Jesus half bothers

[macaddict]

The bible also refers to Lot and Abram as brothers, but we know that they were in fact cousins. This is another example of how the Aramaic word for brother was also used for cousin because there was no Aramaic word for cousin. The only options were to either use circumlocutions such as, the son of my father’s brother, or to use the word for brother. For more information, read the following articles.

catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
catholic.com/library/Burial_Box_of_St_James_Found.asp

 

[JimO]

Also, take note that Mary (the wife of Clopas) was at the cross with John and Mary (Jesus’ mother). Her presence suggests that she was close to Jesus. She is also mentioned in several other places in the Gospels. As Mary’s sister, her children would have been Jesus’ closest relatives and likely the “brothers” spoken of in this thread, because, as has been pointed out, the only way to differentiate blood brother from cousin in Aramaic would have been to have made a circuitous statement such as, “Judas the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas.” This distinction would not have been made either because at the time, cousins were considered blood kindred and nearly equal to blood siblings in relation.

 

[bengal_fan]

macaddict-:

The bible also refers to Lot and Abram as brothers, but we know that they were in fact cousins.

actually, abraham was lot’s uncle, but we all get your point.

 

[Sherlock]

Bengal fan,

You wrote: “again (how many times do i have to say this before people stop automatically attacking what i say?) i did not say i believed this argument, i was just presenting it.”

How does one not “attack” what you are saying, as distinct from you “just presenting it”? I have never said that you DID believe the argument you present—I am responding to the argument, not your beliefs, as I have no idea what they are.

You wrote: “if this was being debated in the fourth century, then it is not as clear cut as the cc (sorry for including the r for roman before even thought it is the catholic church centered in rome hence the roman catholic church) makes it out to be.”

Lots of things have been debated that we accept as doctrine: the fact that others thought or think differently doesn’t bear on the truth of the doctrine, though it certainly is of historical interest. For example, Christians believe that Jesus was God: however, just look at the Arian heresy in the second century. Lots of debate over that particular item at the time…Are you saying that the Catholic Church claims that there was never any debate on doctrinal matters? If so, what are your sources for this claim?

Thank you for dropping the “r”. Again, the Western or “Roman” rite is only one of several rites, and the proper term is just the Catholic Church. It’s true that the Vatican is in Rome, but when you say “Catholic Church”, that is already implied.

 

[Salmon]

bengal fan,
Thank you for the “walking on eggshells” approach you bring with your questions.

I agree 100% with your observation that since the debae has been ongoing for (over) 16 centuries, the issue is not so clearly defned in scripture.

bengal fan:

that was my point. we trust the church’s interpretation of these passages and historical tradition to get the doctrines.

You nailed it right there. It’s always about authority, and that’s why there will always be those who disagree.

Some of my favorite quotes on this issue:

Luther:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God’s grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {“Little”} Prayer Book, 1522).

Zwingli:

I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary …; Christ … was born of a most undefiled Virgin. (Stakemeier, E. in De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, Balic, K., ed., Rome, 1962, p. 456.) The more the honor and love for Christ grows among men, the more esteem and honor for Mary grows, for she brought forth for us so great, but so compassionate a Lord and Redeemer. (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, pp. 427-428.)

John Wesley:

I believe… he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. (“Letter to a Roman Catholic,” quoted in A. C. Coulter, John Wesley, New York: Oxford University Press, 1964, 495}

How far has Protestantism drifted in 500 years? How much farther will it continue to drift?

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[bengal_fan]

sherlock,
i didn’t say the catholic church says people don’t dissent, my point is that there has been dissension from the start which means that everything isn’t as black and white and we must know the arguments on the other side as well. i know that you know this, i just want you to know that i know that you know (or something like that…lol)

salmon,
great quotes. thanks for sharing them, and yes i sometimes wonder how some protestants justify what they believe. (although the sedevacantists would think the same of most catholics today…lol)

 

[Sherlock]

Bengal,

Oh, now I know that you know that I know, all is clear, don’t you know! Heh heh…

Anyway, I agree—it is very important to know what various arguments against doctrine were and are. One of the reasons I admire Aquinas (beyond the obvious one, that he was very smart and I’m not) is that he presents arguments in his Summa and then addresses them very specifically and methodically. It’s an example we can all profit by, although I doubt that many of us share his intellectual capabilities.

Yours in Christ,

Sherlock