J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Like you are ruling out they are the same dude?
- Status
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
How does that answer my question?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Why should it be answered?Julius_Caesar:
How does that answer my question?
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
You’re beating around the bush.
Last edited:
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
There is also the possibility that Alphaeus was a widower when he married the mother of James the Less so Matthew was only half brother.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Your question is pointless.Julius_Caesar:
You’re beating around the bush.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
Either you have an answer or you don’t.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Or you could simply ask meaningful questions. :man_shrugging:t6:Julius_Caesar:
Either you have an answer or you don’t.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
How is my question not meaningful? Or, is that just the excuse you use when you don’t have a good answer?
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
“What’s their reason for ruling out so and so?”
When we’re talking of possiblities, yes, it’s irrelevant.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
I was being generous by even assuming the Eastern Orthodox considered the possibility more than one man named “Alphaeus” existed, or any other possibility prior to concluding St. Matthew is brother to Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas, solely based on the fact his father is named “Alphaeus” as well. And, it’s unknown to me whether or not my assumption is fact. And, if it’s, perhaps the Eastern Orthodox’s reason(s) for ruling out more than one man named “Alphaeus” existed is insufficient, and thus it becomes a possibility once again. Therefore, my question is relevant, and whether you agree or not with that is irrelevant, because you either have an answer, or you don’t. And, seeing as how you continue to beat around the bush, it appears you don’t.
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
And you may as well do some research before asking questions that are hinged on assumptions more than curiosity.
Like how James and Joseph and Simon and Jude are Jesus’ stepbrothers instead of cousins.
So it’s you who beats around the proverbial bush.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
In further regard to your claim the Eastern Orthodox concluded St. Matthew is brother to Simon, Joseph, St. James, and St. Judas of Alphaeus based on St. Matthew’s father named “Alphaeus” as well, did they just assume both Alphaeus’s are one and the same? If not, what is the basis for their conclusion?Julius_Caesar:
I was being generous by even assuming the Eastern Orthodox considered the possibility more than one man named “Alphaeus” existed, or any other possibility prior to concluding St. Matthew is brother to Simon, Joseph, St. James, and St. Judas of Alphaeus, based on St. Matthew’s father named “Alphaeus” as well. And, it’s unknown to me whether or not my assumption is fact. And, if it’s, perhaps the Eastern Orthodox’s reason(s) for ruling out more than one man named “Alphaeus” existed is insufficient, and thus it becomes a possibility once again. Therefore, my question is relevant, and whether you agree or not with that is irrelevant, because you either have an answer, or you don’t. And, seeing as how you continue to beat around the bush, it appears you don’t.
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
The four mentioned are sons of Joseph father of Christ.
H
hope
Guest
How did you come to this conclusion?Lunam_Meam:
The four mentioned are sons of Joseph father of Christ.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
Two of the four are St. James and St. Judas of Alphaeus (Mat. 10:2-3, Lk. 6:15-16, Act. 1:13). The third, Joseph, is identified in Mk. 15:40 as the brother of St. James. The fourth, Simon, is identified in Mat. 13:55 and Mk. 6:3 as the brother of Joseph, St. James, and St. Judas. Therefore, all four are the sons of Alphaeus, not St. Joseph.
Now, in Mk. 15:40 two of the four are mentioned, St. James and Joseph, and their mother is named “Mary”, and if you see Jn. 19:25, three women named “Mary” were present at the cross: the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mary of Cleophas (identified as the sister of the Blessed Virgin), and Mary Magdalene. The name “Cleophas” is understood by some to be a variant of the name “Alphaeus”. If so, it would make Mary of Cleophas a sister-in-law to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and mean St. Joseph and Alphaeus are brothers, and thus Alphaeus’s sons are Jesus’s cousins.
Back to the point, you claimed according to the Eastern Orthodox St. Matthew is the brother of St. James of Alphaeus, based on St. Matthew’s father named “Alphaeus” as well. So, again, did they just assume both Alphaeus’s are one and the same? If not, what is the basis for their conclusion?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
All four names were common.
And the only sons of Alphaeus we know of are James the Less and Joses along with Matthew.
James the Just, Simon, Joseph and Judas are sons of Joseph from a previous marriage.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
I cited the verses that link Simon, Joseph, and St. Judas as the brothers of St. James of Alphaeus, but lets not continue to stray from the point, which is you claimed according to the Eastern Orthodox St. Matthew is the brother of St. James of Alphaeus, based on St. Matthew’s father named “Alphaeus” as well. So, again, did they just assume both Alphaeus’s are one and the same? If not, what is the basis for their conclusion?
Last edited:
J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Nope. You cited an Interpretation of the verse which in of itself proves nothing.
Like you do with Mary’s father and making him into Heli.
L
Lunam_Meam
Guest
@Julius_Caesar, you claimed according to the Eastern Orthodox St. Matthew is the brother of St. James of Alphaeus, based on St. Matthew’s father named “Alphaeus” as well. So, again, did they just assume both Alphaeus’s are one and the same? If not, what is the basis for their conclusion?
Last edited:
- Status