Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Nevermind. I see where they are getting it from. Many Catholic sites mention that ETYMOLOGICALLY Priest derives from Prester which derives from Presbyter which comes from Presbuteros. At least I understand where they are coming from now. But I still don't see any lexicon which actually says that Priest is one of the meanings of presbuteros.
"all Jesus does in this passage is to call every Christian his brother. "
No. A herald announces that His Mother and bros are here and outside looking for Him. He uses the occasion of that announcement, to to say that all are His mother and brother. Why doesn't your analysis apply to the woman too, so that it means it was some woman and her cousins outside looking for Him?
"In fact, this is another reason why all the references to "brethren of Our Lord" are problematic."
There's no real problem. The bulk of the evidence says that it is more probable, that He had siblings and as I said, it not conclusive.
I'd like to see that probability calculation.
-A8
Thanks! It is definitely profitable.
Take Mark 3:31-36 for instance. If it had just mentioned bros, I'd assign a 50/50 chance of them bros, since they could be cousins. Obviously they're not good buddy type bros, or bros as in the fraternity of man, because that's what Jesus says later in response to the announcement about His family outside. Since the announcement is about His Ma and bros, I simply assign an arbitrary value of plus to the 50% value for bros and a minus for the 50% value for cousins. The plus is also warranted by Matt 1:25 and the beginning of John 7. So the probability of Jesus having siblings is 50+% and that they were cousins is 50-%. That's all the quantiifcation that's needed here.
If Matthew and the other authors considered cousins bros, I wonder why he didn't refer to John the Baptist as "brother John"? ...another reason for the plus.
Well, conception is an event that takes place in an instant. I don't think of it as a process. Once the Spirit touched Mary's egg, my opinion is that the rest was a normal pregnancy.
The record shows that it is not just I who disagrees with [Ignatius on this issue] as much as I understand his motivation, but the entire Church since then.
I can appreciate his motives as well, and I realize that his views on this subject are by no means Apostolic teaching today.
Oh, I never intended to dismiss His divine nature, I just meant to distinguish it against His human nature. I don't think it subtracts anything from Christ or Mary if the pregnancy was as it goes with us, and if Mary felt normal birth pains. Since divine Christ was never born, I associate the birth with His human side.
"I just lost 26 pounds too! Doing Weight Watchers."
I did it by cuting out the eggs, ham and English for breakfast everyday and having oatmeal, eating salads (Greek) for lunch and having only 1-2 servings for dinner instead of 3. And, this is important, not eating a pastry from my Lebanese buddy's C-store on the drive home every night! 225 and dropping; 25 more pounds and I'll be back to my Greek God weight of 30 years ago.
"As to the Galatians reference - you know well what I was hitting at."
Of course I did. I just couldn't resist. As I said earlier, we Greeks are very bad people. That's why God gave us The Church first before any of the other Gentiles and made it easy for us to understand by having it written about in Greek. We need it more than the rest of you guys.
"Thanks! It is definitely profitable."
Before you go to your next bible study, read up on what one or two of the Fathers have written on the passage under discussion then drop on them, "Well, you know, +John Chrysostomos (or +Peter of Damascus or +Basil the Great, etc) in his Homily on ... wrote"! Amaze your friends! Confound your enemies! :)
Touched Mary's egg? Where did you read that the HS "touched" Mary's egg? Is that scriptural? The mechanism of Incarnation, as far as I know, was never scripturally explained. It is, however, described as an event wholly supernatural.
The "instant" was supernatural, the Child was supernatural, the pregnancy therefore could only have been miraculous and supernatural, yet the birth, for some reason, "must" be nothing short of "natural."
So, I am askingyou again: At which point did it become "natural" and where doe sit say so?
I don't see how that is not either Nestorianism or Docetism. What was born was not a "side" or a "nature" but a person, i.e. the Second Person of the Trinity.
-A8
But that's just the point: there is never a time when Chirst since the Incarnation can be associated only with His "human side." The two natures are never separate, nor mixed, althought unconfused. He is not a demigod, half-god and half human, nor is there divine "schizphrenia," or multiple personality. At no point can anything about Christ be considered "normal" or "natural" from the human point of view.
Scripturally, the indication is that Mary became pregnant at the time that "The Holy Spirit came upon her" and she was "Overshadowed by the power of the Most High."
It's fairly clear.
Exactly. We can't separate Christ's humanity from His divinity.
You are equating that verse with some sort of divine "sexual" act which is alien to Christianity (although not to polytheistic Mormon cult, for example)
The word "overshadow" is not used in any sexual, or procreative connotation anywhere in the Bible.
Ping #1,596
***********
LOL! Good for you!
Christ is, AT ALL TIMES, fully Human and fully Divine. God's Plan decreed that He be born of a Virgin, He did not NEED to do this, He CHOSE to do this. He could have descended from Heaven as a grown man or any other form He desired. You seem to be trying to present this crazy idea that there are two distinct parts of His Nature and that they operate seperately of each other. This heretical thinking has been discounted by the Church numerous times and to the best of my knowledge has never been accepted by Protestants either.
What egg? For lack of a better term, this was a "one time event" and we don't have the foggiest idea how it happened. Nor do we know how long the pregnancy lasted. What we do know is that "normal" is NOT A TERM THAT COULD BE USED TO DESCRIBE ANYTHING ABOUT THE LORD'S CONCEPTION, BIRTH OR LIFE. Honestly, for a group that is so focused on "sola scriptura" I don't know where Protestants come up with these ideas.
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.