Brothers of Christ for Mickey

  • Thread starter Thread starter NDfan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have never liked nor understood the logic behind the Q theory. If they are similar, why could it no be because they were written by people who where there or those taught by them.

Duh
 
ralphinal said:
I have never liked nor understood the logic behind the Q theory. If they are similar, why could it no be because they were written by people who where there or those taught by them.

Duh
Click to expand...
Ralph first there would have to be proof that the Q document exists or ever existed. Then we would question why wasn’t it canonized if it was considered inspired. The problem with using the Q document as a basis for an argument is that you are using an uninspired non-canonized work to correct canonized inspired gospels.

This is also the issue with using the Vulgate bible vs the original texts. Jerome himself contends that the Hebrew and Greek originals of the OT and NT are always the works that are used to correct the copies. Not the other way around.
 
NDfan said:
Ralph first there would have to be proof that the Q document exists or ever existed. Then we would question why wasn’t it canonized if it was considered inspired. The problem with using the Q document as a basis for an argument is that you are using an uninspired non-canonized work to correct canonized inspired gospels.

This is also the issue with using the Vulgate bible vs the original texts. Jerome himself contends that the Hebrew and Greek originals of the OT and NT are always the works that are used to correct the copies. Not the other way around.
Click to expand...
You understand that I am opposed to the Q concept, right?

I agree.
 
ckempston said:
Wrong. Luke used “cousin” to describe Mary’s loose kinship with Elizabeth. He would have used the same for Jesus’ brothers, if they were indeed simply near kin.
Click to expand...
COUSIN? In the King James the same Greek word is translated as kinsfolk (Mark 6:4) and kinsman (Luke 2:44).

One argument I heard was that Jesus’ brothers were members of his extended family with whom he was raised. Elisabeth apparenrly was not raised with Mary and thus a different word is used.

If Mary had 7 children on Joseph’s wage as a carpenter it makes you wonder how they managed to get by.
ckempston said:
There is no Apostolic Tradition that says Mary was ever-virgin. It was a later invention. If it was Apostolic it would be in the New Testament, or you would see it mentioned in the first, or early second century.
Click to expand...
The canon of Scripture is not in the Bible. Does this mean it is a later invention?. We did not have the final list until towards the end of the 4th cenutry. There were similar canons before hand but some had Baruch (not in Protestant Bibles), some missed Revelation etc. Marcion excluded the entire OT and most of the NT.
ckempston said:
Brothers means brothers. Especially when sisters (adelphe) is also used. If they simply wanted to say (loosely) brethren, then they would have used adelphoi, which is what that means.
Click to expand...
Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude

Brothers Matt 13:55 ἀδελφοὶ adelphos (WH and NA says adelphoi from memory)

In Hebrew and Aramaic (spoken by Christ) the word brother had a broader sense and could mean cousin for example. When the Jews transalted the Septuagint they used brother not always in the literal sense. For e.g. in Genesis 14:22 Lot is refered to as the son of Abram’s brother. Two verses later he is refered to as Abram’s son. The NT writers followed the same tradition.

James and Joseph are actually Jesus’ cousins for example. Mary of Cleophas and Alphaeus (translatable as Cleophas) are their parents. C.f. Mt 27:56 and Mark 15:40. The same could easily be the case with Simon and Jude.

Matt 27:56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Mark 15:40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome

Did Mary have 109 children?

If we take brother literally adephos is used in Acts 1:14 “the mother of Jesus and HIS brothers.”

Mary and Christ’s brothers are in the upper room with the 11 Apostles. We are told of no one else being there.

We are told there were approx 120 people there.

120 - 11 Apostles and Mary leaves 108 Brothers of Jesus. 108 + Jesus = 109 Children for Mary.
 
ckempston said:
Wrong. Luke used “cousin” to describe Mary’s loose kinship with Elizabeth. He would have used the same for Jesus’ brothers, if they were indeed simply near kin.

