Good question!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/22/2017 3:39:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 05/13/2017 6:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
Q. I know that the Church believes in Mary’s perpetual virginity, but what are we to make of the passages in the Gospel that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters?
Rose, via email
A. There are a number of places in the New Testament (see Mk 3:31-34; 6:3; Mt 12:46; 13:55; Lk 8:19-20; Jn 2:12; 7:3-10; Acts 1:14; and 1 Cor 9:5) where Jesus’ kinsfolk are mentioned using terms such as “brother” (adelphos), “sister” (adelphe) or “brethren” (adelphoi). But “brother” has a wider meaning both in the Scriptures and at the time they were written. It is not restricted to our literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother in the sense of sibling.
Even in the Old Testament “brother” had a wide range of meaning. In the Book of Genesis, for example, Lot is called Abraham’s brother (see 14:14), but his father was Haran — Abraham’s brother (Gn 11:26-28). So, Lot was actually a nephew of Abraham.
The term “brother” could also refer widely to friends or mere political allies (see 2 Sm 1:26; Am 1:9). Thus, in family relationships, “brother” could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended. We use words like kinsmen and cousins today, but the ancient Jews did not.
In fact, neither Hebrew nor Aramaic had a word meaning “cousin.” They used terms such as “brother,” “sister” or, more rarely, “kin” or “kinsfolk” (syngenis) — sometimes translated as “relative” in English.
James, for example, whom St. Paul called the “brother of the Lord” (Gal 1:19), is identified by Paul as an apostle and is usually understood to be James the Younger. But James the Younger is elsewhere identified as the son of Alphaeus (also called Clopas) and his wife, Mary (see Mt 10:3; Jn 19:25). Even if James the Greater were meant by St. Paul, it is clear that he is from the Zebedee family, and not a son of Mary or a brother of Jesus (in the strict modern sense) at all.
The early Church was aware of the references to Jesus’ brethren, but was not troubled by them, teaching and handing on the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. This is because the terms referring to Jesus’ brethren were understood in the wider, more ancient sense. Widespread confusion about this began to occur after the 16th century with the rise of Protestantism and the loss of understanding the semantic nuances of ancient family terminology.
Good question!
No, what my main disagreement is with you and Mrs. Don-o is in the idea that God's fulfillment of His prophecy that the Messiah would be "God with us", that God would take on human flesh to be the propitiation for the sins of the world, could EVER be seen as a violation of any kind - whether He used an egg from Mary's ovaries or He implanted a pre-fertilized egg of His own creation (though He is the creator of ALL, regardless). We just do not know for a fact either way. My personal opinion is that by using Mary's ovum and her miraculously conceiving the incarnate God without a human male's sperm, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that He would be of the "seed of the woman", of the lineage of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh yet without sin. I just don't see this as God cheating Joseph out of anything but that God's choosing of Mary and him was a blessing and honor unlike any ever given to man. Jewish mothers have ALWAYS imagined that they might be the one chosen worthy enough to bear the Messiah. I doubt ANY would have seen it as a violation of their bodies.
Coming to His hometown, He taught the people in their synagogue, and they were astonished. “Where did this man get such wisdom and miraculous powers?” they asked. “Is this not the carpenter’s son? Isn’t His mother’s name Mary, and aren’t His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Aren’t all His sisters with us as well? Where then did this man get all these things?”. (Matthew 13:54-56)
Now, I will do what you do. Post scripture.
John 3:1-7 3 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
So, since no one will go to Heaven, unless they are born again, don't think for a moment that this does not apply to you.
If you don't think you need to be born again, or don't want to be, that's on you. If you don't agree with Jesus, then we have no reason to continue this discussion. I hope you make it to Heaven bro, but whether or not you do, is entirely up to you. 😊
Well I didn’t read your answer as you avoided commenting on what I said to you
Pretty much SOP
The OT should be translated from the Hebrew, not the Greek.
Using a translation of a translation will always lead to poor translations.
Yes, mr fall guy. As far as I know, the ONLY one executed for Mountain Meadows.
Probably the strongest passage supporting the fact that Mary had other children by Joseph.
