|
| |
Jacob's age when Joseph was born? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
How old was Israel(Jacob) when Joseph was born? Please include references. |
| |
Jacob's age when Joseph was born? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
Genesis 37:15 states that Jacob (Israel) was in his old age. Genesis 47:9 Pharoah asks Jacob how old he is and he says, "the years of his pilgrimage are 130". I gather that Jacob was about 111 when Joseph was born. |
| |
SECOND CHANCE |
|
|
|
Rev 7:1
|
| |
Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, so that no wind should blow on the earth or on the sea or on any tree. 2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees, until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads." 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 5 from the tribe of Judah, twelve thousand were sealed, from the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand, from the tribe of Gad twelve thousand, 6 from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand, 7 from the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand, from the tribe of Levi twelve thousand, from the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand, 8 from the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand, from the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand, from the tribe of Benjamin, twelve thousand were sealed. (NAS)
These 144,000 "Triblation Saints" are still on Earth after the rapture. They have the seal fo God so they won't be harmed. |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Since Joseph was not Jesus' natural father--Jesus' humanity came through his mother, Mary,--how do the geneologies in Matthew and Luke support that Jesus was a descendant of David? |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! |
| |
Mary isn't mentioned |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
1) If it is true that Jewish genealogy traces the Mothers side, then why is the focus on Joseph rather than Mary in the Matthew and Luke genealogies? 2) Where do you find evidence that Mary was a decendant of David? |
| |
Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. |
| |
HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). |
| |
Mary isn't mentioned |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Many conservative scholars understand the geneology in Luke to trace Mary's geneology. In Luke 3:23, the geneology begins "being supposedly the son of Joseph" indicating that Joseph is not actually in the geneology. |
| |
Blue marbles roll faster than red ones |
|
|
|
Rev 19:4
|
| |
Thank you for challenging me to look the urantia book up. It was very informative. It kind of reminded me of L.Ron Hubbard's Dianetics mixed with the teachings of the church latter-day saints (mormons). I can't say that I agree with your assesment of it value, however. 2 Cor 11:14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. (NAS;lockman foundation)
The most effective lie, is that which contains some truth in it. I believe that the Urantia Book is clever scheme of our adversary, the devil, to distract us from truly finding the truth. John 8:31-32 ( So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." NAS;lockman foundation)
Joseph Smith had a vision. He was visited by the angel moroni, this angel gave him instructions to write what became known as the book of mormon. I believe Joseph. I think he did see an angel. However, I believe he saw a fallen angel, a demon. 1 Tim 4:1 "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons" (NAS;lockman foundation)
We need to be carefull what we accept as truth and test everything.
1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."(NAS;lockman foundation)
I am willing to listen to any biblical evidence that you have that might support your theories on the book of urantia being part of "Holy Scripture".
|
| |
How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative.
I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account.
There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
| |
God created evil? |
|
|
|
Genesis
|
| |
well all i can say is i am glad that the deep things of God are not for sale. They must be sought after. unless you can understand the the Lord has ALL THINGS under his feet and EVERY KNEE shall bow at his presence. He is LORD if you dont understand then put those things on a shelf and let the Lord take them off. dont worry about doctrine as long as your relationship with Jesus is spoton where it should be.Keep your eyes on Jesus not on People. Bless your walk with the Lord! ask yourself where was the darkness? if it wasnt in God where then ?lucifer was satans name in heaven. do astudy on name changes and see how God moved in their lives. example abram and his wife, lucifer, gideon, jacob,daniel and his friends joseph, peter,paul,even Jesus had a name change seek and you will find there are heaps |
| |
Is there an age of accountability? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
P.S.
. . . Joseph, thank you for your question. After all the sometimes heated, sometimes confused and confusing debate over election, Calvinism or whatever one wishes to call it, I needed a good laugh. Thanks for providing me with one. |
| |
Arminian viewpoint? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear Radioman:
I appreciate the opportunity to provide humor in the otherwise droll life of Calvinism, however, I am a serious Bible student, and would prefer to limit my intellectual intercourse to others of the same intent. Thank you for avoiding my questions in the future. Joseph |
| |
Is there an age of accountability? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear Joseph, the answer is No. The question is, "Were you looking for a particular answer?" You got the answers you got because of your ambiguous question. If you want to discuss this with those of your own thinking, use personal email. We have been invited by our hosts to a Christian Bible Forum, for the edification of the saints, with views and commentary by ALL for ALL. I can imagine that some Christians new to their faith would be thrilled to see lively discussion, but disappointed to see petty bickering among mature men of the Word. The best way you can show forth your bent, is to use the Bible clearly, use common sense, and show a little honor and dignity. (and maybe a wee bit of humor :-) With love in Christ Jesus. |
| |
Is there an age of accountability? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Joseph, it looks like you could use a little help. I've tangled with these guys plenty of times and they get pretty irate when you show them scripturally that there interpretations don't hold up.
Back to your question about the age of accountablity, I had not realized that the Calvins believed that children were not saved. If this is true it's rather sad they could actually believe this. I always thought God was a loving God.
I really need to get home (I'm late for dinner) but I will try to investigate this topic tonight. I just wanted to let you know that you are not alone. There is one verse that Jesus tells us to have faith like the children but want to research it more to make sure it applies.
By the way, JVH0212 really gets upset when you use the term Calvin. He says he is not a Calvin but I found he does believe more in the things Calvins believe verses the Arminians. I believe more in the Arminians beliefs but admit there are some Calvinistic beliefs that are sound. After all they do believe Jesus died for our sins.
I guess I use the terms too loosly but find them handy to refer to one belief versus another.
Ok, I'm real late now. later. |
| |
Is there an age of accountability? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
jg8ball: Thank you for the kind response. It is what I was looking for, honest, sincere biblical research, not the harsh, mocking rethoric I have been recieving. I will work with you to develop our knowledge and faith. Sincerely, Joseph |
| |
Only 144,000 virgins in heaven? |
|
|
|
Revelation
|
| |
We should read the first chapters of Revelation to understand that the Lord is calling everyone to repentance. Look at Rev 3:20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 "To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne. 22 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
Regarding the 144,000 God is speaking about the 12 tribues Rev 7:2 Then I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God. And he cried with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea, 3 saying, "Do not harm the earth, the sea, or the trees till we have sealed the servants of our God on their foreheads." 4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed. One hundred and forty-four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel were sealed:
5 of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand were sealed; 6 of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand were sealed; 7 of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand were sealed;
8 of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand were sealed; of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand were sealed.
Look what it continues to say: Rev 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude WHICH NO ONE COULD NUMBER, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands, 10 and crying out with a loud voice, saying, "Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!" 11 All the angels stood around the throne and the elders and the four living creatures, and fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God, 12 saying: "Amen! Blessing and glory and wisdom, Thanksgiving and honor and power and might, Be to our God forever and ever. Amen." 13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?" 14 And I said to him, "Sir, you know." So he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
15 "Therefore they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. And He who sits on the throne will dwell among them.
16 "They shall neither hunger anymore nor thirst anymore; the sun shall not strike them, nor any heat; 17 "for the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes." |
| |
Arminian viewpoint? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
To jvh0212: This an example of the rhetoric to which I referred "I am also growing very weary of all this Calvinist stuff. For the last time, I NEVER NEVER USED THE WORD CALVINIST EXCEPT WHEN SOMEONE ELSE USED IT FIRST. AND I NEVER NEVER NEVER SAID I WAS A CALVINIST. I THOUGHT THE KING JAMES ONLY PEOPLE WERE HUMORLESS AND INTOLERANT. YOU ANTI-CALVINISTS HAVE THEM BEAT BY A MILE." along with "Ask a __________question, get a_________ answer"
I am a serious Bible student intent on spiritual growth. I am not looking for conflict and argument, therefore, I look forward to no further contact with you. Anything further will be deleted, unread.
Sincerely, Joseph. |
| |
Is there an age of accountability? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Thank you "King of Salem" for the Scriptural answer I was seeking.
In Jesus Name, Joseph |
| |
Beginning of Bondage |
|
|
|
Gen 47:20
|
| |
Genesis 47 recounts Joseph's plan during the famine in Egypt. People sold their possesions for food and when there was nothing left to sell, they sold themselves.
Was this the beginning of slavrey for the Israelites? |
| |
Beginning of Bondage |
|
|
|
Gen 47:20
|
| |
Joseph's brothers did not have to sell themselves for their food. They brought payment each time, and it was returned to them. They were given land apart from the Egyptians in which to live and raise their livestock. All the land of Egypt had reverted to Pharaoh, and all Egypt was taxed at a 20 percent flat tax (Gen 47:26), but this was not slavery and was not specific to the Hebrews; it's even arguable that they didn't have to pay this tax (at least at first), since their land was apparently given TO them (rather than being sold BY them TO Pharaoh). Joseph brought great honor upon his family from the Egyptian leaders of his time, as demonstrated by their representation at Jacob's funeral (Gen 50:7).
The slavery of the Hebrews didn't start until a Pharaoh arose who was not acquainted with Joseph and the great service he had rendered to the power of Egypt and to the line of the Pharaohs (See Exodus 1:6-14). They became increasingly harsh until Pharaoh finally issued progressive edicts requiring the killing of the Hebrews' newborn boys (Exodus 1:15-22). This is the setting into which Moses was born. |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear Brent Douglas, I read with interest your comment that Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli". I never thought of that possible interpretation. My favorite version the NASB, says "being, as was supposed, the son (I would say Son) of Joseph" and I would put your "but actually" the Son of God."as the last words of the lineage. I don't believe that Adam was the son of God. Adam had a son, Seth. God had a Son, Jesus.
I think it was Timothy in the forum who mentioned Romans 5:12 "through one man sin entered into the world"...v.14 "offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who is to come"...the one Man, Jesus Christ."
I was most interested in your "but actually". Later, Ray |
| |
what was Mary's geneology |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB)
Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time.
Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy.
It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV.
1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,...
2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,...
3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,...
Thanks for your patience. |
| |
It is a general argument among believers |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
Mark 6:3
Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him. |
| |
It is a general argument among believers |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere.
(I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.)
Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view.
1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
| |
Can angels have human babies? |
|
|
|
Gen 6:4
|
| |
Hi JVH, I really want to answer a question and compare scriptures and I can't find what they were. Can you answer here what scriptures we were discusssing? Here I would only say that there is only one Son of God, if you know my capitalization. Somewhere I spoke about Adam and the belief I had that Adam wasn't the Son or son of God; but in this sense I guess he and all the males after Adam were sons of God.
I had been speaking about Jesus, being supposedly the Son of Joseph, son of, son of,...son of Adam,-- but actually the Son of God. Later, Ray V.H. |
| |
It is a general argument among believers |
|
|
|
NT general
|
| |
See Matt 12:46 and Mark 6:3. In Matt 12:46 re the word "*brothers*. These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. Matthew explicitly connects them with Mary, indicating that they were not cousins or Joseph's sons from a previous marriage, as some of the church fathers imagined. They are mentioned in all the gospels. Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus' brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well." (p. 1415, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
