| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Jesse Gomez" |
| Date: |
27 Nov 2003 03:39:43 AM |
| Object: |
Did Mary have other Children-No |
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
.
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
09 Dec 2003 03:16:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:39:43 +0100, "Jesse Gomez" ><jesse.gomez@sensewave.com> wrote:
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
Hello,
But the Bible says that Mary did have other children after she gave
birth to Jesus. And since the Bible is from God, should we not believe
God? Notice this brief explanation quoted from a Catholic
encyclopedia:
"Was Mary always a virgin?
Matt. 13:53-56, JB: "When Jesus had finished these parables he left
the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people in
their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said,
'Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This
is the carpenter's son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called
Mary, and his brothers [Greek, a·del·phoi'] James and Joseph and Simon
and Jude? His sisters [Greek, a·del·phai'], too, are they not all here
with us?'" (On the basis of this text, would you conclude that Jesus
was Mary's only child or that she had other sons as well as
daughters?)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding
the Greek words a·del·phoi' and a·del·phai', used at Matthew 13:55,
56, that these "have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in
the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist's time and would naturally
be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th
century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in
order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make
her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by
the Church's traditional faith in Mary's perpetual virginity, wrote a
tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an
explanation . . . that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars."
Mark 3:31-35, JB: "His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing
outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round
him at the time the message was passed to him, 'Your mother and
brothers and sisters are outside asking for you'. He replied, 'Who are
my mother and my brothers?' And looking round at those sitting in a
circle about him, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone
who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and
mother.'" (Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus' natural
brothers and his spiritual brothers, his disciples. No one claims that
the reference to Jesus' mother means anything different from what it
says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his natural brothers were
not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers
but relatives, a different Greek word [syg·ge·non'] is used, as at
Luke 21:16.) (Reasoning From the Scriptures, 1985, pp. 255-256.)
Sincerely, James
***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the only authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
27 Nov 2003 10:27:37 AM |
|
|
===>HOGWASH. Even the book of Matthew, presenting that Pagan idea of God being
the father of Jesus by impregnating Mary, thus making her commit adultery,
says
"Joseph arose from his sleep,
and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him,
and took his wife to himself;
and didn't know her sexually
until she had brought forth her firstborn son.
He named him JESUS. (Matthew 1:24-25 WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE)
SEE ALSO: Mark 6:3
"Isn't this the carpenter, the son of Mary,
and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon?
Aren't his sisters here with us?"
So, MARY'S FAMILY consisted of Jesus and her other sons and
daughters!
The "blasphemy" is depicting "GOD" as having adulterous
intercourse with a BETROTHED human female! -- L.
========================================================
Jesse Gomez wrote:
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sensible2me" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
03 Dec 2003 11:45:55 AM |
|
|
Jesse Gomez <jesse.gomez@sensewave.com> wrote in message
news:FHmxb.1520$n31.26195@news2.e.nsc.no...
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly
father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
sensible2me:
Mary is the mother of many children.
Peace, joy, forgiveness, honesty, sincerety, compassion, etc........
Now you may say *these* are not children but they are aspects of what makes
a child and each of these has a virgin quality about them. No man can
penetrate his earthly desires (seeds) into them cause they are as pure as
gold.
The view from here.
God Blesses.........Always,
.
|
|
|
| User: "mrgone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
04 Dec 2003 07:33:32 AM |
|
|
"sensible2me" <mcapps@spamfreeze.advertisnet.com> wrote in message
news:vss8a8ikltnld8@corp.supernews.com...
Jesse Gomez <jesse.gomez@sensewave.com> wrote in message
news:FHmxb.1520$n31.26195@news2.e.nsc.no...
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of
Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of
the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had
so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly
father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
sensible2me:
Mary is the mother of many children.
Peace, joy, forgiveness, honesty, sincerety, compassion, etc........
Now you may say *these* are not children but they are aspects of what
makes
a child and each of these has a virgin quality about them. No man can
penetrate his earthly desires (seeds) into them cause they are as pure as
gold.
The view from here.
God Blesses.........Always,
Here is some scripture from the bible that gives evidence towards Mary
bearing other children.
Matthew 1:24-25 NIV
"When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him
and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave
birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus."
This tells me that Mary didn't remain a virgin.
Matthew 12:46-50 NIV (repeated in Mark 3:31-35 and Luke 8:19-21)
"While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood
outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, 'Your mother and
brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.'
He replied to him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?' Pointing to
his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever
does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'"
Seems pretty straight forward to me, unless you want to make the argument
when they say his 'mother and brothers sood outside' the writer really means
mother and cousins...which is a rather weak argument imho.
Matthew 13:55-56 NIV (repeated in Mark 6:3)
"Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't
his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with
us? Where then did this man get all these things?"
