Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
John Calvin (Sermon on Matthew)
"There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company... And besides this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second."Now that's one thing I can agree with Calvin about....
You're making it harder than it is ...
Because His brothers weren't there (at the crucifixion) ... they didn't believe in Him ... John did, and he was there.
But He gives custody of their mother to someone else? What? That would be a major insult in those times and not something a believing Jew like Jesus would do.
The Eldest Son takes care of the mother, then the next eldest son, etc. then the daughters -- in order. To bypass this is not something Jesus would do. Ergo, he had no other brothers or sister by Mary.
Thanks for this great post, Narses. It clearly illustrates how these brothers, as quoted in Scripture and posted in the above article, were not children given birth by the Virgin Mary. It really shows how the word "brother" can mean something different than how the word is commonly today - at least by English speakers in America.
Let's hope this article is not ignored.
His ... brothers ... were ... not ... there.
Jesus gave John the job because His brothers were not there, Jesus was the oldest, it was His responsibility to ensure His mother was cared for. He chose someone He trusted, someone who believed in Him, someone who was there ... that was John.
Of course, that's speculation just like what you posted. And personally, speculation isn't squat when it comes to Scriptures. Isn't it those who don't agree with the Catholic Church that are always talking about never adding to Scriptures? Then why should your speculations be any different?
No offense, but they're not, your speculations are simply "comfort food" for your preconceptions and nothing more. I have a lot more reason to believe what has been handed down as oral tradition for over two thousand years from those who personally knew both Christ and Mary than I have to believe anything those who decided to leave the Church Christ founded several hundred years ago have to say.
Regards
Now you are prefacing your typology ... and you are equating tabernacle and ark ...
My jaw remains open in observing your interpretation of Ezekiel 44, what kind of special sauce you are applying here?
If you were to bother to continue in Ez 44, you would read ...
3 As for the prince, he shall sit in it as prince to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the porch of the gate and shall go out by the same way.
If I was to apply the same hermeneutic as you suggest, I would be forced to claim that the prince got in after the gate was shut via the porch; which imples Mary DID have intercourse after giving birth to Jesus.
You see how silly this interpretation is? ... Doesn't it makes sense that Ezekiel is not talking about Marys body here, but rather an actual gate, an actual porch, an actual temple?
You are making, what should be, straightforward Biblical interpretation much harder than it is. Typology run amuck.
See my post #24.
Perhaps so, but your speculations are an integral part of your doctrine. You REQUIRE your speculations to be so or your theology crumbles. If Mary had other children your Maryology goes up in smoke. If Mary didn't have other children, my theology changes naught.
The continued use of that inflammatory phrase suggests that constructive dialog is not your goal. Am I wrong? If so what exactly is your purpose for its repeated use?
i dont see any scriptures in posting 24,therefore i must conclude that you hve no scriptural basis for your beliefs
Scriptural Exclusivity, the doctrine that the only source of the revealed Word is contained in the canon of Scripture is a modern theological construct that goes way beyond the argument of the Reformation of Scriptural Sufficiency. I don't hold to it and do not believe that I am obligated to support all Catholic doctrine exclusively from Scripture.
There has been ample Scriptural argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary posted throughout these threads, but even conceding that the Holy Scripture is ambiguous on this issue, the Holy Tradition holds that Mary was otherwise childless and that is good enough for me.
Now go in peace to love and serve the Lord.
There's no controversy to it...Mary had other children...
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
This doesn't border on absurd, it is absurd...
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.
Adelphos means BROTHER, near or far...It doesn not mean cousin...It does not mean kin...It does not mean relative...There are specific Greek words for those terms...
ἀδελφή
adelphē
ad-el-fay'
Feminine of G80; a sister (natural or ecclesiastical): - sister.
Adelphe means sister...It does not mean cousin...It does not mean kin...It does not mean relative...
In the contexts of the scriptures that the opposition (to the scripture) cites, the context is always brother, not cousin...Whether it's a natural brother, a brother Jew, a brother in Jesus Christ, a brother as in the seed of Abraham, it's aways brother...Cousin wouldn't even work in most of their mis-interpretations...
Just throw their invalid perversion out with the dirty bathwater and thank God he gave us His words to believe...
There's no controversy to it...Mary had other children...
In Greek, the word for brother is adelphos and sister is adelphe. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
This doesn't border on absurd, it is absurd...
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.
Adelphos means BROTHER, near or far...It doesn not mean cousin...It does not mean kin...It does not mean relative...There are specific Greek words for those terms...
ἀδελφή
adelphē
ad-el-fay'
Feminine of G80; a sister (natural or ecclesiastical): - sister.
Adelphe means sister...It does not mean cousin...It does not mean kin...It does not mean relative...
In the contexts of the scriptures that the opposition (to the scripture) cites, the context is always brother, not cousin...Whether it's a natural brother, a brother Jew, a brother in Jesus Christ, a brother as in the seed of Abraham, it's aways brother...Cousin wouldn't even work in most of their mis-interpretations...
Just throw their invalid perversion out with the dirty bathwater and thank God he gave us His words to believe...And I say that with love, of course...
Notice the perfect tense. “I do not know man” means I will not be having sexual intimacy today, tomorrow or any time in the future.
34 “How can this be,” asked Miryam of the angel,
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
NAsbU Luke 1:34 Mary said to the angel,
Never use Eisegesis on the Holy WORD.
"How can this be,
since I am a virgin?"
“since I am a virgin?”
35 The angel answered her,
“The Ruach HaKodesh will come over you,
the power of Ha‛Elyon will cover you.
Therefore the holy child born to you
will be called the Son of God.
Stern, D. H. (1989). Jewish New Testament : A translation of the New Testament that expresses its Jewishness (1st ed.) (Lk 1:34-35). Jerusalem, Israel; Clarksville, Md., USA: Jewish New Testament Publications.
What? They don't need no scripture...
There's about 30 Greek Lexicons out there...Which one is the original???
Because they disagree with each other in far too many places...So we are left with a choice...Believe the inspired words of God, or believe your religion...That's easy for me...God always wins...
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.