| 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.
I reckon you're just trying to be brief here, but you haven't even considered evidence. You can't say there "isn't evidence" simply because you're unaware of it or fail to deal with it.
The same generations of Christians (AD 100 - 300) who believed in the ever-virginity of Mary are the ones who preserved, canonized and handed on the Scriptures you and I hold to be sacred. There's nothing in the Bible about which books are supposed to be Scripture; there's no Table of Contents; there's no signatures on the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John: so as far as the text goes, they're anonymous. (How do you know who wrote them?) Nor is there evidence that the whole 27 books of the NT were "taught by any Apostle, nor believed by any Christian before 100 AD."
Except... EXCEPT that we know this from the history of the Church: it was the Fathers, the Synods, the Councils, the --- yes --- extra-Biblical writings and the Church authorities which "canonized" our sacred canon of Scripture.
You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.
Mary’s is the “Seed of the Woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.
Hebrew law states that an adopted child has all the same inheritance rights as a blood born child; God knows what He is doing and He knows what He wrote in the Law and the Prophets about Jesus.
This whole thread is nuts. Jesus had brothers. There is no “permanent virgin zone” for Mary on some supernatural level; else-wise why would Mary have been waiting in the Upper Room for Pentecost to fall, and the Spirit be poured out upon her?
Mary awaited pouring out of God’s spirit as per the Prophet Joel (as Peter quotes) because she was the same as you and me and every other person God chooses out of the world to be His.
I love Catholics but hate all the tacked-on aerie-fairy-Mary-tales.
(On iPhone-pardon brevity)
Word games. There is ZERO evidence that directly ties this belief to any Apostle and ZERO evidence in Scripture.
Zero + Zero = Zero
“You can’t reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It’s really as simple as that.”
It’s really as “red herring” as that. The canon was examined and recognized later, after removing erroneous books.
Mary’s ongoing virginity has no Apostolic root, or you would have posted SCRIPTURE or other actual evidence from 100 ad, instead of reverting to belief in later generations.
She was a married woman. So were Sarah, Hannah, and Samson's mothers: married women. If Mary knew she would shortly be having sex with Joseph, if this was expected to be the natural course of things, there wouldn't have been any initial perplexity about where this promised baby in the unspecified future (as yet unconceived) was going to come from.
Look at it closely. You'll notice she was perplexed BEFORE she was told that the child would be the Son of the Most High. As far as Mary knew at that moment, it was a promised natural baby in the natural manner.
Like... WHAT? Me, have a baby? Sometime in the future? How would that happen?
That passage stands out to me as having a very important reason for being there. "Before they came together.", says both that Jesus was not from the consummation of marriage between Mary and Joseph as well as it being a NORMAL marriage where "coming together" (i.e., consummation (AKA...sexual intercourse) was expected in due time. It negates any idea that their marriage was out of the ordinary definition of the term with the Jewish customs of a betrothal period.
Call no man father
And the RIGHT to an abortion is found in the Constitution by using the same logic.
Perhaps you're not as familiar with the account as you need to be.
26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, 27to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. 28And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.”
29But she was very perplexed at
this statement,
and kept pondering what kind of salutation this was. 30The angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. 31“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.
32“He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; 33and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”
34Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” Luke 1:28-34 NASB
I agree sir, and I am an ex Catholic. I no longer accept the fairy tales either. 😀
More false teachings on your part. .
By 170 AD the 27 books of the NT were accepted by the ekklesia.
Rome only recognized its canon at Trent around 1546 AD....some 1376 years after the ekklesia had already done so. Roman Catholics were a bit late to the party.
You can't reject Apostolic Tradition without rejecting the canon of Scripture as well. It's really as simple as that.
Yes you can.
CLAIMING a bunch of assertions of unrelated things being linked together is no way to establish doctrine.
Well; considering what she was TOLD...
Luke 1:26-38
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)26 And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,
27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
32 He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever.
33 And of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?
35 And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:
37 Because no word shall be impossible with God.
38 And Mary said: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Mary already was troubled by the angel from the get-go. Then she hears some wild sounding prediction in verse 32.
And you are expecting her to think clearly at this point in time and ask RATIONAL questions of the angel?
It's just too bad that NONE of the translators of the NT's differing versions actually KNEW this 'FACT'.
They ALL seemed to think that the English word BROTHER would be the best choice; considering the context.
The same folks who were linked to the seven CATHOLIC churches in Asia that yet another angel told john to write to?
Call no man father!
It’s as if Catholics read, or are told about, a completely different text than what everyone else reads.
Sounds like a PROPER response...
...unless you've some kind of a SECRET pact with your 'husband' to NOT have any sexual relations at ALL in the future.
WHAT? Me, have a baby? Sometime in the future? How would that happen since me and Joe ain't gonna be doing NOTHING like that!!!
You have an amazing ability to expose foolishness in Catholic reasoning in such succinct postings! Sad that the apologist5s doing satan’s dirty work cannot see the humor.
Certified heresy-free.
I'm sure that makes all of us feel much better. Yes...sarcasm.
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.