The meaning seems clear. If the writer uses the word brother as relatives
or cousins, then why isn't John the Babtist mentioned?
Besides the opinions of the catholic church, do you have any biblical
scriptures to back up any of your claims? I can't believe the catholic
church believes that Mary having more children is an insult to God and
Jesus. I seem to remember how much Jesus and God loves the little children,
but I guess they believe that they are an insult.
Show me in the bible where Jesus is described as the only begotten son of
Mary.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Frank" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
06 Dec 2003 05:25:17 AM |
|
|
<mrgone> wrote in message
news:01634d156fa7c7c118c78e59beb27282@news.meganetnews.com...
Besides the opinions of the catholic church, do you have any biblical
scriptures to back up any of your claims? I can't believe the catholic
church believes that Mary having more children is an insult to God and
Jesus. I seem to remember how much Jesus and God loves the little
children,
but I guess they believe that they are an insult.
Show me in the bible where Jesus is described as the only begotten son of
Mary.
The RCC drives many a God-fearing man to drink, by making it appear,
that god-fearing wives abstain from sex and that God-fearing husbands
respect their wives' decision without having their marriage annulled for
lack of consummation. Following the prescribed period of abstinence after
child-birth, Mary would never have refused her husband, nor should the RCC
promote the idea that a wife refusing to consummate her marriage is a good
thing.
There is nothing "holy" in such a notion, and certainly not God's will
for married couples. It opens the doors to temptation, driving the man to
drink and unfaithfulness and is therefore strictly of the devil.
--
Pastor Frank
LOVE
Jesus in Jn:13:34: A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one
another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus in Jn:13:35: By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if
ye have love one to another.
Jesus in Jn:15:12: This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I
have loved you.
Jesus in Jn:15:13: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.
John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command... 21 Whoever
has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who
loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show
myself to him."
23 "...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will
love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 He
who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear
are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me."
1 Corinthians 13:4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does
not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is
not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in
evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts,
always hopes, always perseveres. 1Cor 13:8 Love never fails.
---
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 12/2/03
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L Perez" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
27 Nov 2003 08:07:43 PM |
|
|
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church in the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always had
'mother gods'. Mary should not be venerated by true Christians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
27 Nov 2003 08:39:27 PM |
|
|
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church in the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cy Rot" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
27 Nov 2003 09:03:52 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile? There is no evidence of that.
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile? The is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
28 Nov 2003 10:58:12 AM |
|
|
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
The is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cy Rot" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
28 Nov 2003 02:50:36 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC77EA4.D836A542@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church
in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always
had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded
from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out
drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and
our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem;
for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our
end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The
word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
The real question, of course, is not the origin of the English form 'Jew'.
We don't know the answer to that one.
The real question is that of the origin of a people who are called "Jews".
In modern English, "Judah" is usually used to refer to the pre-exilic
period, while "Judea" (or
"Judaea") is used for the post-exilic period under the Hasmoneans and Herod,
province and kingdom.
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
However, since the exiled at Babylon, Judeans/Judahites became a religious
community and accepted converts who were not of Judahite descent. It is that
community that modern English calls 'Jews".
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
There is not evidence that a monotheist religious community, modern English
calls Jews existed in Jerusalem at that time, is there?
The King James Version uses the term 'Jew' only three times for the
pre-exilic period, where more modern translations have "of Judah" but, it is
often used in Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and so on, and of
course the whole NT for the exilic and post-exilic period.
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
For a Jewish Temple to have existed, there would have been 'Jews' in
Jerusalem at that time.
How would you answer that question now that I've clarified my previous
questions?
There is no evidence that such a religious community existed in Jerusalem
prior to the Babylonian Exile nor is there a shred of evidence that
Solomon's temple the Bible presents as a Jewish Temple ever existed.
I'll add in another question. Was Solomon's Temple described in the Tanach a
historical building, a symbol, an allegory or a myth?
There is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
That, a temple, obviously.
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
They may sound silly to you but you are the one who used the term 'Jews',
instead of Judeans/Jehudites, before the exilic period, the reason for my
silly questions.
Why do you try to ridicule those who question your posts Libertarius?
Quote:
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
28 Nov 2003 04:56:57 PM |
|
|
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC77EA4.D836A542@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early church
in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have always
had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded
from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out
drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and
our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem;
for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our
end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The
word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
The real question, of course, is not the origin of the English form 'Jew'.
We don't know the answer to that one.
===>"WE" do know.
Why don't you?
All you needed to do was to look up its derivation in any dictionary.
HERE IS ONE:
"Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from Greek
Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah; b : ISRAELITE
SEE: http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The real question is that of the origin of a people who are called "Jews".
In modern English, "Judah" is usually used to refer to the pre-exilic
period, while "Judea" (or
"Judaea") is used for the post-exilic period under the Hasmoneans and Herod,
province and kingdom.
===>So, what?
They mean the same thing.
Do you think the Latin "Judaeus",
from Greek "Ioudaios" came from somewhere else?
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
However, since the exiled at Babylon, Judeans/Judahites became a religious
community and accepted converts who were not of Judahite descent.
===>The ALWAYS accepted converts.
Read the Old Testament.
Once they were converted, they were considered
"Judahites", i.e. "Jews".
It is that
community that modern English calls 'Jews".
===>So???
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
There is not evidence that a monotheist religious community, modern English
calls Jews existed in Jerusalem at that time, is there?
===>At WHAT time?
Apparently some form of monotheism existed ever since the
Egyptian AKHENATEN. It was probably reinforced by Persian
Zoroastrianism and became the YAHWIST religion after the
liberation by Cyrus, Messiah of YHWH (Isaiah 45).
The King James Version uses the term 'Jew' only three times for the
pre-exilic period, where more modern translations have "of Judah" but, it is
often used in Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and so on, and of
course the whole NT for the exilic and post-exilic period.
===>Sure, because the Northern Kingdom ("Israel") was never
reestablished. So the people of JUDAEA (king Joshia) claimed
full rights to the land said to have been once ruled by the
legendary king David of Judah.
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
For a Jewish Temple to have existed, there would have been 'Jews' in
Jerusalem at that time.
===>There were ALWAYS Judaeans, i.e. Jews, in Jerusalem,
ever since it was occupied by the troops of David.
How would you answer that question now that I've clarified my previous
questions?
===>I already did.
Your "clarification" simply reinforced my point.
There is no evidence that such a religious community
===>WHAT "religious community"???
The Judaeans all became Yahwists in time, although some,
e.g. the Sadducees, did not fully absorb the Zoroastrian
ideas which became part of Judaism (and Christianity).
existed in Jerusalem
prior to the Babylonian Exile
===>You throw in ambiguities after ambiguities.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
nor is there a shred of evidence that
Solomon's temple the Bible presents as a Jewish Temple ever existed.
===>So, what?
Id did exist a few generations later.
I'll add in another question. Was Solomon's Temple described in the Tanach a
historical building, a symbol, an allegory or a myth?
===>It was obviously a building, since the kings of Persia
ordered its RECONSTRUCTION.
There is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
That, a temple, obviously.
===>But there was.
Destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt under
orders of Cyrus & Darius.
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
They may sound silly to you but you are the one who used the term 'Jews',
instead of Judeans/Jehudites, before the exilic period, the reason for my
silly questions.
===>"Jew" is just the English form
of those words, as I showed you
with the dictionary derivation.
Here is the rest of that definition:
"2 : a member of a nation
existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C.
to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation
through descent or conversion of the ancient
Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
Hope this helps.
Why do you try to ridicule those who question your posts Libertarius?
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cy Rot" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
28 Nov 2003 06:52:40 PM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC7D2B9.5EBCD77C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC77EA4.D836A542@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early
church
in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have
always
had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has
proceeded
from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring
out
drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings
and
our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of
Jerusalem;
for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven
and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met
our
end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The
word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
The real question, of course, is not the origin of the English form
'Jew'.
We don't know the answer to that one.
===>"WE" do know.
Why don't you?
All you needed to do was to look up its derivation in any dictionary.
HERE IS ONE:
"Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from
Greek
Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah; b : ISRAELITE
SEE: http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The first published use of "jew" as a verb was in 1845, in Richard Barham's
Ingoldsby Legends: "Is it that way you'd Jew one?"
Can Webster.com produce such evidence for "jew" as a noun, 13th century?
LOL.
The real question is that of the origin of a people who are called
"Jews".
In modern English, "Judah" is usually used to refer to the pre-exilic
period, while "Judea" (or
"Judaea") is used for the post-exilic period under the Hasmoneans and
Herod,
province and kingdom.
===>So, what?
They mean the same thing.
Do you think the Latin "Judaeus",
from Greek "Ioudaios" came from somewhere else?
"One of the tactics used in debate is to get the opponent off the major
premise and onto a minor premise --- thus defeating him."
[William Norwood Hollis, Webster]
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
However, since the exiled at Babylon, Judeans/Judahites became a
religious
community and accepted converts who were not of Judahite descent.
===>The ALWAYS accepted converts.
Read the Old Testament.
Once they were converted, they were considered
"Judahites", i.e. "Jews".
It is that
community that modern English calls 'Jews".
===>So???
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
There is not evidence that a monotheist religious community, modern
English
calls Jews existed in Jerusalem at that time, is there?
===>At WHAT time?
Apparently some form of monotheism existed ever since the
Egyptian AKHENATEN. It was probably reinforced by Persian
Zoroastrianism and became the YAHWIST religion after the
liberation by Cyrus, Messiah of YHWH (Isaiah 45).
So???
The King James Version uses the term 'Jew' only three times for the
pre-exilic period, where more modern translations have "of Judah" but,
it is
often used in Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and so on, and
of
course the whole NT for the exilic and post-exilic period.
===>Sure, because the Northern Kingdom ("Israel") was never
reestablished. So the people of JUDAEA (king Joshia) claimed
full rights to the land said to have been once ruled by the
legendary king David of Judah.
Evidence of that claim?
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
For a Jewish Temple to have existed, there would have been 'Jews' in
Jerusalem at that time.
===>There were ALWAYS Judaeans, i.e. Jews, in Jerusalem,
ever since it was occupied by the troops of David.
Are you a magician or a comedian? You will say anything just to show off.
How would you answer that question now that I've clarified my previous
questions?
===>I already did.
Your "clarification" simply reinforced my point.
There is no evidence that such a religious community
===>WHAT "religious community"???
The Judaeans all became Yahwists in time, although some,
e.g. the Sadducees, did not fully absorb the Zoroastrian
ideas which became part of Judaism (and Christianity).
Evidence?
existed in Jerusalem
prior to the Babylonian Exile
===>You throw in ambiguities after ambiguities.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
You throw in stupid claims for for the sake of argument.
nor is there a shred of evidence that
Solomon's temple the Bible presents as a Jewish Temple ever existed.
===>So, what?
Id did exist a few generations later.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
I'll add in another question. Was Solomon's Temple described in the
Tanach a
historical building, a symbol, an allegory or a myth?
===>It was obviously a building, since the kings of Persia
ordered its RECONSTRUCTION.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
There is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
That, a temple, obviously.
===>But there was.
Destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt under
orders of Cyrus & Darius.
I didn't say there wasn't. I questioned the existence of Solomon's temple
you idiot, not any other temples that may have been built in Jerusalem. How
can a person debate with such a moron?
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
They may sound silly to you but you are the one who used the term
'Jews',
instead of Judeans/Jehudites, before the exilic period, the reason for
my
silly questions.
===>"Jew" is just the English form
of those words, as I showed you
with the dictionary derivation.
Here is the rest of that definition:
"2 : a member of a nation
existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C.
to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation
through descent or conversion of the ancient
Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
So???
Hope this helps.
Like a stubborn mule would have.
Why do you try to ridicule those who question your posts Libertarius?
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
What a jerk you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
28 Nov 2003 10:51:36 PM |
|
|
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC7D2B9.5EBCD77C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC77EA4.D836A542@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early
church
in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have
always
had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has
proceeded
from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring
out
drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings
and
our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of
Jerusalem;
for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven
and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met
our
end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter? The
word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
The real question, of course, is not the origin of the English form
'Jew'.
We don't know the answer to that one.
===>"WE" do know.
Why don't you?
All you needed to do was to look up its derivation in any dictionary.
HERE IS ONE:
"Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus, from
Greek
Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah; b : ISRAELITE
SEE: http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The first published use of "jew" as a verb was in 1845, in Richard Barham's
Ingoldsby Legends: "Is it that way you'd Jew one?"
Can Webster.com produce such evidence for "jew" as a noun, 13th century?
LOL.
The real question is that of the origin of a people who are called
"Jews".
In modern English, "Judah" is usually used to refer to the pre-exilic
period, while "Judea" (or
"Judaea") is used for the post-exilic period under the Hasmoneans and
Herod,
province and kingdom.
===>So, what?
They mean the same thing.
Do you think the Latin "Judaeus",
from Greek "Ioudaios" came from somewhere else?
"One of the tactics used in debate is to get the opponent off the major
premise and onto a minor premise --- thus defeating him."
[William Norwood Hollis, Webster]
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
However, since the exiled at Babylon, Judeans/Judahites became a
religious
community and accepted converts who were not of Judahite descent.
===>The ALWAYS accepted converts.
Read the Old Testament.
Once they were converted, they were considered
"Judahites", i.e. "Jews".
It is that
community that modern English calls 'Jews".
===>So???
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
There is not evidence that a monotheist religious community, modern
English
calls Jews existed in Jerusalem at that time, is there?
===>At WHAT time?
Apparently some form of monotheism existed ever since the
Egyptian AKHENATEN. It was probably reinforced by Persian
Zoroastrianism and became the YAHWIST religion after the
liberation by Cyrus, Messiah of YHWH (Isaiah 45).
So???
The King James Version uses the term 'Jew' only three times for the
pre-exilic period, where more modern translations have "of Judah" but,
it is
often used in Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and so on, and
of
course the whole NT for the exilic and post-exilic period.
===>Sure, because the Northern Kingdom ("Israel") was never
reestablished. So the people of JUDAEA (king Joshia) claimed
full rights to the land said to have been once ruled by the
legendary king David of Judah.
Evidence of that claim?
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
For a Jewish Temple to have existed, there would have been 'Jews' in
Jerusalem at that time.
===>There were ALWAYS Judaeans, i.e. Jews, in Jerusalem,
ever since it was occupied by the troops of David.
Are you a magician or a comedian? You will say anything just to show off.
How would you answer that question now that I've clarified my previous
questions?
===>I already did.
Your "clarification" simply reinforced my point.
There is no evidence that such a religious community
===>WHAT "religious community"???
The Judaeans all became Yahwists in time, although some,
e.g. the Sadducees, did not fully absorb the Zoroastrian
ideas which became part of Judaism (and Christianity).
Evidence?
existed in Jerusalem
prior to the Babylonian Exile
===>You throw in ambiguities after ambiguities.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
You throw in stupid claims for for the sake of argument.
nor is there a shred of evidence that
Solomon's temple the Bible presents as a Jewish Temple ever existed.
===>So, what?
Id did exist a few generations later.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
I'll add in another question. Was Solomon's Temple described in the
Tanach a
historical building, a symbol, an allegory or a myth?
===>It was obviously a building, since the kings of Persia
ordered its RECONSTRUCTION.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
There is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
That, a temple, obviously.
===>But there was.
Destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt under
orders of Cyrus & Darius.
I didn't say there wasn't. I questioned the existence of Solomon's temple
you idiot, not any other temples that may have been built in Jerusalem. How
can a person debate with such a moron?
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
They may sound silly to you but you are the one who used the term
'Jews',
instead of Judeans/Jehudites, before the exilic period, the reason for
my
silly questions.
===>"Jew" is just the English form
of those words, as I showed you
with the dictionary derivation.
Here is the rest of that definition:
"2 : a member of a nation
existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C.
to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation
through descent or conversion of the ancient
Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
So???
Hope this helps.
Like a stubborn mule would have.
Why do you try to ridicule those who question your posts Libertarius?
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
What a jerk you are.
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cy Rot" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
29 Nov 2003 03:45:25 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC825D8.22959F75@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC7D2B9.5EBCD77C@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FC77EA4.D836A542@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in
message
news:3FC6B55F.C5BD5032@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
L Perez wrote:
Matthew 13:55
Mark 3:31
Mark 6:3
Galatians 1:19
Jude 1:1
the pagan Constantine injected godess worship into the early
church
in
the
4th century when he started the catholic sect. Pagans have
always
had
'mother gods'.
===>So did the Jews.
At least until they came under Zoroastrian influence.
SEE: Jeremiah 44:17-18
"But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has
proceeded
from
our
mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and
pouring
out
drink
offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our
kings
and
our
princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of
Jerusalem;
for
then
we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.
"But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of
heaven
and
pouring
out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have
met
our
end
by
the sword and by famine."
Libertarius
===============
Is the word Jew(s) in Jeremiah or in the Tanach for that matter?
The
word
Yehudim cannot be translated Jews? Yehudim from Yehudah, Judea.
===>Of course the word "Jew" or "Jews" is NOT in the Tanach.
It is an ENGLISH word, not a Hebrew word.
The real question, of course, is not the origin of the English form
'Jew'.
We don't know the answer to that one.
===>"WE" do know.
Why don't you?
All you needed to do was to look up its derivation in any dictionary.
HERE IS ONE:
"Main Entry: Jew
Pronunciation: 'jü
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French gyu, from Latin Judaeus,
from
Greek
Ioudaios, from Hebrew YehudhI, from YehudhAh Judah, Jewish kingdom
Date: 13th century
1 a : a member of the tribe of Judah; b : ISRAELITE
SEE: http://webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
The first published use of "jew" as a verb was in 1845, in Richard
Barham's
Ingoldsby Legends: "Is it that way you'd Jew one?"
Can Webster.com produce such evidence for "jew" as a noun, 13th century?
LOL.
The real question is that of the origin of a people who are called
"Jews".
In modern English, "Judah" is usually used to refer to the
pre-exilic
period, while "Judea" (or
"Judaea") is used for the post-exilic period under the Hasmoneans
and
Herod,
province and kingdom.
===>So, what?
They mean the same thing.
Do you think the Latin "Judaeus",
from Greek "Ioudaios" came from somewhere else?
"One of the tactics used in debate is to get the opponent off the major
premise and onto a minor premise --- thus defeating him."
