Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
It's this kind of nonsense that comes out of beliefs based on sola scriptura heresy, imo, taken out of context of the historical, geographic, cultural and lignuistic setting of the Gospels, and misinterpreted in the present-day mindset and New World culture, based on a translation of a translation.
In fact, the Serbian language doesn't even have a word for a "first cousin."
But fortunately for we bible believers, the Greek language knows the difference between a brother and a cousin...And the Apostles knew it as well...
G80
ἀδελφός
adelphos
ad-el-fos'
From G1 (as a connective particle) and δελφύς delphus (the womb); a brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like [H1]): - brother.
G4773
συγγενής
suggenēs
soong-ghen-ace'
From G4862 and G1085; a relative (by blood); by extension a fellow countryman: - cousin, kin (-sfolk, -sman).
Don't you just hate it when the 'Greek proves the bible right???
So much for your history lesson...
Evidently it doesn't know the difference between a nephew and a brother, though, because Abraham calls Lot his "brother" in the Genesis of the Greek Septuagint just like he does in the Hebrew ... but we later find out that Lot is really his brother's son.
And it evidently doesn't know the difference between "brother" and "half-brother," because the Gospels call Philip the Tetrarch Herod's "brother," while secular history records that he was really Herod's half-brother.
And since it doesn't know the difference between brother and half-brother, how do you know that Jesus' "brothers" weren't children of Joseph's from an earlier marriage?*
I mean, until you find that elusive verse that calls them "sons of Mary". You are going to find that verse for us, aren't you?
(*In fact, the parentage of some of Jesus' "brothers" is identified in Scripture for us already. James the Less and Joses are identified as "brothers of the Lord" and their parentage is specified ... and they aren't sons of Mary and Joseph.)
This is very bad anthropology, because it equates sin with human nature. Sin degrades and dehumanizes human nature; it does not define it. When we sin, we don't "become human" or "become more human," we become, strictly speaking, less than human, and closer to the animal.
Looks like a 'goddess' to me...
35. But the Blessed Virgin Mary should be called Queen, not only because of her Divine Motherhood, but also because God has willed her to have an exceptional role in the work of our eternal salvation.
38. From these considerations, the proof develops on these lines: if Mary, in taking an active part in the work of salvation, was, by God's design, associated with Jesus Christ, the source of salvation itself, in a manner comparable to that in which Eve was associated with Adam, the source of death, so that it may be stated that the work of our salvation was accomplished by a kind of "recapitulation,"[49] in which a virgin was instrumental in the salvation of the human race, just as a virgin had been closely associated with its death; if, moreover, it can likewise be stated that this glorious Lady had been chosen Mother of Christ "in order that she might become a partner in the redemption of the human race";
What a cock and bull story...This piece is cleary designed to 'sell' the queen of heaven myth to the folks that don't read the bible...
I think not in ANY way.
Well I don't...And I also don't know if Mary preferred Pistaccio ice cream over Rocky Road...
Is that really your argument???
Not mine, but the Bible. Romans 3:23.
We'll just have to disagree. :-)
Still waiting for that Bible verse that calls anyone other than Jesus a "son of Mary" or "daughter of Mary".
Still waiting ... waiting ... waiting ...
Please know that you are doing right by your daughters by telling them "no". Believe me, I have seen far too many parents let the crying get the children their way. By giving into the crying they are actually harming the kid instead of helping him to learn. Such children grow up miserable because their parents, by not exerting external controls while the children were young, never taught them how to develop internal controls.
Sorry to hear your little ones are sick. It's no picnic.
Otherwise, none of us would be here. :0
While I know that it is right it doesn't make it easier on me right now. I keep telling hubby that we will be glad we did when they are thirteen and older, they're now three and 20 months. Still, making those tough calls which is necessary because of Original Sin, is harder on me than labor. And that's how I read Genesis.
On the other hand, I know that they find security in boundaries.
forgot to add...thank you for the cybersupport. In the day of the overindulgent parent, I often feel alone and like the big bad guy...I appreciate your words of encouragement.
It is *accidentally* temporary, not *essentially* temporary. It is *accidentally* temporary because typically one or the other spouse is subject to temptation. But for those not subject to such temptation, abstinence need not be temporary, otherwise a married couple would be obligated to engage in sexual intercourse long after both spouses had, on account of advanced age or some other condition, ceased to have a desire for sexual intercourse. And therefore, since Mary and Joseph were not in such a state as to be subject to this sort of temptation, they could, without any sinfulness, or injustice toward one another, abstain from sexual intercourse permanently.
-A8
I wonder what John, Peter, Paul or even Mary would have thought if someone had said, "Say, Virgin Mary. I heard how Jesus just popped out of you without destroying your virginity like light passing through glass. Must have been a big surprise on your hubby." They'd be laughed out of the Jerusalem Council.
Honestly, people come up with the wackiest idea based upon nothing more than some medieval superstition nonsense that was probably though up by some little monk who had too much time on his hands. Everyone just sat around saying, "Ooooohhhh, Friar Bob. We think you're on to something." The trouble is you would think we'd be clever enough by now to understand.
Even Christ was tempted by Satan. Even if we agree that Mary and Joseph abstained, why should we believe that they were not subject to sexual temptation?
You are most welcome. I remember those days well. Hang in there. It gets much worse later. :-)
They are such darlings, though, at that age, aren't they? I have fond memories of their delight in learning about the world, their sense of wonder.
My children were also close in age. They are now 34, 32, 30, and 28. (Yes, I was on the 2-year plan. ;-)
So the fact that Jesus was tempted [externally] does not nullify my previous point about permanent abstinence during marriage being permissible when neither spouse is subject to temptation, because there I was talking about *internal* temptation. And Mary did not have any disordered desires, and Joseph likewise, presumably at least did not have disordered sexual desires.
-A8
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.