Mark: True Family of Jesus

[friardchips]

I’m not: I’m saying that your personal interpretation, which you’re forcing on the text, leads to an internal contradiction; which is why your interpretation doesn’t work well here.

You’re missing a third possibility: your interpretation is deficient, and I’m simply trying to demonstrate this to you.

No – the word ‘relatives’ was not used at all! Rather, the translators understood, from the Greek phrase used, that ‘relatives’ were what was meant. Your whole interpretation hinges on a (perceived) difference between ‘relatives’ and ‘mother/brothers’ – and that word ‘relatives’ isn’t even in the text itself. Your interpretation is on shaky ground from the very beginning – since you are basing your interpretation on a target language and not the source language.

You’re making far too much of this, and drawing a meaning that simply is not present in the text.

This is another rough spot in your exegesis: in this passage, the disciples of Jesus are already inside, and his “brothers” are outside. If you want to claim that the passage is about His ‘brothers’ being His disciples… then you need to deal with the fact that the apostles and His followers are distinct and different from His ‘brothers’ who are outside.

Of course she is. That’s why I claim that the point of the passage isn’t that Jesus is rebuking His mother (as some non-Catholic Christians sometimes claim), but that He is rebuking His disciples who presume that family ties trump discipleship.

And yet, that’s the translation.

Immaterial. The action of the first part of the passage is continued in the third. To claim that these are different people is simply illogical.

That’s a rather strange assertion. Have you not read Luke 2 – the story of the finding of Jesus in the temple? Mary chides Jesus for what he’s done to them – causing them untold anxiety; Jesus responds that Mary does not understand that He must be in His Father’s house. If nothing else, it shows that Mary grew in her understanding of Jesus’ mission. I’ll point you to the fact that we’re discussing only the third chapter of Mark: asserting that Mary is growing in her knowledge is not a knock against her sinlessness or trust – it simply demonstrates that she was not gifted with infused knowledge. Don’t worry, friar – you won’t be betraying your Catholic identity by admitting this is true.

First, my name is not friar, it is friardchips.

And it is not about ‘admitting’ anything but rather acknowledging that we do not agree.

It is true that Our Lady ‘pondered these things in her heart’.

But as is pointed out in Catholic teaching, this pondering was not a mistrusting pondering, but a trustful and faith-filled pondering. Think: looking back over the Scriptures, and being filled with insight.

What insight is there for Our Lady to be rebuffed. What nonsense. Obviously our Lord is going to finish his discourse first, albeit promptly, before seeing to his disciples. In fact, I think this news of their arrival brings joy to His ears, and as a reaction, makes a wonderful exclamation for all people. You have read too many negative interpretations. Your reading of the passages needs to be read with more joy!

Nevertheless, I understand your point, although I cannot agree. Actually, Bible translations are saying ‘relatives’. But whether or not the original text in Greek is ‘relatives’ or simply ‘belonging to’ or ‘near to’ - which actually does your counter-argument no justice and actually places it on even shakier ground - the underlying factor is that ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ are not mentioned in the first text.

There is no sliding around this point.

Second, your reasoning that the answer is in the text itself, in the third, because the ‘brothers’ were “outside the tent”, is self-contradictory anyway, because we both know that the triplet is not solved by looking at any one of the accounts on their own. By you suggesting this, you are saying that this third of the triplet answers itself, when we know it doesn’t.

So all of your hypothesis is based on assumptions.

Mine, are based on exact analysis of what is written in the text, in the entirety of what we understand from a Christological perspective.

 

[Gorgias]

And it is not about ‘admitting’ anything but rather acknowledging that we do not agree.

Clearly, we do not agree. :sad_yes:

What insight is there for Our Lady to be rebuffed. What nonsense. Obviously our Lord is going to finish his discourse first, albeit promptly, before seeing to his disciples.

This is precisely the point you fail to acknowledge: He’s already in the presence of His disciples.

