Speak lovingly of Mary

[Kristos]

.

 

[Thekla]

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

For thousands of years, Jews named their children after figures in the Bible, but only those who were religious and virtuous. Out of 1,400 names in the Old Testament, they used only 150. For boys these included the Patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; Jacob's children; a few prophets; and some of the kings. The judges were mostly excluded. Girls were named after virtuous biblical women, like Deborah and Sarah.

"They used the limited, traditional, pool of names. There are many references in the Talmud about not using the names of sinners, so they knew which names were acceptable and which were not. And they kept names in the family by naming babies after deceased relatives."

http://www.behindthename.com/bb/arcview.php?id=63008&board=gen

more detail can be found here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=U3...hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In biblical times, a parent sometimes chose a baby's name from circumstances associated with the conception (as in the case of Isaac) or the delivery (as with Jacob and Benjamin), sometimes from divine acts or attributes (all those including as prefix or suffix "el," "eli," "ya," and "yahu") and sometimes from nature (for example, Deborah [bee] and Jonah [dove]).[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono][2][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]During the period of the Second Temple (516 B.C.E. - 70 C.E.), Jews began naming their children after grandparents instead of after events and circumstances. This change in naming custom was due partly to the difficulty of maintaining genealogies in the Diaspora and partly to the influence of non-Jewish practices, especially Greek and Egyptian customs.[/FONT]​

http://www.jhom.com/lifecycle/birth/naming.htm

The reasons behind the choice of names in the Second Temple period were different from those of the First Temple period, when names were given in honor of special events occuring to the family or to the nation. In contrast, during the Second Temple period, naming children after an ancestor was prevalent. Most common was papynomy, naming a child after his grandfather. This custom first

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1558746

The evidence in response to your query re: Joses/Joseph is provided in post # 884
it should also be noted that within the Gospel lists of adelphos, Matthew states Joseph and Mark uses Joses

 

[lionroar0]

Word are also written. When you read you are reading words.

And which words are purer? The words that Jesus spoke or the words that were written down?

Peace

 

[MamaZ]

Okay if you say so then.....

Actually it is not I that says so. It is written.

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
2Pe 1:20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
2Pe 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
If all words are indeed holy and they are inspired by God then why the "double" talk of the Bible... according to the spirit? Where in the Bible you see this theory and who talks about it? Christ makes that theory of the seperation between spirit and flesh?

Double talk?

1Co 2:9 but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
1Co 2:10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Co 2:16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.


Joh 8:14 Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going; but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.
Joh 8:15 "You judge according to the flesh; I am not judging anyone.
Joh 8:16 "But even if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone in it, but I and the Father who sent Me.


2Co 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer.
2Co 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.

 

[MamaZ]

And which words are purer? The words that Jesus spoke or the words that were written down?

Peace

Both.. For the words that were written down were also written down by men moved by the Holy Spirit .

 

[MamaZ]

the point is, Mary would then have been subjected to the treatment of an adulteress; further, Christ would have - in effect - be accusing her of or witnessing to her adultery. Unless it were true, why would He do such a thing to any person ? (essentially, slander a person ie show them to have committed a crime they did not commit)

You Judge according to the flesh Thelka. One must understand that Jesus did not come to make Peace. When we stand for Christ we will be insulted just as He was. We will suffer in this world just as He did.

 

[MamaZ]

per bbbbbbb's definition of adelphos in a previous post, the etymology not the definition was given.

Adelphos - brotherly, fellow-like; coupled; brother
(Langenscheidt)

As an example of usage:
Plato used the term adelphos in the broad sense; in his Laws, he provides additional descriptives when he means to indicate sibling as opposed to the broader definition.

Who is Plato?

 

[Thekla]

You Judge according to the flesh Thelka. One must understand that Jesus did not come to make Peace. When we stand for Christ we will be insulted just as He was. We will suffer in this world just as He did.

The EO, myself included, believe that Christ asks us to follow Him.
If we hear and obey His call, the world will not be at peace with us.

Showing that Mary was an adulterer does not ask her to suffer with Him.
It forces her into the position of suffering.

Who else did Christ falsely place in such a position as Mary would have been following His "false accusation" from the cross ?

To me, claiming Christ engaged in falsely showing her to be an adulteress slanders Christ.

 

[lionroar0]

Both.. For the words that were written down were also written down by men moved by the Holy Spirit .

You say both but He spoke Aramaic and the gospels are in Greek.

What makes the words which were written down in Greek different from His native tongue in Aramaic, just as pure and how?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

The EO, myself included, believe that Christ asks us to follow Him.
If we hear and obey His call, the world will not be at peace with us.

Showing that Mary was an adulterer does not ask her to suffer with Him.
It forces her into the position of suffering.

Who else did Christ falsely place in such a position as Mary would have been following His "false accusation" from the cross ?

To me, claiming Christ engaged in falsely showing her to be an adulteress slanders Christ.

I would like to add that it also shows Him breaking two commandments.

Honor your father and mother.

Do not lie(bare false witness.)


Peace

 

[Thekla]

Who is Plato?

Greek secular Philosopher and author, d. 4th c BC;
in establishing customary usage of words and their definition, written works are used for comparison. The point here is that the use of adelphos in the writings of Plato is consistent with a broad meaning of the word adelphos (not the narrow meaning - sibling).

Papyrus fragments from Egypt contemporary with the era of writing of the Gospels also show a broad definition of adelphos ( I have given the definition in an earlier post).

 

[MamaZ]

Greek secular Philosopher and author, d. 4th c BC;
in establishing customary usage of words and their definition, written works are used for comparison. The point here is that the use of adelphos in the writings of Plato is consistent with a broad meaning of the word adelphos (not the narrow meaning - sibling).

Papyrus fragments from Egypt contemporary with the era of writing of the Gospels also show a broad definition of adelphos ( I have given the definition in an earlier post).

Plato is not a writer of the NT.. And in reading the context of the scriptures given we can pretty well determine what is being said of the Spirit.

 

[MamaZ]

The EO, myself included, believe that Christ asks us to follow Him.
If we hear and obey His call, the world will not be at peace with us.

Showing that Mary was an adulterer does not ask her to suffer with Him.
It forces her into the position of suffering.

Who else did Christ falsely place in such a position as Mary would have been following His "false accusation" from the cross ?

To me, claiming Christ engaged in falsely showing her to be an adulteress slanders Christ.

LOL.. This would not be showing her to be an adulteress. They called Jesus a blasphemer and of the devil. Are we not also to be called names when we come into the Kingdom of God? For we are not of this world. It is passing away. Mary was not of this world either. For she was also born of the Spirit and Adopted by God.

 

[MamaZ]

You say both but He spoke Aramaic and the gospels are in Greek.

What makes the words which were written down in Greek different from His native tongue in Aramaic, just as pure and how?

Peace

So when the Holy Spirit fell and many spoke in tongues and in different languages it was not pure from the Holy Spirit how? Since God is creater of all things even the language how can what is written in greek not be pure from God?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The problem with the hermeneutic is first off ... that it is in a foreign language to you and YOU would not trust a foreigner to explain it to you...There is not 100% right translation on the word brother... as it can mean a number of things.. thus it can be either way. Your math points to that brother can equal many things b, c, or d.. thus no conclusive thus all are approximate and non for sure... How does this proves any point...Again it seems there is no consensus in this term... thus a moot point.

Second you think that this logic of yours is right....agian according to it.. then the bible is again moot on the issue as we still do not know 100% it means brother but we "speculate" playing with percentanges.. here.... We are not sure it means brother and that is the point.



That is right so their brother got crucified and the brothers are not ....there.. does this sound logical to you? But the Evangelist does not mention them... instead he "appoints" John to do the job.. .Why? the logical explanation is that (being a jew) would have assigned them to take care of his mother but instead he appoints John, his beloved disciple... That is quite a task..and responsibility to assign to a boy if there were other siblings.. .Also it looks like he was estarnged by his siblings since no one showed up for the crucifix...that ought to be pretty odd... me thinks...
he


Problem: why they were not there??? Ommission of the evangelist? then why assign John?


too bad you find it silly I find it extremely interesting and valid point... that directs us to see that bottom line again there is silence in the bible about the so called brothers of Christ...

Let's just ASSUME that it cannot be substantiated that Jesus had any blood siblings. I'm not sure we can, but, just for the sake of discussion, let's say we can....

Now, what in the world does that substantiate?

There is no dogma of Jesus Had Sibs (nor is there a dogma of Jesus had NO Sibs). Not in the RCC. Not in the EO. Not in the OO. Not in the LDS. Not in any Protestant denomination known to me. Lots of people have opinions about such (me excluded) but no doctrines, no dogmas.

I think some of our Catholic and Orthodox friends are confusing Mary having kids with Mary having sex. The story being told (and the subject is whether such spreading of this story is "loving") is that Mary had no sex ever. THAT is the dogma. It's NOT about sibs, it's about sex. Thus, the issue is not siblings of Jesus but sex by Mary. THAT is the report being spread all around, as dogma, as the highest level of truth and importance and certainly.

