| 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.
Contrary to Scripture, as usual.
.
AMPU, please discontinue your deliberate falsehood propagation.
I follow the same scriptures that Yeshua and his disciples did.
The same scriptures that Paul, Peter, James, and John preached daily.
The same faith that is plainly presented in every word of the Acts of the Apostles.
The same that you reject in favor of the made religion called “christianity” since the mid 4th century, which is the same “inherited lies” that Jeremiah spoke of in his ch 16.
Truth matters, even here on the Man Made Religion Forum.
.
.
>> “Mary remained a virgin” <<
Only in the wild imaginations of those that cannot accept the solid truth of both Tanakh and the NT writings.
.
Mary, who was well aware of all of this history, nevertheless professes herself troubled and perplexed as to how this promised son could ever be engendered in her. Why would she not simply suppose that she'd get pregnant with her husband, just like the other holy mothers in Israel got pregnant with their husbands?
(2)Old Testament typology concerning the Ark of the Covenant and Mary (Theotokos). The Ark of the Covenant held the most sacred items of the Jewish faith: manna from the desert, the tablets of the 10 Commandment (the Law) and Aaron’s staff (Aaron was from the priestly tribe, so this was the staff of the priest, a shepherd for the people).
The Old Ark held the manna; Mary, the New Ark holds the Bread of Life. The Old Ark held the Law; Mary, the new Ark holds the Lawgiver and the very fulfillment of the Law. The Old Ark held the priestly staff; Mary, the New Ark holds the high priest, the Good Shepherd who pastors all souls.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity.
(3) It's repugnant, and against the character of God, that He would initiate the Holy Incarnation of the Word by taking another man's wife --- if Mary were exclusively vowed to Joseph procreatively, as all other wives are to their husbands. If this were the way it happened, it would not a manifestation of God's infinite moral excellence. This would have been a defrauding of Joseph, a violation of the exclusivity of Mary and Joseph's marriage covenant: cuckoldry.
I'm saying God would not bump aside a natural husband who had an exclusive right to his wife's procreative future. Is this view in the NT?? Brother, this is the entire Bible: God's way is the honoring, not the violation, of holy covenants.
You can assert there's "nothing" to support the claim of Mary's pledged virginity --- her faithful and prior understanding that she belonged to God alone, God, the father of her Son --- only by failing to deeply consider the evidence.
Ignoring everything that supports the claim is not a persuasive strategy.
“.
AMPU, please discontinue your deliberate falsehood propagation. I follow the same scriptures that Yeshua and his disciples did.”
Do you believe Rood is a prophet or teacher of truth?
Yeah, look buddy.
I stopped caring the moment you called me stupid after I challenged you to show proof for your assertions.
So you can lay off the holier-than-thou proselytizing to me.
Bye.
“her faithful and prior understanding that she belonged to God alone, God, the father of her Son.”
This isn’t in Scripture, nor is there evidence it was taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 ad.
It is made up later, as paganism was integrated into the Roman church.
.
Only Yehova knows who he has called as a prophet, or apostle.
Michael is a preacher and teacher of Yehova’s unadulterated word. What he has taught is a perfect match for all scripture.
That is what sets real men of Yehova apart from fools and liars.
.
“Unfortunately, Michael John Rood and his teachings are not credible or accurate. Rood is not trained, certified or recognized as a Rabbi, and his “ordination” by a cult called The Way International (TWI) required only minor instruction in an unaccredited TWI program. His central teachings depart radically from the evangelical Christian faith, and several of his teachings and practices are typical among cults rather than among Christians or Messianic Jews (that is, Jews who have accepted Yeshua [Jesus Christ] as Lord and Savior). Furthermore, many of his teachings and practices are drawn from a cult called The Way International which was incorporated in 1954 and widely denounced by Christian leaders and TWI’s ex-followers alike. About 95% of TWI’s followers have left TWI after seeing its severe errors, and many ex-leaders of TWI have founded a variety of splinter groups or ministries, just as Rood has.”
http://www.empirenet.com/~messiah7/spl_rood.htm
Dude, you are in the grip of a cultist.
Flee. Come out from among them and be holy.
.
The dog that yelps!
I called you nothing.
Thank you. Your point here supports my point. In Hebrew, the term “brothers” has very wide kinship and social breadth.
If Jesus is not the "seed of the woman," He is not the Son of Man, heck, He's not even Jewish, and He's not the fulfillment of prophecy.
As for Mary and Joseph's marriage, I would argue it was unique inasmuch as they were not pledged exclusively, procreatively, to each other, as would be the the case in any other marriage.
IF (big IF) you maintain that they were exclusively vowed to each other, as in any normal marriage, you'd have to countenance that God based His holy Incarnation on their violated vows.
.
Dude, you propagate lies here on this forum!
All that you post in#389 is categorically Satanically false.
It is no surprise that you would be looking for a “Rabbi,” since you reject Yeshua’s truth.
Michael Rood demolished the apostasy of “The Way,” and many other cults through his truthful ministry; that is why they hate him.
Michael preaches exactly what Yeshua taught, word for word. For that reason, Your attack on him is an attack on Yeshua.
You are a preacher of the “other gospel.”
Posting nonsense links diminishes you, since they represent the state of your heart, or you would not offer them. It is as though you personally invented every lie on the sites you link.
You’ll have a time to answer for them.
.
Context, My friend. Context.
A nice summary of the Hebrew Roots cult Rood is a part of:
https://fortheloveofhistruth.com/2012/04/17/the-hebrew-roots-cult/
Context, My friend. Context.
To use the Catholic logic regarding how ya'll question how adelphoi is used...yes...you have to question if Andrew and Simon are brothers.
We have nothing saying they came from the same mom....to use Catholic logic regarding the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
See how tortured the texts become when we apply Catholic interpretation to the Scriptures??
Mrs. D.....this gets a little tiresome. We're discussing the Greek...not the Hebrew.
The NT was written in Greek.
You, along with the other Catholics, have been shown the context of the usage of the word for brother.
No one has denied that brother, in the proper context, can be something other than a physical brother.
Ya'll have been shown the words for cousin and relative and neither are used in any of the passages when referring to Jesus and His brothers and sisters.
I have shown you the Greek structure of the passages in question use the possessive of the word for brother when describing the brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Yet the Catholic continues to persist in saying they could be cousins/relatives.
Ya'll keep trying to play verbal gymnastics to make the texts fit what you want it to fit.
I guess this completely discounts that she and Joseph were engaged???? She was committed to Joseph prior to being chosen to be the mother of Christ. Unless somehow the Catholic redefines prior.
The passage in Luke when she asks Gabriel how will this be since I know not a man...that is "I haven't had sex with anyone"....is not a pledge of perpetual virginity...at least to those who understand the Greek.
No one was allowed to touch the Ark of the Covenant. The ark was pure (untouched). Mary the new Ark is pure, untouched. The Church teaches that she is ever-virgin, a vessel of purity.
This is why analogy is not a sound basis for theology. It leads to this kind of false teaching which in in contradiction of the texts themselves.
Mary, who was well aware of all of this history, nevertheless professes herself troubled and perplexed as to how this promised son could ever be engendered in her. Why would she not simply suppose that she'd get pregnant with her husband, just like the other holy mothers in Israel got pregnant with their husbands?
She reacted this way because, unlike the other women who knew they'd had sex with their husbands, Mary had not. Add in to this and you've got an angel telling her this. Hence her confusion on the "how" this would happen.
She understood biology and how to make babies.
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.