We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Aractus]

Jesus was not an "only child" Randy. That's just some stupid made up RCC doctrine. His brothers are mentioned by name, and Mark and Matthew both say he also had sisters.

This is a common error resulting from the English translation. So, let's address the perpetual virginity of Mary, shall we?

---

The Adelphoi of Jesus

Objection 1:  The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 says: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’"

The key to Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a "brother." Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like "brother" having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.

Objection 2:  But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?"

It is a misconception that Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term "adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the "brothers" in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ" [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary" [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].

You also can't back-up your claim that labourers were poorly paid, can you?

Poorly paid relative to what? Or to whom? Jesus was born in a stable. Where is Joseph's wealth?

At his presentation, Joseph and Mary offered two pigeons:

Luke 2:22-24
22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

This was in keeping with the following passage of the law:

Leviticus 12:8
8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.’”

There would have been no reason for Luke to mention the pigeons at all if Mary and Joseph had offered a lamb. Consequently, we can be confident that Luke learned this detail from Mary and included it in his gospel.

Where is Joseph's wealth?

Or that that Joseph wasn't really a carpenter, or that Joseph had died before Jesus, can you?

In brief, the Greek word commonly translated as "carpenter" really mean more of a general day laborer. You can look that up yourself.

As for Joseph dying earlier:

1. Joseph was a widower who married Mary to protect her vow of virginity.
2. Joseph does not appear in the gospels after Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12.
3. Jesus commended his mother into the hands of John. If Joseph was still alive, why did He need to make this provision for her?

---

Okay Randy, just so you know I reported that post for clear plagiarism (which is what led to you being banned). You know where to contact me if you really want to continue discussing this topic.

I did a search and I have no idea who came up with the original content from which this was taken. So there's no way for me to verify the analysis as originating from a scholarly source.

The issue with the idea that 'adelphoi' doesn't necessarily mean an actual brother - and could refer to any of his close followers - is that it is never used to describe his closest followers like Peter, Andrew, John, and James. James the Just was never a follower of Jesus - according to you - until after Jesus died. Yet he is called a brother, and Peter is not. Furthermore it is my understanding that the analysis is based on the Aramaic word for brother, not the Greek word, and as the NT is written in Greek and not Aramaic that's pure conjecture.

Genesis is not written in Greek, it's written in Hebrew so analysis of what the LXX wording might say is useless.

"we can be confident that Luke learned this detail from Mary" - no we can't. We cannot verify anything about the nativity, it's safer to assume the whole thing is an embellishment.

We do not know where Luke got his information, but we do know it was not from primary sources since he says so himself (see Luke 1:1-4).

Even if it's true, we don't know why they didn't offer a lamb. That's simply an assumption you've made. But even assuming you are right that they are poor when Jesus is born - how does that tell you anything about their financial status in 30-something years time when Jesus begins to preach?

"Joseph was a widower" - never seen that in my Bible. Is that some other random RCC doctrine?

"Joseph does not appear in the gospels after Jesus was found in the Temple at age 12." - So what? How do we infer anything about his financial state from that?

"Jesus commended his mother into the hands of John." I assume you mean John 19:27- we don't know for certain who the "beloved disciple" is. And even if I agree with you that John takes him into his home, this is simply following the crucifixion - not a permanent arrangement.

The real objection you could have made - if you could think up your own arguments Randy - is that if Joseph was alive and wealthy he would placed Jesus into his tomb.

The fact that Joseph isn't present in those passages though does not indicate he has died. He could have been away on a building project. That means he could have returned as soon as he had been sent word and taken possession of his son's body, moving it from the tomb of the other Joseph.

[Aractus]

NO ONE witnessed the resurrection. But MANY people saw the risen Jesus...and Paul was one of them as he testifies.
...
What does "raised" mean, Daniel?

If Jesus was still in the tomb, how did he appear to all those people mentioned in 1 Cor 15?
...
Hearsay...now there is a word loaded with negative connotations. Paul and Luke traveled together for many years. Luke had set through MANY of Paul's sermons...he knew what Paul taught publicly and what he said privately as they walked along the dusty roads of the middle east on their missionary journeys. So, when Luke says that Paul met Jesus, he knew what he was talking about.
...
Mark writes, "He is risen" in Mark 16:6. Mark knew of the resurrection.

As for James, why do you suppose that the skeptical brother of Jesus was converted after Jesus' death to the degree that he became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem and a martyr for his faith?

Okay, again I'm sorry you can't reply here, but I will respond to your questions.

1. "Many people saw the risen Jesus" - Matt 28:17 some saw "him" and doubted. Even by Matthew's own admission some saw the supposed risen Jesus and said "no that isn't him".
2. Read Genesis for yourself. It means God takes them up (without them dying on Earth). The same context is understood by Mark - yes in this account Jesus dies a physical death before being rased, but afterward God raises him to the heavenly realm (not to the earthly realm).
3. 1 Cor 15 is a creed. Nowhere outside of it does Paul ever say he met the risen Jesus. The Creed itself doesn't mention a resurrected Jesus just appearances (visions) of Jesus.
4. Luke (or one of his associates) wrote Luke-Acts. But we do not know that Paul ever discussed with him his conversion experience. It is likely that Luke is relying on some other account here. Acts was written in 61 AD at the earliest - he probably couldn't contact Paul at the time who was under house arrest to confirm the details he's been told of his conversion.
5. Genesis says multiple people were raised - and none of them had a physical bodily resurrection on Earth or appeared on Earth after being raised.
6. We don't know that he was sceptical. We don't know why he was converted. We don't know when he was converted. There are endless possibilities Randy.

Interesting that you, a Catholic, recognise him and not Peter as the first leader of the church.

[Foxaèr]

1. "Many people saw the risen Jesus"

I can write "Many people saw the risen cheeseburger"

Write a book about it, and there is always certain to be someone who believes it. If one person believes, getting someone else to believe is a matter of relationship than actual logic. Soon enough, many people believe in something that is not real.

That is how religions are created and then spread through the population.

All religions are the same, they rely upon the faith of the believers for there is no actual evidence to support the religion.

[Esquilax]

How do you notice the Plagarism unless you recognize it? Does it look suspicious and you copy paste it into google?

To me, obvious changes from the forum standard are immediately suspicious. Like, if the font is notably different, the presence of bolded sub-headings and so on. Anything that might indicate that the words I'm reading haven't been typed into the text box that posted them here.

Randy used to have clearly different fonts in his copy/pastes, but he stopped doing that once he was called out on what he was doing and it became clear that people could figure out that it wasn't his own work that way. Kinda hard to claim that the plagiarism is accidental when you're clearly going out of your way to hide it, then.

[Minimalist]

Write a book about it, and there is always certain to be someone who believes it

Dan Brown and the Da Vinci code comes to mind.  Oh, and then there is the book of mormon...... and the koran.

[Foxaèr]

Write a book about it, and there is always certain to be someone who believes it

Dan Brown and the Da Vinci code comes to mind.  Oh, and then there is the book of mormon...... and the koran.

Don't forget Gardner and Wicca.

[Aractus]

1. "Many people saw the risen Jesus"

I can write "Many people saw the risen cheeseburger"

Write a book about it, and there is always certain to be someone who believes it. If one person believes, getting someone else to believe is a matter of relationship than actual logic.  Soon enough, many people believe in something that is not real.

That is how religions are created and then spread through the population.  

All religions are the same, they rely upon the faith of the believers for there is no actual evidence to support the religion.

Why are you quoting me quoting Randy and making it look like you're responding to something I said instead of something Randy said?

How do you notice the Plagarism unless you recognize it? Does it look suspicious and you copy paste it into google?

Well since I reported the post I'll tell you. I didn't check at the time. The "knowledge" was far too detailed for Randy and it wasn't written in his style, it looked as if it had been copy-pasted from an anonymous apologetic source. Why else would he go out of his way to construct straw man argument from my post and then rattle on about "cousins" which had nothing whatsoever to do with what I was saying?

The page the mods linked to is undated. However I did do my own search after the fact and found this post which is 8 years old, and quotes the website linked to in the Mod notice - therefore it is at least 8 years old. As I understand it Evert is a Catholic apologetic and not a qualified bible scholar. So quoting him to tell you what the Bible says is like quoting the defence council to tell you what the judge handed down in their verdict - it's far far from being free of bias.

FWIW I was pretty nice to Randy and happy to discuss the topic with him, I just wasn't happy to see him copy-pasting arguments from god-knows where.