|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 12, 2008 22:45:04 GMT -5
I don't trust them at all obviously. ;D I believe we should search the scripture.
"Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."
"Matthew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 12, 2008 22:47:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 12, 2008 23:16:56 GMT -5
How then can you accept the teachings of those men you don't trust?
Hmmm...maybe I missed it. Don't see any mention of any wedding ceremony having taken place there nor even predicted or ordered. It just tells Joseph to take Mary, his wife by "betrothal".
(Ok, I was being a little sarcastic there! LOL! Sorry! But that was a set-up question if ever there was one just so that I could get you to post that exact same verse so that I could give the board a lesson on why Mary was called Joseph's wife and how it didn't automatically mean that a ceremony had taken place...if it had, they'd be living together as husband and wife, not separately as two engaged persons.)
According to The Law, men and women who were engaged were referred to as husband and wife before they were actually married. That's why even though Joseph had never married Mary, he was going to divorce her (of course, if they had been married actually before the birth of Christ or even the Annunciation, they, by The Law, would've been living together, not separately).
But hey, you gave it a shot.
You just have to study the mindset of the 1st Century Jew in order to understand the life and culture of the times.
Again, these weren't 21st Century Americans. Their phrases and terms are different than ours.
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 12, 2008 23:35:21 GMT -5
So ultimately, when you boil it down, your saying that they wrote it down wrong and they didn't mean what they wrote. It is written: "2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" And again: "Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." theos ;D Hate to break it to you, but that is English not Aramaic.  So what you are posting is a Aramaic translation of a Greek text THEN translated into English. Translated from Greek to English it does say cousin. It says: "Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" His brethren and his "kinsmen according to the flesh"(the jews in this context). See the distinction? I already freely admitted that brethren has both a wide and a narrow sense in Greek so I don't see the problem? BTW "manna" is never called "the bread of life" in scripture. Only Christ.  We are discussing the usage of GREEK words in the NT. Not Hebrew in the OT. Hebrew may or may not have a particular word for cousin, I haven't looked into it, but no matter if it does or not we are speaking of GREEK not Hebrew. Different words, different languages. The OT was written in Hebrew(with a little Chaldean) and the NT was written in Greek. Is that hard to understand. lol I don't unless they happen to follow the word of God. LOL I am aware of that. And yes, they were legally married or there would have been no need to divorce. They just had not "come together" yet and were living separately. Maybe you need to study 1st century Jewish custom a little more.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 0:13:35 GMT -5
No, they wrote what they "said". What they wrote was right, but what they used to write it was "not" the original language. For the words that couldn't be translated from their language, they made substitutes. Theos...Zeus. ;D www.noteaccess.com/APPROACHES/AGW/Zeus.htmwww.iahushua.com/ST-RP/glory.htmbooks.google.com/books?id=cOL8QiQN5wAC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=theos+zeus&source=web&ots=iLmbkNfayO&sig=qJl9agh75VuF3VLXz4Q0ex9LH90&hl=enOh, I see, when it's English based on Aramaic, it's wrong. But when it's English based on Greek based on Aramaic, then it's not?  Had to twist your arm, but I brought you full circle. BTW, I never said that manna was called the bread of life. R.I.F. My brudah! youtube.com/watch?v=O7dPprbzNScNo...we are talking about Aramaic words in The Bible. ;D Who decides what they teach is The Word of God? (if you say scripture, then why go to them if you can get it from The Bible first?) Negative. A divorce (in those times) also meant breaking off an engagement legally. It was the equivalent to getting an annullment today for a marriage where no consummation had taken place. Maybe you do...if they were married, by 1st Century Jewish Law, they would have had to immediately moved in together. Period. No living together, no marriage. No marriage, no consummation. The only way that they could've lived together without the ceremonial wedding having taken place would've been if they didn't have sexual relations. By Jewish Law, the husband was required to have sexual relations. If they didn't, then the marriage was invalid. There was no time extension. It had to be done upon the night of the wedding. For you to say that they were married, but didn't have sex either before the Annunciation or for 9 months after, would be for you to say that The Blessed Virgin Mary and Joseph who God chose "broke" The Law. Now, since they weren't married (as was evident by their not living together) and were only betrothed, they could've lived together only "if" no sex took place. I don't know about you, but personally, I could'nt see Mary as a sexual object after she had given birth to The Son of God. If you were Joseph, would you have sex with Jesus' mother? I don't know how any man could see her as a sexual object. Especially a man that had been approached by an angel of God an had been given a mission to accomplish. There would've been bigger things on my mind than physical gratification. I don't know what makes anybody think that a man touched by God would want to pleasure themselves with His (that is, God's) Son's mother. But hey, that's just me and 83% (1.6 Billion) of Christianity and 100% of Islam (1.3 Billion) and 100% of the Protestant Church Fathers (3) speaking along with 100% of Christian History. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 0:32:25 GMT -5
If Jesus had brothers, then why did He give His Beloved Mother to The Apostle John to care for her when by Jewish Law He had to give her to one of His brothers?
|
|
|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 13, 2008 20:15:12 GMT -5
They did use the Greek word for cousin in the NT. They knew the Greek word for that. BUT they did NOT use the word for cousin when speaking of his brothers. I know you would like to wiggle out of that, but you can't. ;D
See, the scripture was INSPIRED by God. It is perfect. It is right. God moved them to write what they wrote. They wrote the NT in Greek and they used the words God wanted. You are saying that they were "translating" from Aramaic and they were doing no such thing. They were writing in GREEK NOT ARAMAIC.
You said:
"That's like me saying that Jesus isn't the bread of life because another part of the Bible calls mana the bread of life. Both are true, but neither has anything to do with each other."
Flip flop... Flip flop...
I don't "go" to "them" at all. I do get it from the bible first. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 13, 2008 20:29:40 GMT -5
I do not believe he had to give her to one of his brothers according to scripture. That may have been the Jewish custom, but Jesus did not always follow Jewish custom. Matter of fact he broke it a number of times in scripture. Anyway even if he hadn't had brothers leaving her to the next of kin(cousins in your mistaken view) would have been the norm. So leaving her to John was unusual any way you look at it. As to why he left her to John, scripture is not clear, but it may well have been because at that time his brothers did not believe on him. They only believed later.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 20:56:02 GMT -5
Thank you for answering! The first Protestant to ever answer this question! Why would you think that that part of The Law was abolished? God's Law. Not man's custom. Jesus never broke His Father's Law...that would make Him a hypocrite. Uh, no. The biological brothers (according to Jewish tradition) are the only ones responsible to the mother's care. Doesn't say anything about cousins. Where do you get that it would've been "the norm" from? Can you cite a source? Jesus' words... John 19 26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! 27 Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. But I'll tell you what, let's break down the scriptures. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 21:00:03 GMT -5
www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htmMatthew 13:55 -- Jesus at Nazareth -- carpenter’s son -- mother named Mary -- brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas -- sisters “with us” Matthew 27: 55 -- The Crucifixion “Among them were Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES AND JOSEPH, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” This “Mary” is obviously the mother of the same James and Joseph mentioned in Matt 13:55.Matthew 28: 1 -- The Resurrection “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and THE OTHER MARY came to see the tomb.” This “other Mary” certainly corresponds to the mother of James and Joseph, the companion of Mary Magdalene in Matt 27:55. However, she is presented as such a minor gospel character that she is apparently NOT the mother of Jesus. It’s interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as “Jesus’ mother.” (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase “His mother.”) It’s unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus’ mother are apparently two different women. But first, let’s turn to Mark. Mark 6:3 -- Jesus at Nazareth (possibly the original source) -- “Is he not the carpenter?” (Jesus had taken over the family business) -- “The son of Mary” (Very unusual in a Jewish context, in which a son is the son of the father, not the mother) -- brothers James, JOSE, Judas, and Simon The same list as in Matt 13:55, with the exception of “Jose” in place of Matthew’s Joseph -- really the same name in Hebrew (Yoshef).-- “sisters are here with us” Both in Matthew’s account, and more clearly here in Mark’s, this phrase seems to suggest that these particular “brothers” of Jesus lived elsewhere. (Could they have been traveling with Jesus as His followers?) Mark 15:40 -- The Crucifixion “Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.” Here, Matthew’s “Mary the mother of James and Joseph” reappears as “the mother of ...James and of Jose,” corresponding to Mark’s reference to Jesus’ “brothers” James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark’s accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother -- like Jesus’ -- happened to be named Mary:
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 21:02:04 GMT -5
NAZARETH CRUCIFIXION
Matthew: James and Joseph James and Joseph
Mark: James and Jose James and Jose
And so, Mark continues...
