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:
“Most translations use “brother” when (if they had been written for modern sensibilities) they should have used some word like “relative”.”
Good point
Is this article real? More emphasis on the gospel and less emphasis on Mary’s vajayjay please!
Essentially then, anyone’s lemma could be right, or wrong.
WHO sits down and thinks this stuff up??? Have they never heard of VIDEO games, Turner Classic Movies, libraries, long walks, sleep, sports, work, useful enterprises....
But the question remains,, how could this even slightly affect true Chritian salvation theology?
Okay, I’ll open up a can of worms the size of Michelle O’s backside to answer your question: The same people who covered up for priests who diddled little boys. Have fun with this one everybody!
Here is a Catholic view with scripture:Mary is Ever Virgin
Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.
Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.
Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.
Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.
Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.
John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.
John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.
John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.
Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”
Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.
Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.
Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.
Top
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).
The word used in the Greek is the Greek word for brother not the Greek word for cousin.
Also the scripture is clear that Joseph did not have marital relationship with Mary until after Jesus was born. How is this scripture explained?
“But he (Joseph) had no union with her (Mary) until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus” (Matthew 1:25).
Again, I am asking these questions sincerely and not with malice because I do not understand. I do think that these beliefs are in error but I don’t hate Catholics. In fact I have several close friends that are Catholic (although we never discuss religion). I know there are alot of people that bash other beliefs and hurl insults (on both sides) and I have no interest in doing that.
Ditto. Doesn’t seem to apply around here.
The actual word in the Greek version, however, is "adelphoi." I'm no Greek scholar, but I don't get "relatives" out of that.
No, next question.
Once you start to say that St Paul obviously didn't mean them then you are making an appeal outside of the text.
Which is something like the correct way forward. Sola Scriptura - the concept that authority comes only from the Bible, is not only not to be found in the Bible, but it is contra-indicated by Christ's own words to Peter.
I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The Church wrote and ratified the Gospels with the authority given it by Christ. The Church also declared that Christ was both God and Man, it declared and defined the nature of the Trinity, the nature of the sacraments and half an hundred other truths. And one of those truths is that Mary, the Mother of God was indeed conceived without sin.
The theology behind it comes from the nature of the Incarnation. It's a large subject, and not one I can do justice to today: I have to get back to surveying a prison :0(
Suffice to say, Mary's sinlessness comes from her role as Mother of God: she was saved by Jesus just as we all are, but in her case she was saved at conception as a special act of grace as astonishing and as unique as the creation of Eve. Everything about Mary's creation points to Christ's Incarnation - she was made as perfect as she could be, as part of the 'Main Act ' the arrival of God as Man.
Hope this was helpful.
I asked the same question. Someone said that Catholics believe they are either his step-brothers (Joseph's sons from a previous marriage) or his cousins - kinsmen but not brothers. I don't buy it, but that is what was said.
Jesus died for man and the Bible was written for mankind. The Scripture that all have sinned would apply to mankind.
“then you are making an appeal outside of the text”
I don’t see anywhere in the text that says Mary was sinless. If she needed to be sinless so that Jesus could be sinless didn’t her parents need to be sinless for her to be sinless and so on?
I really do not understand.
The only person born who was without sin was Jesus himself. Mary was not without sin any more than you or I ("all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"). She needed a savior as much as we do. Though she may have lived a life of purity and holiness according to the Law, the Law could not save us from sin.
By Jason Evert
1. "I’ve never understood why Catholics claim that Mary was a virgin her entire life. The Bible says that Jesus had brothers. Matthew 13:55 settles the matter for me: ‘Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brethren James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us?’"
In answering any biblical objection to the faith, step number one is putting the other at ease by agreeing that if a teaching contradicts Scripture, the teaching must be wrong.
Next, examine the biblical evidence. In the case of Mary’s perpetual virginity, the key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.
However, the word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.
Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).
The reason relatives were called brothers or sisters was because in Hebrew, there was no word for cousin, nephew, or uncle. So the person was referred to as simply a "brother." Linguistically, this was far easier than calling the person the son of a mother’s sister. Since the New Testament was written in a dialect of Greek that was heavily influenced by the Semitic culture, many of the Hebrew idioms (like "brother" having multiple meanings) intrude into the Greek text. So, the fact that Jesus had adelphoi does not mean that Mary had other children.
2."But there was a Greek word for cousin, anepsios. If the brothers of the Lord were really his cousins, why wasn’t that word used?"
Here is a common misconception to be on the lookout for: "Catholics teach that the brothers were actually cousins." That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.
These things were taken for granted by the early Christians, who were familiar with the biblical languages and who knew that Mary was a lifelong virgin. In A.D. 380, Helvidius proposed that Mary had other children because of the "brothers" in Matthew 13:55. He was rebutted by Jerome, who was arguably the greatest biblical scholar of the day. The Protestant reformer John Calvin seconded Jerome: "Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages to the brothers of Christ" [quoted by Bernard Leeming, Protestants and Our Lady, 9]. Martin Luther agreed with Calvin that Mary was always a virgin, as did Ulrich Zwingli: "I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary" [E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., 456].
3."But Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her afterward?"
Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the incompleteness of the "brethren of the Lord" argument. This is a good sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic. Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.
Now, does Matthew’s use of "until" mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for "until" (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child "until" the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.
When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.
4."What about Psalm 69:8? It prophesied that Mary would have children when it says in regard to Jesus, ‘I have been a stranger to my brethren, an alien to my mother’s sons.’"
If your friend takes this Psalm to be a literal prophecy of Christ, he runs into bigger problems. Look three verses earlier, "O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee" (emphasis added). Since Jesus did no wrong and had no follies, it seems clear we shouldn’t take this passage literally.
The prophecy in verse 8 is fulfilled by the fact that Jesus was rejected by his own relatives (Mark 3:21). Besides, if the "brethren" of the Lord were Joseph’s children from a prior marriage, though they were not Mary’s biological children, legally they would be considered her sons.
5."But how could an unconsummated marriage have been a valid one for Mary and Joseph? It would be so unnatural."
At the end of a wedding, the minister announces that the couple has become man and wife. They exchanged vows, and so they are married—without having consummated the marriage yet. When the marriage is consummated, the marriage—which was already valid—becomes indissoluble. So Joseph and Mary’s marriage was a real marriage, even if it was never consummated.
In regard to it not being natural, the prophet Isaiah said that God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When the Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to have a different marriage than most folks!
6."But it’s not a sin for a married couple to have marital relations."
True, ordinarily. But even in the Old Testament God asked married couples to refrain from intercourse for various reasons. For example, the priests of the temple had to refrain from intimacy with their wives during the time of their service. Likewise, Moses had the Israelites abstain from intercourse as he ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. 20:15). There is a theme here of refraining from marital rights because of the presence of something very holy.
The Church Fathers knew that there was something greater than the temple in Mary’s womb, comparing it to the Eastern Gate mentioned in Ezekiel 44: "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut." Mary had become the dwelling place of the Almighty, like the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament.
Now, if Uzzah was struck dead for touching the Ark (2 Sam. 6:6–8), should it be surprising that Joseph understood that Mary was a vessel consecrated to God alone? The idea that Joseph assumed normal marital relations with Mary after the birth of Christ was an irreverence that even the Protestant reformers rejected.
Interestingly, according to Jewish law, if a man was betrothed to a woman and she became pregnant from another, he could never have relations with her. The man had to put her away privately or condemn her in public and put her to death. Joseph chose the more merciful option.
Then, the angel told him to lead her into the house as a wife (paralambano gunaika), but the language that describes marital relations is not used here. It was used, however, in Luke 1:35: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." To "overshadow" a woman was a euphemism for having a marital relationship, as was the phrase "to lay one’s power" over a woman. The Holy Spirit had espoused Mary, and she had been consecrated, set apart for God.
Also, it appears that Mary had made a vow of virginity. When the angel said that she would conceive and bear a son, she asked, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" She knew how babies were made, and she was about to be married. "How can this be?" would seem like a pretty silly question unless she had made a prior vow of virginity.
"Why is she betrothed to Joseph if she made a vow of virginity?"
Consecrated virginity was not common among first century Jews, but it did exist. According to some early Christian documents, such as the Protoevangelium of James (written around A.D. 120), Mary was a consecrated virgin. As such, when she reached puberty, her monthly cycle would render her ceremonially unclean and thus unable to dwell in the temple without defiling it under the Mosaic Law. At this time, she would be entrusted to a male guardian. However, since it was forbidden for a man to live with a woman he was not married or related to, the virgin would be wed to the guardian, and they would have no marital relations.
Only men would even think about this stuff. They can be so ...
*T-c suffers vocabulary lapse and mumbles off, feeling rather misanthropic.*
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.