Flip's Questions...

[flip]

ok... this will probably be a series of questions through the journey of my knowledge and understanding. I really like Brother Adam to help me out with these questions, but anyone is free to reply. just try to keep it to questions and answers, and [b]NO "hey good job" chats...[/b] thanks!

First of all, bro adam: good stuff on the the ever virginity of mary. I explain the way she says "How can that be" by stating her next phrase, "For I do not know man". She was questioning how a virgin can bear child. All your other arguements were very valid. What about the eary belief that Joseph was old, had previous children, and then died? does anyone believe this theory?

Also, if cousins would get legal status of siblings: why isn't John the Baptist mentioned? Was Mary then "the mother of John (The Baptist)"? Which would mean The Baptist had two mothers. Is this common in Jewish tradition? Also, the Joesph the protector is a good argument and I see how it would fit an the jewish context. So, why did Jesus give Mary over to John (The Beloved)? Joseph must be dead, no? And, yes this would have been an insult to his mother and brothers if it were true, but Jesus commonly insulted many peeps: Scorning his mother in the temple when he was young, scorning his mother at the wedding feast about the wine, and not to mention saying that he has no mother or brothers at all! (pretty insulting to me!)

And, how and why does Paul and Josepheus (Jewish historian) know James as Jesus "brother"? do they just mean "cousin"?



And for the next question: went over this in bible study, care to take a stab at it?

1 John 2
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, [b]and you do not need anyone to teach you[/b]. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.

that is all, try to keep the answers short and sweet ok? thanks dude.

Edited April 7, 2004 by flip

[dUSt]

I love "hey good job" chats. You're mean.

[Jake Huether]

First of all, welcome! I hope you enjoy phatmass.


[quote]So, why did Jesus give Mary over to John (The Beloved)? Joseph must be dead, no? [/quote]

The answer to this is yes, at thist time it is believed that Joseph is dead, possibly long dead.



[quote]And, yes this would have been an insult to his mother and brothers if it were true, but Jesus commonly insulted many peeps: his mother in the temple when he was young, scorning his mother at the wedding feast about the wine, and not to mention saying that he has no mother or brothers at all! (pretty insulting to me!)[/quote]


The tone of the Gospels in English leaves a lot to be desired. Jesus didn't "scorn" or insult his Mother, ever. The way I like to see it, was that He wanted Mary to understand His own mentality. Mary had only one nature, human. And Jesus, the God-Man, had to at times point out the Divine to Mary. It seemed harsh, but that's all in the translation.


[quote]1 John 2
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.[/quote]


John is talking about the antichrists. He is telling his desciples that they have been annointed [by the Church], and to hold on to what this annointing has taught them (through the Holy Spirit).

John wouldn't be telling them they need no instruction from anyone. If that were the case, then why would he be writing them? He is himself instructing them. They do need teaching. But his teaching abides in their annointing. Because in their annointing they became members of the Body of Christ, the Church. And it is through the Church that they recieve their instruction. the antichrist is agains the Church, who is the Body of Christ, and so one who is instructed by Christ's Body cannot be taught by one who rejects Christ's Body.

[Dave]

We know that Jesus never sinned. If He had insulted his mother, then He would've sinned against the commandment to honor our father and mother.

[cmotherofpirl]

May I ask what bible translation you are using?

[flip]

cool. first of all, thanks for the welcome, but im one of phatmass' earliest members...


you're points are good. especially Jesus honoring the honor your mother commandment. that really shut down the insulting arguement. The translation of English is a viable arguement, well noted.

Good point about the 1 John quote - That's kind of what I argued in bible study.

I am using the NIV translation, if you would like I can use The American Bible in the future.

I still want to know why most all new testament biblical scholars (Crossan, Borg, Tatum, Chancey, Sanders, etc.), Josepheus, and the apostle paul regarded James as Jesus' "Brother".


what up wit dat?

[dUSt]

From Catholic Answers:

[i]When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).[/i]

I'm guessing that the Biblical Scholars that Flip mentioned are Protestant, therefore, try to show James as Jesus' brother in an attempt to disprove Catholic theology?

[dUSt]

Also, this makes a lot of sense to me:

[i]When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, "How can this be since I have no relations with a man?" (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.

Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask "how" she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the "normal" way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.[/i]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='flip' date='Apr 7 2004, 01:07 PM'] cool. first of all, thanks for the welcome, but im one of phatmass' earliest members...


you're points are good. especially Jesus honoring the honor your mother commandment. that really shut down the insulting arguement. The translation of English is a viable arguement, well noted.

Good point about the 1 John quote - That's kind of what I argued in bible study.

I am using the NIV translation, if you would like I can use The American Bible in the future.

I still want to know why most all new testament biblical scholars (Crossan, Borg, Tatum, Chancey, Sanders, etc.), Josepheus, and the apostle paul regarded James as Jesus' "Brother".


what up wit dat? [/quote]
Can you find a RSV-CE bible?

Crossen is an ex-catholic priest. He is not faithful to the teachings of the Church. The early Church said Jesus had no brother, that is why John was asked by Jesus on the cross, to take care of Mary

[Norseman82]

[quote name='flip' date='Apr 7 2004, 11:07 AM'] Crossan [/quote]
That's one problem right there. Crossan is unreliable. He was a main participant in that Jesus seminar which came to the conclusion that Christ really didn't rise from the dead. He also said in a History Channel special that the Last Supper was a later invention of the church.

BTW, I tried to take some pics when youse guys were at St. Bart's but they didn't
cme out well.

[flip]

hey guys... yeah, i probably guessed that you guys hated Crossan. I dont believe most of his claims either, but i do respect him as a scholar. (BTW, he still considers himself Catholic!)

I am taking a historical Jesus class right know and that is why im trying to figure things out. What i do know so far is that all biblical scholars that we have studied ALL agree that Jesus had brothers. So, I guess I am just asking for some material from a Catholic biblical scholar claiming that Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters, factually. (if that is even possible to prove without faith claims)

Also, I was wondering what is the Catholic position on the dating of the gospels. Biblical scholars tend to agree that John was written last, more than 50 years after Christ. When one reads John, you find alot of high Christology and Theology. (In John, you find "eat my flesh", Mary at the foot of the cross, and Mary giving over to the beloved disciple). Without John, these Catholic traditions would not be biblically based. Not to say that john is not viable, but biblical scholars believe that alot of John is influenced and developed by the existing church and early theology. John is also a day earlier in the Passion narrative, and has no last supper (b/c the meal is not on passover, its a day earlier)

You can find very interesting comparisons in Mark and in John. In mark, you see Jesus walking around doing his thing but he keeps telling everyone to not say anything and to not tell what they saw. In John, jesus is walking around telling everybody is God and proclaiming it proudly.

Most scholars testify that john is not as historically accurate as the synoptic gospels. if this is true, the validity of john as a historical document is diminsihed. What is the Catholic view on this?

please remember CHARITY in the name of the Church when replying to me. I feel that these ideas might piss some of you off. Remember, I am an honest seeker of truth and pursuer of knowledge of the catholic church...


hope yall are having a happy holy week.

[cmotherofpirl]

John had a lifetime to reflect on the life of Christ. He wrote in Ephesus at the end of his life.
The Gospels are complementary in nature and reflect the individuals who wrote them.

When you are studying, please remember the bottom line is the Church says the Gospels are totally historical, no matter what a "theologian" might come up with.

[flip]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Apr 8 2004, 10:20 PM']When you are studying, please remember the bottom line is  the Church says the Gospels are totally historical, no matter what a "theologian" might come up with.[/quote]
Can some one tell me exactly how true this is? When looking at the four gospels, it is so overwhelmingly apparent that they contradict each other with historical data. It seems silly that the Catholic Church would make this claim.

IE:

Mark's Jesus runs around and tells everyone to keep quiet about his miracles/ healings/ ministry.

Matt's Jesus was born at [i]home [/i]in Bethlehem, then moved to Nazereth, after the flight to egypt.

Luke's Jesus has no flight to Egypt, but is born in Bethlehem (not his home) because of a Roman census (Which NO record has been found in any Roman Historical Sources)

Finally, John's Jesus procalims his Godness though the "I am" statements (contrasted to Mark, where Jesus is so secret)

These are just a few problems with the historical Jesus that any reader of the bible can easily see. What I want to find is a Catholic biblical scholar that comments on the historical Jesus. Will anybody help me? I might convert if someone does...




By the way, all four gospels seem to point to the elite Jews for the crucifixion of Christ and paint Pilate to be a caring, comapassionate man. In reality, Pontius Pilate was one of the most terrible and barbaric governers for Rome. This is proved through Roman and Jewish (Josepheus) historical sources. In Roman sources, Pilate is actually removed from the title of governer for brutality (for Rome, he MUST have been pretty bad: The Romans INVENTED crucifixion and promoted it). Also, the Gospels and Gibson's movie tells the story that Pilate crucified Christ to appease the Jewish elite. Why would Pilate have to appease the High Priest? Pilate himself was in charge of appointing the High Priest!!! Since Christ was crucified as a political criminal, i believe the Romans had ALOT more to do with Jesus' death than the Gospels make it out to be.

sorry for the tangent there, please answer any or all of these puzzling questions. dont be scerred...

[luciana]

Hi Flip, I love your group's album BTW I got it before I got the massmatics CD

You asked for a Catholic scholar that deals with the historical Jesus claims.Have you checked out Dr. Scott Hahn?
I know that in some of his talks on his Scripture Matters show he's dealt with the whole dating the Gospel and Gospel accuracy controversies. His website is www.salvationhistory.com.
Also I remember reading Mark Shea's book, Evangelical Is Not Enough, in which he writes about how going against the Jesus seminar people showed him the Church. It didn't get into too much detail, though, as any of Scott Hahn's work would. It's a short, quick read.

Hope this helps, that's all I can think of right now, need some sleep
Happy Easter and God bless.

Edited April 12, 2004 by labrego

[dUSt]

Flip. I'll work on finding some info for you. Scott Hahn is an excellent source, as Kiel will probably tell you.