Mark 15:47 -- Jesus’ burial
“Mary Magdalene and MARY THE MOTHER OF JOSE watched where He was laid.”
Jose corresponds to the one mentioned in Mark 6:3 and 15:40.
Mark 16:1 -- The Resurrection
“When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES, and Salome bought spices so that they might go and anoint Him.”
The same three companions appear again. Here, Mary is called “the mother of James” (a variant of “the mother of Jose” in 15:47). However, there is still no mention, or even a vague implication, that this woman is also the mother of Jesus; but merely a background character like Salome.
Luke 24:10 -- The Resurrection
“The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and MARY THE MOTHER OF JAMES; the others who accompanied them also ...”
Again, the “mother of James,” but not the mother of Jesus. And, like Matthew and Mark (in 3:35), the author of Luke always refers to the Virgin Mary as Jesus’ mother (See: Luke 1:43, 2:33-34, 2:51, 8:19, Acts 1:14).
“Others” (aka, Salome and Suzanna, etc.)
John 19:25 -- The Crucifixion
“Standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother and HIS MOTHER’S SISTER, MARY THE WIFE OF CLOPAS, and Mary Magdala.”
This mysterious “Mary” appears again; this time called “Mary the wife of Clopas.” If this passage is speaking about three women, rather than four (as it almost certainly is), the comma after “his mother’s sister” may be identifying Clopas’ wife as the sister (or ‘tribal-relative’) of Jesus’ mother. This would explain the gospel writers’ use of the Greek word “adelphos” (as a translation of the Hebrew “ah”), which could mean brother (or sister in the feminine), as well as cousin, nephew, relative, etc. If Clopas’ wife was the sister (i.e., close, tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother, then Clopas’ sons, James and Joseph (Jose), could very well be called Jesus’ “brethren” (i.e., part of His extended tribal family).
This seems to fit, since neither James and Joseph/Jose (nor any of the “brothers”) are EVER called the sons of Joseph.
It is also quite possible that, as John’s gospel so often does, this reference to Mary as “wife of Clopas” is a conscious intention to clear up any questions about the “mother of James and Joseph (Jose)” in the Synoptics -- that is, to clearly distinguish her from Jesus’ mother.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 21:03:12 GMT -5
CONCLUSION
So, with all this evidence in mind, I hold that:
(1) John’s “Mary the wife of Clopas ” is the same person as the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” (the Mary of the cross/tomb accounts).
(2) This Mary is in turn the “sister” (i.e., close tribal relative) of Jesus’ mother Mary.
(3) This is how Jesus is “brothers” with James and Joseph (Jose).
(4) His other “brothers” (Judas and Simon), as well as his “sisters,” and the “brothers” who don’t believe in Him in John 7:5 are from other branches of His extended tribal family.
But, let’s play devil’s advocate.
If James, Joseph (Jose), Simon, and Judas ARE INDEED Jesus’ fraternal brothers, then the Synoptics’ Mary of the cross/tomb (i.e., the mother of James and Joseph/Jose) MUST be Jesus’ mother as well.
And, after all, there ARE certain seemingly-logical arguments to support this:
-- James and Joseph (Jose) ARE called Jesus’ brothers.
-- And, their mother IS named Mary (the same as Jesus’)
-- And, one must admit, it’s also possible that the comma between “His mother’s sister” and “Mary the wife of Clopas” in John 19:25 may be distinguishing two different women instead of identifying Clopas’ wife as the Virgin Mary’s sister.
So, therefore, Mary the wife of Clopas may NOT be a relative at all NOR is she necessarily the same woman as “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in the Synoptics.
So, can “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” be Jesus’ mother as well?
Well, if this is the case, then
(A) Why is she never called the mother of Jesus in the cross/tomb accounts? (Wouldn’t that be easier than constantly “switching” between James and Jose?)
(B) Why is she never called the mother of the other brothers, Simon and Judas?
(C) Why isn’t she simply called the wife of Joseph?
(D) Why is she always listed second (and in Luke, third) after Mary Magdalene?
(E) Why does Matthew refer to her as merely “the other Mary” in 28:1?
(F) Why does John cite a second Mary at the cross: Mary the wife of Clopas? (A character who doesn’t appear in the Synoptics, unless she’s the mother of James and Joseph.)
