As far as #1 goes (I just skimmed some stuff, and didn't really get into it) -- wasn't the *key* word husband -- in Mat. 1:16?? Doc called that word father of Mary, instead of husband of Mary. (I think).
And if I remember right, there were the *two* geneologies -- One for a King (Mat), and one for a man (Luke). Royal geneologies progress downward to the person in question. Whereas regular geneologies go from the person in question to as far back in time, as can be traced.
Or was it the other way around?? :D-->
Yer right -- some gymnastics on both sides of the court here! ;)-->
What Wierwille lacked in substance, he tried to compensate for with style. He thought his charisma and his application of homiletics would cover his sophmoric approach to biblical "research". That's why, when you read his books, they appear to have been written by a sophmore in high school...
By all accounts, Bullinger appears to have been a serious student of the bible who put together an impressive collection of his work...Grifter Vic's attempt to steal Bullinger's ideas would be comparable to me pretending I was a top chef because I copied a couple recipes from a Emeril Lagasse cook book. It's amazing that he got as far as he did.
Wierwille was on a quest to secure copyrights for Bullinger's works obstensibly to "protect" them from trinitarians, but really it appears so no one could sue over plagiarism.
yeah dmiller, it did revolve around the word for husband in Matthew.
Wierwille claimed that "husband" should have been translated "father".
For what it's worth I thought Wierwille's explanation of the geneolgies made more sense. The problem was that he adopted Bulliger's explanation of why the "brethren" couldn't be Jesus' older step-brothers, without adopting Bullinger's premise that Matthew was Joseph's geneology.
Why would Joseph having sons from various marriages, take anything ‘away’ from any particular son’s blood-line?
We are not talking about inheritance, the bulk of which goes to the eldest son. I was not aware that the blood-line to keep the Levites intact required that only the eldest sons have the appropriate lineage.
I like Bullinger, as do many others. However it is easily noted that there are many differences of opinion between ‘The Way International’s doctrine and those taught by E.W. Bullinger.
To say that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger, dis-counts the fact that other things of Bullinger’s were not accepted by VPW either.
Why would Joseph having sons from various marriages, take anything ‘away’ from any particular son’s blood-line?
I have no idea, but both Bullinger and Wierwille believed it. If you have a Companion Bible it's in appendix 182, Wierwille covers it in The Word's Way chapter, "The Lord's Brethren".
Perhaps it was because only one person could be king at a time. If Jesus had an older brother who was of the same royal lineage, apparently both Bullinger and Wierwille assumed that Jesus would not have "legal" rights to the kingship, but that the older brother would inherit first.
I'm not attempting to argue for or against the "older brother inherits first" position, merely pointing out that both Bullinger and Wierwille cited it as a reason why "the Lord's brethren" could not be Joseph's sons by an earlier marrige, but had to be his younger, full, brothers.
quote:We are not talking about inheritance, the bulk of which goes to the eldest son. I was not aware that the blood-line to keep the Levites intact required that only the eldest sons have the appropriate lineage.
Huh? Actually we are talking inheritance. Levites?
quote:I like Bullinger, as do many others. However it is easily noted that there are many differences of opinion between ‘The Way International’s doctrine and those taught by E.W. Bullinger.
Yes. And I believe that in some instances Wierwille's take, or opinion, makes more sense then does Bullinger's. Other times the reverse.
quote:To say that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger, dis-counts the fact that other things of Bullinger’s were not accepted by VPW either.
It appears that you misunderstand my point Galen.
I am not saying "that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger"; I am saying that, at least in the "Lord's Brethren" example, he disagreed with Bullinger's premise (that Joseph, not Mary, was of the royal bloodline), but agreed with his conclusion (that older sons of Joseph by a previous marriage would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic kingship).
The conclusion makes no sense unless you agree with the premise. Wierwille taught that it was through Mary that Jesus became heir to David's throne. If so, any sons of Joseph by anyone other than Mary would have been irrelevant to inheritance of the kingship.
My point is that he merely copied Bullinger's conclusion in appendix 182, somehow missing that the conclusion did not follow his own premise. That to me indicates that he did not understand Bullinger
quote: The problem was that he adopted Bulliger's explanation of why the "brethren" couldn't be Jesus' older step-brothers, without adopting Bullinger's premise that Matthew was Joseph's geneology.
