Speak lovingly of Mary

LittleLambofJesus said:

Man, my heart skipped a beat when I saw this. The same Great Voice that called Lazarus out is also the same Voice calling those 2 witnesses up!!!! WHOW!!! AMEN! ALLEHUIA!!

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7282853

John 11:43 And these saying, to a Voice, Great, He cries-out "Lazarus, hither out!"

Reve 11:12 And they hear a Voice, Great, out of the Heaven saying to them "Ascend ye"! here. And they ascended into the heaven in the cloud and observed them, the enemies of them.

Click to expand...

makes sense... in both cases it was God doing the calling.

there is no such thing as "pure scripture"

when we read scripture, we interpret scripture; this ALWAYS is the case

the scripture Kristos cites does not - per your interpretation - offer clear support.

in the interpretation of Kristos, it does.

Thekla said:

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.

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

Click to expand...

Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful response, Thekla.

In what way is statement 2 inaccurate? How should I restate it to be accurate?

Brethren is an older English word for the plural of brothers. Interestingly, there have always been sisters in English and never sistern. I have no problem with either word for more than one brother as both are accurate.

What additional support do you propose for statement 4?

I agree with you about statement 6 and will remove it if you wish.

I think the translators faced somewhat of a conundrum in these passages. In three of them it is stated that His mother and adelphoi are standing outside. Christ then turns to His disciples and states that those who obey God are his mother and adelphoi. If a translator is to be consistent, which is a hallmark of a good translation, then adelphoi needs to be translated consistently in the passage. How would it come across if it read that Mary and his cousins were standing outside, wishing to see Him and He turned to the disciples and told them that all who obey God are His mother and His cousins (but not brothers and sisters)? The depth and intimacy of that relationship is greatly diminished in using an alternate translation of words which are typically rendered as brethren and sisters. The reality is that the three authors could have easily used the Greek word for cousins concerning those who were with Mary and could have then used adlephoi for brothers and sisters in the following statement by Christ, but they did not do so.

for Uphill Battle:

it seemed the simplest way to exhibit that Joseph/Joses are the same name was through the following translations of Acts 4:36

One man, Joseph, a Levite and a native of Cyprus, who was named Barnabas by the apostles (the name means "a son of encouragement"),

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Joseph, a descendant of Levi, had been born on the island of Cyprus. The apostles called him Barnabas, which means "a person who encourages."

King James Bible
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

American King James Version
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

American Standard Version
And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, Son of exhortation), a Levite, a man of Cyprus by race,

Bible in Basic English
And Joseph, who was given by the Apostles the name of Barnabas (the sense of which is, Son of comfort), a Levite and a man of Cyprus by birth,

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Thank you for your gracious and thoughtful response, Thekla.

In what way is statement 2 inaccurate? How should I restate it to be accurate?

Brethren is an older English word for the plural of brothers. Interestingly, there have always been sisters in English and never sistern. I have no problem with either word for more than one brother as both are accurate.

What additional support do you propose for statement 4?

I agree with you about statement 6 and will remove it if you wish.

I think the translators faced somewhat of a conundrum in these passages. In three of them it is stated that His mother and adelphoi are standing outside. Christ then turns to His disciples and states that those who obey God are his mother and adelphoi. If a translator is to be consistent, which is a hallmark of a good translation, then adelphoi needs to be translated consistently in the passage. How would it come across if it read that Mary and his cousins were standing outside, wishing to see Him and He turned to the disciples and told them that all who obey God are His mother and His cousins (but not brothers and sisters)? The depth and intimacy of that relationship is greatly diminished in using an alternate translation of words which are typically rendered as brethren and sisters. The reality is that the three authors could have easily used the Greek word for cousins concerning those who were with Mary and could have then used adlephoi for brothers and sisters in the following statement by Christ, but they did not do so.

Click to expand...

hi, bbbbbbb -

Sorry, I should have said 3, not 2, is inaccurate. However, until the meaning of adelphoi is reseolved, it would seem faire to let it remain in the Greek form in point 2.

the word brethren tends to be understood more broadly (perhaps through usage not definition -- I'd need to check etymology and vernacular usage versus definition to confirm).

per point 4 - it needs to include the reality of dialogic interaction; ie., the same term may be (and often is) understood differently by the various parties who use it. Absent a descriptive of the understanding contained in the term by the various parties, the use of the term cannot stand in for conclusive evidence of agreement on the meaning of the term.

as to the final point, Paul seems to use the multiple meanings of trapeza to somewhat turn the thinking of those he addresses (it means table, altar, bank and bench) -- this rhetorical device of turning (close to the baser form of punning) is not uncommon.

As to the particular use of adelphoi: one of the named adelphoi is Joses/Joseph (see above post - Joses and Joseph are the same name). In Jewish naming practice, children are not named after their parents (more typically after their grandparents as in Greek custom). Hence one of the named adelphoi is most likely NOT a child of Joseph. This indicates the broader meaning of adelphoi is applicable. I repeat an earlier post below that you may have missed:

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.

Thekla said:

there is no such thing as "pure scripture"

when we read scripture, we interpret scripture; this ALWAYS is the case

the scripture Kristos cites does not - per your interpretation - offer clear support.

in the interpretation of Kristos, it does.

