JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[pinacled]

Do let the Greek thing bother you. The truth is N.T.\Greek scholars have argued both sides of this issue. For every scholar, anyone can provide, who claims it does not support the idea Mary had other children, another scholar can be provide who claims that it does support the view.

What one has to do is weight the evidence. If you thinks the balance of the evidence tips one way or the other, then you are justified in holding that view. No one must have 100% certainty to hold a position. However, if you think there is not enough evidence to make an informed choice, that too is a viable option.

The reality is whatever one's tradition\view is it will mostly likely be predicated upon the authority given to later church insights on this matter.

Greek is vague far as I can see.
Especially where marriage is concerned.

 

[pinacled]

"Implies" does not mean "states."

And only in ENGLISH. But this verse was not written in English (no verse in the Bible was; English didn't exist when the Bible was written).

You are ignoring the Greek text..... replacing it with something you found in an ENGLISH translation..... then noting that in modern English the word at times IMPLIES something... then insisting that must be the case. It's called eisegesis - and a really, really bad case of it since it's not even eisegesis of the text but of an English translation of the text.







1. Where does the Bible state they got married? Yes, you may indicated the angel might have given permission for such but that doesn't prove it happened.

2. No, the Law does NOT mandate that a couple consumate anything, only that it's not "marriage" without that.

3. Even IF you quoted the verse that says "Joseph married Mary".... and even if you quoted the verse that states "Joseph consummated the marriage" that would not prove that Mary had other children unless you could prove that every case of sexual intercourse results in a child. I know of MANY couples who (I assume) have lots of sex but no children. I'm not aware of any biological mandate that sex MUST, ALWAYS, by NECESSITY, result in children. Your position seems to require this.



Remember, I'm the one indicating that we don't KNOW if Mary ever had sex or other children..... you are the one insisted she did. I'm standing on at least 1700 years of universal Christian belief, you seem to be standing on what you think might be IMPLIED by an English word you found in an English translation, a word no one in the First Century ever said or wrote... while the Greek word being translated in your translation does NOT imply that.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.



- Josiah





.

Is this greek word for marriage found in John 7:1

γάμος

 

[pinacled]

"Implies" does not mean "states."

And only in ENGLISH. But this verse was not written in English (no verse in the Bible was; English didn't exist when the Bible was written).

You are ignoring the Greek text..... replacing it with something you found in an ENGLISH translation..... then noting that in modern English the word at times IMPLIES something... then insisting that must be the case. It's called eisegesis - and a really, really bad case of it since it's not even eisegesis of the text but of an English translation of the text.







1. Where does the Bible state they got married? Yes, you may indicated the angel might have given permission for such but that doesn't prove it happened.

2. No, the Law does NOT mandate that a couple consumate anything, only that it's not "marriage" without that.

3. Even IF you quoted the verse that says "Joseph married Mary".... and even if you quoted the verse that states "Joseph consummated the marriage" that would not prove that Mary had other children unless you could prove that every case of sexual intercourse results in a child. I know of MANY couples who (I assume) have lots of sex but no children. I'm not aware of any biological mandate that sex MUST, ALWAYS, by NECESSITY, result in children. Your position seems to require this.



Remember, I'm the one indicating that we don't KNOW if Mary ever had sex or other children..... you are the one insisted she did. I'm standing on at least 1700 years of universal Christian belief, you seem to be standing on what you think might be IMPLIED by an English word you found in an English translation, a word no one in the First Century ever said or wrote... while the Greek word being translated in your translation does NOT imply that.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.



- Josiah





.

"Honor thy mother and father.."

They are of one flesh in marriage.

And if Yeshua fulfilled the Torah with honor.

PaRDeS is clear to those who study..

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

Do let the Greek thing bother you. The truth is N.T.\Greek scholars have argued both sides of this issue. For every scholar, anyone can provide, who claims it does not support the idea Mary had other children, another scholar can be provide who claims that it does support the view.