(G) If John is calling his “Mary the wife of Clopas” the virgin Mary’s sister, how can the word “adelphos” (or “adelphe” in the feminine) be taken literally? Two sisters both named Mary?!
It therefore must be admitted that, if “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” and Jesus’ mother are one and the same, then
-- The three Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are INTENTIONALLY neglecting to call her Jesus’ mother in their cross/tomb accounts (as if she’s not Jesus’ mother anymore.)
-- The Synoptics are also INTENTIONALLY depicting her as a minor character, less important than Mary Magdalene. And, in the case of Matthew, she’s reduced to merely “the other Mary” in 28:1.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 21:03:27 GMT -5
Still playing devil’s advocate, I can imagine only one reason why the Synoptics would “demote” Jesus’ mother like this; since ALL THREE refer to her as “his mother” earlier in their Gospels. Perhaps, as some have argued, the Synoptics are UNDERLINING their accounts in Matt 12:46, Mark 3:35, and Luke 8:19-21, in which Jesus refuses to go out to meet His mother and brothers, but tells His disciples, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother, and sister, and mother.” Perhaps they’re making a “theological point” by calling her only “the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” in their later, cross/tomb accounts.
Well, although quite flimsy to begin with, this possibility is totally shattered, when one considers that in Acts 1:14 she is again called “the mother of Jesus.” Since Acts is the companion volume to Luke (produced by the same author), it doesn’t make much sense for Luke to call her “Mary the mother of James” in 24:10, and then re-bestow the title “mother of Jesus” in Acts 1:14 if he’s trying to make such a “theological point”.
Therefore, my whole “devil’s advocate” position is undone, and it is proved conclusively that the Synoptics’ “Mary the mother of James and Joseph/Jose” is NOT Jesus’ mother.
And, since this Mary is certainly the mother of the same James and Joseph/Jose who are also called Jesus’ “brothers,” then it’s equally proven that they COULD NOT have been the Lord’s brothers in a fraternal sense.
So, who are these “brothers” of Jesus? I hold that the term “brothers” refers to His entire tribal group: the boys He grew up with, and with whom He was somehow related.
But if these men were “cousins” or “blood relatives,” some argue, why not simply use the word “kinsman” or “relative” as found in Luke 1:36? e.g. in which Elizabeth is described as Mary’s “relative.”
I answer this quite simply. First of all, I claim that His “brothers” and “sisters” were members of His extended family WITH WHOM JESUS WAS RAISED. Elizabeth’s son, John the Baptist, on the other hand, would not have been referred to in this sense, because Jesus was not raised with him, although they were of the same blood.
Also, I argue that the term “brother” is used in the Gospels because these particular men were known BY THIS TITLE in the early Church. I give you: 1 Corinthians 9:4-5, in which Paul is defending his right to be called an apostle:
“Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?”
Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of “brother” was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.
Conversely, if we take the term “adelphos” literally, that would mean that Joseph and Mary had a total of five sons and at least two daughters. This would make a total of seven children: in essence, a “Biblical Brady Bunch.” :-) Now considering that Joseph’s profession was that of a carpenter; and not that of a shepherd or farmer, in which large families are encouraged to work the land or tend the flocks, it seems rather ridiculous that he could have supported a family of this size, living in a small, most likely mud brick house in a little place like Nazareth.
Also, even assuming (as the early Church writers Clement and Origen did) that Jesus’ “brothers” were the children of Joseph by a wife previous to Mary, Mark 6:3 clearly refers to Jesus as “the carpenter.” Since the family profession was passed on from father to son, how many carpenters could a little town like Nazareth support? Certainly not five!
However, if the term “brothers” refers instead to Jesus’ extended tribal-family group (as I believe I’ve shown it does), we are left with the image of five young boys (among others) playing in the streets of Nazareth:
JESUS: the son of Joseph and Mary
JAMES: and his sibling JOSEPH (or Jose): the sons of Clopas and Mary.
JUDAS
SIMON
These were the Lord’s childhood friends, with whom He grew to manhood; and given the scope of first century village life, with whom He was almost certainly related. I look forward to any comments or objections you might care to add.
Gloria Deo!
Mark J. Bonocore
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 13, 2008 21:08:54 GMT -5
T.M.I., right? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 14, 2008 18:42:56 GMT -5
Please cite the OT passage where God commands that the older brother should transfer his widowed mother to his younger brothers in the event of his death. I recall no such biblical passage. It is possible I just don't remember it so please cite it if it exists. If it does not exist retract your statement that it was "Gods law". His fathers law no, Jewish customs yes. You quote: "Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him." But you skip over: "Matthew 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?" You see, in Matthew it says they said: "Is not this the carpenter's son?". He was a carpenter(as mark says) and they also thought he was the son of Joseph. You will notice they then named his literal mother and brothers. One would not suppose that they would name the man they thought was his literal father, his literal mother, and then also mention his "friends" as if they were literal brothers. That is a actual family group. Not extended family. Matthew blows your whole argument to pieces. You didn't quote it as it reads. ;D "1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" See the comma? There is a clear distinction. IF it was speaking of Christians as a whole, they would have put "the brethren of the Lord" at the end of the sentence as a adjective describing "other apostles" and "Cephas". As it is, it is not used as a adjective. If it it is being used as you say they would be specifically saying that Peter and the other apostles were NOT the brethren of the Lord. Which would defeat your whole purpose.  Another verse: "Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." Now why did Paul say the "Lord's brother" if it is just a generic reference to the fact that this James was a Christian? He said "the Lord's brother" so they would know who he was speaking of. This was needed because there were a number of "James" in the early Church. There are mentioned in scripture: "James the son of Alphaeus" Matthew 10:3 "James the son of Zebedee(brother of John)"Matthew 4:21 "James the less" Mark 15:40 "James the Lord's brother" Galatians 1:19 Most of these "James" are mentioned more than once. So you see if he just meant "James the Christian brother" that wouldn't help much. Now if he meant the Lords literal brother they would know exactly who he was speaking of. I don't know that I have time to address everything else you mentioned in a single post, but If you will bring them up one or two at a time I will address them. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 15, 2008 14:24:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 15, 2008 14:38:46 GMT -5
I just realized something...do Protestants think now that John who was called Mary's son is literally Jesus' biological brother now just because he is called a son to Mary? 
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Apr 15, 2008 14:48:48 GMT -5
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these "brothers and sisters" of Jesus were children of Mary. Only Jesus is said to be the son of Mary. Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Our brother in Christ stated "In the Greek text, the word “brother” is adelphos, which literally means “from the womb,” indicating these are Christ’s brothers from His mother." But how is adelphos actually used in scripture? In the Bible, the word adelphos is used for: (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.) Third, a strong proof text against the Helvidian Heresy is John 19:26-27. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. John 19:26-27 Jesus, the perfect Jewish son and fulfiller of the Law of Moses, would not have violated Jewish law by giving his mother over to the care of John if Mary had any other children. Our brother may have overlooked John 19:26-27 or not connected the passage with Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 since they are all in different books. Many modern Christians in their zeal to disprove Catholicism are embracing dangerous heresies that our early Church fathers fought hard to extinguish. Christians must be careful to learn the history of Christianity and what doctrines have always been held by Christians. There are numerous collections of non-canonical writings by the earliest Christians available to us. I often use the Christian Classics Ethereal library collection. If you have not discovered this treasure of ante-Nicene Bible commentaries and "Sunday school" lessons, I encourage you to visit and read. christian-apologetics-society.blogspot.com/2008/03/apologetics-perpetual-virginity-of-mary.html |
|
|
|
Post by stelzneri on Apr 15, 2008 17:01:38 GMT -5
"Mark 7:5-13 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."
Another lie. You did not even come close to "demonstrating from scripture" that Jesus did not have literal half brothers. [/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Apr 15, 2008 19:24:04 GMT -5
James the Less is James the son of Alphaeus
In Jewish life a woman is called by her closest living male relative----Mary would have been Mary wife of Joseph until Joseph passed away then she is addressed as Mary mother of Jesus.
If indeed Jesus had younger brothers (Brothers by Mary) He would have been head of the family after Joseph died--------There would not have been any disrespect by them toward Him (Mark 3:31; John 7:3-4)
That said these brothers were closer than cousins as Mary travels with them (John 2:12 and Matthew 12:46-50)
Had Jesus been Mary's only biological child He would have been with in His right to appoint John as caretaker though Joseph could have had children by a previous marriage (who I believe His brothers to be)
much love-------------------knuckle
|
|
So what you are posting is a Aramaic translation of a Greek text THEN translated into English. Translated from Greek to English it does say cousin.