Meebe docvic "threw out the bathwater, but kept the baby"! ;)-->
And actually -- looking at the geneologies tonight, I realize I had forgotten that the *split* happened at David -- with his two sons Solomon and Nathan. Since Solomon is mentioned in Matthew, I can see Bullinger's reasoning for putting the regal line there.
They _both_ wrote that Matthew was the regal line, dmiller, they differed in that Bullinger said it was _Joseph's_ geneology, Wierwille said it was _Mary's_
Awwwww geezz ----- Now I gotta get out my vpw copy of "The Word's Way".
Before beginning a study of the Word of God regarding the Lord’s brethren, let us first look at the historical background which made an issue of who was the Lord’s family.
This question is far from new; in fact, it had become a flaming issue by 300 A.D. when Christianity west of the Euphrates River divided into two camps over the issue. The one camp was in Antioch in the country now called Turkey where Aramaic was the language spoken. The other school had its home base in Alexandria, Egypt, where Greek was the scholar’s language.
The leader in the Greek school was Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Born into a non-Christian family, he became a Christian later in his life. In his early non-Christian days, he believed in Isis, Osiris, Horus and other such Egyptian gods. Undoubtedly this early learning influenced his thinking when he became a Christian. As Bishop of Alexandria, he proposed a new doctrine, namely, that Mary was the mother of God. This idea appealed to the newly-converted Christians because their former gods had mothers, fathers, sisters and some of them had wives and even concubines. Thus the doctrine of Mary’s being the mother of God fit in comfortably with their previously-held beliefs.
Heading the Antioch camp was Nestorius, a graduate of the school at Antioch and chaplain to the emperor in Constantinople. Nestorius, along with Christendom east of the River Euphrates, believed that Mary was the mother of Jesus our Lord but definitely not the mother of God. Nestorius considered Cyril’s doctrine of Mary’s being the mother of God a dangerous heresy.
Thus the divergent doctrines on Mary not only stirred religious controversy in the Roman Empire, but also caused a struggle over power to determine which city – Constantinople or Alexandria – was the most prominent and influential in matters of church doctrine. The Alexandrian Bishop pointed out that none of the original twelve apostles had ever gone to Constantinople or to Alexandria. But since Philip had come to Alexandria, Alexandria should be considered the more enlightened in matters dealing with doctrinal interpretation.
Because of this controversy a general council of all bishops was called to meet in Ephesus in 431 A.D. The Western bishops came by ships from Greece, Rome, Spain and Alexandria. The Eastern bishops, however, had to come by time-consuming land routes and so they arrived late f or the meeting. Thus, before the Nestorian group of bishops arrived, the other bishops of the West had met and condemned the position of Nestorius.
Important to note in studying the history of Christianity is that this controversy affected only Western Christianity – the Roman Empire. Eastern Christianity – the Persian Empire – was unaffected by this doctrinal schism. The Christians in Persia and in Asia Minor, including Antioch and Jerusalem, continued to believe with Nestorius that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus but not the mother of God. The eastern part of the Roman Empire held to the same belief as Nestorius. Then Justinian the emperor issued an ultimatum stating that any Christian who did not accept Mary as the mother of God should be killed. The result of this decree was that thousands of Christians were killed. Other thousands escaped to Iran where the Persian government gave them sanctuary.
Even to this day, this Nestorian-Cyrian controversy has not been settled. The position of Cyril, the Alexandrian bishop, has been carried into the Western world by the Roman Catholic Church. Among the pagan gods and the non-Christian experience that infused Rome, the doctrinal teaching of Mary’s being the mother of God found fertile ground.
Who were the Lord’s brethren would never have been questioned in the Occident had it not been for the corruption which crept into Christian churches when Mary was elevated from the Biblical position of “handmaid of the Lord” as spoken of in Luke 1:38, to the exalted, non-biblical station of theotokos, “mother of God.”
Many of the traditions of the Roman Church have their roots in Egyptian and Babylonian mythology. The Egyptian pagan deity Isis had a divine son known as Horus. The carry-over in the Roman Church from this story is that since Isis was still a virgin after Horus was born, so Mary was also a virgin after Jesus was born. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary had no children other than Jesus our Lord and that His brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph by a former wife or that they were the Lord’s cousins – children of Mary the wife of Cleophas.
The idea that Joseph was an old man or married previously before he was married to Mary has not one iota of substantiation in the Scriptures. Had Joseph had older sons by a former marriage, then the Lord Jesus’ legal rights to the throne of David would have been invalidated.
A study of the word “brother” as found in the Bible shows it is used in the following ways only;
1. As children of the same parent or parents.
2. As descendants of the same common stock.
(Abraham as forefather: Acts 7:23,25.)
3. As fellow men. (Matthew 7:3-5; 18:15.)
4. As spiritual children. (Acts 9:17; Romans
8:29; Hebrews 2:11.)
In the Biblical passages where “the Lord’s brethren” is found, only the usage as children of the same parent or parents can be applied.
Matthew 12:46:
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring
to speak with him.
Verse 47:
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 13:55:
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mark 3:31:
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Luke 8:19:
Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
John 7:3:
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
Verse 5:
For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Verse 10:
But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Acts 1:14:
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:19:
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Had the brothers and sisters in these verses been cousins only, as the Roman Catholic Prelate Jerome theorized, the Greek word used would have been sungen.s, which is translated “kinsman” or “kinsfolk” or “kin” with the exception of Luke 1:36 and 58. In these two verses sungen.s is translated “cousin,” which cases. relate not to Jesus but to Elisabeth.
Mark 6:4:
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Luke 1:36:
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:58:
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her,
Luke 2:44:
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luke 14:12:
Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
Luke 21:16:
And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
John 18:26:
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Acts 10:24:
And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends,
Romans 9:3:
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
Romans 16:7:
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Verse 11:
Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Verse 21:
Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.
According to Matthew 13:55 our Lord Jesus Christ had four brothers or half-brothers as we would call them. James, Joses, Simon and Judas had the same mother but a different father. (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, by way of Mary, but conceived by the Holy Spirit.) Furthermore, Jesus had at least three sisters, according to Matthew 13:56: “His sisters, are they not all with us?” Had there been just two sisters the word both would have been used instead of all.
The Lord Jesus was Mary’s firstborn,* not her only born.† The word “firstborn” automatically implies “second born” or “later born” children. Jesus was, as the Scriptures clearly state, the “firstborn” of Mary but the “only begotten of the Father.” When all the Biblical data is in hand, we are left with a plain answer regarding the Lord’s brethren. We know that He had four brothers – James, Joses, Simon and Judas – and that He had at least three sisters, whose names are not given. Beyond this, nothing is known except for idle speculation or theorizing — which is not good enough when dealing with Biblical matters.
*The meaning of the word “firstborn,” which in the Greek is pr?otokos, can be easily ascertained from looking at its only usages in Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15,18; Hebrews 1:6; 11:28; 12:23 and Revelation 1:5. †Had Jesus Christ been Mary’s only son, the Greek word would be monogen.s which is used in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; I John 4:9.
quote:The idea that Joseph was an old man or married previously before he was married to Mary has not one iota of substantiation in the Scriptures.Had Joseph had older sons by a former marriage, then the Lord Jesus’ legal rights to the throne of David would have been invalidated.
From Bullinger, copied from appendix 182 of the Companion Bible
quote:Those who maintained the former opinion asserted that Joseph was an old man when he married Mary. Of this there is not the least hint in the gospel records. If he had older children, the right of the Lord Jesus to the throne of David would have been invalidated.
Oak --- I read that in appendix 182 in my Bullinger copy too. Funny that E.W. would have that in there, since it shows (to me) that Jesus was human, and Bullinger was a trinitarian.
The word husband in Mat. 1:16 is the word *aner* (Strong's #435), which means husband. If it had been Mary's father, the word used would have been
*pater* (Strong's #3962).
I'm thinking E.W. had this one right, and V.P. didn't.
Wierwille based the "father" translation on the Aramaic. "Husband" in the Aramaic could have been translated either way, and because the number of generations in the Matthew geneology doesn't work out if Joseph is Mary's husband, father is the more logical translation.
Scholars don't think, as Wierwille did, that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic, but if any book was, it was Matthew.
I haven't delved completely into this, but I thought (and still think) Wierwille's explanation of the geneology makes more sense.
My second example, about the dogs analogy, is also an illustration of how these examples and analogies sometimes took on a life of their own.
During the waning days of my "innieness", another GSer and I (who was also an "innie" at the time) were comparing notes about various errors and inconsistancies that we had found in WayAP and PFAL.
One of these was "private interpretation". We believed that Wierwille had it wrong, and referred to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, as well as verses that used epilu? in questioning our respective "leadership" about it.
Both of us got an explanation of how hunting dogs act, how they are trained, more than anyone could possibly want to know about dogs loosed on the game, but NO reference to a single bible verse, NO reference to a lexicon that would contain the actual meaning of the word...nothing, except a detailed explanation of the explanation.
I still don't get this "regal line" stuff. It wouldn't make any difference if JC was the actual sone of God, and much less if he was God "himself".
How much time passed between JC and David? Is that what the 14 gen, 14 gen ,14 gen was a reference to. Regardless, I think I remember some one teaching me that there were 500 years between Malachi and John the Baptist. Add on a couple more hundred to get to David and you have quite a few generations.
I would suspect by that time it would be something like saying you are related to Wachington or Jefferson. Hey, I had distant relatives on the Mayflower. Well, there are tons of people who can claim the same thing. I would think that by the time of Jesus a Nazerine (sp?) son of a carpenter wouldn't hold much water with too many people. At least not until many many many years later when people wrote the gospel and tried to add some legitamacy to JC's life and teachings.
Not to mention that using Mary would seem like a stretch in a society that viewed women as property and didn't include them in 99% of geneologies. There is no "regal line" that is passed on by the women anyway. Unless of course they were already worshiping Mary to some degree as the mother of God or "blessed is the woman that" breastfed the SOG, sort of thing.
What would be the inportance of the blood line thng anyway to those in the Grace admin.? The time period "hidden from the ages" by God. His big mystery. The way He really wanted things. The bloodline thing seems such like a social thing and not a "Godly" thing anyway. If God designed it all and knows everything then He would know that blood is determined by both parents, not just the man. so why the masculine emphasis? Ancient society? Didn't know that God bent to those sort of social pressures.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
6
12
6
8
Popular Days
Nov 23
10
Nov 25
10
Feb 3
8
Feb 5
6
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 6 posts
Oakspear 12 posts
waysider 6 posts
soul searcher 8 posts
Popular Days
Nov 23 2009
10 posts
Nov 25 2009
10 posts
Feb 3 2005
8 posts
Feb 5 2005
6 posts
dmiller
As far as #1 goes (I just skimmed some stuff, and didn't really get into it) -- wasn't the *key* word husband -- in Mat. 1:16?? Doc called that word father of Mary, instead of husband of Mary. (I think).
And if I remember right, there were the *two* geneologies -- One for a King (Mat), and one for a man (Luke). Royal geneologies progress downward to the person in question. Whereas regular geneologies go from the person in question to as far back in time, as can be traced.
Or was it the other way around??
:D-->
Yer right -- some gymnastics on both sides of the court here!
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
What Wierwille lacked in substance, he tried to compensate for with style. He thought his charisma and his application of homiletics would cover his sophmoric approach to biblical "research". That's why, when you read his books, they appear to have been written by a sophmore in high school...
By all accounts, Bullinger appears to have been a serious student of the bible who put together an impressive collection of his work...Grifter Vic's attempt to steal Bullinger's ideas would be comparable to me pretending I was a top chef because I copied a couple recipes from a Emeril Lagasse cook book. It's amazing that he got as far as he did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Wierwille was on a quest to secure copyrights for Bullinger's works obstensibly to "protect" them from trinitarians, but really it appears so no one could sue over plagiarism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
yeah dmiller, it did revolve around the word for husband in Matthew.
Wierwille claimed that "husband" should have been translated "father".
For what it's worth I thought Wierwille's explanation of the geneolgies made more sense. The problem was that he adopted Bulliger's explanation of why the "brethren" couldn't be Jesus' older step-brothers, without adopting Bullinger's premise that Matthew was Joseph's geneology.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oak, I want to comment on this, but don't have the time or notes I'd like to refer to right now.
:)--> Good topic, though!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Why would Joseph having sons from various marriages, take anything ‘away’ from any particular son’s blood-line?
We are not talking about inheritance, the bulk of which goes to the eldest son. I was not aware that the blood-line to keep the Levites intact required that only the eldest sons have the appropriate lineage.
I like Bullinger, as do many others. However it is easily noted that there are many differences of opinion between ‘The Way International’s doctrine and those taught by E.W. Bullinger.
To say that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger, dis-counts the fact that other things of Bullinger’s were not accepted by VPW either.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Perhaps it was because only one person could be king at a time. If Jesus had an older brother who was of the same royal lineage, apparently both Bullinger and Wierwille assumed that Jesus would not have "legal" rights to the kingship, but that the older brother would inherit first.
