J. K. Posted September 3, 2013 #51 Share Posted September 3, 2013 From a non-Catholic point of view..."queen of heaven" seems to imply some sort of veneration. And what about "Hail, Mary" when the Bible says that the only way to reach the Father is through the Son? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted September 3, 2013 #52 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Elfin ... The alternative, that Mary wasn't their mother, would make them not related by blood to Jesus at all. Which is also a possibility well within the range of meanings for "brother" in many languages, including Greek. Once we have determined that a term can denote either of two things, then we need not trouble ourselves further with whether it can mean only one thing. The dead mouse on the kitchen floor proves that you had a mouse. Smart money looks at poor dead Mickey and says that you have mice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 3, 2013 Author #53 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Not worth it Elfin. You can twist it as much as you like. Please explain how I am twisting it. It is you who are twisting the plain context of the earlier verses describing his brothers. Incidentally, Star of the Sea, are you aware that the title Stella Maris only became applied to Mary because of a scribal error? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady,_Star_of_the_Sea Elfin Which is also a possibility well within the range of meanings for "brother" in many languages, including Greek. Once we have determined that a term can denote either of two things, then we need not trouble ourselves further with whether it can mean only one thing. The dead mouse on the kitchen floor proves that you had a mouse. Smart money looks at poor dead Mickey and says that you have mice. What's the context of the verses describing his brothers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of the Sea Posted September 3, 2013 #54 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) Please explain how I am twisting it. It is you who are twisting the plain context of the earlier verses describing his brothers. Incidentally, Star of the Sea, are you aware that the title Stella Maris only became applied to Mary because of a scribal error? https://en.wikipedia...Star_of_the_Sea What's the context of the verses describing his brothers? Let me help you with this: Who was The Blessed Virgins sister? Why are you digging up the origin of my Avatar? (username) Stay on topic please. Edit to add: I have no idea why this post is in bold, as it is not my intention. Edited September 3, 2013 by Star of the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ambelamba Posted September 3, 2013 #55 Share Posted September 3, 2013 I just don't understand why some of you deny the obvious. Average Catholics don't know much about their own doctrines. Isn't that a common sense? And I can definitely tell you that most Catholics I have known have no knowledge about House Borgia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. K. Posted September 3, 2013 #56 Share Posted September 3, 2013 "seems to imply some sort of veneration" ... veneration is not the same as God or Deity in the context of this discussion. "And what about "Hail, Mary" ... And what about it ? Venerate: to regard or treat with reverence. The phrase "Queen of Heaven" implies that Mary holds some position of authority in Heaven, when the only ones referred to as authorities in Scripture are God the Father and Jesus. Hail Mary: in John 14:6, Jesus says that the only way to reach the Father is through the Son. Why address Mary, a human, when we have access to the deity Himself? If you feel that I have hijacked this thread away from the "brothers" discussion, I do apologize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted September 3, 2013 #57 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Star Edit to add: I have no idea why this post is in bold, as it is not my intention. If you're logged in, it should show normally. If you're a "guest," then much of the text on the site is in bold, not just the posts. No doubt Saru would look into it if you asked him. Elfin What's the context of the verses describing his brothers? That the whole neighborhood (which is not necessarily Nazareth in Mark) remembers Jesus, and whoever is being quoted doesn't remember him as being as smart back in the day as he is now. It's actually a very witty scene. There's a lot of humor in Mark. ambelamba And I can definitely tell you that most Catholics I have known have no knowledge about House Borgia. You seem to have stumbled upon a gap in European History knowledge, rather than anything specifically Catholic. (I imagine the finer points of European History might not be hot sellers except in Europe, although the Borgias were very entertaining.) BTW, I am not following your point about what the diffusion of knowledge among 1 billion Catholics has to do with what the Church's teaching is. Regardless of who knows it deeply, it is readily available to anybody who can read at several sites, including one at the Vatican (where, I would guess, a high proportion of the inhabitatnts have a fair grasp of Catholic doctrine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 3, 2013 Author #58 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Let me help you with this: Who was The Blessed Virgins sister? Why are you digging up the origin of my Avatar? (username) Stay on topic please. Edit to add: I have no idea why this post is in bold, as it is not my intention. Mary's sister, according to tradition at least, is Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Whether the unnamed woman in either verse is her, I have no idea. Your username, Star of the Sea, is Stella Maris (I have no idea what your avatar is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. K. Posted September 3, 2013 #59 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Lets start here ... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Veneration .. and then move here ... http://en.wikipedia....ki/Canonization. Queen of Heaven is used because of the fact that Mary is the mother of Jesus. I can also assure you the term Queen of Heaven is not a common term used to describe Mary, at best you are fishing for nothing. I am fishing for nothing; rather, I seek understanding. Regardless of the frequency of its usage, the phrase does exist and I question its origin. "Why address Mary, a human, when we have access to the deity Himself?" - I am still lost with this statement ?Hail Mary, full of grace. Our Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. Please reference post # 19. I question the concept of praying to a human being; I see nothing of that in the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of the Sea Posted September 3, 2013 #60 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) Mary's sister, according to tradition at least, is Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Whether the unnamed woman in either verse is her, I have no idea. Your username, Star of the Sea, is Stella Maris (I have no idea what your avatar is). Not according to tradition. Elizabeth was the Virgin Mary's cousin. I think you are muddled up with the Mary's at the foot of the cross "Well, lets have a closer look shall we. In John there are 4 women mentioned at the cross: Mary (Jesus's mother), her unnamed sister, another Mary (wife of Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene. In Matthew we have only 3 mentioned: Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James and Joseph) and an unnamed mother of the sons of Zebedee. This latter is presumably not Mary (wife of Cleophas) as otherwise she would be wife of Zebedee instead. So she is either Mary's sister, or another woman entirely, and the Mary mentioned is probably Jesus's mother". There were according to John 3 Mary's at the foot of the cross: 1. Mary the Mother of Jesus 2. Mary of Cleophas (Mother of James and Joseph) and sister/in law to the Mother of Jesus ( Virgin Mary) 3. Mary Magdelene. There wasn't an 'unnamed sister'. Yes I know that Stella Maris is Star of the Sea. I chose it as a tribute to the Virgin Mary. Edited September 3, 2013 by Star of the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 3, 2013 Author #61 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) Not according to tradition. Elizabeth was the Virgin Mary's cousin. I think you are muddled up with the Mary's at the foot of the cross "Well, lets have a closer look shall we. In John there are 4 women mentioned at the cross: Mary (Jesus's mother), her unnamed sister, another Mary (wife of Cleophas), and Mary Magdalene. In Matthew we have only 3 mentioned: Mary Magdalene, Mary (mother of James and Joseph) and an unnamed mother of the sons of Zebedee. This latter is presumably not Mary (wife of Cleophas) as otherwise she would be wife of Zebedee instead. So she is either Mary's sister, or another woman entirely, and the Mary mentioned is probably Jesus's mother". There were according to John 3 Mary's at the foot of the cross: 1. Mary the Mother of Jesus 2. Mary of Cleophas (Mother of James and Joseph) and sister/in law to the Mother of Jesus ( Virgin Mary) 3. Mary Magdelene. There wasn't an 'unnamed sister'. Yes I know that Stella Maris is Star of the Sea. I chose it as a tribute to the Virgin Mary. You seem to be merging 2 different women into one. Mary would not have had a sister named Mary. And yes, you're right about Elizabeth being her cousin, in tradition. Edited September 3, 2013 by Elfin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of the Sea Posted September 3, 2013 #62 Share Posted September 3, 2013 You seem to be merging 2 different women into one. Mary would not have had a sister named Mary. And yes, you're right about Elizabeth being her cousin, in tradition. No. I'm not merging 2 woman into one! Mary of Cleophas was the Virgin Mary's sister/in law as I stated in my last post http://www.ewtn.com/...RS/MARYCLEO.HTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 3, 2013 Author #63 Share Posted September 3, 2013 No. I'm not merging 2 woman into one! Mary of Cleophas was the Virgin Mary's sister/in law as I stated in my last post http://www.ewtn.com/...RS/MARYCLEO.HTM I'm not likey to trust Christian apology websites, am I. Mary would not have a sister named Mary. As for sister-in-law, you have once again decided to change the meaning of the text (but that would make Cleophas Mary's brother, yes?). Furthermore, an honest reading clearly indicates that 4 women are mentioned, not 3, and that the unnamed sister of Mary is not the same as the Mary, wife of Cleophas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of the Sea Posted September 3, 2013 #64 Share Posted September 3, 2013 (edited) I'm not likey to trust Christian apology websites, am I. Mary would not have a sister named Mary. As for sister-in-law, you have once again decided to change the meaning of the text (but that would make Cleophas Mary's brother, yes?). Furthermore, an honest reading clearly indicates that 4 women are mentioned, not 3, and that the unnamed sister of Mary is not the same as the Mary, wife of Cleophas. Elfin if you refuse to look at the link, then I can go no further with you. It is worthy of reading, so therefore I am wasting my time. Incidentally, if you thought that Elizabeth was the Virgins sister to begin with, then what hope have you got of understanding the 3 Mary's at the foot of the cross? "But standing by the cross of Jesus were His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus then saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing nearby, He *said to His mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” 27 Then He said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” From that hour the disciple took her into his own household." - John 19:23-27 Good to speak with you anyway. You're a feisty one Edited September 3, 2013 by Star of the Sea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Star of the Sea Posted September 3, 2013 #65 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Not that the question is a major preoccupation of mine, but if we scroll down from Mark 6:3 to verse 17, we see that Philip, the first hsuband of Herodias and usually called Herod II, is described as the "brother" of Herod Antipas. They were actually half-brothers. Their father was Herod the Great, Antipas' mother was Malthace and Philip's mother was the second Mariamne. I wonder how come Protestants and Catholics have never debated this before . Hi Eighbits, I must take a look at the above 8Bits! Also in another post you kindly tried to help me out with the 'bold' function coming on. I think I found the problem. I was logged in twice lol! I had not logged out, went off to do some chores and then by mistake I logged back in on another page. That will teach me to try and multi task! Good to see you 8Bits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 3, 2013 Author #66 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If a particular passage says that Jesus had brothers, and the context gives us no reason whatsoever to think that any metaphorical use is being employed, then it is only later church doctrine that might make us deny the plain meaning of the text. A religion built on such foundations is a religion of sand, mud and lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 4, 2013 Author #67 Share Posted September 4, 2013 "A religion built on such foundations" Unfortunately it is much more complex than that. If you read the old testament you might be in for a shocker if you want to think in terms of literalism, your head will probably do circles. Have a quick read of this: http://en.wikipedia....ical_literalism In the criticism portion it reads: You have to understand the evangelical right carries a large portion of media in terms of provoking the idea of literal interpretation of the bible. So when people argue against the largest denomination the assumption is they are tied directly in with the beliefs of the evangelical right, which is not true. I don't speak for all Catholics, but I certainly do not know any Catholics that believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Now in saying that, investigating and interpreting the historical references and accounts takes more than just direct biblical quotes which is well beyond the scope of anyone's capacity or resources available to them on this forum. It really comes down to personal choice. If you choose not to believe in that particular denomination you do not have to. To prove it wrong, you are just proving it wrong for yourself and no one else. As I said, it's all about context. The context of the passages that mention Jesus's brothers makes it clear that they are meant to be taken at face value, because the point that is being made is that the people listening to Jesus preach are surprised that someone who had lived among them with his family all his life could be saying such things. To deliberately take it otherwise is to do a disservice to the text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted September 4, 2013 #68 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Elfin If a particular passage says that Jesus had brothers, and the context gives us no reason whatsoever to think that any metaphorical use is being employed, then it is only later church doctrine that might make us deny the plain meaning of the text.A religion built on such foundations is a religion of sand, mud and lies. "Later Church doctrine," whatever that means, doesn't matter to me. My "later church," agnosticism, doesn't have any "doctrine." You put before me Mark 6 and ask "According to the author, does Jesus have brothers?" My answer is that it cannot be determined from the text, for the reasons stated in my posts (and supplemented by what others have said, including Star). Jesus' family life does have religious significance for Christians and Muslims, but the question here and now is what's in a specific text. That's not a religious question, but a literary one. Star Good to see you, too. Glad you were able to get the formatting glitch straightened out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 4, 2013 Author #69 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Elfin "Later Church doctrine," whatever that means, doesn't matter to me. My "later church," agnosticism, doesn't have any "doctrine." You put before me Mark 6 and ask "According to the author, does Jesus have brothers?" My answer is that it cannot be determined from the text, for the reasons stated in my posts (and supplemented by what others have said, including Star). Jesus' family life does have religious significance for Christians and Muslims, but the question here and now is what's in a specific text. That's not a religious question, but a literary one. Star Good to see you, too. Glad you were able to get the formatting glitch straightened out. The text says Jesus has brothers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted September 4, 2013 #70 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Then it goes into the books that you and I agree on the words which appear in the text, and disagree about whether a blood kinship can be inferred from what we read. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. ... be well, sister. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted September 4, 2013 #71 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) 8 bits - yes, we were discussing this elsewhere. For my mind, in that Surah, several verses earlier (admittedly a fairly long time before) the context is distinctly about the Trinity. It then moves somewhat into other matters, though still related. As I read it, when the topic of Mary pops up again it appears to be revisiting themes brought up earlier. But as you pointed out the last time, this isn't the only possible interpretation. But it appears that at least one non-Christian (the thread starter) also came to the same conclusion. And if she was wrong then it detracts from her OP in starting that there is "good evidence" of early Christian worship of Mary in the trinity (a point that still hasn't been addressed, I might add - and if the OP is reading this, it hasn't gone unnoticed they you still haven't addressed this, which does little for your credibility since you've been directly asked for sources and chosen not to give them). Star of the sea - You're welcome, and thank you for your concern. The house move has been stressful. But we're almost settled down and have all the basics dealt with. Mum spent a couple of weeks in hospital that made it just a bit tougher, but we're almost done. Maybe 10 days and I think I can put my feet up, walk down the road and have a swim in the sea (if it's warm enough). Edited September 4, 2013 by Paranoid Android 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eight bits Posted September 4, 2013 #72 Share Posted September 4, 2013 PA The house sounds lovely. Best wishes. Thank you for confirming that I correctly remembered the outlines of your earlier position on the Koran and what Mohammed thought about of all of this. I was hazy on the details, The problems I have with the OP argument are, first "...it is even stated explicitly in the Koran that this is what Christians worship," No, it isn't. What's in the Koran on this point is a matter of interpretation, and not all "black letter." More crucial, I think, is that the Koran is a Seventh Century work. That's not "early" in Christian church history, and comes centuries after the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, which itself reflected Second and Third Centruy Father-Son-Spirit Trinitarian writings. Looking back to the First Century, there doesn't seem to be evidence for a well-formed "Trinity" idea that far back, much less that Mary, of all people, would be a member of it. "Dying and Rising gods" are all very interesting, but Jesus was supposed to be a man who died and rose, as all men and women supposedly will one day, according to Jewish thinking about the end of days and the world to come, especially as taught in the First Century by Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 4, 2013 Author #73 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Then it goes into the books that you and I agree on the words which appear in the text, and disagree about whether a blood kinship can be inferred from what we read. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition. ... be well, sister. Exactly. It's all about context. For incomprehensible theological reasons of their own, Christians seek to deny the plain contextual meaning of their own scriptures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elfin Posted September 4, 2013 Author #74 Share Posted September 4, 2013 (edited) I have a challenge to Chrstians. In the two Biblical passages that mention, and indeed name, Jesus's brothers, I'd like them to explain the context in which the term "brothers" is not to be taken at face value. This should be very simple, if a metaphorical or otherwise non-literal interpretation is intended by the author. So go on, do your best. I will not, of course, accept any arguments based on later theological dogma, since this has nothing to do with the text in question. Please regard this as a test. Are Christians honest? Edited September 4, 2013 by Elfin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Paranoid Android Posted September 5, 2013 #75 Share Posted September 5, 2013 I have a challenge to Chrstians. In the two Biblical passages that mention, and indeed name, Jesus's brothers, I'd like them to explain the context in which the term "brothers" is not to be taken at face value. This should be very simple, if a metaphorical or otherwise non-literal interpretation is intended by the author. So go on, do your best. I will not, of course, accept any arguments based on later theological dogma, since this has nothing to do with the text in question. I've got no issue with Jesus having brothers and sisters. There's no reason Mary didn't continue having kids after Jesus. Catholics believe Mary remained a virgin, but not all Christians are Catholic. Though that being said, Jesus often uses the term "brother" to refer to a range of people, not just the man who shared your mothers womb (if your brother sins against you...). So there is evidence that a reference to brother does not always mean a literal brother, though in terms of Jesus' brothers and sisters I believe they were Mary's offspring. Please regard this as a test. Are Christians honest? I responded to your test, now have the courtesy to answer my question - in your OP you asserted that there was "good evidence" (your words) that Mary was part of the Trinity in the earliest Christian beliefs. Yet you haven't said what this good evidence is. Can you provide it?Please regard this as a test. Can you reply to a question directly without twisting it to an attack on monotheism/Christianity? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now