B
BrianH
Guest
What evidence? Please show me who the mother of James, Joses, and Salome is in this passage?? It does not say that! You are speculating something that is not there!
ECF’s you ask for ECF’s you shall get.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As Brian has requested it, I open critique of my response to HIS argument about the Apostle John up to the floor.
I welcome any comments or criticisms.
Please let me know specifically if I have ignored his points about John.
Thanks in advance.
I welcome any comments or criticisms.
Please let me know specifically if I have ignored his points about John.
Thanks in advance.
B
BrianH
Guest
Yes, Origen is the first to appeal to the Protoevangelium of James
which does not say that Mary remained a virgin. It can be inferred but it does not say that. Speaking of your reliable source the
Protoevangelium of James. Do you believe that Christ was born in a cave? Do you believe that it was written by James in around the year 2 BC? Do you believe that Salome asked to check Mary’s “virginal integrity”? Is the Protoevangelium of James part of infallible Sacred Tradition…or just certain parts?
which does not say that Mary remained a virgin. It can be inferred but it does not say that. Speaking of your reliable source the
Protoevangelium of James. Do you believe that Christ was born in a cave? Do you believe that it was written by James in around the year 2 BC? Do you believe that Salome asked to check Mary’s “virginal integrity”? Is the Protoevangelium of James part of infallible Sacred Tradition…or just certain parts?
B
BrianH
Guest
My point of contention is that Catholics should not use the argument that John caring for the mother of Christ proves he did not have biological brothers. With that logic, and understanding the importance of the Jewish family unit, one could argue against a brother in law, stepchildren, and nephews. All of which should have had his mothers care prior to John. Jesus, in this case, as in others, defines the perameters of the Law…does he not?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
My parents and my wife’s parents were all only children. You read that right.
That means that we have no uncles, aunts or cousins. Anyone in my family other than our brothers, sisters, parents and children is a distant cousin.
Relatively speaking
, anyone with a connection to Jesus other than Mary is a “distant relation” because they were not uterine brothers and sisters. Without brothers and sisters, Jesus had no BIL or SIL or nephew or nieces. The scriptures are silent regarding relatives of Joseph and Mary (other than Anna and Joachim), so any speculation about Uncles and Aunts is pure speculation.No, it all comes back to the fact that Aramaic uses the word “brother” in a way that you cannot comprehend, and that this usage was transliterated into Greek in a way you do not understand.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Thank you, Sy.
I find that you are more thoughtful and open to discussion than many who share your views.
Concerning this issue, then…are you comfortable (if not in agreement) with the issue concerning the Aramaic transliteration of “brother” into Greek?
V
VociMike
Guest
V
VociMike
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
Randy Carson;2337508]My parents and my wife’s parents were all only children. You read that right.
That means that we have no uncles, aunts or cousins. Anyone in my family other than our brothers, sisters, parents and children is a distant cousin.
God forbid if I would call my nephews, or if my brother called his step-children distant relatives. You have taken your framework and applied it to the situation and once again avoided the issue. These four men are one of three things:Relatively speaking
biological children
step children
nephews
You think? I do not appeal to an imaginary Aramaic transcript. There is a Greek word for cousin and it is not used.
B
BrianH
Guest
BrianH;2337196:
First of all, you know as well as I do that according to Catholicism they could have been her step-children, heck that is what Randy appeals to in the Protoevangelium of James. You also are avoiding the point by appealing to emotion. You have no idea what Mary’s life was like. Heck, you guys lose track of her after Acts. Do not know if she died, where she died, if she died, who was around to see her assumed etc.Of course he didn’t. She wasn’t already living in their homes (if you say she was, offer your proof), so her relationship to them when she went to live with John would be exactly the same.
And do you see that now you are saying that cousins and nephews are the equivalent in a woman’s mind and heart to her own children? That cousins and aunts are equivalent in a son’s heart to his own mother? Do you see the degree to which you must stretch reality to make your theories fit?
Again, you are saying that nephews and nieces are identical in a mother’s heart to her own biological children. But everybody knows this not to be the case. And it is especially not the case when the mother’s first-born son has been brutally tortured and executed before her eyes.
Yes, that’s it. She couldn’t live with her children but she could travel with them. Problem solved.
See my answer above. She couldn’t live with her children but she could pray with them. The two situations are identical. What mother could object in the least?
My theories…thats rich
B
BrianH
Guest
Let us start with this:
Hegesippus
“And there still survived of the Lord’s family the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be his brother, humanly speaking.”
“Control of the church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James”
Tertullian
“But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favor of the reality of Christ’s flesh, willfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing, — who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them…We have all been born, and yet all of us have not either brothers or mother. He might with more probability have had even a father than a mother, and uncles more likely than brothers. Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent”
Hegesippus
“And there still survived of the Lord’s family the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be his brother, humanly speaking.”
“Control of the church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord’s brother James”
Tertullian
“But whenever a dispute arises about the nativity, all who reject it as creating a presumption in favor of the reality of Christ’s flesh, willfully deny that God Himself was born, on the ground that He asked, “Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?” First of all, nobody would have told Him that His mother and brethren were standing outside, if he were not certain both that He had a mother and brethren, and that they were the very persons whom he was then announcing, — who had either been known to him before, or were then and there discovered by him; although heretics have removed this passage from the gospel, because those who were admiring His doctrine said that His supposed father, Joseph the carpenter, and His mother Mary, and His brethren, and His sisters, were very well known to them…We have all been born, and yet all of us have not either brothers or mother. He might with more probability have had even a father than a mother, and uncles more likely than brothers. Thus is the temptation about His birth unsuitable, for it might have been contrived without any mention of either His mother or His brethren. It is clearly more credible that, being certain that He had both a mother and brothers, they tested His divinity rather than His nativity, whether, when within, In this very passage indeed, their unbelief is evident. Jesus was teaching the way of life, preaching the kingdom of God and actively engaged in healing infirmities of body and soul; but all the while, whilst strangers were intent on Him, His very nearest relatives were absent”
V
VociMike
Guest
OK, we’ve established a number of things regarding John 19:26-27. We have established, for example, that there is no proof that Jesus “brothers” were unbelievers at the time of the crucifixion. We have established (red herrings about baptized babies notwithstanding) that there has never in Christian belief been found the notion that a believing mother should be separated from her unbelieving children solely because of their unbelief. And perhaps we have even established that tearing a mother away from her remaining children in her time of great loss and suffering could fit very squarely in the realm of dishonoring one’s mother.
Now I want to explain why John 19:26-27 is the strongest proof possible that Mary did not have other biological children. Here is the situation, to refresh our memories. Mary’s unbelieving sons were Jews. Now who were the new enemies of the Jews at this time? They were, of course, these new blasphemers who had gathered around their crazy brother Jesus. The Jews had considered Jesus such a threat that they had him killed. The Jewish unbelieving brothers of Jesus would have understood the necessity of this. So, would they have then stood around and let their mother go and live in the house of one of the blaspheming cult’s leaders?! Not just an unrelated Jewish man. Not even an unrelated Roman or Greek man. No, an unrelated leader in the cult which their crazy brother had formed, and which had gotten him killed!
The closest comparison I can make to that hypothetical situation is to imagine a Muslim mother who is sent by her apostate son to go live in the home of an unrelated Jewish man. Who thinks that the woman’s other Muslim sons would allow that? And yet Mary’s other sons must have allowed her to live with John, because scripture says she lived there the rest of her days.
Case closed. The “biological sons” theory falls to pieces.
Now I want to explain why John 19:26-27 is the strongest proof possible that Mary did not have other biological children. Here is the situation, to refresh our memories. Mary’s unbelieving sons were Jews. Now who were the new enemies of the Jews at this time? They were, of course, these new blasphemers who had gathered around their crazy brother Jesus. The Jews had considered Jesus such a threat that they had him killed. The Jewish unbelieving brothers of Jesus would have understood the necessity of this. So, would they have then stood around and let their mother go and live in the house of one of the blaspheming cult’s leaders?! Not just an unrelated Jewish man. Not even an unrelated Roman or Greek man. No, an unrelated leader in the cult which their crazy brother had formed, and which had gotten him killed!
