A Marginal Jew.
-
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
A Marginal Jew.
I was the officiating minister when my son married a non-practicing Roman Catholic. It was her second marriage (after a civil divorce) and my son's first. Before they married, I noted she had in her library many of the same books I had in mine, particularly Alan Watts. The first Christmas after their marriage. she gave me a new and dense book by Father John P. Meier, called 'A Marginal Jew" It has all the phrases and symbols in the the front indicating it was completely acceptable for Roman Catholics to study and conformed to all the official positions of that church. l I loved it. It was written as a rebuttal to 'the Jesus Project' which was a scholarly effort to identify the objective truth about the life of Jesus. I thought their product was very wrong. The book by Meier was shocking to me. I learned much of what I thought was the teaching of the Roman Catholic church was just ignorance on my part. My first surprise was that it was completely acceptable for a Roman Catholic to believe that Jesus had biological siblings, and they were fathered the ordinary way by Joseph. Eventually I found the book was intended to be a three volume project. I consumed the next two eagerly. But it kept growing. The footnotes became more informative and the information more theologically technical. The sixth volume was promised and even appeared on a publishers schedule perhaps three years ago.
The New York Times published Mgsr Meier's obituary today. There will be no sixth volume. I wish it were not so. His scholarly work is a magnificent gift to all the Christian world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/obit ... -dead.html
snailgate
The New York Times published Mgsr Meier's obituary today. There will be no sixth volume. I wish it were not so. His scholarly work is a magnificent gift to all the Christian world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/obit ... -dead.html
snailgate
- Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9030
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Speaking as someone who was raised Catholic, actively practiced the religion until I was in my 40s, and even today still consider myself to be Catholic, I don't recall anyone — all through grade school or high school (1960-early 1970s), or through any of the sermons or writings in our diocesan newspaper — who ever claimed that Jesus had siblings. In fact, even after the changes instituted by Vatican II, one of our prayers in the Mass — the Confiteor (click here to see the text, and note the wording in the eight line) — still proclaimed the 'ever-virgin' status of Mary, the Mother of God.
So we were led to believe that while Mary did wed Joseph they lived a life of celibacy, even though this would make them glaring outliers among contemporary Jewish society — or, at least, we were never actively discouraged from believing this.
-"BB"-
So we were led to believe that while Mary did wed Joseph they lived a life of celibacy, even though this would make them glaring outliers among contemporary Jewish society — or, at least, we were never actively discouraged from believing this.
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
- Econoline
- Posts: 9563
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: A Marginal Jew.
I too was raised Catholic, though I had fallen away by my early 20s (when I married a Jew) and today I sometimes call myself a "retired Catholic".
So, speaking as a retired Catholic, I would guess that the rationale behind thinking that Jesus could have had siblings* despite Mary being "ever-virgin" (like Olive Oyl? ) was that if she could somehow be a virgin after (indisputedly) giving birth to Jesus, why couldn't that same inscrutable process be employed by Mary's reproductive system as many times as necessary, after any other exit (or entrance! ) by any other individual?
* besides the fact that it is literally right there in the New Testament: e.g.,
So, speaking as a retired Catholic, I would guess that the rationale behind thinking that Jesus could have had siblings* despite Mary being "ever-virgin" (like Olive Oyl? ) was that if she could somehow be a virgin after (indisputedly) giving birth to Jesus, why couldn't that same inscrutable process be employed by Mary's reproductive system as many times as necessary, after any other exit (or entrance! ) by any other individual?
* besides the fact that it is literally right there in the New Testament: e.g.,
[Mark 6:2]—: "And when the sabbath day was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, From whence hath this man these things? and what wisdom is this which is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands?"
[Mark 6:3]—: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him."
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: A Marginal Jew.
I don't understand this; even we ignorant backward Southern Baptists know that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. Jesus's oldest half-sibling wrote or dictated the book of James in the New Testament. So how does it feel to be more ignorant than the most primitive savages in the country?
Reference: liberals of the1960 and 70s.
Reference: liberals of the1960 and 70s.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
Re: A Marginal Jew.
No, he didn't. Not according to any reputable biblical scholarship. Even at the most obvious level, the author of James refers to himself as "a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." If he were a biological sibling to Jesus, there is no question that he would have so identified himself, so as to give his writing more authority.The Village Idiot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 31, 2022 3:41 amJesus's oldest half-sibling wrote or dictated the book of James in the New Testament.
Let me guess, those same Southern Baptists believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, including writing about his own death in the past tense. Do they also believe the world was created in 4004 BC?
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
The official Roman and Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were either: Joseph's children from a prior marriage or cousins of Jesus. Their logic is that this MUST be the case since Mary was a virgin throughout her life - and that's that.
