| 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.
Mary did not need to be sinless to carry Jesus.
Sin is not transferred by contact so Jesus would still have been born without sin.
The sin nature comes down through the father, not the mother so Jesus did not inherit a sin nature from gestating in Mary.
It was not prophesied so there was no prophecy to fulfill about Mary being sinless or perpetually virgin.
Absolutely NO reason to require sinlessness on the part of the Messiah’s mother.
An honor, even an unmatched honor does NOT equal or require sinlessness.
“And yet I read:
Reading about Israel doesn’t provide support that Mary remained a virgin.
LOL, I remember those signs along the road. Give me some time here. 😀
Ah, the Catholic Magic Thinking must hold Mary sinless so she is a fitting ‘wife to God’; Catholicism teaches , albeit indirectly, that God inseminated Mary’s Ovum, in her uterus, which then became her womb, and she remained the wife of god, making her at least a demi-goddess who answers prayers for Catholics. ALL THAT must have her sinless, by Catholic reasoning —not by scripture, mind you, but by Catholic reasoning which fabricates tradition of the Catholic Church.
Doesn’t The Bible call Jesus ‘the Last Adam’?
Rumor has it, that some people think Mary is the second Eve. I am NOT one of them, but I hear some people actually believe that, though I have no idea what they base it on.
Perfect characterization! ... I’m usin’ that one!
LOL. Good one. 😄 Is that Greek? 😆
Good question, Elsie, and thanks for asking. It's Semitic hyperbole, and it's a striking feature of Jesus' rhetorical style.
Examples of this would be, for instance, where Jesus said that you must hate your father and mother, your brothers and sisters, your wife and children, and your own life, or you are not worthy of Him.
We know this is hyperbole because subsequently everybody's told to love one another, and nobody is ever praised for being a "real good hater" and despising all their loved ones.
Another example is where Jesus says that if your hand or foot or any part of you causes you to sin, you should cut it off and throw it away.
We know this is hyperbole because nobody is subsequently told to maim themselves, this never forms part of church legislation, eventually even judicial maiming is forbidden in Christian law and culture (unlike in Islamic law --- shari’a --- where the maiming of offenders is not forbidden, but commended and even required to this day.)
By contrast, Christian philosophy doesn’t praise anybody for being a "real good maimer." In fact I think it was Tertullian who took this "cut it off" thing literally and castrated himself. For this and other reasons he was regarded by the Church as having fallen into heresy.
Same goes for "Call no man teacher" and "Call no man master," also part of the very same Scripture which we’re discussing. Nobody, not even you, observes this as a literal binding prohibition. What we're being warned against, is putting anybody up as a rival to the Messiah's authority.
Interestingly, in the 23 books of the NT which follow after the 4 Gospels, nobody is apparently at all constrained from calling someone "father," "master" or "teacher." It happens dozens of times. There was no problem. Paul, Stephen, John and other NT leaders called people fathers and masters and teachers, and were called so themselves. Again I say, no problem.
I have a good deal of contact with the Protestant/Evangelical community since I have worked for decades with these brothers and sisters – good people from many Biblically-literate and faithful Christian denominations --- in the pro-life movement. I have never run into anybody who found it morally objectionable to call someone “father” “master,” or “teacher.”
I have found this objection only on the FR Religion Form, and even here only from a very few of the more active polemicists. This leads me to conclude that this point serves mainly as a kind of forum entertainment.
Tagline, my dear Elsie.
Who wouldn't accept Catholic snark
He warned them of God's Saving Grace
So they wouldn't be late
For escaping the unredeemed's fate.
. Perhaps this hasn't dawned on the Catholic.
.
>> “Who taught you that?” <<
The plain word of God.
Were he not subject to all human conditions, he would not have been one of us, thus not our kinsman. He had to actually have overcome before his sacrifice could have any meaning.
It all just blows by you, doesn’t it!
.
.
>> “Your post indicates you avoid answering a LOT of questions.” <<
Your posts indicate that you make a lot of false statements.
.
.
Fools that call Yehova’s called servants “con men” don’t have real souls.
.
.
You miss everything, and that includes what logic really is.
Your posts are like a toy chihuahua’s bites.
.
.
So far 29 Hebrew manuscripts of the true Gospel of Matthew have been produced.
Truth would be your friend.
Your hip-shots have missed every time, but you just keep trying, just like the chihuahua.
.
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.