I have read parts of the bible, where the brothers of Jesus were talked about and other part were twas said that mary died a virgin. Also crowning it is the part in Isaiah were twas said that no one would pass through the same road he passed and some people relating that to the birth. So kindly send your suggestions to convince me about the actual state of Jesus's family

delta 1:

I have read parts of the bible, where the brothers of Jesus were talked about and other part were twas said that mary died a virgin. Also crowning it is the part in Isaiah were twas said that no one would pass through the same road he passed and some people relating that to the birth. So kindly send your suggestions to convince me about the actual state of Jesus's family

Yes Jesus (Yashua) did have brothers, this is a fact.

Acts 13:1 (King James Version)
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch (In Syria) certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene (In Libya, Africa). Cyrene, Libya, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Point Being, they were Refering To Them As "Nigers". This "Niger"[/b]in no way is describing the country or the River that flows through the southwestern part of this country [b]"Niger", of West Central Africa, whose language is Hausa in which you don't find the word Niger. The land was named by invaders to describe the people they saw there being indigenous of Nigeria, West Africa. It is of Latin origin, "Negra", Meaning "Blacks", and was borrowed by The Greeks to Be put into YOUR Bible.
Acts 13:1 Also Mentions Barnabas and his relation to Jesus. Barnabas was the son of Joseph, step-Father of Jesus and is also being referred to as "Niger", or a Black person, which makes Joseph a Black person and Simeon is the Son of Mary:
 
Luke 2:34 (King James Version)

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

Who Is Being Called "Niger", A Black Person, That makes Mary a Black person which in turn would make Jesus (Yashua), The Son of Mary,  a Black Person. This is why The Gospel of Barnabas (photo) a revelation of truth was banished from circulation because it contained too many facts about the life and ministry of Jesus.

Horus:


Yes Jesus (Yashua) did have brothers, this is a fact.

Acts 13:1 (King James Version)
1 Now there were in the church that was at Antioch (In Syria) certain prophets and teachers; as Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene (In Libya, Africa). Cyrene, Libya, and Manaen, which had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Point Being, they were Refering To Them As "Nigers". This "Niger"[/b]in no way is describing the country or the River that flows through the southwestern part of this country [b]"Niger", of West Central Africa, whose language is Hausa in which you don't find the word Niger. The land was named by invaders to describe the people they saw there being indigenous of Nigeria, West Africa. It is of Latin origin, "Negra", Meaning "Blacks", and was borrowed by The Greeks to Be put into YOUR Bible.
Acts 13:1 Also Mentions Barnabas and his relation to Jesus. Barnabas was the son of Joseph, step-Father of Jesus and is also being referred to as "Niger", or a Black person, which makes Joseph a Black person and Simeon is the Son of Mary:

Luke 2:34 (King James Version)

34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

Who Is Being Called "Niger", A Black Person, That makes Mary a Black person which in turn would make Jesus (Yashua), The Son of Mary, a Black Person. This is why The Gospel of Barnabas (photo) a revelation of truth was banished from circulation because it contained too many facts about the life and ministry of Jesus.

Brother although i find your discuss interesting, but i did not actually help in bringing to a conclusion, rather stating that Jesus was black, Even if he was, the question is about his sibblings. Although i would like to get more facts on your opinion, also help in clarifying my view.

[img][/img]

delta 1:

Brother although i find your discuss interesting, but i did not actually help in bringing to a conclusion, rather stating that Jesus was black, Even if he was, the question is about his sibblings. Although i would like to get more facts on your opinion, also help in clarifying my view.

Who is Simeon or Simon ?

delta 1:

I have read parts of the bible, where the brothers of Jesus were talked about and other part were twas said that mary died a virgin. Also crowning it is the part in Isaiah were twas said that no one would pass through the same road he passed and some people relating that to the birth. So kindly send your suggestions to convince me about the actual state of Jesus's family

Jesus who was preexistent as the Word of God took up residency in the womb of Mary which made Him the Son of God who became the Son of Man so as to make man become sons of God. (John 1:1-3,14)

After His incarnation He had at least six siblings, four brothers and at least two sisters.  Mary was no longer a virgin after giving birth to Jesus.  The Greek word used here is adelphos, which means brother, and definitely not half brother as the RCC would want you to believe.  It is not likely that they were His cousins or Jewish brethren.  The children spoken of as being with Mary were actually her biological children.  The word "mother" is mentioned at the same time (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14).  Simultaneously, Matthew 1:25 does not say that Mary remained a virgin for life, but that she had no sex with her husband until Jesus was born.

delta 1:

Brother although i find your discuss interesting, but i did not actually help in bringing to a conclusion, rather stating that Jesus was black, Even if he was, the question is about his sibblings. Although i would like to get more facts on your opinion, also help in clarifying my view.

I did mention Simon.

Matthew 13:55 -  "And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:3  -   ", brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon"


The "Brothers" of Jesus
Source: http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ct_brothers.html

What?"Screaming Loudly"

OP

where in the bible did you read Mary died a virigin?

I have read parts of the bible, where the brothers of Jesus were talked about and other part were twas said that mary died a virgin. Also crowning it is the part in Isaiah were twas said that no one would pass through the same road he passed and some people relating that to the birth. So kindly send your suggestions to convince me about the actual state of Jesus's family

OLAADEGBU:

Jesus who was preexistent as the Word of God took up residency in the womb of Mary which made Him the Son of God who became the Son of Man so as to make man become sons of God. (John 1:1-3,14)

After His incarnation He had at least six siblings, four brothers and at least two sisters. Mary was no longer a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. The Greek word used here is adelphos, which means brother, and definitely not half brother as the RCC would want you to believe. It is not likely that they were His cousins or Jewish brethren. The children spoken of as being with Mary were actually her biological children. The word "mother" is mentioned at the same time (Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14). Simultaneously, Matthew 1:25 does not say that Mary remained a virgin for life, but that she had no sex with her husband until Jesus was born.

y

Sorry to disapoint you Mary never had anyother children besides Jesus .Let us carefully examine these Bible passages to find out who these supposed brothers of Jesus where

Matt 13:55-56
Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

matt27:56
Among the women were mary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES AND JOSEPH and the wife of zebedee

Mark 6:3
Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living
here?

mark15:40
Some women wre there looking from a distance .Among them weremary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSEPH AND salome

John 19:25
standing close to Jesus cross were his mother,his mothers sister MARY the wife of cleopas and mary magdalene

so from the above passagesyou could so clearly see this JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON WERE CHILDREN OF jESUS'S MOTHERS SISTER MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS .
They were actually his cousins not half brothers .besidesin the gospel of luke 3:41-51 Jesus at theageof 12 is mentioned as the only child of his parents.
Mindyou JAMES was an influential christian leader of the first century,he was the first bishop of jerusalem and author of the epistle of james.he was the james who spoke at the councilof jeruasalem in acts 15.
for more about James seethe link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

can you look at

Matt 13:55-56
Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

and

Mark 6:3
Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living
here?

then explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins?

chukwudi44:

y

Sorry to disapoint you Mary never had anyother children besides Jesus .Let us carefully examine these Bible passages to find out who these supposed brothers of Jesus where

Matt 13:55-56
Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

matt27:56
Among the women were mary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES AND JOSEPH and the wife of zebedee

Mark 6:3
Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living
here?

mark15:40
Some women wre there looking from a distance .Among them weremary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSEPH AND salome

John 19:25
standing close to Jesus cross were his mother,his mothers sister MARY the wife of cleopas and mary magdalene

so from the above passagesyou could so clearly see this JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON WERE CHILDREN OF jESUS'S MOTHERS SISTER MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS .
They were actually his cousins not half brothers .besidesin the gospel of luke 3:41-51 Jesus at theageof 12 is mentioned as the only child of his parents.
Mindyou JAMES was an influential christian leader of the first century,he was the first bishop of jerusalem and author of the epistle of james.he was the james who spoke at the councilof jeruasalem in acts 15.
for more about James seethe link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

\

I was not really preview to this information in the past mark15:40 and John 19:25. I believe the bible has never contradicted itself seeing the word in Isaiah and these stories about Jesus's brothers. You've really spoken well.

tpiah:

can you look at

and



then explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins?

are you sure you really read my post ?

@chukwudi44,

chukwudi44:

are you sure you really read my post ?

I'm not sure you considered his questions - tpiah asked you to explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins: please explain it, not just state it and leave it there. But even if we re-read your post, it still does not favour your assertion that those mentioned were his cousins. Let's see:

chukwudi44:

Sorry to disapoint you Mary never had anyother children besides Jesus .

How would you know?

chukwudi44:

Let us carefully examine these Bible passages to find out who these supposed brothers of Jesus where

Matt 13:55-56
Isn't he the Carpenter's son,isn,t mary his mother and aren,t JAMES,JOSEPH,SIMON AND JUDAS his brothers aren't all his sisters living here

matt27:56
Among the women were mary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES AND JOSEPH and the wife of zebedee

Mark 6:3
Isn't he the carpenter ,the son of mary and brother of JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON? Aren't his sisters living
here?

mark15:40
Some women wre there looking from a distance .Among them weremary magdalene,MARY the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER AND JOSEPH AND salome

John 19:25
standing close to Jesus cross were his mother,his mothers sister MARY the wife of cleopas and mary magdalene

That's fine.

chukwudi44:

so from the above passagesyou could so clearly see this JAMES,JOSEPH,JUDAS AND SIMON WERE CHILDREN OF jESUS'S MOTHERS SISTER MARY THE WIFE OF CLEOPAS .

This is where you've confused issues for yourself.

Please go back and study those references again - carefully. It is clear that Jesus siblings - brothers and sisters of the same mother, Mary. Although the names of His sisters are not given in those references, those of His brothers were mentioned: James, Joses (or Joseph as in some other versions), Simon, and Judas. These are not to be confused for other people by the same names - for there were indeed some others who had those same names even within close relatives. However, as regards the difference, this is what we should keep in mind:

(a) James the brother of Jesus was known and almost always addressed as such, so that no one was to confuse him for another James. See Galatians 1:19 ('James the Lord's brother' - this was not the other James that was not His brother).

(b) There were more than one 'James' -

          ♥  James the son of Zebedee (John's brother) - Matt. 4.21 and Mark 3:17

          ♥  James the son of Alphaeus (Judas' brother) - Mark 3:18 and Acts 1:13

These two Jameses are not the same person, and both of them were mentioned separately in such verses as Acts 1:13. To further clarify this, we find that James the brother of John was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2; while years later we read of the other James (the brother of Judas) presiding over the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem Acts 15:13.

(c) The fact that there were close relatives who bore similar names is clear in such verses as Luke 1:59-63. When John the Baptist was to be named after birth, he was first called 'Zacharias, after the name of his father' (v. 59). However, when his mother objected and desired the name 'John', they marvelled and remarked that "There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." This should not surprise us, because the custom of the people was to name relatives after their families and lineage, so that in a particular lineage we may find several close relatives bearing identical names. The same thing here is what has confused many people between the identities of --

         ♥  James the son of Mary the wife of Zebedee
            (she is also called the mother of James the less - Mark 15:40)

         ♥  James the son of Mary the mother of Jesus - Matt. 13.55-56

Once you sought these two out for yourself, the rest is easy to see.

chukwudi44:

They were actually his cousins not half brothers .

I don't know if anyone was referring to them as "half brothers"; and No - they were definitely not His cousins! There is a different Greek word for "cousin" (συγγενής - suggenēs), if that was what was meant. Example: "behold, thy cousin [συγγενής] Elisabeth" - Luke 1:36. The verses are clear enough to show that those mentioned as His brothers [ἀδελφός - adelphos] were actually Jesus' brothers, His very siblings.

chukwudi44:
besidesin the gospel of luke 3:41-51 Jesus at theageof 12 is mentioned as the only child of his parents.

Nope, Luke 3:41-51 does not teach that Jesus was mentioned as the only child of His parents - you're reading that idea into the verses. Luke 3 gives us the genealogy of Jesus, not the mentioning of His being the only child of anybody.

chukwudi44:

Mindyou JAMES was an influential christian leader of the first century,he was the first bishop of jerusalem and author of the epistle of james.he was the james who spoke at the councilof jeruasalem in acts 15.
for more about James seethe link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

The James you describing above is the actual brother of Jesus - Galatians 1:19. He is a different 'James' from the other one known as the brother of John, son of Zebedee, who was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2. Please study these carefully and see where you getting issues mixed up.

Shalom.

jagbajantis

tkb417:

jagbajantis

if you cant understand something, must you post?

pilgrim.1:

@chukwudi44,

I'm not sure you considered his questions - tpiah asked you to explain how you concluded the people mentioned were his cousins: please explain it, not just state it and leave it there. But even if we re-read your post, it still does not favour your assertion that those mentioned were his cousins. Let's see:

How would you know?

That's fine.

This is where you've confused issues for yourself.

Please go back and study those references again - carefully. It is clear that Jesus siblings - brothers and sisters of the same mother, Mary. Although the names of His sisters are not given in those references, those of His brothers were mentioned: James, Joses (or Joseph as in some other versions), Simon, and Judas. These are not to be confused for other people by the same names - for there were indeed some others who had those same names even within close relatives. However, as regards the difference, this is what we should keep in mind:

(a) James the brother of Jesus was known and almost always addressed as such, so that no one was to confuse him for another James. See Galatians 1:19 ('James the Lord's brother' - this was not the other James that was not His brother).

(b) There were more than one 'James' -

♥ James the son of Zebedee (John's brother) - Matt. 4.21 and Mark 3:17

♥ James the son of Alphaeus (Judas' brother) - Mark 3:18 and Acts 1:13

These two Jameses are not the same person, and both of them were mentioned separately in such verses as Acts 1:13. To further clarify this, we find that James the brother of John was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2; while years later we read of the other James (the brother of Judas) presiding over the meeting of the apostles in Jerusalem Acts 15:13.

(c) The fact that there were close relatives who bore similar names is clear in such verses as Luke 1:59-63. When John the Baptist was to be named after birth, he was first called 'Zacharias, after the name of his father' (v. 59). However, when his mother objected and desired the name 'John', they marvelled and remarked that "There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name." This should not surprise us, because the custom of the people was to name relatives after their families and lineage, so that in a particular lineage we may find several close relatives bearing identical names. The same thing here is what has confused many people between the identities of --

♥ James the son of Mary the wife of Zebedee
(she is also called the mother of James the less - Mark 15:40)

♥ James the son of Mary the mother of Jesus - Matt. 13.55-56

Once you sought these two out for yourself, the rest is easy to see.

I don't know if anyone was referring to them as "half brothers"; and No - they were definitely not His cousins! There is a different Greek word for "cousin" (συγγενής - suggenēs), if that was what was meant. Example: "behold, thy cousin [συγγενής] Elisabeth" - Luke 1:36. The verses are clear enough to show that those mentioned as His brothers [ἀδελφός - adelphos] were actually Jesus' brothers, His very siblings.

Nope, Luke 3:41-51 does not teach that Jesus was mentioned as the only child of His parents - you're reading that idea into the verses. Luke 3 gives us the genealogy of Jesus, not the mentioning of His being the only child of anybody.

The James you describing above is the actual brother of Jesus - Galatians 1:19. He is a different 'James' from the other one known as the brother of John, son of Zebedee, who was put to death by Herod in Acts 12:2. Please study these carefully and see where you getting issues mixed up.

Shalom.

Sorry young Lady ,at the time the gospels were written they were no greek words for cousins,the word you quoted above is a later invention.

James the just was a very influencial christian of the first century ,alongside Peter and John were regarded as pillars of the church as attested to by Paul himself in his letter to the galatians.

It is not to say that he occupied a peripheral role that his identity was obscured.He authoured the epistle of James in the bible .His younger brother another supposed brother od Jesus authored the epistle of Jude.

In the epistle of Jude ,Jude describes himself as the brother of James ,If he was also a brother of Jesus he would have prefered writing the brother of Jesus.

Come to think of it ,12 years after Jesus's birth Mary didn't give birth to anyother child,suddenly she started giving birth to Jmes ,Joseph,Jude ,Simon e.t.c
Also to think that James born after Jesus was 12 years old has grown up so much as to speak at the council of Jerusalem and presiding over the church at Jerusalem.

At the cross ,Jesus handed over his mother to John,how could he have done this when his other brothers like James ,joseph and Jude were still around.

James the just the second most influential christian leader of the first century(after Peter) was not and cannever be a uterine brother of Jesus

chukwudi44:

Sorry young Lady ,at the time the gospels were written they were no greek words for cousins,the word you quoted above is a later invention.

When was the Greek word for "cousin" invented - by who and where? How does that change anything in the fact that those names mentioned were actually the siblings of Jesus Christ - proving that Mary had other children? If there were no Greek word for 'cousin/cousins', where did you get your own invention to make them the cousins of Jesus instead of His brothers as spelt out in those references? Why were you comfortable using the 'later invention' to force-fit your own ideas into the texts where they did not say what you wanted them to say?

You see, it's convenient to sit back and make denials here and there; but your excuses do not change anything from the fact that Mary had other children as identified in those verses reviewed.

chukwudi44:

James the just was a very influencial christian of the first century ,alongside Peter and John were regarded as pillars of the church as attested to by Paul himself in his letter to the galatians.

And. . .? that was supposed to "prove" he was a "cousin" of a 'later invention' to Jesus? What's the connection of that excuse got to do with the gist of my reply?

chukwudi44:

It is not to say that he occupied a peripheral role that his identity was obscured.He authoured the epistle of James in the bible .His younger brother another supposed brother od Jesus authored the epistle of Jude.

Okay, are you admitting they were not His cousins as you previously made out, but were actually His brothers - His siblings?

chukwudi44:

In the epistle of Jude ,Jude describes himself as the brother of James ,If he was also a brother of Jesus he would have prefered writing the brother of Jesus.

You're playing the card of a joker!
Nowhere did that James or Jude deny being Jesus' brethren; and if they were His cousins, why did they not also instead write "cousins of Jesus Christ" to suit your objection? Don't put words in their mouth - they stated what they did about themselves, and what they stated in no way denied that they were Jesus' brothers.

chukwudi44:

Come to think of it ,12 years after Jesus's birth Mary didn't give birth to anyother child,suddenly she started giving birth to Jmes ,Joseph,Jude ,Simon e.t.c

And what about that? Na you marry Mary for Joseph? Na you pay her dowry?
hehe. . , dear chukwudi44, think of stronger objections to deny wetin Scripture talk, you hear?

chukwudi44:

Also to think that James born after Jesus was 12 years old has grown up so much as to speak at the council of Jerusalem and presiding over the church at Jerusalem.

Did any verse tell you that Mary started having those children 12 years after Jesus was born?

chukwudi44:

At the cross ,Jesus handed over his mother to John,how could he have done this when his other brothers like James ,joseph and Jude were still around.

I cannot read into the text; but we can read plainly that even after the Cross and Resurrection, James was still known as "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19).

chukwudi44:

James the just the second most influential christian leader of the first century(after Peter) was not and cannever be a uterine brother of Jesus

A denial does not erase what is written - and what is written in Scripture is that those names (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) were His brothers, not cousins or any "later invention" to help you deny the fact.

pilgrim.1:

When was the Greek word for "cousin" invented - by who and where? How does that change anything in the fact that those names mentioned were actually the siblings of Jesus Christ - proving that Mary had other children? If there were no Greek word for 'cousin/cousins', where did you get your own invention to make them the cousins of Jesus instead of His brothers as spelt out in those references? Why were you comfortable using the 'later invention' to force-fit your own ideas into the texts where they did not say what you wanted them to say?

You see, it's convenient to sit back and make denials here and there; but your excuses do not change anything from the fact that Mary had other children as identified in those verses reviewed.

And. . .? that was supposed to "prove" he was a "cousin" of a 'later invention' to Jesus? What's the connection of that excuse got to do with the gist of my reply?

Okay, are you admitting they were not His cousins as you previously made out, but were actually His brothers - His siblings?

You're playing the card of a joker!
Nowhere did that James or Jude deny being Jesus' brethren; and if they were His cousins, why did they not also instead write "cousins of Jesus Christ" to suit your objection? Don't put words in their mouth - they stated what they did about themselves, and what they stated in no way denied that they were Jesus' brothers.

And what about that? Na you marry Mary for Joseph? Na you pay her dowry?
hehe. . , dear chukwudi44, think of stronger objections to deny wetin Scripture talk, you hear?

Did any verse tell you that Mary started having those children 12 years after Jesus was born?

I cannot read into the text; but we can read plainly that even after the Cross and Resurrection, James was still known as "James the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:19).

A denial does not erase what is written - and what is written in Scripture is that those names (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) were His brothers, not cousins or any "later invention" to help you deny the fact.

The onus is on you to prove that the word cousin has previously existed.In the epistle of James ,he simply describes himself as a slave of the Lord Jesus not brother,also Jude in his epistle does not in any way imply he was a brother of Jesus He simply said Jude brother of james,If he was also a brother of Jesus he would have said ,jude brother of Jesus since Jesus was supposed to be the first born son.

The gospel of Luke clearly tells us that at the age of 12 Jesus was the only child of his parents.No other brother or sister was mentioned in that account of Jesus missing for 3 days in the temple.

To prove me wrong you have to show where in the new testament the word Cousin is used,then Iwould agree that the word cousin has previously existed .

The propket eziekiel prothesied in ezekiel 44:2

"and the lord said to me,this gate shall be shut and it shall not be opened and no man shall enter by it because I the Lord God of isreal has entered by it ,therefore it shall be shut."

metaphorically Mary is the gate through which christ our Lord passed from heaven to earth.

James the just was so influential in the first century that his Identity could not be mis taken.So many writers wrote about him.Luke writing in acts of the Apostle did not address him as brother of Jesus.
So many people actually confuse James mentioned in the acts 15 with James the son of zebedee who was already dead by then .the identities of these two men are differant.
see the links below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Zebedee

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_the_Just

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_son_of_Alphaeus.

chukwudi44:

The onus is on you to prove that the word cousin has previously existed. 

here we go again.

Look- Jesus had brothers from his father and mother.

Deal with it.

chukwudi44:

The onus is on you to prove that the word cousin has previously existed.

Sorry, I didn't make any claims as to the invention of a Greek word for "cousin" - you made that claim, and we're waiting excitedly for you to show when, how, by who, and where it was first used. After doing so, please go on and show us how you conveniently dribbled in your own idea to make Jesus' brothers his "cousins" while forgetting your claim for the "later invention".

chukwudi44:

In the epistle of James ,he simply describes himself as a slave of the Lord Jesus not brother,also Jude in his epistle does not in any way imply he was a brother of Jesus He simply said Jude brother of james,If he was also a brother of Jesus he would have said ,jude brother of Jesus since Jesus was supposed to be the first born son.

Both these particular James and Jude were identified as Jesus' brothers in Matthew 13:55-56 - in those verses, they were not called 'slaves' or 'cousins'. In Galatians 1:19, this same James is called "James the Lord's brother", not the Lord's "slave" or "cousin". Relationships in family are not the same as positions in service. Hence, if Jude referred to himself as servant instead of "brother" or "cousin", it does not negate what was stated about Jesus' brothers in matthew 13:55-56.

chukwudi44:

The gospel of Luke clearly tells us that at the age of 12 Jesus was the only child of his parents.No other brother or sister was mentioned in that account of Jesus missing for 3 days in the temple.

You first quoted Luke 3, please show us the verse where it says what you're claiming up there.

chukwudi44:

To prove me wrong you have to show where in the new testament the word Cousin is used,then Iwould agree that the word cousin has previously existed .

What does it matter if anything is "proven" to you? I showed you from the English translations and compared the Greek to show what I did. If the Greek word συγγενής (suggenēs) was not evidently in use at the time of the NT, please proceed and demonstrate your magic. That would be such a performance and quite entertaining. The same Greek word is translated variously in our English Bibles as either "cousin", "kinsfolk" or "kinsmen" - which is not the same word used for someone's "brother" in the NT. What is more amazing is that even the English version Douay Rheims favoured by Roman Catholics uses the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36 (check it up here).

I didn't make your claim for you: since you claimed it was a later "invention", please put some more substance to your claim and show something more cogent to that same claim. The Catholic translators must have forgotten your own "later invention" when using the word "cousin" in Luke 1:36, no?

chukwudi44:

The propket eziekiel prothesied in ezekiel 44:2

"and the lord said to me,this gate shall be shut and it shall not be opened and no man shall enter by it because I the Lord God of isreal has entered by it ,therefore it shall be shut."

metaphorically Mary is the gate through which christ our Lord passed from heaven to earth.

Ezekiel 44:2 was not referring to the Incarnation in any way.

chukwudi44:

James the just was so influential in the first century that his Identity could not be mis taken.So many writers wrote about him.Luke writing in acts of the Apostle did not address him as brother of Jesus.
So many people actually confuse James mentioned in the acts 15 with James the son of zebedee who was already dead by then .the identities of these two men are differant.
see the links below

I didn't confuse them; and if you have got some more substance and not reading your ideas into the body of the references, you can see you got it all mixed up before I helped sorted you out.

tpiah:


here we go again.

Look- Jesus had brothers from his father and mother.

Deal with it.

Just leave am to be running round and round - e no see where to ferret excuses from, that is why he finds it difficult to see the plain statements in those references. I can sympathize with him. . . he's probably wondering what would happen to his "infallible" Catholicism if he has to admit that Mary had other children.

pilgrim.1:

Just leave am to be running round and round - e no see where to ferret excuses from, that is why he finds it difficult to see the plain statements in those references. I can sympathize with him. . . he's probably wondering what would happen to his "infallible" Catholicism if he has to admit that Mary had other children.

being Catholic doesnt in any way interfere with understanding Mary had other children, imo.

Same way Catholic guys still use condoms regardless what the pope says.

@pilgrim1

I think now i know where mohammmed got part of his hatred from. There is no way people during mohammed's time would not have hated the catholic church for their lies and deciet.

@chukwudi

- The Messiah had siblings from the same mother (i know this and am sure of this because the bible says so).

- Yes Joseph was not His Father in the biological sense of the word. But Joseph was considered His earthly father.

- You keep exposing yourself with every post u make.

- You keep showing that the bible is not the final authority as far as you are concerned.

- Can u please explain to me how a woman with her hymen broken during childbirth could have remained a virgin.

- Can u please explain to me who or wat Joseph was having intercourse with during the period He was alive (to put it in a more better form: who the heck was Joseph fucking). @pilgrim1 apologises for being so raw  .

- Can u please explain to me, if the Bible was telling a lie when it says brother instead of cousin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says Mary remained a virgin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says the Messiah never had brothers and sisters from the same mother and same earthly father.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says John the Baptist was the Messiah's brother considering that you are claiming that His cousins are His brothers and His brothers are His cousins via your own source of information.

- I am still a little confused as to how the catholic church can claim to beleive the bible and make statements, follow traditions and worship idols that are in complete contradiction and opposite to the very bible they claim to believe. No wonder the catholic church had to include the Apocrypha books into the scriptures in blatant disregard for the warnings of revelations against those who try to alter the scriptures.

- Finally one word of advice is that you should be careful about the things you reference on Wikipedia for the following reasons:
1. It can be created and altered by anybody
2. Various organisations such as the Vatican and Secret Services intentionally contribute their own forms of truth to the website. Hence that something is on wikipedia does not mean it is true.

--------------------

@tpiah

Sorry to hear that you are a catholic, i can only hope that someday and one day you would finally come to realisation that you really need to leave the place completely. Assuming that you do not already have conflicts from worshipping Mary instead of the Creator, conflicts from praying to Mary instead of the Father in Heaven, conflicts on issue of purgatory instead of realising their is only one Heaven and one Hell and nothing in-between.
I am grateful that i started questioning the catholic heresies right from primary school days (i went to MaryHill Covent School Ibadan although i was never once a catholic), hence i have come to appreciate and understand a lot of exposure of catholic heresies. I was raised an anglican but I know enough to realise that anglican church is more or less a politcally correct version of catholicism established as a family church by one of England's King (e.g. one of the heresies of the anglican church is that a human being - king or queen of england is the head of the church)

No2Atheism:

- Finally one word of advice is that you should be careful about the things you reference on Wikipedia for the following reasons:
1. It can be created and altered by anybody
2. Various organisations such as the Vatican and Secret Services intentionally contribute their own forms of truth to the website. Hence that something is on wikipedia does not mean it is true.

Thank you so very much. The highlighted taught me a very bitter lesson I will never forget in a long time - I had used some citations from Wikipedia for a Philosophy course (was lazy at the time and submitted my research almost late). Cut long story short, I had a bold "F". When we sat in our next class, I had to admit that I was naive to have rushed to Wikipedia. Although, yes, not everything at Wiki is erroneous, I have since learnt to tread softly and carefully.

______________________________________

tpiah:

being Catholic doesnt in any way interfere with understanding Mary had other children, imo.

Same way Catholic guys still use condoms regardless what the pope says.

Quite true.

pilgrim.1:

Thank you so very much. The highlighted taught me a very bitter lesson I will never forget in a long time - I had used some citations from Wikipedia for a Philosophy course (was lazy at the time and submitted my research almost late). Cut long story short, I had a bold "F". When we sat in our next class, I had to admit that I was naive to have rushed to Wikipedia. Although, yes, not everything at Wiki is erroneous, I have since learnt to tread softly and carefully.

1. You are welcome

2. I am also guilty of sometimes lifting things from wikipedia but i have reduced that significantly now.

3. However i have recently tried my best to make sure i reference wikipedia and suspect wikipedia all at the same time. Hence i paraphrase my statements accordingly.

4. Sorry to hear about the "F" , hope the summer classes helped u cover up sha.

5. I also thread softly wen it comes to wikipedia.

6. Infact i sometimes suspect that some things are being changed cus it exposes a lot of lies in the various heretical churches. I can swear that i read something and had this feeling that the information had been moved or changed.

7. I just hope chukwudi would try to start reading the bible for himself and try to really understand what it says before he allows the catholic church to seal his eternity by brainwashing him into becoming an heretic going against the very bible he claims to believe.

@Pilgrim and no2 atheism

So wikipedia is no longer a reliable internet link abi?

Sorry to disapoint you ,on the contrary ,wikipedia is the most reliable internet database in the world today.

To post on wikipedia You have to provide a reliable reference otherwise your post will be deleted.I dont practise sola scripture since it is on itself unbiblical.I will continue reading scriptures that were written by the early church fathers since they gave us the bible.

If it turns out in the end that they were telling us lies then we are all going down ,since the bible itself will likely be part of their lies.

The gospels did not disclose the names of their authors,likewise acts,and the letter to the hebrews .These early church fathers did.

The Apostles did not leave us any bible ,these early church fathers did.

The Jews who were the chosen race told us Jesus was a fake ,so there are still expecting the messiah .It was these early fathers trhat continued where the apostles stopped men like Clement of rome (mentioned in the Bible),Ignatius of antioch Polycarp of smyrna .Ireneaus of Lyons e.t.c were the ones God used to continue passing the message of the risen christ .They like the apostles before them suffered matyrdom for the faith.

I dont think they were liars,they lived by example.

@chukwudi4,,

chukwudi44:

@Pilgrim and no2 atheism

So wikipedia is no longer a reliable internet link abi?

Sorry to disapoint you ,on the contrary ,wikipedia is the most reliable internet database in the world today.

I don't remember either of us (me or No2Atheism) saying what you said up there. Nobody has said here that Wikipedia is "no longer a reliable internet link". The point of exchange between us was straight forward -

● 'not everything at Wiki is erroneous'

● 'you should be careful about the things you reference on Wikipedia'

● 'Hence that something is on wikipedia does not mean it is true'

More to the point is that anything you source from Wikipedia could be "created and altered by anybody" (quoting No2Atheism) - and I agree there's substance to that statement. It is a fact, as well, that Various organisations such as the Vatican and Secret Services intentionally contribute their own forms of truth to the website. If you are quite in the know, you should not find these matters difficult to grasp; but I'll point you to a few issues that buttress our point of view:

● Wikipedia Founder Discourages Academic Use of His Creation

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers,
has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies.
Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to
college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.
Speaking at a conference at the University of Pennsylvania on Friday called
“The Hyperlinked Society,” Mr. Wales said that he gets about 10 e-mail messages
a week from students who complain that Wikipedia has gotten them into academic
hot water. “They say, ‘Please help me. I got an F on my paper because I cited Wikipedia’”
and the information turned out to be wrong, he says. But he said he has no sympathy
for their plight, noting that he thinks to himself: “For God sake, you’re in college; don’t
cite the encyclopedia.” [source: Chronicle of Higher Education]

______________________________


● It's on Wikipedia, So It Must Be True

Last week provided another fascinating chapter in the evolving story of Wikipedia,
the almost-anybody-can-edit-it online encyclopedia . . On the show, Colbert praised
what he called "Wikiality," the idea that if you claim something to be true and enough
people agree with you, it becomes true. It was Colbert's jibe at the online encyclopedia,
which does not rely on formal peer review to proof its entries. Wikipedia's peer review
comes from a coterie of interested parties -- citizen editors -- on particular topics, and
each person can have conflicting interpretations of fact. Such problems have led to
Wikipedia recently barring new or anonymous users from editing the entry on Israel,
for instance. [source: The Washington Post]

______________________________

● It's online, but is it true?

In many ways, Wikipedia, which lets anonymous users add encyclopedia
entries and update entries by others, continues to reach that ambitious goal.
It was rated the top reference site by Hitwise, and has versions in 82 languages
and more than 850,000 articles in English. In October, 16.3 million people visited
the site, says Internet measurement company Nielsen/NetRatings. . . .
But a high-profile incident last week is making some people rethink their faith in
the type of anonymous collaborative information gathering that Wikipedia relies on
— and is reminding them that just because something looks authoritative,
doesn't mean it necessarily is. . .
While much of Wikipedia's information is correct, some is not.
And sometimes people lie or are "vicious." ~~ [source USA TODAY]

______________________________

● Online encyclopedia tightens rules following false article

SAN FRANCISCO — Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows anyone
to contribute articles, is tightening its rules for submitting entries following
the disclosure that it ran a piece falsely implicating a man in the Kennedy
assassinations . . . The episode demonstrates the lack of accountability that
often comes with articles posted by anonymous people over the Internet.
Unlike content included in magazines, books and other traditional media,
online material can be submitted by just about anyone, often without having
to volunteer any identifying information. ~~ [source USA TODAY]

______________________________

● A false Wikipedia 'biography'

"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy
in the early 1960's. For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved
in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was
ever proven." — Wikipedia

This is a highly personal story about Internet character assassination.
It could be your story. ~~ [source USA TODAY]


I could go on and provide you with so many other considerations until you 'belleful', you hear? The point in our (me and No2Atheism) exchange was not that everything at Wikipedia is erroneous, but that one should be careful when citing materials from there to "prove" or buttress anything. In one word: THINK!

chukwudi44:

To post on wikipedia You have to provide a reliable reference otherwise your post will be deleted.

Sidon look. Just scroll up and read those entries and make your own inference - I trust you can think for yourself.

chukwudi44:

I dont practise sola scripture since it is on itself unbiblical.I will continue reading scriptures that were written by the early church fathers since they gave us the bible.

And after you read the "scriptures" written by 'early church fathers', they become more authoritative to you than the very Scriptures written by the apostles, not so? You're simply mispunching the air and fighting a lost cause.

chukwudi44:

If it turns out in the end that they were telling us lies then we are all going down ,since the bible itself will likely be part of their lies.

Sorry, you're going down - ALONE!
You had enough time and conscience to gather yourself, pull up your Catholic socks and consider what others have shared on your questions and assertions. If you rejected them all without good reasons just because you emptied your faith on 'writings' of the 'church fathers', whose fault is it? There are many people who quite simply gathered themselves together and examined the assertions of the Popery (oops, sorry - I mean 'Roman Catholicism') - after all said and done, they understood there were far too many things wrong that could not be sustained intelligently in light of the Scriptures themselves. Consequently, they left - nevermind the persecutions to death that ensued.

Is it any wonder that while folks like you are still struggling to find grounds for Catholicism in the Bible, you typically react with 'I don't practise sola scriptura' and duck further from the searching light of your conscience? Or, when you have no more corners to cut, you want to drag everyone down with "we are all going down". .?? Sorry, the "we" in your desire there probably includes just you, and I pray it does not become a fact in your life.

chukwudi44:

The gospels did not disclose the names of their authors,likewise acts,and the letter to the hebrews .These early church fathers did.

In other words, since the 'church fathers' disclosed the names of those documents, then automatically the documents themselves were written by the same 'church fathers'? I no fit laugh, abeg eh? Just find us another tidy excuse - that one is now weathered.

chukwudi44:
The Apostles did not leave us any bible ,these early church fathers did.

Clap for you. The 'early church fathers' wrote the books of the Bible, abi? And for all your shakara, you don't practise 'sola scriptura' - so that you can continue to 'fabu' anyhow!

chukwudi44:
The Jews who were the chosen race told us Jesus was a fake ,so there are still expecting the messiah .It was these early fathers trhat continued where the apostles stopped men like Clement of rome (mentioned in the Bible),Ignatius of antioch Polycarp of smyrna .Ireneaus of Lyons e.t.c were the ones God used to continue passing the message of the risen christ .They like the apostles before them suffered matyrdom for the faith.

I dont think they were liars,they lived by example.

Yea, I agree with you - there were liars unlimited among the Papacy. At least, the Jews were more dignified, because the same Bible you distrust clearly said many times that the Jews trusted in Christ - try these: John 2:23; 10:42 and 12:42 for now.

Got more interesting excuses?

About Jesus having siblings or no Siblings, lets look at it this way. The bible gave an account of Jesus in is early Pre-adolescent and his later years when he was age 30 dying at the age of about 33. Obviously there is a gap of about 20 to 25 years in his history. Why do we have this gap? lets look at it this way - the bible is a compilation of known and available scripts at the point of compilation. Please recall that before the compilation, the roman emperor prosecuted Christians- killing them and burning their scrolls and written manuscripts. During that period it is very possible that scripts which account for the missing years were found and destroyed or the scripts were well hiding in a cave and the owner could not located it after or the owner of the script was tortured to produce the script but did not produce the script from where it was hiding but the owner died during torture and the scripts remained lost after the bible as we have it now is compiled.

So we cannot say he did have siblings or he didn't, why will Mary not want to have other biological children with Joseph?

Just a thought

@chukwudi

Going by your stand and belief then it means you are probably trying to say that:

- Your early catholic church fathers know more about the Messiah than the Apostles themselves.
- Your early church father are more authentic than Moses himself.
- Your early catholic church fathers are saying the truth and the bible is lying whenever the bible disagrees with your early catholic church fathers.
- Your early catholic church fathers wrote the Bible.

Am sorry but it seems your delusion is nearing completion. Because the height of heresy is to actually claim that you believe human beings more than the bible itself, because otherwise:

- it means your early catholic church fathers did not write the bible.
- it means your early catholic church fathers cannot be trusted wen wat they say goes against the bible that they did not write.

Penultimately,

The words of the Messiah Himself who died for you is in the very Bible that you disregard yet you choose to say u do not do sola scriptura and instead say you prefer to believe the words of your early catholic church fathers (who did not die for you and who did not and can not give you salvation) rather than believe the words of the apostles and the Messiah himself and the ancient prophets. I really pity you that you can't see that your stand is so wrong at its fundamental levels.

Finally please how old are u and how long have you been a catholic, cus it seems u can't be trusted to think for yourself considering that way you are trying to twist my statements and pilgrim1's statements to say wat it does not say.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@pilgrim1 thanks for trying your best to clarify issues for him as per wikipedia. Good news if he learns and accepts the issue about wikipedia. Bad news if he does not learn and accept. Its non of our business lets hope he does not lose his soul at the end of the day.


----------------------------------

By the way @chukwudi i noticed you skipped responding to an earlier post that really had something to do with this topic. Hence can you please try your best to answer the following question line by line.

@chukwudi



- The Messiah had siblings from the same mother (i know this and am sure of this because the bible says so).

- Yes Joseph was not His Father in the biological sense of the word. But Joseph was considered His earthly father.

- You keep showing that the bible is not the final authority as far as you are concerned.

- Can u please explain to me how a woman with her hymen broken during childbirth could have remained a virgin assuming Joseph never had sex with her.

- Can u please explain to me where the Bible says Joseph never had sex with Mary after the birth of the Messiah.

- Can u please explain to me who or wat Joseph was having intercourse with during the period He was alive and after the birth of the Messiah (to put it bluntly: who the heck was Joseph fucking). @pilgrim1 apologises for being so raw  .

- Hence based on the answers to the questions above how the heck is it that your own brain is still telling you that Mary was a virgin after the birth of the Messiah or does your own catholic perpetual virgin mary have something to do with the perpetual virgin hypothesis of the muslims in their 72 virgin al-janaa.

- Can u please explain to me, if the Bible was telling a lie when it says brother instead of cousin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says Mary remained a virgin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says the Messiah never had brothers and sisters from the same mother and same earthly father.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says John the Baptist was the Messiah's brother considering that you are claiming that His cousins are His brothers and His brothers are His cousins via your own source of information.

- I am still a little confused as to how the catholic church can claim to beleive the bible and make statements, follow traditions and worship idols that are in complete contradiction and opposite to the very bible they claim to believe. No wonder the catholic church had to include the Apocrypha books into the scriptures in blatant disregard for the warnings of revelations against those who try to alter the scriptures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second commandment is in the Torah.
The second commandment is in the bible.
Yet the catholic church omits and twists the second commandment.

Does it not sound a little fishy that what the second commandment was telling people not to do is exactly what the catholic church is doing in terms of bowing down to statues, kissing statues and worshipping statues called Mary, Jesus, Baby Jesus etc.

Hence am suprised that you claim Jews and Christians have issues with the second commandment, even though it is clear that they do not but that instead its Jews/Christians who have issues with Catholics about the second commandment. (this is clearly a typical example of where u have blatantly choosing to lie just to support your catholic faith). I really pity u that you still do not see that there is a problem once u have reached the level of having to lie for your catholic gods and believes.

Where in the Bible does it say that people should bow down to any form of statues as a form of worship of the Creator (nope the isrealites were not worshipping the serpent in the wilderness as another creator they were basically carrying out an instruction from the creator Himself of wat to do to overcome their sickness) (chk ur bible for the story  ).
Where in the Bible does it say that people should honour Mary.


Mary was a sinner, she needed salvation herself. Hence does worshippping and praying to a someone who herself needed to be saved determine your own salvation.

Did the Messiah tell us to pray to Saints - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to Mary - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to Him - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray in His name - Yes
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Pope - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Apostles - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Father in Heaven - YES
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Father in Heaven using His own name (Messiah's name) as a request key - YES
Did the Messiah tell us to worship Mary - NO
Did the Messiah tell us to worship the Apostles - NO
Did the Messiah tell the Apostles to go set up a central church in Rome - NO
Did the Apostles ever setup a central church in Rome - NO

So did Chukwudi get most of his information and beliefs from the Bible - NO
So did Chukwudi get most of his information and beliefs from the catholic church fathers - YES

Does that make Chukwudi right and the Bible wrong - NO
Does that make the Bible right and the Catholic church fathers wrong - YES

-------------------------------------------------

By the way, @chukwudi according to catholic beliefs wat was the skin colour of the Messiah does he look european or non-european.

No2Atheism:

@chukwudi

Going by your stand and belief then it means you are probably trying to say that:

- Your early catholic church fathers know more about the Messiah than the Apostles themselves.
- Your early church father are more authentic than Moses himself.
- Your early catholic church fathers are saying the truth and the bible is lying whenever the bible disagrees with your early catholic church fathers.
- Your early catholic church fathers wrote the Bible.

Am sorry but it seems your delusion is nearing completion. Because the height of heresy is to actually claim that you believe human beings more than the bible itself, because otherwise:

- it means your early catholic church fathers did not write the bible.
- it means your early catholic church fathers cannot be trusted wen wat they say goes against the bible that they did not write.

Penultimately,

The words of the Messiah Himself who died for you is in the very Bible that you disregard yet you choose to say u do not do sola scriptura and instead say you prefer to believe the words of your early catholic church fathers (who did not die for you and who did not and can not give you salvation) rather than believe the words of the apostles and the Messiah himself and the ancient prophets. I really pity you that you can't see that your stand is so wrong at its fundamental levels.

Finally please how old are u and how long have you been a catholic, cus it seems u can't be trusted to think for yourself considering that way you are trying to twist my statements and pilgrim1's statements to say wat it does not say.

--------------------------------------------------------------

@pilgrim1 thanks for trying your best to clarify issues for him as per wikipedia. Good news if he learns and accepts the issue about wikipedia. Bad news if he does not learn and accept. Its non of our business lets hope he does not lose his soul at the end of the day.


----------------------------------

By the way @chukwudi i noticed you skipped responding to an earlier post that really had something to do with this topic. Hence can you please try your best to answer the following question line by line.

@chukwudi



- The Messiah had siblings from the same mother (i know this and am sure of this because the bible says so).

- Yes Joseph was not His Father in the biological sense of the word. But Joseph was considered His earthly father.

- You keep showing that the bible is not the final authority as far as you are concerned.

- Can u please explain to me how a woman with her hymen broken during childbirth could have remained a virgin assuming Joseph never had sex with her.

- Can u please explain to me where the Bible says Joseph never had sex with Mary after the birth of the Messiah.

- Can u please explain to me who or wat Joseph was having intercourse with during the period He was alive and after the birth of the Messiah (to put it bluntly: who the heck was Joseph fucking). @pilgrim1 apologises for being so raw .

- Hence based on the answers to the questions above how the heck is it that your own brain is still telling you that Mary was a virgin after the birth of the Messiah or does your own catholic perpetual virgin mary have something to do with the perpetual virgin hypothesis of the Muslims in their 72 virgin al-janaa.

- Can u please explain to me, if the Bible was telling a lie when it says brother instead of cousin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says Mary remained a virgin.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says the Messiah never had brothers and sisters from the same mother and same earthly father.

- Please can u kindly provide and boldly highlight where the bible says John the Baptist was the Messiah's brother considering that you are claiming that His cousins are His brothers and His brothers are His cousins via your own source of information.

- I am still a little confused as to how the catholic church can claim to believe the bible and make statements, follow traditions and worship idols that are in complete contradiction and opposite to the very bible they claim to believe. No wonder the catholic church had to include the Apocrypha books into the scriptures in blatant disregard for the warnings of revelations against those who try to alter the scriptures.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second commandment is in the Torah.
The second commandment is in the bible.
Yet the catholic church omits and twists the second commandment.

Does it not sound a little fishy that what the second commandment was telling people not to do is exactly what the catholic church is doing in terms of bowing down to statues, kissing statues and worshipping statues called Mary, Jesus, Baby Jesus etc.

Hence am surprised that you claim Jews and Christians have issues with the second commandment, even though it is clear that they do not but that instead its Jews/Christians who have issues with Catholics about the second commandment. (this is clearly a typical example of where u have blatantly choosing to lie just to support your catholic faith). I really pity u that you still do not see that there is a problem once u have reached the level of having to lie for your catholic gods and believes.

Where in the Bible does it say that people should bow down to any form of statues as a form of worship of the Creator (nope the isrealites were not worshipping the serpent in the wilderness as another creator they were basically carrying out an instruction from the creator Himself of wat to do to overcome their sickness) (chk ur bible for the story ).
Where in the Bible does it say that people should honour Mary.


Mary was a sinner, she needed salvation herself. Hence does worshippping and praying to a someone who herself needed to be saved determine your own salvation.

Did the Messiah tell us to pray to Saints - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to Mary - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to Him - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray in His name - Yes
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Pope - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Apostles - NO
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Father in Heaven - YES
Did the Messiah tells us to pray to the Father in Heaven using His own name (Messiah's name) as a request key - YES
Did the Messiah tell us to worship Mary - NO
Did the Messiah tell us to worship the Apostles - NO
Did the Messiah tell the Apostles to go set up a central church in Rome - NO
Did the Apostles ever setup a central church in Rome - NO

So did Chukwudi get most of his information and beliefs from the Bible - NO
So did Chukwudi get most of his information and beliefs from the catholic church fathers - YES

Does that make Chukwudi right and the Bible wrong - NO
Does that make the Bible right and the Catholic church fathers wrong - YES

-------------------------------------------------

By the way, @chukwudi according to catholic beliefs wat was the skin colour of the Messiah does he look european or non-european.

Well am so surprised how people would talk of religion and churches like this. You talked about the early fathers of the catholic church as not writing the bible. Well if you should be a lil educated, the catholic church was the first church. The scriptures which is preached by most churches inclusive of Anglican church was compiled by the Early chuch which were more of catholic before the break of orthodox, Anglican and the protestants. Well goin to the history of the Anglican church, i believe this would help throw more light to your knowledge.

The English church was under papal authority for nearly a thousand years, before separating from Rome in 1534 during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the English church such as Lollardy, but the English Reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Under pressure from Catherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment. Eventually, Henry, although theologically a doctrinal Catholic, took the position of Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage. He was excommunicated by Pope Paul III[6].

Henry maintained a strong preference for traditional Catholic practices and, during his reign, Protestant reformers were unable to make many changes to the practices of the Church of England. Indeed, this part of Henry's reign saw the trial for heresy of Protestants as well as Roman Catholics.

Under his son, Edward VI, more Protestant-influenced forms of worship were adopted. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, a more radical reformation proceeded. A new pattern of worship was set out in the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552). These were based on the older liturgy but influenced by Protestant principles. The confession of the new reformed church was set out in the Forty-two Articles (later revised to thirty-nine). The reformation however was cut short by the death of the king. Queen Mary I, who succeeded him, sought to return England again to the authority of the Pope and undo the reforms. Many leaders and common people were burnt for their refusal to recant of their reformed faith. These are known as the Marian martyrs and the persecution has led to her nickname of "Bloody Mary".

Mary also died childless and so it was left to the new regime of her half-sister Elizabeth to resolve the direction of the church. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558), known as the Elizabethan settlement, developed the via media (middle way) character of the Church of England, a church moderately Reformed in doctrine, as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles, but also emphasising continuity with the Catholic and Apostolic traditions of the Church Fathers. It was also an established church (constitutionally established by the state with the head of state as its supreme governor). The exact nature of the relationship between church and state would be a source of continued friction into the next century"


From this you would realise that the anglican church was made for the selfish reason (greed) of one man Henry vii who only wanted a wife ( for name continuity) hence seeking for divorce and re marriage to Anne.

As for all the prayers issue i am surprise you said you went to "convent" (should be Seminary for guys) cos with that you ought to have understood that catholics never prayed to mary to saints. I believe your grievance could be personal else you'd take off the dirt in your eyes before that of others.

About me being a catholic its not relevant cos i go to many churches and worship for the sake of heaven and good. If you worship your church, then they would take you to their heaven, but i believe its rather God you worship. with comments like yours a Muslim might even be closer to heaven than yourself.

Please people lets remove this catholicism and denomination thing and talk of the question at hand with Facts.
I have really learnt a lot from this post such as the Greek word for cousin and brothers and lots more.
Kindly send information that would be beneficial to this discuss rather than criticizing churches.

delta 1:

Well am so surprised how people would talk of religion and churches like this. You talked about the early fathers of the catholic church as not writing the bible. Well if you should be a lil educated, the catholic church was the first church. The scriptures which is preached by most churches inclusive of Anglican church was compiled by the Early chuch which were more of catholic before the break of orthodox, Anglican and the protestants. Well goin to the history of the Anglican church, i believe this would help throw more light to your knowledge.

The English church was under papal authority for nearly a thousand years, before separating from Rome in 1534 during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the English church such as Lollardy, but the English Reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Under pressure from Catherine's nephew, the Emperor Charles V, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment. Eventually, Henry, although theologically a doctrinal Catholic, took the position of Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage. He was excommunicated by Pope Paul III[6].

Henry maintained a strong preference for traditional Catholic practices and, during his reign, Protestant reformers were unable to make many changes to the practices of the Church of England. Indeed, this part of Henry's reign saw the trial for heresy of Protestants as well as Roman Catholics.

Under his son, Edward VI, more Protestant-influenced forms of worship were adopted. Under the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer, a more radical reformation proceeded. A new pattern of worship was set out in the Book of Common Prayer (1549 and 1552). These were based on the older liturgy but influenced by Protestant principles. The confession of the new reformed church was set out in the Forty-two Articles (later revised to thirty-nine). The reformation however was cut short by the death of the king. Queen Mary I, who succeeded him, sought to return England again to the authority of the Pope and undo the reforms. Many leaders and common people were burnt for their refusal to recant of their reformed faith. These are known as the Marian martyrs and the persecution has led to her nickname of "Bloody Mary".

Mary also died childless and so it was left to the new regime of her half-sister Elizabeth to resolve the direction of the church. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558), known as the Elizabethan settlement, developed the via media (middle way) character of the Church of England, a church moderately Reformed in doctrine, as expressed in the Thirty-nine Articles, but also emphasising continuity with the Catholic and Apostolic traditions of the Church Fathers. It was also an established church (constitutionally established by the state with the head of state as its supreme governor). The exact nature of the relationship between church and state would be a source of continued friction into the next century"


From this you would realise that the anglican church was made for the selfish reason (greed) of one man Henry vii who only wanted a wife ( for name continuity) hence seeking for divorce and re marriage to Anne.

As for all the prayers issue i am surprise you said you went to "convent" (should be Seminary for guys) cos with that you ought to have understood that catholics never prayed to mary to saints. I believe your grievance could be personal else you'd take off the dirt in your eyes before that of others.

About me being a catholic its not relevant cos i go to many churches and worship for the sake of heaven and good. If you worship your church, then they would take you to their heaven,  but i believe its rather God you worship. with comments like yours a Muslim might even be closer to heaven than yourself.

Please people lets remove this catholicism and denomination thing and talk of the question at hand with Facts.
I have really learnt a lot from this post such as the Greek word for cousin and brothers and lots more.
Kindly send information that would be beneficial to this discuss rather than criticizing churches.

Well if you should be a lil educated, the catholic church was the first church. The scriptures which is preached by most churches inclusive of Anglican church was compiled by the Early chuch which were more of catholic before the break of orthodox, Anglican and the protestants

1. Are u catholic or otherwise

2. Kindly go through my previous post and contribute to the points raised line by line, instead of repeating the same nonsense that @chukwudi seems to have been spewing since.

- show how the catholic church was the first church using the bible.
- show through the bible how mary was remained a virgin after giving birth to the Messiah.
- show through the bible how some catholics claim that the Messiah never had brothers.

John the Baptist was the cousin of the Messiah, the bible did not call him is brother. The bible was very clear when it called certain people the brothers of the Messiah, hence the catholic dogma and idolatory about Mary being a perpetual virgin is nothing more than idolatory and semeremis worship or the nimrod order.

If you take time to really study ur bible you would realise that churches like Galatian church, corinthian church, thessalonica church, sardis, philadelphia etc are clearly churches that physically existed during and around the time of the lifetime of the early appostles. Not one mention of the catholic church was ever made. The Roman church was just one of the different churches setup by the apostles. The apostles never called themselves popes nor head. Istead your patience and decision to actually study and read the bible would lead u to understand that Paul was actually writing those churches in most if not all of his books in the New Testament. Hence your bullshit about catholic church just falls on its head and shows up as the typical brainwashed nonsense that it is.

Bible books had existed before anything called catholics, catholics did not help Paul write the letters. The letter of paul had already existed.

Catholics were amongst people used just as the Creator also sometimes uses the Devil (who is evil) to accomplish something good. Hence participation of the catholics alongside other people in the compilation of the bible does not mean they have authority of authorship over the bible. STOP DECEIVING URSELF.

Catholics were not the only ones who contributed to the compilation of the Bible, yet you never hear others claiming to have been the ones who wrote the bible. Because catholics contributed to compiling the bible does not mean they have authority over it.
Does ur common sense even tell u that part of the reason there was a split was because of the heresy of the catholics.

3. The catholic church must be opposed cus they are contributing to the eternal destruction of so many souls. the Messiah did not die so that some people can still deceive other people into worshipping false gods.

4. Can you kindly do ur best to point out where wat i have said has gone against the Bible.

5. All i have pointed out are areas in which the catholic church tradition and history completely goes against the bible.

6. Stop deceiving yourself there was never anything like the catholic church during the early church. The Messiah himself while addressing the 7 churches in the book of revelation did not mention any catholic church

7. Paul did not setup any catholic church, so wats errant nonsense are u talking about by saying the catholic church was the first church. Where and how was it the first church please show me using the bible.

8. Peter did not setup any catholic church, so wats the errant nonsense are u talking about by saying the catholic church was the first church. Where and how was it the first church please show me using the bible.


9. Go through my previous post line by line, point by point and show me using the bible how everthing i have said is wrong.

10. The problem that you catholic apologisers have is that u do not believe the Bible, instead u tend to believe the personality of the pastor/pope/bishop or tradition of the so called church. Hence why so many false churches and fake pastors are making so much money deceiving people today because people are too lazy to check the scriptures for themselves. Hence why ur ignorance is leading u to defend the catholic church agains the bible even though ur common sense ought to tell u that the Bible must come first at all times.

11. By the way i know that the Anglican church is merely an toned down english version of the catholic church without mary worshipping and a few other things. I know the history and i likewise do not reckon with the Anglican church. One heresy of the Anglican church is that they also have the king as the head of the church just as catholics have the pope as the head of their own church contrary to what the bible says that the Messiah Himself is the Head of the church.
Instead of posting irrelevant things about the anglican church, and something that has nothing to do with this topic and my original post, kindly do urself a favour, pick up ur bible and be checking catholic doctrine one by one in comparison with wat the bible actually says.
I was born into the Anglican church, nevertheless that does not stop me from revealing the heresies within the Anglican church. Responsibility of each and every Christian is to first and foremost follow the Bible to the letter even if it means exposing the lies and heresies of your past beliefs. Until u are able to do that, keep deceiving urself as u continue to claim to believe in the bible wen you clearly do not.