Because Joseph was not the father of Jesus (that was the HS), then these people were not siblings of Jesus - sharing no blood relation at all. I guess Father John P. Meier wasn't exactly correct after all
I also note that many Protestants share the above "orthodox" beliefs, esp. among Lutherans and Anglicans.
Luther detested the book of James, calling it a "right strawy epistle". It seems clear there's little reason to believe that James the BOJ wrote it. But it is certainly a more interesting read if one studies it alongside Paul's letter to the Galatians. That one of them was arguing with and writing against the other seems quite likely.
James, as leader of the Jewish Jesus sect calling themselves "The Way" in Jerusalem, was much opposed to Paul's freedom from Law and Jewish tradition. Throughout Paul's letters one can see the struggle he had with the Jerusalem church (read James) sending "Judaizers" out to interfere with the gentile gatherings in the great diaspora cities.
Because Joseph was not the father of Jesus (that was the HS), then these people were not siblings of Jesus - sharing no blood relation at all. I guess Father John P. Meier wasn't exactly correct after all
I also note that many Protestants share the above "orthodox" beliefs, esp. among Lutherans and Anglicans.
Luther detested the book of James, calling it a "right strawy epistle". It seems clear there's little reason to believe that James the BOJ wrote it. But it is certainly a more interesting read if one studies it alongside Paul's letter to the Galatians. That one of them was arguing with and writing against the other seems quite likely.
James, as leader of the Jewish Jesus sect calling themselves "The Way" in Jerusalem, was much opposed to Paul's freedom from Law and Jewish tradition. Throughout Paul's letters one can see the struggle he had with the Jerusalem church (read James) sending "Judaizers" out to interfere with the gentile gatherings in the great diaspora cities.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: A Marginal Jew.
I still find it amazing that people argue the toss over fairy stories.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
- Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9030
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County
Re: A Marginal Jew.
You want to talk amazing — from a "You've gotta be kidding me!" standpoint, that is — you should see some of the conversations on boards dedicated to movie franchises and fans discussing/arguing over things like whether Harry Potter ever got it on with Hermione, for example, or what sort of fixtures the restroom in the Mos Eisley cantina needed to have in order to accommodate the anatomies of the various species and races of aliens that frequented the place.
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Try reading a decent (and not at all friendly to fairy stories) book:Christianity is essentially a historical religion. It bases its claims on the historical facts it asserts. If these are demolished it is nothing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History ... nson_book)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: A Marginal Jew.
You all are free to believe whatever you want, but I see no reason why I shouldn't believe this:
The first reference from my personal Bible: The KJV Study Bible
2011 Barbour Pubishing, Inc.
See the preface to the book of James, Author
And then:
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)? | GotQuestions.org
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.
The first reference from my personal Bible: The KJV Study Bible
2011 Barbour Pubishing, Inc.
See the preface to the book of James, Author
And then:
Did Jesus have brothers and sisters (siblings)? | GotQuestions.org
There is no biblical reason to believe that these siblings are anything other than the actual children of Joseph and Mary. Those who oppose the idea that Jesus had half-brothers and half-sisters do so, not from a reading of Scripture, but from a preconceived concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary, which is itself clearly unbiblical: “But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25). Jesus had half-siblings, half-brothers and half-sisters, who were the children of Joseph and Mary. That is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God’s Word.
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Not sure who you mean by "you". I certainly don't believe anything other than that they were the children of Joseph and Mary and hence the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
I guess you believe that convenient myth about the Holy Spirit impregnating Mary then? Whoever Matthew was, he (or someone after him) surely made up a pious "confirmation" of one of many church beliefs - the one that overcame other believers in Jesus and suppressed so-called heresies. As for Luke, he clearly made stuff up - compare his "all is wonderful" report of the Jerusalem Council and how it contradicts Paul's angry disappointment with the so-called pillars in Jerusalem.
I suggest you obtain A History of Christianity by Paul Jones, a believer, and open your eyes to truth (or at least, get an education in early church history), as the Bible commends.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
- Econoline
- Posts: 9563
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Virtually all of the RC Church's meshugaas about the brothers and sisters of Jesus stems from the their meshugaas about Mary, which in turn stems from the ancient patriarchal meshugaas about the myth of virginity. Once Jesus' followers decided that his mom was extra ever-virgin and that that was a good—nay, miraculous thing, it became pretty much inevitable that people would argue the toss over fairy stories.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Except for the "Jesus's followers" part, I think that's mostly correct. Paul didn't give a fig for the Jesus of the Gospels (since they were written after his theology was a given. The argument that Paul knew Luke and knew what Luke wrote so Paul thought also she was a virgin . . . is void since we have no evidence at all that Luke wrote the passage in question (Luke 26-38). It is of course not a fairy story but a purposeful (and later) claim to fit in with the Son of God terminology as approved by the late 1st -3rd century church. It is equally possible to believe that Jesus was adopted as a Son of God at his baptism. This is the "heresy" of Adoptionism. (Some say at his resurrection but that seems a little untextual to me)Econoline wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 12:32 amVirtually all of the RC Church's meshugaas about the brothers and sisters of Jesus stems from the their meshugaas about Mary, which in turn stems from the ancient patriarchal meshugaas about the myth of virginity. Once Jesus' followers decided that his mom was extra ever-virgin and that that was a good—nay, miraculous thing, it became pretty much inevitable that people would argue the toss over fairy stories.
I prefer to keep an open mind on that (although tending away from the virgin birth thing) because I don't think that it matters as far as salvation is concerned. That we believe Jesus is the son of God is the important part, and how that comes about is neither a main thing nor a plain thing.
Of course, my "all of the Bible is absolutely true" chums would have kittens if they knew I said that. See my signature line below
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: A Marginal Jew.
I chose not to believe that an omnipotent being could be so inefficient and useless.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
You're excellent at bald statements. Useless at discussion - too hairy for ya!
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
- Sue U
- Posts: 8570
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: A Marginal Jew.
MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:48 amI prefer to keep an open mind on that (although tending away from the virgin birth thing) because I don't think that it matters as far as salvation is concerned. That we believe Jesus is the son of God is the important part, and how that comes about is neither a main thing nor a plain thing.
Well, if the object is "salvation" (whatever that may mean to you), then all you need is an entity or force or circumstance capable of providing that, not necessarily an "omnipotent being." And is it really necessary that "God" (if there is a God) be an omnipotent being? Why? Is it really necessary that there be a God at all?MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 2:42 pmYou're excellent at bald statements. Useless at discussion - too hairy for ya!
GAH!
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Oh you're going to outsmart me again!Sue U wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 4:41 pmWell, if the object is "salvation" (whatever that may mean to you), then all you need is an entity or force or circumstance capable of providing that, not necessarily an "omnipotent being." And is it really necessary that "God" (if there is a God) be an omnipotent being? Why? Is it really necessary that there be a God at all?
It's necessary that there be a God because God is a necessary being. All contingent things are caused by something. The universe had a beginning and is contingent (according to science). Ergo, something caused the universe.
If it's postulated that this something itself had a cause, then that merely moves the problem one semantic step. But it is not an actual step because before the universe existed there was nothing (according to science).
This cause of existence is itself causeless or necessary rather than contingent. "God" or "the cause" is self-existent and eternal and/or infinite. The creation of all things would seem to me to be a pretty good indication of "omnipotence" as well as intelligence. I know of no blind "force" or "doohickey" that created anything from nothing.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: A Marginal Jew.
And for those more capable of wonder and less needy for convenient explanations, there is science.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
- Sue U
- Posts: 8570
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Not me, I'm not that smart. But there was this fellow, name of Hawking, said to be pretty good at cosmological thinkering, seems to have figured the universe actually had no "beginning" and no necessity for a cause. If he's right, your concept of God may be rather inside-out.MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Tue Nov 01, 2022 5:10 pmOh you're going to outsmart me again!
It's necessary that there be a God because God is a necessary being. All contingent things are caused by something. The universe had a beginning and is contingent (according to science). Ergo, something caused the universe.
If it's postulated that this something itself had a cause, then that merely moves the problem one semantic step. But it is not an actual step because before the universe existed there was nothing (according to science).
GAH!
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20758
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: A Marginal Jew.
Oh come - you are a brain! Good article though
Hawking made up an idea called "imaginary time" which he described as a "just a proposal" that cannot explain what happened in real time. "In real time, the universe has a beginning". A Brief History of Time.
It it not clear that "imaginary time" is Hawking playing metaphysics rather than physics. Without scientific observation or recording of data, he comes up with a fairy story. I bet Gob believes it.
Along with the rebounding universe (also a scientific non-starter), Hawking's proposal is not accepted by science without severe doubts. One day it might be. It's a funny thought though rather desperately convenient. His other idea (in the article) is also tilting at windmills, though atheists are keen to clutch at any imaginary straw to avoid the obviously observable.
IMO thus far
Hawking made up an idea called "imaginary time" which he described as a "just a proposal" that cannot explain what happened in real time. "In real time, the universe has a beginning". A Brief History of Time.
It it not clear that "imaginary time" is Hawking playing metaphysics rather than physics. Without scientific observation or recording of data, he comes up with a fairy story. I bet Gob believes it.
Along with the rebounding universe (also a scientific non-starter), Hawking's proposal is not accepted by science without severe doubts. One day it might be. It's a funny thought though rather desperately convenient. His other idea (in the article) is also tilting at windmills, though atheists are keen to clutch at any imaginary straw to avoid the obviously observable.
IMO thus far
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts