Posted on 03/26/2015 11:36:04 AM PDT by RnMomof7
It is certainly your choice to believe as you wish, but if the priest said what he said, he was in error.
Just sounds like an honest priest to me and does not mean that he believed Mary had other children but only that Jesus had brothers and sisters, not the same thing.
Sorry, but I believe they were Mary's children. People may feel free to believe whatever they like, but that is what I believe. I guess we will all know for sure, when Gabriel blows his horn, won't we?
So you run to the grace station for a fill up..
Pathetic but true.. some like daily fill ups..to keep the tank full some weekly refills and the majority run on fumes
1:30 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ Μὴ φοβοῦ Μαριάμ εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ
1:30 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ Μὴ φοβοῦ Μαριάμ εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ
Textus Receptus
English (KJV) [?] | Strong's | Root Form (Greek) | Parsing | ||
|
g2532 |
καί kai |
|
||
g32 |
ἄγγελος aggelos |
|
|||
|
g2036 |
εἶπον eipon |
|||
g846 |
αὐτός autos |
|
|||
|
g5399 |
φοβέω phobeō |
|||
|
g3361 |
μή mē |
|
||
|
g3137 |
Μαρία Maria |
|
||
|
g1063 |
γάρ gar |
|
||
g2147 |
εὑρίσκω heuriskō |
||||
|
g5485 |
χάρις charis |
|
||
|
g3844 |
παρά para |
|
||
|
g2316 |
θεός theos |
|
1:30 καὶ εἶπεν ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτῇ μὴ φοβοῦ Μαριάμ εὗρες γὰρ χάριν παρὰ τῷ θεῷ
Morphological GNT
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And the angel came in unto her,.... Into her house, and into the room where she was:
and said, hail; all health, happiness, and prosperity attend thee; Matthew 28:9.
thou art highly favoured; or graciously accepted, or hast obtained grace; not referring to electing, redeeming; justifying, pardoning, adopting, and sanctifying grace, which she had in common with other saints; but to that special and particular favour, in being chosen and singled out from all other women, to be the mother of the Messiah:
the Lord is with thee; so the angel to Gideon, Judges 6:12 or “be with thee”, an usual form of salutation among the Jews; Ruth 2:4.
thou art blessed among women; and will be pronounced so by other women, as she was by Elisabeth, Luke 1:42 and by another woman, Luke 11:27.
The church ...foolish
Scripture speaks of the other children, the siblings of Jesus . Reading the bible clears up questions like this
“The church, foolish.” Thats your “belief, and thats fine. You know what mine is and disagree. Thats OK too. You can always go to a bar and contemplate the bubbles in your beer instead.
Would it be honest for a pharmacist to give you a bottle of pills with no instructions? Pretty dangerous actually. The pills might do you great good, but if you take too many, not enough, at the wrong time, without food, or take it with an antagonist, it may be downright deadly.
For a priest to not teach what is prescribed by the Church, especially dogmatic teachings, is at best, negligent.
Any person may think He had literal brothers and sisters, but that is not the teaching of the Church.
One last thing, this and any other thread on Catholic dogma isn’t presenting a single new argument.
Instead, it is a trotting out of long since discredited arguments, misconceptions, and factual errors.
Does anybody think that the oldest organization in the world can be sustained if built on error? 2000 years is a long time for arguments to be made, studied, debated, and resolved.
Oh, and another thing, the Catholic Church and its human leader are recognized globally. The authority of the Church is well-known. Ask just about anybody who the head of the Church is, and the will say the Pope. Ask where he lives, they will say Rome (because they may not understand Vatican City).
The Catholic Church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. It has been that way since founded by Jesus Himself. Argue all you wish, make any number of claims, but in the end, the fullness of Christian faith is held and taught by the Catholic Church.
I am a loyal and faithful Catholic who practices my faith.
Dude, you don’t even know your faith. Typical of so many salad bar Catholics today, they don’t know their faith yet they get on some website and bad-mouth it.
Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
......
It’s sad that most of those members of the Roman Catholic cult insist beseeching dead people to take care of them. It is inconsistent with Scripture, as they are repeatedly instructed, along with the appropriate references.
They must wear some heavy duty blinders.
Any person may think He had literal brothers and sisters, but that is not the teaching of the Church.
I see no place in the scripture which even hints that Mary had other children so I do not see any point in acting like it does by denying it unless some one asks.
It was common then and now to call step brothers :brothers.
I guess we will all know for sure, when Gabriel blows his horn, won’t we?
Hahahahahahaaaaaa!
You don't belong to a church? Scripture tells us to "forsake not the assembling of yourselves..."!
I see no place in the scripture which even hints that Mary DID NOT other children, and though twisting and turning those beloved Bible verses, you can (try to) make the case for anything! Case in point is the topic of this thread!
Mary and Joseph had relations after Jesus was born, because Scripture tells us "he knew her not until..."! . Scripture tells us that! Mary was not sterile, and it is not unusual to have large families. After all, when returning from one trip, they did not realize Jesus had stayed back and was TEACHING in the Synagogue. How can you lose a child of 12 years old?
It's simple. There were probably lots of THEIR other children, and a 12 yr old was almost a man. Mary likely had her hands full with Jesus' younger siblings.
But, specifically, we see NOTHING in Scripture that gives credence to the assumption of the RCC cult about her being without sin and childless, except for Jesus. We see NOTHING in Scripture that would lend itself to all of the Mariology we see evident in the modern RCC cult, nor in the historical record of Christianity.
...The view that these brothers were the cousins of Jesus on Joseph's side is based on pure conjecture. That they were cousins on Mary's side is based on the unproved identity of "Mary, the wife of Cleophus" with the sister of Mary (John 19:25; Mark 15:40), and on the unproved identity of "Clopas" with Alphaeus (Mark 3:18).
Jesus' siblings are mentioned as accompanying Jesus and his mother to Capernaum after the marriage at Cana (John 2:12). Later Mary and these brothers are recorded as seeking an audience with Jesus (Matthew 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35; Luke 8:19-21). Toward the end of Jesus' ministry, His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5). That they were later converted is clear, for they are described in Acts as uniting with the disciples and others in "prayer and supplication" prior to Pentecost (Acts 1:13-14). Paul implies that they were all married (1 Corinthians 9:5).
Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the "brother of James," was one of these brothers (Jude 1). It is also generally believed that the leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (see Acts 12:17; 15:13). This seems to be confirmed by Paul's reference to his visit to Jerusalem, in which he states that he saw only Peter, and "James, the Lord's brother" (Galatians 1:18-19). -BibleInfo.com
May I be allowed to comment to you? (I'm sure others will reply both to you and to me, but I reply to you based on this post.)
I have a partner in a ministry who just happens to be Roman Catholic. After over 10 years of this association (and many conversations) I am firmly convinced that I have more in common with my RC partner than I do with many protestants considering that a significant percentage of main line denominations are sprinting to Gomorrah and more.
Theologically, why is it necessary for Jesus, God the Son and Son of God to have been born of a virgin sans contribution of human semen? The answer entails another question - through whom was the sin of Adam passed? Answer - the male. Anyone born of normal human sexual relations was born in sin, call it sin nature, original sin, or whatever theological term you want. In the garden, man did not become fallen until Adam (who was the covenant carrier) ate the fruit..
When Adam broke the covenant, all his seed 'died'. (Remember that the covenant is passed father to son so with Adam's fall, he passed on that covenant to all his seed.) Thus, if Jesus was conceived in normal fashion He too would have been a sinner. It was necessary for a virgin birth bypassing the human male seed to produce a non-sin-stained child. It was not necessary for Mary to have been conceived without original sin to enable her to bring forth her Son born without the sin-curse. Mary was not the covenant-carrier..
Second point.. In the lineage of kingship, the right to the throne passes to the kings first born. We see in Matthew's genealogy that Jesus through his earthly father Joseph (from whom he would have inherited any birthright to the throne of David - mothers do not pass on birthrights) was by virtue of 'father' Joseph in the direct line of the kings of Judah. For Jesus to be the rightful heir to the throne He would of necessity need to be Joseph's first-born, not Mary's first born since the kingly decent passes from the male. Short conclusion, Joseph could not have had previous sons or Jesus would have had no claim to the throne. (Joseph could have had daughters from a previous marriage, but once he had a son, those daughters, if any, were no longer throne contenders.)
There is a slight catch to that lineage, for if Jesus were a seed son of Joseph, even being the first born, He could not have ascended the throne of David. (It has to do with Jeremiah and King Jehoiachin (Jeconiah) - compare Jeremiah 22:30 and Matthew 1:12 and you will see why). There is a reason why Matthew included Jeconiah in the genealogy though because it's important.
For Jesus to be rightful king of Judah and also be Messiah he had to be a son of David in direct kingly descent and also a son of David apart from Jeconiah's line. That's why Luke's genealogy is important in that it establishes the Davidic descent of Jesus from David through Mary while the virgin birth assures that the Child was born without the Adamic sin curse or the curse on Jeconiah. Thus Jesus has both genealogical claim to the throne as Joseph's 'son' and also has right of both Kingship and Messiah-ship as a descendant of David not touched by the curse on Jeconiah.
It is unfortunate that ofer the centuries since themanger in Bethlehem a whole lot of stuff with no basis in Scripture has been brought into the discussion and transmogrified into dogma. It is true that the early church did call Mary 'Mother of God'. This seems to have first surfaced in refutation of the heresy of Arius (which is still propagated by certain door-knockers who come around with their small g god, their torture stake, a vaporous resurrection and want to sell you some kind of tower). From there it expanded until today we see that Mary has become god - in some peoples estimation...
I know you were not addressing me in your original post so I trust I haven't offended you by butting in. Now I'll butt out and catch up on the rest of the thread.. ;-)
The phrase 'sola scriptura' is not found in the Bible. But then neither is the word 'Trinity'. Both concepts are however clearly taught. Should anyone wish to say the Trinity is unbiblical, that is a discussion for another time..
In the case of 'sola scriptura' it is demonstrable from both Holy Writ AND church tradition that the italicized statement is in error... It seems that some have need to familiarize themselves with the Bereans. Recorded in the Bible (and thus the inspired, inerrant Word of God) and since it is the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, it is also Church Tradition (held by some to be of equal weight with Scripture), this sure seems to indicate that to at least the Bereans, even if not to the Church now, it being in the Bible WAS important.
For your convenience here is the passage with the applicable part highlighted: "Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so." (Douay)
It is interesting that I see the use of the term 'unBiblical' to denigrate something that clearly IS taught in Holy writ in a screed defending teachings that are in actuality unBiblical...
Comments above reflect the author's personal opinion based on the references stated. Your mileage may vary.
His brethren are mentioned as urging Jesus to prove His Messiahship, which they themselves doubted (John 7:3-5).
Many commentators hold that the author of the epistle of Jude, who identifies himself as the “brother of James,” was one of these brothers (Jude 1).
We are just arguing about assumptions on both sides, but my main one is that if the ones called the brothers and sisters were Mary`s Children Jesus would not have appointed John to care for Mary.
Hahahahahahaaaaaa!
You don’t belong to a church? Scripture tells us to “forsake not the assembling of yourselves...”!
Actually, yes, I did something similar to that! In 1976, I sold my house, and most of our possessions, and moved my wife and two young children to Lima, NY, where I attended Elim Bible Institute (college). It was my intention to go into the mission field in Brazil. Some things happened which changed that, but in the end, my walk with God was strengthened.
But, unlike Ananias and Sapphire, I didn't tell everybody a lie. Since those days, God blessed me in astounding ways. I was able to make a great living (higher income than most), and have established two schools and a hospital in the African (Muslim) country of Burkina Faso. They were furnished with CHRISTIAN materials and many found Christ as a result of being part of that. It is now an area where the radical Muzzies (ISIS) are expanding, and I fear for those people. I pray for them (without ceasing, thanks to His Holy Spirit indwelling me!).
But, back to the larger question, it appears your backing goes to the RCC cult's imagined findings within Scripture.
Do you also have Urim and Thummin in your house? Joe Smith would love to meet you (but, oh yeah, he's dead, too!)
Hahahahahaaaaa! I smell a troll! Have a nice day. I don't need to comment further to you.
I've asked, countless times, for Catholics to post all of the stuff in the BIBLE that applies to TRADITION; after I've posted what will follow here.
They never seem to get around to it...
Oh well...
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.