Bible question. Where to research?

I haven't seen any numbers that show a population anywhere near that large at the juncture in question. Do you have a source for your estimate?

Second, the story of the flood is just a story. It didn't really happen.

Dan

That's just the problem. There are no sources. The atmospheric and geothermal cataclysms and other upheavals etc. resulting from the Flood would have destroyed all the records of the existing civilizations. You are right about the Flood not happening.

Regards

at the Watchtower Society* once estimated about 250,000, I believe. And all in one 'area,' remember. (2 Pet 2:5)

*And those crazy, flood-believing bible writers: Lu 17:27; Mt 24:38.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

really believe the flood story?

Dan

Maybe you ought to read a little history Jonah. Since when has a member of your community had something against rebutting arguments made by apologists of genocide?

Tell me. Since when has speaking one's mind a against genocides been getting off? Every U.S. President and almost every world leader has done it. Any intellectual worthy of the name has done it. Need I remind you of the Charter of the U.N. signed by every nation of the world?How many poignant memorials and statements have been made in honor of victims of genocide? Germany has spent the last 60 years trying to climb out of the holocaust stigma and shame.
Maybe it would be best if we did not give the appearance of ruthless single minded inquisitors presiding over their charges.
By the way spare me the "Are you comparing yourself to American presidents and other world leaders" recrimination.

Just think, you get to face Him on Judgement Day. You can tell Him how you feel about it all then. Should be quite a show. Good Luck.

that she lived in a male dominated society that was without forgiveness for breaking the laws of Moses. She, and other "prostitutes" might well have just been women who were not chosen as wives for men and had no means of self support...and really worked not for wealth but just for their next meal? Perhaps they found themselves forced into semi-slavery just to survive...that they were not proud of their existance and, in fact, distained it? and Mary Magdeline was just one of those folks taken by Jesus confronting her with knowledge of her past when women of her reputation were no secret anyway? Today we call women prostitutes for a number of reasons and even some men but it's evolved into a thriving business and not just a means of survival. We just need to learn to separate and not lump these folks all into one barrel. Jesus created quite a din by claiming even these lost folks could be understood and forgiven.

Where did he think Jesus' brothers and sisters came from?

--Cindi
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email the mods

brothers and sisters of that culture and others even today did not mean siblings only...that these could be more like we call cousins. Families weren't as transient as they are and bonds were very strong. Even if that's not exactly the case, it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

because there was some thelogical signifinance to it, then the New Testament would explain that in regard to James who is identified as Jesus' brother. It doesn't say anything, because Mary did not remain a virgin and had other children.

of no significant value whether Mary had other natural children or not...except for those who think that lack of virginity would be evidence of "stain". But, some folks spend too much time worrying about it. I say it's just so much "hooey" to do so (checking sky for black clouds and flashes of light).

This authority
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15448a.htm
says it literally true. Catholics disagree with it on pain of death: In this world, when the Church had power, or in the next, if the Church has power there.
Deadly serious stuff.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

and I cannot personally verify or debunk any of the information in it. Such we get to decide for ourselves to believe or disbelieve their validity but something in me says that those who took the time to research and write these have a considerable advantage over myself and others whose only need is to accept or reject them. My own comment was a personal one in that I feel too many in my own church apply too many additional meanings to Mary's virginity...that being that virgins are more valuable in the site of God. Such happens when we "over analyze". Link

the dogma, not the encyclopedia that describes it. IOW the speed limit is 65, no matter how we learned about it. 65, that is for those who are subject to the speed laws. In practice that means all drivers.
All people are subject to Jehovah's laws whenever he chooses to enforce them. For the time being he provides information and training as to those laws, not enforcement. Like Job, we can obey God out of love, or as Satan suggested out of short-term gain, or not at all. At Armageddon that changes.
One of his 'laws' is that he and his son never lie to us; that the bible is the collection of truths about them, and that we'll need that knowledge to survive. (Joh 17:3) Part of that knowledge is that Armageddon is a real event, described in advance.
For those who choose to obey one of Man's many sets of rules, Mary 'was, is, and ever shall be' virgin. Jehovah had no such idea in mind when he caused her to be born in a state of sin, in a body that would decay at death, unable to be 'assumed' into heaven directly. You may know that this also is dogma to Catholics.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

He believes that Mary was perfect and sinless. I ask him, if this is true, why was it necessary for Jesus to be born?

I go to Matthew 1

24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Didn't say anything about after Jesus was born.

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

is ?Also, when the days for purifying them according to the law of Moses came to the full, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, just as it is written in Jehovah?s law: ?Every male opening a womb must be called holy to Jehovah,? and to offer sacrifice according to what is said in the law of Jehovah: ?A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.?? (Lu 2:22-24)
And ??If, though, he cannot afford enough for a sheep, then he must bring as his guilt offering for the sin that he has committed two turtledoves or two young pigeons to Jehovah, one for a sin offering and one for a burnt offering? (Le 5:7)
And ?But if she cannot afford enough for a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest must make atonement for her, and she must be clean.??? (Le 12:
BTW the newadvent site shows a big reason the "church fathers" wanted Mary a virgin was the idea that sex = sin; one wrote about 'defiling the womb of the Mother of God [with sperm]' or some such. My personal experience with Catholics on this point is that the "evidence" is emotional rather than scriptural.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

?While he was yet speaking to the crowds, look! his mother and brothers took up a position outside seeking to speak to him. So someone said to him: ?Look! Your mother and your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak to you.? As an answer he said to the one telling him: ?Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?? And extending his hand toward his disciples, he said: ?Look! My mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father who is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.?? (Mt 12:46-50)

The orientals still have the concept of the extended family (I know, I'm married to one), and that allowed Popes to develop their 'eternal virgin' doctrine, now a dogma. But the first emphasized phrase in Matthew clearly eliminates that idea, and the second shows what Jesus was teaching, regardless of what we think of the Greek; he uses "brothers" this way often to mean 'spiritual brothers,' not 'spiritual cousins.'
And legally they are [now] his "brothers:" ?For YOU did not receive a spirit of slavery causing fear again, but YOU received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: ?Abba, Father!? The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God?s children. If, then, we are children, we are also heirs: heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer together that we may also be glorified together.? (Ro 8:15-17)

So, on Jesus' recommendation, Jehovah adopts Matthew and Paul, to name two, as his sons. Since Jesus is his firstborn, they then become his brothers, or "joint heirs." FWIW I don't know of a society in which this is not the case: Adopted children have equal status with the natural ones, except in order of "birth."
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

know from other passages that that is not what Jesus meant.

Some say that meant cousins. Others claim Joseph had two wives named Mary, one was the mother of Jesus, and the other the mother of his natural born children. It is an oddity how it speaks of Mary the mother of Jesus, and then in other passages will mention a Mary the mother of a brother.