N
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Bibleboy,
You wrote, "the N.T. Greek uses very specific words that carry very direct meanings and that the word “adelphos” translated as “brother” means brother not cousin, not friend, not neighbor etc."
While adelphos is the Greek word for brother specifically, adelphos was used, in the culture and time of Jesus, to refer to the next of kin when one was an only child.
In many cultures today, especially in the African nations, one's cousins are referred to as "brothers" even when language holds one distinct word separate from "brother" for one's cousins. This is because their family structure is much broader than our distinctly separated nuclear families in 21st c. American culture.
You wrote, "What I said was that it is/was biologically impossible for Mary to have remained a virgin following the normal the birth process that she went through when Christ was born."
It is also biologically impossible for a man to be born without an earthly Father (i.e. without the sperm from a male), so your requirement upon Mary's perpetual virginity nullifies the very possibility of the virgin birth - namely, that what is biologically impossible is not possible with God.
Do you understand?
You spoke about "why Mary had to make a sin offering following the birth of Christ as required by Leviticus 12:1-8"
The basic answer is that Mary submitted to the childbirth purification ritual (with its mandatory sin offering) for the same reasons that Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean; cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:29), celebrated the Passover (which was also a sin offering so that God's wrath would pass over the household), and baptism (another purification ritual; Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21).
In fact, if there were any difficulty in explaining Mary's submission to the purification ritual, it would be ten times harder to explain Christ's submission to these rituals since he was instrinsically and infinitely holy, while Mary was merely rendered entirely sinless by God's grace, as we shall be.
The first reason Christ submitted to circumcision and Passover was that the Mosaic Law required it, and he (like Mary) was "born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4).
The second reason is that to remove any cause for criticism and slander on the part of others, Christ submitted to things in the Mosaic Law of which he had no personal need or requirement (cf. Matt. 17:24-27).
The third reason is that Christ did these things in order to provide an example for others - an example of obedience to the Mosaic Law with regard to circumcision and Passover, and an example of obedience to the Christian Law in the case of baptism.
Bless you,
Carson
[ January 18, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "the N.T. Greek uses very specific words that carry very direct meanings and that the word “adelphos” translated as “brother” means brother not cousin, not friend, not neighbor etc."
While adelphos is the Greek word for brother specifically, adelphos was used, in the culture and time of Jesus, to refer to the next of kin when one was an only child.
In many cultures today, especially in the African nations, one's cousins are referred to as "brothers" even when language holds one distinct word separate from "brother" for one's cousins. This is because their family structure is much broader than our distinctly separated nuclear families in 21st c. American culture.
You wrote, "What I said was that it is/was biologically impossible for Mary to have remained a virgin following the normal the birth process that she went through when Christ was born."
It is also biologically impossible for a man to be born without an earthly Father (i.e. without the sperm from a male), so your requirement upon Mary's perpetual virginity nullifies the very possibility of the virgin birth - namely, that what is biologically impossible is not possible with God.
Do you understand?
You spoke about "why Mary had to make a sin offering following the birth of Christ as required by Leviticus 12:1-8"
The basic answer is that Mary submitted to the childbirth purification ritual (with its mandatory sin offering) for the same reasons that Jesus submitted to circumcision (a purification ritual symbolizing being made spiritually clean; cf. Deut. 10:16, 30:6, Jer. 4:4, Rom. 2:29), celebrated the Passover (which was also a sin offering so that God's wrath would pass over the household), and baptism (another purification ritual; Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21).
In fact, if there were any difficulty in explaining Mary's submission to the purification ritual, it would be ten times harder to explain Christ's submission to these rituals since he was instrinsically and infinitely holy, while Mary was merely rendered entirely sinless by God's grace, as we shall be.
The first reason Christ submitted to circumcision and Passover was that the Mosaic Law required it, and he (like Mary) was "born under the Law" (Gal. 4:4).
The second reason is that to remove any cause for criticism and slander on the part of others, Christ submitted to things in the Mosaic Law of which he had no personal need or requirement (cf. Matt. 17:24-27).
The third reason is that Christ did these things in order to provide an example for others - an example of obedience to the Mosaic Law with regard to circumcision and Passover, and an example of obedience to the Christian Law in the case of baptism.
Bless you,
Carson
[ January 18, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
neal4christ
New Member
What about the word for 'sisters' in Matt. 13:56? Was that referring to His next of kin as well? And what about Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 when Mary is specified as the mother of James and Joses, two of His, according to you, cousins? So now mother means aunt as well as brothers being cousins and whatever sisters may mean? And why in Luke 2:7 was Jesus referred to as Mary's firstborn rather than only born? Wouldn't this also imply there were others born as well? This sure is a lot of stretching to get that all of these relatives were not His immediate family.
Hmmm...really? If Catholics do not worship Mary, why do they seem to by trying to make her sinless and the queen of Heaven?
Neal
[ January 18, 2003, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Neal,
I'm well aware of this dispute, and I've been explaining this matter for years now. There are about ten places in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
You asked, "What about the word for 'sisters' in Matt. 13:56?
The word for sisters is adelphe, and this term as well as the one for brothers (plural), adelphoi were used in the same way as adelphos (the Greek term for "brother"). That is, all of these terms had a wide semantic range of meaning.
And what about Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 when Mary is specified as the mother of James and Joses, two of His, according to you, cousins?
The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": (1) James, (2) Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), (3) Simon, and (4) Jude.
Let's look at the Biblical record:
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me". These people were at the crucifixion.
John 19:25, "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.
Mt 10:3, "James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus". Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Jude the brother of James."
From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus' "brethren": (1) James (the less), (2) Jo'ses (or Joseph) and (3)Jude.
This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of James, Jo'ses, and Jude in Mk 6:3.
To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite in Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes) (Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13).
And why in Luke 2:7 was Jesus referred to as Mary's firstborn rather than only born?
The ancient Jews used the term "firstborn" to refer to the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12), irregardless of future children.
Exodus 13:2, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine."
Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Not at all. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
If Catholics do not worship Mary, why do they seem to by trying to make her sinless and the queen of Heaven?
Because Mary is "the woman" of promise in Genesis 3:15. This woman, promised by God, is to be at total enmity with Satan (the serpent, nahash), and our sin unites us with the Prince of Darkness.
Mary is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the Davidic King. Jesus is the son of David who has come to restore the Davidic Covenant of 2 Sam 7.
Solomon established the office of Queen Mother who served as the advocate for the people in 1 Kings 2:19.
So when we see the Davidic King enthroned in heaven, with Jewish eyes, we would expect to see his mother reigning as Queen at his side, and we do, in Revelation 12.
Check out Song of Solomon 5:8-10, which speaks of the Davidic Queen:
"There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. The maidens saw her and called her happy; the queens and concubines also, and they praised her. 'Who is this that looks forth like the dawn, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army with banners?'."
Only one queen could rule alongside the King, and so this queen was the King's mother in the Davidic Kingdom. Though there were 60 queens, eighty concubines, and maidens without number, there was one fair as the moon and bright as the sun.
In Revelation 11:19, we witness a theophany in heaven surrounding the ark of the covenant: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail."
And in the very next verse, we see that this New Ark of the New Covenant is not a gold box with cherubim above it providing the mercy seat, but..
Rev 12:1 "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars"
Mary, who stands as the Davidic Queen who rules over the 12 Tribes of Israel, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet. We find Mary who bore Jesus in her womb as the New Ark of the New Covenant.
I could go on and on.. but it's 1:03 A.M. and I've got Mass later this morning.
God bless!
Carson
I'm well aware of this dispute, and I've been explaining this matter for years now. There are about ten places in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
You asked, "What about the word for 'sisters' in Matt. 13:56?
The word for sisters is adelphe, and this term as well as the one for brothers (plural), adelphoi were used in the same way as adelphos (the Greek term for "brother"). That is, all of these terms had a wide semantic range of meaning.
And what about Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40 when Mary is specified as the mother of James and Joses, two of His, according to you, cousins?
The Gospels mention four of his "brethren": (1) James, (2) Joseph (Joses - the manuscripts vary on the spelling), (3) Simon, and (4) Jude.
Let's look at the Biblical record:
Mk 15:40, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Mag'dalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salo'me". These people were at the crucifixion.
John 19:25, "standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag'dalene.
Mt 10:3, "James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus". Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, "James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Jude the brother of James."
From these four passages, we see we have another 'Mary', who was the wife of Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus' "brethren": (1) James (the less), (2) Jo'ses (or Joseph) and (3)Jude.
This clearly shows that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not the mother of James, Jo'ses, and Jude in Mk 6:3.
To keep Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite in Mk 3:18, also called the 'Zealot' (Zelo'tes) (Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13).
And why in Luke 2:7 was Jesus referred to as Mary's firstborn rather than only born?
The ancient Jews used the term "firstborn" to refer to the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12), irregardless of future children.
Exodus 13:2, "Consecrate to me all the first-born; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine."
Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Not at all. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage.
If Catholics do not worship Mary, why do they seem to by trying to make her sinless and the queen of Heaven?
Because Mary is "the woman" of promise in Genesis 3:15. This woman, promised by God, is to be at total enmity with Satan (the serpent, nahash), and our sin unites us with the Prince of Darkness.
Mary is the Queen of Heaven because she is the mother of the Davidic King. Jesus is the son of David who has come to restore the Davidic Covenant of 2 Sam 7.
Solomon established the office of Queen Mother who served as the advocate for the people in 1 Kings 2:19.
So when we see the Davidic King enthroned in heaven, with Jewish eyes, we would expect to see his mother reigning as Queen at his side, and we do, in Revelation 12.
Check out Song of Solomon 5:8-10, which speaks of the Davidic Queen:
"There are sixty queens and eighty concubines, and maidens without number. My dove, my perfect one, is only one, the darling of her mother, flawless to her that bore her. The maidens saw her and called her happy; the queens and concubines also, and they praised her. 'Who is this that looks forth like the dawn, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army with banners?'."
Only one queen could rule alongside the King, and so this queen was the King's mother in the Davidic Kingdom. Though there were 60 queens, eighty concubines, and maidens without number, there was one fair as the moon and bright as the sun.
In Revelation 11:19, we witness a theophany in heaven surrounding the ark of the covenant: "Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail."
And in the very next verse, we see that this New Ark of the New Covenant is not a gold box with cherubim above it providing the mercy seat, but..
Rev 12:1 "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars"
Mary, who stands as the Davidic Queen who rules over the 12 Tribes of Israel, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet. We find Mary who bore Jesus in her womb as the New Ark of the New Covenant.
I could go on and on.. but it's 1:03 A.M. and I've got Mass later this morning.
God bless!
Carson
Hello Carson,
I would have asked you the same questions regarding your definition of Christ's brothers, sisters (cousins according to you and Net), and the identification of Mary as their mother in the passages that Neal4Christ referred to above. However, he beat me to it. Again, why is Jesus called Mary's first born Son and not her only Son? The Bible is very clear when speaking of Jesus as God's Son He is called God's only begotten Son (John 3:16). It stands to reason that if He were Mary's only begotten Son that the Bible would inform us of that fact. Anyway Neal's questions are very clear and I would like to see them addressed.
[Edited at 2:28 AM Carson I see that you responded to Neal's questions while I was writing this post. I would love to discuss your conclusions.]
Additionally, you said:
Who says? I don't believe that you can demonstrate this claim from the Bible. Are there other extra-biblical sources from 1st century Israel (or the Greek speaking world of that time) that indicate this to be the case?
Likewise, I have done a bit of missionary work in Kenya where they refer to just about all adult male relatives as "uncle" and adult female relatives as "auntie." However I never heard or saw a Kenyan child (or anyone else) refer to one of these "uncle/aunties" as father or mother.
Finally, do you really believe that the N.T. writers, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded inaccurate information regarding Jesus' family relationships? Also are you willing to say that God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, was unable to reveal a clear and accurate description of the relationships in question in His Holy Word? You know that the Bible teaches us that God is perfect and that He does everything in order, with precision, and that He is a God of clarity not a God of confusion.
No I don't understand. Because your explanation can only be valid if the Bible did not specifically inform us that the virgin conception of Christ in Mary's womb was a miracle. You know, the Bible tells us that the child conceived in Mary's womb was the result of the power of the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible does not say that Christ's birth occurred as a result of another miracle. The Bible says that when the gestation period was complete she, Mary, brought forth her first born Son (see Luke 2:6-7). Notice that the biblical text indicates that Mary birthed the child. It does not say that God worked another miracle to supernaturally transport the Christ child from Mary's womb into the manger. She gave birth just as every expectant mother has done from the days of Eve to the present.
Sorry but I don't think an eight day old helpless baby had very mush to say about whether or not to be circumcised. I'm not saying that Jesus would not have submitted to this act, but I am saying that your use of it to explain Mary's sin offering is very very weak. Likewise, Jesus submitted to John's baptism to fulfill O.T. prophecy. You can't make that claim regarding Mary and her sin offering. Also, Jesus submitted to the requirements of the law in order to fulfill the law. He is the only person who has every done so.
Mary made her sacrificial offerings because she was under the law and the sacrifices required by the law were the only way that she knew to be forgiven of her sins. Jesus is the only person who never sinned and was the only one suitable to serve as our sacrificial lamb on the cross once and for all.
[ January 19, 2003, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
Hello Carson,
Like Netcurtains3 stated earlier in this thread regarding the theory of the identities of the individuals you are speaking of:
The problem is that you are making a guess regarding John 19:25.
You are assuming that this passage is saying that there were three women standing by the cross. You identify them as:
1) His mother (Mary);
2) His mother's sister (Mary the wife of Clopas);
3) Mary Mag'dalene
However, that passage can also be understood that four women were present:
1) His mother
2) His mother's sister (an unidentified aunt)
3) Mary the wife of Clopas
4) Mary Mag'dalene
Likewise, the Bible identifies James, Joses, Simon, and Judas as Jesus' brothers in context with the identity of Mary as His mother (Matt. 13:55). According to your own argument above you have to completely disregard this Simon as being called one of Jesus' brothers in Matthew 13:55 and later identify him as Simon the Zealot. That is a huge departure from the biblical text and a giant leap into shear conjecture.
Finally, to make your theory work you have to identify Clopas as being the same person named Alphaeus by means of a claim that, "Alphaeus is an alternate translation of Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person." Can this claim be documented with any degree of certainty? What are the source documents to demonstrate this claim?
You have to jump through too many hoops and do a couple of back flips to make this theory work. Here is a trustworthy saying for you to consider: If you have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make your interpretation work with what the biblical text says you most likely have deperted from sound biblical teaching and doctrine.
[ January 19, 2003, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
I quote bibleboy
"
You have to jump through too many hoops and do a couple of back flips to make this theory work. Here is a trustworthy saying for you to consider: If you have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make your interpretation work with what the biblical text says you most likely have deperted from sound biblical teaching and doctrine.
"
ha ha ha - you just get yourself in deeper and deeper.
ei mh Iakwbon ton adelpon tou Kuriou
The Greek church speaks Greek. Does the Greek church say this means the son of Mary? NO of course it does not (in fact brother of the Lord doesn't even mean for 100% certain brother of Yeshua - to say it does mean adding to the words which some bible-ologists think is dangerous)
What St Paul is saying here is that we shouldn’t be Jews - it seems to me many
protestants in America think the very reverse.
This protestant site has a much fairer way of dealing with this topic then the gooble-de-gook
of bibleboy:
"
The Lord's brother
In Galatians 1:19, Paul calls James the Lord's brother. That he was closely linked to the Lord Jesus by natural ties is certain, but there is some question as to just what this relationship was. Three principal views have, on occasion, been advanced in various writings.
Two Apostles named James
In the list of apostles there are two men by the name of James. The first is James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of John. He could not be the author of our epistle, for he was killed by Herod before our epistle was written (Acts 12:2).
James the Son of Alphaeus
The second James is the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2,3), also called Cleophas (Jn. 19:25). Some have claimed that this is the James so prominent in Acts and the author of our epistle. But, how could he then be called the Lord's brother? From John 19:25, it may be inferred that he was a cousin of the Lord. Here is the verse, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." That this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, was the mother of James the apostle, is not questioned. Two Marys in one family seems unlikely, but if she really was the sister of Mary, the Lord's mother, then James and the Lord Jesus were cousins. And, according to Jewish custom, such might be called brothers. The verse in John 19, could also be speaking of four different women rather than three. If that is true then we have His mother and His mother's sister; then, also, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Madalene. If there are but three women in the verse, and Mary, the wife of Cleophas is also the sister of Mary, the Lord's mother, then we must conclude that those usually called the Lord's brother may have actually been His cousins (Matt. 12:46-50; 13:54-57). Then James and Jude were both apostles, yet neither, when writing their epistles claimed apostleship. Note, Paul and Peter both insist on their apostleship when writing their epistles. If James and Jude were apostles, why were they not within with the Lord Jesus, instead of without with Mary, as we read in Matthew 12:46? Evidently James and Joses and Simon and Judas and His sisters were regarded as part of the family with the Lord Jesus (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Jn. 2:12; 7:3).
James, the Son of Joseph
Still others hold that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were all sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and that they did not believe in the Lord Jesus until His appearance to James, as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:7. Then, after this appearance, James rose to be one of the pillars of the church. While this may be a possibility, it is more likely that it has been invented by those who want to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
James, The Son of Joseph and Mary
A third view is that James, with his other brothers and sisters, was born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of the Lord Jesus. He is spoken of as Mary's first born son in Luke 2:7. This would imply that others were born later. Then it would further seem from Matthew 1:18,25 that Joseph and Mary had natural marriage relations after the Lord Jesus was born. If so, she was not a perpetual virgin as some claim, and there is no reason to believe she did not have other children of her own. This third view is the most likely one.
