How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Did Christ have brothers   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Did Christ have brothers

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


25 posted 08-26-2008 07:41 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Stephen,

quote:
The irony here is that scholarship weighs in against the existence of Arthur much in the same ratio and force that it weighs in for the existence of Jesus.


Sorry Stephen, call me a cynic if you like but Iím not inclined to simply take your word on that, I need evidence, can you supply some precise data or source to corroborate your claims?

quote:
My statement was that if you deny his personal existence, then the burden of proof is yours


Hereís an explanation cut from Wikipedia relating to where the burden of proof lies:

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

I didnít say that I deny his personal existence Stephen, I said ďIím still trying to work out if Jesus existed..Ē,  Iím not making the claim that he did or didnít exist so why would the burden of proof fall on me?

If you claim he existed the burden of proof is yours.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


26 posted 08-26-2008 11:06 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I didnít say that I deny his personal existence Stephen, I said ďIím still trying to work out if Jesus existed..Ē,  Iím not making the claim that he did or didnít exist so why would the burden of proof fall on me?

If you claim he existed the burden of proof is yours.

As to the definition of "burden of proof" you provided, I'm quite sure that to say "Jesus existed" is no bold claim.  Since the bulk of scholarship asserts the historical existence of Jesus (notwithstanding your idea about them not being interested enough to explore another theory), I feel no such burden in this area, though I'd be willing to discuss it with anyone I felt was really curious.  Email me if you wish.  But frankly, the assertion that Jesus didn't even exist is so preposterous (to the degree that by the same criteria we should doubt whether Alexander the Great or Napoleon were real), that I feel that those who confidently express it have an axe to grind.  At least by your own words, you should feel no burden of proof either, since you've clarified that you're not really making that claim.  


If you're interested in exploring this more then wikipedia has a pretty good overview of the nature of the data involved:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

quote:
The existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure has been questioned by a few scholars and historians ... Nevertheless, historicity is still regarded as effectively proven by almost all Biblical scholars and historians. (Wikiquote)


Stephen
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


27 posted 08-30-2008 11:02 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob,

I've been meaning to respond.  And because I've wanted to give you the kind of answer I think worthy of your thought (not being facetious here), I've chosen to wait until an opportune time.  Now I suppose ...    


quote:
I think Kierkegaard predates Dostoyevski.  I believe the concentration upon the absurd probably comes from Heidegger and Sartre and that direction.


I stand corrected.  It looks like at best, I can claim D & K as near contemporaries.  But, as for K's absurdity, it cannot be attributed to Heidegger or Sartre who both arrived a little later.


quote:
I'm unclear how many supernatural claims Joshua did make as opposed to the number that were attributed to him.  Most I think were descriptions of man's relationship to God.  I never know exactly how to talk about the miracles with convinced believers without sounding offensive, but there are stories about miracles coming from Greek temples of healing as well, and miracles attributed to other gods.  It's part of the religious tradition of that time, and it would be more surprising if there weren't miracles recounted than that there are.  To my mind.


Firstly to your statement about being unclear about what was attributed to Jesus, I would ask "why"?  The kinds of things that the earliest Christians endured can only be attributed to an exaggerated myth with great difficulty.  

I suppose I can only suggest a qualitative difference (or at least a substantive difference) between the miracles of Pagan religion and those of the New Testament.  Not to take any beauty or imagination from other accounts; what little I have been able to read of "miracles" outside the New Testament have had the literary flavor of myth, as G.K. Chesterton called them "the Day-Dreams".  He later wrote that "he who has no sympathy for myths has no sympathy for men".  And yet also that "We know the meaning of all the myths ... not the voice of a priest or prophet saying 'These things are', but 'Why cannot these things be'?"  (From The Everlasting Man)  

Along similar lines of thought the philologist C.S. Lewis wrote the following about mythologizing the gospels: "I've been reading romances, visionary literature, legends, myths all my life ... I know what they are like. Not one of them is like this. Of this text (The New Testament Gospels) there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - pretty close up to the facts - or else some unknown writer in the second century suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern novelistic realistic narrative." (From Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism)

Lewis, like Chesterton, was a lover of mythology, not a debunker of it.  In fact much of his pre-conversion attraction to Christianity was due to how it resonated with the power and depth of mythology, how it brushed the human heart-strings in the very same way.  The important distinction however, is revealed in a letter in which Lewis summarizes a conversation he had with Tolkien and Hugo Dyson:  "The story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened ... The Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call Ďreal things.í".  Tolkien in this regard was instrumental in Lewis coming to faith, by helping him look at Christ through the eyes of a lover of myth and literature, and yet as more ... as the very one who may explain why myths have such power to begin with.

Perhaps Lewis' own hesitation about faith came from not wanting to be forced to reject the beauty and "truth" of other stories and traditions ... and paradoxically from not really being able to view Christianity as substantially different from their status as artifact.  Later he became sure that in becoming a Christian, he need not lose what was beautiful in anything, nor lose his intellectual integrity by having to believe what is historically indefensible.

I mention these things, because such have become my own convictions, and also to suggest these thoughts for your consideration as well.  


quote:
In fact you can see how they tend to affect the practice of faith in the world today.  Word comes of the miraculous this or thatóthis is without even a decent evaluation of the reality of the miracle in the first placeóand masses of people descend and, if the miracle is impressive enough, it becomes a sideshow.  A shroud of Turin, for example, may be an enormous distraction from the actual practice of Catholicism by the everyday faithful, who end up following the specter sometimes, while abandoning the substance.  It's sad.


I wholeheartedly agree.  Even the gospels record a misplaced seeking of the miraculous, alongside a wholesome desire for it.  I suppose where the focus really goes, must be the criteria upon which judge such phenomena.  The existence of counterfeit currency does not discount (but oddly enough, proves) the value of real money.  Of course to not be able to obtain the real thing, or to differentiate between the two is a frustrating feeling.  It sounds like to me however, that your sadness reveals that you already know something of this difference.  

quote:
I tend to find it difficult to believe why one set of miracles should be more important than another in the same way that I have trouble privileging one religion over another, for the most part.  Wiccans, fine; Satan worshipers make me twitchy.  Call me tragically closed minded.  We need to find other ways to deal with the problem of evil.


Bob, I don't call you closed minded by making distinction.  I simply think you may and should go further, without losing that wonderful ability you have of seeing what is lovely everywhere.  


to a very enjoyable discourse,

Later,

Stephen    
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


28 posted 08-31-2008 03:05 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


Dear Stephanos,

          I enjoy it myself.  Thank you; I'm pleased you do as well.

     "Kierkegaard's Absurdity" makes Kierkegaard himself sound silly.  His willingness to point out that belief requires a leap into the unknown is not in retrospect such a shocking concept.  Even when you read C.S. Lewis talking about his conversion experience, it's clear that Lewis hadn't suddenly gotten that last little logical connection that he'd been missing, all the gaps were closed and now his rationality was convinced of the truth.
Lewis is like many in his conversion experience in this way, like Saul to Paul.  Perhaps it was an intercession of Grace, if you're in a Calvinist sort of mood; but a shift took place.  I hate using the passive voice here and would not had a better words for it.  If this is what you care to call Absurd, then I guess I'd have to think of Kierkegaard as an apostle of the Absurd; but I suspect you'd be willing to call it the Grace of God and a genuine Blessing that something would visit somebody with such a force of revelation.  Or, in the case of Lewis, with the force of "of course."  As in, O Sure, I guess I realize that there is such a thing as gravity now, I wonder why I was putting up such a fuss about the whole thing before?  Of Course!  

     Kierkegaard says some folks have that.  He doesn't know how or why, I don't believe, but he says yeah, some folks have that bone deep faith and understanding.  Some people have to reason it out, and act as though they had that instinctive understanding that's probably as much a gift as anything else.  They keep having to work out the mechanics of faith with every situation and every person the meet; it's all reasoned and not always reasoned out right ( or at least I think that's what he's saying).  The folks who do things according to reason can be capable of making incredible sacrifices and statements, they can be marvelous people, but they go through life with a sense of necessity, they aren't necessarily lifted by the joy of the whole thing.

     If this seems a bit much for an agnostic to say to a faithful and honest christian, I can only say how sorry I am, but I've always enjoyed these pieces of philosophy and theology because there's so much life and truth to them, whether you happen to believe in God or not.  Probably much better if you do.

     With Sartre, Absurdity is a different thing.  It's a statement in the face of meaninglessness.  A man makes decisions about his or her life because they create meaning in a world of despair and randomness.  I think that this sort of Absurdity is something that probably is more difficult for you because it accepts a world in which
man is the sole creator of meaning.  And each man is the creator of his own meaning within that world.  Myself, I find this quite a useful bit of philosophy as well, and very useful indeed in helping troubled folks make meaningful lives for themselves.  It think at its best, it's not quite as natural as Kierkegaard, but I can't tell you how wobbly I feel in making a judgement like that.  It may simply be false.

     I'll try to get back to you when I've got a bit more time.  I think you may be giving Kierkegaard short shrift.

Best you all of you there, Bob Kaven
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 09-01-2008 03:29 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob:
quote:
"Kierkegaard's Absurdity" makes Kierkegaard himself sound silly.  His willingness to point out that belief requires a leap into the unknown is not in retrospect such a shocking concept  ... I think you may be giving Kierkegaard short shrift.


Bob, you are very right about me giving him "short shrift".  Kirkegaard is someone of whom I am sure of only two things 1) He was brilliant, and 2) he hasn't been read near enough by the likes of me.  My plans are to become less and less sure of number 2.  


Of what I have read of him however (and admittedly what I have read about him through others) has lead me to think there is a strong image of faith and reason as sheer opposites.  Wasn't the idea in "Fear and Trembling" that faith (like Abraham's) begins "precisely where thought stops"?  Don't worry I don't think this will prevent me from catching the finer nuances of Soren's thinking and insights.  But the faith of Abraham can be explained without pitting reason against faith.  As Hebrews 11:19 reads "Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death. ".  It seems the syllogism itself is not in question here, but that which informs it ... more of an epistemological/ relational issue than a logical one.    


quote:
Even when you read C.S. Lewis talking about his conversion experience, it's clear that Lewis hadn't suddenly gotten that last little logical connection that he'd been missing, all the gaps were closed and now his rationality was convinced of the truth.  Lewis is like many in his conversion experience in this way, like Saul to Paul.  Perhaps it was an intercession of Grace, if you're in a Calvinist sort of mood; but a shift took place.  I hate using the passive voice here and would not had a better words for it.  If this is what you care to call Absurd, then I guess I'd have to think of Kierkegaard as an apostle of the Absurd; but I suspect you'd be willing to call it the Grace of God and a genuine Blessing that something would visit somebody with such a force of revelation.  Or, in the case of Lewis, with the force of "of course."  As in, O Sure, I guess I realize that there is such a thing as gravity now, I wonder why I was putting up such a fuss about the whole thing before?  Of Course!


Yes, that's a good way to describe it.  But if it is an epiphany, it is one that is much more reasonable than the mindset of "holding out".  In my opinion Lewis came not so much to a realization that was above rationality, as an understanding that he was stealthily rebelling against God, and therefore (ultimately) against reason herself.  Consider Lewis' own account of his conversion as shared in "Surprised by Joy":

"You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape?"

It is his own awareness of personal sin that convinces me that Lewis would call his newer state "reasonable" and his former as "rationalizing".  This is consistent with Lewis' own Theistic arguments from reason.  Other more-vintage writers have made the same point;  Anselem, Augustine and Pascal all said something to the effect of "I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand".  Faith in this paradigm is not the opposite of reason, but the foundation for it.  Reasoning to the contrary of faith may be thought of as sometimes internally consistent, but ultimately disconnected and arbitrary ... dimly lit globules floating in the void.

One conclusion I hold (that all of these thinkers I think would agree with) is that faith is the opposite of autonomous reason.  And that a purely visceral response of faith, like falling in love, can be as reasonable as anything.  And though I'm not a Calvinist, I think it is nothing less than the grace of God that would permit (or help) such a thing to occur.  

quote:
The folks who do things according to reason can be capable of making incredible sacrifices and statements, they can be marvelous people, but they go through life with a sense of necessity, they aren't necessarily lifted by the joy of the whole thing.


Again, those who seemed to defend divine reason the most seemed the more joyful.  Wasn't Kirkegaard's life marked by much melancholy, and didn't Lewis (for example) write much more about joy?  I know this is anecdotal and perhaps a simplistic way to think about it, but it is interesting to me.  The Faith of Soren seems to have been more of a struggle than any faith I've seen excepting my own.     

quote:
With Sartre, Absurdity is a different thing.  It's a statement in the face of meaninglessness.  A man makes decisions about his or her life because they create meaning in a world of despair and randomness.  I think that this sort of Absurdity is something that probably is more difficult for you because it accepts a world in which man is the sole creator of meaning.  And each man is the creator of his own meaning within that world.  Myself, I find this quite a useful bit of philosophy as well, and very useful indeed in helping troubled folks make meaningful lives for themselves.  It think at its best, it's not quite as natural as Kierkegaard, but I can't tell you how wobbly I feel in making a judgement like that.  It may simply be false.


It may ... but a wobbly bridge is better than no bridge.  I would say you're better off with Kirkegaard (whose melancholy was silver-lined) than with Sartre's intractable nausea.  Sartre's literary gift for expressing his existential crises is not in question.  But I would say that you Bob are not at all helping people create their own meaning any more than teaching them to cook would be helping them to create their own food.  Purpose is always (by its nature) purposive- being placed, hid for the finding, or what have you ... not random.  The nauseous fetter that Sartre would always have to come to is the conclusion that our creations (in a Godless cosmos) must only have the appearance of purpose, being themselves random.


More later,

Stephen
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


30 posted 09-01-2008 05:13 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


Bottom line, a ďMessiahĒ whose own family, at any time,
thought was nuts is hard to pray to for salvation.
Thereís too much grasping at straws about it for
a thinking man to accept.  Ice it as you will
the cake beneath tastes just as bad.


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


31 posted 09-01-2008 07:04 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

I've got kids who with just a glance at certain foods determine they could never be good, because of a certain preconception about appearance ... only many times to discover later (to their delight) that they were being rash.  No offense, but frankly, your response reminds me of this.  

Or do you want to seriously talk about the general premise that family opposition should always go in favor of the family ... or more particularly that a Messiah should stir no controversy?    

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


32 posted 09-01-2008 07:04 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think this page says it well enough:

"Jesus' brothers and sisters

(...)

During Jesus' life, His half brothers did not believe in Him as Savior and Messiah (John 7:5). Yet, after His resurrection, James became a prominent believer. In Acts 1:14 James, along with his other brothers and his mother Mary, is among the original members of the Church, the same group that received God's Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4).

James later became a leader of the Jerusalem congregation. He played a prominent role in the conference of Acts 15 (see verses 13-21). Paul later visited James in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18). In Galatians 2:9 Paul refers to James as a "pillar" of the Church. James also wrote the New Testament epistle that bears his name (James 1:1). Another brother listed above, Judas or Judah (Matthew 13:55), wrote the short epistle of Jude (Jude 1).

The fact that these relatives, including half brothers who grew up with Him under the same roof, accepted Jesus as Messiah and personal Savior is also strong testimony to fact that He lived an exemplary and sinless life. And the fact that they became believers after His resurrection is a powerful witness to the reality of that resurrection from the grave."


There is nothing I know of that indicates his brothers or sisters thought he was "nuts".  But there is evidence that they (or most of them) eventually came to believe in him.  

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


33 posted 09-01-2008 07:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ess,

That's what I meant about him being welcomed back to the family reunions.     

Though to be fair, the text indicates that he was seriously doubted by his brothers, at some point, to some degree.  That's hardly incredible though, and hardly discrediting.

Stephen
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


34 posted 09-01-2008 07:20 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.


"During Jesus' life, His half brothers did not believe in Him as Savior and Messiah (John 7:5). Yet, after His resurrection, James became a prominent believer. In Acts 1:14 James"

We'e all understandably afraid of death,
and would try desperately to believe anything
in mitigation.


.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


35 posted 09-01-2008 08:22 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John,

You've already got your theory that covers both mistrust and trust of the selfsame people, one as shrewd honesty and the other as psychological desperation ... a theory which cannot therefore be said to be based upon their observation.  Have you asked yourself whether unbelief can be a form of wish fulfillment as well?  If Jesus is for real, our hearts are weighed in the balance and the pretense (and peaceful despair) of fading into nonentity is shaken.  Our fear is not only of death but something beyond it.

Stephen  
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 09-01-2008 08:41 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

quote:
Though to be fair, the text indicates that he was seriously doubted by his brothers, at some point, to some degree.


For sure.  But it is far from supporting John's notion that his family thought he was "nuts"!

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


37 posted 09-02-2008 02:29 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Perhaps some of the confusion may come from Mark 3:21:

kai     akousantes      hoi      par' autou   exelthon     kratesai     auton    elegon      gar     hoti      exeste
And    having-heard   those     by him      came-out    to seize      him       they said     for     that    he-was-put-out
                                 (his friends?)                                                                            (because)    (out of his mind?)
                                 (his family?)
                                 (his people?)


Notice how the literal Greek does not specify "friends" "family" "his people", nor "out of his mind" as many translators try.   The verb-form exeste (from existemi:  ek "out" + histemi "to stand, to put, to be put") may vary in meaning to "he was put out", "he was put out of place, he was changed" to "he was astounded" "he was not himself" "he was out of his mind".  I think vaguer translations such as "those with him" and "he was beside himself" are much better in these kind of examples.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


38 posted 09-02-2008 11:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ess,

In context I think Mark 3:31 indicates a good probability that 3:21 was referring to his immediate family, especially in view of how his dismissive response to his brothers and mother seemed to firmly prioritize his ministry (or the Kingdom of God) over familial ties.  And how much more natural would this kind of response be if formerly they had attempted to "take charge of him"?  

And though accusing him of insanity might be too strong for translation ... something like "lost his senses" is probably pretty close to what they were thinking.  

Stephen      

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (09-03-2008 12:15 AM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


39 posted 09-03-2008 12:35 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Stephanos,

I admit I think the text would specify it at that point if it were his own mother and brothers that were trying to hold him and saying he is "beside himself" .  His mother and brothers are not mentioned until 3:31 and at that point it says they "came" which sounds as if they eventually arrived, instead of being with him already.  Then it also says they are standing without or outside, which would suggest they were outside with the crowd instead of inside the house with Jesus and the Apostles.

The reason the text simply says "those by him" is probably because it is referring to those it was just referring to in the earlier lines, the Apostles. The Apostles heard the multitude and then go out.  They try to stop him and say he is "beside himself" perhaps because they think he is somewhat blindly going into what looks like a dangerous crowd or because he actually is somewhat overwhelmed and somewhat exhausted and therefore "beside himself".  

But I would not try to impose a specification into a translation itself instead of just letting the vague "those with him" stand.   It is because of people trying to impose a specification according to their beliefs that we have such inconsistent translations:.  Many translate it as "friends", others "his people" others  "his relatives" others  "his family", etc.  But, the actual Greek behind the translation only says "hoi par' autou" (those by him).

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


40 posted 09-03-2008 07:27 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ess,

Though I think it is a bit stronger contextually to think it was his family, the characterization would still be accurate if it were his disciples.  They often grossly misunderstood him and his intentions, and Peter would later presumptuously rebuke him for predicting his own necessary death.  I guess it matters little either way.  John assumes it is his family; And I often like to give as much as possible in argument, so that the counter-argument may stand even in a worse-case-scenario.  If John's reasoning can be shown faulty with Jesus' own family thinking him out of his mind ... how much more doubtful would it be if the text referred only to his impetuous disciples or even acquaintances?

Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


41 posted 09-04-2008 02:43 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Very true.  It would be like discrediting Homer as a poet, or Einstein as a genius, if by chance family initially doubted them or their craft.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


42 posted 09-08-2008 04:58 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

So, at the very least, we're conceding
there were no bread and fishes, water
to wine, walking on water, or raising
the dead events to get the relatives
on board.


.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


43 posted 09-08-2008 07:19 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

John,

If miracles didn't (in many cases) convince the devoutly religious Pharisees, why would relatives be any different?  Your points seem to be always made in isolation, since it seems fairly clear they did later "get on board".  You can counter that by attributing their acceptance to psychological desperation and thanatophobia.  But in that case, you've woven an unassailable, if inconsistent, argument.

Stephen  
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


44 posted 09-09-2008 10:12 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Huan Yi,

                     I myself am mostly agnostic.  But I don't understand where you base the logic in post #42.  I don't mean to say it isn't there or couldn't be there.  I simply don't see it.  

     Did you by any chance see that lovely link to THE ONION the other day that I think it was JM posted (JM, was that you?)about the atheist miracle.  It was gut bustingly funny.  Have a look if you can.  I'll see if I can find the link for you.


Best, Bob Kaven
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


45 posted 09-09-2008 10:18 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



I promised a link to an article in THE ONION that I believe I'd seen posed by JM the other day on the off chance it hadn't been seen by folks here.  I mentioned it in a prior post that I can't access at this point.  I'm therefore writing this:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin


And I'm doing so simply to append the link.  Bob K.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


46 posted 09-13-2008 09:36 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob,

I personally think they have Darwin confused with Moses.  The white beard makes them virtually indistinguishable.  

Stephen
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Did Christ have brothers   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors