I don’t think Tamil is evidence of anything. I’m going to wait and see what my uncle says.
But in any event, the gospel writers did not speak Aramaic, and were not quoting anyone directly.
Most of those other things are forbidden in Roman Catholic doctrine.
Sex must be between a man & woman, married, and ‘open to the possibility of conception’.
Well, at least Jesus had two daddies. They could help him grow up. And one of them all-powerful!
Frankly, I doubt that either of you can read the text in the original language(s). So you’re arguing about translators text.
And even that is not ‘clear’ – there are many different translations, and big arguments among translators. Many related to political or theological implications that the translation could support or oppose.
Even that’s not ‘clear’. Many sects claim that it should be “thou shalt not murder”, so that killings done by soldiers, policemen, etc. don’t count.
Hope that wasn’t aimed at me, since I was the one who brought up IC. I used it correctly. I figured the august body of the teeming masses would understand the actual meaning of it and called it special pleading in that we are all supposedly “born in sin” but Mary got special dispensation from that not through anything Biblical, but because the Catholics invented it for her, just as they did Eternal Virginity. Same logic.
All of those are clearly metaphorical statements. Not one is referring to an actual person or persons. No one is arguing they didn’t mean brother in that general sense in all cases. In Matt 13:55-56, they are clearly humbling Him by showing how mundane He is. Isn’t this the son of Mary? Aren’t his brothers ans sisters among us? Why in the world would they mention His mother and some extended family without mentioning those children’s parents or some previous explanation on why Mary would be fostering them? It’s because they did. Mary. There is NOTHING in those verses that would even suggest they didn’t mean what they said unambiguously. If this is supposedly divinely inspired, then I double down against the suggestion that God is such a shitty writer we can’t understand plainly written text. There’s nothing involving salvation in the idea that these were His cousins and not siblings. The whole argument is an escape hatch to justify Mary worship, which likely is just direct transfer from Juno/Hera worship.
The traditional Christian position is that John was written by an eyewitness (who obviously spoke Aramaic). I’m going to bracket the question of Matthew for the moment since I don’t really have an opinion on Matthew’s authorship. Your position, that the Gospel was written in the 90s by someone who never met Jesus, is shared by most historico-critical scholars today (I hold to the minority position that it was written by an eyewitness, but also the non-traditional position that it was written early). It’s not my position here to try to convince you that John was written early or an eyewitness (I’ve made that case elsewhere but it would be a hijack here). I am going to say though that if you want to convince Christians (or others) who believe in the ever-virginity of Mary, you’d be more effective if you don’t rely on premises about the authorship and dating of the Gospels that they don’t share.
As far as Luke goes while I think it was written more like 30 years after the events in question, not 50, I’d certainly agree with you it was not written by an Aramaic speaker and there’s no obvious reason that Luke would say “adelphos” instead of “anepsios”. I would assume though that he was directly translating the words of his sources, who probably did speak Aramaic. Same for Josephus- maybe his sources used the ambiguous term and he was simply quoting them.
Weak evidence, sure. In the same way that “John and Sara are devout evangelical Christians so they probably didn’t have premarital sex with each other” is weak evidence.
“It could happen” is not evidence, by itself, but it’s a counterargument against the claim that it couldn’t possibly have happened.
I’m sure you’re right that such terms exist, because I’ve been told the same thing (that you can say, “father’s brother’s son”, etc… The Only question is how common it is to say “brother” vs. “father’s brother’s son”. I look forward to your father’s insight and I’m going to try if I can find some citations myself.
I can read biblical Hebrew, and I’m here to tell you that it in fact does say “Do not murder.” Don’t get me started on parsing out the verb tense.
The language is not ambiguous unless you need it to be. There is nothing to even suggest that reading. Doesn’t matter what translation or original Koine. Unless you can show me they established an extended family elsewhere it is a complete non sequitur to even mention the sons and daughters of some one else after referring to His mother Mary. They weren’t presupposing His virgin birth and her perpetual virginity. They would have had no idea anything about that story or they would not have questioned His mundane status.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quite right. Jerome translated it into Latin as “kill” though which is probably why the KJV, which gave great deference to the Latin, used “kill” as well.
I find it interesting how some branches of Christianity almost spontaneously evolve back into polytheism, even beyond the trinity. Mary goes from being a virgin when she was impregnated into being an eternal virgin into being perfect from birth, and now is basically a goddess. Then scores (hundreds?) of tutelary gods accumulated.
