homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Our Lady's marriage (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Our Lady's marriage
Eliab
Host
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Kaplan - there are now three separate requests from hosts asking for the tangent to continue on a new thread.

And someone's started one. HERE.

This is the fourth request, and probably the last polite one.

Take the discussion there. This thread is about Our Lady's Marriage. If you don't want to discuss that, don't post on this thread.

Your co-operation would be appreciated.

Eliab
Purgatory host

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4563 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says '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?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7047 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like it. Nicely obvious and nobody's ever pointed it out before. Not here anyway. Genius therefore. So, as Joseph only had one son, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas must have been his ... nephews ... ? They couldn't have been Jesus' YOUNGER brothers by Mary as the bible says she is perpetually virgin because she's the ark.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says '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?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?

I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.
Posts: 250 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62785 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.

That's true.

I wonder why English does that? It only seems to be true of family relationships, but unfortunately for my hypothesis that's what we're discussing.

So 'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7047 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amanda B. Reckondwythe

Dressed for Church
# 5521

 - Posted      Profile for Amanda B. Reckondwythe     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
'Prince Charles is the owner of Duchy Originals' and 'Prince Charles is the author of the Black Spider Memos' imply a single owner and a single author. But 'Prince Charles is the grandson of the Queen Mother' and 'Prince Charles is the brother of the Duke of York' somehow don't.

Could it be the inadequacy of the English verb "to be" to denote uniqueness?

The first two examples given describe something that the subject did that no one else could have done. The second two describe something that happened to the subject that could have happened to others as well.

--------------------
"We're not in Wonderland anymore, Alice." – Charles Manson

Posts: 10146 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm resurrecting this thread because a Thought has just occurred to me about the NT references to Jesus' brothers.

Matthew 13:55 says '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?'

'The carpenter's son' is translating the Greek phrase ὁ τοῦ τέκτονος υἱός, in which, AIUI, both 'son' and 'carpenter' have a definite article, i.e. 'the son of the carpenter'. Surely this implies that Joseph only had one son? Otherwise it would have to be something like 'one of the sons of the carpenter'. Or does Greek not work like that?

I don't know about Greek, but I don't think that it works in the way you are thinking in English. If I say: "Prince Charles is the son of Queen Elizabeth", I don't think that I am saying that he is the only son, and thus Andrew and Edward are not her sons. If the article has any effect, it is perhaps to emphasise the word 'son', in distinction to 'cousin' or 'nephew'.
I don't feel that 'a son' necessarily implies more than one either!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

I could totally hear one of our community saying of LL, "Isn't that the pastor's son?" Even though there are more pastors than one in our community, and LL has an older half brother.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19894 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nazareth was a one carpenter town.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?

Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.

Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.

That would really have worked well.

John

Posts: 5898 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Point.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62785 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

There's that, and then also that its Joseph the carpenter as opposed to Joseph the fisherman. All sorts of possibilities.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6517 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
There's also a wee problem with "the carpenter" in that phrase. Are we to assume there was absolutely no other carpenter in that vicinity? Seems unlikely, given Sepphoris just down the road. But people do use "the" loosely sometimes to mean "you know, the dude we usually think of when we're saying 'carpenter'."

Yes, 'the' (in English at least) means pretty much 'you know the one I'm talking about'. So I agree 'the carpenter' probably* means something like 'the carpenter in our social circle, as opposed to the other lot'.

But I don't think 'the son' could mean 'the son in our social circle', because the same passage implies that James and Joseph and Simon and Jude are also around somewhere, i.e. they ought to be in the social circle too.


* 'Probably' inasmuch as I've seen people claim tekton means anything from a jobbing day-labourer on a building site to a senior civil engineer. In the latter case he could genuinely be the only tekton around.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7047 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I will point out that Jesus is not the biological son of the carpenter, so if you are going to posit "brother" to perforce be biological but "son" to not be, what is your justification?

Utterly irrelevant. We're discussing what the people of the town thought at the time, not what you know. They undoubtedly knew that Jesus was what he was presented by Mary and Joseph as -- their son.

Unless you're proposing that Mary and Joseph went around Nazareth broadcasting to all and sundry that, no, Jesus wasn't actually Joseph's son but a miracle, which we know because Mary and an encounter with an angel.

That would really have worked well.

John

Bliss, which caps the post I deleted at the time. To the effect that in Nazareth, this normal, large family of at least nine was well known without invoking any second and third order complexities at all. The disciples James and John being Jesus' local first cousins and all. Not mentioned with the other four? Who have to doctrinairely be His older brothers therefore?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought that the traditional approach to that question was that these were half-brothers, sons of a now-widowed Joseph by a previous marriage.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 6517 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't do traditions. Except as traditions. I made a wish at a money tree at Portmerion last week. It was an extravagant one leaving me 51 weeks to learn Welsh.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
When I am sitting at the bedside of a dying patient, either one who has long trusted in God's love through Christ, or one who through their final illness is at last getting to grips with 'what life is really all about', somehow the 'perpetual virginity of Mary', and question of whether Jesus had brothers or sisters never seems a priority, if it even comes up at all.

The question that seems to arise, at least to me, in this long tedious trudge through the thread is: does it REALLY matter if Mary had other children; does it materially effect who Jesus is and what he has accomplished. Given the lack of decisive evidence, and the lack of excitement (or even mentioning) of the subject within the scriptures, the answer appears to be, no, it doesn't really matter. Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.

Posts: 332 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's already happened Alisdair. That's the history of the ever schisming Church.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's another potential complication with the "the's" (and now I hate you all for forcing me to use a bastard plural apostrophe).

In Hebrew, at least, to make a phrase like "the carpenter's son" you create a chain of nouns: son-the-carpenter. And one of the peculiarities of that setup is that if one noun is definite (takes the "the"), they BOTH are considered to do so. Which means that AFAIK you can't really say "a son of the carpenter"(or is it "the son of a carpenter" or both)? My memory's going here.

But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 19894 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I feel your pain.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
Take your choice, but don't let it be a cause for divorce or anything unloving that might ruin a good friendship.

Absolutely. I, at the moment apparently the most vocal Orthodox on the ship about these kind of things, have never let it destroy a friendship. Then again it rarely comes up in day-to-day conversation. Where "rarely" means "never." It's only on the SOF that I get into such discussions at all.

Referring to Mary as "ever-virgin" is woven throughout our liturgical works. It's not something we argue about or contemplate; for the post part it's just part of the background of faith. It's certain Protestants that have to dig and push. Sorry, but that's just truth. I've never seen an Orfie log into a majority-Protestant board and start harping on it and confronting people about it. (Nor indeed have I witnessed an Orfie on an Orfie board harp about it, where there would be no point.)

But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.

This comes up perennially on the SOF, like snails in a garden. Frankly I (and some of the Catholics here, by their admission) find it tiring.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62785 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

But in any case, if Aramaic has the same setup, which seems very likely though I can't swear to it, and the townspeople were speaking Aramaic (almost certainly), well, then, our quibble becomes unsolvable. They just didn't handle their definite/indefinite issues in a way that would allow us to dissect them as we wish.

Fair enough, in that case I agree we can't conclude anything from the use or non-use of the definite article in Greek!

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7047 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
mousethief:
quote:
But when the Prots start saying things like "How can any person in their right mind believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary?" I feel it my duty to respond. Both to clear my name from the roster of the wrong-minded, and because a question is being asked that I am in a place to answer.
As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.

--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8879 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
As a Prot (I hope an open minded one) I'd like to say how much my understanding has been enlarged by you, and the glorious Josephine. You haven't always changed my mind, but I can now see the reasons behind many positions that I couldn't understand at all previously.

Thank you for saying so. And I'll tell the glorious Josephine you mentioned her in this respect. To me that is one of the most important by-products of the Ship -- to understand somebody else's religious or churchly POV where before one didn't.

--------------------
God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean. --Acts 10:28

Posts: 62785 | From: Ecotopia | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In my broken way I second Robert.

Talking of broken, I watched the eponymous superb BBC series recently in which Sean Bean, who should get a BAFTA with Jimmy McGovern the writer, played a magnificently 'real' Roman Catholic priest.

If he presided next door to my char evo church, whose door I only darken on a Friday night for a year now, I'd go and bow my head, hands closed.

I LOVED the liturgy, including the alien invocation of Mary, Ever Virgin. It was beautiful. I learned from an excellent nun decades ago that her Italian peasant mum could not relate to God in the male, the masculine, even in the face of Christ, as that was about power adumbrated with abuse. She related to God through Mother Mary. It blew me away. No come backs.

Yet here I've been satirically hostile to the doctrinaire hostility.

Leopards, spots.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 16193 | From: More Corieltauvi than Dobunni now. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools