Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[mcq72]

Also when Jesus is on the cross he asks John to look after his mother and take her into his home.

Well, Jesus asked nothing explicitly, but yes implicit with the command to “behold”, and then the writer references taking her to his home…quite comforting and natural, as in “misery loves company”, “birds of a feather flock together” and really that spiritual bonds are more real than blood bonds.

But yes, an implied problem to brother theory, but a solution would also apply as to why the brethren (step children/ nephews) were also left out.

Tel me, would you send your grieving holiest purest mother to a cold, unbelieving “home”… unbelief that was kin to what actually put Him on cross, causing her grief ?

 

[mcq72]

Also there is no tradition in the church of siblings of Jesus.

Yes, possibly true. Such a theory would have to rest mostly on scripture, which is not a bad thing, seeing how tradition is not totally succint on who they were either.

 

[mcq72]

Also when the nature of Jesus is explained we never get a comparison with his brothers and sisters which would have seemed natural and appropriate.

Never thought of that before…I know Hebrews speaks of His nature, David does also (“surely not after the ways of men”…paraphrase), compared to angels.or compared to man in general…I guess I would disagree to discuss His nature in terms or compared to his brothers, or step brothers or cousins…a bit myopic, parochial, given the universal nature of man. It was always important to detail ancestry up to Christ, but should come to dead stop there, for obvious reasons.

Jesus , thru Psalm 69: 8,9, does compare Himself, contrast Himself to his brethren,

"I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children;

for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me"

 

[mcq72]

We also don’t get any succession problems arising in early Christianity due to a group wanting to follow the bloodline family of Jesus.

Was just reading an article on book, “The Jesus Dynasty”

Here is excerpt from article dealing why two apostles and their mother ask to be seated at right hand of Jesus:

"This could be seen/interpreted to fit with your ‘Jesus Dynasty’, because she asks Jesus for special privileges for her sons (or else her sons do on their own, as per Mark), and if she’s Jesus’ mother’s blood sister, his aunt, she carries the same maternal royal bloodline as Jesus’ mother Mary, and thus her sons have the same bloodline as Jesus and his brothers and sisters, so they are part of the dynasty – a main branch of it.

Why else would she dare to ask Jesus such a thing? And she must have known Jesus well enough to be so bold. Not to mention, in those days, first off, women weren’t apt to speak to men unless they were part of the family in some way. Secondly, women at that time also weren’t likely to speak up like this, be so forward, and make such an (audacious) request of any man. Though if she’s of the bloodline of Jesus, as she’s his maternal aunt, it at least makes a bit more sense why she would ask this of her nephew, Jesus. Even if it wasn’t the ‘proper’ thing to do (thus the other apostles were annoyed. Perhaps some were actually envious?)"

 

[mcq72]

The paragraph that followed this statement explained. It is that explanation that I was referring to.

ok got it…

 

[hope]

Again, it is a critique on who the brethren were, specifically the cousin theory, as opposed to Joseph’s children theory, and third option, real siblings.

I understood that I just was not getting their poin

If the brothers of Jesus were actually cousins and three of them were among the Twelve, it could not be said, “His brothers were not believers in him” (John 7:5). Jacobs calls this “the crowning difficulty of this hypothesis” (519); efforts at arguing that only some of the brothers did not believe are most unconvincing. Furthermore, throughout the NT the brothers are named as a group quite distinct from the apostles;

I guess sleep has improved my understanding. Again brothers also were cousins so the point they are trying to make fails,

 

[hope]

Tel me, would you send your grieving holiest purest mother to a cold, unbelieving “home”… unbelief that was kin to what actually put Him on cross, causing her grief ?

Would Jesus put His mother at risk by breaking a law?

 

[hope]

More true if you are writing from an aramaic text, which I really doubt.

I would think the writers were also first hand witnesses, and actually knew the nature of these brethren, and would not “dumb down” the “setting the record straight”, from a more precise Greek to a inconclusive Aramaic.

It doesn’t depend on the text being written in Aramaic but that they spoke in their daily lives Aramaic. Check the paragraph that I posted as to why.

 

[hope]

I assume since the Aramaic culture at the time used a generic term for brother then it was natural when translating to the Greek to keep this cultural idiom.

This is a great answer thanks @abucs

 

[mcq72]

Would Jesus put His mother at risk by breaking a law?

By not doing so He would break the spirit of that law.

Even David and his men ate the showbread, temple bread, when they were quite hungry.

 

[mcq72]

It doesn’t depend on the text being written in Aramaic but that they spoke in their daily lives Aramaic. Check the paragraph that I posted as to why.

mistake typo post…next post is what I meant to post

 

[mcq72]

It doesn’t depend on the text being written in Aramaic but that they spoke in their daily lives Aramaic. Check the paragraph that I posted as to why.

Understand…nice real and current example ( the French one). Just not sure the Holy Spirit is bound to such cultural nuances. This is not Judaism and OT, where indeed the Jews had to first understand from within their own culture. The NT is bigger scoped, less parochial, and thinking worldwide (hence the Greek). The eye witnesses already knew the relationships, so the Holy Spirit is now free to go with more succinct language and would not need to borrow from writers cultural nuances.

it would be like the Abidjan folk being the eyewitnesses and trying to reach the world , and choosing their own cultural nuance, and color the language , instead of using the more renowned explicit French, which they also knew. I mean Christ died on a hill, symbolically so that all could see, and at Pentecost had gifts of tongues so that realistically and symbolically all could hear equally from the start, etc… I would think so too was the language of His scripture, as much as possible, not authoring confusion.

 

[hope]

Not doing what? Not leaving His mother’s care to her own child? The spirit of the law? The law was made so that a women would have food, clothing and shelter. What you are saying is that her own children would not have provided for her. Nonsense, her only Child did indeed provide those things for her.

 

[mcq72]

The law was made so that a women would have food, clothing and shelter.

ummm…“man does not live by bread alone”…lol but is that anachronistic, that we drown our sorrows in food, and clothing(think shopping) as we do today ? For sure He knows we need these things but why do you leave the spiritual nature of needing provision out / why do you not answer whom you would leave your relation with if you were to depart ?..if you could make a law for said event here, today, for us, what would it be ? And what law if we today were a theocracy, as God’s intent was for Israel ?

You don’t have to answer…I dislike when people say “you haven’t answered my question”…I don’t mind when folks answer question with a question though.

 

[hope]

The Holy Spirit spoke through the writers using them as He found them. The idioms and their understanding of the culture would not have been deleted. Confusion? That is why He governs the Church. It is why that scriptures came out of the Church not that the Church came out of Scripture. It is why He left that Church so that there would not be confusion. Scripture needs to be interpreted. If all we needed was scripture there wouldn’t be so much discussion on what it meant. We need someone to interpret Act 8:31. Jesus did not leave us in confusion He left His Church to interpret scripture.

 

[mcq72]

Not leaving His mother’s care to her own child? The spirit of the law? The law was made so that a women would have food, clothing and shelter.

Again what was the command for adam and eve…was replenish the earth part of it…what was Israel’s command…again to have their quiver full, to be priests on the earth, a shining light, thru people…would that not involve women childbearing, not as secular mission, but as spiritual mission, would not then God also provide for such women, in such a cultural mission…the spirit of the law to care for widows , who have fulfilled their mission, their spiritual mission of procreation, much like a combat soldier of today, is to be taken care of, not because it is nice thing to do , but because of the spiritual mission…the answer to a what is the spirit of a law is a spiritual one.

Again, at Calvary, the fulcrum point of the spiritual battle . Who was for Christ and who was against. Mary and John were for, and the brethren were against. Who would send wounded Mary back to an enemy encampment, if even for a short spell ? Again, would have seemed cold to do so ( and we P’s are said to be cold towards Mary for not treating her exactly as Catholics do.

 

[hope]

ummm…“man does not live by bread alone”…lol but is that anachronistic, that we drown our sorrows in food, and clothing(think shopping) as we do today ? For sure He knows we need these things but why do you leave the spiritual nature of needing provision out / why do you not answer whom you would leave your relation with if you were to depart ?..if you could make a law for said event here, today, for us, what would it be ? And what law if we today were a theocracy, as God’s intent was for Israel ?

You don’t have to answer…I dislike when people say “you haven’t answered my question”…I don’t mind when folks answer question with a question though.

You assume that by following the law she wouldn’t have had spiritual life. Untrue. I could point to many who lived in a household that did not have belief and they thrived.
I didn’t answer your question? O.K. You have a scenario of Mary living with unbeliever but you have to throw into that equation that it was unlawful. In that specific case I would leave her to her sons who she birthed a very close relationship so that she could bring them to belief.

 

[hope]

Again, at Calvary, the fulcrum point of the spiritual battle . Who was for Christ and who was against. Mary and John were for, and the brethren were against. Who would send wounded Mary back to an enemy encampment, if even for a short spell ? Again, would have seemed cold to do so ( and we P’s are said to be cold towards Mary for not treating her exactly as Catholics do.

unbelief that was kin to what actually put Him on cross, causing her grief ?

The brethren were unbelievers that Apostles at time are said to have unbelief. I don’t see unbelief put Jesus on the cross are sins did.

 

[mcq72]

You assume that by following the law she wouldn’t have had spiritual life. Untrue.

not my point at all. it is spiritual comfort. No, she had spiritual life , that was the problem, else how could she have had her heart torn asunder, as prophesied at the temple, when they brought Jesus as an infant.And yes, understand and have not forgotten how the righteous can sanctify an unbelieving spouse etc, and children in such a situation. But scripture is clear , we do not enter such territory by choice. Totally different circumstance here. Jesus certainly had a choice, of equal yoking of sorts.

I have also known that folks do split up over spiritual differences, and the non believer comes to faith thereafter.

In that specific case I would leave her to her sons who she birthed a very close relationship so that she could bring them to belief.

So then we must answer how did they come to belief, for they did , and without Mary. And do you send a just wounded christian to go be a “missionary” of sorts …i think not

from catholic site :
“Mary’s spiritual maternity begins at the foot of the cross. In the disciple who has been entrusted to her, Mary not only sees a dear friend of her son, but all disciples of Jesus who have now become her children in a radically new way. This new People of God is really the Church, and Mary is the Church in her maternal role of welcoming God’s word and God’s people as her own”…

 

[abucs]

Was just reading an article on book, “The Jesus Dynasty”

Here is excerpt from article dealing why two apostles and their mother ask to be seated at right hand of Jesus:

"This could be seen/interpreted to fit with your ‘Jesus Dynasty’, because she asks Jesus for special privileges for her sons (or else her sons do on their own, as per Mark), and if she’s Jesus’ mother’s blood sister, his aunt, she carries the same maternal royal bloodline as Jesus’ mother Mary, and thus her sons have the same bloodline as Jesus and his brothers and sisters, so they are part of the dynasty – a main branch of it.

Why else would she dare to ask Jesus such a thing? And she must have known Jesus well enough to be so bold. Not to mention, in those days, first off, women weren’t apt to speak to men unless they were part of the family in some way. Secondly, women at that time also weren’t likely to speak up like this, be so forward, and make such an (audacious) request of any man. Though if she’s of the bloodline of Jesus, as she’s his maternal aunt, it at least makes a bit more sense why she would ask this of her nephew, Jesus. Even if it wasn’t the ‘proper’ thing to do (thus the other apostles were annoyed. Perhaps some were actually envious?)"

and yet the clear leader of the apostles was Peter.

If Jesus had siblings with the same mother then they would be first in line under any bloodline. If Mary was considered special as touched by God, chosen by God then it would be natural once Jesus dies to look for a leader from Mary. There is no hint of that in the New Testament and the example you give, not including Mary’s children strengthens the likelihood there weren’t any siblings of Jesus with Mary as the blood mother.