What one has to do is weight the evidence. If you thinks the balance of the evidence tips one way or the other, then you are justified in holding that view. No one must have 100% certainty to hold a position. However, if you think there is not enough evidence to make an informed choice, that too is a viable option.

The reality is whatever one's tradition\view is it will mostly likely be predicated upon the authority given to later church insights on this matter.

With a scabberd and double edge sword I wonder if others have found the 2 edges in honor.

 

[Origen]

With a scabberd and double edge sword I wonder if others have found the 2 edges in honor.

Sorry, I left out the word "not" in my post. It should read "do NOT let."

 

[pinacled]

Do not let the Greek thing bother you. The truth is N.T.\Greek scholars have argued both sides of this issue. For every scholar, anyone can provide, who claims it does not support the idea Mary had other children, another scholar can be provide who claims that it does support the view.

What one has to do is weight the evidence. If you thinks the balance of the evidence tips one way or the other, then you are justified in holding that view. No one must have 100% certainty to hold a position. However, if you think there is not enough evidence to make an informed choice, that too is a viable option.

The reality is whatever one's tradition\view is it will mostly likely be predicated upon the authority given to later church insights on this matter.

"Implies" does not mean "states."

And only in ENGLISH. But this verse was not written in English (no verse in the Bible was; English didn't exist when the Bible was written).

You are ignoring the Greek text..... replacing it with something you found in an ENGLISH translation..... then noting that in modern English the word at times IMPLIES something... then insisting that must be the case. It's called eisegesis - and a really, really bad case of it since it's not even eisegesis of the text but of an English translation of the text.







1. Where does the Bible state they got married? Yes, you may indicated the angel might have given permission for such but that doesn't prove it happened.

2. No, the Law does NOT mandate that a couple consumate anything, only that it's not "marriage" without that.

3. Even IF you quoted the verse that says "Joseph married Mary".... and even if you quoted the verse that states "Joseph consummated the marriage" that would not prove that Mary had other children unless you could prove that every case of sexual intercourse results in a child. I know of MANY couples who (I assume) have lots of sex but no children. I'm not aware of any biological mandate that sex MUST, ALWAYS, by NECESSITY, result in children. Your position seems to require this.



Remember, I'm the one indicating that we don't KNOW if Mary ever had sex or other children..... you are the one insisted she did. I'm standing on at least 1700 years of universal Christian belief, you seem to be standing on what you think might be IMPLIED by an English word you found in an English translation, a word no one in the First Century ever said or wrote... while the Greek word being translated in your translation does NOT imply that.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.



- Josiah





.

The scripture "states", that yosef and miriam are betrothed.

Implying that consummation would follow.

Other wise a man under the same roof as a woman would be unlawfull(against Gods Law)
Torah.

 

[pinacled]

Do not let the Greek thing bother you. The truth is N.T.\Greek scholars have argued both sides of this issue. For every scholar, anyone can provide, who claims it does not support the idea Mary had other children, another scholar can be provide who claims that it does support the view.

What one has to do is weight the evidence. If you thinks the balance of the evidence tips one way or the other, then you are justified in holding that view. No one must have 100% certainty to hold a position. However, if you think there is not enough evidence to make an informed choice, that too is a viable option.

The reality is whatever one's tradition\view is it will mostly likely be predicated upon the authority given to later church insights on this matter.

The Greek doesn't bother me.

I responded to josiah's lack of discretion in the use of a vulgar english word instead of consummation.

Details origen!

 

[Josiah]

The scripture "states", that yosef and miriam are betrothed. Implying that consummation would follow.

Pinacled -


Even if you personally read something in your English translation and feel something is IMPLIED, that means it's not stated. It just means you personally are reading something in English and feel something is implied in the English (you feel).

The Bible does not say Mary and Joseph ever got married. The Bible does not state that they ever had marital relations. The Bible does not state that Mary had other children. You can feel anything is "implied" by anything but that's unrelated to what the Bible says.


