Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by Salvation
Context is the enemy or Catholic *interpretation* of Scripture.
pingaling
... and to that add:
Original language, structure, systematic theology, eisogesis...
... and most sadly, a clear teaching of eternal life by faith in Christ alone. I wish every Catholic eternal life.
IOW, he had the intent to consummate the marriage. It also blows to pieces the theory that RC's put forth that Joseph knew he was in a prearranged marriage to take care of her, knowing that she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity.
To think he would NOT have ‘wanted’ her after the time of waiting was over is beyond MY comprehension.
There's something seriously wrong with a man who does not want sex.
Only if he had never been married before.
However, the reality is that the dispute about PMV cannot be determined by the use of adelphos alone, due to the lack of precision, while the context in which adelphos is used plays a role in this debate, and more so does the principal that Holy Spirit characteristically mentions exceptions to the norm, as exampled in post 274 by the grace of God.
Celibate marriage is contrary to its description, (Gn. 2:24; Mt. 19:4,5) and is unseen in Scripture, except that most likely David and Bathsheba were married, but the Spirit is careful to note that David did not sexually know her, (1Ki. 1:4) and which is consistent with the Holy Spirit characteristically recording notable deviations to the norm. Therefore the burden of proof is upon the Catholic to establish by Scripture perpetual Marian virginity, as per his tradition — but which he cannot and does not do, as the veracity of RC doctrine does not rest of upon the weight of Scriptural support, but upon the novel and premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
As regards adelphos, while this word can also often mean brethren in the larger sense, when adelphos is used with a parent (not necessarily named), or when one is named as a brother of someone then that it is less likely to be used in the wider sense, (avoiding duplicates: Mt. 1:2,11; 4:18,21; 10:2; 14:3; 17:1; Mk. 5:37; 15:40; Jn. 11:2;
The often mentioning of “His mother, and his brethren” together, along with the naming of 4 brethren strongly suggests immediate family, rather than extended, and thus some resort to another scenario, that these brethren were because Joseph was a widower with sons from a previous marriage*. This is more reasonable as far as acknowledging “His mother, and his brethren” as referring to immediate family, but there is no reason to resort to this explanation except to disallow Scripture from contradicting a tradition of men, contrary to the most reasonable meaning, that of a normal consummated marriage, resulting in children.
Matthew 13:55-57: "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. " Meanwhile unlike here, Luke 7:12 makes note of the case when a man was “the only son of his mother.”
"But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. " (Galatians 1:19)
"And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. " (Mark 3:32)
"After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days. " (John 2:12)
"These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. " (Acts 1:14)
Rather than the weight of Scripture warranting PMV, instead it flows from doctrine close to that of demons (1Tim. 4:1-3) which certain so-called "church fathers" held, as shown in post 247. (perpetual Marian virginity)
*The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states, In the Apocryphal Gospels, the attempt is made to supply what the canonical Gospels omit. They report that Joseph was over eighty years of age at his second marriage, and the names of both sons and daughters by his first marriage are given. As Lightfoot (commentary on Galatians) has remarked, “they are pure fabrications.” Theophylact even advanced theory that they were the children of Joseph by a levirate marriage, with the widow of his brother, Clopas. Others regard them as the nephews of Joseph whom, after the death of his brother Clopas, he had taken into his own home, and who Thus became members of his family, and were accounted as though they were the children of Joseph and Mary. According to this view, Mary excepted, the whole family at Nazareth were no blood relatives of Jesus. It is a Docetic conception in the interest of the dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary. All its details, even that of the advanced age and decrepitude of Joseph, start from that premise.
IOW, sex is BAD.
It is exactly because the two applications are apposite in Jesus' use to illustrate that in the mention of His family without, their relationship to him must be quite solidly literal language; whereas the imputed relationship of true believers in the Kingdom of God is then figurative-literal language, in both cases comprising and corresponding to a literal interpretation of the scripture under consideration.
When the people of Jesus' synagogue (as well as Pharisees) showed their discomfiture at Jesus' claiming to be a prophet (Israel had been without a prophet for 400 years) they said that he was Joseph and Mary's son (Lk. 4:22, Jn. 6:42), and the brother of Simeon, James, Judah, and Joses (Mt. 13:55, Mk. 6:3). When the plain sense makes common sense, hermeneutics says seek no other sense.
(Of course when Jesus held up the bread and said, "This is my body," that does not make common sense, does it? Therefore it is not plain sense, either, according to all human experience, so a figurative sense must be sought.)
So, When Joseph, Mary, Jesus, Joses, Juda, James, Simon, and His sisters are all plainly known to be one family by their acquaintances, common sense says they are all Mary's children, and there is no reason to seek some other unobvious interpretation, is there?
You need to deck the idea of perpetual virginity forMary of Nazareth, Joseph's wife: "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son . . ."
And just what specific version is that? Since you assert there is one then you must provide it, rendering all which do not 100% conflate with it to be in error. Note that you have before exampled engaging in argument by spurious assertion, then refusing to answer when challenged.
And if you're going to claim cousins were called *brothers* and *sisters*, you might as well argue that *Mom* and *Dad* are really aunts and uncles.
I didn't really know there were men like that. It comes SOOOO naturally. Defrauding one's wife or husband, by refusing sex, is not cool, however.
God created women to want sex, too, despite rumors to the contrary.
I can just imagine how it would blow certain minds to think that Mary........
I have yet to hear on this thread why it is so critical to the faith of Roman Catholics that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I’ve seen some say that it was to fulfill an OT prophecy in an allegorical sense, but that seems suspect.
So, to you Roman Catholics, WHY is this a dogma of the Roman Catholic church? WHY do you believe your faith hangs in the balance over this doctrine? I ask in all earnestness.
That is correct, but that most certainly makes Jesus neither subservient to Mary nor subordinate to Mary. At the Name of Jesus every knee will bow, in heaven (including Mary's), on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue will confess (including Mary's, as it already has) Lord Jesus Messiah, unto the Glory of Father God.
Being given the unique privilege of holding Him as a babe to nurse and care for never put her in the position of having any authority over Him as a grown person. one Who is not only Man but also Deity all in One Person, which Mary is not, cannot be, and never pretended to be. I would not be surprised to see her horrified at the way ignorant obsequious humans have elevated her despite her real attitude of humility.
But thanks for your agreement in the view of the Genesis 3 passage.
I can just imagine how it would blow certain minds to think that Mary........
Yes, I didn't mean to infer that women don't want it. I know they do.
I can also imagine how it might make certain individuals heads explode, but I am sure both Mary and Joseph wanted to do the "deed" and I am POSITIVE they did. How evil of Mary and Joseph to actually enjoy sex. 😆😃😄😊😇😀😎
It kind of blows several theories out of the water, doesn't it?
More Katholik nonsense, Of course they did not. Jesus said so just after He read the Isaiah prophecy concerning Himself in their presence in their own sunagogue. If they had believed in Him, one or more of the disciples would have pointed it out. But they were his brothers and sisters, born to Mary and Joseph, unless soomeone can prove otherwise. You can't.
Ah, if Jesus was Mary’s firstborn, who was the second-born, eh? Good point.
Wal, in that sense, reaching out, so are all humans everywhere, perticularly the ones that fear God ans walk in His Ways.
"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
He couldn't do any good works even in his own family:
"And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."
Come on, catch up with us, V . . .
Why did you stop short
As you can see, it was a very lengthy statement which was not pertinent to my comment. Would you have found it to be acceptable had I posted as follows?
I offer this as a possible explanation. Maybe the early Christians felt it was necessary for Mary to remain a virgin to fulfill the following prophecy from Ezekiel 44:2
This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
In his Exposition on the Old Testament, John Gill offered several possible interpretations for Ezekiel 44: 2. The interpretation related to Mary was:
“Some of the ancients interpreted it of the Virgin Mary, by whom Christ came into this world in human nature, being born of her, a virgin, who had never known man, and as is thought never did after the birth of Christ; nor were any afterwards born of her; no man might come into the world by her, by that self-same way the incarnate God did, and for that reason. This sense is approved of, not only by Papists, but by many Protestant writers.”
Others understood it to refer to Scriptures or the gates of heaven. Gill himself believed it referred to the church of Christ. For the entire comment see:
https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/view.cgi?bk=25&ch=44#2
ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου from the Textus Receptus, Scriveners)
Jacob (=James) the brother of The Lord.
From the Greek, "brothet" and "Lord" are both articulate, which makes these words very specific regarding the syntax. No doubt here. James (Jacob) is the womb-brother of Jesus. Very plain. No nuances. No wiggle room on this. Unless Paul is a fibber, that is. /sarc
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.