Contrast the leadership succession of Islam after Muhammad . I would disagree with the myopic comment. Mary being touched by God in a special way would only increase the likelihood of succession disagreements if there were brothers and sisters.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.
Siblings of Jesus would be a pretty big thing to have been left out of the NT. It is not proper in my opinion to read it in without sufficient evidence.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.
Well at the very least it is from an Aramaic perspective and way of thinking. Whether also there were draft copies in Aramaic, I would expect so but it does not really matter. Saying the Armaic is a dumbed down version of Greek may be the perspective of a Greek or perhaps someone who is neither Aramaic nor Greek but I doubt an Aramaic minded person would see it that way and that is who wrote the texts we are talking about.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
I think the same could be said of non sibling blood relatives.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.
We have to come back from hypotheticals. There is no firm evidence of siblings let alone that they were cold hearted towards their mother. That is a pretty huge assumption. Considering much of the NT deals with the trials and sufferings of Jesus and how he deals and overcomes them the hypothetical situation of his mother being rejected by siblings would have to qualify as a suffering and teaching point of Jesus. Again, if this were the case we would expect it to be mentioned and contrasted to the way of Jesus. I think reading it in needs more evidence especially because the audience of the original texts would wonder why Jesus’ family did not automatically look after Mary.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 ?
Well, unbelief( in the One whom God sent) is the sin…dont know about you but unbelief in Him was my biggest sin, not how I broke all the commandments…I think this is universalI don’t see unbelief put Jesus on the cross are sins did.
Yes, but it is a spiritual bond that counts , and His brethren were not spiritual followers, and may have not followed at all after Capernum…so if Mary did follow the ministry, she then would have bonded with apostles , even John moreso perhaps.Another angle would be that because Jesus was travelling a lot in his ministerial period, it would have been more natural for Mary to stay and be close to her other children, assuming she had them.
The cold heartedness is not towards Mary directly but towards the Messiah, even their “brother” (sibling, step brother,cousin), and that such sentiment was shared by many, helping to put Him on a cross, and breaking Mary’s heart…pretty simple…straightforward from scripture…all my points on this…the brethren did not believe, many others did not believe, the powers to be crucified Him, Mary and John were there, supporting Jesus, the brethren were not, Mary had her heart pierced, Jesus loved Mary, and John, they did the will of the Father, Jesus said those who do that are all in all to each other (brother,sister, mother,father) in this spiritual kingdom .Jesus said there are two kingdoms, Jesus said you are for Him or against Him Jesus did not send His grieving Mother of God to a household that was against Him, not even temporarily…no assumptions…all scripturalThere is no firm evidence of siblings let alone that they were cold hearted towards their mother.
The question could be inverted. Why not believe in her ever-virginity? The Eastern Church has witnessed to the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos steadfastly for two thousand years and shows no sign of tiring. In the West, the idea was largely undisputed until late in the Reformation; even Luther and Calvin accepted the tradition.
Indeed, to suggest (a) that the tradition about her perpetual virginity could have been introduced after apostolic times, (b) that this tradition would have gone little noticed by a Church in the throes of questioning everything about what it believed in the first millennium, (c) that such a novel tradition should be considered inconsequential enough to pass without discussion before it became universally proclaimed, and (d) that such a tradition should have no discernible literary or geographical origin and yet be universally accepted from very early in the Church’s history, is to form a very unlikely hypothesis
Set Apart to God
To argue against Mary’s perpetual virginity is to suggest something else that is greatly implausible, not to say unthinkable: that neither Mary nor her protector, Joseph, would have deemed it inappropriate to have sexual relations after the birth of God in the flesh. Leaving aside for a moment the complete uniqueness of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, recall that it was the practice for devout Jews in the ancient world to refrain from sexual activity following any great manifestation of the Holy Spirit
But these are quotes from psalms written centuries before the incarnation. You mentioned before about being precise. I think if we are looking for accuracy regarding the possibility of Jesus’ siblings it is to the NT that attempts to relate the life of Jesus that we need to look. Do you not agree that quoting psalms as evidence to your theory shows the lack of evidence from the documents that we need to look at for evidence?Psalm 69: I have become a stranger to my brothers,
And an alien to my mother’s children;
9Because zeal for Your house has eaten me up,
Thanks hope, that link is the best explanation I have seen. What it says about Mary confirms what we believe about Christ and our salvation. Simply and beautifully written.I wonder did you ever read the link to the Orthodox view?
well, it says who they were a few verses later: “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them”Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me
yes, that is why they call them prophecies, Messianic.But these are quotes from psalms written centuries before the incarnation.
ok, you disagree, and very few show it as evidence, that is they are quite busy presenting the normal evidences, as each theory, to whom the brethren are, have.Do you not agree that quoting psalms as evidence to your theory shows the lack of evidence from the documents that we need to look at for evidence?
This is hard nosed and quite divisive…the best critics for me admit that all three propositions have their pros and cons, entailing scripture and tradition.Again we haven’t evidence of Jesus’ siblings let alone that these unattested people rejected Jesus’ ministry.
But that is exactly what is being said when you say that Jesus had brothers and sisters because it is a plain reading of the scripture.no one says that brethren always means siblings
Well I am sorry i gave that impression…I hope not…pretty sure I stated it also has to do with context…but I suppose sometimes I feel folks on the other side of the argument won’t admit that it can mean siblings…only sometimes.But that is exactly what is being said when you say that Jesus had brothers and sisters because it is a plain reading of the scripture.
We are talking specifically about Jesus. I would not expect that we would say that it means siblings as to Jesus. I am not understanding the …only sometimes. Post 28 has a good definition.Well I am sorry i gave that impression…I hope not…pretty sure I stated it also has to do with context…but I suppose sometimes I feel folks on the other side of the argument won’t admit that it can mean siblings…only sometimes.
Context has also to include the culture which is denied most of the time.I do believe that in the Greek, and given the contexts, that is the first application to test, that of siblings, kind of like the default usage, but again subject to ones understanding of context.
I don’t believe it is offensive and you have not done anything for which to apologize. I am not sure if you have ever used that expression but I have heard it .used.Yet I apologize and agree that “plain understanding” is offensive way of putting it , and really vague and subjective, especially when dialoguing with those who have different understanding.