Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Do you dare to disagree with the Holy Spirit on this matter?
Another listing, inspired by the Holy Spirit, found in the Sacred Scriptures...
Mark 3:31-32
31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Do you dare to disagree with the Holy Spirit on this matter of Jesus having BROTHERS?
Your umbrage is noted.
Your umbrage is noted.
Hebrews 13:4 KJV
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled:
You saw it too!
Now ‘someone’ will complain that only a few words were referred to...
If i may weigh in, that is not the problem, nor does opposing the unqualified use of mother of God equate to a heretical view of Christ, or denies the deity of Christ, but the valid objection is that it is inconsistent with the precise language Scripture to say God has a mother, or brothers, or that God was killed, much less give formal title to such (i.e God Killers). And which does not make the distinction btwn the Son of God and God the Father. But "Mother of God", "Brother of God," "God-killer" most naturally denotes Divinity as having relations who ontologicallt are of the same nature.
Theotokos as God-bearer better denotes Mary was the vehicle of the incarnation, but RCs mostly shun that in preference to Mother of God in their idolatrous quest to glorify her above that which is written, which they manifest that are far more committed to than protecting Mary from being venerated as basically a goddess.
Yet mother of God as a mere technically-allowed title would not be so objectionable were it not a formal title as part of the egregious extrapolation of Catholics in making the humble pious holy mother of the Lord Jesus into
> an almost almighty demigoddess to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to,
> whose [Mary] merits we are saved by,
> who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin,"
> and was bodily assumed into Heaven, which is a fact (unsubstantiated in Scripture or even early Tradition) because the Roman church says it is, and "was elevated to a certain affinity with the Heavenly Father,"
> and whose power now "is all but unlimited,"
> for indeed she "seems to have the same power as God,"
> "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven,"
> so that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse."
> and that ''sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus,"
> for indeed saints have "but one advocate," and that is Mary, who "alone art truly loving and solicitous for our salvation,"
> Moreover, "there is no grace which Mary cannot dispose of as her own, which is not given to her for this purpose,"
> and who has "authority over the angels and the blessed in heaven,"
> including "assigning to saints the thrones made vacant by the apostate angels,"
> whom the good angels "unceasingly call out to," greeting her "countless times each day with 'Hail, Mary,' while prostrating themselves before her, begging her as a favour to honour them with one of her requests,"
> and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess,"
> and who is (obviously) the glory of Catholic people, whose "honor and dignity surpass the whole of creation."
Sources and more .
But just as Caths care not that they think of mortals above that which is written, nor can they objectively see such as wrong here or admit it, and even contrive Scripture to say what it does not.
You need to make a distinction btwn being a sinner by nature, which even infants are as manifestly having a fallen Adamic nature with its inherent proclivity to sin, versus being personally culpable of sinning, which they cannot be.
Scripture speaks of children before they "know to refuse the evil, and choose the good," (Isaiah 7:15,16) at which point they may do sinful things but while "sin is not imputed when there is no law" (though Rm. 1 indicts pagans as sinners by disobeying the innate light of the law they knew by nature) and infants are morally incapable of knowing and choosing good from evil on a moral basis (and souls are eternally damned based on what they choose, not their father's), "Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." (Romans 5:13,14)
"Sin is not imputed where there is no law," yet "death reigned from Adam to Moses" because Adam as the federal head of the human race sinned then all are negatively affected by the curse which it incurred, and thus even animals die, and "the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. (Romans 8:22)
And all mankind therefore also has a sinful nature, meaning they are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin when able to know how to make moral choices. That all sin and that death passed upon all men are both a result of Adam's sin. (Rm. 5:12; note also the use of "die" in Rm. 7:9)
Likewise Christ procured forgiveness and salvation for man (which even lost souls benefit from to some temporal degree) but one must choose Him to receive salvation:
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Romans 5:19)
(I say this not to get off on a debate with those who hold that infants and the like are personally guilty of sin), but to show that even under the position of "all" in "all have sinned" not being inclusive, yet all are sinners by nature, and do sinful things even before they are culpable, and later become guilty of sin.
And therefore in the only exception to this then the Holy Spirit makes this obvious, as clearly stating that Christ, "did no sin" (1Pt. 2:22) "knew no sin" (2Co. 5:17) "and in him is no sin' (1 John 3:5) and was "holy, harmless [innocent] separate from sinners, Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins..." (Heb. 7:26) and "Which of you convinceth me of sin?' John 8:46)
And which manner of revealing exceptions to the norm is consistent with what the Holy Spirit does in the rest of Scripture (even as regards minor figures) from excessive age, to excess fingers/toes/height/strength/sins, to a talking donkey, to a special diet, to dedicatory prolonged chaste celibacy after marriage, to virgin birth, to prolonged fasts (and other miracles), to excessive zeal, to absence of genealogy.
All of which (besides making a good bible trivia quiz) testifies to the characteristic carefulness of the Spirit in making know exceptions to the norm, even less notable ones among lesser figures, and to imagine that He would not likewise at least make mention of the sinless state of Mary borders on the absurd.
There is a time when arguments from silence are valid, and this is one. Of course, Catholic traditions such as praying to created beings in Heaven also face inexplicable silence (approx. 200 prayers to god in Heaven versus zero to anyone else by believers), and the alleged sinless state of Mary is also contrary in principal to the manifest faithfulness of the Holy Spirit to at least note extra-ordinary aspects of those He speaks of, however minor they be.
In addition, the premise that a sinless vessel was necessary to bring forth Christ is invalid, as this limits God, and who brought forth His pure words thru holy yet sinful men, and RC theology itself has Mary being preserved from sin (somehow).
Says the church of Rome; which has NEVER let a little fact that the phrase is NOT found in the bible, deter it from using it's 'teaching' power over it's members.
 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.' 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.' |
:-)
You want to know what is really funny, is that even with all their crazy ideas the Mormons are intelligent enough to know that Jesus did begin the Catholic Church with Peter as the first Pope. They just think it went off the rails with the "Great apostasy".
Well score one for the LDS.
Assuming one knows the difference between chess and checkers.
Prove it.
Broad is the road and wide is the way that leads to destruction and many there are who find it.
Lots of people believing something doesn’t make it right or truth or doesn’t mean it’s right or truth.
Truth stands independent of man’s opinions and beliefs.
We all (can) read the same scriptures...There was no vow of perpetual virginity...
which was honored by the Archangel Gabriel,
Oh man...The stuff you guys come up with...And then gullible people believe it even tho the scriptures reject such idea...
Mary was betrothed to be married to Joseph before she was approached by Gabriel...She had no intention of being a virgin after her and Joseph wed...
Mary's virginity had absolutely nothing to do with honor...It was the wedding that protected her honor, not her virginity...A virgin became pregnant for a SIGN...A sign to Israel (Isaiah 7:14)...
and preserved by the miraculous birth of God the Word,
Not only is your contention not supported by the scriptures, it contradicts the scriptures...This is how Jim Jones and David Koresch were successful...'Don't worry about what the bible says, believe ME'...
should be violated by any man,
So young Mary and Joseph meet and become betrothed to each other with the obvious intention of raising a family together...The operation is temporarily interrupted by God...
The scriptures inform us that the normal marriage of Mary and Joseph took place and they raised their family as planned...
and it is sad to see the honor of St. Joseph impugned by ignorant minds.
Mary's honor stayed intact by continuing on with the wedding plans and raising a family...There is nothing in the scriptures that give that twisted view of Mary that deifies her as another one of the forever virgin pagan goddesses of that time and before...
Prove most people in that day couldn’t read.
You keep making a lot of unfounded assertions and expect us to believe you just on your say so.
It ain’t happening.
Show us the basis for your comments otherwise, there’s simply no reason for anyone to believe you.
Where? Chapter and verse.
Also, are you claiming that there was only one man alive at the time by the name of *James* or *Jude*?
The perpetual vow of virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary is no different than that taken by any Carmelite nun. They are called “Brides of Christâ€, the Holy Spirit is their Spouse. She discussed this vow with the Archangel Gabriel at the moment prior to the Incarnation of God the Word, I can’t believe any honest person would miss it. Why is breaking that vow so important in the minds of certain protestants?
There is no Scriptural record of Mary making any vow before God of perpetual virginity.
Why do Catholics think that sex between a woman and her husband is sinful?
If Mary was betrothed to the Holy Spirit, then she would have been committing adultery to be become betrothed to Joseph. That betrothal to Joseph was every bit as legitimate a marriage as any> Joseph considered DIVORCING her when he found out she was pregnant until the angel told him to take her AS HIS WIFE.
HE didn't have any clue about any perpetual vow of virginity or claim of Mary being the *spouse of the Holy Spirit* or he wouldn't have considered such actions and been needed to be stopped by God.
The word for *brothers* in Greek means just that... *brother*, and they are listed BY NAME in the Gospels.
Psalm69:8 I have become a stranger to my brothers, an alien to my mother's sons.
Matthew 1:24-25 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47 "While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, “Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands?... Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
John 2:12 "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
Acts 1:14 "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
1 Corinthians 9:4-5 "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Galatians 1:19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother..
Strong's Concordance
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
adelphos: a brother
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: adelphos
Phonetic Spelling: (ad-el-fos')
Short Definition: a brother
Definition: a brother, member of the same religious community, especially a fellow-Christian.
Here is a link to the occurrences of the Greek word *adelphos*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/80.htm
The word *sister* (adelphe) in the Greek is the same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/79.htm
The word used is *brother* not *cousin*.
It can't mean a member of the same religious community in the context in which they occur, because then that would mean every man in Israel could be identified as Jesus' brother. So that would not identify Jesus as anyone in particular's brother.
It's not going to mean *brother in Christ* as that concept was not yet in place and the Jews, who knew Jesus as a Jew and knew His brothers as Jews, would not even begin to understand the new birth and what being in Christ meant.
They didn't even understand who JESUS was, much less being a *brother in Christ*.
The only definition left then, is to mean physical brother.
And it would not be *cousin*.
The word for *relative* that is used for Elizabeth is *suggenes*, not *adelphe*.
http://biblehub.com/greek/4773.htm
Strong's Concordance
suggenes: akin, a relative
> Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: suggenes
Phonetic Spelling: (soong-ghen-ace')
Short Definition: akin, a relative
Definition: akin to, related; subst: fellow countryman, kinsman.
They knew the difference in those days between immedicte family, brothers and sisters, and extended family, cousins....
Why do Catholics think that sex between a husband and wife is wrong or sinful?
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.