I see you would rather not respond to the substance of my post. I did not argue that deposited in Paul was the actual direct "word of god" as delivered by the "holy spirit." I was attempting to discuss various historical aspects and implications about Paul's belief in the human Jesus.

Can I take your failure to address these historical issues as agreement with my statements?

Raymond Brown takes much the same line here, and doesn't really discuss the reference to Jesus son of Mary found in Mark 6:3 in any detail. I don't really want to read too much into it of course, and just found it curious.

On the other hand, when I checked out the notes on Mark 6 found at theNET Bible I did find an interesting comment.

6sn The reference to Jesus as the carpenter is probably derogatory, indicating that they knew Jesus only as a common laborer like themselves. The reference to him as the son of Mary (even though Jesus' father was probably dead by this point) appears to be somewhat derogatory, for a man was not regarded as his mother's son in Jewish usage unless an insult was intended (cf. Judg 11:1-2; John 6:42; 8:41; 9:29).

It looks like this passage was meant as a doubly insulting towards Jesus, and since it is included in Mark, it is almost certainly an historical representation of how he was received by his kinsfolk at the time.

Now, if only I could find my original commentary where I saw the reference I was talking about earlier...

Thanks Layman.

Nomad

Only if I can take your failure to answer my question as dispositive of your delusional lunacy.

The actual quote in Mark reads, "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house." (6:3-4)

Several facts can be gleaned from the above passage:
1. The writer either did not know Jesus' father or did not think him important enough to mention.
2. Jesus had brothers and sisters.
3. The people of Jesus' hometown were offended by him.
4. Jesus' own family did not honor him.

According to the writers of Matthew and Luke, Miriam was pregnant BEFORE she had intercourse with Joseph. The implications of the four facts above (and the probability that Miriam was pregnant before sleeping with Joseph) are that Jesus was illegitimate.

One way to counter those who said that Jesus was illegitimate would be to create "virgin birth" myths. That seems to be precisely what the writers of Matthew and Luke did.

rodahi

That such is likely the case is evidenced by internal inconsistencies in the Annunciation stories as given in Matthew & Luke:

MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.

MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.

In addition, subsequent events cast further doubt on the Annunciation:

MT 1:20-23, LK 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus) will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and ....
MT 3:13-17, MK 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary happenings, yet ....
MK 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be out of his mind, and ....
MK 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should not have been the case considering both the Annunciation and the Baptism).

Then you concede the point. Or you are unable to respond to it.

Or, as Michael Grant (atheist historian) and Raymond Brown (Catholic Priest and ancient historian) suggested, Joseph was dead, and referencing Jesus as being the son of Mary was simpler. I wonder why you missed that one rodahi?

BTW, you did not actually address the point that Mark is recording a double insult from the people against Jesus.

We already knew that. And as has been pointed out to you before, they could be full brothers and sisters, or half brothers and sisters. Koine Greek did not distinguish between the two (see Mark 6:17 where Philip is called Herod Antipas' brother, eventhough it is well known that they were half brothers only).

Yes. Hence the insults.

Yes. Hence the insults.

Of course this is a possibility rodahi. Interestingly, none of Jesus' Jewish opponents at the time appear to have brought it up, and if Jesus really was a bastard child, then this would have been a silver bullet against His credibility as being the Messiah.

You also failed to note that Mark also calls Jesus the son of David (Mark 10:47-48), indicating that Mark was aware of Jesus' royal lineage (as was Paul of course in Romans 1:3), and we can hardly expect these sources to believe this if they knew or thought that Jesus was illegitimate.

On the other hand, you have not accounted for why Matthew and Luke were merely recounting the same story as did the Septuagint in Isaiah 7:14 (written by Jews 200 or 300 years before Jesus was born). The Messiah was going to be born of a virgin (parthenos, so if Jesus really was the Messiah, this looks like a very real possibility.

Nomad