[William Norwood Hollis, Webster]
Were there
Jews in Jerusalem before the Babylonian Exile?
===>There were NEVER any "Jews" ANYWHERE until that word
came into the English language. But there were JUDAEANS, which
is what the English word means.
However, since the exiled at Babylon, Judeans/Judahites became a
religious
community and accepted converts who were not of Judahite descent.
===>The ALWAYS accepted converts.
Read the Old Testament.
Once they were converted, they were considered
"Judahites", i.e. "Jews".
It is that
community that modern English calls 'Jews".
===>So???
There is no evidence of that.
===>No evidence of WHAT?
That there were Judaeans in Judah?
There is not evidence that a monotheist religious community, modern
English
calls Jews existed in Jerusalem at that time, is there?
===>At WHAT time?
Apparently some form of monotheism existed ever since the
Egyptian AKHENATEN. It was probably reinforced by Persian
Zoroastrianism and became the YAHWIST religion after the
liberation by Cyrus, Messiah of YHWH (Isaiah 45).
So???
The King James Version uses the term 'Jew' only three times for the
pre-exilic period, where more modern translations have "of Judah"
but,
it is
often used in Jeremiah, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and so on,
and
of
course the whole NT for the exilic and post-exilic period.
===>Sure, because the Northern Kingdom ("Israel") was never
reestablished. So the people of JUDAEA (king Joshia) claimed
full rights to the land said to have been once ruled by the
legendary king David of Judah.
Evidence of that claim?
Was there a Jewish temple in Jerusalem before the Babylonian
Exile?
===>The Temple in Jerusalem was a Temple in Judaea, i.e. Judah,
so, it was a JUDAEAN, i.e. JEWISH TEMPLE!
For a Jewish Temple to have existed, there would have been 'Jews' in
Jerusalem at that time.
===>There were ALWAYS Judaeans, i.e. Jews, in Jerusalem,
ever since it was occupied by the troops of David.
Are you a magician or a comedian? You will say anything just to show
off.
How would you answer that question now that I've clarified my
previous
questions?
===>I already did.
Your "clarification" simply reinforced my point.
There is no evidence that such a religious community
===>WHAT "religious community"???
The Judaeans all became Yahwists in time, although some,
e.g. the Sadducees, did not fully absorb the Zoroastrian
ideas which became part of Judaism (and Christianity).
Evidence?
existed in Jerusalem
prior to the Babylonian Exile
===>You throw in ambiguities after ambiguities.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
You throw in stupid claims for for the sake of argument.
nor is there a shred of evidence that
Solomon's temple the Bible presents as a Jewish Temple ever existed.
===>So, what?
Id did exist a few generations later.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
I'll add in another question. Was Solomon's Temple described in the
Tanach a
historical building, a symbol, an allegory or a myth?
===>It was obviously a building, since the kings of Persia
ordered its RECONSTRUCTION.
It seems you have no clear idea what you are talking about.
There is
not a shred of evidence of that either.
===>Not a shred of evidence of WHAT?
That there was a Temple in Jerusalem of Judaea?
That, a temple, obviously.
===>But there was.
Destroyed by the Babylonians and rebuilt under
orders of Cyrus & Darius.
I didn't say there wasn't. I questioned the existence of Solomon's
temple
you idiot, not any other temples that may have been built in Jerusalem.
How
can a person debate with such a moron?
Where do you come up with such silly questions? -- L.
They may sound silly to you but you are the one who used the term
'Jews',
instead of Judeans/Jehudites, before the exilic period, the reason
for
my
silly questions.
===>"Jew" is just the English form
of those words, as I showed you
with the dictionary derivation.
Here is the rest of that definition:
"2 : a member of a nation
existing in Palestine from the 6th century B.C.
to the 1st century A.D.
3 : a person belonging to a continuation
through descent or conversion of the ancient
Jewish people
4 : one whose religion is Judaism
So???
Hope this helps.
Like a stubborn mule would have.
Why do you try to ridicule those who question your posts
Libertarius?
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
What a jerk you are.
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
If you want to be respected, respect others. Your answers to my posts on
this thread have been those of a pompous jerk.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
29 Nov 2003 10:07:21 AM |
|
|
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC825D8.22959F75@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
What a jerk you are.
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
If you want to be respected, respect others. Your answers to my posts on
this thread have been those of a pompous jerk.\
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cy Rot" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children? read the scriptures |
29 Nov 2003 10:23:58 AM |
|
|
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC8C439.73AA3AAF@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
Cy Rot wrote:
"Libertarius" <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message
news:3FC825D8.22959F75@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net...
===>I don't "try to ridicule".
Ridiculous statements ARE ridiculous, with or without
my comments.
Also, I dislike silly arguments, and
there are way too many about the word "Jew".