But whether or not the original text in Greek is ‘relatives’ or simply ‘belonging to’ or ‘near to’ - which actually does your counter-argument no justice and actually places it on even shakier ground

I disagree. Yet, we’ve already established that.

the underlying factor is that ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ are not mentioned in the first text.

So, who’s coming to see Him, in that first piece of the passage? Someone who never gets referenced again? Is Mark leaving that first piece hanging, never to be resolved? Or, as you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, has Mark explicitly returned to that first piece, by telling us exactly who “those near him” are, in the third part? You have your interpretation, which seems to fear that the two parts are linked.

Second, your reasoning that the answer is in the text itself, in the third, because the ‘brothers’ were “outside the tent”, is self-contradictory anyway, because we both know that the triplet is not solved by looking at any one of the accounts on their own.

That’s a inexplicably weak retort: we don’t need to look outside of the third part to answer the question “who is inside with Jesus and who is outside?” – these verses explicitly answer the question for us! The followers of Jesus (including His apostles) are inside, and His ‘mother and brothers’ are outside. There’s no ‘solving’ that’s required: the answer is explicitly found in the text.

So all of your hypothesis is based on assumptions.

The assumption that one might read and comprehend? Yes… it’s based on that assumption.

We seem to be at loggerheads. Peace, brother, and may the Holy Spirit guide your understanding of Scripture.

 

[friardchips]

edited

 

[friardchips]

So, who’s coming to see Him, in that first piece of the passage? Someone who never gets referenced again? Is Mark leaving that first piece hanging, never to be resolved? Or, as you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge, has Mark explicitly returned to that first piece, by telling us exactly who “those near him” are, in the third part? You have your interpretation, which seems to fear that the two parts are linked.

By your interpretation, if you are saying that ‘those near him’ is to be linked with the third,
then we have to look at the exact usage of the phrase ‘those near him’ - ‘those near Him’ in the first, to be linked with the third, have to be ‘near’ close proximity-wise, only, because those in the tent are the closest proximity-wise…

His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ are not the closest proximity-wise in the third and so there is no direct link with those ‘near to Him’ in the first.

If you are saying that those closest to Him means relatives, in the first, and you say this links with the third, then the only direct link, is with those ‘closest’ in the third who are in the tent. The mother and brothers are not linked.

If ‘relatives’ and ‘disciples’ are used in any way at all as a contrast, it is to show that 'mother’s and ‘brothers’ are unlike His other relatives. You will see why now:

His ‘brothers’ are not ‘relatives’ - the word used for translating - as He has no blood brothers, and so ‘relatives’ in the first cannot mean to include ‘brothers’, as used in the third. That’s right: ‘relatives’ could not include ‘brothers’ because He had no blood-brothers. And His ‘mother’ was with His ‘brothers’ not relatives.

…‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ were not mentioned in the first.

‘Brothers’ as used in the NT means ‘disciples’.

There is no direct link with ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ in the third to those ‘near to’ in the first. As said. The only link is between those in the tent, in the third, with those non-immediate family relatives in the first, and a link also, which depicts our Lord saying, that along with His ‘mother’ and 'disciples’ outside, these people in the tent could also be family, as opposed to those relatives in the first who gossip and show mistrust; or even, He is just saying they could be family unlike those ‘distant’ relatives in the first - the direct link with those people in the tent. ‘Mother’ and ‘brothers’ were used as an example of real ‘family’ because they turned up for the end of His discourse before He no doubt went to greet them.

Thanks for the dialogue.

 

[Gorgias]

By your interpretation, if you are saying that ‘those near him’ is to be linked with the third,
then we have to look at the exact usage of the phrase ‘those near him’ - ‘those near Him’ in the first, to be linked with the third, have to be ‘near’ close proximity-wise, only, because those in the tent are the closest proximity-wise…

No; this would only hold up if the word here explicitly meant ‘physical proximity’ and could only take on this meaning. It does not. It is the Greek word παρά (‘para’), and its meaning depends on how it is used in context: in particular, it’s important to notice whether it’s used with a verb and if so, what kind of verb; it’s important to notice what case the object of this preposition takes (genitive, dative, accusative), all of which shade the meaning. In this case, *παρά *takes on the meaning of relational closeness. Some translators render this as “those near him”, while others give “those belonging to him”; it’s not physical proximity they’re talking about, it’s the relationship. Thus, from this meaning, we extract the meaning that it’s the relatives – those relationally closest to Jesus – that are being referenced here.

His ‘brothers’ are not ‘relatives’ - the word used for translating - as He has no blood brothers, and so ‘relatives’ in the first cannot mean to include ‘brothers’, as used in the third. That’s right: ‘relatives’ could not include ‘brothers’ because He had no blood-brothers.

I’m quite confused how you can assert this. The use of the term ‘brother’ in the Bible is quite broad: sometimes it refers to siblings – those who share the same biological parents; sometimes it refers to those whose parents are siblings (i.e., first cousins); sometimes it refers to those who share other family relationships; and still sometimes it refers to those who aren’t physically related, but who share a spiritual relationship. ‘Relatives’ could easily fit into these categories.

‘Brothers’ as used in the NT means ‘disciples’.

Not always. Do you need counter-examples?

Thanks for the dialogue.

Thank you, too! We clearly disagree on the way we understand New Testament Greek, and the extent to which we’re willing to create our own personal interpretation of the text, in contrast to the interpretation of the Church and of scholars.

May you reach a fuller understanding of the Word of God.

 

[friardchips]

No; this would only hold up if the word here explicitly meant ‘physical proximity’ and could only take on this meaning. It does not. It is the Greek word παρά (‘para’), and its meaning depends on how it is used in context: in particular, it’s important to notice whether it’s used with a verb and if so, what kind of verb; it’s important to notice what case the object of this preposition takes (genitive, dative, accusative), all of which shade the meaning. In this case, *παρά *takes on the meaning of relational closeness. Some translators render this as “those near him”, while others give “those belonging to him”; it’s not physical proximity they’re talking about, it’s the relationship. Thus, from this meaning, we extract the meaning that it’s the relatives – those relationally closest to Jesus – that are being referenced here.

I’m quite confused how you can assert this. The use of the term ‘brother’ in the Bible is quite broad: sometimes it refers to siblings – those who share the same biological parents; sometimes it refers to those whose parents are siblings (i.e., first cousins); sometimes it refers to those who share other family relationships; and still sometimes it refers to those who aren’t physically related, but who share a spiritual relationship. ‘Relatives’ could easily fit into these categories.

Not always. Do you need counter-examples?

Thank you, too! We clearly disagree on the way we understand New Testament Greek, and the extent to which we’re willing to create our own personal interpretation of the text, in contrast to the interpretation of the Church and of scholars.

May you reach a fuller understanding of the Word of God.

This fails to answer any of my points which I am wondering might be intentional as it is so blatent.

You are wrong about the reasoning behind ‘brothers’. Now, I take your point about relational closeness, except that:…

JESUS HAD NO BLOOD-BROTHERS!

And so, quite simply put, brothers could not mean ‘relatives’.

So relatives have to be referring to non-immediate family. Cousins, aunties etc…

And no, when the Bible talks about ‘brothers’ it means ‘disciples’. Because JESUS HAD NO BLOOD-BROTHERS.

AND…‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ were not mentioned in the first of the triplet; so no matter how much you argue, you cannot change the text that is there.

To assert a definite link between ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ with different title used earlier is assumption, and not explicit reasoning.

Both these points are not arguable, hence why I said that even scholars are often wrong about this. Modern apologists are two-to-a-dozen and not all are correct - many overlook more concise reasoning. You seem to be believing them without properly looking at the words. And I (suspect) that their reasons for doing so are the same as yours: which you gave away when you blurted out: "So… you’re saying that the meaning of Jesus’ words is that Mary exalted and the rest of us are out of luck?".



Are the titles MOTHER or BROTHERS used in the first triplet?



Did the Son have any BLOOD-BROTHERS?



And by the way, we DON’T need to start analysing all the complications over a Greek word because this has been done for us if we trust our interpretations of those words already carried out by the time you buy a decent Bible (as mine is): the word closest to the Greek is ‘relatives’, ruling out His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’.

Time to hang up the hang up!

 

[Gorgias]

You are wrong about the reasoning behind ‘brothers’.

Freely asserted, freely denied.

JESUS HAD NO BLOOD-BROTHERS!

And so, quite simply put, brothers could not mean ‘relatives’.

Huh? OK… but ‘relatives’ can mean ‘brothers’. The ‘relatives’ of the first part of the narrative could easily be the ‘brothers’ of the third.

And no, when the Bible talks about ‘brothers’ it means ‘disciples’.

Genesis 14:14 says “ἀκούσας δὲ Αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται Λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ”. That is, 'when Abram heard that Lot his brother was taken prisoner". Lot was Abram’s nephew. Here, ‘brothers’ doesn’t mean ‘disciples’, it means the relationship between an uncle and his nephew.

Mark 3:17 says “καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου”. That is, ‘and to James the son of Zebedee and John his brother’. Here, ‘brothers’ doesn’t mean ‘disciples’, it means men who have the same father – that is, siblings.

So, sad to say, you’re mistaken: when the Bible says ‘brothers’, you cannot presume that it means ‘disciples’. As I’ve mentioned, there is a range of meanings for that word.

AND…‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ were not mentioned in the first of the triplet; so no matter how much you argue, you cannot change the text that is there.

That doesn’t prove your case, though.

To assert a definite link between ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ with different title used earlier is assumption, and not explicit reasoning.

It’s an assumption that exegetes agree upon. Can you cite anyone who makes the case you’re making here… or are you relying on your opinion only?

Both these points are not arguable, hence why I said that even scholars are often wrong about this. Modern apologists are two-to-a-dozen and not all are correct - many overlook more concise reasoning.

Scholars are wrong; apologists are incorrect… are you the only reader of this text who knows the truth?

You seem to be believing them without properly looking at the words.

If you say so. I think I’ve demonstrated rather amply that I understand not only the words in the Greek but also what they mean.

And I (suspect) that their reasons for doing so are the same as yours: which you gave away when you blurted out: "So… you’re saying that the meaning of Jesus’ words is that Mary exalted and the rest of us are out of luck?".

I have no idea what that means. What ‘reasons’ are you accusing me of?

Are the titles MOTHER or BROTHERS used in the first triplet?

Irrelevant.

Did the Son have any BLOOD-BROTHERS?

Irrelevant.

And by the way, we DON’T need to start analysing all the complications over a Greek word because this has been done for us if we trust our interpretations of those words already carried out by the time you buy a decent Bible (as mine is): the word closest to the Greek is ‘relatives’, ruling out His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’.

The ‘word’ isn’t “relatives”, although the translation is thus rendered. Moreover, ‘relatives’ does not rule out ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’, no matter how many times you say so. I would ask you to provide a Scriptural citation that proves your case, but it’s fruitless: the literal word ‘relatives’ isn’t here, so any example you provided of the word ‘relatives’ wouldn’t be relevant. On the other hand, perhaps you might attempt to prove your case by demonstrating – with textual support – that οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ can never imply ‘mother’ or ‘brothers’? (You won’t be able to do it, BTW, since I can provide a counter-example to which I earlier alluded: in Daniel 13:30, we see Susanna coming out with her parents, who are later referred to in v33 with the same construction as we see in Mark. Therefore, parents can be referred to by this construction; your assertion fails. )

Time to hang up the hang up!

I agree; you should. :sad_yes:

 

[friardchips]

Freely asserted, freely denied.

Thought as much.

Huh? OK… but ‘relatives’ can mean ‘brothers’. The ‘relatives’ of the first part of the narrative could easily be the ‘brothers’ of the third.

Genesis 14:14 says “ἀκούσας δὲ Αβραμ ὅτι ᾐχμαλώτευται Λωτ ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ”. That is, 'when Abram heard that Lot his brother was taken prisoner". Lot was Abram’s nephew. Here, ‘brothers’ doesn’t mean ‘disciples’, it means the relationship between an uncle and his nephew.

Mark 3:17 says “καὶ Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Ἰακώβου”. That is, ‘and to James the son of Zebedee and John his brother’. Here, ‘brothers’ doesn’t mean ‘disciples’, it means men who have the same father – that is, siblings.

Maybe I am being to hard on you as it might just be that you don’t understand what I am saying. I’ll try again as your example here helps to prove what I mean.

In the first example you have provided, according to your resources and translation, there were no disciples, as such. Our Lord had not been born yet.

In the second example, a more closely related one, because it is an example in the NT, ‘brothers’ means BLOOD BROTHERS.

And so, ‘brothers’ means disciples’ in the triplet because ‘brothers’ as the alternative is not possible - Our Lord had no blood-brothers and so can only mean ‘disciples’.

You cannot say that ‘brothers’ means blood-brothers in that passage of Mark we have been discussing because Our Lord has not blood-brothers.

So, sad to say, you’re mistaken: when the Bible says ‘brothers’, you cannot presume that it means ‘disciples’. As I’ve mentioned, there is a range of meanings for that word.

So, as I just showed you, and you have hopefully understood this time, ‘brothers’ cannot mean blood-relatives. Not with the examples you have provided.

It’s an assumption that exegetes agree upon. Can you cite anyone who makes the case you’re making here… or are you relying on your opinion only?

Not opinion; reasoning.

Scholars are wrong; apologists are incorrect… are you the only reader of this text who knows the truth?

The resources I have used are used in Theology study: one says that there are alternative possibilities; another says that the passage is purposefully ambiguous; my CTS Bible says that the best translation is ‘relatives’ but then says it is Our Lord’s closest family, which I am indeed arguing against because I can see faulty reasoning.

If you say so. I think I’ve demonstrated rather amply that I understand not only the words in the Greek but also what they mean.

I’ll go back and look at the Greek you’ve provided.

I have no idea what that means. What ‘reasons’ are you accusing me of?

I am not “accusing”. But you clearly exposed some form of inner frustration towards Our Lady’s position of discipleship. And I think that this is often the case were people believe in the notion of Scripture Alone. Failing to see that exegesis has to see the whole, not just little bits, here and there. There has to be consistency and unity - maybe the true message behind that triplet.

The ‘word’ isn’t “relatives”, although the translation is thus rendered. Moreover, ‘relatives’ does not rule out ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’, no matter how many times you say so. I would ask you to provide a Scriptural citation that proves your case, but it’s fruitless: the literal word ‘relatives’ isn’t here, so any example you provided of the word ‘relatives’ wouldn’t be relevant. On the other hand, perhaps you might attempt to prove your case by demonstrating – with textual support – that οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ can never imply ‘mother’ or ‘brothers’? (You won’t be able to do it, BTW, since I can provide a counter-example to which I earlier alluded: in Daniel 13:30, we see Susanna coming out with her parents, who are later referred to in v33 with the same construction as we see in Mark. Therefore, parents can be referred to by this construction; your assertion fails. )

But why did St. Mark use different terminology to differentiate between those in the first and His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ (disciples) in the third?

You stated emphatically at the beginning, and rightly so, that Mark’s triplet is understood as a hole, in a kind of sandwich layering, which proves your theory inaccurate:

1. **If those in the tent, in the third, are used to show up His own family outside the tent, then there would be no need for the first account in the triplet at all. It renders it useless. Unless you think that passages have no reason for being there?! **
2. And then this makes us look back to the first again. And we see that ‘mothers’ and ‘brothers’ are not named in the first. It makes us question, again after looking again. So we have to look to the second of the triplet and we see the answer. It says about a house divided cannot stand. It makes the reader think: well, who divided it. We see that in the first there were people who are meant to be close - if we take the notion that it does not mean ‘close proximity’ - but when we look to the third, we see those who are His disciples, are waiting for Him as His Mother is.
3. In the third, He does not say: “I have no Mothers and brothers, now you are my mother and brothers instead”. He says" Who are my Mother and brothers, here are my Mother and Brothers." The people in the tent can be to Him - as disciples - what His ‘mother’ and ‘discipes’ are to Him who are waiting outside the tent, when the people in the tent listen to Him as they are doing as opposed to those who didn’t listen to Him in the first of the triplet. So these people in the tent are like His Mother and ‘disciples’, His TRUE FAMILY, outside, who have come to Him and are waiting for Him.

 

[friardchips]

Glaring typo: ‘You stated emphatically at the beginning, and rightly so, that Mark’s triplet is understood as a hole…’; I meant ‘whole’.

Moving on…4. Our Lord is to be found with those whomever listens - His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ are there ready to tend, in mission, as true disciples. Our Lord is demonstrating that where we go to meet Him, He will be with those who suffer, who are prepared to listen. We are to do what His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ have gone to do, to find Him, and be inclusive to others whom are in the care of Our Lord, for they are His ‘true family’ too.

As in Luke, where any possible ambiguity is removed, and Our Lady and Brothers are very much endorsed as those who do His Will.

I wonder whether this triplet might have been a prophetical instruction for evangelisation and maybe specifically for Religious missionaries!

 

[friardchips]

…unless you think that going to seek out, to find Our Lord, is a bad thing?!

 

[Gorgias]

Thought as much.

LOL!

Seriously, though: if you say “you’re wrong”, and your best proof of that is “he said brothers once but not twice”, that’s not a logical argument.

Maybe I am being to hard on you as it might just be that you don’t understand what I am saying.

No – really, I do. It’s a nice example of piety and devotion to our Blessed Mother; but it’s not good exegesis. You love Mary; that’s cool. So do I. What you assert here, though, in terms of love of Mary… well, it just doesn’t hold up. We can love Mary even if we say that she grew in knowledge and understanding.

n the second example, a more closely related one, because it is an example in the NT, ‘brothers’ means BLOOD BROTHERS.

There are more examples in the NT where brothers doesn’t mean ‘siblings’.

And so, ‘brothers’ means disciples’ in the triplet because ‘brothers’ as the alternative is not possible - Our Lord had no blood-brothers and so can only mean ‘disciples’.

We keep going round and round on this point. Do you really need repeated examples of the various ways that the word ‘brother’ is used in the Bible?

Here’s one more: in Matthew 5, Jesus says, “I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin.”

By your logic, this can only mean ‘blood sibling’, unless one has no blood siblings, in which case it means ‘disciple’. But, in Matthew 5, do you think that Jesus is really trying to say that this refers to ‘blood sibling’ or ‘disciple’? Of course not. The word ‘brother’ can be used in a variety of contexts. Your assertion that ‘brother’ – as used in the our verse in question – cannot mean ‘male relatives of Jesus’… well, it’s simply untenable.

You cannot say that ‘brothers’ means blood-brothers in that passage of Mark we have been discussing

I’m not saying that. I’m simply saying that it refers to some of those referred to in the first part of the story.

The resources I have used are used in Theology study

No – the resource you point to is a textbook used in an introductory undergraduate survey of Scripture.

my CTS Bible says that the best translation is ‘relatives’ but then says it is Our Lord’s closest family, which I am indeed arguing against

Indeed.