The closest comparison I can make to that hypothetical situation is to imagine a Muslim mother who is sent by her apostate son to go live in the home of an unrelated Jewish man. Who thinks that the woman’s other Muslim sons would allow that? And yet Mary’s other sons must have allowed her to live with John, because scripture says she lived there the rest of her days.
Case closed. The “biological sons” theory falls to pieces.
B
BrianH
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
So now you suggest the possibility that maybe these folks were not uterine brothers and sisters. They could be “step children or nephews”. This is excellent! We are no longer adamantly insisting that they were blood brothers from Mary’s womb. This is progress!
Ah…you really don’t understand, I see.
I am not referencing an imaginary Aramaic transcript. I am saying that men whose native tongue was Aramaic would have conceptually visualized in their mind’s eye all relatives as “brothers” - regardless of their actual relationship to Jesus - because their first language did not contain a word for “cousin”.
Thus, writing in Greek - but thinking in Aramaic- they would have used the Greek word for “brother” instead of the Greek word for “cousin” because they naturally conceived of these relatives as “brothers” by force of habit.
Interestingly, scholars acknowledge that the Greek-speaking St. Luke actually uses more Semitisms than the Semite authors themselves. This may have been because he relied on older documents when he “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3) preparing to write his two books. Thus, the Aramaic carries over even in the words of the inspired physician.
For a fuller treatment of this, see:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
So Mary appears as Queen of Heaven**…pregnant and crying in pain?** You cannot just take the first verse and rip it out of context Randy.
As far as Catholic tradition, we have already addressed this:
“Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady’s death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ’s Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus.
You do not know where she died, **if **she died, what year she died, or who was around. Sounds forgotten to me.
V
VociMike
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
What have I missed? You have gone from insisting that Mary had other children to suggesting that these four men were step-children (Joseph’s by a previous marriage - which I am comfortable with as a possibility) or distant relatives. Two out of three ain’t bad.
I’m willing to bet that a crowd of Jews in Israel around 30 AD or so would have been speaking Aramaic.
It has already been shown to you that Lot was referred to as Abraham’s “brother”. Was this a habit or a limitation of the Hebrew language? However, do not minimize the force of my argument just because you take issue with my choice of words. I often ask my bilingual friends (in English since I am not bilingual) what language they think in. Invariably, they think in a “first language” and make the translation into English for my benefit. You do see the point, I presume.
Second, are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit dictated the actual words of the inspired text thus reducing the authors of sacred scripture to the role of mere copyists? See below for the answer.
Thank you, but no. It is not my work originally. Others have proposed this explanation before me.
catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BROSIS.HTM
biblia.com/encyclopedia/brothers.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares:
**106 **God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.”
Therefore, as “true authors” they were free to choose to use an Aramaic idiom instead of a Greek word for “cousin”.
I think that should just about wrap this up…:tiphat:
B
BrianH
Guest
I will leave this to any readers. I have attempted to steer the discussion to the facts and you have repeatedly returned to how things were said instead of the facts, there was plenty of other people who should have had Mary’s care before John. Yet, Christ did not do this and thus this cannot be used to disprove biological brothers. That is the topic.
I agree but you do not know and neither do I
Wait a minute, what are you doing here? I have argued for this on context.
mere copyists? I do believe every word was inspired by the holy spirit, you better believe it.
Thank you, but no. It is not my work originally. Others have proposed this explanation before me.
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/JESBRS.TXT
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/BROSIS.HTM
biblia.com/encyclopedia/brothers.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0007sbs.asp
Did not see the force of habit argument Randy
This passage agrees with me! Randy, they wrote what God wanted, not because of force of habit.
Just curious, what does the citation mean? dv 11?
- Status