Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[mcq72]

Your are using your today’s reasoning. Jesus being God knew that James would become a leader so your anachronistic reasoning dies.

Yes, this is the rebuttal, and a valid one, His foreknowledge that His brethren would repent and finally believe. I have answered that rebuttal in previous post.

Really what you are asking is contrary to whole idea of purgatory . That if one sins and repents there are no consequences…You are asking our brethren scenario to have no consequence for disbelief, and abandonment of their brother and their mother, at one of the most crucial andl agonizing moments in History.

Anyways, Jesus also foreknew this very debate, yet chose to leave it as a curiosity for some.

 

[mcq72]

Your are using your today’s reasoning

That a spiritual bond is much stronger than blood is examplified by word and deed masterfully and authoritatively two thousand years ago by Christ.

As to the laws for providing for kinfolk, even a widow, Jesus does not go against the spirit of these norms.The entire reasoning for Israel, for its children, for its family, is a spiritual one and for the thriving of His spiritual kingdom. I could just as easily say to twist those norms/provisions against the spirit of them is an anachronism of the early centuries when this doctrine was solidified and began to be debated, just before and after Jerome.

Per my previous question I think by His grace hopefully you and I would follow suite if He called us to do so with the care of our loved ones.

 

[mcq72]

All it says is that they are the brothers of Jesus after saying that Mary was His mother.

Correct…sounds normal. They are describing relations pertinent to Jesus, not pertinent to Mary. Again Jesus the focus, not Mary, as it should be.

 

[hope]

You have a 150 post in this thread. So if you have a rebuttal please share which post.

Really what you are asking is contrary to whole idea of purgatory . That if one sins and repents there are no consequences…You are asking our brethren scenario to have no consequence for disbelief, and abandonment of their brother and their mother, at one of the most crucial andl agonizing moments in History.

This makes no sense to me. What is contrary to purgatory who is sinning without consequence? When did they abandon their brother and their mother? As a general comment, one cannot know what a judgement is on anyone. If they are punished in purgatory or go into eternal damnation.

 

[mcq72]

As a general comment, one cannot know what a judgement is on anyone.

Along those same lines, why then would one presume there would be no earthly judgement/consequence for disbelieving your brother Jesus, and abandoning Him and Mary, when bearing their cross? This is the rebuttal to those who say if Jesus had brethren from Mary, God foreknew their coming to faith at later time after Calvary, and therefore could have been deemed spiritually fit to care for Mary. Again, doing so would show no consequence for their sin. My other post mentioned the consequences for David’s sin , that remained with him long after his repentance, or like purgatory where we pay for consequences of our sin, long after coming to faith.

 

[hope]

If there were earthly judgement, when would it take place? How soon after your sin are you punished? No Jesus was not punishing His brothers that is not why He came to earth. He had no brothers to punish. It would seem an odd punishment anyway. Punishment for our sins come only after death when we no longer can repent. David’s punishment for his sin was the death of his child. Once the child died, he put away his penance. My take on purgatory is taking away the inclination of sin not a punishment for sin.

 

[mcq72]

No Jesus was not punishing His brothers that is not why He came to earth.

Consequences of sin are not necesarily punishment. Purgatory is not necsarily punishment. If you jump off a tall building and die that is not punishment. Consequences is a better term. Jesus takes on our punishment, but necesarily taking away the consequence.

 

[mcq72]

Punishment for our sins come only after death when we no longer can repent.

David’s punishment for his sin was the death of his child. Once the child died, he put away his penance.

Not sure i follow…punishment comes after we die yet David was punished while alive. Again it is consequence , even “chastisement”, out of love.

Yes David fasted and prayed to God for grace to spare the child (what you call penance), till God answered and child died, and David ceased his plead. If i recall that was not his only consequence…his kingdom was troubled thereafter, and from “within”. (Absolom).

 

[mcq72]

It would seem an odd punishment anyway.

Well, certainly an odd circumstance if not unique. Again it is not punishment. One must consider the added anguish of Jesus at the cross, and Mary and John .

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69

 

[hope]

Mary was not abandon. Scripture does not support that conclusion. The Apostles abandoned Jesus there was no consequence. Your idea that Mary was given to John as a consequence is not supported either by scripture or by the law. Jesus followed the law which would have been the son to take care of the mother. Jesus made John a son to Mary not because she had other sons who abandoned her but because she didn’t have other sons to take care of her.

 

[hope]

@mcq72 I have provided evidence that Mary being ever virgin was taught before Jerome. Jerome does say that he got the teaching from a number of people including Polycarp. However, the idea that the brother’s mentioned in scripture are uterine brothers does not show up in writing until later. Each time it does it is refuted as heresy which it is.

 

[mcq72]

Mary was not abandon. Scripture does not support that conclusion

Mary and Jesus were both abandoned by the Lord’s “brethren” per scripture even His mother’s “children”, per the psalm. Abandoned at the cross…they were not there…that is the context, not what brethren (or apostles) did at a later date.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus followed the law which would have been the son to take care of the mother.

The law without its spirit is cold. Jesus fulfilled the law in truth and spirit.

One must answer that if the Lord was free to choose for lack of a brethren, why He chose one who was not a blood brethren (John) and bypassing blood brethren (step brothers or cousins). I can’t imagine a response any different than what we propose also, that spiritual ties are just as real if not more than blood ties.

 

[hope]

Scripture shows the opposite, 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mary was not abandon. Actually, this shows that the brethren of Jesus could not have been his uterine brothers as they were duty bound if they were to take care of Mary. Because they were not at the Crucifixion, does not indicate anything. Maybe they were in Nazareth which was their home town. Many were getting ready for the holy days and is why Jesus was Crucified when He was so that His followers would not be able to rise up and help Him.

 

[hope]

As you have pointed out, they were not there.

 

[mcq72]

Scripture shows the opposite, 25 These things therefore the soldiers did. But there were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.
Mary was not abandon.

Lol…me thinks we be getting hypertechnical, in the thrifty world of “texting” (blogging on phone). The context of being abandoned,having a subject, is the brethren (sometimes the apostles, but not in our discussion). The brethren were no where to be found. Of course Jesus had people around him, as those you state plus soldiers and onlookers, not to mention two thieves on either side. But His brethren were missing!

 

[hope]

I admire that you would even try to text on phone. It has always been a disaster when I tried. The mentioned are the only ones there however where why they weren’t there is debatable. I don’t think a discussion on that would be profitable. Fun but not enlightening.
A repeat of a previous post

I have provided evidence that Mary being ever virgin was taught before Jerome. Jerome does say that he got the teaching from a number of people including Polycarp. However, the idea that the brother’s mentioned in scripture are uterine brothers does not show up in writing until later. Each time it does it is refuted as heresy which it is

.

 

[mcq72]

And?..with that rationale all else is irrelevat…customd, laws etc

 

[mcq72]

I don’t think a discussion on that would be profitable.

Not sure anything can be profitable then, save going over Catholic rationale.

 

[mcq72]

Because they were not at the Crucifixion, does not indicate anything.

Again, why choose one who was not a brethren, only known to Mary a few years, over close relatives/brethren? Stating that John was chosen because John happened to be there and the others can not seem to be the Catholic response. Certainly Jesus knew where everyone was, knew when Calvary was gonna happen, could have made pre arrangements etc etc…The only true response was that of spiritual ties over blood ties, due to lack of faith…so much so that brothers, step brothers , cousins would not have been chosen to fulfill law to care for mother.