Speak lovingly of Mary

[Kristos]

This thread is out of control.

Have we really reduced the Christian faith to facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Common! Everyone just take a step back at look at what you are saying.

 

[Thekla]

which, of course, doesn't indicate any more strongly for it being cousins, or kin, than brothers. It could be either. And with someone pointing out that greek was used for the NT... it seems more likely that brother, means... brother.

what is the argument for your position that "brother likely means brother" ? as I have pointed out, Luke uses stylistic elements and terminology (Semitic concepts translated into Greek and used - in the time of Christ- in that manner) from the LXX. Your argument skips the reality of the particular culture and era of the ministry of Christ.

sure he would. And that is irrelevant.

it goes to the entrusting of Mary to John when His adelphos would become Christians (two of them authoring epistles which are included in the NT).

I suggested no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

1. Your argument for His entrusting Mary to John is that He trusted John, implying that He did not so trust the adelphos mentioned in the Gospels. One of the adelphos was James the Just, first bishop of Jeruslem. Hence it can be concluded, based on your argument, that Christ did not trust the first bishop of Jerusalem.
2. You repeatedly load Greek terms in a Hebraic culture with your own definition - loading is loading.

is that a fact

yes

 

[Philothei]

remember that it isn't me that says it MUST be any of those terms.

then who? You all insist it is not cousin or step brother but brother... you insist we say cousin or step brother as it can translate differently... again that does not make it 100% sure thus you are subjective and move from your own "tradition" that says that it is brother... You have to admit to that since if you wanted to be objective you would have said it is mute(thanks for the correction, although I have it written with double oo but me not being a native speaker do take your word on it )

Because Jesus trusted John. there need be no more reason than this.

That is illogical and you know it... According to Jewish law that was a no -no....
It is not dogma it is an account and people who are as fallable as me and you wrote it. It is a written oral tradition that was spoken in the times of the Apostles. The english translation has flaws and misinterpretations and also mistranslations both from the Hebrew and Greek... That is the Bible. A holy book that is not supposed to be cut and pasted to prove points as much as the ECF fathers are not either... We have to accept it in its totality and see and evaluate the parallel messages and verify them to make sure we do nor preach heressy... All this has been done already by the Fathers and the Church. How much pride do we have to think we ( with our individual subjectivity) can surpass in wisdom and knowledge the worshiping living community of the first christians who martyred, toiled and suffered greatly to give us this book that we today take so much pride in.

 

[Uphill Battle]

[QUOTE]I just go with what makes sense, instead of following a tradition supported by nothing but it's own tradition.

Makes sense to who? YOU... You are then your own pope... how is this any different? [/quote] oh, give the "own pope" thing a rest. Everyone who follows a Pope derisively states that those who don't are "poping" themselves. So are those who follow a pope. those who turn their spiritual well being over to a "king" of church, have to decide to do so. You have to "pope" yourself into following someone. It's a rather old and tired argument.

You have a whole community of believers who agree upon what is right. Tradition is not based on ....tradition.. It is based on people who collectively were empowered by the Holy Spirit and guided by it... Pentecost was a real event and the Apostles were "assembled" to recieve the Holy Spirit... they were not "enlightened" by their own ....logic... their sense.. individually. There was a skopos for that conciliarity. Also Christ says when 2 or 3 are gathered...I am in their midst... The community of the many as of Ecclesia that is where God resides.
Lot of things make sense until someone is challenged...Why shall I follow the subjectivity of one?

you have a whole community of believers who do not agree with what the tradition states as well. Agreement is not the neccessity of truth.

 

[Uphill Battle]

what is the argument for your position that "brother likely means brother" ? as I have pointed out, Luke uses stylistic elements and terminology (Semitic concepts translated into Greek and used - in the time of Christ- in that manner) from the LXX. Your argument skips the reality of the particular culture and era of the ministry of Christ.

yet, he wrote in greek. so basically, you are stating that the Gospel writers would, despite having a valid word in the language that they were writting in, eschew it for style.

although possible... seems unlikely.

it goes to the entrusting of Mary to John when His adelphos would become Christians (two of them authoring epistles which are included in the NT).

which makes no difference. Look, we weren't there in Christ's mind to know what he was thinking. The fact that he trusted John to look after Mary is enough for me. saying he couldn't do it because of Jewish convention, or the future status of his brothers, matters not one whit.

