Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Look up the Greek.
I have not found an online translator that will translate "Protokos," can you suggest one? Aside from that, does it escape you that to translate from Aramaic into ancient Greek and then into English, the potential to misconstrue words? From the moment of His birth, Christ was "firstborn" that does not presume further children. And again I ask, if this was so obvious, why was it "overlooked" for more than fifteen hundred years? And to take it a step further, in what precise way would the Blessed Virgin's perpetual virginity impeed your anti-Catholic beliefs? You can deny the Immaculate Conception and Assumption without denying perpetual virginity, same with Papal Infallibility, etc.
Yet most times a name is given, the mother turns out someone other than Mary. That is because the word "brother" and "sister" is used expansively, either as spiritual brothers or as kinsfolk. Jesus called "firstborn."
As a legal term. He is fuirstborn, regardless of siblings.
the force of a conjunction
whatever the grammatical category, it does not speak to the issue of marital relations after Christ was born.
Your reading of the Scripture is possible. It is however, not the only one possible, and yours happens to be heretical. Deal with it.
What a nice Christian attitude you have there.
Good day to you too annalex.
*Ok, I'm gonna try my hand at this sola scriptura stuff. Unguided by the Church who wrote and canonised the New Testament, I will take a look at this Scripture and explain its obvious meaing...
And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace.
*Ok, it is obvious what Scripture is telling us. Other than a Father, who refers to a young woman as "daughter?" We read in the Scriptures the woman had an issue of blood for twelves years. IOW, she prolly just started mensturating. "Twelve" is, obviously a reference to when she began her period, because "for" can also mean "since" accrd to some scholars.
Prolly, Jesus had a daughter out of wedlock and she was having a tough time with mensturation etc. but she didn't want to embarass Him publicly by identifying Him as her Father, and thereby jeopardising His Ministry, so she just touched His garment...
And, young women were supposd to stay outsiedde the camp when mensturating etc
Hey, that was easy. And fun, and iconoclastic...
What? You say that means that Jesus was a sinner? Well, whatever. It is there in Scripture and trying to deny the obvious is just foolish.
Besides, scholars of today know FAR more than the poorly educated, superstitious, women-hating Church back then... (name one of them who had a College Degree?..or Access to Strong's Dictionary)
Anyways,so what would it matter if Jesus had a daughter? It doesn't specifically say He fathered a child out of wedlock anyways. Prolly, He had maried (Magadalen?) secretly and exchanged vows quietly...In any event, Fathering a daughter was quite common for religious men of his age - even if he, or they, had sinned or not. Children were valuable and they were useful to care for you when you got old..
Besides, whether He was married or not, Jesus had a Daughter, obviously, He identifed her as such and yet He still died for our sins and God still accepted His Sacrifice and we are still Saved.
What is the big deal?
Let's just unite around that essential and agree to disagree about all of these nettlesome, and, face-it, inconsequential inessentials. They only separate us and make for long arguements...
I know Protestants who are raving about this movie, who are scheduling group outings to go see it. My Catholic relatives have no interest in seeing it.
Yea, I got it.
Good bye.
I find it almost comical after rereading what you wrote to me in posts 2150, 2165 and 2167 (I'm sure there are plenty more, but those three are freshest in my memory) that you have the audacity to accuse annalex of not displaying a Christian attitude.
Regards
14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
-- 2 Peter 3:14-17
btt
WHAT???!!! You mean people can misunderstand the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit doesn't move every Christian to understand everything? Amazing stuff!!!
Yes, incorrect Scripture interpretation LEADS TO DESTRUCTION! I wonder where one can get correct interpretation???
Thank God for His Church!
I think, for the sake of Advent spirituality, it is time for this Catholic to exit stage left. What about you?
Regards
Nuts. This thread is going to go round in circles for another 10,000 posts..
I am more than happy to discuss this with anyone Catholic or not. But, like you, I am growing tired of constantly debating with those who despise the Church and have no regard for Her teachings.
Romans...Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them
Titus...A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
*The plain fact is nobody has cited these scriptures against you, so far.
I think folks have extended to you an amasing amount of patience and generosity of time. They have dug as deeply as they can to try and set you right about the Perpetual Virgintiy of Mary. And yet, you seem unshaken in the face of evidence your ideas are not seriously at variance with the heresy of Nestorius, among others.
Consider thanking those who have taken the time to share with youi their Faith and expertise.
I think they have done a great job and they make me happy I am their brother in Christ.
BTTT!
I agree. No logical argument will convince such people otherwise. After a certain point, it becomes an exercise in futility - and I have found - negatively effects my spirituality. Thus, even Jesus walked away from those who chose to reject Him.
Regards
Thank you borncatholic. I shall take Scripture's advice then and ignore you and your ilk. Good day.
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.