Posted on 10/21/2002 9:35:21 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
The Nazirite vow not to partake of the fruit of the vine is in direct contradiction to the Christian commandment to do just that.
James could not be both Nazirite and Christian, and a reading of the book of James shows him to be unlikely to engage in silly, self-ordained, pointless rituals.
What are you talking about? I haven't seen Berned even bring the definition of brother up yet.
Second, the Scriptures do not "plainly" or "clearly" state that Jesus had "half brothers". No where do the Scriptures talk about other sons of Mary. (And if you're going to take the Scriptures so "literally", do you also believe in the Real Presence since Jesus Christ so forcefully and repeatedly told us to eat His flesh and drink His blood?) I put "literally" in quotes because I do believe the Bible, and the Catholic Church is founded on the Word of God. I don't want you to jump all over me because you think Catholics don't give the Bible the proper reverence and respect and honor.
Again, I ask why, if Mary had additional children, did Jesus give her to John for care? It was proper in those times that the oldest son care for his mother (presumably because her husband had died), followed by the next oldest son, and so on.
Finally, Catholics do not view Mary as a goddess. This topic has been covered on another thread recently so I'm not going to get into it here, but suffice it to say we don't.
God bless.
Impressive only for its irrelevance. See below.
. "Brethren" - Biblical Exegesis
"Brethren" as mere kinsmen: Deut 23:7; 2 Sam 1:26; 1 Ki 9:13; 2:32; 2 Ki 10:13-14; Jer 34:9; Amos 1:9.
Irrelevant, for the interesting reason which you give below.
E. Neither Hebrew or Aramaic has a word for "cousin."
Oops. Do you see your problem here? You should. The Septuagint translators frequently used the word adelphos in transliterating the simplistic Hebrew word.
But you manifestly don't see the problem, because you continue quoting a confused Dave Armstrong:
The NT retains this Hebrew usage by using "adelphos," even when non-siblings are being referred to.
This is just misleading.
The New Testament was not a translation of Hebrew. The New Testament was written by Greek-speakers (including Greek-speaking Aramaic/Hebrew individuals). They were not all very gifted in Greek, and they may have preferred to use the Hebrew idea which really did, oddly enough, regard all Jews as BRETHREN, but we should not assume that they were completely oblivious to the fact that the Greek language does have a different Greek word for cousin.
And when it was necessary for them to be clear about blood-relations, and therefore necessary for them to use the Greek language in a way of Greek precision, they did use the precise word for "cousin" as opposed to the Hebraism of "brother." Elizabeth, for example, is specifically called Mary's COUSIN--which entails a DIFFERENT GREEK WORD.
This is why they WOULDN'T have used adelphoi in Mark 6:3 or Matthew 13:55 if they had been upholding Mary's perpetual virginity--especially when those verses mention Mary with JOSEPH.
The point here is that when the Aramaic/Hebrew speaking apostles cared to be clear, they used an unambiguous word.
Think about that. It really does ruin Armstrong's lengthy but ultimately unimpressive argument. We are therefore forced to go back to what I said in my earlier post. And you really do need to read the Ya'akov Thread.
F. In Lk 2:41-51, Joseph and Mary take Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, with no sign of any other siblings.
Big deal. (Armstrong needs to be more careful. This is no argument. And for him to adduce it as evidence reveals that he has no case.)
G. Jesus Himself uses "brethren" in the larger sense (Mt 23:1,8; 12:49).
So what? Same problem as stated above.
H. By comparing Mt 27:56; Mk 15:40; and Jn 19:25, we find that James and Joseph - mentioned in Mt 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brethren" - are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Mt 27:61; 28:1) is called Mary's "adelphe" in Jn 19:25 (two Marys in one family?! - thus even this usage apparently means "cousins" or more distant relative). Mt 13:55 and Mk 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all "adelphoi". Since we know that James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, it is likely that all these other "brethren" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above.
Read the Ya'akov Thread, friend.
