What if Jesus had a twin brother?

the resurrection is only half the story. the first half has to do with an immaculate conception (can't believe only one person made mention of this very important aspect). the other siblings are completely different in that they aren't divinely created. IF twins pop out, both have to be considered divine. how they create the ministry becomes another tale. Overall, though, if God wanted twins, he would have created twins, so the concept is ASB from the start.
Nah, the immaculate conception is rather irrelevant to the issue. If Mary's holy enough to bear Jesus, that means nothing about her being human enough to bear more kids; twins or not.
Plenty of Christian groups have gotten away with not caring about the exact holiness of Mary, but none have gone around the resurrection. Because that victory over Death is the whole point.

And, of course, plenty of Christian groups disagree about Jesus' divinity. Was he, as in the Chalcedonian view, both God and Man (or the Monophysite mix of God and Man)? Or was he God-only with human dressings (as the Docetists have it)? A human who was so Holy that God effectively adopted Him (the Adoptionist position, though they probably disagree on if the original-Jesus was Holy enough, or simply a suitable vessel that became so Holy thanks to God picking him)? And apologies to anyone whose Christology I've butchered here.
 
Why would they both have to be considered divine? Why couldn't God just make one of them divine?
because it's kind of hard to explain a virgin birth without the element of divinity. that's the entire 'son of God' thing. Now, I suppose it's possible the twin might not be imbued with special powers, but both have to be divinely created, or Mary is not a virgin.
 
Nah, the immaculate conception is rather irrelevant to the issue. If Mary's holy enough to bear Jesus, that means nothing about her being human enough to bear more kids; twins or not.
Plenty of Christian groups have gotten away with not caring about the exact holiness of Mary, but none have gone around the resurrection. Because that victory over Death is the whole point.

And, of course, plenty of Christian groups disagree about Jesus' divinity. Was he, as in the Chalcedonian view, both God and Man (or the Monophysite mix of God and Man)? Or was he God-only with human dressings (as the Docetists have it)? A hucman who was so Holy that God effectively adopted Him (the Adoptionist pocsition, though they probably disagree on if the original-Jesus was Holy enough, or simply a suitable vessel that became so Holy thanks to God picking him)? And apologies to anyone whose Christology I've butchered here.

no offense, but nonsense. The first half is that God sent us his divine son. the second half is that son dying for our sins and then showing us the way to redemption. Both are important to the story.

I agree that lot's of groups think lots of different things, but the immaculate conception as well as the resurrection are both core to the Catholic church I was raised in. I suppose I shouldn"t presume to speak for all christian faiths but I've never heard anyone say the IC isn't core
 
no offense, but nonsense. The first half is that God sent us his divine son. the second half is that son dying for our sins and then showing us the way to redemption. Both are important to the story.

I agree that lot's of groups think lots of different things, but the immaculate conception as well as the resurrection are both core to the Catholic church I was raised in. I suppose I shouldn"t presume to speak for all christian faiths but I've never heard anyone say the IC isn't core
My argument is purely about the history involved.

Sure, by now, it is a core component of nearly all Christian thought (though the Immaculate Conception of Mary is unharmed by a twin, I can see issues about the Virgin Birth of Jesus), but given the Church grew up among religions that had dozens of divine children without anyone creating a religion about that one person... I don't think it is important for the Christian Church to grow up. As also seen by many groups during the Church's initial growth having different takes on the issue, while few of them really argued about the resurrection (they discussed what it meant to no end, of course).
 
because it's kind of hard to explain a virgin birth without the element of divinity. that's the entire 'son of God' thing. Now, I suppose it's possible the twin might not be imbued with special powers, but both have to be divinely created, or Mary is not a virgin.

Actually, thinking of that, I think the dualism mentioned by others earlier in this thread is very plausible, especially if Jesus's twin rejects him. Possibly leading to a more Gnostic take on Christianity. However, it's also likely if Jesus's twin does nothing of note and has little contact with Jesus, he's just written out or sidelined by later Christians as another younger brother of Jesus, and we'd never know if Jesus had a twin. If he's a follower of Jesus, that's where it gets hazy to me. You can hardly ignore one of Christ's closest companions. So maybe "God sent his son (Jesus) to save us from sin, and God sent his younger son (Jesus's twin) to lead the church". Maybe taking the role of Peter. Of course, that assumes that it isn't as was mentioned earlier and the Romans put him to death as well. Jesus's younger brother of course doesn't have to perform any miracles, or if he does, it's in the same sense the Apostles performed miracles, which I always took to be different in context than Jesus performing miracles.

I also wonder if Jesus's brother will be mentioned to have had a wife and children. Now, I personally believe Jesus himself was at least married, but if his younger brother were married and had children, what might the impact of that be? Would that be written out of the Bible too?
 
Top