Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
That is long. I will take a look at it. I do think that there will probably be a problem with definitions. Largely that some Protestants (like you) are probably very close to the Catholics in how we view things. Other Protestants are farther away and it is probably those extreme views that I find missing in history. Seriously, debating you is almost completely different than debating with many of the others here.
SD
To be honest, this is not a major issue for me. I think the plain reading of some passages would seem to go against the idea of Mary having only one child. I don't think any of my doctrine rests on Mary having another child. However, the idea expressed by RobbyS, that Mary could not have other children or the Incarnation is void is a bit curious to me and I have a large problem with that.
By the way Dave even though I believe Jesus was refering to his spiritual family at the cross. The above scriptures is Jesus comparing his physical family to his spiritual family. Please address this.
I believe thay are both mentioned as being sons of someone (Zebedee?). The same person. That would imply real brotherhood (at least half brotherhood)
You'll notice that while Jesus is said to have brothers and sisters, no one ever says Mary is their mother. (Joseph might be their father...)
SD
The scripture you started out with is fine. The elaborations needlessly made on them via logic and reason turn them into an inferrance that Mary gave birth to God - which she did not. Which is the target of what I said. Such stupid statements as these are not in the Bible for a reason - chiefly because it isn't true.
I don't think that's an orthodox statement. It would be a different reality than the one we have, but I don't think it would change who Jesus is.
What would be weird for advancing the idea of a Virgin Birth would be to point to the lady with 8 kids and say, "The first one, little Jesus, Virgin Birth, He was."
It is certainly easier to accept a Virgin Birth as an only child and especially if Mary was a consecrated virgin, as some think.
SD
Luke 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
Good question. Guys, what difference does it make?
Oh my. I apologize if you have the impression that my post was meant to show that "brethren" had the same meaning in both 1Cor and Matt 13. I was attempting to demonstrate, in a humorous example, that the word did not have the same meaning in each of these passages. I guess I need to be very careful around you folks, and type really slowly.
Sorry.
There were two questions in one posting.
1) There seems to be some confusion over Elohim by some commentators.
Could you illuminate the difference between the singular and plural endings.
2) I want to draw your attention to the untranslated aleph and tau between "G-d"and "the heaven".
This also occurs in Zechariah 12:10 between "look on me" and "whom they have pierced"
Tehillim (Psalm) 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer.
XeniaSt
The scripture you started out with is fine. The elaborations needlessly made on them via logic and reason turn them into an inferrance that Mary gave birth to God - which she did not.
Mary didn't give birth to God? I think you mean it gives an inference that Mary existed before God did, is a superior creature. Well, it is a chosen theological term that does not mean that, by definition.
If you wish to remain ignorant and keep other people ignorant by refusing to understand what a term means, that is your choice. That you can not indicate where the flaw in my logic is or point out which of the two supporting statememtns is false means that you must agree with the conclusion.
Which is the target of what I said. Such stupid statements as these are not in the Bible for a reason - chiefly because it isn't true.
Again, which isn't true or where is the flaw in the logic?
SD
Approved by whom?
LOL!!
Pretty much what allend said. Family ties are nothing if they hold you back from God. It's almost like He could have said "call no one on earth your family member, for there is only one family in Heaven"
SD
That's easy. It demonstrates how the Catholic Church completely disregards the clear meaning of Scripture.
Now why people can't grasp theotokos and what it means and does not mean is a better question.
SD
I care because it makes a mockery of the Word of God. This thing ought not to be done.
SoothingDave: I believe thay are both mentioned as being sons of someone (Zebedee?). The same person. That would imply real brotherhood (at least half brotherhood)
James is called the son of Zebedee, and John is called his brother (Matthew 10:2). In Matthew 20 and 26, they are referred to as the "sons of Zebedee". Matthew 10:2 also calls Andrew the brother of Simon, but nowhere does it say that they have the same father. The only reference to the father of Simon is Matthew 16:17, where Jesus refers to him as "Simon bar-Jona". So the context of their being full brothers, half-brothers, or cousins is not clear. Although the pairing of Simon and Andrew with James and John (who were certainly brothers) in Matthew 10:2 is suggestive.
SD
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.