Damian King said

I mean, I do NOT for religious reasons, of course. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. I have kept my religion out of it as best as I can. Have I not?  

Thanks for answering my question. 

(See Stephen, I can be just as rough on the other side.  An Equal Opportunity Destroyer.)

😉

And again, the Septuagint is a very flawed translation–it uses a Greek word meaning virgin to refer to a biblical prophecy that uses a Hebrew word meaning young woman of child-bearing age.  And regardless of the translation, Genesis goes out of its way to make it clear Lot isnt Abraham’s brother.  So we know when that word is used, what context it’s used in.  Mark and Matthew would have done the same.  Luke doesn’t mention Jesus having brothers in any sense–where’d they go?  Already starting to move away from the very real memories of his family, because he couldn’t be an ordinary man anymore.  

You don’t have a case.  Just a need to believe in something that makes no sense.  Mary wasn’t a nun.  The tradition of celibate nuns comes from the pagan vestal virgins.  Not from the bible.  

And celibacy is destroying the Catholic priesthood (celibate because of rules created many centuries after Jesus), something I mourn bitterly.  Our outdated traditions are kililng the ones that really matter.  Well, different subject.  

What’s troublesome is the dishonesty of this entire thread’s premise.  Damian should have opened by saying that he believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary as an article of faith.  When queried about this, he tried to avoid commenting on his religious motives for questioning whether Mary gave birth to any of Jesus’ siblings. 

Many sincere and committed Christians don’t believe Mary was a virgin all her life, find it easier to identify with a Jesus who grew up in a large family, perhaps helped take care of his younger siblings–an eldest brother is often especially caring.  Mary’s perpetual virginity is not in any way essential to Christian belief, and probably no early Christians believed in it, including those who first told the story of the Divine Conception (that is attested to in only two books of the NT, each of which seriously contradicts the other, and it really does seem like Matthew wants to believe Jesus is also Joseph’s natural son, God knows how).  

I’m glad Damian finally opened up and admitted his bias, as all of us should do.  I suppose he’s right that we can’t know all of Jesus’ siblings were children of Mary (though there is literally no evidence to make us conclude otherwise).  But for his purposes, if even one of them was, his belief in Mary Ever Virgin is discredited.  So really, he’s just trying to create a loophole to go on believing what he wants, while still claiming to care about the historical record.  Rationalizing the Irrational. 

Faith isn’t supposed to require proofs.  Or loopholes.  When faith and knowledge intrude on each others’ domains, each is corrupted.  Thomas is said to be wrong for needing to see and touch the risen Jesus to believe.  Somehow, it seems like many modern Christians fail to get the point of that story.

Born, baptized, confirmed and raised a Catholic.  My father studied to be a priest, my uncle was one.  All four grandparents came from Ireland, and not the North. I still consider myself Catholic, albeit Lapsed, because I can’t pretend to believe what isn’t possible, or isn’t right. Mindless obedience to dogma isn’t faith.  It’s the opposite.  But neither can I pretend it isn’t still the only religion I could ever feel a part of, and an institution that still does enormous good in the world, when it isn’t clinging to nonsensical ideas about sex that the overwhelming majority of Catholics spend their lives quietly ignoring. 

So don’t pull that card on me, boyo.  It’s not discrimination to ask people to be honest about their motives.  You had no trouble obliquely accusing Bart of dishonest scholarship, though I couldn’t say if that was for the atheism thing or the former evangelical Protestant thing.  Well, they’re equally disreputable, I suppose.  😉

You said I was the one bringing religion into this, but that was a lie.  You brought it in, but as a concealed weapon.  I thought I heard a cock crowing in the distance.  That was for you, Damian.  Now let’s be done with this. 

Maybe not, I could be overreacting–but if he was dishonest about why he was asking this question (he was never really asking a question but pretending to answer it, I hope you understand), it seems plausible to me he was passive-aggressively trying to undermine Bart.  A goat in sheep’s clothing, one might say.  He couldn’t attack Bart’s motives without exposing his own. 

I don’t think you were raised Catholic?  Word of advice–don’t get in the middle of a family feud.  Trust me on this.  🙄

You actually never discussed scholarship.  You brought up the rather obvious fact that in basically every language known to man, the word ‘brother’ can be interpreted in multiple ways, even though the primary meaning always implies sharing the same parents. The secondary meanings must be made explicitly clear in the text, or implied by context, in order to be operative–and neither is the case in the relevant gospel passages. 

You did not establish that there’s any reason to believe the reference in Mark is to anything other than brother by blood, and the passage from Genesis you cited actually discredits your view, since Lot is unequivocally identified as Abraham’s nephew before the term brother is used to signify their close connection.  You proved nothing except what everybody here already knew before they ever read one word about early Christianity.  There is nothing unusual about the word brother being used in multiple senses, but it would be most unusual for it to be used to signify multiple meanings at once.  In the scriptural tradition, genealogies matter–Matthew and Luke’s gospels begin with genealogy, so you can’t say they are careless about who is related to whom, even if they may in some cases be mistaken.  

And in any event, if you’re only interested in a scholarly interpretation of the passage, why not simply suggest Mark is mistaken?  Because you don’t want to say any part of the gospels is mistaken.  Which is not a scholarly POV.  A scholar of  history must question the primary materials, or he/she isn’t a scholar at all. 

I did in fact reference my Catholic background earlier in the thread.  As I have done many times on this forum. 

Robert said

godspell said

I don’t think you were raised Catholic?  Word of advice–don’t get in the middle of a family feud.  Trust me on this.  🙄  

Me not raised Catholic? You really don’t remember much of what I’ve told you about myself in response to your own questions.   

I thought that was clear by now.  Robert, does the term ‘multi-tasking’ mean anything to you?

Anyway, welcome to the family.  I should have recognized the anal tendency, though that could be explained in other ways.  😉

I am now reminded why I stopped talking to you, but know you are always in my prayers.  In the odd chance that I remember to say them before falling into a dead stupor every night.  😉

** you do not have permission to see this link **