B
BartholomewB
Guest
He certainly does, but the expression “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used by the author of the Fourth Gospel, not by Jesus. We never hear Jesus call him that, do we?
- Status
R
rstrats
Guest
BartholomewB,
re: “He certainly does, but the expression ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is used by the author of the Fourth Gospel, not by Jesus.”
Sorry, I’m old, I temporarily mixed up who was saying what.
re: “He certainly does, but the expression ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ is used by the author of the Fourth Gospel, not by Jesus.”
Sorry, I’m old, I temporarily mixed up who was saying what.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Wait a minute. Are you really suggesting that there’s no good reason to posit that the beloved disciple wasn’t born of the womb of the Blessed Mother? Seriously?
OK then, riddle me this: suppose you and I are brothers of the same mother. As I lay dying in my hospital bed, I say to you “behold your mother” and to our Mom “behold your son”. You mean you wouldn’t look at me and be all “umm… dude? Yeah – she’s our Mom. I already know that. I’ve known it all my life. But… uhh… thanks for reminding me!”
C’mon. That just doesn’t make any sense!
J
JohnR77
Guest
The Bible refers to John’s mother Salome as being Mary’s sister.
See website below.
Actually she was her cousin by our terminology
Therefore john was a close relative of Jesus.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/brothers.html
.
.
See website below.
Actually she was her cousin by our terminology
Therefore john was a close relative of Jesus.
http://www.defendingthebride.com/ma2/brothers.html
.
.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Again, which John? The Beloved Disciple?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
@JohnR77, let me ask you a question about John 19:25.
Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.
In your view, how many women are standing by the Cross, in this verse? Three or four?
Either:
(1) His mother
(2) His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas
(3) Mary of Magdala
Or:
(1) His mother
(2) His mother’s sister
(3) Mary the wife of Clopas
(4) Mary of Magdala
Last edited:
J
JohnR77
Guest
I already answered this question on the website I referenced above
J
JohnR77
Guest
See the yellow Box at the above website I referenced and the supporting data blow that .
I cannot reproduce that here by using my cell phone
I cannot reproduce that here by using my cell phone
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Is Defending the Bride your website? I didn’t know that.
Yes, I see that your answer is four, and that you identify “his mother’s sister” (“sister” here meaning “cousin”) as Salome, Zebedee’s wife. Your diagram showing the family tree lists your sources as follows:
(Nicephorus Callistus [Historia ecclesiastica, 2.3. PG 145.760, A translation from Charles Wheatly, A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer , 1794, p. 63.] Also see Hippolytus of Thebes, [Migne’s Patrologia Graeca PG 117,] Andrew of Crete, Epiphanius Monachus, and Andronicus)
May I ask which of these sources explicitly states the precise degree of kinship between Salome and Mary? And a follow-up question. How can you be certain that the information is correct?
Yes, I see that your answer is four, and that you identify “his mother’s sister” (“sister” here meaning “cousin”) as Salome, Zebedee’s wife. Your diagram showing the family tree lists your sources as follows:
(Nicephorus Callistus [Historia ecclesiastica, 2.3. PG 145.760, A translation from Charles Wheatly, A Rational Illustration of the Book of Common Prayer , 1794, p. 63.] Also see Hippolytus of Thebes, [Migne’s Patrologia Graeca PG 117,] Andrew of Crete, Epiphanius Monachus, and Andronicus)
May I ask which of these sources explicitly states the precise degree of kinship between Salome and Mary? And a follow-up question. How can you be certain that the information is correct?
B
BartholomewB
Guest
@JohnR77, what follows is a brief excerpt – just thirteen lines on p. 12 – from Richard Bauckham’s book, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church. I haven’t read the whole book. I’ve only dipped into it. But what he says here about the Salome named in Mark 15:49-41 is relevant to the question we are dealing with on this thread.
- Salome appears only in Mark, though she is prominent in some extracanonical Gospel traditions (GThom 61; I ApJas 40:25; Secret Gospel of Mark 5; Clement of Alexandria, Str. 3:45, 63, 64, 66; Exc. ex Theod. 67; Pistis Sophia). But evidently she was not well-known in Matthew’s church, and so he drops her name and at 27:56 substitutes ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee’, who had already appeared in his Gospel (but nowhere else in the Gospel traditions) at 20:20. He cannot have thought that Mark’s Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, because at 28:1 he simply drops Salome from Mark’s list of women at the tomb, without substituting the mother of the sons of Zebedee, as he would surely have done had he thought she was Salome.
- 18 The threefold identification—Salome (Mark 15:40) = the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Matt 27:56) = the sister of Jesus’ mother (John 19:25)—is made by Zahn (1900) 341; others listed in Oberlinner (1975) 125 n. 395; Wenham (1975) 10-11.
Here are your exact words on the page you linked to.
However, we know that Mary and Salome were cousins (see family tree below) so this is an example of “adelphos” (actually, the feminine version of the word in this case), being used with a wider definition than just children from the same womb.
Last edited:
R
rstrats
Guest
Gorgias,
re: “C’mon. That just doesn’t make any sense!”
I guess it’s settled then; there is no possible way that the beloved disciple could have been a biological son of Mary. However, my original point was that scripture never refers to the beloved disciple as John or by any other given name for that matter.
re: “C’mon. That just doesn’t make any sense!”
I guess it’s settled then; there is no possible way that the beloved disciple could have been a biological son of Mary. However, my original point was that scripture never refers to the beloved disciple as John or by any other given name for that matter.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Lost4words . . .
Tell the objectors . . .
Think about it. Hebrew culture called all male relatives “brothers”.
The ancient Jews didn’t even have a WORD for “cousins”!
There are Greek words, but WHY should a writer (like St. Mark) or a later translator CHANGE the word AWAY from what was actually said? They shouldn’t.
If the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children, you would have expected St. Mark’s Gospel to say . . .
Mark 6:3 is no exception.
OK.
Tell the objectors . . .
Think about it. Hebrew culture called all male relatives “brothers”.
The ancient Jews didn’t even have a WORD for “cousins”!
There are Greek words, but WHY should a writer (like St. Mark) or a later translator CHANGE the word AWAY from what was actually said? They shouldn’t.
If the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children, you would have expected St. Mark’s Gospel to say . . .
Not this . . .
Every argument against the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, has a strong refutation in my opinion. Every last one.
Mark 6:3 is no exception.
Last edited:
C
CaptFun
Guest
The people quoted in Mark 6:3 we’re in the process of dismissing, not believing in Jesus. They were wrong technically in their facts, basing them on appearances.
Unless God the Father and the Holy Spirit again joined with Mary … and they didn’t, Jesus was God’s only begotten son … Jesus had no brothers (full brothers, same two parents).
Half siblings would be called brothers and sisters but actually would not be.
The utz of pointing to these things “in scripture” is for some to try to “disprove” the Church teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Fail.
If it further helps, St. Paul refers to one of the two Apostles named James as “brother of the Lord”.
One James was the son of Zebedee and a woman who asked Jesus to favor her son’s John and James.
The other James is called the son of Alpheus or Clopas or Cleopas. Scripture also lists Levi, later renamed Matthew as a son of Alpheus.
Quoting doubters of Jesus “in scripture” doesn’t make their recorded erroneous presumptions about Jesus TRUE just because their voiced doubts are recorded IN scripture.
Those who initially put this forth as a proof text probably did so long after the Church was begun.
Imprecision aside, it seems to come from bad motives more than serious inquiry. Although there is JUST enough there to cause Satan to tempt good believers to doubt the Church … much as these “followers” of Jesus began to doubt HIM based on some shallow, cursory information they accepted without scrutinizing it in a humble seek and you shall find way (enlightened by the Holy Spirit).
Unless God the Father and the Holy Spirit again joined with Mary … and they didn’t, Jesus was God’s only begotten son … Jesus had no brothers (full brothers, same two parents).
Half siblings would be called brothers and sisters but actually would not be.
The utz of pointing to these things “in scripture” is for some to try to “disprove” the Church teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity. Fail.
If it further helps, St. Paul refers to one of the two Apostles named James as “brother of the Lord”.
One James was the son of Zebedee and a woman who asked Jesus to favor her son’s John and James.
The other James is called the son of Alpheus or Clopas or Cleopas. Scripture also lists Levi, later renamed Matthew as a son of Alpheus.
Quoting doubters of Jesus “in scripture” doesn’t make their recorded erroneous presumptions about Jesus TRUE just because their voiced doubts are recorded IN scripture.
Those who initially put this forth as a proof text probably did so long after the Church was begun.
Imprecision aside, it seems to come from bad motives more than serious inquiry. Although there is JUST enough there to cause Satan to tempt good believers to doubt the Church … much as these “followers” of Jesus began to doubt HIM based on some shallow, cursory information they accepted without scrutinizing it in a humble seek and you shall find way (enlightened by the Holy Spirit).
J
JohnR77
Guest
.
Sorry this has taken me so long. My time is very limited and I had to do some research. So, I checked my Bible notes at John 19, and in the left hand bottom corner I read my handwritten notes affirming that :
Yes, John the Apostle, the Beloved Disciple, was at the cross.
Therefore, we can safely and reasonably conclude that the Beloved Disciple at the cross was John the Apostle.
I am glad to get that question answered.
I hope that helps,
John
Bible notes
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, hang on a second. IIRC, the identity of “the Beloved Disciple” is contested, and not clearly known. But you’re asserting that he was definitively one of the “Sons of Thunder”?
J
JohnR77
Guest
Yes. That is my position
G
Gorgias
Guest
This I know. I’m asking whether it isn’t true that this is a position that is contested by scholars.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I have an idea you never read my earlier reply to you on this subject, posted on Aug. 7 at 2:10 p.m. PDT.
Last edited:
J
JohnR77
Guest
Hi. I definitely did read it. I’m not sure if I will have the time to explain why I consider your arguments inadequate.
I’m sorry that I did not include your entire " quotation. Posting using my cell phone has limitations
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Yep, I think you and I are on the same page. It’ll be a shame if @JohnR77 makes such a strongly worded assertion and then “doesn’t have time” to back it up.
- Status