| 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.
Correcting error with more error never ends well.
The best way to correct error about the nature of Christ is with Scriputre, not with introducing more error.
What the change in term actually shows is the abandonment of Scripture as Truth and the final authority in settling doctrinal error.
And when that happens, where Scripture is abandoned for the traditions and teachings of men, it is the beginning of the end for any group.
The Holy Spirit identified Mary as "mother of JESUS" to identify HER, not make some doctrinal statement as to the nature of Christ. THAT is dealt with quite clearly elsewhere in Scripture, if people would bother to read it and chose to believe it.
What the church actually did, is presume to think to correct the work of the Holy Spirit because what He breathed out wasn't good enough on its own.
What unmitigated gall and arrogance!
“Oh, so you’re on a first name basis with Michael, eh?”
Which gives rise, I imagine, to the theory that perhaps they met while both were in The Way cult - Michael Rood, the cult-daddy father figure to a young follower - perhaps one who lacked a close father growing up. When The Way imploded, it would be easy to follow Rood to his new cult and wear Jewish robes.
“I would imagine that’s quite easy in a tiny cult like that.”
I imagine they could all meet in the smallest meeting room at a Holiday Inn Select.
What a bunch of unadulterated garbage!
Since there was no unanimous consent then it must be OK to contradict the consent of some:
Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one...–wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers ; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. ( 4th Session of the Council of Trent)
And from one, Epiphanius (c. 310–320 – 403), who upholds Perpetual Marian Virginity (PMV) yet we have this reproof (for what its worth, which is not much) against making Mary, a goddess, offering her sacrifice, or different in nature than other humans (being sinless is never mentioned), or as one who blesses disciples or rules the earth.
"We should not honour the saints beyond what is fitting, hut honour their Lord and Master. Let then a stop he put to the error of these deluded people. For Mary is not a goddess, nor had she her body from heaven, but was born as others from human parents, though, like Isaac, she was given according to promise, by a special dispensation of Providence....But let no one offer sacrifice to her name, or he will ruin his own soul."
"Yea verily, holy was the body of Mary, but assuredly she was not a goddess...Hence too the Gospel puts us on our guard in those words spoken by the Lord Himself: What to me and to thee, women? My hour is not yet come. Where He expressly called her women, lest some should suppose that the holy Virgin was of a nature more excellent than human..."
"Mary was indeed the vessel of election, but a women, and in no way of a different nature than that of others."
"But God came down from Heaven, the Word clothed with flesh from a holy Virgin, not assuredly, that the Virgin should be adored, nor to make a goddess of her, nor that we should offer sacrifice to her name...Salome...gave her no charge to administer baptism, to bless disciples, nor did He bid her rule over the earth..." Thomas Livius, "The Blessed Virgin in the Fathers of the First Six Centuries," pp. 301,303)
Yet Mary is indeed an Object of sacrifice, and even if it has to be said that it is to Jesus through Mary, yet she is treated as a heavenly sovereign, even if it is said that she will only do God's will.
29. We should choose a special feast-day on which to give, consecrate and sacrifice to Mary voluntarily, lovingly and without constraint, entirely and without reserve: our body and soul, our exterior property, such as house, family and income; and also our interior and spiritual possessions; namely, our merits, graces, virtues and satisfactions.
It should be observed here that by this devotion the soul sacrifices to Jesus, through Mary, all that it holds most dear, things of which even no religious order would require the sacrifice; namely, the right to dispose of ourselves, of the value of our prayers and alms, of our mortifications and satisfactions. The soul leaves everything to be freely disposed of by Our Lady so that she may apply it all according to her own will for the greater glory of God ["Who communicates to us His grace only through Mary"], which she alone knows perfectly. (THE SECRET OF MARY WITH PREPARATION FORTOTAL CONSECRATION; Saint Louis de Montforthttps://www.ecatholic2000.com/montfort/secret/secret.shtml)
It is certain that we have many faults of character. Let us examine ourselves in front of Our Lady's altar by comparing our weakness with her magnificence of soul. When we have discovered our failings, let us be courageous in eradicating them. We can offer this sacrifice to Mary with love and generosity, no matter how hard it may be. (Antonio Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day, May 1, 2016; https://www.facebook.com/cardinalbacci/posts/1131476396895357
In contrast, the Lord is the only being in Heaven believers on earth offer sacrifice and prayers to, but Catholics basically deify their false Mary .
Well, if one cannot find what you want from paganism in Scripture, then they may turn to adulterated texts.
Have you followed the discussion over an ovum from Mary claimed as the bloodline portion for fabricating Jesus’s zygotic being? Would Mary vowing herself to Joseph then breaking that vow by consenting to be wife to GOD (use of her genetic structure via a sex cell for insemination) be suspect in your reasoning?
That question shows me a complete lack of understanding of the Trinity...
How is it that God can not be tempted yet Jesus was tempted as we are??? Did God die on the Cross???
And Mary married God, he then planted a life in her and she then bore her husband??? Does God need to pray to himself???
Mary was and is not the mother of God...Mary was the mother of the third part of the Trinity, the Son...
While the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one, they are also separate...That is lost on those who don't believe the scriptures...
You can rest assured there was a lot more to that conversation than what is recorded in the scriptures...And you can rest assured that when Mary became betrothed to Joseph, she knew that meant a housefull of kids in the future...
Do YOU speak and read ancient Hebrew or do you have an English language Bible? Is the Holy Spirit unable to lead into all truth those who have different language skills? As of September 2016 the full Bible has been translated into 636 languages, the New Testament alone into 1442 languages and Bible portions or stories into 1145 other languages. Thus at least some portion of the Bible has been translated into 3,223 languages. (http://www.wycliffe.net/statistics)
Of course there is reason, and to assert otherwise is simply absurd, for
1. "Mother of God" is not used as a technical term as you explain it was, but is used uncritically as part of the unique (far far above what is seen in Scripture toward created beings) and extreme hyper-adulation of their Mary, largely parallelizing her with Christ .
2. MoG most naturally denotes ontological oneness, which is heresy. At least you could use "God-bearer" (Theotokos) which at least denotes instrumentality,. but no, Catholics insist on uncritically devotionally using a term which infers God has a mother, regardless of apologetical dismissals, and some even speak of what Jesus owes to Mary, which is nothing, less than what Mary owes to Christ!
3. .. . Esp. as used, MoG is not the language of Scripture, while does not use such misleading terms to His instruments, including those who wrote His word (imagine "we beseech thee, O Moses to hear us, O Thou Hand of God.")
The Holy Spirit is careful to qualify the manner in which Israel brought forth Christ in clarifying, .
Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:5)
As Ratzinger says is arguing against the term “Co-redemptrix:”
...the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings... ”
“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way.
For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306, epm. mine
Even though Ratzinger is not consistent as regards the term MoG term, the reasoning applies, at best MoG being "A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way."
Meanwhile, Elizabeth can be called "mother of my lord" since by itself the latter term can simply denote position. The deity of Christ was likely something slowly realized by the disciples.
No, I pretty much just came in on the last few responses, but the idea of Mary being under some vestal virgin vow is baseless in Scripture, and would require either her father's consent or Josephs, as per Num. 30.
Also, a basic principle in Scripture is that the exceptions to the norm by its characters are mentioned, from extreme age (Methuselah), to excess size, fingers (Goliath), strength (Samson), barrenness (Hannah), a celibate marriage (David and Abishag), prolonged celibacy (Anna), ascetic diet (John the Baptist), the supernatural transport of Phillip, the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, and the surpassing labor and suffering of Paul, birth by a virgin (Mary), to Christ being sinless.
And thus in the case of the only celibate marriage in Scripture, which is a true exception to the norm (the Lord Jesus Himself affirms the Genesis description of marriage: Matthew 19:5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh), the Holy Spirit notes, "And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not." (1 Kings 1:4)
In contrast, consistent with the above principle, while the Spirit records the virginity of Mary before birth, all He states as concerns after that are indications that this was a normal marriage.
This Catholics must presume to impute uncharacteristic silence to the Spirit of God in order to read their exception-to-the-norm tradition into Scripture.
Paradoxically, Rome also considers entering marriage with the intention of never having children to be a "grave wrong and more than likely grounds for an annulment."[McLachlan, P. "Sacrament of Holy Matrimony." http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu164.htm] , while praying to a women who apparently went thru with a marriage intending to do just that (without Rome's permission).
Now you'll drug around the pond for responding to THIS bait!
Once again; good ol' Rome fills in the blanks.
Man, that’s good stuff.
Now get to veneratin' and adorin' me REALLY quick to set an example to those who will look to ME! for salvation in the future!!!
Josephus DID write his Antiquities of the Jews in Greek. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_of_the_Jews:
.
>> “Did all the other gospels and the epistles of the New Testament also have Hebrew as their original language, too? “ <<
Unless the Apostle Paul was a mad man and a liar, yes they did.
And the fact of the time demand it too. To dismiss the massive bloody Maccabee rebellion would be like saying George Washington was a British agent.
Judea spoke Hebrew, not Greek.
Why did the Roman Centurion in the Acts ask Paul if he could speak Greek? Because the Centurion was not fluent in Hebrew, the language all of the apostles spoke all of the time, and he was hoping Paul could speak enough Greek to make his job easier.
>> “And, even if they ALL did, why would Greek or English or any other translation not be acceptable for followers and believers in Jesus Christ?” <<
Because Yehova demanded that his perfect language was to be used by his called servants.
According to the prophets, soon we all will speak Hebrew again, just as it was before Babel. It is the only language that conveys Yehova’s thoughts to his servants correctly.
Presently, a Hebrew Bible is useful only for study. The KJV is the Bible of choice for witnessing to English speaking people, and it is the most accurate current version as long as the italicized text is all crossed out. (most of the doctrinal errors are born in the italicized words, which are added in to change the meaning in most cases)
Most of the Bibles in other languages began with the KJV too, because the orgs that did translations felt that it was solid.
Many of the Wycliffe translators were members of the church I attended as a child, (’50s) and they seemed to be big on the KJV.
So presently, that is life. But change is the rule of the day now, in almost everything.
Not according to Catholic practice!
Let's try some easy math:
There are approximately 1.2 billion Catholics world wide;
If merely 1% of them 'ask' Mary for help just once each day;
that means that 12 million separate prayers are headed Mary's direction every day.
Given that there are 86,400 seconds per day... (24 hours times 60 minutes times 60 seconds)
...that means that Mary has to handle approximately 139 'requests' per second!
Purty good fer someone JUST LIKE US!!
One day I heard of a dude;
Whose name happened to be Rood.
No plain Tom, Dick or Harry,
He came across extraordinary!
But for his MESSAGE I’m not in the mood.
EVERY?
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.