1. Your argument for His entrusting Mary to John is that He trusted John, implying that He did not so trust the adelphos mentioned in the Gospels. One of the adelphos was James the Just, first bishop of Jeruslem. Hence it can be concluded, based on your argument, that Christ did not trust the first bishop of Jerusalem.

and you say loading is loading! I said no such thing. I said he trusted John to look after Mary. That is enough reason in and of itself.

2. You repeatedly load Greek terms in a Hebraic culture with your own definition - loading is loading.

yes

greek was the lingua franca. I'm sure they would be just fine with the writing of Greek.

then who? You all insist it is not cousin or step brother but brother...

no, I believe it so based on scripture and common sense. I very may well be wrong, and it would be a very minor thing to me if I was.

you insist we say cousin or step brother as it can translate differently... again that does not make it 100% sure thus you are subjective and move from your own "tradition" that says that it is brother...

it doesn't come from tradition. It comes from reading scripture, and NOT believing a tradition just because others believe it.

You have to admit to that since if you wanted to be objective you would have said it is mute(thanks for the correction, although I have it written with double oo but me not being a native speaker do take your word on it )

objective: It doesn't say for sure. Subjective: I think it means actual brothers based on studying. Subjective: You think it means something else because your church says so.

either or, it's subjective.

That is illogical and you know it... According to Jewish law that was a no -no....
It is not dogma it is an account and people who are as fallable as me and you wrote it.

It's a dogma to some. I try and seperate the two. I find it really really funny, however, that it's argued that Christ could do all, yet was limited by Jewish convention.

 

[sunlover1]

Let's go over it.

Lunch is finished so I cant right now, but as arnold said,
I'll be bahck!

 

[Rick Otto]

This thread is out of control.

Have we really reduced the Christian faith to facts that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

Common! Everyone just take a step back at look at what you are saying.

Not at all, bro... don't over-react.
Facts (not speculations) that can be supported by scripture are good enough. The fact that belief in Christ is faith necessarily embraces reasonable doubt. That is the essential battle that engages faith.
Even the very existence of Jesus Christ is not historicaly proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Thekla]

yet, he wrote in greek. so basically, you are stating that the Gospel writers would, despite having a valid word in the language that they were writting in, eschew it for style.

although possible... seems unlikely.

not exactly, no:
1. all languages respond to the particular culture into which they are adopted - in this case, Greek was adopted by a Semitic (here, Hebraic) culture; the definitions become loaded by the new cultural mileau. This is evidenced numerous times in the LXX where, for ex., Lot is referred to as both nephew and later adelphos of Abraham. As the actual usage of adelphos is a near parallel (is already loaded in Greek to mean a broad swath of relationship), it is most accurate to consider it in this manner.
2. It is most unlikely that one of the named adelphos is a son of Joseph, as this adelphos is named Joseph (in defiance of Jewish naming for a child of Joseph). In this case, a term indicating a broad swath of relationships is more appropriate, since at least one of the adelphos is not likely a child of Joseph, but may still be a blood relation of Joseph.
3. If the adelphos are related on Joseph's side (which would be likely, should they be part of the oikos/household of Joseph or one of Joseph's brothers - as Jewish custom would include where the death of Joseph's brother would transfer care of survivors to Joseph), the term anepsios cannot be used -- they would not be blood relations to Christ.
4. If the adelphos are related on Joseph's side, the absence of blood relation and therefore tribal affiliation would nullify the use of the term suyenis (used by Luke for Elizabeth and Mary, meaning kinsman or same tribe).

In conclusion, if they are related through Joseph, as shown both suyenis and anepsios are inaccurate. The only remaining term available is adelphos in its broadest sense.

Given the cited statements by the anti-Christian Celsus, we are left with evidence of an original teaching of Mary as having one child only. We also find, in Celsus, that Joseph is not around -- hence it is also not unreasonable to suggest that following the death of Joseph (after Christ was twelve, the last time he is mentioned as alive) that Mary was absorbed, per Jewish custom, into the oikos of one of Joseph's relatives.

