1950's by Pius XII. I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind it is that Mary had to be pure in order to be the Theotokos (hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) and that she didn't cease to be the Theotokos after the birth of Christ. Catholic theologians take the stance that Mary remained a virgin and the Greek word for "brothers" has several different meaning. This view was also stated in some of the early Church writings, and even by some reformers (I think Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary).
Thanks for the specific info, meegannie. I was starting to wonder if it had been that long since I've been to church when people were saying that Catholics don't think Mary was a perpetual virgin. I was thinking of the part of mass that says, "And we ask blessed Mary, ever-virgin, all the angels and saints..."

My husband is talking to me as I write this. He's an archaeologist, and he claims that biblical archaeology is all bunk because people cannot go into it without an agenda. You're either looking to prove a religion or disprove one, and an unbiased analysis is impossible. It's a lecture I've heard from him countless times, but I thought it was worth mentioning again.
__________________
HeartlandGirl is online now  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:16 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by meegannie
Mary's perpetual virginity has been the official doctrine of the Catholic Church since the Council of Constantinople II in 550something (sorry, I suck at dates), and was reaffirmed at later councils. It was also included in the ex cathedra declaration of the doctrine of the Assumption in the 1950's by Pius XII. I'm pretty sure the reasoning behind it is that Mary had to be pure in order to be the Theotokos (hence the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) and that she didn't cease to be the Theotokos after the birth of Christ. Catholic theologians take the stance that Mary remained a virgin and the Greek word for "brothers" has several different meaning. This view was also stated in some of the early Church writings, and even by some reformers (I think Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary).
Arrghhh...I stand corrected on the Mary thing. This is what I get for going to a protestant college...hehe...I forget what I read where. 10 years ago and two kids later...hehe Brain cells gone.

For those confused about the Immaculate Conception. The Immaculate Conception is the Catholic belief that Mary was conceived without original sin. I am thinking meegannie is right on the belief that the perpetual virgin comes from this doctorine.

http://www.cin.org/jp960612.html

This is a common misconception(HAHA) about the Immaculate Conception.

Peace to All.[
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:21 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by HeartlandGirl


Thanks for the specific info, meegannie. I was starting to wonder if it had been that long since I've been to church when people were saying that Catholics don't think Mary was a perpetual virgin. I was thinking of the part of mass that says, "And we ask blessed Mary, ever-virgin, all the angels and saints..."


Does this mean I am excommunicated?



I goofed. I admit it.

From a Catholic FAQ site.

How can you say that Mary was ever a virgin when the Bible speaks of the brethren of the Lord?

The expression, "brethren of the Lord," is no argument whatever that Mary had other children besides Jesus. For the Jews used that expression of any near relatives, without intending necessarily the first degree of blood relationship. It was enough for people to be descendants of the same tribe to be called brethren. James was called the brother of Jesus. Yet we know that he was the son of Alphaeus, and Mary was certainly never the wife of Alphaeus. This James, also, was the blood brother of Jude. And Jude begins his epistle with the words, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James." Here he is using the word brother in the strict sense, and knows that he cannot in that sense call himself the brother of Jesus Christ. Yet in the broad sense of the word, he is ranked amongst the kinsmen of Christ, as we know from Matthew 13:55, where the Gospel speaks of "His brethren James and Joseph, and Simon and Jude."


I think the brothers and sisters referred to were the children of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. There is no reason to think otherwise.


There is every reason to think otherwise.

Firstly, the so-called brethren of Jesus are depicted by the Gospel texts as older than He Himself, criticizing and advising Him, and jealous of His popularity.
Secondly, when the offer was made to Mary that she should become the Mother of the Messiah, she said, "How shall this be done, because I know not man." Almighty God provided miraculously that she should become the Mother without sacrificing her virginity. She was not likely to sacrifice it later on for other children so much less than the very Son of God. As that Son was the only-begotten of His Eternal Father, so He would be the only-begotten of His earthly Mother.
Thirdly, Jesus alone in the Gospels is called the Son of Mary; and never once is she called the Mother of the brethren of the Lord.
Fourthly, the only four brethren mentioned by name are James and Joseph, Simon and Jude. Now St. John tells us that there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, and His Mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas. And this latter is referred to by St. Matthew as the mother of James and Joseph.
Again, if you look up the first words of St. Jude's Epistle you will find him saying, "Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James." Why did he make that distinction?
Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were direct children of Mary, and if there were yet other brethren and sisters of Jesus in your sense of the word, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John after His death, so that John took her as his own mother thenceforth? That would not be necessary if she had other children to look after her.