"
[ January 19, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
"
You have to jump through too many hoops and do a couple of back flips to make this theory work. Here is a trustworthy saying for you to consider: If you have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make your interpretation work with what the biblical text says you most likely have deperted from sound biblical teaching and doctrine.
"
ha ha ha - you just get yourself in deeper and deeper.
ei mh Iakwbon ton adelpon tou Kuriou
The Greek church speaks Greek. Does the Greek church say this means the son of Mary? NO of course it does not (in fact brother of the Lord doesn't even mean for 100% certain brother of Yeshua - to say it does mean adding to the words which some bible-ologists think is dangerous)
What St Paul is saying here is that we shouldn’t be Jews - it seems to me many
protestants in America think the very reverse.
This protestant site has a much fairer way of dealing with this topic then the gooble-de-gook
of bibleboy:
"
The Lord's brother
In Galatians 1:19, Paul calls James the Lord's brother. That he was closely linked to the Lord Jesus by natural ties is certain, but there is some question as to just what this relationship was. Three principal views have, on occasion, been advanced in various writings.
Two Apostles named James
In the list of apostles there are two men by the name of James. The first is James, the son of Zebedee, the brother of John. He could not be the author of our epistle, for he was killed by Herod before our epistle was written (Acts 12:2).
James the Son of Alphaeus
The second James is the son of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:2,3), also called Cleophas (Jn. 19:25). Some have claimed that this is the James so prominent in Acts and the author of our epistle. But, how could he then be called the Lord's brother? From John 19:25, it may be inferred that he was a cousin of the Lord. Here is the verse, "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene." That this Mary, the wife of Cleophas, was the mother of James the apostle, is not questioned. Two Marys in one family seems unlikely, but if she really was the sister of Mary, the Lord's mother, then James and the Lord Jesus were cousins. And, according to Jewish custom, such might be called brothers. The verse in John 19, could also be speaking of four different women rather than three. If that is true then we have His mother and His mother's sister; then, also, Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Madalene. If there are but three women in the verse, and Mary, the wife of Cleophas is also the sister of Mary, the Lord's mother, then we must conclude that those usually called the Lord's brother may have actually been His cousins (Matt. 12:46-50; 13:54-57). Then James and Jude were both apostles, yet neither, when writing their epistles claimed apostleship. Note, Paul and Peter both insist on their apostleship when writing their epistles. If James and Jude were apostles, why were they not within with the Lord Jesus, instead of without with Mary, as we read in Matthew 12:46? Evidently James and Joses and Simon and Judas and His sisters were regarded as part of the family with the Lord Jesus (Matt. 12:46; 13:55; Jn. 2:12; 7:3).
James, the Son of Joseph
Still others hold that James, Joses, Simon and Judas were all sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and that they did not believe in the Lord Jesus until His appearance to James, as we read in 1 Corinthians 15:7. Then, after this appearance, James rose to be one of the pillars of the church. While this may be a possibility, it is more likely that it has been invented by those who want to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
James, The Son of Joseph and Mary
A third view is that James, with his other brothers and sisters, was born to Joseph and Mary after the birth of the Lord Jesus. He is spoken of as Mary's first born son in Luke 2:7. This would imply that others were born later. Then it would further seem from Matthew 1:18,25 that Joseph and Mary had natural marriage relations after the Lord Jesus was born. If so, she was not a perpetual virgin as some claim, and there is no reason to believe she did not have other children of her own. This third view is the most likely one.
"
[ January 19, 2003, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Just off to Mass but before I go I have given it a wee bit more thought.
Why did Paul say "brother of the Lord" and not "brother of Yeshua" or "Christ"?
I think he was trying to say three things:
1 James was a close relative of Yeshua
2 he was a fellow christian.
3 he was considered a VERY IMPORTANT christian because of his relationship to Yeshua.
This VERY IMPORTANT Christian bit is what counts the most as he is saying it doesn't matter how important the individual christian is (the Pope himself for example) he can still be wrong.
He says "What I say to you is no lie" right after saying "James is the Lords brother" possibly because it might sound like a lie or possibly because his whole conversion tale could sound like a lie.
To say Brother of the LORD is not a lie (because in a sense we are all brothers and sisters) - he did not say Brother to Yeshua as this might have gone too far but it went far enough to show us that James was closely related to Yeshua and that is what both Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all believe.
Net
[ January 19, 2003, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
Why did Paul say "brother of the Lord" and not "brother of Yeshua" or "Christ"?
I think he was trying to say three things:
1 James was a close relative of Yeshua
2 he was a fellow christian.
3 he was considered a VERY IMPORTANT christian because of his relationship to Yeshua.
This VERY IMPORTANT Christian bit is what counts the most as he is saying it doesn't matter how important the individual christian is (the Pope himself for example) he can still be wrong.
He says "What I say to you is no lie" right after saying "James is the Lords brother" possibly because it might sound like a lie or possibly because his whole conversion tale could sound like a lie.
To say Brother of the LORD is not a lie (because in a sense we are all brothers and sisters) - he did not say Brother to Yeshua as this might have gone too far but it went far enough to show us that James was closely related to Yeshua and that is what both Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox all believe.
Net
[ January 19, 2003, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Netcurtains3 ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Bibleboy,
You asked, "I don't believe that you can demonstrate this claim from the Bible." That is, whether aldephos was used to refer to cousins when one was an only child (and also, I assert, when one has brothers and sisters).
The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies.
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
I never heard or saw a Kenyan child (or anyone else) refer to one of these "uncle/aunties" as father or mother.
I did not say that in some African culture, you will find individuals referring to aunts and uncles as father and mother. I wrote, "In many cultures today, especially in the African nations, one's cousins are referred to as "brothers" even when language holds one distinct word separate from 'brother' for one's cousins. This is because their family structure is much broader than our distinctly separated nuclear families in 21st c. American culture."
I am currently taking graduate theology classes with priests from Africa, and we've discussed this in class.
Finally, do you really believe that the N.T. writers, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded inaccurate information regarding Jesus' family relationships?
Of course not.
The Bible is not a clean, direct, straightforward, easy-to-interpret catechism. It's a collection of sometimes messy, hard-to-interpret, many times indirect, culturally sensitive God-breathed texts written in ancient languages foreign to our contemporary tongue.
It is a fundamentalist tendency not to apply the Historical-Critical method to the Biblical text in order to ascertain exactly what the intention of the human author was by examing history, culture, linguistics, philology, semantics, etc. We must take the writer's own purview in context when examining this issue.
your explanation can only be valid if the Bible did not specifically inform us that the virgin conception of Christ in Mary's womb was a miracle.
Remember, I don't hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura, so you may hold yourself to the principle: "If the Bible didn't say it, it didn't happen".
However, you may not hold me to that principle, because I do not accept the Bible as the only form by which revelation is passed on to future Christian generations. Nowhere does the New Testament command us to believe only what is written in the New Testament.
Equally so, I venerate authentic Apostolic Tradition, and a part of this Tradition is that Christ experienced a miraculous birth.
As Saint Paul writes, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
I follow the direction of the New Testament, which points me to Apostolic Tradition as guarded (Paul tells Timothy in 1 Tim 6:20, "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.") by the Magisterium.
You wrote, "Mary made her sacrificial offerings because she was under the law and the sacrifices required by the law were the only way that she knew to be forgiven of her sins."
And Jesus submitted to the precepts of the Mosaic Law because he was under the Mosaic Law like Mary. Because of this simple fact, your conclusion is a non sequitur; that is, if you hold Jesus to be sinless.
You realize that you have just indicated from the Scriptures that the birth of Jesus is considered to have "opened" Mary's womb thereby making her no longer a virgin right?
No, I did not. This OT passage's main import is to show that the first born child is referred to as the firstborn, and it does so by refering to this child as the one who "opens the womb". This is an expression to indicate birth, not a physical requirement of that same birth.
If Jesus was born of Mary through a miraculous birth, he is still her son. And therefore, he is her firstborn son, irregardless of whether the nature of the actual birthing process.
However, that passage can also be understood that four women were present
And the grammatical structure of the sentence favors three women.
"his mother and [kai] his mother's sister Mary the wife of Cleophas and [kai] Mary Magdalene."
"kai" delineates the 3 women.
Likewise, the Bible identifies James, Joses, Simon, and Judas as Jesus' brothers in context with the identity of Mary as His mother (Matt. 13:55).
You approach the text with the presupposition and assumption that because the passage says, "Is not his mother called Mary?" next to "And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" so James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas must be his half-brothers and Mary must be their mother. I don't make that assumption, nor should I.
What are the source documents to demonstrate this claim? [that Alphaeus is Cleophas]
According to Strong's #2832, Klophas is "the father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus".
If you have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make your interpretation work with what the biblical text says you most likely have deperted from sound biblical teaching and doctrine.
And I would pass on to you the sound advice of the famous Oxford scholar John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
Bless you,
Carson
[ January 19, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You asked, "I don't believe that you can demonstrate this claim from the Bible." That is, whether aldephos was used to refer to cousins when one was an only child (and also, I assert, when one has brothers and sisters).
The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies.
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
I never heard or saw a Kenyan child (or anyone else) refer to one of these "uncle/aunties" as father or mother.
I did not say that in some African culture, you will find individuals referring to aunts and uncles as father and mother. I wrote, "In many cultures today, especially in the African nations, one's cousins are referred to as "brothers" even when language holds one distinct word separate from 'brother' for one's cousins. This is because their family structure is much broader than our distinctly separated nuclear families in 21st c. American culture."
I am currently taking graduate theology classes with priests from Africa, and we've discussed this in class.
Finally, do you really believe that the N.T. writers, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, recorded inaccurate information regarding Jesus' family relationships?
Of course not.
The Bible is not a clean, direct, straightforward, easy-to-interpret catechism. It's a collection of sometimes messy, hard-to-interpret, many times indirect, culturally sensitive God-breathed texts written in ancient languages foreign to our contemporary tongue.
It is a fundamentalist tendency not to apply the Historical-Critical method to the Biblical text in order to ascertain exactly what the intention of the human author was by examing history, culture, linguistics, philology, semantics, etc. We must take the writer's own purview in context when examining this issue.
your explanation can only be valid if the Bible did not specifically inform us that the virgin conception of Christ in Mary's womb was a miracle.
Remember, I don't hold to the principle of Sola Scriptura, so you may hold yourself to the principle: "If the Bible didn't say it, it didn't happen".
However, you may not hold me to that principle, because I do not accept the Bible as the only form by which revelation is passed on to future Christian generations. Nowhere does the New Testament command us to believe only what is written in the New Testament.
Equally so, I venerate authentic Apostolic Tradition, and a part of this Tradition is that Christ experienced a miraculous birth.
As Saint Paul writes, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15).
I follow the direction of the New Testament, which points me to Apostolic Tradition as guarded (Paul tells Timothy in 1 Tim 6:20, "O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.") by the Magisterium.
You wrote, "Mary made her sacrificial offerings because she was under the law and the sacrifices required by the law were the only way that she knew to be forgiven of her sins."
And Jesus submitted to the precepts of the Mosaic Law because he was under the Mosaic Law like Mary. Because of this simple fact, your conclusion is a non sequitur; that is, if you hold Jesus to be sinless.
You realize that you have just indicated from the Scriptures that the birth of Jesus is considered to have "opened" Mary's womb thereby making her no longer a virgin right?
No, I did not. This OT passage's main import is to show that the first born child is referred to as the firstborn, and it does so by refering to this child as the one who "opens the womb". This is an expression to indicate birth, not a physical requirement of that same birth.
If Jesus was born of Mary through a miraculous birth, he is still her son. And therefore, he is her firstborn son, irregardless of whether the nature of the actual birthing process.
However, that passage can also be understood that four women were present
And the grammatical structure of the sentence favors three women.
"his mother and [kai] his mother's sister Mary the wife of Cleophas and [kai] Mary Magdalene."
"kai" delineates the 3 women.
Likewise, the Bible identifies James, Joses, Simon, and Judas as Jesus' brothers in context with the identity of Mary as His mother (Matt. 13:55).
You approach the text with the presupposition and assumption that because the passage says, "Is not his mother called Mary?" next to "And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" so James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas must be his half-brothers and Mary must be their mother. I don't make that assumption, nor should I.
What are the source documents to demonstrate this claim? [that Alphaeus is Cleophas]
According to Strong's #2832, Klophas is "the father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus".
If you have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to make your interpretation work with what the biblical text says you most likely have deperted from sound biblical teaching and doctrine.
And I would pass on to you the sound advice of the famous Oxford scholar John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."
Bless you,
Carson
[ January 19, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
neal4christ
New Member
Carson,
I don't mean to mock you, but I find it a little amusing that you are supposed to be talking about a Greek word and then launch into the OT, which as you know, was written in Hebrew.
Neal
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Neal,
You wrote, "I find it a little amusing that you are supposed to be talking about a Greek word and then launch into the OT, which as you know, was written in Hebrew."
Don't forget that while the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, vast numbers of Jews in the first centry lived in the diaspora - that is - in Hellenized cultures apart from Jerusalem where the dominant language was Greek. And so, the major Greek translation of the Old Testament is the Septuagint, from which we find many quotes from New Testament authors.
In the same way, numerous scholars suspect that the Greek New Testament has pre-testamental sources, both oral and written, that are Aramaic, of which the NT texts themselves are translations. Take, for instance, the account in John 1:42 where John translates Kephas (Aramaic) to Petros (Greek) for us.
Also, irregardless of whether the term for brother is in Hebrew or Greek, what matters is whether the specific word that translates into the English "brother" was used for kin whom were not brothers, in the strict sense. This is a cultural aspect that transends the usage of language and of which language is an expression of.
If we find, in Semitic culture, cousins being referred to as brothers in the Hebrew, then what difference will it make in the Greek? Irregardless of the language, the strict term (in Hebrew or Greek) for brother was used to designate those who where not strictly brothers, per say. And so, when we find NT authors referring to Jesus' relatives as "brothers" and not as "cousins", we shouldn't automatically assume that these relatives are not cousins.
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples; see John 1:42 again) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews used "brother."
When the NT is penned in Greek, we find this same usage employed in reference to relatives of Jesus.
God bless,
Carson
[ January 19, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
You wrote, "I find it a little amusing that you are supposed to be talking about a Greek word and then launch into the OT, which as you know, was written in Hebrew."
Don't forget that while the original manuscripts were written in Hebrew, vast numbers of Jews in the first centry lived in the diaspora - that is - in Hellenized cultures apart from Jerusalem where the dominant language was Greek. And so, the major Greek translation of the Old Testament is the Septuagint, from which we find many quotes from New Testament authors.
In the same way, numerous scholars suspect that the Greek New Testament has pre-testamental sources, both oral and written, that are Aramaic, of which the NT texts themselves are translations. Take, for instance, the account in John 1:42 where John translates Kephas (Aramaic) to Petros (Greek) for us.
Also, irregardless of whether the term for brother is in Hebrew or Greek, what matters is whether the specific word that translates into the English "brother" was used for kin whom were not brothers, in the strict sense. This is a cultural aspect that transends the usage of language and of which language is an expression of.
If we find, in Semitic culture, cousins being referred to as brothers in the Hebrew, then what difference will it make in the Greek? Irregardless of the language, the strict term (in Hebrew or Greek) for brother was used to designate those who where not strictly brothers, per say. And so, when we find NT authors referring to Jesus' relatives as "brothers" and not as "cousins", we shouldn't automatically assume that these relatives are not cousins.
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples; see John 1:42 again) had a special word meaning "cousin," speakers of those languages used either the word for "brother" or a circumlocution, such as "the son of the sister of my father." But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews used "brother."
When the NT is penned in Greek, we find this same usage employed in reference to relatives of Jesus.
God bless,
Carson
[ January 19, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Hello Net,
No I am not digging myself in deeper. I am holding to a very simple and clear form of literal historical/grammatical interpretation that adds nothing to the text and accepts that when the Bible refers to these men as "brothers" of the Lord that that is exactly what the human author and the Holy Spirit intended for it to mean.
It is you and Carson who have to jump through the hoops of trying to identify these men as sons of someone else and (as in Carson’s argument above) totally disregarding Simon as being one of those sons.
Net, modern Greek language and N.T. Greek are not one and the same. The quote that you posted above appears to contain some N.T. Greek words. I realize that what you have posted is a transliteration. However, I would prefer to see the actual Greek text to determine what is being said. Anyway, the "ei" appears to be the 2nd singular form of "eimi (I am)" meaning "you are." I can not make out the "mh" or the "Iakwbon." The word "ton" above appears to be the accusative form of the Greek definite article "the," which indicates the object of the Subject/verb in the sentence. The "adelpon" looks like Greek word "adelphos (brother)" placed into the accusative case to go along with the "ton." Then the "tou" appears to be the Greek genative form of the definite article "the," which represents the possessor. Thus, it requires that the translator supply the word "of" for the english translation. Then "kuriou" appears to the genitive form of "kurios" (meaning Lord), so the translation thus far would be "You are (blank) (blank) the brother of the Lord." I don't quite see how you can interpret that to be saying "that we are not to be Jews."
Edited at 4:30 AM EST:
Net I broke out my Greek New Testament and I see that you were attempting to quote Galatians 1:19. The transliteration of that passage is: "ei me Iakobon (Jacob) ton adelphon tou kupiou." However, you cannot just start quoting N.T. Greek half way through a sentence and out of context. The New King James Version does a very good job of translating this passage, "But I saw none of the other apostlaes except James [literally Jacob], the Lord's brother" (Gal. 1:19, NKJV). There is no possible way that you can twist that passage to mean the we should not be Jews. Where in the world did you come up with that idea?
I fully understand that there are those theologians out there who hold to the various views that you have presented. However, I disagree with the first two interpretations and accept the final one. Likewise, please note that your own source says that the third interpretation is the most likely. What I am trying to demonstrate here is that I believe in absolute truth and that absolute truth is found only in God and in His word. Therefore, we cannot pick and choose between the three options that you have given and say that everyone can hold to which ever one they like best. One of the interpratation is correct and true the other two are not. I choose interpretation three. Hence, I argue that the first two are inccorrect and false teachings. Can you still choose to believe which ever one you want? Yes. Will your chosen interpretation be correct and true simply because you believe it to be so? No.
We are debating a theological point of biblical interpretation. Will one of us go to hell because we held to the wrong interpretation regarding the topic at hand? No, because this topic has no part in our salvation. We are saved by faith in Christ Jesus and that is not what we are debating.
[ January 20, 2003, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
neal4christ
New Member
How are you so sure? Your reasoning is clear??? Do you think that some people could not have the same names? Or to keep Mark 6:3 in harmony, you could say that the verse means what it says plainly! And so bold to declare Simon not a brother just because you don't think he should be with no evidence.
So we should automatically think they are cousins? What about sisters? Automatically think cousins too? What about Mary the mother of others? Automatically Mary the aunt of others? Do you see all the manipulation you have to do to arrive at your point?
Or so you think, to justify your theology. Just as valid, if not more reasonable, is to take all the evidence and realize that Jesus had brothers and sisters and that His mother had other children.
A couple of things I was wondering. First, what do you think of the ossuary that was recently found with the inscription stating that James was the brother of Jesus? And second, how do you explain Matt. 1:24-25?
Neal
[ January 20, 2003, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]
N
Netcurtains3
Guest
Hello Carson,
I am asking you specifically to demonstrate a clear use of adelphos (brother) being taken mean "cousin" within the passages of the New Testament. You have made a very specific claim regarding the use of N.T. Greek. Now prove it from the N.T. Greek. I understand what you are trying to show with the O.T. quotes, but we are not talking about O.T. Hebrew. Likewise, I already discussed that Abraham and Lot issue earlier in the thread and have closed that door.
What I was getting at is the same point that Neal raised. We see the Bible referring to Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers in the same breath. Thus, His mother is their mother according to a literal historical/grammatical interpretation of the text. The question is if, according to your view, His mother was really their aunt, then why is she referred to as their mother in the text?
Then we will simply continue to argue past one another because we are not even holding to the same principles of biblical intrepretation.
Oh yes I can get there from here. Jesus was not under the law "like Mary" because He was not held by the curse of sin as Mary was. He came to fulfill the law and the prophets and to seek and to save the lost. He was/is the law. He willingly submitted to the law because He came to meet us where we are. However, He is the only one who has ever fulfilled the law and not sinned. That is what qualifies Him to be our Savior. No one else holds that place.
However, you are ignoring that the Bible says that She (Mary) brought forth her firstborn Son. She simply gave birth just like all women give birth. There in no miracle even implied by the text, you (rather the RCC) added that.
In N.T. Greek when ever you have kai ... kai it is to be taken to mean "both... and," not "and ... and," Therefore, the passage literally says ...His mother, both (kai) His mother's sister, Maria the wife of Clopas, and (kai) Mary Magdalene.
Hence, it could be easily taken to mean:
1) His mother
2) Her sister (His unnamed aunt)
3) Maria wife of Clopas
4) Mary Magdalene
However, even if we translate the text to say that only three women are three you still have to make a huge leap to make Mary the wife of Clopas be the same person as the wife of Alphaeus, and yet another leap that Clopas and Alphaeus are one and the same person as well. It is all speculation and unproven and is drive by the RCC presupposition of the eternal virginity of Mary.
It is not a presupposition on my part it is a literal reading of the Word.
Strong's is not a primary source document. It is a secondary source, based on someone's opinion. Likewise, the definitions in Strong's may well be based upon a third party's commentary material making your answer even further removed from the 1st century and the biblical text as well.
Ah But Carson, We are not talking about difficulties. We are talking about having to manipulate the biblical text to make it say what you want it to say.
May God's Blessings be upon you too.
[ January 20, 2003, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
Sorry Net,
but you are way off base here. If you will search through the entire New Testament I don't think that you will find a single reference where one of the apostles, when speaking to or about Jesus, called him by his given name "Jesus." They always called Him Lord, Teacher (Rabbi), or Master. That is because they understood just who He was/is. They gave Him the proper respect that was due Him.
Regarding Paul's "I lie not" statement, he is in the middle of presenting an argument to the Galatian Church to prove his Apostleship. Again, you have to look at the entire context of the passage. He starts in verse 11 and continues through to the end of Chapter One. He mentions meeting with Peter and James because on this visit they were the only leaders of the Jerusalem church who were bold enough to meet with him. Most likely the Christians in Jerusalem were afraid of Paul. Remember, he was their chief persecutor just a few years earlier. When you ignore the context you can make the Bible say just about whatever you want it to say.
[ January 20, 2003, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Bibleboy,
You wrote, "I understand what you are trying to show with the O.T. quotes, but we are not talking about O.T. Hebrew."
Exactly. And, I'm not addressing O.T. Hebrew, but Semitic culture, of which the Greek is a reflection of.
What I was getting at is the same point that Neal raised. We see the Bible referring to Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers in the same breath.
And so you assume that his brothers share Mary as mother with Jesus, which I don't assume.
Thus, His mother is their mother according to a literal historical/grammatical interpretation of the text.
Only if you make the presumption that Mary must be their mother, which the text does not say. Acccording to a Historical-Critical viewpoint, you must recognize that Mary is not said to be their mother, and you are forcing this upon the text with your preconceived bias.
You should recognize that these adelphoi may be either Jesus' half-brothers or cousins/nephews/etc. Instead, you are trying to dogmatize the former possibility to the exclusion of all others.
we are not even holding to the same principles of biblical intrepretation.
The principle of Sola Scriptura does not determine the principles of Biblical interpretation. It determines the content of revelation when formulating doctrine.
In fact, because we both hold the Bible to be the inspired revelation of God, it is precisly the Bible which brings us together as brothers in the Lord and from which we can grow in unity because it provides common ground between us.
[Jesus] willingly submitted to the law because He came to meet us where we are.
And if Jesus willingly submitted to the law, and if, according to your criteria, submission to the law automatically implies sinfulness, then either:
1. Jesus must be sinful, or
2. Adherence to the law does not necessarily imply sinfulness (e.g. Mary)
She (Mary) brought forth her firstborn Son ... There in no miracle even implied by the text, you (rather the RCC) added that.
Luke 2:7 - "And she gave birth to her first-born son". Yes, Mary gave birth. The nature of the birth is not addressed by the text, and we know of the nature of the birth because of Apostolic Tradition.
Yes, Tradition does add to our knowledge of the nature of the birth, but I would suggest that it wasn't the Catholic Church that added it, but the reality itself that occurred during the birth of Jesus and which was subsequently handed down in the life of the Church, guarded as it were by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It is all speculation and unproven and is drive by the RCC presupposition of the eternal virginity of Mary.
You are correct. Apostolic Tradition informs how we interpret Biblical texts.
For instance, whenever Jesus is mentioned as the Son of God, Apostolic Tradition informs us that "Son of God" is a metaphysical reality and not a metaphor. Accordingly, we interpret the Bible as such, according to Apostolic Tradition.
Hence, Jesus is truly eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Not.. metaphorically.
Strong's is not a primary source document. It is a secondary source, based on someone's opinion.
A Protestant opinion at that.
We are not talking about difficulties. We are talking about having to manipulate the biblical text to make it say what you want it to say.
I would rephrase your sentence to, "We are interpreting the Biblical text in light of valid Apostolic Tradition as handed down faithfully to us by the teaching office of the bishops and guarded by the power of the Holy Spirit".
God bless,
Carson
You wrote, "I understand what you are trying to show with the O.T. quotes, but we are not talking about O.T. Hebrew."
Exactly. And, I'm not addressing O.T. Hebrew, but Semitic culture, of which the Greek is a reflection of.
What I was getting at is the same point that Neal raised. We see the Bible referring to Mary the mother of Jesus and His brothers in the same breath.
And so you assume that his brothers share Mary as mother with Jesus, which I don't assume.
Thus, His mother is their mother according to a literal historical/grammatical interpretation of the text.
Only if you make the presumption that Mary must be their mother, which the text does not say. Acccording to a Historical-Critical viewpoint, you must recognize that Mary is not said to be their mother, and you are forcing this upon the text with your preconceived bias.
You should recognize that these adelphoi may be either Jesus' half-brothers or cousins/nephews/etc. Instead, you are trying to dogmatize the former possibility to the exclusion of all others.
we are not even holding to the same principles of biblical intrepretation.
The principle of Sola Scriptura does not determine the principles of Biblical interpretation. It determines the content of revelation when formulating doctrine.
In fact, because we both hold the Bible to be the inspired revelation of God, it is precisly the Bible which brings us together as brothers in the Lord and from which we can grow in unity because it provides common ground between us.
[Jesus] willingly submitted to the law because He came to meet us where we are.
And if Jesus willingly submitted to the law, and if, according to your criteria, submission to the law automatically implies sinfulness, then either:
1. Jesus must be sinful, or
2. Adherence to the law does not necessarily imply sinfulness (e.g. Mary)
She (Mary) brought forth her firstborn Son ... There in no miracle even implied by the text, you (rather the RCC) added that.
Luke 2:7 - "And she gave birth to her first-born son". Yes, Mary gave birth. The nature of the birth is not addressed by the text, and we know of the nature of the birth because of Apostolic Tradition.
Yes, Tradition does add to our knowledge of the nature of the birth, but I would suggest that it wasn't the Catholic Church that added it, but the reality itself that occurred during the birth of Jesus and which was subsequently handed down in the life of the Church, guarded as it were by the power of the Holy Spirit.
It is all speculation and unproven and is drive by the RCC presupposition of the eternal virginity of Mary.
You are correct. Apostolic Tradition informs how we interpret Biblical texts.
For instance, whenever Jesus is mentioned as the Son of God, Apostolic Tradition informs us that "Son of God" is a metaphysical reality and not a metaphor. Accordingly, we interpret the Bible as such, according to Apostolic Tradition.
Hence, Jesus is truly eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Not.. metaphorically.
Strong's is not a primary source document. It is a secondary source, based on someone's opinion.
A Protestant opinion at that.
We are not talking about difficulties. We are talking about having to manipulate the biblical text to make it say what you want it to say.
I would rephrase your sentence to, "We are interpreting the Biblical text in light of valid Apostolic Tradition as handed down faithfully to us by the teaching office of the bishops and guarded by the power of the Holy Spirit".
God bless,
Carson
neal4christ
New Member
Couple of problems here. You fail to recognize a differnce between Mary and Jesus. Jesus is God, Mary is not. Another problem, are you willing to say that there were many Jews who were sinless, because there were many who adhered to the law. That opens up the door for many to be sinless, because why stop at Mary? And then Rom. 3:23 falls apart and makes God a liar.
Neal