What is the theological meaning of Jesus' twin brother

Labarbapostiza

If you have no idea what I'm talking about please read this Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_(brother_of_Jesus)

Manach

BTW - link not working.

Assuming this is brothers to Jesus discussion?
My understanding is the some branches of belief make such relationship actual brothers while others (Catholic and others) have it a more distant relationship.
To place this in context, AFAIR, the Anglican author Henry Chadwick ascribes the description of brother to be referring to a spiritual relationship to the Lord which the early Christian communities embraced for all members.

brian_t

Manach wrote: »

BTW - link not working.

Links to Wikipedia which end in a Closing Bracket never work properly.

This link should work I think

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_%28brother_of_Jesus%29#

Labarbapostiza

Manach wrote: »

BTW - link not working.

Assuming this is brothers to Jesus discussion?
My understanding is the some branches of belief make such relationship actual brothers while others (Catholic and others) have it a more distant relationship.

Yes. This is done to preserve the permanent virginity of Mary. The virginity of Mary, arises from a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew Torah.

To place this in context, AFAIR, the Anglican author Henry Chadwick
ascribes the description of brother to be referring to a spiritual relationship
to the Lord which the early Christian communities embraced for all members.

I'm talking more about a historical theology. I think that the twin gets so garbled in the Greek gospels, that he multiplies. So, James, Thomas, Jude, etc are all the same person. But, that there was some fundamental theological reason for the twin in the first place.

Are there any twins in the Torah?

Manach

I'd not have read any Torah material, but I would be familiar with Greco-Roman. That would be tangentially relevant due to then prevailing political set up and how the Jews interacted with the wider Hellenic world.
On the one hand, given how difficult child birth was, twins were rare. Thus it could be a mark of favour from some higher power to have a raised adult twins. Akin to a 7th son x 7th. On the other hand, such a relationship might not be harmonious. Classic example, Romulus and Remus. One twin in acting as (to borrow from Said's lexicon of terms) the "Other" - which given the decades of theological discussion on the nature of Jesus' nature - human/divine/mix within body/spirit - one who acts in contrast to Jesus.
Summing up, any meaning would be difficult to uncover: IMHO.

Nick Park

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If you have no idea what I'm talking about please read this Wikipedia page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_(brother_of_Jesus)

You are referring to two separate concepts here. The wikipedia link is about Jude, who was the brother of Jesus (but not a twin).

The idea that Jesus had a twin was a Gnostic teaching, and they held that twin to be the apostle Thomas. Thomas' name means 'twin' (toma in Aramaic or didymus in Greek).

Are there any twins in the Torah?

Yes, two sets are mentioned specifically. Jacob and Esau were twins, as were Perez and Zerah (the sons of Tamar and Judah).

Labarbapostiza

Manach wrote: »

I'd not have read any Torah material, but I would be familiar with Greco-Roman. That would be tangentially relevant due to then prevailing political set up and how the Jews interacted with the wider Hellenic world.

The Greek Christian community emerges from the Greek Jewish community. Who were very Helenised. The New Testament is written Koine Greek. For historical reasons that Greek canon came to dominate. It spreads back to the origin, the Levant, and then back out again to other Christian communities that had been established elsewhere. It becomes the Orthodoxy.

On the one hand, given how difficult child birth was, twins were rare. Thus it
could be a mark of favour from some higher power to have a raised adult twins.
Akin to a 7th son x 7th. On the other hand, such a relationship might not be
harmonious. Classic example, Romulus and Remus. One twin in acting as (to borrow
from Said's lexicon of terms) the "Other" - which given the decades of
theological discussion on the nature of Jesus' nature - human/divine/mix within
body/spirit - one who acts in contrast to Jesus.
Summing up, any meaning
would be difficult to uncover: IMHO.

I don't know. I haven't had too much time to get into it. I have a feeling documents will eventually turn up.

Labarbapostiza

Nick Park wrote: »

You are referring to two separate concepts here. The wikipedia link is about Jude, who was the brother of Jesus (but not a twin).

The idea that Jesus had a twin was a Gnostic teaching, and they held that twin to be the apostle Thomas. Thomas' name means 'twin' (toma in Aramaic or didymus in Greek).

Not to get into who the Gnostics were. What can be said about their authenticity is that they were authentic Gnostics. It isn't authentic early Christianity, but the Twin, doesn't originate with them. Gnosticism, travels from Greece, the Hammadi gospels have been dated to 390 ad, and they're in Coptic. They're not authentically Christian, but found their way into authentic Christian communities.

All the canonical gospels are older than the Gnostics. And the twin appears in them.

Yes, two sets are mentioned specifically. Jacob and Esau were twins, as were
Perez and Zerah (the sons of Tamar and Judah).

That could be the root. Could you give a quick explanation of the twindom in those cases?.....(to spare me looking it up)

Labarbapostiza

Nick Park wrote: »

Yes, two sets are mentioned specifically. Jacob and Esau were twins, as were Perez and Zerah (the sons of Tamar and Judah).

I've looked them up.

Very interesting that Tamar wears a veil. The veil of Isis.

Nick Park

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

I've looked them up.

Very interesting that Tamar wears a veil. The veil of Isis.

No, just a veil. Like virtually every other woman wore in the Ancient Near East.

Just like Thomas was a twin. Not a twin of Jesus. Not Jude, not James. Not some deep mystical hidden insight. Just a guy who, as happens about 4 times per 1000 births, happened to be a twin.

Labarbapostiza

Nick Park wrote: »

No, just a veil. Like virtually every other woman wore in the Ancient Near East.

Just like Thomas was a twin. Not a twin of Jesus. Not Jude, not James. Not some deep mystical hidden insight. Just a guy who, as happens about 4 times per 1000 births, happened to be a twin.

No. The gospels are not a factual account of anything. They're theological statements. The "prophecy", Jesus fulfils is constituted of piece meal interpellations to the Torah.

If you chose to ignore this fact, and interpret the texts differently, then what you're doing is creating your own gospel.

Geniass

Manach wrote: »

To place this in context, AFAIR, the Anglican author Henry Chadwick ascribes the description of brother to be referring to a spiritual relationship to the Lord which the early Christian communities embraced for all members.

Is the word brother used to describe other named males in the NT?

martinedwards

Never heard Jesus ever being suggested as having a twin.

and taking Wikipaedia as a basis for your theology? really?

the big split over this is, as already stated that the RC church has a tradition that says Mary stayed a virgin so couldn't have had any other children, while the Prod churches generally go by the biblical text which never mentions anything about that and so are happy to accept the "Your mother and Brothers are outside" text as meaning Jesus's mother and brothers rather than having to have to go and invent another theology that says that we're all brothers really.

whether he had or not is, IMHO, irrelevant as it was JESUS's virgin birth that was important and if Mary and Joseph then had a normal loving marriage then that wouldn't deter from Jesus's ststus

Right Turn Clyde

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Yes. This is done to preserve the permanent virginity of Mary. The virginity of Mary, arises from a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew Torah.

Was it a deliberate or accidental translation? There's many virgin births throughout mythology. I wonder did the translators want to push Christian myth in that direction?

Nick Park

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

No. The gospels are not a factual account of anything. They're theological statements. The "prophecy", Jesus fulfils is constituted of piece meal interpellations to the Torah.

If you chose to ignore this fact, and interpret the texts differently, then what you're doing is creating your own gospel.

No, the safest way to avoid creating your own gospel is to follow academically recognised methods of interpretation.

However, if you start inventing hidden mystical or allegorical meanings for commonplace happenings, then you abandon genuine biblical scholarship for New Age mushy spirituality.

Nick Park

Right Turn Clyde wrote: »

Was it a deliberate or accidental translation? There's many virgin births throughout mythology. I wonder did the translators want to push Christian myth in that direction?

The translation (not a mistranslation btw) of a Hebrew word in Isaiah as 'virgin' precedes Christianity by over a century.

The Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, however, does not rely on that translation. Luke refers to the virgin birth without any reference to the verse in Isaiah.

Labarbapostiza

Nick Park wrote: »

The translation (not a mistranslation btw) of a Hebrew word in Isaiah as 'virgin' precedes Christianity by over a century.

The Christian doctrine of the virgin birth, however, does not rely on that translation. Luke refers to the virgin birth without any reference to the verse in Isaiah.

Yes, but Luke is a later author. The Greek Christian tradition of the virgin birth is established before Luke writes.

And everything is a little more complex than simple translation. Ezekiel used the word barnas in his writing. The way he writes it, it could simply be interpreted as man, as in mankind. But in the Jewish tradition it was interpreted to be a special case, referring to God. All this is he, isn't he God, stuff in Christian texts, is rooted in this play on words. The Greek translation of the word is Son of Man. And the Greek writers managed to scramble this, as you get even in English texts things like The Sabbath was made for the Son of Man, not the Son of Man for the Sabbath, said the Son of Man. If you use the Aramaic word it's The Sabbath was made for barnas, not barnas for the Sabbath, said Barnas.

Adam in Genesis, his name is not Adam. Adam is a Hebrew word for Man.

Simply having a dictionary is not going to help. You'd need to know all the interpretations and misinterpretations too.

