I figured that. Just couldn’t resist the joke, though. 
Your fellow lousy typist,
~Valerie
So are you saying that when Jesus uses the word “brother”, he is instructing his followers only in how to treat each other, and that Christians have no moral obligations toward non-Christians? (I warned you there was a trap ahead.)
I think there’s a difference between a fraternal connotation and a literal one.
When did people start calling each other “brothers” in Christianity, anyway?
John W. Kennedy,isn’t that why he has those lessons about loving your neighbor? You know, the one culminating in the story of the Good Samaritan? Nowhere in that lecture does it refer only to “brothers”.
And what about all the times He does use the word “brother”?
Jesus had half brothers and sisters. Joseph and Mary had kids after she had Jesus. James was Jesus’s flesh and blood half brother.
Thank you. Did you read the rest of this thread, wherein it is pointed out that many people believe Mary remained a virgin forever? Why are you so certain that your interpretation is correct?
Powers &8^]
Maybe it was a different James and Jesus.
C’mon, it’s not like THAT Jesus was the only one with THAT name.
A catholic once told me that for Jesus to tell John & Mary “Behold your mother” and “Women, behold your son” would be a terrbile faux pas if Mary had other children. I’m not sure that is true, but wouldn’t it be the same if Jesus’s brothers were Mary’s stepsons?
Jesus did not think that everybody was a brother. He called some sons of the devil. Of course it isn’t the case that Christians have no moral obligations to non-Christians. How did you make that leap of logic? As Irishman has pointed out, Jesus taught us to love not only our brothers, but also our neighbors and even our enemies.
Is there some particular use of “brother” in the Gospels that you think is going to be a trap for me? If so, let’s hear it.
~Valerie
Because you insisted on defining the word “brother” in such a way that only baptized Christians count. You can’t have it both ways. If the many Dominical statements that use the word “brother” apply to humanity at large, then you cannot demand that “brother” be regarded as having only one meaning.
I understand why Christians think it’s important that Mary was a virgin - it’s because it says so explicitly in the gospels, and it leads to the idea that his father was God his own self.
But why are the Catholics hung up on the idea of perpetual virginity? It seems like a strained conclusion to reach, and one completely unnecessary to understand the religion. Why do they care?
It’s because Mary is supposed to be untainted by sin, so she could be the perfect vessel for Jesus. So she can’t just be a virgin prior to Jesus, she must remain a virgin after Jesus.
Josephus’ comment below appears to make a very short & clear statement that James was his brother and not just one of the apostles.
Book: Josephus and Modern Scholarship. By Louis H. Feldman. Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1984.
Page 705: “Almost all scholars have accepted as authentic Josephus’ reference (Ant. 20. 200) to James, ‘the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.’”
NOTE: Pages 705-707 contain overviews of numerous scholarly opinions on this matter. The bulk of these opinions concur that the passage is authentic, and the few that don’t are debunked.
Mary as an untainted vessel is the reason for the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception (i.e. the belief that she herself was conceived free of Original Sin). But it doesn’t really explain, to my satisfaction anyway, why Roman Catholics insist on her perpetual virginity afterward. He job as Christ-bearer was over; she could have really whored it up after that.
AFIAK not even RCs believe that Mary was completely sinless her whole life, so the insistance on perpetual viginity puzzles me as well. It’s not even like having sex with your husband would have been a sin anyway! It just seems like a relic of 19th century prudishness or something.
What I never understood is, if Jesus required an “immaculate vessel,” meaning that Mary also had to be free of original sin, why that wouldn’t be recursive. Why shouldn’t Mary’s mother also have necessarily been free of original sin, for Mary to be, if Mary had to be for Jesus to be?
Of course the fact is that none of it makes the least sense in the first place. It’s all very illogical and contradictory. It still doesn’t make any sense that Mary necessarily had to remain a virgin after Jesus was born. He’s born, in the world now, why can’t Mary go and fuck someone? Was Jesus’s presence in reality somehow dependent on Mary’s virginity once he was already here? Would Jesus have started sinning egregiously if she let her precious vagina get penetrated?
Certainly there’s nothing obvious in the Bible itself to support that Mary had to stay a virgin. But Catholics seem to have the most fucked-up ideas about human sexuality imaginable.
John,
-
You have not read my definition carefully enough. Brother does not mean “only Christians” in every context. It means “son of a common parent.” For instance, in one case Jesus encountered a man who complained that his brother wouldn’t share their inheritance. Jesus didn’t throw the biological meaning of brother out the window there.
-
So far I don’t think I’ve tried to have it both ways. I’m asking you to point me to some particular statement of Jesus that you think would trip me up in that regard.
-
You just added the word “baptized.” Of course no one had yet been baptized into Christ’s name (in the Trinitarian formula) because His new covenant had not yet been instituted through His death, burial, and resurrection. So in a sense, there were no “Christians” before then. But there were members of the old covenant – sons of God and therefore brothers. Jesus makes this clear in the negative when He calls out the covenant-breaking Jews who sought to kill him. They claim to be sons of God, but he calls them sons of the devil.
~Valerie
In fact, NOT having sex with her husband would have been a sin. This idea that sex always carries some taint of sin is ridiculous. Chastity before marriage is contented virginity. Chastity in marriage is a joyful, generous, faithful, exclusive sexual relationship.
~Valerie
Your entire original point was based on the idea that only “son of a common father” is possible.
No, I never said that. The common parent of Jesus and James, biologically, was their mother, Mary. See my post on 4/16 at 6:10 p.m.
I’m really puzzled by our interaction, John. You seem to be trying to get me to contradict myself or trying to lead me to recognize some error in my thinking, but so far I don’t get what you’re trying to get me to see. What is your point? Why not just come out with an argument on your side, and we can perhaps have a productive conversation from there?
~Valerie
What started all of this off was your
And I am saying that that doesn’t hold water, because, when applied to many Dominical uses of the word, the implications are dreadful.