FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Parsons

FW: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew

Legg inn av John Parsons » 19 nov 2004 19:11:01

Or discussions of the meaning of the Gospels' references to Jesus' brothers
and sisters. Roman Catholic theologians have insisted that these references
are really to "cousins." Most Protestant theologians accept them at face
value, since as far as the Incarnation is concerned it is important only
that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' conception & birth; thereafter she could
have had other children by Joseph--who could have had children by an earlier
wife. (The Catholic Church continues to represent Joseph as a lifelong
celibate & Mary, of course, as perpetually virgin.)

Regards

John P.


From: "Tony Hoskins" <hoskins@sonoma.lib.ca.us
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: Jesus, his brother and his nephew
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:39:07 -0800

One of the main problems with this discussion is our ignorance of the
social structure of that time. Too much anachronistic weight has been
placed on the "low rent" connotation of the word "carpenter". It should
be remembered, for instance, that as recently as the 17th century,
identifying designations of "butcher" or "miller" in English parish
registers certainly did not denote low origin - on the contrary, these
are often flags of fairly sold middle class or entrepreneurial (if you
will) status.

Tony Hoskins
Santa Rosa, California


marshall kirk <mkkirk@rcn.com> 11/19/04 06:50AM
I won't address the question of the historicity of the accounts of
Jesus' background, and don't pretend, either, to the linguistic
expertise necessary to evaluate the usual translation of the word as
"carpenter"; but FWIW, I've read more than once that the proper
meaning of the word is something closer to 'contractor' or 'builder,'
which doesn't sound quite so low-rent. Also, some snippets of the
Gospels seem to imply that Jesus moved in fairly comfortable circles
in his earlier years. Altho' I express no opinion on whether or not
he was a descendant of David (or for that matter, of God Almighty), I
will say that it seems to me that the earliest Church fathers,
including the authors of the Gospels, would have had a strong
theological motivation to emphasize his humble position in this world.


Jwc1870@aol.com wrote in message
news:<79.38da3007.2ecea716@aol.com>...
Dear Matthew,
Why would You doubt that the Head of the house
of David
could have been a carpenter in that era ? The Romans were the ones
who chose
who was going to be accepted as the Ruler of Judea / Israel and They
picked a
pliable Jew (?) named Herod. They wouldn`t of cared if the nominal
head of the
former royal house made his living cleaning out latrines nor as long
as no
fuss was caused by him if He did play some sort of role in the
religion of
Yahweh. I`m not sure that the Herods bothered themselves a great deal
about it
either, as long as They weren`t disturbed.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine
USA

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»