I think most of us are aware that it is biologically possible for one to have an instance of loving, marital sharing of intimacies and NOT have a child specifically mentioned in the Bible as a result. In fact, most of us are aware that it's entirely possible to not have a child result from such AT ALL. The simple, undeniable, biological FACT is that Mary not having other kids does NOT substantiate that Mary had no sex. Not once. Ever. It's a worthless, baseless apologetic. Again, NO denomination has ANY dogma about Mary having other children. Three (of the 33,000 denominations Catholics insist exist) have DOGMA about Mary having sex. SEX is the subject, not sibs....



Now, back to the issue of this thread..... Is it LOVING for hundreds of millions to DOGMAGTICALLY spread a report about Mary's private, intimate sex life after Jesus was born when the report has no confirmation or substantiation? Is it LOVING for all of us here at CF to share about the sex life of y ou and your spouse without your permission and without any substantiation that our stories are true? THAT is the issue before us.....






.

 

[Thekla]

Plato is not a writer of the NT.. And in reading the context of the scriptures given we can pretty well determine what is being said of the Spirit.

again, the word adelphos does not only mean sibling - by definition it is used to describe a broad range of relationships. Plato is not a NT Greek writer and you aren't a Greek speaker. There is an insistence on claiming that non-Greeks own the Greek language. This is absurd.

Please read the evidence in the thread before remarking conclusively on the meaning of a word that is not in your language.

If truth is truth, then "pretty well determine" is not good enough.

 

[Thekla]

LOL.. This would not be showing her to be an adulteress. They called Jesus a blasphemer and of the devil. Are we not also to be called names when we come into the Kingdom of God? For we are not of this world. It is passing away. Mary was not of this world either. For she was also born of the Spirit and Adopted by God.

Where in the Gospels does Jesus make a false accusatipon against anyone ?

For Mary to be given into the care of someone who is not her child would mean she was an adultress.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

again, the word adelphos does not only mean sibling - by definition it is used to describe a broad range of relationships.

Thus, it offers NO substantiation for it NOT meaning sibling....
You have been undermining your own argument.
The Bible does NOT say that Jesus had no sibs.
But back to the issues before us....


Let's just ASSUME that it cannot be substantiated that Jesus had any blood siblings. I'm not sure we can, but, just for the sake of discussion, let's say we can. Now, what in the world does that substantiate?

There is no dogma of Jesus Had Sibs (nor is there a dogma of Jesus had NO Sibs). Not in the RCC. Not in the EO. Not in the OO. Not in the LDS. Not in any Protestant denomination known to me. Lots of people have opinions about such (me excluded) but no doctrines, no dogmas.

I think some of our Catholic and Orthodox friends are confusing Mary having kids with Mary having sex. The story being told (and the subject is whether such spreading of this story is "loving") is that Mary had no sex ever. THAT is the dogma. It's NOT about sibs, it's about sex. Thus, the issue is not siblings of Jesus but sex by Mary. THAT is the report being spread all around, as dogma, as the highest level of truth and importance and certainly.

I think most of us are aware that it is biologically possible for one to have an instance of loving, marital sharing of intimacies and NOT have a child specifically mentioned in the Bible as a result. In fact, most of us are aware that it's entirely possible to not have a child result from such AT ALL. The simple, undeniable, biological FACT is that Mary not having other kids does NOT substantiate that Mary had no sex. Not once. Ever. It's a worthless, baseless apologetic. Again, NO denomination has ANY dogma about Mary having other children. Three (of the 33,000 denominations Catholics insist exist) have DOGMA about Mary having sex. SEX is the subject, not sibs....



Now, back to the issue of this thread..... Is it LOVING for hundreds of millions to DOGMAGTICALLY spread a report about Mary's private, intimate sex life after Jesus was born when the report has no confirmation or substantiation? Is it LOVING for all of us here at CF to share about the sex life of y ou and your spouse without your permission and without any substantiation that our stories are true? THAT is the issue before us.....

If truth is truth, then "pretty well determine" is not good enough.

I agree...

So why is ZERO substantiation for a DOGMA more than "good enough?"
Especially a DOGMA so personal, so potentially hurtful and painful? About an issue most here have admitted they would NOT want people to talk about regarding their own intimate relationship with their spouse? And - to the point of this thread - how is it LOVING to do so?






.






.

 

[MamaZ]

Where in the Gospels does Jesus make a false accusatipon against anyone ?

For Mary to be given into the care of someone who is not her child would mean she was an adultress.

According to who?

 

[Thekla]

According to who?

according to the culture; please show where in the Gospels Christ FORCED someone to be at risk in that culture