The family of Jesus

[Mithrae]

The question for debate is what can we learn or infer with reasonable accuracy about the relationships between Jesus and other NT characters?

This comes from a discussion with S-word in my thread on the Gospel of John, which I'd rather not take any further off-topic. For the purposes of discussion, we're assuming some measure of reliability in the NT accounts, though I've qualified my own position as follows:

• I should mention that, like a brief exchange with GotScripture, I'll probably enjoy discussing biblical possibilities for their own sake - but ultimately I don't think Luke can be considered a reliable historical source in this case. Mark might be valid information (especially regarding non-evangelical elements like the women at the cross) and Matthew (if written second not far from Judea) might provide useful insight into Mark's information. John as a disciple can be useful at times too, despite his overtly theological approach. But Luke was a gentile convert writing later than Mark and Matthew, whose only known connection is with Paul and who can be shown not only to have relied heavily on Mark and Q as sources (or Mark and Matthew, as some would have it), but to have openly adapted them to his own agenda (as did Matthew of course).

The most recent post in our exchange is as follows, by S-word:

• [Mithrae].Thanks for the quick reply I should mention that, like a brief exchange with GotScripture, I'll probably enjoy discussing biblical possibilities for their own sake - but ultimately I don't think Luke can be considered a reliable historical source in this case.
  
  [S-word]..I believe that all of the gospels can be considered reliable historical sources. Theres not much sense debating Gods word with someone, who, whenever scripture is contrary to their belief, they reject that passage of Gods word as being unreliable and not to be believed or trusted.
  
  [Mithrae].Mark might be valid information (especially regarding non-evangelical elements like the women at the cross) and Matthew (if written second not far from Judea) might provide useful insight into Mark's information.
  
  [S-word]..So now you think that Mark just might contain valid information as to the women at the cross. Well I believe that Mark and Luke, who like Matthew, reveal that there were only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus, by the name Mary, and that those two Marys are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the two brothers of Jesus.
  
  Where do the Holy scriptures reveal any other mother of children by the name James and Joseph, who herself carries the name Mary?
  
  Matthew 13: 55; Isnt he the carpenters son? Isnt Mary his mother and arent (James the younger) Joseph, Simeon and Judas his brothers?
  
  Mark 6: 3; Isnt he the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
  
  Mark 6: 3; Isnt he the carpenter, (Revealing that he followed in his fathers trade, supported by the fact that Jude his brother, who is called the Twin Tauma=Thomas, in art is depicted holding a carpenters square) the son of Mary, and the brother of James (The apostle who Paul reveals to be the brother of the Lord and who scripture reveals to be the biological son of Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas.) and scripture reveals that Jude is the brother to James the brother of the lord.
  
  [Mithrae].John as a disciple can be useful at times too, despite his overtly theological approach. But Luke was a gentile convert writing later than Mark and Matthew, whose only known connection is with Paul and who can be shown not only to have relied heavily on Mark and Q as sources (or Mark and Matthew, as some would have it), but to have openly adapted them to his own agenda (as did Matthew of course).
  
  [S-word]..Ah Hah, so now you believe that John the beloved nephew and young disciple of Jesus, could be useful to your belief at times, do you? John who was surnamed son of thunder by Jesus and is identified with young John, who was surnamed MARK, which name means Hammer, or the Hammerer, the adopted son of Mary the half sister to Joseph the Levite who had come from Cyprus, and who was surnamed Barnabas.
  
  It was the custom of the disciples after the death of Jesus, to gather frequently to pray as a group with the women and the mother of Jesus. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, he ran straight to the house where he knew the believers would be gathered in prayer for his deliverance: straight to the house of Mary the mother of John surnamed MARK.
  
  Acts 12: 25; Barnabas and Saul/Paul finished their mission and returned from Jerusalem, taking young John surnamed MARK with them.
  
  In Acts 15: 37; we read that Barnabas wanted to take John MARK the adopted son of his half sister MARY with himself and Paul to revisit the brethren in all the towns in Pamphylia where they had preached the word of the Lord, which had been revealed to them by the man Jesus who the Lord had chosen from among the people and sent him to speak in His name. But Paul refused to take John, because he hadnt stayed with them to the end of their previous mission, but had turned back and left them in Pamphylia.
  
  After a quarrel with Paul, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, took Mark, and it is believed his half sister also, and sailed off for Cyprus. It was there in the land of Macedonia that John recorded his memoirs from which the Gospel of John was written. Today, in the town of Ephesus, the ancient grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.
  
  Colossians 4: 10; Aristarchus, who is in prison with me, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, the son of the sister to Barnabas.
  
  
  [Mithrae].That said, I'm quite glad you mentioned this, because in my trusty NIV and drawing from 1 Cor. 15, I'd always read it as the eleven telling the two that Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter. But checking against the NASB, NKJV and Young's Literal Translation it seems your view is more probable.
  
  [S-word]..Its not my view, its the truth as revealed by the spirit of the lord Jesus Christ.
  
  [Mithrae].It's interesting though: In Matthew Jesus is seen by the women then by the 11 (in Galilee);
  
  [S-word]..You are not suggesting, are you, that because Matthew fails to tell of the time that the 12 year old Jesus was found in the Temple three days after he went missing, and fails to mention that Jesus appeared to his mothers husband Cleophas and his brother Simon, that this proves that those who do reveal those events, are lying?
  
  
  [Mithrae]. in Luke he's seen by the women, then the two, then the eleven; in late-addition Mark (16:9ff) he's seen by Mary Magdalene, then two disciples, then by the 11, and in John he's seen by Mary Magdalene and then by the 11. If it's true (and I'll agree it seems probable) that Luke was referring to Clopas and his son Simon on the road to Emmaus, and since John makes note of the wife of Clopas at Jesus' cross, might we infer from the fact that he doesn't mention Clopas and his son seeing the risen Christ that he hadn't read Luke? Or did he simply consider the story untrue?
  
  [S-word]..No, we do not believe that the reason John makes no mention of the physical birth of Jesus, or the accounts in Luke and Mathew, which reveal the fact that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah took the pregnant Mary, from Nazareth down to Bethlehem of Judaea where she gave birth to Jesus, and that this Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn son, was because he considered those stories to be untrue. WOT_ROT
  
  Nor do we believe that the reason John makes no mention of the wise men coming to pay homage to the young child Jesus, or the fact that Herod ordered the death of all the young boys in the district to where the wise men had gone, was because he considered those stories to be untrue.
  
  Johns main focus, was in the salvation of Man, and he begins his account of that salvation, when Jesus, who had been born of the flesh as are all human beings, was born of the Spirit of our Lord God and saviour that descended upon him in the form of Dove, and on that Day, Jesus was declared to be the first fruits to be harvested from the Body of mankind in which our Lord God and saviour had developed, the first born of many brothers, who, (like Jesus was,) are to be born the Sons of God, not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the spirit of the body of our lord God and saviour, by which they will be filled.
  
  From where do these ideas of yours come from?
  
  [Mithrae].In the same vein, comparing those versions for John 19:25 suggests that it's all down to commas and/or ands whether or not 'Mary of Clopas' was the sister of Jesus' mother (leaning towards she was), but in all of these translations it's quite clear that there are at least three women referred to.
  
  [S-word]..Not so my dear confused friend, by comparing John 19: 25; with the fact that Mark and Luke, refer to only two women by the name Mary, at the cross, or the burial, or the empty tomb of Jesus, who are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, who are referred to in scripture to be the brothers of the Lord and not to be the brothers of any other person, and the fact that Matthew makes it abundantly clear that the woman by the name Mary, who was with Mary Magdalene at the cross of Jesus, who Matthew states was Mary the mother of (Jesus,) James and Joseph, was the only other woman by the name Mary at the burial and empty tomb.
  
  Also, by referring to her, (The mother of Jesus and the apostle by the name James, who Paul reveals is the brother of the Lord, and who scripture reveals if the biological son of Alpheaus who is also called Cleophas the second husband of Mary,) as the OTHER Mary at the burial, and the OTHER Mary at the empty tomb, proves conclusivly that there are only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of jesus..
  
  Not the TWO OTHER women by the name Mary, who you so erroneously believe, which proves to all, that you are totally lacking in insight, by believing, totally contrary to the Holy scriptures, that John is referring to three women at the cross of Jesus, who are known by the name Mary.
  
  [Mithrae].As above, English translations seem not to support that interpretation of John 19:25 - and additionally, as stated further above, the connection between 'Clopas' and 'Alpheus' is tenuous as best.
  
  [S-word]..The renown father of Cleophas, which is a Macedonian name and is the masculine for of Cleopatra, is Alexander Helios, (Heli) Who Herod had eliminated in 13 BC, as he was seen as a threat to his throne. Heli, the son of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and the twin brother to the young 20 year old Cleopatra, the young wife of Herod the great, the close friend and former supporter of Mark Antony, who was the mother of Philip of Bethsaida, the uncle of Jesus, who ruled the Macedonian territory north and east of Galilee where our Lord God and saviour, through his obedient servant Jesus, performed most of his mighty miracles, see Matthew 11: 21; and Luke 10: 12.
  
  It was near Bethsaida that Jesus put Philip to the test, see John 6: 5; when in reference to the feeding of the five thousand, he said to his uncle, who in art, is depicted with fish, or is it loaves? Where can we buy enough food to feed all these people.
  
  When feeding the four thousand, that again, was in the territory of Philip, but down south of Galilee in the desert country east of the Jordon. Phillip of Bethsaida, to whom the Greeks came in search of an audience with Jesus . Philip, who disappears from the scene in the year of the death of Jesus.
  
  [Mithrae].As far as Matthew goes, he says there were 'many' women witnessing Jesus' crucifixion (27:55), of whom he mentions three. Calling Jesus' mother "the other Mary" seems another step towards distancing the risen Jesus from his human roots, even beyond Mark identifying her by his brothers rather than by Jesus. Matthew only mentions two Marys, so 'the other Mary' obviously refers to the one who isn't Mary Magdalene; but that isn't the same as saying that there were only two Marys among the 'many' women at the cross, anymore than it's saying there were only two Marys among the many women in Jerusalem.
  
  [S-word]..Ive just put this problem to one of my young great grandchildren: There are many cakes on the table, one has green icing on top, another has yellow icing on top. Next morning the cake with the green icing on top was removed from the table, as was the other iced cake, later the cake with the green icing was placed into the refrigerator with the other iced cake to keep them fresh. I then asked the child to identify the cakes that had been placed in the refrigerator, and guess what? That little child knew the answer.
  
  [Mithrae].I think there's a problem in that you're placing too much emphasis on a simple name. To my understanding, names like James (Yakov/Jacob in Hebrew), Joseph, Jude/Judah and even Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) were among the most common male names of 1st century Palestine, for fairly obvious reasons. Mary/Miriam was one of the common female names.
  
  [S-word]..Now reveal to us where, in the Holy Scriptures, are the names of James Joseph, Judas, and Simon, conjointly referred to, other than as the brothers of Jesus? Then reveal to us, where in the Holy Scriptures are the names of James and Joseph the sons of Mary, referred to as any other than the brothers of Jesus?
  
  [Mithrae].I imagine Alphaeus would not have been among the common ones, but even then the very limited glimpse provided by the NT canon shows us a second Alphaeus who was father of Levi the tax collector (Mark 2:14). In fact, if we're going to make any kind of theory from Alphaeus, we'd be better off recognising that the name of Alphaeus' son Levi was changed to Matthew in the supposed gospel of Matthew (9:9ff), and unlike Mark in his list of disciples Matthew comes immediately before 'James son of Alphaeus' (10:3, with emphasis on Matthew as a tax collector). The gospel of Matthew implies, at least more strongly than your theory, that Alphaeus' sons among Jesus' disciples were James and Matthew, not James and Thomas.
  
  [S-word]..Mark 2: 14; Alpheaus OF Levi who is called Matthew: can be interpreted as brother, cousin, or relative, and I believe that the interpretation SON of Alpheaus" is incorrect, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. In the Epistle of Jude, in reference to the relationship of Jude to James the son of Alpheaus, who is the brother of the Lord, ADELPHOS (): the Greek name meaning "born of the same womb; brother, half brother or step brother," is used, and you will find, I believe, that it is translated as, Jude the brother of James in just about every biblical translation. Whereas in Luke 6: 16; where it is written Judas of James, apart from the King James translation, which correctly interprets this verse to mean Jude the brother of James, the majority of other bibles, as they have done in Mark 2: 14; erroneously interpret this verse as Jude the Son of James.
  
  
  [Mithrae].Regarding Paul's comments in Galatians 1, within Paul's writings in particular we know that 'apostle' doesn't mean the same as one of 'the twelve.' Not only does Paul repeatedly refer to himself as an apostle, but he applies the same title to his kin Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7) and to Timothy and Silas - and in Acts 14:4&14 Barnabas along with Paul are called apostles. The term literally means a delegate or messenger, obviously applied by the synoptic authors with special significance to the twelve appointed by Jesus, but potentially applicable to any recognised spreader of the gospel message.
  
  [S-word]..Paul the son of a Roman woman and a father from the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, was the one chosen by my Lord Jesus Christ to replace Judas Iscariot the 12th chosen disciple, who was destined to be lost, as the apostle who was to gather the 12000 of the Greco-Roman gentiles to replace the lost 12th tribe of Benjamin.
  
  [Mithrae]. I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything significantly supporting your view that James son of Alphaeus was Jesus' brother. And just as importantly, you haven't addressed a rather significant point against your view: To whit, that the gospels state clearly that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mark 3:21&31-35 and John 7:5), so how could two of them have been among the twelve?
  
  [S-word]..Where does the bible say that all four brothers of Jesus did not believe in him during his ministry? But keep muddeling through the word, one day perhaps you may hopefully come to the truth and win the victory and be invited to sit beside our brother Jesus, in our Father's throne of Godhead to the creation: see Revelation 3: 21.

[JohnPaul]

I have always understood that James was the brother of Jesus, but of course that contradicts the doctrine that Mary is an eternal virgin. (unless James was also a virgin birth, but that is carrying things a little too far!)

Of course, the doctrine of the virgin birth did not come along until medieval times, when edicts of the church insisted on it.

John

[S-word]

The question for debate is what can we learn or infer with reasonable accuracy about the relationships between Jesus and other NT characters?

This comes from a discussion with S-word in my thread on the Gospel of John, which I'd rather not take any further off-topic. For the purposes of discussion, we're assuming some measure of reliability in the NT accounts, though I've qualified my own position as follows:

• I should mention that, like a brief exchange with GotScripture, I'll probably enjoy discussing biblical possibilities for their own sake - but ultimately I don't think Luke can be considered a reliable historical source in this case. Mark might be valid information (especially regarding non-evangelical elements like the women at the cross) and Matthew (if written second not far from Judea) might provide useful insight into Mark's information. John as a disciple can be useful at times too, despite his overtly theological approach. But Luke was a gentile convert writing later than Mark and Matthew, whose only known connection is with Paul and who can be shown not only to have relied heavily on Mark and Q as sources (or Mark and Matthew, as some would have it), but to have openly adapted them to his own agenda (as did Matthew of course).

The most recent post in our exchange is as follows, by S-word:

• [Mithrae].Thanks for the quick reply I should mention that, like a brief exchange with GotScripture, I'll probably enjoy discussing biblical possibilities for their own sake - but ultimately I don't think Luke can be considered a reliable historical source in this case.
  
  [S-word]..I believe that all of the gospels can be considered reliable historical sources. Theres not much sense debating Gods word with someone, who, whenever scripture is contrary to their belief, they reject that passage of Gods word as being unreliable and not to be believed or trusted.
  
  [Mithrae].Mark might be valid information (especially regarding non-evangelical elements like the women at the cross) and Matthew (if written second not far from Judea) might provide useful insight into Mark's information.
  
  [S-word]..So now you think that Mark just might contain valid information as to the women at the cross. Well I believe that Mark and Luke, who like Matthew, reveal that there were only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus, by the name Mary, and that those two Marys are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the two brothers of Jesus.
  
  Where do the Holy scriptures reveal any other mother of children by the name James and Joseph, who herself carries the name Mary?
  
  Matthew 13: 55; Isnt he the carpenters son? Isnt Mary his mother and arent (James the younger) Joseph, Simeon and Judas his brothers?
  
  Mark 6: 3; Isnt he the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon?
  
  Mark 6: 3; Isnt he the carpenter, (Revealing that he followed in his fathers trade, supported by the fact that Jude his brother, who is called the Twin Tauma=Thomas, in art is depicted holding a carpenters square) the son of Mary, and the brother of James (The apostle who Paul reveals to be the brother of the Lord and who scripture reveals to be the biological son of Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas.) and scripture reveals that Jude is the brother to James the brother of the lord.
  
  [Mithrae].John as a disciple can be useful at times too, despite his overtly theological approach. But Luke was a gentile convert writing later than Mark and Matthew, whose only known connection is with Paul and who can be shown not only to have relied heavily on Mark and Q as sources (or Mark and Matthew, as some would have it), but to have openly adapted them to his own agenda (as did Matthew of course).
  
  [S-word]..Ah Hah, so now you believe that John the beloved nephew and young disciple of Jesus, could be useful to your belief at times, do you? John who was surnamed son of thunder by Jesus and is identified with young John, who was surnamed MARK, which name means Hammer, or the Hammerer, the adopted son of Mary the half sister to Joseph the Levite who had come from Cyprus, and who was surnamed Barnabas.
  
  It was the custom of the disciples after the death of Jesus, to gather frequently to pray as a group with the women and the mother of Jesus. When Peter was miraculously released from prison, he ran straight to the house where he knew the believers would be gathered in prayer for his deliverance: straight to the house of Mary the mother of John surnamed MARK.
  
  Acts 12: 25; Barnabas and Saul/Paul finished their mission and returned from Jerusalem, taking young John surnamed MARK with them.
  
  In Acts 15: 37; we read that Barnabas wanted to take John MARK the adopted son of his half sister MARY with himself and Paul to revisit the brethren in all the towns in Pamphylia where they had preached the word of the Lord, which had been revealed to them by the man Jesus who the Lord had chosen from among the people and sent him to speak in His name. But Paul refused to take John, because he hadnt stayed with them to the end of their previous mission, but had turned back and left them in Pamphylia.
  
  After a quarrel with Paul, Joseph the Levite from Cyprus, took Mark, and it is believed his half sister also, and sailed off for Cyprus. It was there in the land of Macedonia that John recorded his memoirs from which the Gospel of John was written. Today, in the town of Ephesus, the ancient grave sites of Mary and John can still be visited.
  
  Colossians 4: 10; Aristarchus, who is in prison with me, sends you greetings, and so does Mark, the son of the sister to Barnabas.
  
  
  [Mithrae].That said, I'm quite glad you mentioned this, because in my trusty NIV and drawing from 1 Cor. 15, I'd always read it as the eleven telling the two that Jesus had appeared to Simon Peter. But checking against the NASB, NKJV and Young's Literal Translation it seems your view is more probable.
  
  [S-word]..Its not my view, its the truth as revealed by the spirit of the lord Jesus Christ.
  
  [Mithrae].It's interesting though: In Matthew Jesus is seen by the women then by the 11 (in Galilee);
  
  [S-word]..You are not suggesting, are you, that because Matthew fails to tell of the time that the 12 year old Jesus was found in the Temple three days after he went missing, and fails to mention that Jesus appeared to his mothers husband Cleophas and his brother Simon, that this proves that those who do reveal those events, are lying?
  
  
  [Mithrae]. in Luke he's seen by the women, then the two, then the eleven; in late-addition Mark (16:9ff) he's seen by Mary Magdalene, then two disciples, then by the 11, and in John he's seen by Mary Magdalene and then by the 11. If it's true (and I'll agree it seems probable) that Luke was referring to Clopas and his son Simon on the road to Emmaus, and since John makes note of the wife of Clopas at Jesus' cross, might we infer from the fact that he doesn't mention Clopas and his son seeing the risen Christ that he hadn't read Luke? Or did he simply consider the story untrue?
  
  [S-word]..No, we do not believe that the reason John makes no mention of the physical birth of Jesus, or the accounts in Luke and Mathew, which reveal the fact that Joseph the son of Jacob from the tribe of Judah took the pregnant Mary, from Nazareth down to Bethlehem of Judaea where she gave birth to Jesus, and that this Joseph had no sexual relations with Mary until she had given birth to her firstborn son, was because he considered those stories to be untrue. WOT_ROT
  
  Nor do we believe that the reason John makes no mention of the wise men coming to pay homage to the young child Jesus, or the fact that Herod ordered the death of all the young boys in the district to where the wise men had gone, was because he considered those stories to be untrue.
  
  Johns main focus, was in the salvation of Man, and he begins his account of that salvation, when Jesus, who had been born of the flesh as are all human beings, was born of the Spirit of our Lord God and saviour that descended upon him in the form of Dove, and on that Day, Jesus was declared to be the first fruits to be harvested from the Body of mankind in which our Lord God and saviour had developed, the first born of many brothers, who, (like Jesus was,) are to be born the Sons of God, not by blood, nor by the will of the flesh, nor by the will of man, but by the spirit of the body of our lord God and saviour, by which they will be filled.
  
  From where do these ideas of yours come from?
  
  [Mithrae].In the same vein, comparing those versions for John 19:25 suggests that it's all down to commas and/or ands whether or not 'Mary of Clopas' was the sister of Jesus' mother (leaning towards she was), but in all of these translations it's quite clear that there are at least three women referred to.
  
  [S-word]..Not so my dear confused friend, by comparing John 19: 25; with the fact that Mark and Luke, refer to only two women by the name Mary, at the cross, or the burial, or the empty tomb of Jesus, who are Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, who are referred to in scripture to be the brothers of the Lord and not to be the brothers of any other person, and the fact that Matthew makes it abundantly clear that the woman by the name Mary, who was with Mary Magdalene at the cross of Jesus, who Matthew states was Mary the mother of (Jesus,) James and Joseph, was the only other woman by the name Mary at the burial and empty tomb.
  
  Also, by referring to her, (The mother of Jesus and the apostle by the name James, who Paul reveals is the brother of the Lord, and who scripture reveals if the biological son of Alpheaus who is also called Cleophas the second husband of Mary,) as the OTHER Mary at the burial, and the OTHER Mary at the empty tomb, proves conclusivly that there are only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of jesus..
  
  Not the TWO OTHER women by the name Mary, who you so erroneously believe, which proves to all, that you are totally lacking in insight, by believing, totally contrary to the Holy scriptures, that John is referring to three women at the cross of Jesus, who are known by the name Mary.
  
  [Mithrae].As above, English translations seem not to support that interpretation of John 19:25 - and additionally, as stated further above, the connection between 'Clopas' and 'Alpheus' is tenuous as best.
  
  [S-word]..The renown father of Cleophas, which is a Macedonian name and is the masculine for of Cleopatra, is Alexander Helios, (Heli) Who Herod had eliminated in 13 BC, as he was seen as a threat to his throne. Heli, the son of Cleopatra and Mark Antony, and the twin brother to the young 20 year old Cleopatra, the young wife of Herod the great, the close friend and former supporter of Mark Antony, who was the mother of Philip of Bethsaida, the uncle of Jesus, who ruled the Macedonian territory north and east of Galilee where our Lord God and saviour, through his obedient servant Jesus, performed most of his mighty miracles, see Matthew 11: 21; and Luke 10: 12.
  
  It was near Bethsaida that Jesus put Philip to the test, see John 6: 5; when in reference to the feeding of the five thousand, he said to his uncle, who in art, is depicted with fish, or is it loaves? Where can we buy enough food to feed all these people.
  
  When feeding the four thousand, that again, was in the territory of Philip, but down south of Galilee in the desert country east of the Jordon. Phillip of Bethsaida, to whom the Greeks came in search of an audience with Jesus . Philip, who disappears from the scene in the year of the death of Jesus.
  
  [Mithrae].As far as Matthew goes, he says there were 'many' women witnessing Jesus' crucifixion (27:55), of whom he mentions three. Calling Jesus' mother "the other Mary" seems another step towards distancing the risen Jesus from his human roots, even beyond Mark identifying her by his brothers rather than by Jesus. Matthew only mentions two Marys, so 'the other Mary' obviously refers to the one who isn't Mary Magdalene; but that isn't the same as saying that there were only two Marys among the 'many' women at the cross, anymore than it's saying there were only two Marys among the many women in Jerusalem.
  
  [S-word]..Ive just put this problem to one of my young great grandchildren: There are many cakes on the table, one has green icing on top, another has yellow icing on top. Next morning the cake with the green icing on top was removed from the table, as was the other iced cake, later the cake with the green icing was placed into the refrigerator with the other iced cake to keep them fresh. I then asked the child to identify the cakes that had been placed in the refrigerator, and guess what? That little child knew the answer.
  
  [Mithrae].I think there's a problem in that you're placing too much emphasis on a simple name. To my understanding, names like James (Yakov/Jacob in Hebrew), Joseph, Jude/Judah and even Jesus (Yeshua/Joshua) were among the most common male names of 1st century Palestine, for fairly obvious reasons. Mary/Miriam was one of the common female names.
  
  [S-word]..Now reveal to us where, in the Holy Scriptures, are the names of James Joseph, Judas, and Simon, conjointly referred to, other than as the brothers of Jesus? Then reveal to us, where in the Holy Scriptures are the names of James and Joseph the sons of Mary, referred to as any other than the brothers of Jesus?
  
  [Mithrae].I imagine Alphaeus would not have been among the common ones, but even then the very limited glimpse provided by the NT canon shows us a second Alphaeus who was father of Levi the tax collector (Mark 2:14). In fact, if we're going to make any kind of theory from Alphaeus, we'd be better off recognising that the name of Alphaeus' son Levi was changed to Matthew in the supposed gospel of Matthew (9:9ff), and unlike Mark in his list of disciples Matthew comes immediately before 'James son of Alphaeus' (10:3, with emphasis on Matthew as a tax collector). The gospel of Matthew implies, at least more strongly than your theory, that Alphaeus' sons among Jesus' disciples were James and Matthew, not James and Thomas.
  
  [S-word]..Mark 2: 14; Alpheaus OF Levi who is called Matthew: can be interpreted as brother, cousin, or relative, and I believe that the interpretation SON of Alpheaus" is incorrect, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. In the Epistle of Jude, in reference to the relationship of Jude to James the son of Alpheaus, who is the brother of the Lord, ADELPHOS (): the Greek name meaning "born of the same womb; brother, half brother or step brother," is used, and you will find, I believe, that it is translated as, Jude the brother of James in just about every biblical translation. Whereas in Luke 6: 16; where it is written Judas of James, apart from the King James translation, which correctly interprets this verse to mean Jude the brother of James, the majority of other bibles, as they have done in Mark 2: 14; erroneously interpret this verse as Jude the Son of James.
  
  
  [Mithrae].Regarding Paul's comments in Galatians 1, within Paul's writings in particular we know that 'apostle' doesn't mean the same as one of 'the twelve.' Not only does Paul repeatedly refer to himself as an apostle, but he applies the same title to his kin Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7) and to Timothy and Silas - and in Acts 14:4&14 Barnabas along with Paul are called apostles. The term literally means a delegate or messenger, obviously applied by the synoptic authors with special significance to the twelve appointed by Jesus, but potentially applicable to any recognised spreader of the gospel message.
  
  [S-word]..Paul the son of a Roman woman and a father from the pseudo tribe of Benjamin, was the one chosen by my Lord Jesus Christ to replace Judas Iscariot the 12th chosen disciple, who was destined to be lost, as the apostle who was to gather the 12000 of the Greco-Roman gentiles to replace the lost 12th tribe of Benjamin.
  
  [Mithrae]. I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything significantly supporting your view that James son of Alphaeus was Jesus' brother. And just as importantly, you haven't addressed a rather significant point against your view: To whit, that the gospels state clearly that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mark 3:21&31-35 and John 7:5), so how could two of them have been among the twelve?
  
  [S-word]..Where does the bible say that all four brothers of Jesus did not believe in him during his ministry? But keep muddeling through the word, one day perhaps you may hopefully come to the truth and win the victory and be invited to sit beside our brother Jesus, in our Father's throne of Godhead to the creation: see Revelation 3: 21.

In my previous post it is said, "Also, by referring to her, (The mother of Jesus and the apostle by the name James, who Paul reveals is the brother of the Lord, and who scripture reveals is the biological son of Alpheaus who is also called Cleophas the second husband of Mary,) as the OTHER Mary at the burial, and the OTHER Mary at the empty tomb, proves conclusivly that there are only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of jesus."

This should have read, "Also, by referring to her, (The mother of Jesus and the apostle by the name James, who Paul reveals is the brother of the Lord, and who scripture reveals is the biological son of Alpheaus, who is also called Cleophas the second husband of Mary,) as the OTHER Mary at the burial, and the OTHER Mary at the empty tomb, proves conclusivly that there are only two women at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb of Jesus, by the name Mary."

Galatians 1: 18-19; (18) "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter one of the 12 Apostles) and remained with him for 15 days. (19) But I saw none of the other APOSTLES, except for James the Lord's brother."

we learn from Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegasippus, that James the righteous, who was the first to sit upon the episcopal thorne of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, was murdered in 62 Ad, at the instigation of one of the same sadducee sext that had his brother Jesus killed.

And knowing that the other of the two apostles named "James" was the son of Zebedee and that he was killed at the command of Herod Agrippa who died in 44 AD, who do you believe is the father of James, the only other apostle that Paul saw when he went to Jerusalem to vistit the apostle Peter, which other apostle, Paul refers to as "The brother of the Lord?"

Knowing also, that Luke 6: 16; "Jude of James," which was obviously erroneously interpretated to mean "Jude (the son) of James, when in the epistle of Jude, it is made painfully clear that Jude is the brother of James. Can you be certain that Mark 2: 14; "Levi of Alpheaus" which has been interpreted to mean "Levi (the son) of Alpheaus," by the same authorities who had erroneously interpreted Luke 6: 16; 'Jude of James" to mean "Jude (the son) of James," where it could and I believe "Should" be interpreted to mean, "Levi the relative of Alpheaus?"

[S-word]

I have always understood that James was the brother of Jesus, but of course that contradicts the doctrine that Mary is an eternal virgin. (unless James was also a virgin birth, but that is carrying things a little too far!)

Of course, the doctrine of the virgin birth did not come along until medieval times, when edicts of the church insisted on it.

John

Let me begin by noting that I reject the false teaching of the anti-christ, that is, of a god who took human form, and was born of a virgin, which unbiblical lie can be found in the body of the universal church of the non-christian Constantine, which he established from a hodge podge group of religious bodies that called themselves Christians, of who Constantine, their unorthodox champion, finally, sick to death of their constant arguments and the hurling of abuse between those groups, summoned the leaders of that mish-mash group to the first ever World Council, in the town of Nicaea.

It was there, under the dominating presence and unspoken threats of King Constantine, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, had been established, the church of Constantine was founded, who claims she holds a spiritual kingship over the temporal kings of the earth, in which body many daughters have been spawned by the spirit/teaching of the anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and from which body her daughters broke away to build houses for their children, in who the evil influence of the spirit/teaching of the anti-christ, continues to be spread around the earth.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say; 1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ. We all know where to find the teaching of the anti-christ that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 - c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria in order to distinguish him from Clement of Rome, was a so-called christian theologian and the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria. One of his works, is the Quis dives salvetur? (Who is the rich man that is saved?). It's a homily on Mark x, 17-31, and is preserved entire. He was counted among the Saints of the church that was established by the non-christian, King Constantine, some 300 years after "The Jesus," as taught by the Apostles had established his true Church.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, due to the lies of such men as Saint Clement of Alexandria, who, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement also had this to say concerning their false Jesus, It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.

Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread, who is not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who is not a true human being, unlike we mere human beings, apparently, as was taught by one of the great teachers that catholics and the denominations that were spawned of the spirit within her body love to refer to, had no need for food or such.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint, in the church of Constantine. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

[Mithrae]

Edit: Posted this before seeing the replies to the OP.

Thanks for the quick reply. I should mention that, like a brief exchange with GotScripture, I'll probably enjoy discussing biblical possibilities for their own sake - but ultimately I don't think Luke can be considered a reliable historical source in this case.

I believe that all of the gospels can be considered reliable historical sources. Theres not much sense debating Gods word with someone, who, whenever scripture is contrary to their belief, they reject that passage of Gods word as being unreliable and not to be believed or trusted.

There are others who would say there's not much sense debating someone who thinks that all of "God's word" is reliable. But we're both here debating regardless, 'cos it's often fun - and it's always possible we'll learn a thing or two despite those fundamental differences.

Please notice that I didn't arbitrarily reject that passage because it's contrary to my belief. For starters, it really doesn't bother me one way or another if James son of Alphaeus was Jesus' brother or not. I just don't think the bible supports that view. Even if Luke is correct in saying that Jesus appeared to Cleopas and Simon on the road to Emmaus, that still scarcely supports your view: We still need to assume that this Simon was the son of that Cleopas (the future bishop of Jerusalem), and that this Cleopas is the same as the Clopas mentioned in John 19:25 - and even then we're still really no closer to your conclusion than we were before. Your claim was that we would 'expect' the risen Jesus to appear first to his family, and suggest this passage as evidence that this Simon and that Cleopas were Jesus' family. That's quite a weak argument, even if the story itself were factually correct.

Secondly, I gave good and consistent reasons why I don't consider the story historically reliable. Luke is the least reliable of the synoptic gospels, and despite his obvious non-historical purpose at least John was a disciple. Neither the original content of Mark, nor Matthew, nor John (nor even Paul, for that matter) mention this little incident. It's got nothing to do with "whenever scripture is contrary to their belief," the story simply is not strong historical evidence.

John as a disciple can be useful at times too, despite his overtly theological approach. But Luke was a gentile convert writing later than Mark and Matthew, whose only known connection is with Paul and who can be shown not only to have relied heavily on Mark and Q as sources (or Mark and Matthew, as some would have it), but to have openly adapted them to his own agenda (as did Matthew of course).

Ah Hah, so now you believe that John the beloved nephew and young disciple of Jesus, could be useful to your belief at times, do you? John who was surnamed son of thunder by Jesus and is identified with young John, who was surnamed MARK, which name means Hammer, or the Hammerer, the adopted son of Mary the half sister to Joseph the Levite who had come from Cyprus, and who was surnamed Barnabas.

'Hammerer' is not the same as 'son of thunder' in any case, but according to Strong's concordance Mark means 'a defence' - probably derived from the Roman god Mars.

More importantly, we've agreed that Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56), and still alive after Jesus' death. Saying that John the son of Zebedee was adopted by another woman, even though his mother was still alive and he himself was considered an adult to whom Jesus entrusted care of his mother (John 19:26-27) is not only absurd, but you're contradicting yourself too. Finally, it's hard to imagine that one of the twelve apostles would tag along after Paul and Barnabas merely as a helper (Acts 13:5).

in Luke he's seen by the women, then the two, then the eleven; in late-addition Mark (16:9ff) he's seen by Mary Magdalene, then two disciples, then by the 11, and in John he's seen by Mary Magdalene and then by the 11. If it's true (and I'll agree it seems probable) that Luke was referring to Clopas and his son Simon on the road to Emmaus, and since John makes note of the wife of Clopas at Jesus' cross, might we infer from the fact that he doesn't mention Clopas and his son seeing the risen Christ that he hadn't read Luke? Or did he simply consider the story untrue?

No, we do not believe that the reason John makes no mention of the physical birth of Jesus...

I agree that it was a weak argument. John doesn't even mention Jesus' mother at the tomb, after all.

As far as Matthew goes, he says there were 'many' women witnessing Jesus' crucifixion (27:55), of whom he mentions three. Calling Jesus' mother "the other Mary" seems another step towards distancing the risen Jesus from his human roots, even beyond Mark identifying her by his brothers rather than by Jesus. Matthew only mentions two Marys, so 'the other Mary' obviously refers to the one who isn't Mary Magdalene; but that isn't the same as saying that there were only two Marys among the 'many' women at the cross, anymore than it's saying there were only two Marys among the many women in Jerusalem.

Ive just put this problem to one of my young great grandchildren: There are many cakes on the table, one has green icing on top, another has yellow icing on top. Next morning the cake with the green icing on top was removed from the table, as was the other iced cake, later the cake with the green icing was placed into the refrigerator with the other iced cake to keep them fresh. I then asked the child to identify the cakes that had been placed in the refrigerator, and guess what? That little child knew the answer.

If you want to work with analogies, do it right. There's lots of cupcakes, and at least four of them have icing. Many of the cupcakes are closed in a box, but Matthew tells you that among them were one with sprinkles, one with green icing and one with yellow icing. Matthew also says that the next day the one with green icing and the other one with icing were in the fridge. We know what the 'other' iced cupcake is, but do we know whether there's any iced cupcakes left in the box?

Unfortunately cupcakes can't really impart the theological nuances of Matthew calling Jesus' mother by the dismissive phrase "the other Mary." He had a point to make there, which you don't seem to be understanding. I agree that Matthew names only two Marys among the many women; I agree that "the other Mary" was Jesus' mother; I don't agree that Matthew explicitly said there were only two Marys present, any more than John said there was only Mary Magdalene at the tomb.

The NT names at least four women named Mary associated with the very early church; Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary of Magdala, Mary the sister of Martha who lived in Bethany, and Mary the mother of John Mark who lived in Jerusalem. Any or all of these could have been at the cross of Jesus. Romans 16:6 may refer to one of these, or to some other Mary again. And John 19:25 says that at Jesus' cross were "his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene."

While Hegesippus calls James the Just the brother of Jesus, he only calls Simon son of Clopas the 'kinsman' or 'cousin' of Jesus, and Clopas Jesus' uncle. Whether he was the brother of Mary or of Joseph (the latter seems the more common view), that would make his wife the sister-in-law of Jesus' mother.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything significantly supporting your view that James son of Alphaeus was Jesus' brother. And just as importantly, you haven't addressed a rather significant point against your view: To whit, that the gospels state clearly that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mark 3:21&31-35 and John 7:5), so how could two of them have been among the twelve?

Where does the bible say that all four brothers of Jesus did not believe in him during his ministry? But keep muddeling through the word, one day perhaps you may hopefully come to the truth and win the victory and be invited to sit beside our brother Jesus, in our Father's throne of Godhead to the creation: see Revelation 3: 21.

You've said that Mary's husband Joseph divorced her, and took Joseph his only biological son by her with him. You've also said that James and Jude were disciples of Jesus. So apparently you think that the "mother and brothers" of Jesus (Mark 3:31) means his mother and the second-youngest Simon

These passages state clearly that Jesus' mother and brothers thought him insane (Mark) and that his brothers didn't believe in him (John). It's not just one vague generalisation, it's a recurring theme; in Mark 6:3-4 his four brothers are listed, and Jesus says that among his own family he has no honour. That was the message Mark intended to convey. If it wasn't, he would have noted the exception/s by naming the disciple "James of Jesus" rather than "James of Alphaeus." Note also that Jesus' brother James was essentially the leader of the movement later on (Gal. 2:9 and Acts 15:13ff). But if he, Jesus' own brother and future leader of the church, had been one of the twelve disciples, why was it that Jesus overlooked him and instead took Peter and the sons of Zebedee into his closest confidence? The gospel of John, while saying that Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him, doesn't even mention this disciple James who you claim (without evidence) was Jesus' brother!

I imagine Alphaeus would not have been among the common ones, but even then the very limited glimpse provided by the NT canon shows us a second Alphaeus who was father of Levi the tax collector (Mark 2:14). In fact, if we're going to make any kind of theory from Alphaeus, we'd be better off recognising that the name of Alphaeus' son Levi was changed to Matthew in the supposed gospel of Matthew (9:9ff), and unlike Mark in his list of disciples Matthew comes immediately before 'James son of Alphaeus' (10:3, with emphasis on Matthew as a tax collector). The gospel of Matthew implies, at least more strongly than your theory, that Alphaeus' sons among Jesus' disciples were James and Matthew, not James and Thomas.

Mark 2: 14; Alpheaus OF Levi who is called Matthew: can be interpreted as brother, cousin, or relative, and I believe that the interpretation SON of Alpheaus" is incorrect, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise. In the Epistle of Jude, in reference to the relationship of Jude to James the son of Alpheaus, who is the brother of the Lord, ADELPHOS (): the Greek name meaning "born of the same womb; brother, half brother or step brother," is used, and you will find, I believe, that it is translated as, Jude the brother of James in just about every biblical translation. Whereas in Luke 6: 16; where it is written Judas of James, apart from the King James translation, which correctly interprets this verse to mean Jude the brother of James, the majority of other bibles, as they have done in Mark 2: 14; erroneously interpret this verse as Jude the Son of James.

So it could just as easily be that "James of Alphaeus" was the brother of Clopas (if Alphaeus was Clopas, which seems unlikely).

I stand by my above comments; where Mark refers to the tax collector "Levi son of Alphaeus," the first gospel changes the name to simply Matthew and re-orders the disciples to put "Matthew the tax collector" just before James son of Alphaeus. It's honestly quite interesting now that I've noticed it. Perhaps 'Matthew' (whether the disciple or the author) was Alphaeus' illegitimate son? While I wouldn't advance it as fact, you'll notice that this theory doesn't involve convoluted interpretations of half a dozen diverse passages throughout the bible and essentially ignoring others; it's a simple observation of changes made to two passages.

As for your comments, in addition to the above problems there's a nagging concern which I haven't mentioned yet. If "Jude of James" was a brother of Jesus, it seems there were only 11 disciples; 'Judas Thomas Didymus' would be one disciple, not two. This is compounded by the fact that Mark and Matthew name that disciple Thaddeus, not Jude (and complicated by John's reference to 'the other Judas, not Iscariot' as well as to Thomas Didymus). On balance, it seems to me that the notion of 'Judas Thomas Didymus' a brother of Jesus is contradicted by the gospels. They were clearly different people, and neither John nor the synoptics give any hint that either of them were Jesus' brother.

More importantly, while I recognise that 'Jude brother of James' is a possible translation, your argument that it's the correct translation is both circular and inconsistent. You're assuming that 'James of Alphaeus' means 'James son of Alphaeus' and refers to Jesus' brother, and on that basis with reference to Jude 1:1 saying that 'Jude of James' means 'Jude brother of James,' all in order to support your argument that the brothers James and Jude must have been Jesus' brothers!



In summary:
1 - In Mark 15:40 Mary is identified by her sons James and Joseph, rather than by Jesus. Matthew takes that dissociation from Christ a step further, and without otherwise explaining his reason for dismissively calling Jesus' mother "the other Mary," there is simply no basis for claiming that among at least four Marys in the very early church only two of them were at the cross.

2 - The English translations of John 19:25 suggest three Marys at Jesus' cross - "his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." Hegesippus in the 2nd century said that Clopas was Jesus' uncle, which would make the wife of Clopas sister-in-law to Jesus' mother. The reason John mentioned the wife of Clopas is probably because by that time (80s or 90s CE) Simon son of Clopas would have been more widely known as Jerusalem's bishop (62-107CE) than at the time Mark and Matthew were written.

3 - There is no obvious linguistic connection between Clopas and Alphaeus.
4 - Paul does not suggest that Jesus' brother James was one of the twelve.

5 - The gospels show in several ways and places that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mark 3:21&31-35, Mark 6:3-4 and John 7:5). Jesus' brother James was later leader of the church, so it's hard to imagine John would have said Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him but somehow forgot that this famous brother was a disciple, and even harder to imagine that Jesus would have overlooked him in favour of his inner circle of Peter and Zebedee's sons.

6 - The gospels show that 'Thomas Didymus' was different from 'Jude of James,' and none of them suggest that either of these people were a brother of Jesus. 'Jude of James' comes from Luke/Acts, which is not so reliable since Mark and Matthew call him Thaddeus. Even if a disciple Jude was indeed a son or a brother of someone named James, that wouldn't make him a brother of Jesus.


I've skimmed over some of your points which I don't disagree with or feel are best answered as I've done, in order to keep things fairly brief; let me know if I've missed anything important. I will come back to your comments about Herod's family later however; interesting stuff, but it seems strange to imagine Philip the Tetrarch as a follower of Jesus. For now, I think I'm safe in saying that there's really nothing to support (and some significant points against) your view that Clopas=Alphaeus=Jesus' step-father.

[S-word]

I have always understood that James was the brother of Jesus, but of course that contradicts the doctrine that Mary is an eternal virgin. (unless James was also a virgin birth, but that is carrying things a little too far!)

Of course, the doctrine of the virgin birth did not come along until medieval times, when edicts of the church insisted on it.

John

Let me begin by noting that I reject the false teaching of the anti-christ, that is, of a god who took human form, and was born of a virgin, which unbiblical lie can be found in the body of the universal church of the non-christian Constantine, which he established from a hodge podge group of religious bodies that called themselves Christians, of who Constantine, their unorthodox champion, finally, sick to death of their constant arguments and the hurling of abuse between those groups, summoned the leaders of that mish-mash group to the first ever World Council, in the town of Nicaea.

It was there, under the dominating presence and unspoken threats of King Constantine, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ, had been established, the church of Constantine was founded, who claims she holds a spiritual kingship over the temporal kings of the earth, in which body many daughters have been spawned by the spirit/teaching of the anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and from which body her daughters broke away to build houses for their children, in who the evil influence of the spirit/teaching of the anti-christ, continues to be spread around the earth.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say; 1st letter of John 4:1-3; My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ. We all know where to find the teaching of the anti-christ that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Titus Flavius Clemens (c.150 - c. 215), known as Clement of Alexandria in order to distinguish him from Clement of Rome, was a so-called christian theologian and the head of the noted Catechetical School of Alexandria. One of his works, is the Quis dives salvetur? (Who is the rich man that is saved?). It's a homily on Mark x, 17-31, and is preserved entire. He was counted among the Saints of the church that was established by the non-christian, King Constantine, some 300 years after "The Jesus," as taught by the Apostles had established his true Church.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, due to the lies of such men as Saint Clement of Alexandria, who, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mothers vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement also had this to say concerning their false Jesus, It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.

Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread, who is not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who is not a true human being, unlike we mere human beings, apparently, as was taught by one of the great teachers that catholics and the denominations that were spawned of the spirit within her body love to refer to, had no need for food or such.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint, in the church of Constantine. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

MithraeThere are others who would say there's not much sense debating someone who thinks that all of "God's word" is reliable. But we're both here debating regardless, 'cos it's often fun - and it's always possible we'll learn a thing or two despite those fundamental differences.

S-wordI receive something from every person with whom I communicate, even in the pub, when talking to a person who is called by others, the town drunk or idiot, he will give to me some little gem which I will put into my treasure house,


MithraePlease notice that I didn't arbitrarily reject that passage because it's contrary to my belief. For starters, it really doesn't bother me one way or another if James son of Alphaeus was Jesus' brother or not. I just don't think the bible supports that view.

S-wordI do believe that the bible supports that view, which we will go into in more detail as we examines what you have said here

MithraeEven if Luke is correct in saying that Jesus appeared to Cleopas and Simon on the road to Emmaus, that still scarcely supports your view:

S-wordI believe that Luke is correct and that It supports the view that Jesus would appear to his immediate family first. Can you suggest any logical reason, why Jesus would feel it more important to appear to Cleophas and his son Simon, before his disciples?

MithraeWe still need to assume that this Simon was the son of that Cleopas (the future bishop of Jerusalem), and that this Cleopas is the same as the Clopas mentioned in John 19:25 - and even then we're still really no closer to your conclusion than we were before.

S-wordYou, who are like a reed blowing in the wind, and are not able to make a decision on anything, and will never reach a conclusion, because every person mentioned in scripture according to you, may be another person by that name.

According to you, we would still need to assume that Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph, mentioned by Mark at the cross of Jesus, is the same Mary who Mark mentions is at the burial, because this Mary is said to be the mother of only one son, Joseph, and we would still have to assume that this Joseph, a very common name in those days, is the brother of Jesus, as there were many women named Mary in those days, as there was many men named Joseph.

Then the Mary, (of which there were so many in those days) who Mark mentions is at the empty tomb of Jesus, is said to have only one son also, and his name is James, another very common name in those days, and we would still have to assume that this Mary is the same Mary, who is said to be the mother of Joseph at the burial of Jesus.

While we still need to assume that the Mary who is the mother of only one son named Joseph at the burial of Jesus, who may not be the same Mary, who is the mother of a son named James at the empty tomb of Jesus: and these two women by the very common name Mary may not be related in anyway to the Mary who was at the cross of Jesus, who was the mother of TWO sons of the very common names Joseph and James.

Thank heavens that Matthew, reveals that there were only two women at the cross of Jesus by the name Mary. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the two brothers of Jesus, by stating that at the burial of Jesus there were Mary Magdalene and the OTHER Mary, (Not two other Mary's mate, only one other Mary) and at the empty tomb there were only the same TWO women by the name Mary, who where Mary Magdalene and the OTHER Mary, who is the mother of Jesus who had remarried Cleophas, also called Alpheaus, who is the biological father of Simon, Jude, and James the younger of Mary's three biological sons, Who are Jesus, her firstborn son, Joseph the second, and James the younger of the three.

MithraeYour claim was that we would 'expect' the risen Jesus to appear first to his family, and suggest this passage as evidence that this Simon and that Cleopas were Jesus' family. That's quite a weak argument, even if the story itself were factually correct.

S-wordCome up with a better one matey? What reason would you give for the fact that Jesus saw it to be more important, that before appearing to his disciples, he should appear to Cleophas the husband of his mother and the man who had raised him from a young child and taught him his trade of carpentry. Remembering that Jude the brother of James the apostle, who Paul claims to have been the brother of the Lord, who is named Tauma=Thomas the Aramaic for twin, is depicted in art-form, as holding a carpenters square.

MithraeSecondly, I gave good and consistent reasons why I don't consider the story historically reliable.

S-wordAnd what pray tell, do you believe was your good and consistent reasons, for not considering the story historically reliable.

MithraeLuke is the least reliable of the synoptic gospels, and despite his obvious non-historical purpose at least John was a disciple. Neither the original content of Mark, nor Matthew, nor John (nor even Paul, for that matter) mention this little incident. It's got nothing to do with "whenever scripture is contrary to their belief," the story simply is not strong historical evidence.

S-wordSo, according to your view, we can chuck out the story of Jesus in the temple as a young 12 year old boy, because neither, Matthew, Mark, or John, mention it. We can get rid of the story of the wise men coming to Jerusalem in search for the promised Messiah, because neither Mark, Luke, or John, make mention of it, as with the story of Herod ordering the death of all the young boys two years and below in the district of Bethlehem, out the window she goes also, as Mark, Luke and John dont mention it.

Did Mary perform the ceremony of purification 41 days after the birth of Jesus, nope, because according to you, that story is unreliable, as neither Matthew, Mark, or John corroborate the story. I could go on for another hour or more revealing stories in one particular gospel or another, which are not mentioned in the other three, but it would simply boil down to the fact, that according to you, there aint too much in the bible, if anything at all, that you would consider as being reliable.

Mithrae'Hammerer' is not the same as 'son of thunder' in any case, but according to Strong's concordance Mark means 'a defence' - probably derived from the Roman god Mars.

S-wordI think you should look to Thor, the God of THUNDER with his miraculous HAMMER. You see only what you want to see, dont you? While remaining blind to the obvious.
.
Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (Universal Subject Guide) Mark (John)---A large Hammer. To be Continued, although I believe that I am simply wasting valuable time debating with someone so inconsistent and unreliable in what they choose to see and what they choose to turn a blind eye to.

[Mithrae]

Hi S-word. I'll first post a reply to earlier posts I'd already written but couldn't submit (internet troubles). Still haven't got 'round to the Herod stuff, unfortunately.

I have always understood that James was the brother of Jesus, but of course that contradicts the doctrine that Mary is an eternal virgin. (unless James was also a virgin birth, but that is carrying things a little too far!)

