Posted on 06/13/2018 7:22:36 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
When Catholics call Mary the "Blessed Virgin," they mean she remained a virgin throughout her life. When Protestants refer to Mary as "virgin," they mean she was a virgin only until Jesus’ birth. They believe that she and Joseph later had children whom Scripture refers to as "the brethren of the Lord." The disagreement arises over biblical verses that use the terms "brethren," "brother," and "sister."
There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).
When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).
Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.com ...
I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name.
On Christ the solid ROCK I stand. All other ground is sinking sand.
I think it's a shame how some people think Jesus is not enough but they have to trust in someone or something else. Like this hymn says, ALL other ground is sinking sand and less - even those that seem sweet.
30 The reassuring μῆ φοβοῦ, “do not fear,” is found in Judg 6:24, in Dan 10:12, in the Zechariah parallel (Luke 1:13), and often in divine visitations (cf. at 1:13). “To find grace” is a frequent OT idiom (Gen 6:8; 18:3; 30:27; Judg 6:17; etc). The usage here echoes Judg 6:17 (and cf. also Gen 18:4 where additional parallels between v 10 and Luke 1:31, v 12 and Luke 1:34 culminate in the allusion to v 14 in Luke 1:37 [Allard, NRT 78 (1956) 730]), but since we have here in Luke a heavenly affirmation of the divine favor, there is probably also a connection with the one place where this happens in the OT, viz. in the case of Moses (Exod 32:12, 17; in narrative it is also said that Noah found grace with God [Gen 6:8]). The allusion is not, in any case, to the language of the Septuagint. In biblical idiom מצא חן, mās̥ā˒ h̥ēn, (“find favor/grace”), is the passive form for נתן חן, nātan h̥ēn, (“to extend favor/ grace to”), and is the result of a magnanimous act of a superior (cf. Cambe, RB 70 [1963] 196 n. 7) as an expression of favor to an inferior, sometimes, as here, in connection with the bestowal of a distinguished role.
Nolland, J. (2002). Luke 1:1–9:20 (Vol. 35A, p. 51). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
One of my favorite hymns.
One of my favorite hymns.
I’ll be more specific, I said “hail.” You said “greeting.” Pretty much the same but why is “hail”an incorrect translation?
Hail, full of grace,....
As noted, it is more properly rendered as Greetings, you favored with grace.
Rome has taken great liberties in their "understanding" of this passage...none of which is supported by the Greek.
What support do you have that Jerome’s translation from early Greek to Latin was incorrect?
In addition to what was posted.
charitoó: to make graceful, endow with grace
Original Word: χαριτόω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: charitoó
Phonetic Spelling: (khar-ee-to'-o)
Short Definition: I favor, bestow freely on
Definition: I favor, bestow freely on.
Cognate: 5487 xaritóō (from 5486 /xárisma, "grace," see there) – properly, highly-favored because receptive to God's grace. 5487 (xaritóō) is used twice in the NT (Lk 1:28 and Eph 1:6), both times of God extending Himself to freely bestow grace (favor).
Luke 1:28. χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη: ave plena gratiâ, Vulg[4], on which Farrar (C. G. T.) comments: “not gratiâ plena, but gratiâ cumulata”; much graced or favoured by God.—χαριτόω is Hellenistic, and is found, besides here, only in Ephesians 1:6 in N. T.—ὁ Κύριος μετὰ σοῦ, the Lord (Jehovah) is or be with thee, ἐστί or ἔστω understood; the two renderings come practically to the same thing. [4] Vulgate (Jerome’s revision of old Latin version).
8. highly favoured] marg. “graciously accepted” or “much graced.” Literally, having been graced (by God). Ephesians 1:6, “accepted.” Not as in the Vulgate “Gratiâ plena” but “gratiâ cumulata.” “Not a mother of grace, but a daughter.” Bengel.
Pulpit Commentary Verse 28. - Hail, thou that art highly favored. The plena gratia of the Vulgate, said and sung so often in the virgin's famous hymn, is an inaccurate rendering. Rather, "gratia cumulata," as it has been well rendered. "Having been much graced (by God)" is the literal translation of the Greek word. Blessed art thou among women. These words must be struck out; they do not exist in the older authorities.
Vincent's Word Studies Thou that art highly favored (κεχαριτωμένη) Lit., as Rev. in margin, endued with grace. Only here and Ephesians 1:6. The rendering full of grace, Vulgate, Wyc., and Tynd., is therefore wrong. All the best texts omit blessed art thou among women.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (28) Highly favoured.—The verb is the same as that which is translated, “hath made us accepted “in Ephesians 1:6; and, on the whole, this, which is expressed in one of the marginal readings, seems the truest. The plena gratiâ of the Vulgate has no warrant in the meaning of the word.
Source: biblehub.com
24And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. Matt 1:24-25 NASB
Rome has tried to argue that until doesn't mean until.
In a review of the Greek word in question, ἕως, depending upon the context of the word, it does indeed mean up to a certain point.
The other key Greek word in the passage is ἐγίνωσκεν. It is from the same verb that Luke used to record Mary's reply to Gabriel.
ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω
since a man not I know Luke 1:28
1097 ginṓskō – properly, to know, especially through personal experience (first-hand acquaintance). 1097 /ginṓskō ("experientially know") is used for example in Lk 1:34, "And Mary [a virgin] said to the angel, 'How will this be since I do not know (1097 /ginṓskō = sexual intimacy) a man?'"http://biblehub.com/greek/1097.htm
When the two passages are read in context it is clear that Joseph and Mary did not have sex prior to the birth of Jesus.
Afterwards...they consummated the marriage in a normal manner as all couples do. This resulted in His brothers and sisters.
The only way to come to any other conclusion is to ignore the plain meaning of the texts in question.
All of these refuge the RC position based on man derived tradition.
. If you want to argue the immaculate conception I can show you where again the vulgate is in error by the Catholic encyclopedia.
It will also show you where there is no scripture support for the IC.
I can also show you using the same source where the ECFs are in contradiction.
The RCC position is flawed and full of error.
Is Bible Hub your source exclusively? I prefer the Ignatius Bible edited by Scott Hahn.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Hahn
I also recommend Dr. David Anders’ Call to Communion on EWTN. He’s also live on Facebook. Both Dr. Scott and Dr. Anders received their doctorates when they were Protestants and converted to the Catholic faith.
What are EFCs. You have I believe, cut and pasted from Bible Hub. I’m reading Mere Christianity. You and I are both Christians. That’s our common ground.
No, but it is a good one.
My sources included the Word Bible Commentary and the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and the Catholic Encyclopedia online.
I also provided you with the Greek definitions of the words in question.
Rome for some reason seems to ignore those.
The vast majority of Rome's position on the Immaculate Conception and perpetual virginity of Mary is based on two bad translations found in the Vulgate.
As I noted on another post, but I will quote again from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the Immaculate Conception. ]Bolded emphasis and paragraph split are mine for clarity.]
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture. But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15).
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/
If one of Roman Catholic's own sources admits the translation of Genesis 3:15, one of the primary verses upon which the Immaculate Conception is founded, cannot be defended critically, then I would call into question the rest of the Vulgate and the Roman Catholic position on this issue
If you read the entire article on how the Immaculate Conception came to be it is very eye-opening.
It is not grounded in Scripture.
Nor can Rome cannot appeal to the "unanimous" consent of the Early Church Fathers on this issue.
The only appeal they really have is "it seems like" and "it should be".
This was not a teaching that was "handed down" by the Apostles. That is clear.
What are EFCs?
opps...typo. Should be ECFs.... Early Church Fathers.
You and I are both Christians. That’s our common ground.
Not per official Roman Catholic doctrine we're not.
I do not subject myself to the pope nor do I believe the dogmas Rome says are necessary for salvation....such as the Immaculate Conception, the perpertual virginity, etc. I do not believe the Roman Catholic Mass is grounded in Scripture either.
I believe we come to Christ through faith in Him and only Him (Rms 10:9-13; Ephesians 2:8-9). Only His shed blood cleanses us from all of our sin and the sacrifice of the Cross was a one time event not to be repeated.
I believe we do not lose our salvation as we are sealed by the Holy Spirit (John 10:27-30; Ephesians 1:13-14).
I believe that only Christ is our Redeemer (Romans 3:23-24, Colossians 1:13-14) and our only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5).
I believe the Bible is the only source of truth for us as it is the only inspired writings we have.
“Not per official Roman Catholic doctrine we’re not.“
My last post then. God bless.
My last post then. God bless.
Your issue seems to be with Rome in that case.
“That you cannot prove it should be of a serious concern to you.”
Talking to the majority of protestants is like talking to a wall. The innate hatred of all things Catholic prevents closes their mind to the obvious. There were no Bibles at one time and if they were most people didn’t know how to read. The only way for people to learn of God was through others telling them stories. Anyone that can’t understand that basic fact I feel sorry for them. Blind hatred of the Catholic Church, the One, True, Apostolic Church, is the only reason.
Biblehub.com
What does any of that have to do with the content of post 71 to which you are replying?
Relating things to another person verbally is either preaching or teaching.
It is not by default “oral tradition”.
Scripture was indeed around and recognized as such at the time of the apostles. That it wasn’t compiled into a handy compendium is totally irrelevant.
Nor can anyone prove that “most” of the people in those days were illiterate.
As far as the charge of hatred, well, projection is very enlightening. It tells one a lot about what’s in the heart of another.
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.