 

[Philothei]

I very may well be wrong, and it would be a very minor thing to me if I was.

So, you'd rather admit that you maybe wrong than to accept a tradition based on

-good reason
-written by men who knew eyewitness, who compliled the Bible...
I love it how you go in and out of your argument like this....lol... ARe you right or wrong? Ido not know.... but .... straw man again it is "MINOR" ....

That is not what we are discusing but the credibility of the word Adelfos...

objective: It doesn't say for sure. Subjective: I think it means actual brothers based on studying. Subjective: You think it means something else because your church says so.

either or, it's subjective.

Subjective is the Church? how can the Chruch be subjective since it is more collective than the individual opinion? The most objective would be that what is closer to the Bible... and that is the Church....

If you had a document and oral tradition of the descendants of people who eyewtnessed...versus individual witness of a different time and culture... how come the first case senario is less credible than the second? Trusting an individual who is contemporary never lived or knows anything about the person who lived in the 1st century yet base more credibility on that than the ones who lived closer to the oral tradition and the document that was produced from that oral tradition.....

Yeah that sounds about right of reasonable thinking...

 

[Philothei]

yet was limited by Jewish convention.

Did Christ observed jewish traditions? Did he worshiped? Then he followed Jewish convention...

 

[bbbbbbb]

Okay, folks, I think its time to review a few simple facts that we all can agree on, as follow:

1. There is not a scintilla of direct mention in the Bible concerning the sex life, or lack thereof, of Mary and Joseph.
2. In five passages written by three different authors Mary is stated to be with the brothers (who are named) and sisters of Jesus.
3. The Greek words for brothers and sisters are identical in each of the five passages and mean literally "of the same womb."
3. Every English translation of the Greek calls these individual brothers and sisters.
4. The English translators came from the complete spectrum of Christian beliefs and traditions.
5. At least one of these translators probably knew as much and probably a lot more than all of us combined concerning the variant possible translations of these words.
6. Either every translator was pathetically incompetent or they were engaged in a vast conspiracy to deceive innocent Christians or, just maybe, they knew what they were doing.
7. In light of biblical passages which indicate at least the possibility of siblings of Jesus Christ, it is speculative, at best, to state that there is not the slightest scintilla of doubt that Mary and Joseph never engaged in marital relations.

 

[Thekla]

bbbbbbb

statement 2 is innacurate in both Koine and Hebraicized Greek usage.
statement 3 fails to consider that earlier translations use brethren, which is
a. closer to the actual (broad) meaning of adelphos
b. assumes that brother is used to intend the English, not Greek
c. assumes brother was not intended to replace the rarer (older) term brethren instead of suggesting a new meaning

statement 4 needs more support (GO translators keep brother but understand more broadly the meaning)

statement 6 includes ridiculous assertions in order to support a more reasonable proposal - this is sloppy and biased (relies on exploitative methods rather than reasoned argument)

further, absent any conclusive Biblical or historical evidence that the adelphos are children of Mary, why would Biblically reliant translators attest that adelphos conclusively means children of Mary -- this would show a lack of integrity on the part of the translators based on your particular reading/interpretation of the text

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

bbbbbbb
statement 2 is innacurate in both Koine and Hebraicized Greek usage.
statement 3 fails to consider that earlier translations use brethren, which is
a. closer to the actual (broad) meaning of adelphos
b. assumes that brother is used to intend the English, not Greek
c. assumes brother was not intended to replace the rarer (older) term brethren instead of suggesting a new meaning

statement 4 needs more support (GO translators keep brother but understand more broadly the meaning)

statement 6 includes ridiculous assertions in order to support a more reasonable proposal - this is sloppy and biased (relies on exploitative methods rather than reasoned argument)

further, absent any conclusive Biblical or historical evidence that the adelphos are children of Mary, why would Biblically reliant translators attest that adelphos conclusively means children of Mary -- this would show a lack of integrity on the part of the translators based on your particular reading/interpretation of the text

Greetings Thekla. Don't know if I can really add anything but as you know the Muslims believe that Prophet in Deut 18 is Muhammad.

Anywho, here the word used is for brothers, but it can also be used as brethren or "kin of the flesh".

Deut 18:18 A Prophet I will raise to them from within/07130 qereb brothers of them as you.
And I give My words in His mouth, and He speaks to them all which I shall instruct Him.
19 And becomes the man who not is listening to My words which He shall speak in My name, I shall require from with him. [Acts 3:22/Acts 7:37]


Acts 3:22 For Moses indeed [toward the fathers] saying: 'That a prophet to ye shall be raising up, Lord the God of ye, out of the brothers of ye as Me. Of Him ye shall be hearing/akousesqe according to all as much as ever He should be speaking toward ye. [Deut 18:18,19]

Matt 1:1 shows Judah and his brothers. Though Judah had 5 full blooded brothers thru Leah, he also had Step-brothers born of 3 other women but all from the seed of Jacob/Israel.

Matt 1:1 Scroll of generation/genesewV/1078 of Jesus Christ Son of David Son of Abraham
Abraham generates/egennhsen/1080 the Isaac, Isaac yet generates the Jacob, Jacob yet generates the Judah and the brothers of him.

 

[Kristos]

the virginity of Mary was hidden from the prince of this world

Ignatius - epistle to the ephesians, 1st century

seems like it's been hidden from other people as well

 

[Uphill Battle]

not exactly, no:
1. all languages respond to the particular culture into which they are adopted - in this case, Greek was adopted by a Semitic (here, Hebraic) culture; the definitions become loaded by the new cultural mileau. This is evidenced numerous times in the LXX where, for ex., Lot is referred to as both nephew and later adelphos of Abraham. As the actual usage of adelphos is a near parallel (is already loaded in Greek to mean a broad swath of relationship), it is most accurate to consider it in this manner.

the term in the OT for Lot would have been the aramaic term. To state that the neccessity is that the same line of thinking MUST be taken forward to the greek, is just erroneous. The gospels were written in Greek. they did not seem to have any trouble with the Greek either. the "cultural" argument just masks the fact that if the author intended cousin or kin, they would know what word to use. Check out Colossians 4:10. Using the same ruberic, shouldn't they have used some form of adelphos?

2. It is most unlikely that one of the named adelphos is a son of Joseph, as this adelphos is named Joseph (in defiance of Jewish naming for a child of Joseph). In this case, a term indicating a broad swath of relationships is more appropriate, since at least one of the adelphos is not likely a child of Joseph, but may still be a blood relation of Joseph.

there is no evidence to this matter, that it was never the same name for child, and father... or variation of. Joses

3

. If the adelphos are related on Joseph's side (which would be likely, should they be part of the oikos/household of Joseph or one of Joseph's brothers - as Jewish custom would include where the death of Joseph's brother would transfer care of survivors to Joseph), the term anepsios cannot be used -- they would not be blood relations to Christ.

pardon?

4. If the adelphos are related on Joseph's side, the absence of blood relation and therefore tribal affiliation would nullify the use of the term suyenis (used by Luke for Elizabeth and Mary, meaning kinsman or same tribe).

explain.

custom, into the oikos of one of Joseph's relatives.[/quote]

So, you'd rather admit that you maybe wrong than to accept a tradition based on

admit that it's always possible to be wrong, yes. Something EO and RC can't really do.

-good reason

haven't seen the good reason yet.

-written by men who knew eyewitness, who compliled the Bible...

well, as long as you don't mind a few generations or so in there.

I love it how you go in and out of your argument like this....lol... ARe you right or wrong? Ido not know.... but .... straw man again it is "MINOR" ....

I believe that I am right. I have been proven wrong in the past. Hence the statement "I might be wrong."

and yes, it's minor. IF I'm wrong... ah well. Jesus is an only child.

if YOU, or RC is wrong... one of your more important beliefs is a sham.

That is not what we are discusing but the credibility of the word Adelfos...

what is so incredible about the word Adelfos?

Subjective is the Church? how can the Chruch be subjective since it is more collective than the individual opinion? The most objective would be that what is closer to the Bible... and that is the Church....

all you are quoting is that something is true because people agree on it. Some agree that it's not true. Does that make them right?

If you had a document and oral tradition of the descendants of people who eyewtnessed...versus individual witness of a different time and culture... how come the first case senario is less credible than the second? Trusting an individual who is contemporary never lived or knows anything about the person who lived in the 1st century yet base more credibility on that than the ones who lived closer to the oral tradition and the document that was produced from that oral tradition.....

Yeah that sounds about right of reasonable thinking...

there are no eyewitnesses to the EV. BTW, there are no 1st century sources for the EV. The closest document forwarded is a Pseudopigraphical sham.

Did Christ observed jewish traditions? Did he worshiped? Then he followed Jewish convention...

yes, he did. And some, he completely disregarded as well. He upheld Jewish LAW in his life, NOT Jewish tradition. see the examples of him healing and picking grain(disciples) on the Sabbath.

 

[lionroar0]

Lunch is finished so I cant right now, but as arnold said,
I'll be bahck!

eeeek!!!!(Jk)

Peace

 

[Philothei]

yes, he did. And some, he completely disregarded as well. He upheld Jewish LAW in his life, NOT Jewish tradition. see the examples of him healing and picking grain(disciples) on the Sabbath.

I think you have it vise versa...He observed the Jewish customs for he went to the wedding of Cana as he was invited.. and also he went with his parents to the temple to observe the Jewish custom of dedicating an offering and he stayed there three days preaching... when he was twelve... he obsrved the law but only in the spirit ....that is why he was critical about the sabbath and also the "kosher" laws...i.e. talkign to women, letting women touch him(rabbis were unttachables) etc. He rejected the blind obedience to the LAW not the customs and traditions.... Where in the bible it says he was not culturaly involved with the community? He celebrated the passover that was not only religious feast but also national in the sense that celebrated the crossing of the sea... as an ethnic event....

 

[Uphill Battle]

exactly. So why would he be boxed in with the Letter of the tradition thought that Mary would have to be "passed" to a sibling?

 

[Kristos]

Okay, folks, I think its time to review a few simple facts that we all can agree on, as follow:

1. There is not a scintilla of direct mention in the Bible concerning the sex life, or lack thereof, of Mary and Joseph.
2. In five passages written by three different authors Mary is stated to be with the brothers (who are named) and sisters of Jesus.
3. The Greek words for brothers and sisters are identical in each of the five passages and mean literally "of the same womb."
3. Every English translation of the Greek calls these individual brothers and sisters.
4. The English translators came from the complete spectrum of Christian beliefs and traditions.
5. At least one of these translators probably knew as much and probably a lot more than all of us combined concerning the variant possible translations of these words.
6. Either every translator was pathetically incompetent or they were engaged in a vast conspiracy to deceive innocent Christians or, just maybe, they knew what they were doing.
7. In light of biblical passages which indicate at least the possibility of siblings of Jesus Christ, it is speculative, at best, to state that there is not the slightest scintilla of doubt that Mary and Joseph never engaged in marital relations.

Hogwash!

[BIBLE]
Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
Eze 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Eze 44:3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
Eze 44:4 Then brought he me the way of the north gate before the house: and I looked, and, behold, the glory of the LORD filled the house of the LORD: and I fell upon my face.
[/BIBLE]

This is the scriptural basis - like or not. And it has been for a very long time!

On brothers. Give me a break. A person's relationship to Christ has nothing to do with their relationship to Mary. It doesn't matter - brother, cousins, friends whatever - they weren't Mary's child and it doesn't even imply that they were.

Origen - 3rd century agrees - they were sons of Joseph from a previous marriage and he cites the 2nd century Protoevangelium. He goes on to say that this is in harmony with the rest of scripture - in other words - see Ezekiel above. And I already posted a quote from Ignatius - 1st century. So, from the beginning, this is what was believed. Perhaps not as doctrine, but believed nevertheless. When we jump into the 4th century, there are a multitude of supporting quotes.

No rumors. Just scripture.

 

[MamaZ]

I don't recall anyone saying any creation was or is equal to the creator

Well I really didn't say anyone said this. It was just a comment I made.