Another Gospel

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

But the very tactic you use to prove “bretheren” also disproves you premis from the get go.

Why is the Second Mary in John verse said to be Mary’s “sister”?

Why is that a uterine connection and the Christs brother is not?

Its a double standard.

You have no proff… all you have is very weak plausible deniability.

It’s an issue of greater or lesser inclusion. “brethren” includes not just blood-brothers but cousins as well. Assuming that the word for “sister” is similarly more inclusive only further disproves your point.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

But the very tactic you use to prove “bretheren” also disproves you premis from the get go.

Why is the Second Mary in John verse said to be Mary’s “sister”?

Why is that a uterine connection and the Christs brother is not?

Its a double standard.

You have no proff… all you have is very weak plausible deniability.

Well, the writer of that article puts “sister” in quotes, meaning that if that Mary is the one called the Virgin’s sister then “sister” must be other than uterine. I would highly doubt that the Virgin Mary had a uterine sister named Mary, unless her parents had no originality.

 

[Zakuska]

Robert in SD:

It’s an issue of greater or lesser inclusion. “brethren” includes not just blood-brothers but cousins as well. Assuming that the word for “sister” is similarly more inclusive only further disproves your point.

Not in the least because “Brother” is used in place of “brethern” in Mark. As well as Christs “Sisters”.

Gal 1
19 But other of the aapostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the bbrother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Not in the least because “Brother” is used in place of “brethern” in Mark. As well as Christs “Sisters”.

Gal 1
19 But other of the aapostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the bbrother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

I believe there is no brother/bretheren distinction in the original Greek text, adelphos is always used.

James and Joses have already been proven to be the sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas.

 

[Zakuska]

So if they have been “proven” then Mark is wrong.

Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Unless Celophas was a carpenter.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

So if they have been “proven” then Mark is wrong.

Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

Unless Celophas was a carpenter.

Christ was the carpenter, He was the subject:
*
2: And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary…*

 

[ABalch]

Matt. 1: 25
25 And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

According to her Gospel she was 14 when Joseph brought her home from the temple. 9 months makes her a 15 year old when Christ was born. According to you Joseph must have been a pedophial!

[/quote]

Zakuska,

let me address a point or two here. First, many times people have brought this line from Mathew up as a “proof” that Joseph and Mary had conjugal relations after Jesus. What gets ignored here is the use of until in both our current language and in biblical language to mean up to and beyond. here is but one example of the Bible using “until”, but which aruguably cannot be meant to mean until, but not after.
Deuteronomy 34:6. And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre until this present day.
Have I missed something? Has Moses’ grave been discovered either in what would have been the present day when first deuteronomy was put into written text, or has it yet been found today? Obviously in this case, until means "even up to this point in time and beyond.

Or how about Psalm 122?
1. To thee have I lifted up my eyes, who dwellest in heaven.
2. Behold as the eyes of servants are on the hands of their masters, As the eyes of the handmaid are on the hands of her mistress: so are our eyes unto the Lord our God, until he have mercy on us. 3. Have mercy on us, O Lord, have mercy on us: for we are greatly filled with contempt. 4. For our soul is greatly filled: we are a reproach to the rich, and contempt to the proud.

Now, are we to assume that as soon as God begins to have mercy on us, that we are to stop keeping our eyes upon the Lord, and following Him? No, we strive to always keep our eyes on the Lord.

I stumbled across this scripture in a tract explaining the Perpetual Virginity of Mary that seems to speak quite eloquently about God forbidding anyone else from knowing Mary in the biblical sense. This is used as a forshadowing of how when the Lord comes incarnate, it will be to a virgin womb, which will remain forever virgin.

Ezechiel 44:1. And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. 2. And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut
3. For the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.

Lastly, to make a claim of pedophilia because Joseph took Mary as wife when she was a teenager completely ignores the history of people marrying at an earlier age than our currently considered adulthood of 18. In fact, under Jewish Law, a boy or girl becomes an adult at 13, wiht the Bar- or Bat-Mitzvah. So, under Jewish Law she was an adult at that age. And, as the Catholic understanding of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary says that she never had conjugal relations with Joseph, and Joseph never had conjugal relations with her, than it is more a marriage of stewardship, where Joseph provided for this young woman.

I wish I could have found the scripture reference I was most trying to find, where a woman is said to have bore no children till the day she died, then we could have gotten into a real interesting conversation on whether you interpreted that to mean that she died, and bore a child after dying.

Pax Vobiscum,
Albert

 

[Zakuska]

Lastly, to make a claim of pedophilia because Joseph took Mary as wife when she was a teenager completely ignores the history of people marrying at an earlier age than our currently considered adulthood of 18. In fact, under Jewish Law, a boy or girl becomes an adult at 13, wiht the Bar- or Bat-Mitzvah. So, under Jewish Law she was an adult at that age.

AMEN! Someone with a square set of Logic on his shoulders finally!

I brought the accusation of “pedophilia” against the people who where calling Joseph Smith a pedophial for marrying Helen Mar Kimball age 14, with her parents blessing mind you.

Thank you for making my point so eloquently!

If I got my little house on the prayrer straight. I think that age was pretty consistant at that time too. Many people left school to head for the fields at that age. Now the city slickers… thats a completely different story.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Zakuska:

So if they have been “proven” then Mark is wrong.

Mark 6
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

No. It just proves that the narrow interpretation of the terms “brother” and/or “brethren” in this context is incorrect.

Mary the mother of James and Joseph (Mt 27:56), is also Mary the wife of Clopas (Jn 19:25.) Mary the wife of Clopas is NOT Mary the mother of Jesus.

ABalch - Good description. Thanks also for pointing out the distinction between the ancient hebrew age of adulthood and the modern view.

 

[Zakuska]

arieh0310:

Christ was the carpenter, He was the subject:
*
2: And on the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue; and many who heard him were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom given to him? What mighty works are wrought by his hands!
3: Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary*…

Hmm so I guess Matthew is wrong then?

Matt. 13: 55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Robert in SD

Come on Robert… Matthew and Mark can’t even keep their story straight on who was the carpenter. And you want it to mean “cousins”?

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Hmm so I guess Matthew is wrong then?

Matt. 13: 55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

And here the subject is Joseph (he was a carpenter and since Joseph was Jesus’ step-father why is it so hard to believe the Jesus was a carpenter too).

Anyway, this still doesn’t prove that these men were Christ’s uterine brothers. It would be proven if it read: “is not his mother Mary? Are not her other children…”. If the Aramaic language had a word for cousin this verse could have easily been rendered “is not his mother Mary? And his cousins…”

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hi Zakuska;

Zakuska:

Hmm so I guess Matthew is wrong then?

Matt. 13: 55
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Nope. It’s just your interpretation of the english translation of Matthew. “brethren” can mean more than simply blood brothers. It can mean a more distant familial relationship - like cousins. We know that James and Joseph are the sons of Mary - the wife of Clopas from Jn 19:25.

Are you also trying to say that the “carpenter” is NOT Jesus, because it seems pretty clear that Jesus was both a carpenter and the “son” of a carpenter - St. Joseph. No ambiguity there at all.

Nothing that you cite to in scripture disproves the perpetual virginity of Mary. Show me one bible verse where anyone other than Jesus is referred to as a child of Mary. There is no such verse. Hence you cannot show that the Catholic Church teaches “another gospel.”

BTW - I’m still waiting for you to produce some real authority supporting the argument that the early “pre-Great Apostasy” church mirrored the LDS church in its doctrine? You are very good at turning the subject away from the Great Apostasy, but I suppose that’s required of all LDS apologists - as that is certainly the LDS Church’s weakest link - and the most direct proof that perhaps your faith is preaching “another Gospel” than that of Christ.

 

[Zakuska]

arieh0310:

And here the subject is Joseph (he was a carpenter and since Joseph was Jesus’ step-father why is it so hard to believe the Jesus was a carpenter too).

Anyway, this still doesn’t prove that these men were Christ’s uterine brothers. It would be proven if it read: “is not his mother Mary? Are not her other children…”. If the Aramaic language had a word for cousin this verse could have easily been rendered “is not his mother Mary? And his cousins…”

I like what this site has to say about it…

Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?

It is unlikely that the term for “brother” is being used figuratively or mystically, because all Christians are Christ’s brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. “Full brother” is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. “Half-brother” is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin. It is possible they were adoptive brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical or patristic record.

More plausibly, they were stepbrothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus’ brothers by marriage. There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have—in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)—states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin. Though not inspired, the document was written within living memory of Mary, when Christ’s family was still well known, as other sources attest (e.g., second-century historian Hegisippus). It may contain accurate traditions regarding the family structure.

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea2.asp

I would be much more willing to acent to this than the STD catholic appologetic for this. Was not Abrahams wife his step sister? Thus he did not lie to the King?

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0309fea2.asp

I would be much more willing to acent to this than the STD catholic appologetic for this.

So would I. However, cousin, step-brother, other kinsman would all be acceptable. Uterine brother is totally unacceptable and requires some tremendous eisogesis to prove.

Jerome favored cousin, modern Catholic theologians prefer step-brother, either is plausible.

 

[Zakuska]

Well lets continue on with the article…

Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word brother. Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for “cousin” (anepsios) that seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn’t used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.

The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn’t ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original Aramaic words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).

This is important, because the meaning of the Aramaic word for “brother” (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.

In fact, there was no word for “cousin” in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one had to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana (“kinsman”), qariwa (“close relation”), or nasha (“relative”). One such term is aha, which means literally “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative” or “kinsman.”

The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for “cousin,” normally would have used a general term to refer to whatever cousins Jesus had. In translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for “brother” (adelphos).

There is a greek word for Cousin. So I don’t think that fits.

I think it would behove Catholics to stick with the step-brother. Its much more solid than the cousin bit. I can think of no way to counter it. The cousin bit gets down into the symantecs of Aramic and Greek, and we all know where Symantec games lead.

 

[arieh0310]

Zakuska:

Well lets continue on with the article…

There is a greek word for Cousin. So I don’t think that fits.

No one denies that there is a Greek word for cousin. However, Greek was not the native language of the New Testament authors, nor the original intended audience. There is substantial proof that Mark was originally in Aramaic, and circumstantial evidence that the other Gospels were as well.

Also, the Septuigint was in Greek and used adelphos when talking about Abraham and Lot’s relationship.

And, to this day Caldeans (who natively speak Aramaic) still use “brother” when they talk of close relations even though they have a word for cousin now. It is a cultural thing.

 

[Zakuska]

ABalch,

Now that I think about it… thats a pretty weak explanation for the word “Till” in Matthew.

Gal 3
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

1 Cor. 11: 26
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

So using your definition of the world “Till” in matthew. We are still under the Law of Moses.


Matt. 1: 25
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Its a much safer bet to stick with the Step-Brother explanation. That way there is no question and at least it has documentation to back it up.

PS. Ill be reading the Ezekiel 44 tonight. Ill report back on it in the morning.

 

[PaulDupre]

1 Tim 3
1 THIS is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

How many unwed bishops do you know? How man have kids?

This is obviously a ridiculous interpretation of this passage by the Mormons, because a few verses later, St. Paul makes the same requirements of deacons!

Deacons should be men who have been married but once, ruling well their children and their own households. 1 Tim 3:12

How many twelve year-old Mormon deacons are married and have children? How many twelve year-old Mormon boys have their own households? This must prove then, according to the Mormons, that their Church is apostate.

Paul