Essays for Lent: Mary Ever-Virgin

StayCatholic.com ^ | 200 | Sebastian R. Fama

[Quix]

WELL PUT

AND

WELL DOCUMENTED

as usual.

Thx. Thx.

[CynicalBear]

Wow! Great work!

[CynicalBear]

Just a few words as comment. Tortured, twisted, and painful attempts to make scripture mean what the CC wants it too.

[count-your-change]

The redefinition of common words has been the basis of fitting major Catholic doctrine into the Scriptures instead of drawing an understanding from the Scriptures.

An example is the meaning attached to the common English word “begotten” or “to beget”, in other words “create”. And so the term “begotten” is dropped entirely from John 1:18 in the NAB though “begotten” appears in the Greek.
In a footnote it is explained that the incorrect reading “Son” was used along with “God” or “god” to show a filial relationship.

Thus the Catholic scholars who produced this translation of John 1:18 acknowledge their translation is incorrect yet include it in the text as though it is part of Scripture.
Why? Because it thus seems to support Catholic doctrine.

[caww]

That is a good work Daniell....just one thing...why is it catholics ‘want’ Mary to be elevated above what scriptures depict?

Their devotion and celebration of her is beyond what I see they give the Lord Jesus...and this is obvious to most who view all the statues, paintings, and my gosh the parades where they even put money on the statue of her....which remiinds me of pagans who celebrate before their statues... etc. of Mary.....she’s everywhere!

But why do they do this? Anyone who has a true understanding of who God is knows He doesn’t have a mother.....so it’s truly amazing she is such a Goddess to them.

[Salvation]

But you, as well as other members of other denominations would agree with me, that the original Bible and translations came from the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you?

Catholics have not twisted words here. I maintain that the REformation tried to REformat the meanings of some of the Gospels and other Scripture.

This REprocessing of the original facts of the original Bible don’t hold water for me. It would seem that you have a leaky sieve, right, and all Scripture is selectively sieved?

[Salvation]

Were you most concerned with these two sections of all of that?

IV. Mary is Ever Virgin

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the "first-born" son of Mary. But "first-born" is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the "first-born" son had to be sanctified. "First-born" status does not require a "second" born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as "the" son of Mary, not "a" son of Mary. Also "brothers" could have theoretically been Joseph's children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger "brothers" were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as "the other Mary."

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the "brothers" of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus' cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of "Alpheus." This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

V. Jesus' "Brothers" (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary's kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as "cousin," but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for "cousin."

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his "brethren." In this case, we clearly see Jesus using "brethren" to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus' "brothers" amounts to about 120. That is a lot of "brothers." Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where "brethren" does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses "brethren" and "kinsmen" interchangeably. "Brothers" of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham's nephew ("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham's brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is "anepsios," Scripture also uses "adelphos" to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is "brother" even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -"brethren" means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin."

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that "brethren" can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah's 42 "brethren" were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar's daughters married their "brethren" who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of "brothers" meaning "cousins" or "kinsmen."

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him "brother."

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 

[caww]

Yes, Daniell always does good work and appreciated, his web site is a treasure if you haven’t been there yet. Chocked full of good information.

[caww]

from the article:

If Jesus had brothers and sisters, why did He entrust the care of His mother to the Apostle John?

Easy, maybe becuase his sisters and brothers didn't believe in him.

I came from a family who didn't know the Lord....in my will while they were youngsters, if anything were to happen to me I did not leave the care of my children to family members, I appointed a Christian family to raise the.

So I have no problem with Jesus 's words to Mary and John....that they be family to one another.....because the family blood line we now have is in Christ....thus the "family of God"

[caww]

From the article....”But what about the verses that speak about the brothers and sisters of Jesus?..... For instance, Matthew 13:55-56: “Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother named Mary, and His ‘brothers’ James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Are not His ‘sisters’ all with us?” .....Could Matthew be referring to Jesus’ cousins?”

Ha! Well it’s quite clear Jesus’s brothers and sisters were among them...to pull anything other then the clear meaning of this is way more than a stretch.....but common for those who use scripture to justify false teachings.

The whole point was they knew the family ,and the simple carpenter they knew didn’t meet the expectations of the “king” they imagined as the Messiah who would come...and surely wouldn’t be from the common ordinary folk they knew.

Distorting the word is a hallmark of false teachings....this is a prime example of trying to get scripture to support a teaching when it clearly does not do so by even a stretch.

[johngrace]

Hi Daniel_ I am going to church but one of many things. Jesus is sinless.

When you have a quote this can mean Christ in the Psalm 69.

5 You, God, know my folly;

MY GUILT is not hidden from you.

6 Lord, the LORD Almighty,

may those who hope in you not be disgraced because of me;

may those who seek you not be put to shame because of me.

7 For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face.

8 I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children;

9 for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

"MY GUILT IS NOT HIDDEN"

THis was used for this.

5 You, God, know my folly; my guilt is not hidden from you. 6 Lord, the LORD Almighty, may those who hope in you not be disgraced because of me; God of Israel, may those who seek you not be put to shame because of me. 7 For I endure scorn for your sake, and shame covers my face. 8 I am a foreigner to my own family, a stranger to my own mother’s children; 9 for zeal for your house consumes me, and the insults of those who insult you fall on me.

Of Course. WE know HE is Not a Sinner.

"a stranger to my own mother’s children;"

This is being used to say other children.

Everybody Read carefully what is presented examine it for real. Anybody can present nice neat words. But always examine.

I found this a lot about the Early Church Fathers go to the original words. Watch ourselves.

[CynicalBear]

>> But you, as well as other members of other denominations would agree with me, that the original Bible and translations came from the Catholic Church, wouldn’t you?<<

And Obama and the Federal government follow the original constitution right? Don’t give me that nonsense about the Catholic Church staying true to original scripture. It doesn’t hold up any more. The Israelites are the original people of God yet the Catholic Church says they no longer are treated as God’s chosen people so the old “we are the originals” obviously isn’t something the CC really holds to either. All of those “we are the original” and “the church Christ instituted” is folly when it’s obvious that over time people fall away from whatever it was that originally formed the belief system and the CC is one prime example as is the current Federal Government example.

[Salvation]

Are you forgetting that there are 22 Catholic Churches? Not just the Roman Catholic Church?

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Salvation]

[CynicalBear]

Nice try. Slight of hand and obfuscation works with many. There is a fundamental problem however with the Catholic Church. They disagree with scripture. For instance: Matthew 2:2 "Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? When has Jesus been “king of the Jews” according to the CC? Doesn’t the CC believe that the Jews are no longer God’s chosen people?

If the Catholic Church brought us the Bible claim it was only they who are responsible why do they not clarify? Then there are those Catholics that claim scripture contains errors. Why would the CC perpetuate a collection of books that contain errors?

[daniel1212]

Indeed “anybody can present nice neat words,” and indeed you should “always examine,” and thus we need to watch ourselves before we or you jump to conclusions.

For as you should know, a Messianic verse is not determined by whether all of the context is about Christ, and the very Psalm you disallow as having Messianic text is quoted from by the Holy Spirit as such more than once, even if some RCs think they knew better.

See right after the text at issue where it says,

“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother’s children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. “ (Psalms 69:8-9)

And which is just what the Holy spirit in Jn. 2:17 states:

“And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up. “ (John 2:17; cf. Rm. 15:3)

And there are more, for if Ps. 69:5 disallows v. 8 from speaking of Christ, as some reactionary Romans rule, then it would follow that Ps. 69:4 (They that hate me without a cause..) which is referenced in Jn. 15:25 cannot be either. And the same gospel that invokes Ps. 69:9 in applying it to Christ, also records that “His own received Him not,” “neither did His own brethren believe in Him.” (Jn. 1:11; 7:5)

In addition, while Catholics lack the extensive Scripture commentaries of evangelicals, the conservative Catholic Haydock commentary applies Ps. 69:8 to Christ as well, if not to His own siblings:

“Ver. 9. Mother. This might be true with respect to some apostate Jews. But it was more fully accomplished in Christ, who was betrayed by Judas, &c. (Calmet) -— His own received him not, John i. (Berthier)” haydock1859.tripod.com/id793.html

Also, contrary to your rule, Ps. 41:9 (“Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me”) which is confirmed (Jn. 13:18) to be prophetic of Christ, is nor disallowed as being such by v. 4 which states, “I said, LORD, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.”

But the reason Ps. 69:8 is disallowed as being prophetic of Christ is that “my mother’s children” is another example in which the most straight forward denotation would be the siblings of the subject.

[Salvation]

The Jews were and still are, in my opinion, the chosen people. At this point in time, though, the Gentiles have outnumbered them to a great extent.

The “King of the Jews (I.N.R.I,( Jesus of Nazareth, King of Jews is biblical. Written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin.....hope I’m right there.

Remember, in one of the Gospel readings someone objects to that moniker by saying “He says he is the King of the Jews.)

[CynicalBear]

It was the wise men in Matthew 2 that called Him the “king of the Jews”. You don’t believe Jesus was the ruler prophesied in MICAH 5.2?

[ForAmerica]

Quite a bit, obviously. You also might want to familiarize yourself with the teachings of Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, amongst many others, who believed in and taught of the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Um, it's not obvious, if it was there would not be a debate, I'm not sure what Calvin, Luther or anyone else have to do with this, but I have to go with the scriptures and not with tradition! Exegetically the perpetually virginity of Mary is not in the scriptures, maybe I missed something, chapter and verse please?

[daniel1212]

I myself gave the link, as well as one to my responses to the rest so far, and there is no reason to post over 13,000 words from your source, while ha ve salvation also reposts what i posted from the same, as if i never did. Its almost like redundant propaganda is supposed to be convincing.