Click to expand...

Well to this statement I have to disagree with because of this

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

Rick Otto said:

I'm thinkin' maybe He wasn't weeping over loss, but more simply expressing the grief we can expect to attend any curse, which is what death is,... as if He was feeling compassion for, as if He was weeping for the victims like we might when watching a movie.
"Know I mean?" (doin' rapstar Flava Flave)

Click to expand...

Sure, it's a'ite.
So you dont think that His weeping had anything to do
with the fact that His girls, who knew HIm well, had
no faith in His Words then?

Rap?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkrn6ecxthM

MamaZ said:

Well to this statement I have to disagree with because of this

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

Click to expand...

Words are spoken not written.

Peace

sunlover1 said:

Awesome!

I dont know, it appears the sisters sent an errand boy
or some other messenger.
3 Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying,
Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick.
4 When Jesus heard that, he said,
This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God,
that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.

Click to expand...

Agreed a messenger.

THEN, He after hearing about His friend, stayed away TWO more days!
Yet the Scripture makes it very clear adding how He LOVED the three
siblings:
5 Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.
6 When he had heard therefore that he was sick,
he abode two days still in the same place where he was.

Click to expand...

Okay. It does not say why, He stayed.

When he heard this, Jesus said,
"This sickness will not end in death.
No, it is for God's glory so that
God's Son may be glorified through it."


I think it was His disciples (and must be the messenger)

Click to expand...

Not an unreasonable conclusion as they seemed to know that He was coming back.

I'm going to guess that they got the message.
Check this out though, Jesus told His disciples that He was
GLAd that He wasnt there when Lazarus died... for THEIR
sakes, THAT THEY MIGHT BELIEVE! (without faith it's
impossible to "please" God.

Click to expand...

Agreed He was talking to His disciples.

If Jesus was GLAD that He wasn't there then it doesnt make
a lot of sense to me that He was weeping over Lazaruses
death. God weeping over 'death"? Death for lazarus would
mean to be present with God, no?

Click to expand...

At what point did He start weeping?

14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.
15 And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there,
to the intent ye may believe; nevertheless let us go unto him.

Click to expand...

Still talking to His disciples.


Peace

lionroar0 said:

Words are spoken not written.

Peace

Click to expand...

But you just wrote words to say that.
Didja speak em first?
Just kidding with you, but Jesus said
"it is Written" too.

(what happened to our laz discussion lion?
I lost sleep over that!! It was my pleasure
though. I think Rick agrees with your part.
TOLD ya no one would buy my idea)

MamaZ said:

Well to this statement I have to disagree with because of this

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

Click to expand...

I agree with you - the words of the Lord are pure ...

but we automatically "interpret" in the act of reading
(look at the problem with adelphos )

sunlover1 said:

But you just wrote words to say that.
Didja speak em first?
Just kidding with you, but Jesus said
"it is Written" too.

(what happened to our laz discussion lion?
I lost sleep over that!! It was my pleasure
though. I think Rick agrees with your part.
TOLD ya no one would buy my idea)

Click to expand...

Linguisticly a culture has certain concepts. These concepts are given sounds. Then these sounds formed into words and sentences, then they are spoken.

Later some kind of writting is developed.

One also has to take into account also the culture.

Back then, not everyone knew how to read. It was mostly an oral culture.


Peace

lionroar0 said:

The only way that siblings would be released from the obligation of taking care of their mother is because the mother was involved in adulterous affair.

In other words while Mary was married to Joseph. She had sex with another man. Thus they are released from taking care of her, because they have different fathers.

That's what I meant when I posted if He had other brothers then by not giving her to them. He would be dishonoring her.

Geneaology(sp?) is traced through the fathers side in Jewish culture.

Peace

Click to expand...

perhaps there might be some comment on this information ?

lionroar0 said:

Words are spoken not written.

Peace

Click to expand...

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

And all scripture is inspired of God and not from mans own interpretation by men moved by the Holy Spirit. So the scriptures are ineed the written words of God.

Thekla said:

perhaps there might be some comment on this information ?

Click to expand...

Actually what was said is said according to the flesh instead of by the Spirit for with Christ His kingdom is of this Spirit and not of this world or the flesh so therefore when Jesus gave the care of Mary to John was probably number one John was the only one there and John was true family according to the Spirit.

MamaZ said:

And all scripture is inspired of God and not from mans own interpretation by men moved by the Holy Spirit. So the scriptures are ineed the written words of God.

Click to expand...

Okay if you say so then.....

Actually what was said is said according to the flesh instead of by the Spirit for with Christ His kingdom is of this Spirit and not of this world or the flesh so therefore when Jesus gave the care of Mary to John was probably number one John was the only one there and John was true family according to the Spirit.

Click to expand...

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?

MamaZ said:

Actually what was said is said according to the flesh instead of by the Spirit for with Christ His kingdom is of this Spirit and not of this world or the flesh so therefore when Jesus gave the care of Mary to John was probably number one John was the only one there and John was true family according to the Spirit.

Click to expand...

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)

Thekla said:

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)

Click to expand...

Indeed that would be totally out of character and the least Christ would want to do to his mother.....

thanks Lionroar for that important piece of information

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.