G
Godmachine
Guest
I didn’t say anything about a religious war. I wasn’t thinking about it that way at all. I was thinking more in terms of a clash of cultures, the old “us vs. them” mindset.
- Status
T
Trebor135
Guest
I was under the impression you were arguing that claims to definitive religious truth are best avoided for fear that events akin to 9/11 result. I hence responded by arguing that 9/11 wasn’t fundamentally about Islam taking action to bring the world under its yoke or the like.
My mistake.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Thanks. But that’s our job, of courseInteresting. I have never heard of Collyridianism before. You guys are a treasure trove of info.
We can expect the Baptist pastor you’re dealing with to accuse Catholics at some point of worshipping St. Mary. Tell him about that sect and the fierce opposition it faced from trinity-defending Christians in the fourth century–who esteemed the Mother of God in a special way like Catholics do in the twenty-first century.
Z
zz912
Guest
Well she was very advanced in age as the Bible tells us, and lived in another place entirely. You would need almost explicit evidence to assume they were anything but cousins of some sort.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I have an aunt who moved to a province in northern Luzon in the Philippines. My mom’s family lives in the southern part of Luzon. Their age difference is so that my aunt’s oldest child is older than my mom.
So age and distance doesn’t preclude that they are cousins.
A
adrift
Guest
I have often wondered about this. Seeing your comment made me curious about how the Greek read. I have a program that gives me several translations including the Greek.
As you can see, most the translations including the Greek says kinswoman
The Greek word used is
They did not use the word ksádelfi which is the Greek word for a female cousin. I would disagree that she was clearly referred to as cousin. It is probably more correct to say relative.
T
Trebor135
Guest
I wonder why the Gospel authors didn’t use that word to describe Christ’s “brothers” and “sister” as well…? It would have saved everyone who hold to St. Mary’s perpetual virginity the enormous hassle of demonstrating that Jesus was in fact an only child.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
GodMachine
(1) Mature people take a committed and consistent “trajectory” through the mess of life based mostly on “a high mass of probabilities” (circumstantial scientific evidence if you like)… **People commit themselves to things they feel passionate about, things for which they have a special talent, things they are good at. **
This is commitment? Passion fades or changes fairly readily, self-confidence in personal talent doesn’t keep one warm or safe on dark lonely nights. What happened to other persons or truths and values bigger than ourselves?
(2) It is not possible to live a mature or worthwhile life sitting on the fence until we are knocked off by incontrovertible facts (or even “a high mass of probabilities”). **Why not? Is it not more mature to say “I don’t know” when you really don’t know than to claim some “knowledge” you do not really possess? **
Yes, “average immature” is more mature than “very immature.” A very safe (and hence eventually unsatisfying) ideal indeed. True maturity involves committed action in the face of uncertainty (i.e. accepting that we do not “know” yet bravely acting as if such partial knowledge is well founded because we wish to shape ourselves (and the world) by values we possess within).
I do not intellectually know that my wife will be faithful to me all our married life. Yet that does not stop me from making a commitment to her as if she will and choosing to act as if I did possess that intellectual certainty. Consequently my heart is at peace and my intellect does not grieve. Hence Aquinas states that the certainty of Faith derives not from the intellect (which lives in shadows wrt certainty) but from the committed heart. Prudential, committed action does give certainty - but it is not intellectual.
Similarly Aquinas says Faith is not primarily about the intellectual certainty of the “things” of faith (Resurrection, Transubstantiation, Trinity, Incarnation etc) which doesn’t actually exist. Many Catholics agonise over this – yet it is a mistaken notion. The certainty of faith is not the intellectual certainty that comes from certain knowledge. Do not be hoodwinked by Descartes.
(3) Incontrovertible facts (or “a high mass of probabilities”) (of any importance) very rarely come along and hit us in the face when we were not even looking that way. But when they do…Remember 9/11? Seems to me opposing “incontrovertible facts” had a head on collision that day. It wasn’t pretty.
Can you name exactly what important “incontrovertible fact” you are speaking of? There has already been confusion on this thread over this so it may not be as incontrovertible as you believe.
(4)Certainty will never be found (in important matters) by not making a commitment because there is no significant certainty to start with. What are these “important matters” you are referring to? Belief in a god? What happens when I die?
