| 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.
Kecharitomene. Never found as an appellative in any Green text, classical, koine or contemporary. --- other than Luke 1:28. A purpose-made, fresh-coined word, I could say a bespoke word, used but once. Hence unique in all of literature.
She is defending the roman denomination's belief in these non-scriptural doctrines.
As such, she's doing her best to spin straw into gold to justify what she is required to believe.
Of course, none of these attempts are actually evidence.
You clicked on the link to the video? NOne of that Scripture is in Scripture?
Context defines who this is - not just the use of the same word. This is the problem with using a see and say method of word only and also with proof-texting with a single verse that appears to confirm what you believe.
The only thing the Catholic was left with was "gee, we want it to be so badly, let's make it up."
Wrong because the sin nature comes through the FATHER.
NOT through the mother.
Also, you are again presuming to know how God did the Incarnation, and you don’t because God didn’t tell us.
Besides, isn’t presumption a sin for Catholics?
IT’S A ONE TIME EVENT!!!’ That’s why the word is used ONE time in that format.
Respond as Isaiah about his sin nature when he talked to God.
Or you, or me, or anyone. He chose us born again believers before the foundation of the world. Now, we may have to define to some people what a born again believer is, but God does what He does, for His own eternal purposes. We, the clay, have NO RIGHT to question what He, the potter does.
I think I would be accurate to say, that only born again believers will go to Heaven. ALL non born agains, will go to Hell. All of them. Sooner could a fish live in a tree, than a non born again person live in Heaven. Many are called, but few are chosen. Compared to the actual population of the earth, the vast majority of the people, will go to Hell. Only a few people will go to Heaven. Cult members should take note. They will have their part in the lake that burns forever.
Some ECFs have asserts Mary committed that sin at Cana. Either the ECFs are right or they’re wrong. Catholics love to cherry pick the ECFs.
*sinless human nature* is an oxymoron.
No such critter born of a human father since Adam and Eve fell.
Mary was human, had a human father, therefore Mary was a sinner, just like the restof humanity, her role in fulfilling prophecy notwithstanding.
*sinless human nature* is an oxymoron.
No such critter born of a human father since Adam and Eve fell.
Mary was human, had a human father, therefore Mary was a sinner, just like the restof humanity, her role in fulfilling prophecy notwithstanding.
Luke 1:28 reads, "And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!"
-literal translation of the TEXTUS RECEPTUS Greek in SOURCE: THE INTERLINEAR BIBLE, Jay P. Green, Sr.; Sovereign Grace Publishers, ISBN: 1-878442-81-3)."And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
- Luke 1:28 King James Bible versionThe term "FULL OF GRACE," is not a Biblical term concerning Mary.
The original Greek NEVER says Mary was "FULL" of grace; rather, it says that Mary received grace from God.
Instead of spending your time trying to spin the term into something the text doesn't say, you'd be better off just admitting the roman denomination teaches this and you must believe it.
And I am also full of grace, having the living, respsurrected Christ dwelling in me through faith.
af, unless you read the chapters proceeding "the woman" verse you quoted, you will not understand that the war is being waged on Israel. I can't do it for you FRamigo.
However, the Aramaic Bible renders this as, "Peace to you, full of grace, our Lord is with you; you are blessed among women.
DR: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Since we are ex Catholics, let me give my opinion. As far as I know, the Catholics will try to tell us, that having assurance of salvation, makes us guilty of the sin of presumption. It's horse hockey of course, and I am not sure if the Catholics link presumption to any other issue.
My opinion is, deep in their hearts, they have NO assurance of salvation. They must wait till they die, to see if they attain Heaven. If people wait till they die, to see if they attain Heaven, it's almost a 99.9%, iron clad guarantee they will end up in Hell. Just my opinion, but I think most Catholics are inwardly jealous of our assurance of salvation, and wish they had it too. Since they don't, they double down on the issue, and call it the sin of presumption. That is my best educated guess, as an ex Catholic. 😱
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.