Of course, the doctrine of the virgin birth did not come along until medieval times, when edicts of the church insisted on it.

I've been surprised to see some people dispute it, but as far as can see both Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-38) teach it quite clearly. In fairness Matthew doesn't explicitly state that Mary was a virgin (though Luke does), only that she'd not been with Joseph; so the pedant might argue that a Holy Spirit-sanctioned pre-marital union could still fit the bill for the first gospel

The notion of Mary's perpetual virginity came along a lot later, of course. My guess is that among scholars and layfolk alike, few but devout Catholics would dispute that James was was the brother of Jesus (eg. Mark 6:3 and Galatians 1:19), along with Joseph, Simon and Judas/Jude.

--

Galatians 1: 18-19; (18) "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas (Peter one of the 12 Apostles) and remained with him for 15 days. (19) But I saw none of the other APOSTLES, except for James the Lord's brother."

we learn from Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegasippus, that James the righteous, who was the first to sit upon the episcopal thorne of the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, was murdered in 62 Ad, at the instigation of one of the same sadducee sext that had his brother Jesus killed.

And knowing that the other of the two apostles named "James" was the son of Zebedee and that he was killed at the command of Herod Agrippa who died in 44 AD, who do you believe is the father of James, the only other apostle that Paul saw when he went to Jerusalem to vistit the apostle Peter, which other apostle, Paul refers to as "The brother of the Lord?"

As I mentioned in the other thread, Paul very clearly names people besides the Twelve as apostles - 1 Cor. 15:3-7, 1 Cor. 4, Romans 16:7. Whether you think Paul should have been the Twelfth of Jesus' disciples even though he wasn't a disciple is irrelevant, because this is still how Paul himself used the term 'apostle.' He did not say that Jesus' brother James was one of the Twelve, and the gospels say that Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him during his ministry.

--------------

On to the recent stuff...

MithraeWe still need to assume that this Simon was the son of that Cleopas (the future bishop of Jerusalem), and that this Cleopas is the same as the Clopas mentioned in John 19:25 - and even then we're still really no closer to your conclusion than we were before.

S-wordYou, who are like a reed blowing in the wind, and are not able to make a decision on anything, and will never reach a conclusion, because every person mentioned in scripture according to you, may be another person by that name.

According to you, we would still need to assume that Mary the mother of James the younger and Joseph, mentioned by Mark at the cross of Jesus, is the same Mary who Mark mentions is at the burial, because this Mary is said to be the mother of only one son, Joseph, and we would still have to assume that this Joseph, a very common name in those days, is the brother of Jesus, as there were many women named Mary in those days, as there was many men named Joseph.

Then the Mary, (of which there were so many in those days) who Mark mentions is at the empty tomb of Jesus, is said to have only one son also, and his name is James, another very common name in those days, and we would still have to assume that this Mary is the same Mary, who is said to be the mother of Joseph at the burial of Jesus.

While we still need to assume that the Mary who is the mother of only one son named Joseph at the burial of Jesus, who may not be the same Mary, who is the mother of a son named James at the empty tomb of Jesus: and these two women by the very common name Mary may not be related in anyway to the Mary who was at the cross of Jesus, who was the mother of TWO sons of the very common names Joseph and James.

Thank heavens that Matthew, reveals that there were only two women at the cross of Jesus by the name Mary. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, the two brothers of Jesus, by stating that at the burial of Jesus there were Mary Magdalene and the OTHER Mary, (Not two other Mary's mate, only one other Mary) and at the empty tomb there were only the same TWO women by the name Mary, who where Mary Magdalene and the OTHER Mary, who is the mother of Jesus who had remarried Cleophas, also called Alpheaus, who is the biological father of Simon, Jude, and James the younger of Mary's three biological sons, Who are Jesus, her firstborn son, Joseph the second, and James the younger of the three.

MithraeYour claim was that we would 'expect' the risen Jesus to appear first to his family, and suggest this passage as evidence that this Simon and that Cleopas were Jesus' family. That's quite a weak argument, even if the story itself were factually correct.

S-wordCome up with a better one matey? What reason would you give for the fact that Jesus saw it to be more important, that before appearing to his disciples, he should appear to Cleophas the husband of his mother and the man who had raised him from a young child and taught him his trade of carpentry. Remembering that Jude the brother of James the apostle, who Paul claims to have been the brother of the Lord, who is named Tauma=Thomas the Aramaic for twin, is depicted in art-form, as holding a carpenters square.

I think the trouble here may be that you're not distinguishing between evidence/argument and conclusion. Conclusions are based on prior information and their reliability, validity or trustworthiness as anything beyond opinion depend on that prior information. But even if they are little more than opinion, unless it's a conclusion that all Arabs should be slaughtered or the like, having opinions is okay. On the other hand arguments or evidence must have validity and reliability to fulfill their purpose of supporting some further conclusion, and if they do not those weaknesses should be pointed out as one of the basic functions of debate.

You put forward, as an argument supporting your view, that we'd expect Jesus to appear first to his family and that therefore Clopas and Simon must be his family and Clopas must be Alphaeus and James the Just must have been a disciple in contradiction with what the gospels say. Even before we get to the italics, that is not really a strong argument to support a position. I'm sorry if you disagree, but ultimately what someone might 'expect' the newly-resurrected Son of God to do is scarcely more than an assumption.

However we know from Hegesippus that Jesus' cousin Simon, son of Clopas (his uncle) had been bishop of Jerusalem for a decade or more by the time Luke wrote his gospel. In that light it's quite possible that Luke had come across a story about Jesus appearing to his cousin Simon, and decided to include it in his gospel. As a conclusion based on prior information, it's certainly possible that Luke's story is talking about Jesus' relatives. Unfortunately that other information contradicts the view you're trying to put forward.

MithraeLuke is the least reliable of the synoptic gospels, and despite his obvious non-historical purpose at least John was a disciple. Neither the original content of Mark, nor Matthew, nor John (nor even Paul, for that matter) mention this little incident. It's got nothing to do with "whenever scripture is contrary to their belief," the story simply is not strong historical evidence.

S-wordSo, according to your view, we can chuck out the story of Jesus in the temple as a young 12 year old boy, because neither, Matthew, Mark, or John, mention it. We can get rid of the story of the wise men coming to Jerusalem in search for the promised Messiah, because neither Mark, Luke, or John, make mention of it, as with the story of Herod ordering the death of all the young boys two years and below in the district of Bethlehem, out the window she goes also, as Mark, Luke and John dont mention it.

Did Mary perform the ceremony of purification 41 days after the birth of Jesus, nope, because according to you, that story is unreliable, as neither Matthew, Mark, or John corroborate the story. I could go on for another hour or more revealing stories in one particular gospel or another, which are not mentioned in the other three, but it would simply boil down to the fact, that according to you, there aint too much in the bible, if anything at all, that you would consider as being reliable.

I don't disagree with anything you've said in that first paragraph. If you want to delve into the subject of the contradictions in the bible, like the birth/infancy contradictions between Matthew and Luke, we can certainly discuss that elsewhere. As it is I've already shown why the Emmaus story does not support your view even if it's true - it's not about Jesus' brother. Arguing further about why an atheist should consider it God's own truth doesn't really seem productive, does it?

For clarification however - for my own sake even if you choose not to agree, since I've not much thought about it before - I'd say that evaluating historical claims can be thought of in terms of source, content and corroboration. The reliability of a source can be judged in terms of how close it is to the events described (in terms of time, location and culture), and knowledge of the source and how its information was procured - in short, how good the source's information might be at best. Content can be assessed in terms of the author's likely biases or agenda, as much as we can determine them, inconsistencies or strange features of the text, and the level of conformity or disagreement with established views and paradigms - essentially, the degrees to which we consider the author a sober historian, a raving loon, a sincere but deluded propagandist and so on. Corroboration can be thought of as either positive confirmation from other sources, archaeological evidence or historical context, or else contradiction of the text's claims - either type of which must also obviously be assessed by their own merits.

In the case of Mary's purification rites, historical context suggests very strong corroboration of Luke's story, and I can't imagine he would have any bias or agenda in mentioning it. In the case of the nativity stories, it's not hard to see why most scholars think the authors had a bias or agenda in there somewhere, and since they both contradict each other and are confirmed by no other early source, the value of those stories as historical information is not very sound.

All that said, did you want to discuss my views on historical evaluation, or do you want to address the fact that even if true Luke's Emmaus story has little value to our discussion as an argument? But gains some merit as a conclusion, because we know from Hegesippus that Simon was Jesus' cousin.

Mithrae'Hammerer' is not the same as 'son of thunder' in any case, but according to Strong's concordance Mark means 'a defence' - probably derived from the Roman god Mars.

S-wordI think you should look to Thor, the God of THUNDER with his miraculous HAMMER. You see only what you want to see, dont you? While remaining blind to the obvious.
.
Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, (Universal Subject Guide) Mark (John)---A large Hammer. To be Continued, although I believe that I am simply wasting valuable time debating with someone so inconsistent and unreliable in what they choose to see and what they choose to turn a blind eye to.

Thor was a Norse god, over a thousand miles north of Palestine. The Greek god of thunder Zeus was noted for his lightning bolts, feared even by the other gods. I would hardly call your connection 'obvious.' In fact I'd probably call it something else entirely

[S-word]

I will not bother to waste any more time with you as you undoubtedly do not have a clue as to the subject matter of this debate, and you are evasive to the extreme. First you say that the surname Mark carried the meaning defence, it is then proven to you that according to the Universal Subject Guide in Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, that MARK (John) carries the meaning A LARGE HAMMER.

Do you acknowledge that this is correct? Oh no, you then go on to try and hide your ignorance by saying: Thor was a Norse god, over a thousand miles north of Palestine. The Greek god of thunder Zeus was noted for his lightning bolts, feared even by the other gods. I would hardly call your connection 'obvious.' In fact I'd probably call it something else entirely. Thereby revealing that you are more ignorant to the subject than first thought.

You really dont know too much about the history of the Greco=Roman Empire do you? A thousand miles north of Palestine, and you think that Romes influence did not reach that far. Thor is, according to Norse mythology, the HAMMER wielding god of Thunder.

Thor was a prominently mentioned god throughout the recorded history of the Germanic peoples even during the Roman occupations of the Germanic regions. And you, in your ignorance, try to score some point by hoping that I am as ignorant as you, as to the extent of the Greco=Roman domination. My connection between the Son of Thunder and MARK the Large Hammer now must become obvious even to the spiritually blind.

Mithrae..I've been surprised to see some people dispute it, but as far as can see both Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-38) teach it quite clearly. In fairness Matthew doesn't explicitly state that Mary was a virgin (though Luke does),

You can say that Matthew doesn't explicitly state that Mary was a virgin again, Matthew merely translates the words of Isaiah 7: 14; which state that an Almah a young unmarried woman is pregnant and will bear a son.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation, in the present tense IS: Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman IS with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous Christian Translation, in the future tense, Shall: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin SHALL conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an Almah an unmarried female IS with child and shall bear a son, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, or unmarried youth, and denotes virgin only by implication.

We all know that a good translation must carry the true meaning of the original from which it is translated, and the true meaning of Isaiah 7: 14; is that a young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc.

Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiahs words, that (A young woman who IS pregnant will bear a son, etc), while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for virgin, Bethulah which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where the sexual status of a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

If you believe that the Hebrew term Almah can be correctly translated Virgin then I would advise you to not attempt to translate the Hebrew language to English.

The Greek word parthenos () used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous, but the Hebrew term Almah that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as virgin is ABSOLUTE, and according to Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term Almah, carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

The word Virgin in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced into the bible until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible The Vulgate.

Mithrae..In fairness Matthew doesn't explicitly state that Mary was a virgin b]We know weve already proven that[/b](though Luke does),

But not in relation to the conception of the child Jesus. The young 14 year old parthenos the unmarried Mary, implied that she was indeed still a virgin three month before she was found to be with child to her half brother Joseph the son of Alexander Helios (Heli) from the tribe of Levi, by saying that up until the time that she spoke to the angel, she had not known a man (Sexually).

But that will do me, my time is too valuable to be wasted, you offer nothing but your belief that there is no God and that all scripture is unreliable. Good night, I have to have a shower and wash off all this spagehetti that your monster has spewed over me.

[Mithrae]

I will not bother to waste any more time with you as you undoubtedly do not have a clue as to the subject matter of this debate, and you are evasive to the extreme. First you say that the surname Mark carried the meaning defence, it is then proven to you that according to the Universal Subject Guide in Youngs Analytical Concordance to the Bible, that MARK (John) carries the meaning A LARGE HAMMER.

Do you acknowledge that this is correct?

I posted my reference from Strong's concordance for the meaning 'a defence,' and a second link suggesting the name was derived from the Roman war god Mars. I don't have access to Young's concordance in order to confirm what you've said, but presuming it to be true I responded to your comments about a hammer. I'm not sure why this bothers you.

Oh no, you then go on to try and hide your ignorance by saying: Thor was a Norse god, over a thousand miles north of Palestine. The Greek god of thunder Zeus was noted for his lightning bolts, feared even by the other gods. I would hardly call your connection 'obvious.' In fact I'd probably call it something else entirely. Thereby revealing that you are more ignorant to the subject than first thought.

You really dont know too much about the history of the Greco=Roman Empire do you? A thousand miles north of Palestine, and you think that Romes influence did not reach that far. Thor is, according to Norse mythology, the HAMMER wielding god of Thunder.

Thor was a prominently mentioned god throughout the recorded history of the Germanic peoples even during the Roman occupations of the Germanic regions. And you, in your ignorance, try to score some point by hoping that I am as ignorant as you, as to the extent of the Greco=Roman domination. My connection between the Son of Thunder and MARK the Large Hammer now must become obvious even to the spiritually blind.

Thor is a prominently mentioned god throughout the recorded history of the Germanic peoples, from the Roman occupation of regions of Germania... ~ Wikipedia

No-one with internet access can claim to be ignorant. I did not (and don't) deny that Roman soldiers and folk living near the frontier may well have heard of the Germanic god Donar and his mighty hammer; but Jesus was neither. If you read down a bit further you'll note that the first clear reference to Donar was nearly a century after Jesus' death, and Tacitus identifies him with Hercules because of the latter's club; but Hercules was not a god of thunder. The Roman god of thunder Jupiter did not wield a hammer either.

But since you yourself have so frequently referred to Macedonian influence in your posts, even saying that Herod's son Philip "ruled the Macedonian territory north and east of Galilee," you should know - and I have no doubt that you do know - that if those living in Palestine in the first century were going to relate anything to foreign deities, it would most likely be the Greek pantheon. Egyptian, Babylonian and Persian deities would also be possibilities, or even Roman. But citing a god from a far-distant land which the Roman Empire itself had only recently made small inroads into is not 'obvious' by any measure; it's what we might call 'grasping at straws' to try and make a theory fit.

More to the point, the etymology of the name Mark and possible tenuous connections with 'sons of thunder' was the least of the points I made on this issue, and it's interesting that you're focusing so much on that. Would you mind addressing the other comments which I specifically highlighted as being more important?

• Mithrae wrote: More importantly, we've agreed that Salome was the mother of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 15:40 and Matthew 27:56), and still alive after Jesus' death. Saying that John the son of Zebedee was adopted by another woman, even though his mother was still alive and he himself was considered an adult to whom Jesus entrusted care of his mother (John 19:26-27) is not only absurd, but you're contradicting yourself too. Finally, it's hard to imagine that one of the twelve apostles would tag along after Paul and Barnabas merely as a helper (Acts 13:5).

--

We can delve further into the issue of the virgin birth if you'd like, but as far as I can see it's more or less tangential to the topic so I'll leave it on the side for now. Our main point of discussion was whether or not Jesus' brothers were among his disciples, so we'd better get to the bottom of that first. The summary of the issue, as I see it, was as follows:

• 1 - In Mark 15:40 Mary is identified by her sons James and Joseph, rather than by Jesus. Matthew takes that dissociation from Christ a step further, and without otherwise explaining his reason for dismissively calling Jesus' mother "the other Mary," there is simply no basis for claiming that among at least four Marys in the very early church only two of them were at the cross.
  
  2 - The English translations of John 19:25 suggest three Marys at Jesus' cross - "his mother, and his mothers sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." Hegesippus in the 2nd century said that Clopas was Jesus' uncle, which would make the wife of Clopas sister-in-law to Jesus' mother. The reason John mentioned the wife of Clopas is probably because by that time (80s or 90s CE) Simon son of Clopas would have been more widely known as Jerusalem's bishop (62-107CE) than at the time Mark and Matthew were written.
  
  3 - There is no obvious linguistic connection between Clopas and Alphaeus.
  4 - Paul does not suggest that Jesus' brother James was one of the twelve.
  
  5 - The gospels show in several ways and places that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him during his ministry (Mark 3:21&31-35, Mark 6:3-4 and John 7:5). Jesus' brother James was later 'leader' of the church, so it's hard to imagine John would have said Jesus' brothers didn't believe in him but somehow forgot to mention that this famous brother was a disciple, and even harder to imagine that Jesus would have overlooked his brother in favour of his inner circle of Peter and Zebedee's sons.
  
  6 - The gospels show that 'Thomas Didymus' was different from 'Jude of James,' and none of them suggest that either of these people were a brother of Jesus. 'Jude of James' comes from Luke/Acts, which is not so reliable since Mark and Matthew call him Thaddeus. Even if a disciple Jude was indeed a son or a brother of someone named James, that wouldn't make him a brother of Jesus without circular reasoning.