Jeffrey Gibson

Glad to hear it. Now how about telling us why you think you are -- and why you think we should agree that you are -- well informed about 1st century Palestinian Judasim, let alone informed enough for your claims about what was and was not rooted there to be taken seriously.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

He had no point, initially. He clearly thought it was significant that rhetorical questions obtained no answer. This can only be because he didn't realize they were rhetorical. Given his subsequent attempt to change the point of his comment, he apparently now understands his mistake.

Toto

So Matt reads (NIV):

55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

Here, Jesus is the carpenter's son. In the second sentence, "his" refers to Jesus, not the carpenter, so Jesus' mother is Mary.

This is generally interpreted as either a) both Jesus and his father were carpenters (to be expected), or b) Mark called Jesus a carpenter, while Matthew noticed that Jesus was not actually working as a carpenter and decided to clean up the narrative and refer to him as a carpenter's son. These explanations may be fanciful or mistaken, but in each case, Mary is the mother of Jesus, whether he or his father or both are carpenters.

I think I have asked before if English is your first language, and you have refused to answer. I sincerely hope that it is not, and that this explains your difficulty here.

aa5874

Your explanations do indeed appear fanciful or mistaken as you have admitted. I therefore cannot accept your conclusion.

Your explanations are still fanciful or mistaken even if translated to any other language.

Petergdi

I think it is Matthew's reaction to the Panthera story. Matthew is not worried by questions about Jesus' biological parentage, but he wants to make it clear that Joseph did not divorce Mary and accepted Jesus as his son. Having the words "the carpenter's son" is a nice quiet way of contradicting what he finds offensive in the Panthera story - the accusation that the carpenter divorced Jesus' mother.

Peter.

spamandham

aa, rather than beating around the bush, why not just tell us exactly what you think Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55 mean, and explain your interpretation.

I'm as confused as everyone else how these passages can be interpreted in any way other than as rhetorical questions that presume Jesus is indeed the son of Mary, the son of a carpenter, who is also a carpenter, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

aa5874

I am not the one who asked the questions in Mark 6.3 and Matthew 13.55.

Is not this spamandham? Is not his mother Mary?

Mary is spamanfham's mother, correct?

spamandham

You are indeed correct that my Mother's name is Mary. Now can you please answer the question I asked?

aa5874

Not so fast.

Is this not spamandham's son? Is not his mother called Mary?

Mary is the mother of spamandham's son, correct?

spamandham

You've reversed the order in the Gospel quotes, and substituted a proper name for an anonymous one. But even so, proper textual analysis would point to Mary as the mother of the subject of the first sentence. The subject is 'this', which refers to 'son' rather than 'spamandham'.

If you're point is that we can't discern who the referent is, I think you would need to support that idea by showing other ancient examples that highlight your point - as it is rather odd.

If your point is that the author is not actually making the claim that Mary is the mother of Jesus because it's in a quote, I think this contradicts your general position that the Gospels are essentially fiction - i.e., there is no reason to believe the author is attempting to record an actual quote, but rather, the quote is itself part of the story and was also composed by the author.