Libertarius wrote:

žR.L.Measures wrote:

In article <rxhvd.12469$rh1.292439@news2.e.nsc.no>, For Fatima
<gineme@online.no> wrote:

PharLap wrote:

In article <su7vd.21366$Km6.278749@news4.e.nsc.no>, For Fatima
<gineme@online.no> wrote:

PharLap wrote:

In article <41BA0865.D894BF5F@Nothing_But_The.Truth>,

Libertarius

<Libertarius@Nothing_But_The.Truth> wrote:

===>If the Gospel story were true,
Mary was deceived by "God" into letting
herself get impregnated with the promise
that her baby would grow up
to be the king on the throne of David! -- L.

Excuse the hair splitting but actually all women used to get

impregnated

with a penis

As - of course - did Jesuses mother

Libertarius----> You go too far! The Virgin Mary was just

that...Virgin.

I pity you.

Oh don't be daft!

Jesus got here by good old fashioned screwing just like anyone

else.

The Virgin Birth nonsense was largely based on a combination

of

faulty

translation and a wish to have Jesus compared with other

products

of

Virgin Births in Middle Eastern mythology

We know she had sex because Jesus had siblings


+++++++++++++++

Libertarius,
Show me the record! There are not any genealogical studies,

birth

records not even the historical record proves she had other

children.

ž Matthew 13:55 does it.

Highly unlikely and very arguable based on just the individual

named

"Joseph". It's exremely doubtful he's the carpenter's son soley on
principle of his name. It is rare, if ever, that a father names a

son

after himself in Jewish culture. If I'm not mistaken, there's

actually

not even a Biblical example or precedent.

This tradition long continued into Jewish culture of the Diaspora.

In

Ashkanazic tradition, naming a child after yourself or a living
relative was rare to the extreme. Sephardic Jews might have named

after

a living reletive, but never a parent. (Rabbi Henry Bamberger)

[On this same idea we know that the Virgin Mary's "sister" named

"Mary"

was not her actual sibling, but a relative (most likely

sister-in-law)

because another "rule" of the same Jewish culture would never have
given siblings the same name.]

More distintly, the brothers are never identified as sons of Mary

(wife

of Joseph). If the Joseph mentioned was Mary's son, then it ould

have

to have been by a different husband. There is no mention of Mary

ever

having married again. Logically, of course, he then cannot be the
step-brother of Jesus, either, when considering the same cultural
principle. He's a reletive if Jesus, but not through Jesus' mother

or

legal foster father.

===>Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter,
the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?
Are not His sisters here with us?"

Nothing changes; still applies. "Joses" is a form of "Joseph" (just
like "Judas" is a form "Jude").

(Evidence for this exists via textual variants on this name in the same
verse. "Joses' is found in Codices K, L, W, Delta, 0119, family 13
manuscripts, minuscule 565, and some Syriac and Bohiric manuscripts.
"Joses' is found in Codex 700, minuscule 1010, and a Bohiric
manuscript. "Joannes' is found in a corrected version of codex Aleph,
codices D and Gamma, 28 minuscules 1424, and a Vulgate manuscript. And
"Joseph" is found in an alternate version of codex Aleph, codices
Vaticanus, D, Theta, 33, 700, minuscule 892, a Syriac and Bohiric
manuscript.)

Significant also in your example is that the polysyndeton of the word
"and" ("kai") between the names of the other four suggests that Mark is
presenting them, not as a cohesive group, but as four disparate
individuals. ("This Rock", February, 1990)

Again, in this very verse, Jesus is named as the son of Mary but the
other 4 men are not. And once again, this is the passage that was
previously noted for its distinctive grammar: here is no definite
article in front of "brother" as there is with "son" (in both the
original Greek and in translaton). This is significant because it
implies that the relationship between Jesus and Mary is more precise
than the relationship between Jesus and his brothers.

"Following the greater number of manuscripts and translating literally
so as to show the articles where they appear in Greek, we read: 'the
son of the Mary and (a) relative ['adelphos', no article] of James and
Joses and Judas and Simon [no articles for these names].' The articles
with 'son' and 'Mary' give a slight emphasis to these two nouns and
suggest that the connection between them is special."

"James," "Joses," "Judas," and "Simon" do not have the article. Jesus
is said to be "adelphos" of the others. According to Greek grammar,
names of relationship omit the definite article; but the article is
needed when a definite individual is spoken of. If Jesus were the
uterine brother of the other four (the brother to the exclusion of any
other), then Mark would have written "ho adelphos."