Those people DID NOT KNOW, who Jesus was at that time. They thought He was the son of Joseph, and there was no reason for them to use the words *brother* and *sister* in any other sense than the normal one.
The local Jews identified Joseph, Mary, Jesus, His brothers and sisters as one family. The emphasis of the passage is on Jesus. It's why everything centers around Him.
Jesus will be my King for eternity. Where in the bible does it say that Jesus will not reign eternally?
Love,
O2
No bro, I shouldn't. They are all dead and gone. You just deflected the conversation again, as you normally do. I don't care about the Apostles.
Since FR rules say I should not ask you more than three times, this is the last time. Since all who are not born again (John 3) will go to Hell 🔥have you been born again? I hope you make it bro, but if not, that's on you. I don't care when the Apostles were born again. It's you I am worried about, not them.
I will not discuss this with you any further bro. Have a nice eternity. 😱
The Apostles taught the virgin birth of Jesus because it was a fulfillment of critical Messianic prophecy. They didn't say a word about having to believe Mary remained a virgin her whole life and never had anymore children. That was something that some people started spreading hundreds of years later and it was not universally accepted even by those called Early Church Fathers. Like I said before, it's not a hill to die on, but the way some people go on and on, it sounds like some of them would.
Matthew 12:
[49] And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. [50] For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus Himself refers to non-relatives as brothers and sisters and even mother. Anyway, even if He had brothers and sisters, they could have been Joseph’s children and not Mary’s.
Show me a scripture please that shows that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born, and I have already proven by giving several citations, that the one using the word ‘until’ can be interpreted to mean their abstinence continued.
You may disagree with my interpretation of that passage, but you cannot definitively prove that mine is wrong and yours is right. I have biblical examples to support mine, and you have biblical examples to support yours.
Sola scriptura means scripture alone, and you continuously try to hold me to that in our discussions. I am simply holding you to the same.
Love,
O2
I hear what you’re saying. Problem though, is the RCC has made this a hill they die on due to their dogmatic statements on Mary. The Catholic has to believe these or else.
Context O....context. Search the thread. I’ve already explained the passage in question. Not doing so again. But perhaps you’ll take a stab at my question I’ve asked of Mrs d and afvet. Neither is willing to answer. Y’all freepmail and figure out your answer. Out for the night.
Exactly! Which is why they will bring it up constantly, argue unceasingly and refuse to agree to disagree. I’m content to find out when I get to heaven.
The Catholic Church teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary because it is a belief that is not contradictory to scripture and has been held by tradition back to the earliest centuries of the church.
I engage on these threads not because I am melting down, but because I am defending my beliefs. I do not go from non-Catholic thread to non-Catholic thread berating people for not believing in Mary’s perpetual virginity.
As I have shown in my examples from scripture, the word ‘until’ clearly does not always mean the action changed afterward. I interpret the passage about Mary and Joseph in that way. You may disagree with that interpretation, but you cannot claim that it is not bible-based.
The article, if you read it, disagrees with your interpretation of ‘brothers and sisters.’ Again, I have biblical basis for my belief that Jesus had no siblings. Anyway, even if Jesus had brothers and sisters, they could have been Joseph’s and not Mary’s children.
You bring in the responsibilities and privileges of marriage as part of your interpretation. You are making an assumption based on social tradition. That’s just as extra-biblical as my using Catholic tradition to influence my interpretation.
The bottom line here that there is no definite scriptural proof that Mary had other children or that she did not. The relevant scripture can be interpreted either way.
Those who truly believe in sola scriptura should not be giving any answer to that particular question.
Those who believe that everyone should interpret scripture for themselves should not be telling me that I must believe their interpretation over mine.
You say you have the stronger case, but then you are admitting that I at least have a case. I have no obligation to accept your case over mine.
If you are right, and it makes no difference to anyone’s salvation, why does it bother you so much that you feel the need to prove it to be wrong?
Love,
O2
Saying that you’ve made your point is not the same as actually making your point.
You have yet to show me why my interpretation, although different from yours, is wrong.
I have given you scripture that backs my interpretation. I know you have a different interpretation, but what authority do you have to impose your interpretation on me?
Love,
O2
P.S. I’ve never freepmailed anyone about these discussions, I simply consult my Bible. Projecting much?
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.