I am not “accusing”. But you clearly exposed some form of inner frustration towards Our Lady’s position of discipleship.

No. If this is your problem with my position, please realize that this is not what I’m saying. (However, if by ‘disciple’, you mean “someone who perfectly understands Jesus and His mission”, then yeah – I think you misunderstand what a ‘disciple’ is, or how Mary filled that role.)

But why did St. Mark use different terminology to differentiate between those in the first and His ‘mother’ and ‘brothers’ (disciples) in the third?

I was thinking about our discussion tonight: our Gospel is from Mark, and is the story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter. It’s another ‘Markan sandwich’. Here, Mark talks about ‘Jairus’, then about the woman with the hemorrhage, and then back to Jairus and his daughter again.

Take a look at the Gospel when you have a chance. In the first part of this ‘sandwich’, we see the father referred to as ‘Jairus’. However, in the third part, we don’t see his name appearing again. Would you really suggest that Mark isn’t talking about Jairus anymore, but rather about someone else, since he doesn’t refer to him again by name? No, of course not.

1. **If those in the tent, in the third, are used to show up His own family outside the tent, then there would be no need for the first account in the triplet at all. It renders it useless. Unless you think that passages have no reason for being there?! **

You keep making this assertion, even though I’ve said that this isn’t the point. The notion isn’t that the disciples of Jesus “show up His own family” – it’s that those in the tent presume that family relationships trump discipleship relationships… and Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. The reason the passage is there is to teach us that discipleship is the most important relationship we have with Jesus.

 

[Bruce_Killian]

This event happens about two months after the start of Jesus’ public ministry. The reason Mary and Jesus’ brethren came to Jesus is they want to make an urgent request of Him. It is 17 miles from Capernaum to Nazareth. I believe the urgent request was to come and heal Jesus’ foster father Joseph who was either seriously injured or ill. It was Joseph’s time to die because Jesus had to have unambiguous title as the king of Israel before He died. Joseph could not have died while Jesus lived at home because a dead person would make everyone in the house unclean which would defile Jesus, because He was most holy. Jesus was signaling Mary not to make the request to heal Joseph, because Jesus could not deny His mother, but Joseph needed to die. Mary’s understanding, humility and obedience are shown in that she understands and accepts Jesus’ words.
If any one is interested, I know the exact day this occurred and the surrounding events.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[friardchips]

This event happens about two months after the start of Jesus’ public ministry. The reason Mary and Jesus’ brethren came to Jesus is they want to make an urgent request of Him. It is 17 miles from Capernaum to Nazareth. I believe the urgent request was to come and heal Jesus’ foster father Joseph who was either seriously injured or ill. It was Joseph’s time to die because Jesus had to have unambiguous title as the king of Israel before He died. Joseph could not have died while Jesus lived at home because a dead person would make everyone in the house unclean which would defile Jesus, because He was most holy. Jesus was signaling Mary not to make the request to heal Joseph, because Jesus could not deny His mother, but Joseph needed to die. Mary’s understanding, humility and obedience are shown in that she understands and accepts Jesus’ words.
If any one is interested, I know the exact day this occurred and the surrounding events.
Grace and peace,
Bruce

Literally, you just inspired a “WOW”! A good wow, that is. What an insightful post!

I am most interested.

 

[friardchips]

LOL!

Seriously, though: if you say “you’re wrong”, and your best proof of that is “he said brothers once but not twice”, that’s not a logical argument.

It is logical. We are talking about the Word Incarnate being preached via saints in the power of the Holy Spirit; IOW, WORDS MATTER!

No – really, I do. It’s a nice example of piety and devotion to our Blessed Mother; but it’s not good exegesis. You love Mary; that’s cool. So do I. What you assert here, though, in terms of love of Mary… well, it just doesn’t hold up. We can love Mary even if we say that she grew in knowledge and understanding.

Well, love does come into it. But then maybe that us because The Word Made Flesh IS LOVE!

There are more examples in the NT where brothers doesn’t mean ‘siblings’.

Exactly my point. ‘Brothers’ means disciples. You made a valid point in a much earlier post, when you said that I kept differentiating between the disciples who had come to see Him with His Holy Mother and saying that He was already with His disciples. Which is one of the points we agree on. He is being inclusive. And meaning it, of course, by extending His arms to all who come to Him. I’ll pick up on this again at the end of my post.

We keep going round and round on this point. Do you really need repeated examples of the various ways that the word ‘brother’ is used in the Bible?

So far you haven’t proved anything with the example you have used.

Here’s one more: in Matthew 5, Jesus says, “I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin.”

This does not prove anything, either way.

By your logic, this can only mean ‘blood sibling’, unless one has no blood siblings, in which case it means ‘disciple’. But, in Matthew 5, do you think that Jesus is really trying to say that this refers to ‘blood sibling’ or ‘disciple’? Of course not. The word ‘brother’ can be used in a variety of contexts. Your assertion that ‘brother’ – as used in the our verse in question – cannot mean ‘male relatives of Jesus’… well, it’s simply untenable.

You’ve twisted this completely.

I am saying Mother and brothers, in the sense used in the third of the triplet, means His immediate disciples. NOT blood brothers, for the simple reason that He hasn’t got any real blood brothers. Hence, by His crucifixion we become, By HIS blood, His brothers.

I’m not saying that. I’m simply saying that it refers to some of those referred to in the first part of the story.

Cannot be proved. The evidence does not suggest this.

No – the resource you point to is a textbook used in an introductory undergraduate survey of Scripture.

It is used for MA study. If you want to check I can give the name of the universities who use it.

No. If this is your problem with my position, please realize that this is not what I’m saying. (However, if by ‘disciple’, you mean “someone who perfectly understands Jesus and His mission”, then yeah – I think you misunderstand what a ‘disciple’ is, or how Mary filled that role.)

Disciple is the one who listens. Who believes. Yes, the disciples often got things wrong. But Our Lady was with the disciples and so this in itself shows that, because she was not mentioned in the first of the triplet, that these brothers were not there. Or least she was not. Our Lady, in the light of history, can be shown to always have lovingly trusted her Son. Loose ends are not satisfactory.

I was thinking about our discussion tonight: our Gospel is from Mark, and is the story of the raising of Jairus’ daughter. It’s another ‘Markan sandwich’. Here, Mark talks about ‘Jairus’, then about the woman with the hemorrhage, and then back to Jairus and his daughter again.

Take a look at the Gospel when you have a chance. In the first part of this ‘sandwich’, we see the father referred to as ‘Jairus’. However, in the third part, we don’t see his name appearing again. Would you really suggest that Mark isn’t talking about Jairus anymore, but rather about someone else, since he doesn’t refer to him again by name? No, of course not.

It doesn’t make any difference. He not only didn’t mention what he mentioned before but he used different titles. And this is a different set of people and circumstances. You are simply being pedantic now in trying to prove that Our Lady was there in the first passage.

You keep making this assertion, even though I’ve said that this isn’t the point. The notion isn’t that the disciples of Jesus “show up His own family” – it’s that those in the tent presume that family relationships trump discipleship relationships… and Jesus corrects their misunderstanding. The reason the passage is there is to teach us that discipleship is the most important relationship we have with Jesus.

It has nothing to do with trumping anyone. It is about being inclusive.

To trump is not to love (which can be proved throughout the NT).

And so, back to the point earlier, about extending His arms to everyone. The passage shows that He turns no one away. He is not trumping Our Lady and His disciples outside the tent with new ones, because if He were to do this with intention, then ‘trumping’ would conflict with this:

:angel1:

“All that the Father gives me will come to me,
and whoever comes to me,
I shall not turn him away.”

(John 6:37)