I know what it means even if you don't. -- L.
What a jerk you are.
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
If you want to be respected, respect others. Your answers to my posts on
this thread have been those of a pompous jerk.\
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
My first idea was to call you a ***** but then you would have answered:
===>Excellent argument -- coming from YOU! ;-)
LOL.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
21 Dec 2003 01:27:55 AM |
|
|
Matthew and Mark said that Mary had other children; they should know.
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 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of
James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here
with us? And they were offended at him.
"Jesse Gomez" <jesse.gomez@sensewave.com> wrote in message news:<FHmxb.1520$n31.26195@news2.e.nsc.no>...
Why are Protestants, who believe in Scripture, so convinced that Mary
had other children?
I. They are not inspired by love for Christ, or for the mother of Christ,
or for Scripture in their doctrine.
II. Their main desire is to maintain a doctrine differing from that of the
Catholic Church. But it is a position which is rapidly going out
of fashion.
III. Learned Protestant scholars today deny as emphatically as any
Catholic that Mary had other children.
IV. When Our Lord, dying on the cross, commended His mother to
the care of St. John, He did so precisely because He was her
only child, and He knew that Mary had no other children to
care for her.
V. The idea that Mary had other children is disrespectful to the Holy
Spirit who claimed and sanctified her as His sanctuary.
VI. It insults Christ, who was the only-begotten of His mother even as
He was the only-begotten of His Heavenly Father.
VII. It insults Mary, who would have been guilty of a great ingratitude
to God, if she threw away the gift of virginity which God had so
carefully preserved for her in the conception of Christ.
VIII. It insults St. Joseph. God had told him by an angle to take Mary
to wife, and that the child to be born of her had no earthly father
but was the very Son of God.
IX. God merely gave St. Joseph the privilege of protecting her good
name amongst the undiscerning Jews, and He chose a God-fearing
man who would respect her.
X. Knowing that her child was God Himself in human form, Joseph
would at once regard her as on a plane far superior to that of
any ordinary human being, and to him, as to us, the mere thought
of her becoming a mother to merely earthly children would have
seemed a sacrilege.
Taken from: Q&A Virgin and Statue Worship (Quizzes to a Street Preacher)
Authored by: Fr. Chas. M. Carty & Rev. Dr. L. Rumble, M.S.C.
.
|
|
|
| User: "akhikar" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
21 Dec 2003 07:08:40 AM |
|
|
"stone" <stone_2003@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:5cfa0b68.0312202327.75188354@posting.google.com...
Matthew and Mark said that Mary had other children; they should know.
The authors of Matthew and Mark each wrote a story in which a list of names
is given. One of those names is Myriam, Jesus' mother, the others Jesus'
brothers.
Myriam, Moses' sister, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Simeon and Levi were of Jesus'
family as well and are all mentioned in OT narratives.
From a theological point of view, they were part of Jesus' family, since in
the stories they are said to be believers.
Were they historical individuals. We have no evidence that they were nor do
we have evidence that the stories are based on historical facts.
Question remains, did Jesus have biological brothers and sisters?
No, unless it could be proven otherwise.
From a theological point of view, Jesus was a descendant of biblical king
David, and the Seed of Abraham.
Was Jesus a biological descendant of biblical king David and of Abraham?
No, unless it could be proven that king David and Abraham really existed.
Characters in stories, in narratives, need not be historical.
The authors of the OT wrote stories, a Sacred History, 'The Story'. Stories
are not historical accounts, need not be. A repetition.
You may have read that an inscription was found at Tel-Dan on which some
experts say is a reference to a 'house of David'. That in no way is a proof
that biblical king existed. Could have been a god, a sanctuary, a locality,
(a dynasty? I doubt it).
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters. He sure did, thousands and thousands of
them. Jacob had twelve all for himself and of course his many daughters, the
names of whom the authors did not list, because it was of no importance.
LOL. Does Jesus have brothers and sisters still alive, Sure does.
And yes, Jesus' mother, the one He calls 'Woman' has Many many children. We
don't call her by that name, very few do. We call her the Catholic Church,
Jesus' Mother. She was at Cana, still is, changing water into wine. She was
at the foot of the cross, still is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "disciple" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
21 Dec 2003 05:26:44 PM |
|
|
akhikar wrote in message ...
"stone" <stone_2003@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:5cfa0b68.0312202327.75188354@posting.google.com...
Matthew and Mark said that Mary had other children; they should know.
The authors of Matthew and Mark each wrote a story in which a list of names
is given. One of those names is Myriam, Jesus' mother, the others Jesus'
brothers.
Myriam, Moses' sister, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Simeon and Levi were of Jesus'
family as well and are all mentioned in OT narratives.
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 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of
James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here
with us? And they were offended at him.
The name Myriam is not in these verses; your post is in error. [The Bible
search engine that I used did not find the name Myriam in the whole New
Testament.]
The James referred to in these passages is a real half brother of Jesus and
is spoken of else where in the Bible. (He was the son of Joseph and Mary.)
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
The list of names are actual half brothers of Jesus that lived when he did;
they have nothing to do with Moses or any other Old testament character. The
following verses also talk about Mary's other children, called the brethren
of Jesus.
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.
John 7:4 For [there is] no man [that] doeth any thing in secret, and he
himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to
the world.
John 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
John 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time
is alway ready.
John 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of
it, that the works thereof are evil.
John 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my
time is not yet full come.
John 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode [still] in
Galilee.
John 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto
the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Matthew 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and
his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Matthew 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren
stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
The scriptures plainly show that Mary had other children besides Jesus. Your
post is in error.
Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus; after that, her and Joseph had sex,
and she was a virgin no more.
Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the
Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn
son: and he called his name JESUS.
The phrase, "and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn",
means that Joseph had sex with Mary after she had her first born. To Know a
woman, in the KJV Bible, means to have sex with her. This is found in
several places in the Old Testament.
From a theological point of view, they were part of Jesus' family, since in
the stories they are said to be believers.
Were they historical individuals. We have no evidence that they were nor do
we have evidence that the stories are based on historical facts.
Question remains, did Jesus have biological brothers and sisters?
No, unless it could be proven otherwise.
From a theological point of view, Jesus was a descendant of biblical king
David, and the Seed of Abraham.
Was Jesus a biological descendant of biblical king David and of Abraham?
No, unless it could be proven that king David and Abraham really existed.
Characters in stories, in narratives, need not be historical.
The authors of the OT wrote stories, a Sacred History, 'The Story'. Stories
are not historical accounts, need not be. A repetition.
You may have read that an inscription was found at Tel-Dan on which some
experts say is a reference to a 'house of David'. That in no way is a
proof
that biblical king existed. Could have been a god, a sanctuary, a locality,
(a dynasty? I doubt it).
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters. He sure did, thousands and thousands
of
them. Jacob had twelve all for himself and of course his many daughters,
the
names of whom the authors did not list, because it was of no importance.
LOL. Does Jesus have brothers and sisters still alive, Sure does.
And yes, Jesus' mother, the one He calls 'Woman' has Many many children. We
don't call her by that name, very few do. We call her the Catholic Church,
Jesus' Mother. She was at Cana, still is, changing water into wine. She was
at the foot of the cross, still is.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
21 Dec 2003 10:33:31 PM |
|
|
disciple wrote:
akhikar wrote in message ...
"stone" <stone_2003@cheerful.com> wrote in message
news:5cfa0b68.0312202327.75188354@posting.google.com...
Matthew and Mark said that Mary had other children; they should know.
The authors of Matthew and Mark each wrote a story in which a list of names
is given. One of those names is Myriam, Jesus' mother, the others Jesus'
brothers.
Myriam, Moses' sister, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Simeon and Levi were of Jesus'
family as well and are all mentioned in OT narratives.
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 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of
James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here
with us? And they were offended at him.
The name Myriam is not in these verses; your post is in error.
===>Of course not.
It is translated as MARY. But the GREEK text uses MARIAM!
[The Bible
search engine that I used did not find the name Myriam in the whole New
Testament.]
===>Of course not. It is just like with your "God".
If something does not exist, you may keep looking for ever, and will
not find it.
The James referred to in these passages is a real half brother
===>WRONG!
Why don't you use your "Bible search engine" and see if you find
"half brother".
of Jesus and
is spoken of else where in the Bible. (He was the son of Joseph and Mary.)
===>Of course he was. Flesh and blood brother of the OTHER
son of Joseph, named YESHUA ("Jesus" to you).
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother.
===>BEHOLD!
It does NOT say "half brother", does it?
The list of names are actual half brothers of Jesus
===>How can you keep insisting on such FALSEHOODS? l
Though it clearly says "brother", and you insist it is talking about
"half brother".
.
|
|
|
| User: "akhikar" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
21 Dec 2003 11:34:22 PM |
|
|
disciple wrote:
The name Myriam is not in these verses; your post is in error.
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Miryam, and
his brothers, Ya`akov, Yosi, Shim`on, and Yehudah?
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Did Mary have other Children-No |
22 Dec 2003 01:04:11 PM |
|
|
akhikar wrote:
disciple wrote:
The name Myriam is not in these verses; your post is in error.
Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother called Miryam, and
his brothers, Ya`akov, Yosi, Shim`on, and Yehudah?
Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible
===>Even the Greek "original" has "MARIAM".
.
|
|
| | | | | | |
