Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:
You posted this article but haven't addressed any of the other posts? Just curious, why not?
5.56mm
I will not argue with you. I happen to believe that the ‘brothers and sisters’ mentioned in scripture were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage, not children younger than Jesus born to Mary. These siblings of Jesus very possibly did not accept Mary for whatever reasons. We are told that James was the brother of Jesus, and that this same James did not accept his brother being the Messiah until after Jesus rose from the dead and present himself to the disciples. Jesus leaves James to be the head of the Church in Jerusalem, so Jesus and the other disciples thought highly of James by that reckoning.
Pinging because I thought you Ladies might find this of interest.
Ping!
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).
From Dr. Mancuso's testimony: "Moreover, the hematopoietic [blood-producing] stem cells go to the medulla and produce offspring cells, lymphocytes and neurotransmitters with the capacity to dialogue with the maternal central nervous system. It is somewhat as though the 'thoughts' of the child pass to the mother, even many years after his birth."
A marriage is between a human man and a human woman. Not G-d and human. A union blessed by God. In this case, since the union was with God and Mary, it was certainly blessed by God and was in that sense a "marriage."
So since Mary was already married in effect to Joseph, doesnt that make G-d a polygamist? or at least that makes Mary an adultress. G-d did not get Mary pregnant. That is a common myth in pagan cultures. And again, Isaiah 7 was not a prophecy about a virgin birth anyway.
Maybe he did it just to see what happens?
Such bitterness coming up from that bitteroot inside you! Must be tough being you and having to embrace your bitterness daily.
Thanks for the great links.
Got em saved in my
“RC DOCUMENTED NONSENSE” file.
:o)
.
corrected spelling.
Well, that's generally true, escept for that one, very extraordinary time!
"So since Mary was already married in effect to Joseph..."
No, she wasn't already married in effect. They were betrothed. You could say there was a broken engagement due to Enormous Changes At The Last Minute... but Joseph was a real mensch, he took it nice!
"G-d did not get Mary pregnant."
Did too! (Ahem.) Now really, what a dilemma: "Who to believe? Blasater or the Angel? Blasater or the Angel? (Making a weighing motion with both hands.)-- Hmm, that's a toughie."
"That is a common myth in pagan cultures."
Irrelevant. All the truths about the True God can be found in some form in various pagan cultures. All the pagans have some access to the truth, some garbled and fragmentary, some quite coherent and noble. One reason -- the main reason, apparently --- that C.S. Lewis became a Christian, is that J.R.R. Tolkien impressed him with the insight that all the "good bits," that are benign and lovely and true in the vague legends of the pagans, were actually, concretely, historically true about Christ. His is the Reality that fulfills all the longings of men in all the ages, the longings that are disclosed in their dreams and myths.
Besides, if Mary is not united in mystical marriage with the Spirit, then who is? Who is the Bride in Revelation 22:17 "The Spirit and the Bride say, 'Come!'" ?
Just curious. My ears are perked.
*crickets* LOL
Last I checked it is not a sin to become a mother or give birth. The sin comes in when you have sex with someone who has not pledged to stick around and help you with the little squealer...(sin = harming yourself or others. It's that simple. God loves you.)
That said..of course Mary was a sinner like the rest of us, we humans are not perfect...none of us.
"we humans are not perfect...none of us."
Generally true. Emphatically true, as of now. But think of Adam and Eve before the Fall, before sin, living in Eden, conversant with God, made them in His image and likeness who, when he created them, called them "very" good. Were they, at that time, sinners? Or were they perfect -- as perfect a humans could be?
Next question: if Mary was the most perfect, most "highly favored," (Kecharitomene, in Greek), and "the Lord is with her", was she at least an equal to Eve Model 1.0, Eve in Eden? Did Christ have a sinless nature?
That said: was His mother His only true human parent and the only human source of his humanity? What sort of humanity did He inherit from her?
Like I said, just rolling the discussion along...
Do you believe that science has discovered stem cells from the kid still alive in the uterine tissue of mothers as much as thirty years after the birth of the child?
Do you know what blood stem cells are?
Do you believe that it is the blood of The Savior that purchased your salvation?
I'm not a Catholic and you're not a Catholic. Can you please stop insulting Mary the Mother of Jesus in your obsession to attack the Catholic Church? Perhaps you do not realize how your assaults are coming across. You are sliding into insulting Mary in your zeal to attack the Catholic Church. That's disgusting, Quix.
As Jesus gestated in Mary's womb, His blood cells were passed through the umbilicus to Mary's body, Mary's uterine tissues. Based in what science has discovered, Mary carried cells from The Savior with her, probably for her entire life! Stop and think, Quix.
If you believe the Bible and trust science has discovered a fact regarding human gestational processes, wouldn't having actual blood of the Savior inside you be even more amazing than by faith trusting in His blood to purchase your redemption? As a Christian speaking to a fellow Christian brother, I ask you to stop and think hard on this syllogism.
Meant to ping you to the above appeal, for information only.
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.