| 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.
When the Fifth Marian Dogma is approved by the Roman Catholic Church Catholics will have no choice but to acknowledge what Christians have been saying all along. Catholics worship Mary.
Sorry; but your claim is a wee bit; shall we say; one-sided here.
I don`t know and would need proof to believe it and do not see any proof as Jesus is the only child mentioned as belonging to Mary.
If Mary had other children why is it not mentioned, why would they be referred to as Jesus`s brothers and sisters if they were Mary`s children?
I think Satan did to.
Your tagine says it all.
Your tagine says it all.
Your tag line wipes out a lot of Roman Catholic theology in that case.
.
Don’t really care what you believe; the evidence is strong and irrefutable in the blunders in the Greek versions.
.
.
But only partially.
I finally stopped laughing ... I really had a hard time believing you actually asked this: “why would they be referred to as Jesus`s brothers and sisters if they were Mary`s children?” FRiend, JESUS is the center of attention for the New Testament, not Mary or the brothers and sisters of JESUS. Even when Mary and the brothers of JESUS show up where HE is teaching and ask for HIM to come have a word with them, JESUS is the center of the scene, but the brothers are mentioned as seeking an audience with HIM.
I DOES get old, doesn't it bro?
I showed my Greek speaking friend, who grew up speaking the language, the verse where Jesus' brothers were mentioned. He said the Greek words indicate to him, that they came from the same mother.
The point of Jesus, and not Mary, being the focus of attention in the NT must be a shock to our Catholic friends.
If you don’t care, why did you reply?
.
>> “The point of Jesus, and not Mary, being the focus of attention in the NT must be a shock to our Catholic friends.” <<
No problem!
They’ll just say a few hundred more Rosaries, and have a few beers.
.
Logical fallacy: Ad hominem.
And wow, degenerating to personal insults just because I challenged you? Sad.
Arthur McGowan, I'm asking you to drop in here if you get a chance, and vet my answer to see if there's anything contrary to doctrine. Some of it may be my legitimate theological “opinion,” but I wouldn’t want any of it to be heresy.
MHGinTN, I don't know if my answer is precisely RC doctrine or not: so if there is any fault in the way I am saying it, please attribute this to me, personally, your favorite Catholic (if I may flatter myself!)
You wrote: "Dear One, which parent, Mary or Joseph, is in the line from David?"As I understand it, there two ways to determine the Davidic line: the legal line and the biological line.
The Joseph line is legal: Jesus is of the house of Joseph, therefore (legally) of the house of David, because He is Joseph's legal but not biological son. This legal status as Joseph’s (adopted) son is the basis of His legal claim.
The Mary line is biological: Jesus is of the flesh of Mary, her true offspring, her descendant, her blood relative, her Son in every sense of the word: genetic, gestational, parturient, nurturant, legal, religious, social, emotional, psychological, physical. Jesus assumed (took up unto Himself) His human nature --- an entire and perfect human nature, complete in every detail --- from Mary. She is a descendant (seed) of David ---- as well as of Abraham, of Noah, of Adam and Eve, and her true maternity establishes Jesus’ biological claim to be heir of David, to be Messiah, to be Jewish even (son of a Jewish mother), to be Son of Man.
You wrote: "If you see the term 'seed of the woman' in only physical perspective, how do you read Rev 12?"
Not sure what you mean by “only physical.” It is essential to acknowledge that Jesus has come ‘in the flesh’, i.e. physically.
2 John 1:7
Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist.
The Woman in Rev 12 is a multivalent “Great Sign,” not a literal big huge person up in the sky, clothed with thermonuclear solar energy by being wrapped in a medium-sized star 93 million miles away. (Oy.) This is a symbolic vision. She represents, in distinct but related ways, Israel (Virgin Daughter of Zion), Mary (Mother of the Messiah, Mother of the Redeemer), and the Church (Mater Ecclesia, Holy Mother Church, Mother of the Redeemed).
As far as I know, one’s “seed” (e.g. Abraham’s seed; or implied in the phrase the “fruit of your loins,” with loins denoting the generative capacities) means one’s natural offspring.
I understand “seed” to mean the natural generative source of Jesus’ flesh. He took flesh from Mary the Virgin. “The Word was made Flesh.” She is the natural and proximate source of His human nature: He is incarnate of her.
You wrote: ”GOD chose Israel as HIS bride. She is the 'woman' who cries out in pain at birthing the Messiah, the Messiah Who is caught up to Heaven before satan can devour Him.”Certainly true. Yes, GOD chose Israel; God chose Mary; God chose the Church. Israel is His bride. Mary is His bride. The Church is His bride.
You wrote: ” My point, albeit a point apparently never addressed before, is that God would not defraud Joseph. “
| I think that’s an important, even a crucial point. I am very glad that you are focusing on this. Marriage in the normal, natural, conjugal sense means that both husband and wife implicitly gift each other with the entirety of their future procreative capacity. Any child they have will be the fruit of their lawful holy marital union, through their coition, exclusively. They will have children of their bodies with each other, only. This is irrevocable and must not be otherwise sold, traded, modified, donated, shared, bartered, loaned, given away, contracted to a third party, or in any way violated (until they are parted by death.) |
Do we agree on that?
God would not defraud Joseph. And I think I addressed that when I said Mary and Joseph had not, in fact, embarked upon, and did not intend marriage in the above physical/conjugal sense. Therefore a conjugal marriage vow was not violated.
If Mary ---with Joseph’s knowledge and consent --- did NOT intend nor vow nor her whole future procreative capacity to Joseph, then he was therefore not defrauded. But had she so vowed, then I’d say, yes, Joseph would have been defrauded by her becoming pregnant outside of their covenant union. But this was not the case. Her prior covenant, which determined the manner of her maternity, was with God, not with Joseph.
You wrote: ”If Mary brought an orphan child into her arms and nursed that child, and washed and clothed that child, and loved that child and raised that child, while married to Joseph, she would not be violating her marriage vows to Joseph, vows which put all her genetic future as his, not shared with another.”True --- theoretically. But that’s not what she did.
If Mary had had an allogenetic embryo implanted her womb, that would have violated her marriage vow (if she had vowed herself in the normal wifely/procreative manner) to Joseph.
For anyone to have a baby by some kind of artificial implantation violates marriage because (among other reasons) it introduces a third party into the procreative process.
IF Mary were a surrogate mother, and IF she were at the same time married to Joseph in the fully conjugal sense, having vowed herself to have children only by Joseph, this would have been a violation of her vow to Joseph. Joseph would have been defrauded.
But that’s not what she did, either.
Her procreative potential and capacity, her motherhood, was, by prior covenant --- in fact, I would say by God’s intention from all eternity--- predestined to God, not to Joseph. This happened before Mary, a human person, God’s mortal creature, ever existed.
You wrote: ”When Joseph took Mary to be his wife, regardless of her being pregnant by the Holy Spirit, I conclude that Joseph adopted Jesus thus Jesus is in the line of Joseph and whom Joseph is descended.”True.
You wrote: ”By Mary taking the role of mothering Jesus, Jesus is in the line of those from whom Mary is descended. The Gospel of Luke gives us those lineages.”Here the crucial distinction must be made. If by “the role of mothering” you mean merely adoptive or surrogate mothering: No. If you mean “full mothering in every sense of the word”: Yes.
We must understand that Jesus was not the “adopted” son of Mary. He had one adopted human parent (Joseph), and one natural human parent (Mary). Jesus was Mary’s natural Son: from her he took His human nature. (Notice nature --> natural). He was her Son according to her seed, and hence the descendant from the “flesh” and “loins” of David, hence the seed of Abraham, hence the Son of Man.
You wrote: ”IF Jesus was conceived as a union of sperm and egg, that would say God inseminated Mary. “I do not say God inseminated Mary. I don’t think there was semen involved. I think God impregnated her using her seed (ovum) which was miraculously made fertile by Him. It is utterly beyond our power to investigate. We don’t know how.
In the animal kingdom (certain worms and mollusks and so forth), parthenogenesis always results in female offspring. So this was different from that. But still it was still in some manner a parthenogenesis (in a miraculous manner), that is to say, it had to have involved Mary’s physical contribution which was Jesus’ genetic, genealogical link to the human nature of the entire human race.
You wrote: ” IF God used an ovum from Mary and created Jesus without a spermatozoon, that would also defraud Joseph of his right as sole husband to Mary's genetic future. “
You have to read this with a big IF. That’s IF Mary were pledged to Joseph as ordinary wives are, to procreate only with him. But I am convinced that she was not.
You wrote: ”IF, on the other hand, God made the embryonic Jesus by His will, not using an ovum from Mary or a spermatozoon, then the Holy Spirit implanted the embryonic Jesus in Mary's womb, BY HER CONSENT AND JOSEPH"S AGREEMENT, then GOD has not defrauded Joseph because Mary being a surrogate Mother to the baby is an agreed adoption by both supporting parents. And we have BIBLE evidence that Mary AND Joseph took the roles of parent and were still doing so at Jesus's age of twelve, at the very least.”
I understand your line of argument here. However, I think it denies the Incarnation. It would be useful to consider what Christians mean by “Incarnation,” as opposed to the Muslim concept of--- well, call it allogenetic implantation.
Muslims believe in the virgin birth, but do not believe in the Incarnation: that is, they hold that Jesus was created “de novo” like Adam and merely carried by Mary. They do not believe that Jesus was the true son of Mary, nor that He was a member of her family, nor even a member of her species. I repeat: Muslims hold that Jesus was NEITHER the son of God NOR the son of Mary according to the flesh. She was just a kind of surrogate reproductive concubine.
They believe Jesus was a direct creation of God, a human-like person and yet a kind of distinct humanoid species, so to speak. It’s as if scientists genetically modified a Siberian wooly mammoth clone and then implanted it in an African elephant “cow”. It was carried by an elephant, but it’s still a different species, a one-of-a-kind, custom-modified, allogene wooly mammoth.
In other words, Islam does not teach that Jesus was truly human, only that he was a created being, created de-novo, that looked human except he was not actually related to the human species. He was NOT a “man like us an all things except for sin” --- or so Muslims would say. But they are in error. Jesus was not directly created by God in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as the Muslims believe. He was conceived of her flesh, in her womb. This is what makes Him truly human: that He partook of her nature.
You wrote: ”My point is aimed at the very specious Catholicism nature of claiming 'GOD used a genetic gamete from Mary, thus Mary is so specially touched by GOD (as HIS inseminated wife) that she obtains goddesshood!'”This formulation is exactly 180o wrong. Fascinatingly and precisely wrong.
Jesus assumed real flesh from His real mother. He did not assume godhead from a goddess: He assumed humanity from a human. Mary is a human person. Is, was, and always will be a human person. Woe to those who say she is a goddess: this is a radical misunderstanding.
You wrote: ” IF an ovum from Mary was used or inseminated by God, do you see what this means regarding 'extra-human quality for Mary'…. and for defrauding of Joseph?”
You wrote: ”At the very base of Catholicism's Mariology is this stealthy impugning of God's character.”
Not so. Those who accept this idea you have proposed --- allogenetic implantation instead of Incarnation --- accept that God seized Mary and used her as a disposable fetus carton and then dropped her when He was was done with her. He used her as a surrogate. Thus God wronged Joseph because He (God) used Joseph’s woman who was priorly vowed to be the mother of Joseph’s children exclusively. This would be so gravely wrong. This truly impugns God’s character.
”You wrote: We see the same impugning of God's character in the Catholicism Eucharist, where Catholicism claims JESUS violated the commandment to not eat the blood by feeding His flesh and blood to the disciples on the night before the crucifixion!”
That’s another, longer argument, but suffice it to say that blood was not previously forbidden because it was too filthy, etc. but because it was too sacred (“Life is in the blood.”) When God willed to give us His blood to drink (“My flesh is true food and My blood is true drink” – John 5:55) it was to make this exceptional, incomparably sacred gift: that we might imbibe His life. The previous prohibition against consuming blood was exactly to prepare us for this one, unthinkably sacred, exceptional and unique gift. His blood. His life. That’s what He said.
You wrote: ”GOD is not duplicitous. GOD is not a defrauder. GOD is not a liar. God does not play trickster. “
True. Well said.
You wrote: ”Catholicism makes GOD to be a law violator.”Wrong. See above.
You wrote: ”God is seen as inseminating Mary as HIS wife, raising Mary to goddesshood!”
Wrong. “Goddesshood” is completely out of the picture. Mary is handmaid, not goddess. We all know that.
You wrote: ”You are absolutely right that we do not know the particulars of HOW God made the body of Jesus.”
Amen. But to insist that an ovum from Mary was not used and that Mary was the surrogate but not the natural mother of Jesus has wrongful implications I am trying so hard to point out “to thinking people, thinking Christians!”
Thank you, MHGinTN, for this good exchange of views.
Please bless us and guide us, Jesus, True God and True Man.
Jesus, my Lord, my God, my All.
Editor-surveyer has said he follows the cultivation leader Rood. This false teacher used to be in the cult, The Way.
There is nothing in the NT to support your claim.
And therein is the problem...this was not a belief of the early church as attested in the Gospel accounts of Jesus and His family and Paul's acknowledgement of James as the Lord's brother.
They have always held that the brothers and sisters to whom you refer were the children of Saint Joseph (not from the Virgin Mary) and/or their cousins.
This gets tiresome....we've explained numerous times why they are not cousins or other relatives based on the non-usage of the Greek words for these.
The claim these are children from another marriage with Joseph raises all kinds of concerns. That the questionable writing which would have supported the Catholic claim regarding this was not included at Trent is telling. All the RCC had to do was declare this canon and it would have strengthened their argument. That they didn't is telling.
The Greek word for cousin or relatives is used for the Passover family trip to Jerusalem when he was twelve, and there is no mention of brothers or sisters.
Can't have it both ways if you're going to dismiss the argument of no mention of Joseph's other children regarding taxes.
Why would Joseph and Mary look among little children for a missing child? I hope you're not a cop or anything.
The word is also used immediately after the reference to the brothers (named) and sisters in Mark where Jesus said a prophet is not without honour, ....
Uh no...they are called brothers and sisters.
....but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house, suggesting both cousins and step brothers/sisters.
It is His hometown....you would expect to find the extended family there.
You will note He included the oikia...the household last where He was without honor.
Your argument fails again on so many levels.
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.