The virginity tradition kept rooted, because it's deeply imbedded in all the Isis traditions; where she is the earth mother, but simultaneously retains her virgin purity.

am946745

Joseph could have had children from a previous marriage. There is noting to contradict this in Christian teaching. We don't know either way.

Labarbapostiza

am946745 wrote: »

Joseph could have had children from a previous marriage. There is noting to contradict this in Christian teaching. We don't know either way.

Yeah, that's what the proto-gospel James states. It used to be in the New Testament canon. But has since been removed because it was embarrassing rubbish.

She has to stay a virgin for the virgin cults and their heresies. Jesus being born without sin, or is it Mary is without original sin. There are some wacky ones. Like Mary never aging, but she does die, and then ascends into heaven. Complete heresies, with no basis in original Christianity.

If you worship the virgin, you are a pagan.

There are currently active Christian traditions who do not worship the virgin, because they see it for what it is; pagan.

Geniass

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

If you worship the virgin, you are a pagan.

Protestant outreach?

Labarbapostiza

Geniass wrote: »

Protestant outreach?

No.

But they do really have a point.

Mary lore, I believe is based mostly on things like "visions" of young nuns, etc.

And because people were convinced to switch from asking the Queen of the Fairies for intercessions in their daily lives, to The Holy Queen of Heaven, doesn't really make the practice a Christian one.

Is there anything whatsoever in the Mary tradition that is Christian, and distinguishes it from pure paganism.

It very definitely is a form of idolatry.

You may as well be praying to the devil........If you believe in devils and that sort of thing.

am946745

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

No.

But they do really have a point.

Mary lore, I believe is based mostly on things like "visions" of young nuns, etc.

And because people were convinced to switch from asking the Queen of the Fairies for intercessions in their daily lives, to The Holy Queen of Heaven, doesn't really make the practice a Christian one.

Is there anything whatsoever in the Mary tradition that is Christian, and distinguishes it from pure paganism.

It very definitely is a form of idolatry.

You may as well be praying to the devil........If you believe in devils and that sort of thing.

In cause you forgot this is the Christianity forum. Go next-door to insult us.
Someday you will remember the insult you made in this thread.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

In cause you forgot this is the Christianity forum. Go next-door to insult us.
Someday you will remember the insult you made in this thread.

MOD NOTE

Not all branches of Christianity share the same opinion regarding praying to Mary. All opinions are allowed once they don't breach the charter.

Back-seat moderation is against the charter so please refrain from doing so in future. Please use the report button when you see problematic posts.

Thanks for your attention.

am946745

SW wrote: »

MOD NOTE

Not all branches of Christianity share the same opinion regarding praying to Mary. All opinions are allowed once they don't breach the charter.

Back-seat moderation is against the charter so please refrain from doing so in future. Please use the report button when you see problematic posts.

Thanks for your attention.

Well ban me. I won't allow my Faith to be mocked in what is suppose be be a Christianity forum. The poster could be atlas courteous and debate the issue in THIS forum.

Labarbapostiza

am946745 wrote: »

In cause you forgot this is the Christianity forum. Go next-door to insult us.

Many non-Catholic Christians consider the practice of venerating the mother of Jesus in the way some Catholics to do to be an insult and offence to their religion. One, it is a clear violation of the Mosaic prohibition of idolatry. The practice is utterly pagan and devoid of any Christian content. The elevation of Mary displaces Jesus. The heresies that inform the Mary worship tradition create a false Christianity.

Just because you call a pagan idol the mother of Jesus, doesn't make her Christian. May is the Marian month, not for any reason you'll find in the New Testament, but because it's the old pagan May festival, with its' pagan May queen.

Someday you will remember the insult you made in this thread

Why is something bad going to happen to me?

Is she bad tempered and vengeful?

am946745

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

Many non-Catholic Christians consider the practice of venerating the mother of Jesus in the way some Catholics to do to be an insult and offence to their religion. One, it is a clear violation of the Mosaic prohibition of idolatry. The practice is utterly pagan and devoid of any Christian content. The elevation of Mary displaces Jesus. The heresies that inform the Mary worship tradition create a false Christianity.

Just because you call a pagan idol the mother of Jesus, doesn't make her Christian. May is the Marian month, not for any reason you'll find in the New Testament, but because it's the old pagan May festival, with its' pagan May queen.

Why is something bad going to happen to me?

Is she bad tempered and vengeful?

You mean protestants.. Right? Because for the first 1500 years of Christianity she was venerated by all churches. (catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Armenian.. )

Devoid of Christian content? Jesus gave Mary to John as we see in the Gospel. John died in present day turkey. Some mistics hold that they found mary's house there where the domination happened. Its not Dogma, its what some think. other churchs don't. However the veneration of Mary as Virgen and Mother of God is universal in the Church for 1500 years. Is that not the case?