Desposyni and the Pope
The controversial Irish priest Malachi Martin noted in "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" that: "...A meeting between Sylvester (Pope Silvester I) and the Jewish Christian leaders took place in 318....The vital interview was not, as far as we know, recorded, but the issues were very well known, and it is probable the Joses, the oldest of the Christian Jews, spoke on behalf of the desposyni and the rest." "...That most hallowed name, desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history. The word literally meant, in Greek, "belonging to the Lord." It was reserved uniquely for Jesus' blood relatives. Every part of the ancient Jewish Christian church had always been governed by a desposynos, and each of them carried one of the names traditional in Jesus' family---Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Simeon, Matthias, and so on. But no one was ever called Jesus. Neither Sylvester nor any of the thirty-two popes before him, nor those succeeding him, ever emphasized that there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from Jesus' own family..." "...The Desposyni demanded that Sylvester, who now had Roman patronage, revoke his confirmation of the authority of the Greek Christian bishops at Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Ephesus, and in Alexandria, and to name desposynos bishops to take their place. They asked that the practice of sending cash to Jerusalem as the mother church be resumed...These blood relatives of Christ demanded the reintroduction of the Law, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts and New Moons of the Bible. Sylvester dismissed their claims and said that, from now on, the mother church was in Rome and he insisted they accept the Greek bishops to lead them." "...This was the last known dialogue with the Sabbath-keeping church in the east led by the disciples who were descended from blood relatives of Jesus the Messiah."
2006-07-10 18:37:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by Voodoo Doll 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think jesus was a man and had to fulfill his needs just as any man does. What makes anyone think he didnt want sex at some point in his life. Even a priest has had sexual urges and some have even fulfilled them. Just keep all the lonley ones away from our little boys.
2014-06-07 16:45:00
·
answer #2
·
answered by Amy 1
·
0⤊
1⤋
That's All To Waste Your Time
The True Holy Blood Line Is From The Men Of The Daughters Of Aaron Moses's Brother Which Of Whom John The Baptist And Jesus Christ Were Born Through This Blood God Plants His Seed
AMen
Aaron's Men
2006-07-10 18:32:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even if there are relatives (i dont know if there are but im sure sources would swing more to a YES than a NO), they would only be half-brothers or half-sisters. Jesus was conceived by the virgin Mary alone, without Joseph. If other children were conceived by Mary, it must have been by her union with Joseph. Thus the half-brother/sister theory. You divide that by 50 generations of branching. I wouldn't be surprised if the closest living decendant of the Christ is African or even Asian. The cline of travel of the Israelis then was towards the South or even the East (by majority). The travels ore proven via discoveries of artifacts, parchments and Christian burial sites which date back slightly post-Bible times (which was by the way, written centuries after the death of Christ)
2006-07-10 18:29:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by spaghettiandmeatballs_sg 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus Relatives
2016-11-06 19:47:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Relatives Of Jesus
2016-12-29 14:51:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is a Protestant belief that Mary had other children. This belief is due to bad translations in the King James Version. They decided to translate a word that means "close relation" as "brother" -- when it could mean "cousin." Elsewhere, the KJV implies that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. This implication does not exist in the original Greek, and is a Jacobian construct.
Catholics believe that Mary stayed a Virgin all of her life. This belief follows from scripture -- because Mary expressed concern upon marrying Joseph because she made a vow to God that she would remain a virgin. This is in the Apochrypha, which is another reason that Protestants do not share this belief. It is one of the books that Martin Luther edited out of the Bible.
2006-07-10 18:32:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ranto 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. I don't think there are any surviving blood relatives of Jesus Christ (meaning the descendants of Mary's other children - the one who got married to Joseph and gave a virgin birth to Jesus).
The talks about Jesus having married to Mary Magdalene is simply fictional and is not true.
You may check these sites:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-davinci.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/magdalene.html
2006-07-10 18:44:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by dt_aiying 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hey, people talking about the Da Vinci Code-Shut up!
I think the question refers to Jesus' siblings, not Jesus' kids, and to quote Dogma:
"Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility"
So Dogma may not be a "reliable" source, but the point remains valid.
2006-07-10 18:36:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
If anyone knows, they're sure not saying it. Can you imagine the chaos it would cause if someone said they were a blood descendant? omg. There would be rioting and bloodshed worldwide, whether it were true or not. They talk big, but Christianity is not a tolerant, accepting religion; they'd be out for blood for daring to say such a thing.
2006-07-10 18:28:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