JOHN 7:1 JESUS HAD BROTHERS

[pinacled]

Well, perhaps, in English.....

But that's different that insisting (quite dogmatically) that the Bible states Mary had lotsa sex and kids.

See post 395.





Well, for only the past 200 years, almost exclusively among American and Canadian "Evangelicals." But you know what they say about the word "ASSUME" (LOL).

And again, I think it appropriate to bring Tradition into the discussion. As I note in post 395 (and elsewhere). I don't think that should just be automatically ignored (without placing what is Scripture into peril and MANY other things).




.

There is more to share in the spirit of tradition that the world molds to its contrition.

A Holy womb is unchanging to those whom recognize a reverence for miriam.

Personally I see her as a woman just as Yeshua stated.
But i do not see her having any other children born from her consummation between yosef and herself.
I see Miriam as wife to yosef like no other woman ever in the history flesh.
Her love and adoration for a husband is beyond the measure of marital bonds that most are capable of perceiving.
Beyond the purity ordinances of birth to sons an daughters..
For a son 7/33=40
For a daughter 14/66=80

2 third of the Life of moshe the prophet.

While sons are given a covenant of circumcision in flesh with 40 yammin.

Daughters are circumcised in spirit with 80 yammin.

120 total equaling on flesh


Blessed be The Holy One

 

[Lanman87]

Nope. See post 382. Actually RARELY in koine Greek does the word mean "shares the same mother" or even "shares any biological parent."

Is there a word in Greek that does mean "share the same biological parent" that could have been used if James and the others "shared the same mother"?

 

[Josiah]

Is there a word in Greek that does mean "share the same biological parent" that could have been used if James and the others "shared the same mother"?

No. The word used CAN mean that.... it CAN mean "shares both biological parents" ... it CAN mean "shares one biological parent." And there was no other word for those things. No word for "shares a male biological parent" and "shares a female biological parent" and "shares both biological parents." There aren't in English either. But the great majority of the time, it meant none of those. As we can see in the Bible itself. It can mean a cousin (although there is a word - rarely used - that specifically means that)... it can mean someone with whom there is a close bond or friendship... it can mean a fellow villager or coworker or member of a religion.... soldiers often called each other "brother."


Yes, if the point was "these shared the same womb as Jesus" adelphos is the word that would be used (although ODD then that the verse states Mary was the mother of JESUS)... if the point was "These are self-brothers via Joseph" then adelphos would be the word used. If the point was, "these were cousins of Jesus" then (nearly always) the word "adelphos" would be the word used. I agree the context makes it less likely they were simply fellow villages or Jews etc. but that can't be dismissed.


Here's my position (for 21 pages now): It cannot be argued that these ARE biological children of Mary BECAUSE the koine Greek word "adelphos" is used of them. THAT IS MY POINT. The apologetic that they must be children of Mary because the word "adelophos" is used is wrong. I have never argued that it's not POSSIBLE. I've not even argued it's not LIKELY. I've simply pointed out the claim that THE BIBLE STATES they are biological children of MARY is wrong. The Bible does NOT say this (and indeed Tradition says the opposite).


Insisting that the relational terms IN ENGLISH must all be accepted (dogmatically) in a strict modern English sense causes problems... the very same verse says that Joseph is the father of Jesus. What does that English word imply? Yup, same as the English word for "brother" may. To be consistent in the exegesis of this verse, you'd need to deny the Virgin Birth (which is EXACTLY the point of the liberal Protestants who invented the new belief that Mary had lotsa sex and kids).





.

 

[Lanman87]

Insisting that the relational terms IN ENGLISH must all be accepted (dogmatically) in a strict modern English sense causes problems... the very same verse says that Joseph is the father of Jesus.

Actually, it doesn't say that Joseph was the father of Jesus. It says that the townspeople believed that Joseph was the father of Jesus. Which is completely reasonable provided that nobody ever told them differently.

You've said who you think the brother are not, who do you think they were, Step-Brothers? Cousins?

It is clear from the overall text that they weren't just fellow villagers or "Spiritual Brothers".

"For not even his brothers believed in him", John 7:5

 

[Josiah]

Actually, it doesn't say that Joseph was the father of Jesus. It says that the townspeople believed that Joseph was the father of Jesus.

Then the same would apply to the "adelphoi." I simply pointed out that the same sentence says Joseph was the father of Jesus and that these are the brothers of Jesus. Either strict BIOLOGICAL meanings are mandated.... or something other.

You've said who you think the brother are not, who do you think they were, Step-Brothers? Cousins?

The text doesn't say. John Wesley: "We must be bold where Scripture is bold and silent where Scripture is silent." John had a point there....

But as I've noted, I don't dismiss ancient, ecumenical belief (Tradition).... It's why I accept Paul's Epistle to the Romans as Scripture (cuz nowhere does the Bible say it is), it's why I accept that Jesus never married or had kids and a LOT of other things I hold (albeit perhaps not dogmatically) that isn't stated in the Bible. That same Tradition says Mary remained a virgin and had no other kids (in fact, that Tradition is much stronger and older than the one that the Epistle of James is Scripture). We have something from the early to mid Second Century that says these are children of Joseph from an earlier marriage ... IF that is so, the ONLY word available for these other males would be "adelphoi" since there is no word in koine Greek for "half - brother" and certainly not for "sons of a man who is the adoptive father."



Again, my point is not (and never has been) what COULD be or even what is LIKELY. My point is singular: The claim that the BIBLE STATES these are children of MARY is incorrect;. The Bible does NOT state that. And I hold we should at least consider nearly 2000 years of solid, ancient, ecumenical Tradition. Brother, IF someone suddenly came along and insisted that the Book of Romans is NOT Scripture and is to be removed from all Bibles (contrary to universal, solid belief since the Second Century), I think that person needs to make a very solid case for why every Christian was wrong for 2000 years, more than "it's POSSIBLE that it's not." COULD it be we've all been wrong about Romans for 2000 years? Yup. But I'd need a pretty solid case for that.... Same here.

And again, I'm genuinely curious why this is SUCH a big deal to American and Canadian "Evangelicals." In Europe, radical liberals reject the Virgin Birth and divinity of Jesus and THUS believe Mary had lotsa sex (and don't care if the Bible says that or not). But American and Canadian "Evangelicals" don't tend to deny the Virgin Birth or Two Natures, so WHY are they SO passionate about Mary's intimate relationship with Joseph... why is this issue of sex SOOOOO important and critical to them, what dogma are they trying to protect by insisting all Christianity was wrong for 2000 years and that the Central Message of Christianity is undermined by holding she remained a virgin? Odd. Oh, well....




Blessings on your Easter Season...


- Josiah



.

 

[Lanman87]

WHY are they SO passionate about Mary's intimate relationship with Joseph... why is this issue of sex SOOOOO important and critical to them, what dogma are they trying to protect by insisting all Christianity was wrong for 2000 years and that the Central Message of Christianity is undermined by holding she remained a virgin? Odd. Oh, well....

The same thing can be asked of those who passionately defend the Perpetual Virginity. Why is it such a big deal to them that Mary didn't have a normal marriage, complete with sex and children?

In my opinion, the reason American Evangelicals defend the virgin birth and the "Two Natures" is that it is easy to find both in the Scriptures.

I also believe it is a reaction to Roman Catholicism. Under that tradition, Mary is no longer a normal Jewish Girl who was graced with the honor of giving birth to the Messiah, and should be honored because of her faith. But she is sort of a demi-God, who was born without original sin and committed no sin in her life, never had sex (even Holy and God honored sex in marriage), and never died a physical death. She now hears our prayers and mediates for us with the Son in a special way because of her position as Queen of Heaven.

You can use the same arguments to support all the Roman Catholic dogmas of Mary. That, while the Bible doesn't explicitly say those things are true, it also doesn't say they are false. And that ancient tradition teaches us that those things are true. Of course, the Roman Catholic church also declares that the church itself is inerrant and that because the church has declared the Marian dogmas as "truth", they are "True".

 

[Josiah]

The same thing can be asked of those who passionately defend the Perpetual Virginity.

I agree. So, odd (don't you think) that American "Evangelicals" SO rebuke Catholics for dogmatically holding to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ("it's not stated in the Bible!") while equally claiming that Mary had lotsa sex and kids (which also isn't stated in the Bible). IF these modern Americans REALLY held to "it's gotta state so in the Bible" then they'd be quick to reject BOTH dogmatic claims (and maybe note that it doesn't make any difference anyway.... and probably isn't any of our business anyway, lol). I find that sometimes Christians boldly condemn the very thing they themselves do (sometimes worse!).

I also believe it is a reaction to Roman Catholicism.

I agree. While it's far less than in the past, there is still a lot of hatred of Catholics and Anti-Catholicism among American "Evangelicals." If it's "Catholic" it just HAS to be wrong. Of course, Catholics believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Two Natures of Christ.... they confess the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, they pray the Lord's Prayer, they worship usually on Sundays, they sing hymns.... and those are okay BUT if it's Catholic, it's just wrong. This ANTI-Catholicism is alive and well among too many modern American "Evangelicals."


I also think that (joined with this Anti-Catholicism) is an "anti-Tradition." They may even says absurdities such as "No Tradition, just the Bible!" laughable since the Bible is a product of Tradition! Nowhere in the Bible is there a table of contents, what we accept and reject as Scripture is a result, a product of Tradition. So is very much more than American "Evangelicals" accept. Of course, Tradition is not inerrant... its' norma normata NOT norma normans... but it IS a major factor in the faith.



Thank you for the conversation.


- Josiah




.

 

[pinacled]

I agree. So, odd (don't you think) that American "Evangelicals" SO rebuke Catholics for dogmatically holding to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary ("it's not stated in the Bible!") while equally claiming that Mary had lotsa sex and kids (which also isn't stated in the Bible). IF these modern Americans REALLY held to "it's gotta state so in the Bible" then they'd be quick to reject BOTH dogmatic claims (and maybe note that it doesn't make any difference anyway.... and probably isn't any of our business anyway, lol). I find that sometimes Christians boldly condemn the very thing they themselves do (sometimes worse!).





I agree. While it's far less than in the past, there is still a lot of hatred of Catholics and Anti-Catholicism among American "Evangelicals." If it's "Catholic" it just HAS to be wrong. Of course, Catholics believe in the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Two Natures of Christ.... they confess the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, they pray the Lord's Prayer, they worship usually on Sundays, they sing hymns.... and those are okay BUT if it's Catholic, it's just wrong. This ANTI-Catholicism is alive and well among too many modern American "Evangelicals."


I also think that (joined with this Anti-Catholicism) is an "anti-Tradition." They may even says absurdities such as "No Tradition, just the Bible!" laughable since the Bible is a product of Tradition! Nowhere in the Bible is there a table of contents, what we accept and reject as Scripture is a result, a product of Tradition. So is very much more than American "Evangelicals" accept. Of course, Tradition is not inerrant... its' norma normata NOT norma normans... but it IS a major factor in the faith.



Thank you for the conversation.


- Josiah




.

American evangelicals are majority catholic.
Catholics being anti catholic is quite an irony.