You tell me? This is an intensely personal question answered differently by each one of us. Does your father really care for you? Does your girlfriend only want you for your money/confidence? Who am I? Will I always feel alone? Will my daemons eventually destroy me and all my relationships? Is there really a god who wants to save me from myself? No intellectual certainty here.
Overall I suppose what I am trying to say is that your take on “Faith” may need more filling out. I am not saying you should have it…I am just wondering if you may be more Catholic than you actually think you are. Catholicism does not primarily give intellectual certainty.
(1) Mature people take a committed and consistent “trajectory” through the mess of life based mostly on “a high mass of probabilities” (circumstantial scientific evidence if you like)… **People commit themselves to things they feel passionate about, things for which they have a special talent, things they are good at. **
This is commitment? Passion fades or changes fairly readily, self-confidence in personal talent doesn’t keep one warm or safe on dark lonely nights. What happened to other persons or truths and values bigger than ourselves?
(2) It is not possible to live a mature or worthwhile life sitting on the fence until we are knocked off by incontrovertible facts (or even “a high mass of probabilities”). **Why not? Is it not more mature to say “I don’t know” when you really don’t know than to claim some “knowledge” you do not really possess? **
Yes, “average immature” is more mature than “very immature.” A very safe (and hence eventually unsatisfying) ideal indeed. True maturity involves committed action in the face of uncertainty (i.e. accepting that we do not “know” yet bravely acting as if such partial knowledge is well founded because we wish to shape ourselves (and the world) by values we possess within).
I do not intellectually know that my wife will be faithful to me all our married life. Yet that does not stop me from making a commitment to her as if she will and choosing to act as if I did possess that intellectual certainty. Consequently my heart is at peace and my intellect does not grieve. Hence Aquinas states that the certainty of Faith derives not from the intellect (which lives in shadows wrt certainty) but from the committed heart. Prudential, committed action does give certainty - but it is not intellectual.
Similarly Aquinas says Faith is not primarily about the intellectual certainty of the “things” of faith (Resurrection, Transubstantiation, Trinity, Incarnation etc) which doesn’t actually exist. Many Catholics agonise over this – yet it is a mistaken notion. The certainty of faith is not the intellectual certainty that comes from certain knowledge. Do not be hoodwinked by Descartes.
(3) Incontrovertible facts (or “a high mass of probabilities”) (of any importance) very rarely come along and hit us in the face when we were not even looking that way. But when they do…Remember 9/11? Seems to me opposing “incontrovertible facts” had a head on collision that day. It wasn’t pretty.
Can you name exactly what important “incontrovertible fact” you are speaking of? There has already been confusion on this thread over this so it may not be as incontrovertible as you believe.
(4)Certainty will never be found (in important matters) by not making a commitment because there is no significant certainty to start with. What are these “important matters” you are referring to? Belief in a god? What happens when I die?
You tell me? This is an intensely personal question answered differently by each one of us. Does your father really care for you? Does your girlfriend only want you for your money/confidence? Who am I? Will I always feel alone? Will my daemons eventually destroy me and all my relationships? Is there really a god who wants to save me from myself? No intellectual certainty here.
Overall I suppose what I am trying to say is that your take on “Faith” may need more filling out. I am not saying you should have it…I am just wondering if you may be more Catholic than you actually think you are. Catholicism does not primarily give intellectual certainty.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Earlier on this page of the thread, I recommended two books written by Michael Scheuer. While “Imperial Hubris” is the correct title of the first one, I misstated the title of the second, which is actually “Marching Toward Hell”.
Happy reading,
T.
Back to our regularly-scheduled thread…
Happy reading,
T.
Back to our regularly-scheduled thread…
J
JK8619
Guest
The only argument anyone can make regarding Jesus’s brothers is if they were half brothers or brothers through his parents marriage. Check out Luke 8:19-21. It is pretty clear that he did have brothers. This and other reasons have made it difficult for me to understand why the church claims the PV of Mary. Another reason is that the most of the Church did not teach this until Rome adopted Christianity. I don’t really want to get into it, but you can look up theories on why beliefs about Mary changed suddenly after Rome adopted Christianity. I still have not heard even a mediocre argument as to why the Church picked up this idea of perpetual virginity. Maybe someone could enlighten me.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
JK
Do you really think that settles it then and that this verse was somehow overlooked by intelligent Churchmen for the last 2000 years or so? When you take the time to look up the reasons why Catholic scholars are not phased by this observation, and when you marshal some reasonable arguments why those arguments have to be wrong…then most of us here will take you seriously on this point.
Again, if you want us to respect your contribution you need to take your own comments seriously. You actually do need to get into it…if you cannot be bothered providing sources/reasoned arguments for these assertions why should anyone be bothered following you on this?
And this is probably the root of your difficulties. Your real objection seems to be that the IDEA just doesn’t appeal to you probably because you believe there are other contrary IDEAs that fit better. The problem with this approach is that reality becomes defined simply by the best fitting IDEA. Therefore less likely, singular or rare historical events will never come up on your radar with any significance.
This approach reminds me of the slippery “weasel” phrase that lawyers use when they try and show something has to be THE cause when in fact it is only a more likely cause amongst possibles. That phrase is “is consistant with.”
This reminds me of a riddle: “What is the difference between truth and fiction?”
The answer being - “only fiction has to make sense!”
This may be your real difficulty!
It is clear, at the level of scholarly exchange, that the Bible remains ambiguous either way on the question of Jesus’s brothers (via Mary). We Catholics, taking tradition and the Magisterium as further sources of truth on this matter, are able to precision further.
If you are not prepared to take those sources on board that is fine - but the more honest position in that case would be to say the matter cannot be conclusively decided either way.
J
JK8619
Guest
I think you are misunderstanding my point. Maybe it wasn’t clear. Some people wrote on this thread that Jesus’s brothers that were named were friends (I’m paraphrasing). This passage shows that at least related to him by Joseph. He was differentiating between his brothers in the traditional sense and his “spiritual” brothers.
I figured the theories about why veneration of Mary became popular after Rome adopted Christianity was common knowledge, so I did not see a reason too expand on it. I was just pointing out a popular belief, not claiming it as my own.
Yeah, I agree that the Bible is ambiguous about that and other details of Christ’s family. I thought it was clear that I meant there was no conclusive evidence either way. Sorry if I wasn’t. I was not taking a position or trying to persuade anyone. I was just hoping that maybe someone knew something different about Jesus’s Brothers that I haven’t heard one hundred times.
Thank you for your comments.
T
Trebor135
Guest
You must be referring to the fairly common Evangelical Protestant argument that pagan practices were adopted into the faith after the legalization of Christianity in the early fourth century, the goal being to make it more appealing to adherents of the former state religion and comparable sects.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Fair enough, looks like I misunderstood you on this point.
Let me try and give you a new angle that it seems you may not have come across before.
There is a third option re Jesus “brothers” (known as the “Jeromian interpretation”) and that is that they are actually relatives on Mary’s side (children from her sister). This actually make’s more sense because “James the brother of the Lord” was said to look exactly like Jesus. As Jesus’s genetic material seems to have come completely from Mary I personally believe this third option (i.e. cousin’s from Mary’s side) to be more likely than your? suggestion above (i.e. half brothers from from Joseph’s side by a previous marriage – known as the “Epiphanian interpretation”).
But let’s get back to the basic scholarly issue - why is the Greek word for “full blood brother” used (adelphos) in the NT instead of the variety of other Greek words that were available (e.g. anepsios for cousin) to better precision the actual relationship (whether it be blood-cousins or legal half-brothers)?
This is actually very interesting … but it will only make obvious sense to Forum readers who are bilingual or have had significant experience of the difficulties involved in learning another language and then trying to translate/express a reality from one culture into the words and customs of another culture.
The basic problem is that the Hebrew language does not distinguish between blood-brother and cousin. Hebrew, in modern linguistic terms, belongs to that class of languages (like modern Asian languages) known as “high context” languages. (German is the very opposite, the language is so clinical and precise that very little context is required to clearly understand what any given stand-alone word means almost exactly). The long and short of this is that the precise meaning of the word can only be finally identified by knowing the context in which it is used. And that context is obvious in a live, oral situation. But for readers of a “dead” written text…well you get the story - sometimes the written context is so barren (or we are so far removed from that culture by time and place) it is impossible to have enough context to fully precision the actual meaning intended.
Cultural customs often differ markedly between languages (which obviously arise from different cultures) so that implictly understood conditions (ie a helpful context) may not be at all obvious even to,say, readers for whom Hebrew is a 2nd learnt (but not lived) language.
Now the problem is this. The New Testament is written in Greek. Greek has very clear and precise words for defining relationship. BUT, if the “translator” (e.g. Luke) “interviewed” or listened to authentic witnesses (or worse still, witnesses of witnesses), or read fragmentary written information, from Jesus’s time then they would be Jews speaking or writing Hebrew (or Aramaic which is a colloquial version of the day). Luke has to translate these ambiguous words into a more exact Greek language.
How would Luke (or previous “scribes” and repeaters of an oral tradition) know which word to use in Greek? At that time noone was particularly interested in Mary’s perpetual virginity either historically or theologically. In fact Luke may not have even known this fact even if true (such a personal thing was probably only well known in the distant Johhanine community of Early Christians and only became common knowledge in later Apostolic times). So there was no real reason for him to make a big deal of being precise re Jesus cousins/brothers – it is just an incidental side detail when he mentions the “brethren.”
Here in NZ the indigenous race (Maori) live a highly communal life with a family’s live in children being highly mixed/borrowed from relatives. So much so that a common greeting may be “where are your cousy-bros?” Persons outside the immediate family in question would have a very hard time indeed sorting out actual, precise blood relationships and degrees.
Further, cultural customs play a part in the way that words get used/defined. Thus the same situation in different cultures may be described by one word - but a literal translation of that word may not be acceptable in another culture. The same held in Judaism - if a relative perpetually lived in your family house - that was enough to give them the full label “brother.” In fact, anyone “on the inside” who lived with the family would be legitimately called brother. So “brother”, by Jewish custom, may not even have to mean “blood brother” either.
Is it at all surprising then to learn that of the four Evangelists Luke is the least Jewish in background? His too precise a use of the Greek word “brother” to translate the ambiguous Jewish word/custom/reality above has already revealed that to sensitive Biblical scholars. In any case, perhaps Luke, as an educated Greek Jew, has made the same typical “mistake” made by Greek translaotors before him of the Old testament…
For it appears that there are examples of such “mistaken” translations of this type already present in the Old Testament (originally written in Hebrew) when it early on got translated into Greek (the Septuagint). For example:
Gen 13:8 Ahraham and Lot, though clearly delinated elsewhere as uncle and nephew, are here called “brothers” in Greek translation.
1Chron 23:22 The Greek word for “brother” is used to translate relatives who are apparantly actually cousins.
The following links may be helpful for interested readers:
campus.udayton.edu/mary/Rossier.html
frtommylane.com/bible/nt/brothers_and_sisters_of_jesus.pdf
T
Trebor135
Guest
PS: I wonder if there are any good refutations of this accusation out there (which could show that the doctrine of St. Mary as ever-virgin isn’t just another pagan borrowing)?
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Yes, if it was commonly known that Mary had other children after Jesus then they couldn’t get away with propagandarising this common pagan myth.
I see nothing intrinsically amiss with “the State” publically politicising, for its own ends, something that was actually true - though a little distasteful yes.
.
L
LilyM
Guest
My view in terms of evidence for Mary’s not having any other children is that it is difficult to make out a case given that Jesus entrusted her to a non-relative - John - to look after at His death.
Why? It would have been an utter insult to any biological children of hers to do so.
Some Protestants have said ‘oh, but Jesus’ other siblings did not believe He was the Messiah’.
a) what does that have to do with their ability and duty to look after her as Jewish custom demanded?
b) what of the fact that one of the Jameses WAS His ‘brother’ (for those who read brother to mean biological sibling)? He certainly was no non-believer. So why not keep everyone happy and entrust her to James instead of John? As if it would even need to be asked of James if he truly were a biological brother of the Lord - it would be expected and done.
The only explanation that makes sense is that
a) James was only a ‘brother’ in the sense that the 120 gathered in the upper room at Pentecost were ‘brothers’. Or that everyone St Paul writes to is a ‘brother’ and
b) Mary had no other biological children.
Why? It would have been an utter insult to any biological children of hers to do so.
Some Protestants have said ‘oh, but Jesus’ other siblings did not believe He was the Messiah’.
a) what does that have to do with their ability and duty to look after her as Jewish custom demanded?
b) what of the fact that one of the Jameses WAS His ‘brother’ (for those who read brother to mean biological sibling)? He certainly was no non-believer. So why not keep everyone happy and entrust her to James instead of John? As if it would even need to be asked of James if he truly were a biological brother of the Lord - it would be expected and done.
The only explanation that makes sense is that
a) James was only a ‘brother’ in the sense that the 120 gathered in the upper room at Pentecost were ‘brothers’. Or that everyone St Paul writes to is a ‘brother’ and
b) Mary had no other biological children.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I find this a highly credible argument.
T
tabycat
Guest
When ever the subject of Jesus’s siblings comes up, anybody who believes and post that they were His biologic siblings, do not answer one little queston: Why are they called a child of Mary (only Jesus is called that)?:bounce:
:knight2::hug3:
:knight2::hug3:
C
CEM5
Guest
Hi JK,
I posted this before elsewhere, and will post it here as well:
In Semetic usage the terms “brother” and “sister” are applied not only to children of the same parents but to nephews, nieces, cousins, half-brothers, and half-sisters. (cf Gn 14:16; 29:15; Lv 10:4) While one cannot suppose that the meaning of a Greek word should be sought in the first place from Semitic usage, the Septuagint often translates the Hebrew ‘ah by the Greek word adelphos, “brother”, as in the cited passages. For ex. there is no doubt that in Mk 6:17 “brother” is used of Philip, who was actually the half-brother of Herod Antipas. Brothers of the Lord: Persons who formed part of Jesus’ entourage. Among them are James, Joseph, Jude and Simon. They are “relatives” of Jesus. For Greek-speaking Semites used the terms adelphos and adelphe not only in the ordinary sense of blood brother and sister but also for close relatives as stated above. (Notes from NAB).
I have studied and read the Bible as well and here is what I have “found”:
James (the Less) and Joses/Joseph are the sons of Mary, the “sister” of Holy mother Mary. This is a relative of Mary’s, not a sister by the same parent. (i.e. a cousin, or aunt). This “Mary” is wed to Clopas. see John 19:25, Lk 24:10, Mk 15:47, Mk 16:1, Matt 27:55,56
Salome and Zebedee are the parents of James and John. These are the “***Sons of ***Thunder”. This John is the Aposte “whom Jesus loved” and gave His mother Mary into John’s care. SALOME is traditionally recognized as the mother of James and John – (The “Sons of Thunder” – Mk 3:17) and would thus be the wife of Zebedee. Compare Matt 27:55, 56 and Mk 15:40
There is another Mary in the N.T. who is the mother of John Mark.
Acts 12:12 RSVA
When he realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. This is, if I recall correctly, the Mark who was the scribe of Peter (for the Gospel of Mark). . This Mark was a cousin – ie: “brother” in the Aramaic language-- of Barnabas: Col 4:10, and accompanied Barnabas and Paul on a missionary journey. See Acts 12:25; 13:3; 15:36-39)
Holy mother Mary’s sister MARY, mother of JAMES (the less) and JOSEPH (also spelled JOSES)
There is more than one name given to the same person in the Bible in many instances.
Simon = Peter.
Saul = Paul.
Joseph = Joses.
Matthew = Levi
Clopas/Cleopas = Alphaeus, which is the Aramaic rendering of the Greek name Clopas) Acts 1:13
James is also called “the younger James” (Mk 15:40) or “James the Less”. This James became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. Also called the “brother of Jesus” – Matt 13:55. (Acts 12:17; see Acts chapters 15 and 21). Mary is the wife of Clopas/Cleopas. (Jn 19:25)
MARY OF MAGDALA/MAGDALENE was healed by Jesus, from whom seven demons were cast out. (Lk 8:2). She is often erroneously depicted as a prostitute and shown as such in most movies. Nowhere in the Bible, or in Church tradition has she been mentioned as such.
SALOME is traditionally recognized as the mother of James and John – (The “Sons of Thunder” – Mk 3:17) and would thus be the wife of Zebedee. Compare Matt 27:55, 56 and Mk 15:40
So, there it is straight from Scripture.
No actual brothers and sisters of Jesus born of Mary. Mary remained ever Virgin.
P.S. NOTE: If, indeed, Mary had other sons, by “Law”, those sons would have been required to care for their mother, Mary. If they didn’t they would have been ostracized by the community and the High Priests and forbidden Temple rites. Since, by traditional teachings, Mary remained a virgin, and Jesus was her only child, she had no other children of her own to care for her. Thus, Jesus, with His dying breath, ensured His mother would be cared for by John, the son of Zebedee and Salome. - Jn 19:26, 27
Blessings,
CEM
- Status