Gabriel of 12;
Your Wrong statement is addressed to the most influential biblical scholars and biblical historians. You would have to do better than just state “Wrong” because it carries no weight without able to disprove scholary and biblical history.
Just for your information; Luke did not walk and talk with Jesus as the other apostles. Luke recorded in his Greek, because he had the privledge of speaking with living apostles, and the blessed Virgin Mary, thus the “visitation account with Elizabeth” and the “Annunciation” from Gabriel the angel. Luke was able to get the eyewitness account first hand from these living Saints. To fill the gaps of his gospel, which parallel Mathew and Mark, Luke transcribed from these already written “Aramaic” accounts in their original language which did not have the Greek word for “Cousin”, thus you have Luke’s recorded account in Greek, and the “Brothers” of Jesus parallel the other gospel account from their original “Aramaic” language which did not have a word for cousin. This where the “Q” document comes into play of the parallel accounts from each gospel. This fragmented “Q” document was one of the first letters passed around the first century Christian churches along with Marks Gospel.

What you claim to be damaging, does not hold up to biblical scholary, and historical biblical study. You would have to state your case why the biblical and historical scholary study is “wrong” before any one would take your accusation seriously. “Until” then your personal view does not hold up to any biblical scholary work achievment, and your damage report only reveals your lack of knowledge in the investigation of the Gospel contents, and your 19th century interpretation of these ancient documents. For one it was the Catholic church and her Saints, who soiled their hands from the original letters of the Gospels. Not a 19th century personal interpretation.

ckempston;
There is no Apostolic Tradition that says Mary was ever-virgin. It was a later invention. If it was Apostolic it would be in the New Testament, or you would see it mentioned in the first, or early second century.
Click to expand...
I will leave with just one of many scriptures that the apostles believed in the Blessed Virgin Mary, from apostolic Tradition. The problem is not in the scriptures the problem there in lyes in your personal interpretation of scriptures that hinders the “Truth” of the Gospel proclaimed these 2000 years unchanged.
Isaiah 7:14
7 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.
Mary’s virginity is exclaimed in all the Gospels.
John 21:25
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
The Tradition is what was taught orally and by letter to the Catholic church supported by Sacred Scripture.
2Thessalonians 2:13 But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits 7 for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth. 14 To this end he has (also) called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. 16 May our Lord Jesus Christ himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting encouragement and good hope through his grace, 17 encourage your hearts and strengthen them in every good deed and word.

2Thess.3:5 May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the endurance of Christ. 6 We instruct you, brothers, in the name of (our) Lord Jesus Christ,to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the tradition they received from us.
 
ckempston said:
That rings a bell; I’ll check it out. These claims always alarm me, because they indicate that all the gospel writers colluded and stole information from elsewhere rather than what they claimed to be: eyewitnesses, or interviewers of eyewitnesses.
Click to expand...
Gabriel of 12:
Both you and NDfan have no clue about what the “Q” document states. It does not discredit the Gospel eyewitness accounts. You two are totally off on this topic. We are discussing biblical historical accounts, not the interpretation. ckempston’s missed interpetation of the Parallel “brothers” account and Lukes greek word for cousin, has nothing to do with the Blessed Virgin Mary’s virginity. It is funny how a scholary investigation that has nothing to do with Mary’s virginity disqualifies your argument against her virginity.

Offering each other favoritism to this false “Cousin” “brother” interpretation is never herd of until the 19th century. Funny how you two claim to out scholar all of Christendom. Misery loves company?
 
NDfan said:
Gabriel please don’t try and use the argument about document Q. This has no foundation at all.
Click to expand...
Tell me NDfan; did you or your church faith soil their hands when they put the books of the bible together? I take it your church was not invented yet by your founder.

The way the letters of the bible were put together has a lot to prove the difference from “Aramaic” words, and “Greek” words used to record the gospels and other new testament books, when non catholics cant discipher the difference between the two languages and words written in the original letters and their translations from transcriptions.

You know Catholics can get tired of hearing the same old arguments against Mary, which have already been settled since the third century and fourth centuries. From the Catholic council’s from Ephesus, and Nicea. Your repeated heretical views have already been scrutinized by the Catholic church and her enemies. What are you doing 1800 years later bringing up aged old heretical views? beside inventing 19th century interpetation of a “English” bible.
 
NDfan said:
People really to study the Greek and understand how the language is used.
Click to expand...
You are not the first protestant to use greek gymnatics in an attempt to disprove the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. It is very interesting that the Church fathers (for the better part of 2000 years) did not see this revelation of the Greek language as you are proposing it. And the early reformers did not see it either.

But I suppose you are wiser than them all. 😃
 
Canto said:
Luke 24:49 - “But stay in the city until [heõs hou] you have been clothed with power from on high.”

Didn’t the apostles stay in the city even after they were clothed. c.f. Acts 8:1

More heous hou stuff

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors6.html

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html
Click to expand...
So, you’re using a statement that says the Apostles left the city some time after Pentecost to support the idea that they didn’t leave the city some time after Pentecost? 🤷
 
ckempston said:
So, you’re using a statement that says the Apostles left the city some time after Pentecost to support the idea that they didn’t leave the city some time after Pentecost? 🤷
Click to expand...
I think that you misread him. THe Apostles did not leave the City right after Pentecost, and at least one of them never left it (James the Greater).
 
Mickey said:
You are not the first protestant to use greek gymnatics in an attempt to disprove the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. It is very interesting that the Church fathers (for the better part of 2000 years) did not see this revelation of the Greek language as you are proposing it. And the early reformers did not see it either.

But I suppose you are wiser than them all. 😃
Click to expand...
Which interpretation of the following statement involves gymnastics?

“My brothers are outside waiting for me.”

Interpretation 1: My brothers are outside waiting for me.

Interpretation 2: Some guys, who may or may not be related to me by blood or marriage, or who may be older siblings of my step-father from a previous marriage, prior to being betrothed to my ever-Virgin mother, or who may be distant cousins whose mothers are all named Mary, are waiting outside for me.
 
Gabriel_of_12 said:
Tell me NDfan; did you or your church faith soil their hands when they put the books of the bible together? I take it your church was not invented yet by your founder.
Click to expand...
What hath that do with anything 🤷
The way the letters of the bible were put together has a lot to prove the difference from “Aramaic” words, and “Greek” words used to record the gospels and other new testament books, when non catholics cant discipher the difference between the two languages and words written in the original letters and their translations from transcriptions.
Click to expand...
I can assure you I can decipher between the 2. That has no implication for the so-called Q document you speak of. The Gospels are written in Greek plain and simple and they must be interpreted as such. Trying to justify what may have existed or may have been said in Aramaic has no basis for your argument.

To take it a step further let’s talk about how inaccurate the Vulgate Bible is. Jerome himself demanded that all scripture be corrected against the originals, that of Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. He never once supported the Vulgate translation as being the official one for the church and often cited erroneous verses. So let’s not talk about deciphering between Aramaic and Greek when the very Bible you use doesn’t even reconcile back to the originals.
You know Catholics can get tired of hearing the same old arguments against Mary, which have already been settled since the third century and fourth centuries. From the Catholic council’s from Ephesus, and Nicea. Your repeated heretical views have already been scrutinized by the Catholic church and her enemies. What are you doing 1800 years later bringing up aged old heretical views? beside inventing 19th century interpetation of a “English” bible.
Click to expand...
You know non-catholics get tired of hearing scripture mis-interpreted and twisted to support the declarations of 1 very fallible human being.
 
Mickey said:
You are not the first protestant to use greek gymnatics in an attempt to disprove the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. It is very interesting that the Church fathers (for the better part of 2000 years) did not see this revelation of the Greek language as you are proposing it. And the early reformers did not see it either.

But I suppose you are wiser than them all. 😃
Click to expand...
Greek gymnastics?? Mickey perhaps you should study the Greek thoroughly and then also study church history exhaustively. Support for the perpetual virginity of Mary did not appear until the late 4th century so let’s dispense with the 2000 year thing.

As far as being wiser? That has nothing to do with it at all. More educated could be a better term to use. And yes in many cases we today are more educated than many ECFs.
 
Canto said:
Luke 24:49 - “But stay in the city until [heõs hou] you have been clothed with power from on high.”

Didn’t the apostles stay in the city even after they were clothed. c.f. Acts 8:1

More heous hou stuff

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoserrors6.html

catholic-legate.com/articles/heosindex.html
Click to expand...
Canto heous hou does not have to imply immediately after an action has taken place. The commission was to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth so to say they stayed in the city doesn’t really make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top