Mark 6:3 says, "Is not this carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph, and Jude and Simon? Are not also His sisters here with us?"

The reference to Jesus as the Son of Mary and the brother of James and Joseph, Jude and Simon, as also to His sisters is also quite compatible with our Lord's being the only Son of Mary. The term brothers or sisters was applied to any near relatives within the same tribe even though they were first, second or third cousins. In much the same way I could speak of a fellow countryman as a brother without suggesting that he was of the same mother as myself. Remember that in the Aramaic language used at the time, there was not word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews had to use the word Achim ("brethren") for the description of any kindred by collateral descent. I could give you a dozen references from the Old Testament proving the Jewish usage of those terms for half-brothers, nephews and nieces, cousins, and any blood relatives in general. Renan, quite an unbeliever in Christ and whose verdict here is above suspicion, says of this passage that the preliminary expression "the Son of Mary" followed by the mention of the other names takes it for granted that Jesus was known as the only son of a widow. Loisy, another who was by no means well disposed towards the Catholic doctrine, declares that, when Mary hesitated to accept the offer of the angel to become the Mother of Christ, she spoke so absolutely when she said, "How shall this be, for I know not man," that Catholics are justified in seeing the intention of perpetually preserving her virginity.


Peace to all.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 10-22-2002, 11:49 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:17 AM
Pink,

According to researches, there are only 20 people with the name Jesus who had a brother named James back then in the time period. Also, the inclusion of the name of the brother on the box has only been seen once before with these type's of things from that time period and location. Its not 100% sure, but how many things back then are 100% for sure when the events took place 2,000 years ago. What would constitute 100% proof considering were talking about people, places, and events from 2,000 years ago.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 12:25 AM   #28
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: foray's kitchen drawer
Posts: 431
Local Time: 06:17 PM
Oh who cares.
__________________
famous rungi is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 06:35 AM   #29
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 343
Local Time: 06:17 AM
STING2 makes mention of this, I thought I'd add a couple notes.

Right now I think I would be more inclined to believe that the box is either a complete hoax, or it is indeed a reference to Jesus Christ. That is, it would be hard to convince me that it was a box from that time period but from a different family.

Joseph, James, and Jesus may very well have been common names of the time. Doesn't matter, and here's why.

My father's name is Tom...fairly common.
I'm Michael...very, very common.
My brother's name was Jeff...moderately common. You could even say it was John, a very common name.

My hometown and surrounding area is probably about as big in population as the area of Israel in question during that time period. Perhaps even a bit larger.

Now, how many families there have a patriarch named Thomas? Of those, how many include sons named Michael and Jeff/John? Certainly I don't have any figures, but I'm going to guess that it's a pretty small number...a handful at the most, and I think that's incredibly generous (1 or 2 most likely).

Add in that the brother's name (Jesus in this case) is on the box and that's even more evidence to support the possibility that this is Jesus Christ we're talking about. That name is likely to have appeared only if the brother was a noteworthy figure. Whether you believe he's the son of God or not he was most certainly a noteworthy figure.


One final thought on the idea of whether or not James the Less was indeed Christ's brother, or perhaps a cousin or somesuch. Its sometimes noted that Joseph had a son(s) from a previous marriage--his first wife died. Scholars go on to say that James could be one of those sons, and thus the half-brother of Christ. It should be stated that even if Mary & Joseph did procreate, those children would still merely be the half-brother's of Christ...I mean, God didn't plant his seed in Mary more than once.
__________________
MSU2mike is offline  
Old 10-23-2002, 12:28 PM   #30
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 01:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Pink,

According to researches, there are only 20 people with the name Jesus who had a brother named James back then in the time period. Also, the inclusion of the name of the brother on the box has only been seen once before with these type's of things from that time period and location. Its not 100% sure, but how many things back then are 100% for sure when the events took place 2,000 years ago. What would constitute 100% proof considering were talking about people, places, and events from 2,000 years ago.
Yes, this has not been seen before but if you decide to fake an artifact and sell it for lots of money, do you include Jesus' name or not? How interesting is a box if it just says "James, son of Joseph"? The inclusion of Jesus's name seems to be completely out of the ordinary. Yeah, Jesus was the son of God and that was pretty out of the ordinary too, but this just seems too easy.
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com