The simple reality is the Bible is silent on this. Yes, if you ignore the Greek and substitute a word used in an English tome and impose what you feel is implied by that English word, then you probably can come up with whatever you feel, but there's a vast difference between that and what the Bible states (in the original koine Greek).

The Bible is silent. But Tradition is not. The question of whether Mary and Joseph were married is unsettled in Tradition - the East has a tradition they did not (yes, sharing a house but not a bed) and in the West, there's a Tradition that they did but never consummated that (which, of course, TECHNICALLY by Jewish custom, not fully married). Not until about 200 years ago did anyone opinion that they EVER had marital relations. So, not only are you imposing something the Bible never states (in extreme eisegesis) but going against historic, ecumenical Tradition.

And the Bible is silent on whether Mary had other children. But Tradition is not. Not once in Scripture is it EVER REMOTELY stated that She did. You are forcing a word to mean something it usually does not, my brother. The ancient, universal, ecumenical tradition from at least the year 110 is that She did not, that the persons named were NOT biological bothers but children of Joseph from an earlier marriage and/or cousins. Does the bible state that? No, just as it does not state that these are children of Mary. But that IS the ancient, universal, ecumenical Tradition until about 200 years ago.


Notice what the Bible does NOT say. And you noting "implies" is just another way to indicate that the Bible does NOT say what you do. And you may dismiss such ancient Tradition but you accept that Book as Scripture because of Tradition; there is no document floating down from Heaven that has the Table of Contents for the Bible, what you ACCEPT as Scripture is a matter of ancient, ecumenical Tradition. To dismiss Tradition is to leave wide open what is and is not the Bible, because the Bible never says.

Other wise a man under the same roof as a woman would be unlawfull(against Gods Law)

The Bible never says that, either. It would be sin to have marital relations if not married but there's no Jewish law against men and women sharing the same house. And please don't tell me it's "IMPLIED" (meaning, it's not stated). My sister and I lived under the same roof for 14 years and NO that was not unlawful according to the Torah.




A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

 

[pinacled]

Pinacled -


Even if you personally read something in your English translation and feel something is IMPLIED, that means it's not stated. It just means you personally are reading something in English and feel something is implied in the English (you feel).

The Bible does not say Mary and Joseph ever got married. The Bible does not state that they ever had marital relations. The Bible does not state that Mary had other children. You can feel anything is "implied" by anything but that's unrelated to what the Bible says.


The simple reality is the Bible is silent on this. Yes, if you ignore the Greek and substitute a word used in an English tome and impose what you feel is implied by that English word, then you probably can come up with whatever you feel, but there's a vast difference between that and what the Bible states (in the original koine Greek).

The Bible is silent. But Tradition is not. The question of whether Mary and Joseph were married is unsettled in Tradition - the East has a tradition they did not (yes, sharing a house but not a bed) and in the West, there's a Tradition that they did but never consummated that (which, of course, TECHNICALLY by Jewish custom, not fully married). Not until about 200 years ago did anyone opinion that they EVER had marital relations. So, not only are you imposing something the Bible never states (in extreme eisegesis) but going against historic, ecumenical Tradition.

And the Bible is silent on whether Mary had other children. But Tradition is not. Not once in Scripture is it EVER REMOTELY stated that She did. You are forcing a word to mean something it usually does not, my brother. The ancient, universal, ecumenical tradition from at least the year 110 is that She did not, that the persons named were NOT biological bothers but children of Joseph from an earlier marriage and/or cousins. Does the bible state that? No, just as it does not state that these are children of Mary. But that IS the ancient, universal, ecumenical Tradition until about 200 years ago.


Notice what the Bible does NOT say. And you noting "implies" is just another way to indicate that the Bible does NOT say what you do. And you may dismiss such ancient Tradition but you accept that Book as Scripture because of Tradition; there is no document floating down from Heaven that has the Table of Contents for the Bible, what you ACCEPT as Scripture is a matter of ancient, ecumenical Tradition. To dismiss Tradition is to leave wide open what is and is not the Bible, because the Bible never says.







The Bible never says that, either. It would be sin to have marital relations if not married but there's no Jewish law against men and women sharing the same house. And please don't tell me it's "IMPLIED" (meaning, it's not stated). My sister and I lived under the same roof for 14 years and NO that was not unlawful according to the Torah.




A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

You and I differ on perspectives of tradition.
Hebrew traditions are my preference instead of greco/roman culture.

Oral torah
[ Acquiring a Spouse

Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.]


[ "Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern America; in fact, Maimonides speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at that time, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete."]

Marriage in Judaism

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

Blessings Always

 

[Josiah]

You and I differ on perspectives of tradition.
Hebrew traditions are my preference instead of greco/roman culture.

Okay. Then do you accept that the Bible that you have IS the Bible? Because what you consider such is Christian Tradition. Jewish Tradition accepts only part of your Bible, thus you reject the books that Jewish Traditon does not accept?


As you've proven, the Bible says NOTHING (nothing whatsoever) about whether Mary and Joseph ever married and whether Mary ever had any other children. Yes, you choose to replace the koine Greek text with a modern English tome... then to note that in your own personal feeling, something is IMPLIED but not stated by the modern English words in the English translation you choose to base theology upon. But the reality is, you are just ignoring ancient, ecumenical CHRISTIAN Tradition (unquestioned until a FEW began to do so some 200 years ago).... Tradition that Mary never had any other children. You wish to embrace instead the Tradition of a non-Christian religion but don't notice that that Tradition does not say Mary had other children, Jewish Tradition says NOTHING about Mary - it is entirely SILENT on the issue.

Mishnah Kiddushin 1:1 specifies that a woman is acquired (i.e., to be a wife) in three ways: through money, a contract, and sexual intercourse. Ordinarily, all three of these conditions are satisfied, although only one is necessary to effect a binding marriage.

1. Irrelevant. Where does the Mishnah Kiddushin state that Mary and Joseph ever married?


2. So according to the Tradition of Judaism that you accept while rejecting Christian Tradition, marital relations are NOT required for a marriage. You just destroyed your apologetic that IF they were married, they MUST have had sex and thus MUST have had other children. Nope. According to you, Jewish marriage did not require marital relations. And I'm still waiting for the proof that every act of intercourse results in a child.


3. Since you reject CHRISTIAN Tradition but in stead accept JEWISH Tradition, where does JEWISH Tradition state that Mary had other children? Could you quote the Mishah Kiddusin where it states that? And also, could you quote where it says "Mary and Joseph were married because the one required aspect of that, sexual intercourse, was a part of their lives." Could you quote where it says that?





Here's the obvious reality....


The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph ever married or ever had marital relations.

The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary had any other children.

Jewish Tradition (which you prefer to our Tradition) is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph ever married or ever had relations or whether Mary had any other children.

Christian Tradition - very ancient, very ecumenical - is mixed on whether they married (although united in that they never had marital relations) and solid that Mary never had any other children. This was unchallenged ... affirmed by all Christians... including Luther, Calvin, Westley and others... until about 200 years ago when a few liberals began to question the Virgin Birth of our Lord and in that connection suggested that Mary and Joseph had lots of marital relations and children.


You may personally feel that something is IMPLIED by an English word in an English translation, noting it isn't stated but you feel it's IMPLIED in modern English, but friend, that's entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant to what the Bible states and what Christian Tradition has believed.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


Josiah




.

 

[pinacled]

Okay. Then do you accept that the Bible that you have IS the Bible? Because what you consider such is Christian Tradition. Jewish Tradition accepts only part of your Bible, thus you reject the books that Jewish Traditon does not accept?


As you've proven, the Bible says NOTHING (nothing whatsoever) about whether Mary and Joseph ever married and whether Mary ever had any other children. Yes, you choose to replace the koine Greek text with a modern English tome... then to note that in your own personal feeling, something is IMPLIED but not stated by the modern English words in the English translation you choose to base theology upon. But the reality is, you are just ignoring ancient, ecumenical CHRISTIAN Tradition (unquestioned until a FEW began to do so some 200 years ago).... Tradition that Mary never had any other children. You wish to embrace instead the Tradition of a non-Christian religion but don't notice that that Tradition does not say Mary had other children, Jewish Tradition says NOTHING about Mary - it is entirely SILENT on the issue.








1. Irrelevant. Where does the Mishnah Kiddushin state that Mary and Joseph ever married?


2. So according to the Tradition of Judaism that you accept while rejecting Christian Tradition, marital relations are NOT required for a marriage. You just destroyed your apologetic that IF they were married, they MUST have had sex and thus MUST have had other children. Nope. According to you, Jewish marriage did not require marital relations. And I'm still waiting for the proof that every act of intercourse results in a child.


3. Since you reject CHRISTIAN Tradition but in stead accept JEWISH Tradition, where does JEWISH Tradition state that Mary had other children? Could you quote the Mishah Kiddusin where it states that? And also, could you quote where it says "Mary and Joseph were married because the one required aspect of that, sexual intercourse, was a part of their lives." Could you quote where it says that?





Here's the obvious reality....


The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph ever married or ever had marital relations.

The Bible is SILENT on whether Mary had any other children.

Jewish Tradition (which you prefer to our Tradition) is SILENT on whether Mary and Joseph ever married or ever had relations or whether Mary had any other children.

Christian Tradition - very ancient, very ecumenical - is mixed on whether they married (although united in that they never had marital relations) and solid that Mary never had any other children. This was unchallenged ... affirmed by all Christians... including Luther, Calvin, Westley and others... until about 200 years ago when a few liberals began to question the Virgin Birth of our Lord and in that connection suggested that Mary and Joseph had lots of marital relations and children.


You may personally feel that something is IMPLIED by an English word in an English translation, noting it isn't stated but you feel it's IMPLIED in modern English, but friend, that's entirely, completely, wholly irrelevant to what the Bible states and what Christian Tradition has believed.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


Josiah




.

Jewish tradition teaches that the betrothal is part of a marriage process.
And a further process is completed after the husband finishes the marriage by bringing his wife into the new home.

What Does the Bible Say About Joseph The Carpenter?

Bible verses about Joseph The Carpenter

www.openbible.info

As for brothers.
I'm not discussing that point at the moment.
Only that yosef and myriam were legally married.
The english states husband wife, and mother father. What does the greek say.

I have a question about traditional teachings amongst the greco/roman and protestant culture .
What sort of physical relation had shechem and dinah had.
Was it consensual or no?

 

[RichWh1]

Shechem and Dinah has physical sex since Dinah give birth to three children


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[pinacled]

Shechem and Dinah has physical sex since Dinah give birth to three children


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting number.

How did you find such a treasure without concluding marriatable consent.

Excellent point about 3 children.
She had 2 brothers who despised the binding union between shechem and dinah.


Thankyou for the conversation

 

[pinacled]

Jewish tradition teaches that the betrothal is part of a marriage process.
And a further process is completed after the husband finishes the marriage by bringing his wife into the new home.

What Does the Bible Say About Joseph The Carpenter?

Bible verses about Joseph The Carpenter

www.openbible.info

As for brothers.
I'm not discussing that point at the moment.
Only that yosef and myriam were legally married.
The english states husband wife, and mother father. What does the greek say.

I have a question about traditional teachings amongst the greco/roman and protestant culture .
What sort of physical relation had shechem and dinah had.
Was it consensual or no?

What do you say king josiah?

Was shechem and dinah union consentual,?

Yes or no will suffice.

 

[pinacled]

Sorry, I left out the word "not" in my post. It should read "do NOT let."

I'll ask you the same question.

Was dinah and shechem relation consentual?

Yes

No

 

[pinacled]

What does the text actually say, Josiah? THAT is what we have to go on.
If you desire to create a fantasy myth with ZERO substantive evidence and stake your opinion on such a claim...you are free to do so. Just realize that any person who reads the actual Bible will find your claims completely ludicrous.
Now, the text says what the text says. I choose to ACTUALLY believe what it says and not attempt to skirt around it with revisionist thinking.
I am NOT the one creating a DOGMA. That is entirely...YOU!!!
I am reading the text and believing what God tells us. It is that simple.
Your attempt to avoid what the Bible says and then tell me I have created a dogma by believing the actual text is just mind-boggling. It's like listening to someone argue for a flat Earth despite all the scientific data proving them wrong. Stop being like a flat earther when dealing with what the Bible very clearly tells us.

Not so much ludicrous
I see curiosity

 

[Origen]

I'll ask you the same question.

Was dinah and shechem relation consentual?

Yes

No

Why are you asking me?

 

[Josiah]

Jewish tradition teaches that the betrothal is part of a marriage process.

Part. But it doesn't necessarily lead to marriage in our sense. Then or now. There is no legal mandate in Scripture that those engaged therefore MUST have a consummated marriage.


NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married.

And a further process is completed

There's no legal mandate that it be completed.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married. Western Tradition says they did (albeit never consummated), Eastern Tradition says they did not (albeit shared the same home) but the Bible is SILENT on the question. Maybe it just doesn't matter.... it's never been doctrine.

As for brothers.

... the Bible is SILENT. It never states that Mary had other children. And remember, the word "brother" in koine Greek is very, very broad, MOST of the time it did not indicate sharing the same biological parents, much less the same biological mother. You and I are brothers.

Ancient, universal, ecumenical Tradition (the same that determine what is and is not the Bible) says that Mary had no other children. This was universally upheld by all Christians until about 200 years ago when some radical liberals declared the Bible to be often wrong, the Virgin Birth is myth and that Mary "obviously" had lots of sex and so these folks mentioned in the Bible are children of Mary. Today, a few "Evangelical" Christians (who think of themselves as conservative, Bible-believing Christians) continue the liberal opinion that Mary and Joseph had lots of sex and Mary lots of children.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

 

[pinacled]

Why are you asking me?

I respect your professional opinion

 

[pinacled]

Part. But it doesn't necessarily lead to marriage in our sense. Then or now. There is no legal mandate in Scripture that those engaged therefore MUST have a consummated marriage.


NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married.






There's no legal mandate that it be completed.

NOWHERE does the Bible state that Mary and Joseph ever got married. Western Tradition says they did (albeit never consummated), Eastern Tradition says they did not (albeit shared the same home) but the Bible is SILENT on the question. Maybe it just doesn't matter.... it's never been doctrine.






... the Bible is SILENT. It never states that Mary had other children. And remember, the word "brother" in koine Greek is very, very broad, MOST of the time it did not indicate sharing the same biological parents, much less the same biological mother. You and I are brothers.

Ancient, universal, ecumenical Tradition (the same that determine what is and is not the Bible) says that Mary had no other children. This was universally upheld by all Christians until about 200 years ago when some radical liberals declared the Bible to be often wrong, the Virgin Birth is myth and that Mary "obviously" had lots of sex and so these folks mentioned in the Bible are children of Mary. Today, a few "Evangelical" Christians (who think of themselves as conservative, Bible-believing Christians) continue the liberal opinion that Mary and Joseph had lots of sex and Mary lots of children.



A blessed Lenten season to you and yours.


- Josiah



.

What is binding is "part" of the Whole.
One flesh.

Do you have anything to say about the que I posed concerning dinah and shechem?