- Feb 10, 2013
- 35,929
- 20,681
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Celibate
- Politics
- US-Republican
Were Lot and Abraham brothers? It said they were brothers in Genesis 13:18?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Were Lot and Abraham brothers? It said they were brothers in Genesis 13:18?they were stated by name, and mentioned on may occasions, I put a list of the test where they were mentioned.
because that is all they knew and they might have been afraid to say other wise. The chruche was very powerful.
missing the point here no mention of lot hereWere Lot and Abraham brothers? It said they were brothers in Genesis 13:18?
That’s the point….brothers had more than one meaningmissing the point here no mention of lot here
um something Is off. you were talking about Abraham and Lot and there was no mention of Lot in the text. now you are on the word brothers. you lost me some where.That’s the point….brothers had more than one meaning
Did you read the text?um something Is off. you were talking about Abraham and Lot and there was no mention of Lot in the text. now you are on the word brothers. you lost me some where.
Might it be that at that time (when Jesus was on the cross), His brothers still were not believers? Could that have been a reason for Jesus committing the care of Mary to John?this should be explored a little more.
Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. Aramaic and Hebrew have no word for cousin. The word for brothers was commonly translated into Koine Greek as adelphoi. The fact is that adelphoi has a broad meaning, to include cousins and even non-related people. In Matthew 23 Jesus spoke to the crowds and His disciples and calls them adelphoi--brothers.repeating the same answer does not make it correct. no word for cousin??? the word is συγγενίς (syngenis)
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin (syngenis) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Please Try reading the Bible. that is the basis of our faith not the tradition of the Church.
No, they don't. Scripture is unclear, the use of "brothers" is ambiguous; neither position is stated definitively, so traditional Christians (not just Catholics) are justified in retaining the traditional teaching, handed down by persons much closer to our Lord to the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. If we are in error over holding what was (until very recently) a universal belief, it seems very risky to throw that out in favor of a much more recent innovation. As a confessional Lutheran, speaking on our behalf, there was, in in some ways still are, very serious errors in the teaching of the Catholic Church. As I quoted in a previous post from the Book of Concord, the belief in Semper Virago is not one of those errors.not convinced that is the case. he had brothers & sister Matthew 13:55&56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, Gal 1:19, Act 1:14, John 12:46-40
Matthew 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus
knew is the another word for sex. she did not have sex until after him she had give birth to Jesus.
So the Catholic Church blatantly contradicts the scripture.
If they were not believers, then they were still bound by Jewish law and tradition; they would have been legally obligated to care for the Blessed Virgin Mary; they could not have walked away from that obligation.Might it be that at that time (when Jesus was on the cross), His brothers still were not believers? Could that have been a reason for Jesus committing the care of Mary to John?
No, the point was made, clearly.missing the point here no mention of lot here
Why? How come none of his siblings took care of her? Hint: he had none
My point was that perhaps Jesus wanted to commit her to the care of a fellow-believer.If they were not believers, then they were still bound by Jewish law and tradition; they would have been legally obligated to care for the Blessed Virgin Mary; they could not have walked away from that obligation.
could you clarify the point instead of arguing, the text never mentions LOT or a word for cousin. maybe she posted the wrong text.No, the point was made, clearly.
that does not prove that they were not his brothers only that the word could be applied to people other then biological relatives. You still have the option of it being his Biological relatives. you have not disproven that you have dismissed the Idea in favor of your preferred view.Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. Aramaic and Hebrew have no word for cousin. The word for brothers was commonly translated into Koine Greek as adelphoi. The fact is that adelphoi has a broad meaning, to include cousins and even non-related people. In Matthew 23 Jesus spoke to the crowds and His disciples and calls them adelphoi--brothers.
James is referred to as the "brother" of Jesus, no other apostle is called that, even in the context of calling them brothers as a group.Strong's Additionally, there is NO reference in the Bible to Mary being the mother of any of the "brothers."Matthew, CHAPTER 23
Daily Bible Readings, Podcast Audio and Videos and Prayers brought to you by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.bible.usccb.org
John was the one that he loved; does that mean he did not love the other 11?that does not prove that they were not his brothers only that the word could be applied to people other then biological relatives. You still have the option of it being his Biological relatives. you have not disproven that you have dismissed the Idea in favor of your preferred view.
James is referred to as the "brother" of Jesus, no other apostle is called that, even in the context of calling them brothers as a group.
I doubt it. Simply because he had no blood brothers.Might it be that at that time (when Jesus was on the cross), His brothers still were not believers? Could that have been a reason for Jesus committing the care of Mary to John?
That’s what some believe as well, in regards to her perpetual virginity.John was the one that he loved; does that mean he did not love the other 11?
Tradition holds that Joseph was older; he may have had children by a previous marriage and been a widower; these "brothers" of Jesus would be under no obligation to care for Mary as they are not her children.
Per Jewish tradition, her children would have taken care of her.My point was that perhaps Jesus wanted to commit her to the care of a fellow-believer.
You keep stating that as a fact. That may be what you historically have passed down but you have not proven that. You have not dealt with the evidence of contradicts that. You simply dismissed anything that is contradictory to your belief, and repeated what you have stated before. You are not allowing for any questioning or an examining and you're certainly not answering any of the objections.John was the one that he loved; does that mean he did not love the other 11?
Tradition holds that Joseph was older; he may have had children by a previous marriage and been a widower; these "brothers" of Jesus would be under no obligation to care for Mary as they are not her children.
You've "moved the goal posts." In your previous comment you stated:that does not prove that they were not his brothers only that the word could be applied to people other then biological relatives. You still have the option of it being his Biological relatives. you have not disproven that you have dismissed the Idea in favor of your preferred view.
James is referred to as the "brother" of Jesus, no other apostle is called that, even in the context of calling them brothers as a group.
You ridiculed the very idea that Mary had no other children. Now that the broad meaning of adelphoi has been pointed out to you, refuting your out of line ridicule, you admit the other meanings but now say your interpretation has not been "disproven." Again, we are just pointing out to you that there are multiple meanings--not only the "plain" meaning of Holy Scripture you purport.one has to gaslight to accept that view. ignoring the plain statements of scripture. jumping though verbal and langustic hoops to make it work and why. So the Catholics can pretend that Mary never had sex with Joseph. That is ridiculous. especially when the text tell us She did.
In the example I just previously provided Jesus referred to his disciples as brothers.James is referred to as the "brother" of Jesus, no other apostle is called that, even in the context of calling them brothers as a group.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?