I. Even standard evangelical Protestant commentaries such as Jamieson, Fausset & Brown admit that the question is not a simple one: "an exceedingly difficult question . . . nor are opinions yet by any means agreed . . . vexed question, encompassed with difficulties." {commentary for Mt 13:55}
Oh, this is old stuff. Protestant scholars have more recently developed crushing arguments. (Even Calvin supported the RC tradition--because he didn't take the time to work through the matter. But his Protestant successors have done so.)
J. Some Protestant commentators maintain that Mt 1:24-5 ("Joseph knew her not till . . .") implies that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Jesus. This does not follow, since "till" does not necessarily imply a change of behavior after the time to which it refers (cf. similar instances in 1 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 6:23; Mt 12:20; Rom 8:22; 1 Tim 4:13; 6:14; Rev 2:25).
I LOVE this point (LOL). Do you see why?
K. Likewise, "firstborn" (Mt 1:25) need not imply later children. A mother's first child is her "firstborn" regardless if any follow or not (Ex 13:2). Also, in the Bible, "firstborn" often means "preeminent," and even applies to those who are not literally the first child (Jer 31:9), or, metaphorically, to groups (Ex 4:22; Heb 12:23). Thus, "firstborn" in Mt 1:25 actually is more of an indication that Jesus is Mary's only child, than that there were others. This position is held by many evangelical Protestant scholars on these criteria, rather than Catholic dogmatic grounds.
So what? The more competent Protestant theologians don't stake much if anything on this peculiarity of language and logic.
Go back to what I said in my earlier post.
L. Jesus committed his Mother to the care of John from the Cross (Jn 19:26-7). This is improbable if He had full brothers of His own then alive. Again, many Protestant interpreters agree.
Many Protestants DON'T agree. But if I were tell you why, you'd just get upset, I fear.
M. Who would want to have God for a brother anyway?! Talk about sibling rivalry and an inferiority complex! The whole notion, if pondered, seems more and more improper and unbecoming - out and out implausible, even apart from the biblical data.
I would gather from that YOU don't want to have God for a "brother" (LOL). Pardon me for saying so, but I do. And the Lord IS my brother.
3. Early Christian Tradition was unanimous in holding to Mary's Perpetual Virginity. It was first doubted, as far as we know, by one Helvidius, who tangled with St. Jerome in 380, but by few others until recent times. All the Protestant Founders firmly held the belief, as did later notable Protestants such as John Wesley, and many more to this day, on biblical grounds alone.
Many Protestants did continue to be confused. And I say John Wesley is the quintessential confused Protestant. (Hey, I'm a Baptist [grin].)
And the sweeping statement that early Christians were unanimous is NOT true. Read Eusebius's account of the interview of Jesus's nephews by the Roman emperor.
***
Again, you ought to read the Ya'akov Thread. It dovetails beautifully with the article at the top of this thread.
In short, the really good exegetical evidence and the really interesting traditions and the present thread's most recent archaeological evidence do support the Protestant position.
I am just trying to help you see these things. But I can't make you see this stuff. God can, but that's a different matter (grin).
A true Christian should immediately understand that. There are a number of Scriptures documenting the fact that the ties between Christ and Christians (or between two Christians) are CLOSER than the ties between blood brothers.
Figure that one out.
(Anyway, I do think the article at the top of this thread is very interesting indeed.)
JOHN 7:
After this, Jesus stayed in Galilee, going from village to village. He wanted to stay out of Judea where the Jewish leaders were plotting his death.2But soon it was time for the Festival of Shelters,3and Jesus' brothers urged him to go to Judea for the celebration. "Go where your followers can see your miracles!" they scoffed.4"You can't become a public figure if you hide like this! If you can do such wonderful things, prove it to the world!"5For even his brothers didn't believe in him.
//
That thread is in the Smokey Backroom. (The lead article was rather civil, but some of the responses were a little dicey--so the thread got moved.)
I must have missed that paragraph when I read it.
They will have to come out and denounce the finding or at least dispute it somehow, to keep the Mary thing going.
Isn't it funny how some automatically assume that the shroud of turin is for sure the cloth of Jesus, (for DNA analysis) even though the NT and Jewish traditions suggest that Jesus was wrapped in several pieces of material, not one single shroud?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.