Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
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:
The early Church Fathers argues a lot of very absurd things.This ranks with how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. It has nothing to do with anything . Many of these early Church Fathers lost themselves in matters and arguements that took them into areas that had nothing to do with the spiritual nature of things.
All due respect. For crying out loud. History is silent on these nephews and nieces. It seems to me that they would have been celebrated as being so close as to an uncle Jesus. This does not really wash. How could all these offspring be lost to history.
They would have been priests and bishops(elders) according to them being married believers with even more famous offspring. A huge Holy Brood. All over on record written about.
With all due respect, only with corrupted human thinking. The kingdom of heaven that Jesus came to establish is not a monarchy in that it is inherited. It is through faith and believing.
In these passages, Jesus lays that to rest. He never denied that he had brothers and sisters. HE knew what those people meant when they names His brothers and mother and called Him the carpenter's son.
Matthew 13:53-57 When Jesus had finished these parables, he moved on from there. Coming to his hometown, he began teaching the people in their synagogue, and they were amazed. "Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers?" they asked. "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren't all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, "Only in his hometown and in his own house is a prophet without honor."
He also cleared up that physical birth relation was not who His brothers and sisters and mothers were, but those who believed and did His will and that right there would counter your contention that the establishment of the church was a family affair. Just because they were related through His HUMAN side, doesn't mean it goes to follow that they were believers.
Now it's true that some of Jesus' brothers did end up believing and holding office in the early church, but they are mentioned only in passing.
1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas ?
Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
And the more proficient dancers got to wear robes, if not, they became really good used car salesmen or politicians. LOL.
Thanks.
The very thing that makes Jesus Christ lawfully able to save us hinges on this very issue: his humanity, plain humanity, which is
EXACTLY the same
as yours,
as mine,
as all of ours.
That’s WHY He could save us. Because He did it right. The One Who was God and yet was wholly man.
And He paid the ultimate penalty on our behalf, the One who took on the form of a human being.
It’s not a minor detail. It’s the crux of the matter, no pun intended. Not to be tampered with.
Mary, a young girl, a regular human being, same as the rest of us, had a pure heart, God chose her to bear the Lord Jesus: God chose a regular human being to do this, one who was EXACTLY the same as everyone else. Yes, she had a pure heart, praise God, she was a sweet young girl whose heart was pure. That does not make her anything else, she was simply a normal human being with a pure heart. That’s how Jesus was able to be wholly human. Because His mom was wholly human.
This is plainly obvious with a very basic reading of Scripture. Plain. Obvious. Open the Bible and read it. It’s there, plain as day.
Matthew 1
18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was in this way: When His mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19And Joseph her husband, being a just man and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS, for He shall save His people from their sins.”
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23”Behold, a virgin shall be with child and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call His name Emmanuel” (which being interpreted is, “God with us”).
24Then Joseph, being raised from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife,
25and knew her not until she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.
= = =
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%201&version=KJ21
I was going to quit this thread, and will continue to do so as far as discussing Mary’s internal organs is concerned. However, I think some of this concern is bound up with the concept of original sin, and a failure by theologians to read tribal writings as tribal writings.
Paul wrote, “12Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass...For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man... 18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
Those of us raise in nation-states rebel against the idea that “many died through one man’s trespass”, because in a nation state each citizen is responsible for his deeds alone. But Israel was tribal, and tribal justice is very different.
In a tribe, there is the founder of the tribe, or the family subgroup of the tribe. He is called the “jid”. Outsiders can become a part of his ‘tribe’ or family group, or tribal members can leave, but he is seen as the source of the tribe.
“Specific family bloodlines or lineages are valued highly in tribal tradition and tribal culture. From such bloodlines and lineages, individual and tribes derive such fundamental values as honor (sharaf) and shame (ayb). The primary bloodline and lineage serves as a basis of identity and determines position and areas of authority in the tribe and sub-tribes within the overall tribal structure.”
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/coinandiwinatribalsociety.pdf
The identification with the tribe rather than as an individual is so strong that it is entirely appropriate, in some cases, to kill members of a tribe for a crime they (in western thought) had nothing to do with, because guilt applies to the entire tribe.
“Western rule of law verdicts emphasize guilt and innocence and punishing the guilty rather than reconciliation. Tribal law verdicts focus primarily on compensation and reconciliation...Depending on the circumstances of the murder, tribes may exact blood from the offending tribe or individual family. These killings can in some cases continue up to seven generations (kham) depending on the seriousness of the situation.”
This sounds horrible to us, but those who study tribes say the end result is less killing and violence than in western states, where conflicts are fewer in number but far more devastating in impact.
As applied to theology, I don’t think Paul had any idea of ‘original sin’ when he wrote about Adam, nor of individual redemption when he wrote, “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
From the viewpoint of a tribal member - and Paul was a member of a tribe - we all DO merit death due to the act of Adam. To repeat, “Western rule of law verdicts emphasize guilt and innocence and punishing the guilty rather than reconciliation. Tribal law verdicts focus primarily on compensation and reconciliation.”
We were separated from God by the acts of the jid - Adam - and if we become a part of the tribe of Jesus, our new jid, we are reconciled to God.
As applied to Mary, it becomes obvious the whole ‘was she without sin’ debate is meaningless. If she had a male father, she was part of Adam and had his corporate ‘guilt’, or separation from God. Provision was made for her as a part of the tribe of Israel and descendant of Abraham to be reconciled temporarily to God, and she was. And when we choose to become a part of the tribe of Jesus by faith, we lose Adam as our jid and gain Jesus as our jid.
While Adam is our jid, we bear corporate guilt which we compound with our individual acts of sin. When Jesus is our jid, his obedience is what matters, not our sin. This is also an important part of the Virgin Birth, because if Jesus had been a son of Adam, he would have been born with Adam’s corporate separation from God.
Mary was a child of Adam, and thus separated from God. But she was also a child of Abraham and Israel, and had been reconciled, at least in part. And she became a part of the tribe of Jesus, and was fully and permanently reconciled to God by the obedience of Jesus.
This way of thinking is totally foreign to us as members of nation-states, but makes perfect sense to an Afghan or Iraqi. The pamphlet I cite was written, not about theology, but to help our troops understand how tribes function still today. And oddly enough, sometimes theologians would do well to study a bit of politics...
Luke 1
26And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
27to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
28And the angel came in unto her and said, “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women.”
29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying and cast about in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, “Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favor with God.
31And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name JESUS.
32He shall be great and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,
33and He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.”
34Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
35And the angel answered and said unto her, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that Holy Being who shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth: she hath also conceived a son in her old age, and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37For with God nothing shall be impossible.”
38And Mary said, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” And the angel departed from her.
39And Mary arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Judah,
40and entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elizabeth.
41And it came to pass, when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost.
42And she spoke out with a loud voice and said, “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43And why is it granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44For lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45And blessed is she that believed; for there shall be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord.”
46And Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,
47and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.
48For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden; for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
49For He that is mighty hath done to me great things, and holy is His name.
50And His mercy is on them that fear Him, from generation to generation.
51He hath shown strength with His arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
52He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
53He hath filled the hungry with good things, and the rich He hath sent empty away.
54He hath helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy,
55as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed for ever.”
56And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.
= = =
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1&version=KJ21
“Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus [see Mt. 12:46-50; 13:55-56; Mark 6:3; John 2:12; 7:1-5,10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19]. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus,’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary’ [cf. Mt. 28:1]. They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression [Gen. 13:8; 14:16; 29:15]” (CC, 500).
See Mt. 1:25 (“until”). Even if Mary did not have other children, this does not prove she remained a virgin all her life.
This doctrine would also require us to believe in the perpetual virginity of Joseph!
This idea would appear to be based in part on an ascetic, un-biblical view of sex, according to which sexual relations are defiling or demeaning.
The references to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” were interpreted in three different ways in the early church. (1) Epiphanius (4th century) argued that they were Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. Joseph was a widower who thus brought to his marriage with Mary at least four sons and two daughters (Mk. 6:3). (2) Jerome (4th century) was the first to suggest they were “cousins”. A problem with both these views is the way Mark 6:3 and Mt. 12:46 closely associate Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” to Jesus’ “mother” rather than to Joseph. The Greek word for “cousin” is nowhere used of these individuals (cf. Col. 4:10). (3) They were Jesus’ younger brothers and sisters, born to Joseph and Mary in later years.
. . .
Important Biblical Texts concerning Mary
(1) Luke 1:26-38
(2) Luke 1:39-45
(3) Luke 1:46-56
(4) Luke 11:27-28
(5) John 19:26-27
(6) Revelation 12:1-6
. . .
Sam Storms
Nov 7, 2006
= = =
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-virgin-mary/
It was common to appeal to Ezek. 44:2 as referring to this miraculous phenomenon: “This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened and no one shall pass through it, for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.”
Sam Storms
= = =
http://www.enjoyinggodministries.com/article/the-virgin-mary/
While in Korea, a soldier accidentally hit a drunk Korean crossing the street. Thinking like a western lawyer, the military decided to go to court. The soldier was found guilty, even tho he really had no way to avoid hitting the Korean that night. We think of guilt / innocence, but Korea is more tribal and thinks of outcomes and reconciliation.
In the end, a payment was made to the family of the drunk, and Korean justice was satisfied - acknowledgment of pain was made, reconciliation was achieved, and everything went on as before.
In another case, ‘peace’ was made with a local tribe in Afghanistan and an incoming battalion. The new battalion was shelled on their first night, and the outgoing BN/CC was shocked. With the new BN/CC, he went to the tribe, who replied, in essence, “What do we have to do with these newcomers?”
The old BN/CC had a stroke of genius. Putting his arm around the new BN/CC, he explained they were cousins. “His grandfather and my grandfather were both sons of the same man. We are cousins. Forgive me for not telling you this before, but I thought it was common knowledge.”
The tribal leaders were silent for a moment, then the most important leader went and embraced the new BN/CC. “Had we known, there would have been no shelling. Forgive our part in this, and let it be with us as it has been.” The old BN/CC apologized profusely for his oversight in not revealing the relationship, and the new battalion was not shelled again.
Outcomes. Reconciliation. Not guilt / innocence as individuals, but corporately as part of the tribe. So you might ask someone, “Who is your Jid - Adam or Jesus?” And in Afghanistan, they would understand it.
Hebrews 2
9But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor, that He by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10For it became Him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11For both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of One, for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12saying, “I will declare Thy name unto My brethren; in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto Thee.”
13And again, “I will put My trust in Him.” And again, “Behold I and the children whom God hath given Me.”
14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same, that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death — that is, the devil —
15and deliver those who all their lifetime were subject to bondage through fear of death.
16For verily He took not on Himself the nature of angels, but He took on Him the seed of Abraham.
17Therefore in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18For in that He Himself hath suffered, being tempted, He is able to succor those who are tempted.
= = =
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%202&version=KJ21
The tribal descent of Mary. It is certain she knew this completely, and would have been shocked if someone suggested she wasn’t a child of Adam:
23Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. - Luke 3
Paul? “For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin.” - Romans 11
“circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;” - Phil 3
Well put.
Thx.
Who are you going to believe - man or God? Remember, we are to conform to God’s Word - renew our mind to what His Word says - not have God’s Word conform to what we were told by ‘man’.
AMEN! AMEN! THX
LOTS of things COULD be vis a vis God.
Wise to hold onto the farm.
Pretty much.
The reason is that there is no (or very little) real argument here. Veiled personal attacks, sophistries, all the rest are in good supply.
Aquinas rightly points out that it is a waste of brain cells (not his exact words) to argue from Scripture with someone who does not share your view of the authority of Scripture. Yet I would say that more than half of the alleged debates here ( of the posts not given over to blanket and exaggerated condemnations of the other side) are exactly that kind of argument.
Then there is the flat out ignorance, like the remarks about celibacy. When the truth is pointed out on these matters of fact, instead of a candid admission of error, which would clear the air, the person who was mistaken takes the statement of mere fact as a hostile and forensic act!
So, while I will, from time to time, try to clarify a point of view or show how one doesn't have to cauterize major portions of the brain to believe it, I just don't see any value in dealing with the essentially useless argumentative techniques and habitual abuse which characterizes these threads.
Too many here reveal that they think FR is a kind of morality- and charity-free zone -- that the writ of the Gospel does not run here. Insects may fly around my head, but I do not need to let them -- or to help them -- build nests in my hair.
Yours is certainly an opinion, one held by many.
Merely stating an opinion, however, does not persuade. It is not an argument. It is clarifying, and I like clarity.
I find repetition tedious. To each his own.
Thanks thanks.
The experts mentioned in the article are the top flight—as in TOP experts on such topics. They evidently disagree with your points. It’s NOT that they were unaware of such “possibilities.”
I think vis a vis RELIGION, God expects man to be perverse.
I think REBELLION, IDOLATRY and BLASPHEMY
are much worse, to God, than talk about vagina’s . . . regardless of who’s body is involved.
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.