I'm not attempting to argue for or against the "older brother inherits first" position, merely pointing out that both Bullinger and Wierwille cited it as a reason why "the Lord's brethren" could not be Joseph's sons by an earlier marrige, but had to be his younger, full, brothers.
Huh? Actually we are talking inheritance. Levites? Yes. And I believe that in some instances Wierwille's take, or opinion, makes more sense then does Bullinger's. Other times the reverse. It appears that you misunderstand my point Galen.I am not saying "that VPW failed in his understanding of Bullinger because he did not copy ‘all’ of Bullinger"; I am saying that, at least in the "Lord's Brethren" example, he disagreed with Bullinger's premise (that Joseph, not Mary, was of the royal bloodline), but agreed with his conclusion (that older sons of Joseph by a previous marriage would invalidate Jesus' claim to the Davidic kingship).
The conclusion makes no sense unless you agree with the premise. Wierwille taught that it was through Mary that Jesus became heir to David's throne. If so, any sons of Joseph by anyone other than Mary would have been irrelevant to inheritance of the kingship.
My point is that he merely copied Bullinger's conclusion in appendix 182, somehow missing that the conclusion did not follow his own premise. That to me indicates that he did not understand Bullinger
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Meebe docvic "threw out the bathwater, but kept the baby"!
;)-->
And actually -- looking at the geneologies tonight, I realize I had forgotten that the *split* happened at David -- with his two sons Solomon and Nathan. Since Solomon is mentioned in Matthew, I can see Bullinger's reasoning for putting the regal line there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
They both wrote that Matthew was the regal line, dmiller, they differed in that Bullinger said it was Joseph's geneology, Wierwille said it was Mary's
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Awwwww geezz ----- Now I gotta get out my vpw copy of "The Word's Way".
Was hopin I wouldn't have to do that!!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Sir! Step away from the orange book! Slowly now, keep your hands where I can see them
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
THE WORD’S WAY Volume III,
Studies in Abundant Living
Victor Paul Wierwille
Part III The Credentials of Jesus Christ
Chapter 11 The Lord’s Brethren
Before beginning a study of the Word of God regarding the Lord’s brethren, let us first look at the historical background which made an issue of who was the Lord’s family.
This question is far from new; in fact, it had become a flaming issue by 300 A.D. when Christianity west of the Euphrates River divided into two camps over the issue. The one camp was in Antioch in the country now called Turkey where Aramaic was the language spoken. The other school had its home base in Alexandria, Egypt, where Greek was the scholar’s language.
The leader in the Greek school was Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria. Born into a non-Christian family, he became a Christian later in his life. In his early non-Christian days, he believed in Isis, Osiris, Horus and other such Egyptian gods. Undoubtedly this early learning influenced his thinking when he became a Christian. As Bishop of Alexandria, he proposed a new doctrine, namely, that Mary was the mother of God. This idea appealed to the newly-converted Christians because their former gods had mothers, fathers, sisters and some of them had wives and even concubines. Thus the doctrine of Mary’s being the mother of God fit in comfortably with their previously-held beliefs.
Heading the Antioch camp was Nestorius, a graduate of the school at Antioch and chaplain to the emperor in Constantinople. Nestorius, along with Christendom east of the River Euphrates, believed that Mary was the mother of Jesus our Lord but definitely not the mother of God. Nestorius considered Cyril’s doctrine of Mary’s being the mother of God a dangerous heresy.
Thus the divergent doctrines on Mary not only stirred religious controversy in the Roman Empire, but also caused a struggle over power to determine which city – Constantinople or Alexandria – was the most prominent and influential in matters of church doctrine. The Alexandrian Bishop pointed out that none of the original twelve apostles had ever gone to Constantinople or to Alexandria. But since Philip had come to Alexandria, Alexandria should be considered the more enlightened in matters dealing with doctrinal interpretation.
Because of this controversy a general council of all bishops was called to meet in Ephesus in 431 A.D. The Western bishops came by ships from Greece, Rome, Spain and Alexandria. The Eastern bishops, however, had to come by time-consuming land routes and so they arrived late f or the meeting. Thus, before the Nestorian group of bishops arrived, the other bishops of the West had met and condemned the position of Nestorius.
Important to note in studying the history of Christianity is that this controversy affected only Western Christianity – the Roman Empire. Eastern Christianity – the Persian Empire – was unaffected by this doctrinal schism. The Christians in Persia and in Asia Minor, including Antioch and Jerusalem, continued to believe with Nestorius that Mary was the mother of the Lord Jesus but not the mother of God. The eastern part of the Roman Empire held to the same belief as Nestorius. Then Justinian the emperor issued an ultimatum stating that any Christian who did not accept Mary as the mother of God should be killed. The result of this decree was that thousands of Christians were killed. Other thousands escaped to Iran where the Persian government gave them sanctuary.
Even to this day, this Nestorian-Cyrian controversy has not been settled. The position of Cyril, the Alexandrian bishop, has been carried into the Western world by the Roman Catholic Church. Among the pagan gods and the non-Christian experience that infused Rome, the doctrinal teaching of Mary’s being the mother of God found fertile ground.
Who were the Lord’s brethren would never have been questioned in the Occident had it not been for the corruption which crept into Christian churches when Mary was elevated from the Biblical position of “handmaid of the Lord” as spoken of in Luke 1:38, to the exalted, non-biblical station of theotokos, “mother of God.”
Many of the traditions of the Roman Church have their roots in Egyptian and Babylonian mythology. The Egyptian pagan deity Isis had a divine son known as Horus. The carry-over in the Roman Church from this story is that since Isis was still a virgin after Horus was born, so Mary was also a virgin after Jesus was born. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary had no children other than Jesus our Lord and that His brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph by a former wife or that they were the Lord’s cousins – children of Mary the wife of Cleophas.
The idea that Joseph was an old man or married previously before he was married to Mary has not one iota of substantiation in the Scriptures. Had Joseph had older sons by a former marriage, then the Lord Jesus’ legal rights to the throne of David would have been invalidated.
A study of the word “brother” as found in the Bible shows it is used in the following ways only;
1. As children of the same parent or parents.
2. As descendants of the same common stock.
(Abraham as forefather: Acts 7:23,25.)
3. As fellow men. (Matthew 7:3-5; 18:15.)
4. As spiritual children. (Acts 9:17; Romans
8:29; Hebrews 2:11.)
In the Biblical passages where “the Lord’s brethren” is found, only the usage as children of the same parent or parents can be applied.
Matthew 12:46:
While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring
to speak with him.
Verse 47:
Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Matthew 13:55:
Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mark 3:31:
There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
Luke 8:19:
Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press.
John 7:3:
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
Verse 5:
For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Verse 10:
But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Acts 1:14:
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
Galatians 1:19:
But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.
Had the brothers and sisters in these verses been cousins only, as the Roman Catholic Prelate Jerome theorized, the Greek word used would have been sungen.s, which is translated “kinsman” or “kinsfolk” or “kin” with the exception of Luke 1:36 and 58. In these two verses sungen.s is translated “cousin,” which cases. relate not to Jesus but to Elisabeth.
Mark 6:4:
But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Luke 1:36:
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Luke 1:58:
And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her,
Luke 2:44:
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luke 14:12:
Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
Luke 21:16:
And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death.
John 18:26:
One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?
Acts 10:24:
And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends,
Romans 9:3:
For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
Romans 16:7:
Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
Verse 11:
Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Verse 21:
Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.
According to Matthew 13:55 our Lord Jesus Christ had four brothers or half-brothers as we would call them. James, Joses, Simon and Judas had the same mother but a different father. (Jesus Christ was the Son of God, by way of Mary, but conceived by the Holy Spirit.) Furthermore, Jesus had at least three sisters, according to Matthew 13:56: “His sisters, are they not all with us?” Had there been just two sisters the word both would have been used instead of all.
The Lord Jesus was Mary’s firstborn,* not her only born.† The word “firstborn” automatically implies “second born” or “later born” children. Jesus was, as the Scriptures clearly state, the “firstborn” of Mary but the “only begotten of the Father.” When all the Biblical data is in hand, we are left with a plain answer regarding the Lord’s brethren. We know that He had four brothers – James, Joses, Simon and Judas – and that He had at least three sisters, whose names are not given. Beyond this, nothing is known except for idle speculation or theorizing — which is not good enough when dealing with Biblical matters.
*The meaning of the word “firstborn,” which in the Greek is pr?otokos, can be easily ascertained from looking at its only usages in Matthew 1:25; Luke 2:7; Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15,18; Hebrews 1:6; 11:28; 12:23 and Revelation 1:5. †Had Jesus Christ been Mary’s only son, the Greek word would be monogen.s which is used in Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; I John 4:9.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galen
Oak stick-
Since your quoting "The Word's Way - Chapter 11" I thought I would cut and paste it for you, in the odd case that some can na find their copy.
:-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
ROFLMAO!!!!!
:D--> 
:D--> 
:D-->
That there orange book must be a wee-pon of mass destruction, eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
From Wierwille, courtesy of Galen:
From Bullinger, copied from appendix 182 of the Companion BibleLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Velly, velly interesting.
Has anyone ordered the plagarism book from Jeudes site? I was going to order it a while back, but couldn't have it shipped to the house.
I wonder what other scholars vee pee copied from that we DON'T know about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oak --- I read that in appendix 182 in my Bullinger copy too. Funny that E.W. would have that in there, since it shows (to me) that Jesus was human, and Bullinger was a trinitarian.
The word husband in Mat. 1:16 is the word *aner* (Strong's #435), which means husband. If it had been Mary's father, the word used would have been
*pater* (Strong's #3962).
I'm thinking E.W. had this one right, and V.P. didn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wierwille based the "father" translation on the Aramaic. "Husband" in the Aramaic could have been translated either way, and because the number of generations in the Matthew geneology doesn't work out if Joseph is Mary's husband, father is the more logical translation.
Scholars don't think, as Wierwille did, that the entire New Testament was written in Aramaic, but if any book was, it was Matthew.
I haven't delved completely into this, but I thought (and still think) Wierwille's explanation of the geneology makes more sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Frankly,
I think the "14 generations....14 generations...14 generations"
thing gives vpw's explanation the strongest case.
I'm curious if he got it from someone else, or really DID come up
with it himself. (Odds are, he got it from somewhere else.)
Interesting he split from Bullinger on this, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
My second example, about the dogs analogy, is also an illustration of how these examples and analogies sometimes took on a life of their own.
During the waning days of my "innieness", another GSer and I (who was also an "innie" at the time) were comparing notes about various errors and inconsistancies that we had found in WayAP and PFAL.
One of these was "private interpretation". We believed that Wierwille had it wrong, and referred to Bullinger's How to Enjoy the Bible, as well as verses that used epilu? in questioning our respective "leadership" about it.
Both of us got an explanation of how hunting dogs act, how they are trained, more than anyone could possibly want to know about dogs loosed on the game, but NO reference to a single bible verse, NO reference to a lexicon that would contain the actual meaning of the word...nothing, except a detailed explanation of the explanation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I still don't get this "regal line" stuff. It wouldn't make any difference if JC was the actual sone of God, and much less if he was God "himself".
How much time passed between JC and David? Is that what the 14 gen, 14 gen ,14 gen was a reference to. Regardless, I think I remember some one teaching me that there were 500 years between Malachi and John the Baptist. Add on a couple more hundred to get to David and you have quite a few generations.
I would suspect by that time it would be something like saying you are related to Wachington or Jefferson. Hey, I had distant relatives on the Mayflower. Well, there are tons of people who can claim the same thing. I would think that by the time of Jesus a Nazerine (sp?) son of a carpenter wouldn't hold much water with too many people. At least not until many many many years later when people wrote the gospel and tried to add some legitamacy to JC's life and teachings.
Not to mention that using Mary would seem like a stretch in a society that viewed women as property and didn't include them in 99% of geneologies. There is no "regal line" that is passed on by the women anyway. Unless of course they were already worshiping Mary to some degree as the mother of God or "blessed is the woman that" breastfed the SOG, sort of thing.
What would be the inportance of the blood line thng anyway to those in the Grace admin.? The time period "hidden from the ages" by God. His big mystery. The way He really wanted things. The bloodline thing seems such like a social thing and not a "Godly" thing anyway. If God designed it all and knows everything then He would know that blood is determined by both parents, not just the man. so why the masculine emphasis? Ancient society? Didn't know that God bent to those sort of social pressures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
I cannot find Dr Jeudes site any more. Does anyone have his link? I wanted to get the book that Belle mentioned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'd start looking from here:
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/cultsthe.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Will the Real Author Please Stand Up?
Here is is, Rejoice. I'm going to order it too. It's only $2.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.