Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[justasking4]

“Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?”
Mark 6, 4

The townspeople who questioned the credibilty of Jesus did not speak in Koine Greek. They spoke in Aramaic which has no distinct word for cousin. Instead they referred to Jesus as the brother (ah) of the four men. They used “sisters” (aha) when referring to the female relatives or cousins. Even if the traditionally accepted author of the gospel, a native Jew in Jerusalem by the name of John Mark, had originally written it in the Greek, he must have retained the Jewish idiomatic expressions used by the townspeople in the translated form (adelphos). The author does literally employ Aramaic in 5, 41: “Talitha cumi.” Moreover, it’s important to keep in mind that the Greek translators of the Septuagint knew that there was a separate word for cousins (anepsios), but they used ‘adelphos’ instead. They themselves retained the Semitic usage of the original Hebrew spoken by the characters of the Old Testament.

PAX

Couple of things.

1. is there an original copy of Matthew in Aramaic?
2. If what you say is true why does the New American Bible translate the word of Jesus’ brothers “brothers” and not use the word cousins as you claim the Aramaic days?

 

[justasking4]

I wonder if that is why ja4 is so well versed in detraction and calumny? Great role models!

This response of yours is OFF TOPIC. View attachment 4125

 

[justasking4]

Hey there guys! Nice to see Guano and Justasking going at it again!

Dear Justasking **Don’t forget that those in the passage you give the authority to speak for God aren’t God but His detractors. Jesus speaks in the passage and rebukes them for their lack of faith! **

Just a reminder…

Peace,

Gail

Would you happen to have the passage for this?

 

[Good_Fella]

Couple of things.

1. is there an original copy of Matthew in Aramaic?
2. If what you say is true why does the New American Bible translate the word of Jesus’ brothers “brothers” and not use the word cousins as you claim the Aramaic days?

The NAB is sticking with the original translation in the Greek which reflects Semitic usage.

It doesn’t really matter whether Matthew and Mark were originally written in Aramaic. What matters is that the characters in the gospels spoke Aramaic, and that they did. The semitic usage of the original spoken language was translated into the Greek form: ‘adelphos’. This is certainly the case with the translators of the Septuagint who knew the Greek word for cousin, but didn’t incorporate it in the written texts. The same should apply to the supposed Gospel translators.

 

[guanophore]

Couple of things.

1. is there an original copy of Matthew in Aramaic?

With the rest of Jerome’s manuscripts, of course!

Look in the Wikipedia on Peshitta and see what you can see.

1. If what you say is true why does the New American Bible translate the word of Jesus’ brothers “brothers” and not use the word cousins as you claim the Aramaic days?

Because Catholics already know that Jesus was the only son of His mother.

Would you happen to have the passage for this?

The detractors are the one’s whose mocking words you are taking as authoritative in Matt. They think that Jesus is “the carpenter’s son” and that those are his “brothers and sisters”. They are mocking Him, and putting HIm down, belittling HIm. You are using their words to mock HIm as your authority for contradicting the teaching of those that knew Him personally and walked with him.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4200660]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Couple of things.

1. is there an original copy of Matthew in Aramaic?
   With the rest of Jerome’s manuscripts, of course!
   I have never seen any info that would lead to the conclusion that he had the original of Matthew.
   guanophore
   Look in the Wikipedia on Peshitta and see what you can see.

There is a lot there. I didn’t see anything on this issue though.

Originally Posted by justasking4
2) If what you say is true why does the New American Bible translate the word of Jesus’ brothers “brothers” and not use the word cousins as you claim the Aramaic days?
guanophore
Because Catholics already know that Jesus was the only son of His mother.

Evidently these Catholic translators don’t know that.

Originally Posted by justasking4
Would you happen to have the passage for this?

guanophore
The detractors are the one’s whose mocking words you are taking as authoritative in Matt. They think that Jesus is “the carpenter’s son” and that those are his “brothers and sisters”. They are mocking Him, and putting HIm down, belittling HIm. You are using their words to mock HIm as your authority for contradicting the teaching of those that knew Him personally and walked with him.

Can a person be mocked with the truth? Secondly, there would be no embarrassment for Him if He did have blood brothers and sisters. There would be a serious problem if the OT predicted that the true Messiah did not brothers which would be a sign of the true Messiah. Again, I’m not aware of any.

 

[justasking4]

The NAB is sticking with the original translation in the Greek which reflects Semitic usage.

It doesn’t really matter whether Matthew and Mark were originally written in Aramaic. What matters is that the characters in the gospels spoke Aramaic, and that they did. The semitic usage of the original spoken language was translated into the Greek form: ‘adelphos’. This is certainly the case with the translators of the Septuagint who knew the Greek word for cousin, but didn’t incorporate it in the written texts. The same should apply to the supposed Gospel translators.

If what you say is true then these catholic translators are untrustworthy since they would know these were actually cousins and instead use the word brothers. This would be very misleading on their part and would put them on the same level as the New World Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses who have also corrupted their translation.

 

[Good_Fella]

If what you say is true then these catholic translators are untrustworthy since they would know these were actually cousins and instead use the word brothers. This would be very misleading on their part and would put them on the same level as the New World Bible of the Jehovah Witnesses who have also corrupted their translation.

It isn’t misleading on the part of the Catholic translators, since we have already known through Tradition that these are in fact Jesus’ cousins and relatives who followed him. There is no need to clear up anything, especially since Bible commentaries do not comprise official documents of the Magisterium. But it can be misleading for Christians who strictly focus on what appears to be literally true in the written texts outside Tradition. Anyway, the early Reformers tampered with and corrupted the correct translations of the Bible to fit their theological bent. Modern Protestant scholars continue to do so.

PAX :coffeeread:

 

[justasking4]

It isn’t misleading on the part of the Catholic translators, since we have already known through Tradition that these are in fact Jesus’ cousins and relatives who followed him. There is no need to clear up anything, especially since Bible commentaries do not comprise official documents of the Magisterium. But it can be misleading for Christians who strictly focus on what appears to be literally true in the written texts outside Tradition. Anyway, the early Reformers tampered with and corrupted the correct translations of the Bible to fit their theological bent. Modern Protestant scholars continue to do so.

PAX :coffeeread:

Here is Matthew 13:55-56 from the New Jerusalem Bible

55 This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude?
56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?’

as you can see these Catholic translators also translate the brothers of Jesus as brothers and not cousins. Do you know of any catholic translation that uses the word cousin instead of brother?
Are these Catholic translators also corrupt? If they are then why does the Catholic church endorse this translation and the New American Bible as something for all catholics to read?

 

[guanophore]

Here is Matthew 13:55-56 from the New Jerusalem Bible

55 This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude?
56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? So where did the man get it all?’

You do realize that the text you are using as “proof” is taking words out of the mouths of people insulting and mocking Christ? You are assuming that they are speaking truth, when in fact, they either don’t know the truth, or are lying. Why would you want to be in league with them?

Also, you have no recourse in using this verse to prove your point, since Scripture clearly states elsewhere that James and Joseph are the sons of another Mary, described as the “sister” of Jesus ’ mother. Until you can dispense with the Scriptural record, this gives you no leg on which to support yourself.

as you can see these Catholic translators also translate the brothers of Jesus as brothers and not cousins. Do you know of any catholic translation that uses the word cousin instead of brother?

No. the notion of a “cousin” is actually more of a western construction. In Palestine, as in most places in the world (as well as the tribal peoples here where I live) all consider members of their own clan as “brothers and sisters”. This is true of all near relatives, since they are forbidden to marry inside the clan.

Are these Catholic translators also corrupt? If they are then why does the Catholic church endorse this translation and the New American Bible as something for all catholics to read?

It is your understanding we are saying is corrupted, ja4, not the translation you are using. You are taking the words out of context, and there fore, you misundersand their meaning.

It is not your fault, though. You were not properly taught in the beginning. You have a choice, now, though. You don’t have to persist in the ignorance in which you have been steeped. You can have these errors corrected.