Richard Swinburne, the Eastern Orthodox philosopher of religion, is refreshingly upfront about the view that, under the Jewish / Islamic definition of God, Christians aren’t monotheistic at all. By their lights, Jews and Muslims are perfectly correct to call Christians idolators. He thinks most modern western Christians have a semi-heretical, Modalistic understanding of God, and that the actual Christianity of the early church fathers is a lot closer to polytheism than most Americans nowadays would be comfortable with. (Which is another way of saying that Maimonides was correct as far as his assessment of Christianity versus Islam). He has an awesome lecture on this topic, I’ll try and find it.
Of course he does think that God the Son and God the Father are “One God”, but only in a similar sense that Peter and Paul are “one human species”.
I find it rather creepy and off putting when Christians try to convince Jews and Muslims that we aren’t actually that different in what we believe: actually, Christianity is very, very different indeed from either of the other two, in the sense that they aren’t strict monotheists in any sense that Moses or Muhammad would have credited.
As a (very very) heterodox / heretical Christian, I wasn’t raised in any religion but I was exposed with some exposure to a polytheistic tradition, and (the Gospels and the figure of Jesus aside) polytheism or at least dualism has always made much more intuitive sense to me than classical theism or monotheism.
Not Genesis 13:8 , where Lot and Abram are referred to.
Like I said, I am pretty sure that Jesus has biological brothers and sisters. But the belief that James, ect were his half-siblings or other close relatives is not a crazy one.
No longer the majority at all. In fact the general consensus is weighing on John at least dictating a good portion of the Gospel with his name on it.
Paul/Saul quite likely spoke Aramaic.
Mark was likely “written” from older source material by Mark the Evangelist as St. Peter’s interpreter.
wiki “Based upon internal evidence Harrington claims parts of the Gospel of Matthew may have first been written in Aramaic.[94] The birth stories and the resurrection experiences on the other hand were composed in koine Greek. The Ebionim seem to have worked from a version of Matthew in Aramaic, that excluded birth and post resurrection stories.[95]”
Whoever wrote Luke may have spoken Aramaic,:dubious: but it is clear he wrote fluently in Greek.
That looks an awful lot like disparagement of historico-critical scholarship as a field/tool. Is that your consistent position on the subject, or is this a special case?
It’s always been my understanding that the Immaculate Conception referred to Mary’s conception in her mother’s womb, and that Joseph is entirely irrelevant to the concept.
The idea being that Mary has always been held (by the RCC, and some others, anyway) to have been free from the stain of Original Sin, a stain that afflicts every other human being, from the moment of conception. Joachim and Anne got a pass on her, apparently.
Which may factor into a need to keep Mary a Perpetual virgin. If she and Joseph bore other babies, were THEY also going to need to be thought of as Immaculately Conceived, and free from Original Sin? Easier all around to just consider Mary and Joseph to have been celibate, and Jesus’s “brothers and sisters” to have been his cousins.
Considering that, according the at least the Gospel of Matthew, Mary and Joseph had settled in Galilee, which is a far northern region, which, IIRC, was outside of Judah, and not where either of their families lived. They did not have any close family to be there as “cousins” when Jesus returned. Any family would have to be part of their nuclear family.
Then two books later Luke tells us that both Joseph and Mary were living in Nazareth already from the beginning and one would assume HER immediate family, but then we see cousins like Elizabeth were still in Judea), and moved to Bethlehem for the alleged census apparently because Joseph was the latecomer and that was still considered his hometown … but then how come he had no family with him THERE? Like I said, lots of RetCon in the story as finally published.
This all does go to showing how Christianity is quite a syncretic religious universe; in these particular instances reminding us also how in the (small-o)rthodox, Catholic lineages, scripture-alone is not their sole source but tradition is valid as well.
My Baptist faith instructed us that Mary and Joseph had a normal married life after Jesus’ birth. Jesus had brothers.
Mary is an important figure but it’s my understanding that she isn’t revered in the same way as the Catholic Church.
In the context, though, it is obvious what he is talking about. The text has established they are uncle and nephew. He is obviously speaking metaphorically. Like I said, no one disputes the word was used that way and it’s usually pretty easy to tell from context what is meant. In the Matthew text, it does not set up the familial relationships. They are trying to humble him by calling out his mundaneness and saying he is just one of this woman’s brood and not special. Especially when they firmly establish James the Just as Brother of the Lord being of some importance. Then we have the corroborating text where it says Joseph knew her not until she had birthed Jesus. Hector was using some hardcore Clinton-esque* parsing ("…what the meaning of is, is…) to justify an interpretation that makes no sense. If they had meant Joseph never had her, they would have said so.
(*Note, that was not a political reference, just an historical reference.)
My ultimate point is not that it cannot be read that way, but it is WHY would you read it that way? If one did not start with the presupposition that Mary remained an eternal Virgin, then why would you read it with that interpretation? No one has presented any evidence other than an appeal to authority.