| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/22/2017 3:39:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 05/13/2017 6:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?
Rose, via email
A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.
Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.
The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.
In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.
James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.
The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.
And I would agree completely were it not for the eyewitness naming them brothers and sisters elsewhere in the Bible. These threads can get really tedious. Sorry if I have offended you with such stickling.
.
Nope!
Her father (also named Joseph) did not have the ability to pass sin to his daughter; only to his sons.
The word is quite specific on that. It doesn’t say children, it says sons.
.
I didn’t claim it as axiomatic. I said it was a reasonable inference from evidence. Careful reading will yield better understanding.
And now, about that clone?
“As I wrote to metmom, either Mary was, by Divine grace, preserved from sin, or Jesus was sinfully depraved in His humanity, the heir of her fallen flesh.” A very famous fallacy of the undistributed middle, often used by con artists who wish to manipulate people.
Wish I’d got in on that action!
What a specious piece of smarm that was! I’m seeing this more and more in your posts, and you wonder why I challenge you so forcefully! In fact, you assertion does exactly that, claim as basis of truth that which is in question, well, except catholics swallow it whole, without a burp even.
Look buddy, I’m not interested in casting pearls before cultist swine any more.
So I’m just gonna award you three more logical fallacies for your ad hominem, your argumentum ad lapidum, and your argumentum ad nauseum, bringing your fail count to 12.
Add three for the posts that the mods deleted for your personal insults, and that brings your You Fail Logic Forever score to 15.
Well done.
HUH?
Ideas are not discussed by avoiding them; either.
HA HA HA HA. Did I touch a nerve? Or, to paraphrase you, did the pig who squealed get hit by the rock?
Look buddy, I appreciate you being an overachiever, but I’m really bored with counting up your logical fails.
I’m sure you can count them up yourself. Despite your trouble figuring out the difference between 1300 years and 200 years, I have confidence that you can do it.
The evidence says otherwise.
We can all SEE the convoluted twistings that Rome has to do with scripture and imagination to come up with some of it's teachings.
Do you and the false teacher still deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ??
No. It’s not a reasonable inference as it goes against the rest of Scripture.
Good for you, while I am still learning English! And here is a little on the Hebrew Matthew issue.
***
Heh. Well, you certainly speak better English than I speak Koine. Good luck in your continued learning!
Thanks for the link; much appreciated.
Nice.
Here's the question #946 that was followed by several rounds of gabble. Why not just answer it? Like the Four Cardinals said to the Pope.
There is nothing in Scripture that says this as noted in my numerous posts to you from the CE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.