Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Salvation
No. If anyone would have touched her, the Ark of the New Covenant, they would have died just like the people who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died.

Scripture that states this?

Hoss

49 posted on 06/13/2011 5:01:35 PM PDT by HossB86 ( NOBODY admits to being a Calvinist unless they are one. I AM ONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: HossB86

Just when you think you’ve heard it all.

Yet Jesus invited Thomas to not only touch him, but to put his hands INTO Jesus wounds.

How would Thomas then not have died, touching the resurrected Christ?

Jesus touched plenty of people while he ministered here on earth, even lepers, which should have technically made Him unclean.

How did they not fall over dead then?


67 posted on 06/13/2011 5:36:20 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: All
On the contrary in the Bible brother has shades of meaning because Aramaic and other Semitic languages do not differentiate between a blood brother/sister and a cousin or other

For example

  1. MAtt 1:2 "Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers," for step-brothers with the same father but different mothers
  2. acts 3:17 "17And now, brethren,"
  3. Luke 10:29 "and who is my brother"
  4. Matt 5:47
  5. Matt 23:8
  6. Rev 22:9
So, yes, brothers had a wider meaning then just blood brother. And no, the term "Irdu" is not used biblically.

The NT was written in Greek, ok -- not all, but let's take your argument for the sake of argument. Remember also that the words of Jesus were mostly Aramaic or Hebrew or maybe even GReek -- we've already shown that in SEmitic languages like Aramaic/hebrew there is no differntiating term between a blood brother and a cousin, let's examine the GReek ouch outos estin o tekton o uios Marias adelphos de Iakobou Iose kai Iouda kai Simonos

If the term is that the adelphoi have the same mother then it would be ho adelphos But that is not used. Without the article adelphos is non-specific and non-exclusive and can mean kinsmen, relatives

Furthermore, I give you two examples of why He didn't have blood brothers of the same mother

  1. Why give John to look after Mary -- that would be quite "rude" (at the very least) to his other brothers, not something a Jew in those days would do
  2. Why does Mary act surprised when the Angel tells her she will conceive?

He also had brothers, half brothers.

perhaps brothers from his father's earlier wife maybe, or more plausibly cousins.

Have you been to the Middle-East lately? A guy will call his cousin his brother. This is true of this clan society just as it was in the time of Christ.

More importantly, you have no proof that they were the children of Mary -- if they were, then why did Jesus tell John to take care of His mother? that's a classic affront if he had any brothers through Mary

148 posted on 06/14/2011 4:02:10 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: HossB86
No. If anyone would have touched her, the Ark of the New Covenant, they would have died just like the people who touched the Ark of the Old Covenant died.

Scripture that states this?


As painful as seeing salvation's arguing by analogy is seeing your failure to point out at least two problems with the analogy: 1. only those who were not legally authorized to "touch" the ark were struck down; therefore, Joseph, as Mary's husband, would not have been struck down since he was legally authorized to "touch" Mary; 2. it's also an example of amphiboly, where one word is used in two different senses in two different parts of the argument to claim they are alike: but nobody ever had sex with the Ark of the Covenant and nobody was said to have died from having physical contact with Mary (simple touching as happened with the Ark of the Covenant--the guy who put out his hand to keep it from falling when it looked like it would tip over).
149 posted on 06/14/2011 4:15:33 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: All
Remember

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary.

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.

Again, 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 - 25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. this proves 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 yet referred to as "brothers"

150 posted on 06/14/2011 4:19:17 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrząszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego słynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: HossB86
Scripture that states this?

What? They don't need no scripture...

197 posted on 06/14/2011 9:16:04 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson