Posted on 12/28/2013 3:59:04 PM PST by NYer
The closest you can come to “brothers” meaning “cousins” in the NT is “kin.”
“Kin” can mean many things. I just find it hard to dig deep in the lexicon for something else interpreters have clearly used for English “brothers.” It is similar the lexicon gymnastics used to say “until” does not really mean “until.”
I will caution the same reasoning and lexicon twisting gymnastics are used by the non-trinitarians and second coming of Christ “already happened” preterist crowd.
It is also odd given the wonderful 2000 year history of claimed Roman Catholic doctrinal purity touted here, that not one died in the wool Roman Catholic is participating in the Trinity debate going on here on the RF. Come on over, we would love the company:)
Chapter and verse?
“was conversant in Greet, Latin and Aramaic and he was only a couple of centuries shy of Christ Himself - Does your pastor have those credentials?”
My professors have that and more. They also taught my pastor, btw.
Having answered your question, I point out that credentials are never a substitute for truth.
I looked at Revelation chapter 21 and verse 27 and there is nothing involving the apostles. But since you said “Rev, 21-27”, I then looked at chapter 22 (the last chapter FYI) and still nothing. FWIW Revelation only has 22 chapters and there is no chapter 27.
All interesting stuff which misses the point I made. And I studied more church history in seminary than I care to remember. In terms of volume it was a lot of work!
Genesis - Eve used her Free Will to say yes to Satan. Do you think Eve was a robot????
... Btw, my grandfather was from Messina
Union - you went to seminary? Was your history biased? How did it present the Church because mid 1500’s started the deformation oops reformation
Have you read a real Church History - have you read Aquinas at all
No substitute - however did they fast and pray in the desert AND were just a few centuries from Christ himself and the languages were in use as he lived??? That has to count!!
Read about St. Jerome - just read it!!!
Look I am sorry - it is just the one that says nothing impure can enter
We read church writings as original sources. We also studied every major doctrine as it developed in church history - again, reading original sources.
It was more time invested than any other course during my program. Valuable, but difficult to carry.
“AND were just a few centuries from Christ himself “
Centuries!
brothers/cousins
On the street the ones in the gang are all brothers - If Christ had a blood line though his brothers we would know it - the geneologists would have figured it out and it would be out there
OK he was 347 but that is a heck of a lot closer than thousands
sorry - a thousand
I am not sure what you disagree with,or that the role of the pope and magisterium are exalted by Catholics due to their need for interpretation.
What i meant in the second second part refers to Roman Catholicism while what you had described is indeed more the Easter Orthodox model, for you said "we look not to a pope" in contrast to it being "about individual men interpreting the bible and presenting that as definitive" (which is not exactly what i meant, but the pope and magisterium defining what Scripture and tradition mean).
Rome does direct souls to look to the pope, and thus even here we daily are given updates on the latest speech or action by the pope.
In contrast, the EOs reject papal infallibility and his having power he can exercise unhindered.
But it is the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, and is why the Church was such a stalwart of dogmatic reliability for almost 2000 years.
Actually, while it has upheld certain core truths such as expressed in the Apostles Creed, and which evangelical faith has also historically upheld and contended for without even a central magisterium, the Catholic approach to doctrine and dogma, in which the church, not Scripture is supreme, has led to the perpetuation of extraScriptural and unBiblical traditions, as well as disagreements and formal division over what tradition, Scripture and history teaches. Including the role and power of the the pope, among many other things. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
The abandonment of that truly Catholic understanding of the faith has created all the chaotic dissonance of recent past.
Leaving you in the desert, but while i do not see any church as matching the prima NT church in purity, power and passion, yet the essence of the church is the gospel of grace, in which souls are convicted that they are damned+destitute sinner, fit for Hell not Heaven, and unable to escape the former or merit the latter, but must look with contrite heart to the Divine Son of God, trusting the Lord Jesus to save Him by His blood expense and credit.
But this preaching and regeneration the church has its members, versus a church which imagines the road to glory as as usually beginning with sprinkling water on an innocent infant makes him formally justified by interior holiness, and usually end with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering mythical purgatory.
The Church has held and taught the apostolic faith handed down through the Spirit, and at times it was largely a minority one...Your unanimous consent is not, and has never been relevant.
That is not my claim, but Rome's: "nor will I ever receive and interpret them [the Scriptures] except according to [evidently contrary to] the unanimous consent of the fathers." (Vatican 1 Profession of faith) It chooses who the fathers are, if not infallibly, then what constitutes unanimous.
This is a very strange assertion which causes me to wonder if you actually read my above post, or the previous one to which you replied.
I was responding to it as i read it, as if it were defending the Roman church like others.
No, I am a layman. I have never been to any traditionalist services because I have spent my 40 years in the desert. But, I do believe that the Church didn't fall out of the sky in 1964, or 1864 for that matter. Anyone hoping to understand the faith must look beyond their own culture and their own contemporary time and seek the truth which is always held.
Agreed, but the church is the body of Christ, which is manifested by faith in Christ which works by love, but with both Corinthian believers and Philippians types. Often it was even more of a remnant than other times, and it was and it "troubled on every side, yet not distressed; perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed," (2 Corinthians 4:8-9) to the glory of God.
In a revealed religion, such as Christianity, tradition is not an option, but requisite. If you sever yourself from the faith of history you cannot know the historic Christ.
Of course there is tradition, that of Scripturally based tradition such as what "modesty" meant, but are not as doctrines such as forbid fornication or even the basically literal hermeneutic behind such prohibitions. And which depend upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation for their veracity.
In contrast is that of making oral tradition with Scripture, and the church as the supreme infallible authority on what both mean. By such elevation of tradition you have traditions of men perpetuated, from prayer to departed saints, which is not supported by Scripture, to papal infallibility, purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other traditions of Mariology, a pastors distinctively titled sacerdotal "priests," justification and regeneration via paedobaptism, literally consuming the Lord to gain spiritual life, etc.
That is true for people who call themselves Catholic as much as it is for all believers.
Then they would not be believers if they did not subscribe to them, but holding to such traditions as above is what is contrary to being a believer.
From the Latin Vulgate: Mark 3:31
et veniunt mater eius et fratres et foris stantes miserunt ad eum vocantes eum
In the DRA:
31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
In the NABRE:
31m His mother and his brothers arrived. Standing outside they sent word to him and called him.
Of course there is a footnote here which refers the NABRE reader to Mark 6. In that footnote (I am sure you have an NABRE study Bible as I do) then goes into the gymnastics to explain how the “adelphos” reference should be understood within the context of the Semitic languages actually used in the time. Which allows for other “kin” types like uncles, nephews, cousins, and half-brothers etc.
You would think the good Catholic translators of the Latin would not use ‘fratres’ in these passages given they would no doubt know the implications of the widespread understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity. But then again in the Latin, they could have used the exact word for cousin or kin or family members other than brothers or sisters.
As I stated in previous threads on this topic...Mary was indeed a Virgin when “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”(Luke 1). We know that as fact because it is in the text. Afterwards, not so clear other than:
Matthew 1:
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.(DRA)
So there is that. However one wants to dig for other meanings to words they are free to do, however, there are no Bible versions to include the NABRE that takes “until” or “till” out of the text. I will note there is a lengthy footnote for this verse as well in the NABRE.
Am I saying that Mary was not a perpetual virgin? No, I am not. All I am saying is the texts never state so, nor do they suggest it or hint at it. In fact the impression is the opposite.
I don’t find anything persuasive about that line of reasoning.
It seems that the NABRE no longer uses “full of grace” but this:
Luke 1:
28And coming to her, he said, “Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you.”(NABRE)
However, being fair, the DRA does have “full of grace” but then again that is the only Bible version in English that does. The New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE) has “favored one” as well.
The Latin, as you probably know, can go either way “grace” or “favored.”
However, the same “grace” as seen in Ephesians 2:8 is a different form of “grace” chosen by the DRA and which every other English Bible (to include the NRSVCE and NABRE) use “favored one.”
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.