 

[Matariel]

Notice the poll. It is overwhelmingly a* No *answer, meaning that most people interpret the Bible as saying that Christ did not have brothers.

While this doesn’t settle anything, it does show that most people here interpret this way.

 

[justasking4]

Notice the poll. It is overwhelmingly a* No *answer, meaning that most people interpret the Bible as saying that Christ did not have brothers.

While this doesn’t settle anything, it does show that most people here interpret this way.

i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…

 

[Jeremiah333]

i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…

I suspect you are correct.

 

[guanophore]

i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…

I agree wholeheartedly Those of us who accept the Apostolic Teaching that Jesus was the only child of His mother are not dependent upon the Scripture. This truth is reflected in the Scripture, but the Scripture is not the Source of this belief. On the contrary, the Sacred Tradition that produced the NT is the Source - those who travelled with Jesus, knew Him, and His mother.

What you are basically saying is that Jesus is a liar.

When Jesus said “he who hears you, hears me”, he was drunk, or delerious, or lying, or something besides telling the truth.

 

[Good_Fella]

i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…

We wouldn’t have the scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church, which authoritatively established the canon of Scripture by the light of the Holy Spirit.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;4205760]I agree wholeheartedly Those of us who accept the Apostolic Teaching that Jesus was the only child of His mother are not dependent upon the Scripture. This truth is reflected in the Scripture, but the Scripture is not the Source of this belief. On the contrary, the Sacred Tradition that produced the NT is the Source - those who travelled with Jesus, knew Him, and His mother.

What you are basically saying is that Jesus is a liar.

No. It seems your church is not being honest with the texts of Scripture about this. It has to twist the words brothers and sisters to mean something different than there plain meaning in context. Secondly we already know that there are specific words for cousin that could have been used but were not. Also Catholic translations also reflect the idea of blood brothers.

When Jesus said “he who hears you, hears me”, he was drunk, or delerious, or lying, or something besides telling the truth.

What specifically is the context for these words of Jesus? To whom is He speaking to?

 

[justasking4]

We wouldn’t have the scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church, which authoritatively established the canon of Scripture by the light of the Holy Spirit.

Then these catholics are not being true to Scriptures that they claim come from them.

 

[Good_Fella]

Then these catholics are not being true to Scriptures that they claim come from them.

The truth is that Catholics aren’t true to what you personally choose to believe through your misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the scriptures. The Holy Spirit has preserved the Church free from error - as promised by Christ - in all her official doctrines and dogmas and the canon of Scripture. The Bible doesn’t instruct us which books belong in the canon. The books we have in the Bible have been accepted by the Church because they are true to Tradition.The Church believed in and taught the doctrine of Mary Ever-Virgin for centuries before the canon of scripture was made. This traditional awareness is expressed in Luke 1, 34.

 

[Matariel]

i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…

Ho-ho! I’m Anglican and I believe it’s true. And there are a lot of Lutherans who think it’s true.

Scripture in no way suggests that Jesus had brothers, unless you read it as a 21st-century American or European does.

The Greek Orthodox Church also has always believed in her perpetual virginity-- and the Bible is in their language!

I think they know what they’re talking about…

 

[justasking4]

Matariel;4209457]
Originally Posted by justasking4
i suspect most of those who voted that Jesus did not have blood brothers is not based on any independent study of the various scriptures that show He did have brothers but rather its based on what the church has said…
Matariel;
Ho-ho! I’m Anglican and I believe it’s true. And there are a lot of Lutherans who think it’s true.

Scripture in no way suggests that Jesus had brothers, unless you read it as a 21st-century American or European does.

The Greek Orthodox Church also has always believed in her perpetual virginity-- and the Bible is in their language!

I think they know what they’re talking about…
Have you ever study the passages that show He did have brothers and sisters? Have you had a chance to look up what the words brothers means in context for example in Matthew 13:55-56 and John 7:5?

Its quite clear these brothers are not cousins or relatives.