Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 02-28-2011, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've indicated that, if she were thought to have been mother of Jesus, it is so strange to call her "Mary, the mother of James and Joses". It is at the same level as talking of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" or "Ida Eisenhower, mother of Milton and Edgar". The phrase starting "mother of" in each instance is supposed to help clarify who the person is. One would expect known sons. But that's not what we get, suggesting that the woman was not the mother of the famous son.

The two of the Matthean three parallels to "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" found in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 are reduced to "the other Mary", showing no recognition by the Matthean writer of any importance to this figure.

But Mark 6:3 already indicates a realtionship between a Mary and a Jesus.

Quote:

Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

Then in 15:40 we have

Quote:

Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph and Salome

.

Then in 15:47

Quote:

Mary the mother of Joseph

Then Mark 16:1

Quote:

Mary the mother of James, and Salome

What we see is less information as we go.

Mark 6:3 gives the most information then afterwards there is no need to continue to give all the information.

We see the same phenomenon in Matthew. matthew 13:55 gives the most information.

Quote:

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

later references give less, as there is no need.

Here is you sitting in the 21st century with a computer and various study tools, jumping from one text to another and in doing so you are projecting your own 21st century take on this onto ancient readers. though you still dont see this.

An ancient reader would have just had one text before him. Matthew or Mark. And would have read it from start to finish.
If you did the same you would see it in a different light.

Now, pay attention, because heres the point which torpedoes your theory. Are you ready?
You have claimed that if mary was the mother of Jesus (or seen to be such) then the later references in Mark and Matt should have made this clear.

But you are also claiming that the Matthean writer had access to Mark 6:3 9which you claim was not in the original).

So..if it is so important to mention that Mary and jesus were related (as you claim) then why didnt the Matthean writer include this in all references?

You need to read these books from start to finish, rather than cherry picking things and jumping from place to place to try to prove the theory. :devil1:

Now of course anythings possible , and we dont know for sure how these texts came to be the way they are, but your theory just looks weaker and weaker when we look to the details. The details which you omit.

spin · 02-28-2011, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I've indicated that, if she were thought to have been mother of Jesus, it is so strange to call her "Mary, the mother of James and Joses". It is at the same level as talking of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" or "Ida Eisenhower, mother of Milton and Edgar". The phrase starting "mother of" in each instance is supposed to help clarify who the person is. One would expect known sons. But that's not what we get, suggesting that the woman was not the mother of the famous son.

The two of the Matthean three parallels to "Mary, the mother of James and Joses" found in Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1 are reduced to "the other Mary", showing no recognition by the Matthean writer of any importance to this figure.

But Mark 6:3 already indicates a realtionship between a Mary and a Jesus.

Then in 15:40 we have

.

Then in 15:47

Then Mark 16:1

What we see is less information as we go.

Mark 6:3 gives the most information then afterwards there is no need to continue to give all the information.

We see the same phenomenon in Matthew. matthew 13:55 gives the most information.

Quote:

Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

later references give less, as there is no need.

Here is you sitting in the 21st century with a computer and various study tools, jumping from one text to another and in doing so you are projecting your own 21st century take on this onto ancient readers. though you still dont see this.

An ancient reader would have just had one text before him. Matthew or Mark. And would have read it from start to finish.
If you did the same you would see it in a different light.

Now, pay attention, because heres the point which torpedoes your theory. Are you ready?
You have claimed that if mary was the mother of Jesus (or seen to be such) then the later references in Mark and Matt should have made this clear.

But you are also claiming that the Matthean writer had access to Mark 6:3 9which you claim was not in the original).

So..if it is so important to mention that Mary and jesus were related (as you claim) then why didnt the Matthean writer include this in all references?

You need to read these books from start to finish, rather than cherry picking things and jumping from place to place to try to prove the theory. :devil1:

Now of course anythings possible , and we dont know for sure how these texts came to be the way they are, but your theory just looks weaker and weaker when we look to the details. The details which you omit.

You're trying to peddle stuff like "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" as communicative. Been there; done that.

judge · 02-28-2011, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're trying to peddle stuff like "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" as communicative. Been there; done that.

Sorry... your ship just sank, and you know it.

spin · 02-28-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're trying to peddle stuff like "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" as communicative. Been there; done that.

Sorry... your ship just sank, and you know it.

I'm not in your play pool.

You have not dealt with the linguistic issue. You have waved it aside, saying "what linguistic issue?" You ignored the tables I provided to clarify the proposed chronology. And you've provided nothing that elucidates the material.

You're just playing games.

sschlichter · 02-28-2011, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I would suggest that other construals become necessary no matter how un-reasonable.

And I would suggest that the reasonableness of any given construal always depends on the assumptions one is working under. I'm not claiming to work under no assumptions, just that I don't assume a couple of things that nearly everyone else does.

very true.

it is good that you recognize your own assumptions IMO. I expect most do not.

sschlichter · 02-28-2011, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

But Mark 6:3 already indicates a realtionship between a Mary and a Jesus.

Then in 15:40 we have

.

Then in 15:47

Then Mark 16:1

What we see is less information as we go.

Mark 6:3 gives the most information then afterwards there is no need to continue to give all the information.

We see the same phenomenon in Matthew. matthew 13:55 gives the most information.

later references give less, as there is no need.

Here is you sitting in the 21st century with a computer and various study tools, jumping from one text to another and in doing so you are projecting your own 21st century take on this onto ancient readers. though you still dont see this.

An ancient reader would have just had one text before him. Matthew or Mark. And would have read it from start to finish.
If you did the same you would see it in a different light.

Now, pay attention, because heres the point which torpedoes your theory. Are you ready?
You have claimed that if mary was the mother of Jesus (or seen to be such) then the later references in Mark and Matt should have made this clear.

But you are also claiming that the Matthean writer had access to Mark 6:3 9which you claim was not in the original).

So..if it is so important to mention that Mary and jesus were related (as you claim) then why didnt the Matthean writer include this in all references?

You need to read these books from start to finish, rather than cherry picking things and jumping from place to place to try to prove the theory. :devil1:

Now of course anythings possible , and we dont know for sure how these texts came to be the way they are, but your theory just looks weaker and weaker when we look to the details. The details which you omit.

You're trying to peddle stuff like "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" as communicative. Been there; done that.

wouldn't it be necessary to provide a distinction between Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the mother of james and Jospeh?

If Adolf's mother's name was Klara (assuming Adolf is whom you are on about) and so was his aunt then wouldn't it be properly distinctive to clarify that this Klara, is the mother of Gustav and Edmund (not the mother of Adolf himself).

I am talking about Klara. No, not Adolfs' mother but Klara, the mother of Gustav and Edmund. (whom I have relegated to cousins for the sake of discussion)

Mark 6:3 points out that Mary is the name of Jesus' mother.

It only makes sense that any future reference to Mary that is not the mother of Jesus provides some distinction.

I am talking about Mary. No, not the mother of Jesus. Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph and Salome. aka the other Mary

~Steve

judge · 02-28-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have not dealt with the linguistic issue.

I am not challenging the lingusitic issue. As I have said all along it may have merit.
You are just trying to change the subject.

Quote:

You have waved it aside, saying "what linguistic issue?"

Desperation. And misrepresentation. The cracks are really showing now.

Quote:

You ignored the tables I provided to clarify the proposed chronology. And you've provided nothing that elucidates the material.

.

You need to explain why if it is so dratstically important that any mention of mary must mention that she is the mother of Jesus (as well as the others), why matthew omitted this in the latter parts of the book.

Your theory tells us that any mention of this mary must include a mention of Jesus, yet, you also want the matthean author to omit this when it doesn't suit you.

You cant have it both ways.

spin · 02-28-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have not dealt with the linguistic issue.

I am not challenging the lingusitic issue. As I have said all along it may have merit.
You are just trying to change the subject.

Actually, each case may have its own linguistic issues. With regard to "Mary, mother of...", the linguistic issue is one of discourse analysis. You do not deal with the fact that it's "Mary, mother of [James and] Joses [and Salome]", not "Mary mother of Jesus", the more understandable elucidation of Mary by motherhood.

When a writer makes a statement to an audience they are trying to communicate. "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" doesn't, just as "Mary, mother of James and Joses" doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Desperation. And misrepresentation. The cracks are really showing now.

Quote:

You ignored the tables I provided to clarify the proposed chronology. And you've provided nothing that elucidates the material.

.

You need to explain why if it is so dratstically important that any mention of mary must mention that she is the mother of Jesus (as well as the others), why matthew omitted this in the latter parts of the book.

Your theory tells us that any mention of this mary must include a mention of Jesus, yet, you also want the matthean author to omit this when it doesn't suit you.

You cant have it both ways.

spin · 02-28-2011, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're trying to peddle stuff like "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" as communicative. Been there; done that.

wouldn't it be necessary to provide a distinction between Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the mother of james and Jospeh?

Mk 6:3 tells us that Jesus had brothers, "James, Joses...."

In the 4th post of this thread I said,

Perhaps someone might like to support the coincidence of there being two Marys, one being mother of James and Joses, while the other is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses and Simon. Hey it is just vaguely possible, despite the relatively few names mentioned in the gospels, but Joses itself is a rare form of the name Joseph and stretches that possibility into the category of unlikely.

This intimates in Mark that this Mary is one, not two people. This is where the notion of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" kicks in. In fact, besides Adolf, Klara had sons called Gustav and Edmund. But linguistically, referring to her as "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" without mention of Adolf is extremely odd. This is why the simplest solution in my eyes is that we see a development in Mark from "Mary, mother of James and Joses" to Mary, mother of Jesus, James, Joses,.... (And I can guarantee this can't be a novel idea.) This deals with the linguistic issue in a reasonable and simple manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If Adolf's mother's name was Klara (assuming Adolf is whom you are on about) and so was his aunt then wouldn't it be properly distinctive to clarify that this Klara, is the mother of Gustav and Edmund (not the mother of Adolf himself).

I am talking about Klara. No, not Adolfs' mother but Klara, the mother of Gustav and Edmund. (whom I have relegated to cousins for the sake of discussion)

Mark 6:3 points out that Mary is the name of Jesus' mother.

It only makes sense that any future reference to Mary that is not the mother of Jesus provides some distinction.

I am talking about Mary. No, not the mother of Jesus. Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph and Salome. aka the other Mary

~Steve

sschlichter · 02-28-2011, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

wouldn't it be necessary to provide a distinction between Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the mother of james and Jospeh?

Mk 6:3 tells us that Jesus had brothers, "James, Joses...."

In the 4th post of this thread I said,

Perhaps someone might like to support the coincidence of there being two Marys, one being mother of James and Joses, while the other is the mother of Jesus, James, Joses and Simon. Hey it is just vaguely possible, despite the relatively few names mentioned in the gospels, but Joses itself is a rare form of the name Joseph and stretches that possibility into the category of unlikely.

This intimates in Mark that this Mary is one, not two people. This is where the notion of "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" kicks in. In fact, besides Adolf, Klara had sons called Gustav and Edmund. But linguistically, referring to her as "Klara Hitler, mother of Gustav and Edmund" without mention of Adolf is extremely odd. This is why the simplest solution in my eyes is that we see a development in Mark from "Mary, mother of James and Joses" to Mary, mother of Jesus, James, Joses,.... (And I can guarantee this can't be a novel idea.) This deals with the linguistic issue in a reasonable and simple manner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If Adolf's mother's name was Klara (assuming Adolf is whom you are on about) and so was his aunt then wouldn't it be properly distinctive to clarify that this Klara, is the mother of Gustav and Edmund (not the mother of Adolf himself).

I am talking about Klara. No, not Adolfs' mother but Klara, the mother of Gustav and Edmund. (whom I have relegated to cousins for the sake of discussion)

Mark 6:3 points out that Mary is the name of Jesus' mother.

It only makes sense that any future reference to Mary that is not the mother of Jesus provides some distinction.

I am talking about Mary. No, not the mother of Jesus. Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph and Salome. aka the other Mary

~Steve

well, your disclaimer forgot to mention that the gospel of John says exactly that - Jesus has an Aunt named mary. There are at least 3 other Mary's in the gospels. I am not sure why it is anywhere near the category of unlikely. My father Bill, married Pat. His sister Pat married a Bill. According to your 'category of unlikely' I have hit the lottery.

Why in God's green earth is that unlikely but the exposing of the Jerusalem chapter of the secret society of the brothers of the Lord, never before mentioned and only mentioned when discussing it's only member James is an observed phenomenon.

You appear to be firmly committed to this.

~Steve

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.