Need a wee bit of help

[StColette]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 3 2005, 12:59 AM']sweet, do u still have the link?
[right][snapback]669513[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have what he told me saved on my computer. It was from a book. I'll have to send it to you whenever I go home

[phatcatholic]

so jennie, how is this debate comin along?

[StColette]

lol I just woke up so I don't know yet lol

[phatcatholic]

hehe, do u know now?

[StColette]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 3 2005, 08:12 PM']hehe, do u know now?
[right][snapback]670812[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

rofl yes I know now

[StColette]

oh boy

part of my argument

[quote]Now while this dictionary says that the brothers referred to in the Gospel are children of Joseph and Mary, which I disagree with. This dictionary also says that the term brother can mean a near relation or cousin, such as in: Genesis 13:8; 14:16; Matthew 12:46; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19. [/quote]


Part of his/her's
[quote]While we have beatent his topic to death I am compelled to reiterate a rational stance.

1. We all agree that the Bible is the inpsired word of God given as a gift ot eh church for its growth and closer walk with HImself.

2. WE know that God is not the author of confusion

3. The writers of the NT passages above used the word suggenes in other places to describe kinfolk--we havew no reaqson to see why they wouldn't also here .

4. We have no known instances in over 300 referred greek writings that shows adelphos and adelphoi to mean in the family setting brothers and sisters whether of the same parents or just the same mother or just the same father.

5. Given these facts the five or six passages the Catholic Church translates as kinfolk remains incorrect and no one yete has provided a true rebut to these points.[/quote]

[StColette]

I didn't even say that the "other children of Mary" had to be cousins or whatever because of the word adelphos. I identified all of them with other verses in the Bible and not once did I mention that they were cousins or even related.

They seem very determined to stick with the cousin argument more than I am lol

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='StColette' date='Aug 3 2005, 09:16 PM']I didn't even say that the "other children of Mary" had to be cousins or whatever because of the word  adelphos. I identified all of them with other verses in the Bible and not once did I mention that they were cousins or even related.

They seem very determined to stick with the cousin argument more than I am lol
[right][snapback]670845[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
did u tell them this?

[StColette]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Aug 3 2005, 11:32 PM']did u tell them this?
[right][snapback]671085[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yes I did and they ignored it lol They're really stuck on the cousin thing.

This is exactly what I said in my first post

[quote]Since the Greek word for adelphos means "brother" it does not necessarily mean blood brothers born of the same parents. For example, adelphos is used in Gen 13:8 and 14:14- 16 to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot. Now we all know that Abraham was the uncle of Lot. Another example of the use of adelphos is with Laban. The verse tells us that Laban is the brother of Jacob, when in reality Jacob is the nephew of Laban.

As for the names of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. There names can be identified in other verses. Such as James the Lesser, Joseph and Joses were the sons of Mary the wife of Clopas found in Mk 15:40 and John 19:25. James the Greater and John were the sons of Zebedee. Jude is the son of a James (Lk 6:16 ). Simon who is called Zelotes also know as Simon the Canaanite was one of the Apostles.
[/quote]

I didn't even say cousin when talking about these people.

and this is what I said after they kept saying I was saying that the "brothers" were cousins lol

[quote]I also in my post did not say that James, Joses, Judas, and Simon had to be cousins or even relatives of Jesus. I merely mentioned at the beginning that there are many different meanings of the word adelphos.

The only time I referred to someone as a cousin is when it mentions Jesus "aunt" who was at the cross. The woman's name was Mary as well. It just doesn't make sense for the Virgin Mary's parents to name two daughter the same name. So it would make since to say that they were probably more along the lines of cousins.
[/quote]

Edited August 4, 2005 by StColette

[phatcatholic]

i figured i'd respond to the points ur opponent raised:

[quote]While we have beatent his topic to death I am compelled to reiterate a rational stance.

1. We all agree that the Bible is the inpsired word of God given as a gift ot eh church for its growth and closer walk with HImself.

2. WE know that God is not the author of confusion[/quote]
agreed


[quote]3. The writers of the NT passages above used the word suggenes in other places to describe kinfolk--we havew no reaqson to see why they wouldn't also here .[/quote]
actually, we have good reason to believe that they preferred the word adelphos over suggenes to describe kinfolk. there is no word in the hebrew for individuals of extended relation. they used "brother" therefore to describe a variety of relationships. the audience of the gospels (and especially matthew's) were hebrew (or aramaic) speaking people. many of the traditions the gospel writers (again, especially matthew) used to write their gospels came from hebrew/aramaic sources. so, when the writer saw the word "brother" he could have used one of the more technical greek words available to describe the exact nature of the relationship, but considering the writer's sources and his audience, it is easy to see why he would instead just use the greek word for brother. [i][b]this was the word they were used to seeing and using to describe their relationships[/b][/i]. plus, the sheer number of times that these words are used in the NT (adelphos-319 / suggenes-12) makes me wonder how we could or should possibly expect the author to choose the rare word over the much more common one.


[quote]4. We have no known instances in over 300 referred greek writings that shows adelphos and adelphoi to mean in the family setting brothers and sisters whether of the same parents or just the same mother or just the same father.[/quote]
i'm not sure what he's trying to say here. adelphos doesn't mean brother? isn't he trying to prove that these people who were called Jesus' adelphoi were his brothers? he seems to be refuting himself, but maybe i'm missing something obvious.


[quote]5. Given these facts the five or six passages the Catholic Church translates as kinfolk remains incorrect and no one yete has provided a true rebut to these points.[/quote]
merry christmas

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[StColette]

hehehe Nick God Bless you

[phatcatholic]

i live to serve

[StColette]

Well, lol Sean's idea of giving them references of Mary Ever Virgin from the Protestant Reformers didn't work so well lol

[quote]Hmm I find it interesting that Catholics wuill hail the writings of Luther, Calvin and Swingli in an area they agreed upon when the church Condmend them as heretics and apostates and threatened with excommunication any catholic caught in possession of any otheir works.

When you are ready to accept all their other teachings because they are fluent in greek and hebrew and Latin (though Lutrher for sure was no expert greek linguist, though he had studies int he language) then I suppose we could get somewhere.
[/quote]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='StColette' date='Aug 4 2005, 12:40 PM']Well, lol Sean's idea of giving them references of Mary Ever Virgin from the Protestant Reformers didn't work so well lol
[right][snapback]671840[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


When is this guy going to learn to prooftext his posts. They hurt my eyes trying to figure out what he is saying with all the typos. A few typos and misspellings once in a while is one thing. But dang! As for his rebuttal, seems he has no better answer. There are many Greek experts within the Catholic Church as well. The point on Luther and Calvin is to show that there is hardly consensus in Protestantism. We really need to push this guy about his continuing claims that God is not the author of confusion because that is all there is in Protestantism.

[StColette]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 4 2005, 03:28 PM']The point on Luther and Calvin is to show that there is hardly consensus in Protestantism.  We really need to push this guy about his continuing claims that God is not the author of confusion because that is all there is in Protestantism.
[right][snapback]672080[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Exactly. Many of them claim Luther to be one of the greatest people, but you give them the information about his devotion to Mary and they'll ignore it lol

[phatcatholic]

i know. he's accusing you of the very thing that he's doing!!

[thessalonian]

Tell me if I am wrong here folks. I'm dying of laughter. She brought up the fact that suggenes is used in Mark 6:4. Well 6:3 uses adelphos. She thinks this supports her case. Tell me if I am wrong.

[quote]The word suggenes is indeed used by Mark to refer to the group of relations as you listed. Mark 6:4 But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." This is the word suggenes, not adelphos. So your claim that the word suggenes would not be used to refer to a group of relatives who are together is wrong.[/quote]


Well now this is interesting. I would say that he is using suggenes to refer to at least some of the peole in v. 6:3 wouldn't you. Isn't that what 6:4 is about. Now it is quite clear that some in 6:3 are his cousins, thank you. Mary was not a suggenes (cousin) so she was separated out, making suggenes a more restrictive term. It is also quite clear that adelphos is used in a broader context since his mother and other relatives are included in the listing in 6:3 under the term adelphos. I thank you for helping prove our claim! . It really makes little sense that he is talking about a completely different group in 6:4 who are his cousins. Context! Context!

[thessalonian]

Do you suppose the next arguement out of their mouths might be that suggenes is the broader term and can include brothers? I certainly hope not for their sake. I think they are going to have a major hypocrysy problem when we ask them to prove it with scripture, history, and lexicons?

Am I missing something?

[thessalonian]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Aug 4 2005, 09:15 PM']Do you suppose the next arguement out of their mouths might be that suggenes is the broader term and can include brothers?  I certainly hope not for their sake.  I think they are going to have a major hypocrysy problem when we ask them to prove it with scripture, history, and lexicons?

Am I missing something?
[right][snapback]672555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I suppose they might say that the adelphos were members of his household and Jesus added kinsman or cousins, which may get them out of the bind. But the fact is that her arguement didn't get her any further. We can easily explain it.

The Books of Proverbs, chapter 18

17: He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

I love that verse.

Edited August 5, 2005 by thessalonian

[StColette]

lol It's interesting watching them ignore certain things in my posts. Especially when it comes to the care of Widows according to Jewish custom.