| 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.
.
The “Woman” is the believing seed of Abraham.
They are called Israel.
Yeshua, and his mother are part of that seed.
Mary is never called “The Woman” in scripture.
.
Really? Did you get that from the cult leader Rood?
If you had any love of truth, you would not even click on the links that you post. They are directly from the seed of the serpent, and only the seed of the serpent would wish to offer them to deceive others.
Fear no truth. If what you believe can't stand up to a link, it is a pathetic belief and must be greenhoused to keep it from damage - which is correct regarding the "hebrew roots movement."
If it is not found in the Acts, nor the Gospels, it is of the serpent. That includes every man made “creed,” chant, rosary, or appeal to dead men.
Love how you subtract the rest of the entire NT - especially the Apostle Paul! Darn those contradictory epistles!
If Yeshua observed it,it is of his narrow path, as the Apostles demonstrated in the Acts. We pray and Mikvah in Yeshua’s name only, as he requested.
You left out the false teachings of the HRM.
You also left out that your cult-daddy Rood was ordained in another cult - The Way International. He is simply one more con man, along with Joseph Smith.
Many of the original NT writings had Satan's help, through Constantine's man made ‘church’ in disappearing and being corrupted.
Fortunately, the most important one, Matthew’a gospel in his own hand and tongue, got out to the rest of the world before Constantine and his devils were born.
Quite a number of generations of that letter are in existence today, proving Yeshua’s complete and total condemnation of Phariseeism (a forerunner of today's Nicolaitanism that is called christianity)
Paul's words to the Romans are definitive of what is the true word:
Romans 3:
1] What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
[2] Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God .
If it was not given in the tongue of Judah, it is not "the oracles of God."
.
.
You remain confused.
I do not subtract “the rest of the NT.”
To be subtracted is the twisting of the rest of the NT that was done after they were first written by the apostles in their native tongue, Hebrew.
The rage of Rome to erase Yeshua, and his commandments cost us the pure NT writings.
.
.
>> “If what you believe can’t stand up to a link, it is a pathetic” <<
It is your persistence in offering Satan’s links that is pathetic.
We have no need for links to the evil of men. If you can’t find it in the word, it isn’t of the word.
.
1) You are ignoring Hebrew idiomatic usage which pervades the Greek NT
2) Nowhere in Scripture is anyone called a Son of Mary except Jesus Christ.
They do itwith 0rotestants, too.
Luther is a hell bound heretic.
Except when they want support for the alleaged perpetual virginity of Mary.
I can then assume that YOU are not exclusively faithful to YOUR Lord?
Do you really want to go there??
If you do you just wiped out a lot of Roman Catholic dogma not only on Mary, but a whole host of other issues.
So Jerome wants us to believe that Joseph disobeyed the angel and did not marry Mary and that she and Joseph lived together with the appearance of being husband and wife, thus deceiving everyone about their marital status.
After 506 replies; I’m just about with you on this...
Jerome misses the fact that Mary and Joseph were already married at the time of the Anunciation.
One can NOT 'consent' to something that an angel tells you WILL happen.
The BEST you can do is to resign yourself to it.
Again...no.
Joseph and Mary were engaged/married prior to the visit from Gabriel. There certainly appears from the texts that the two of them were anticipating a regular marriage in terms of sex.
You keep getting the Scriptures out of order for some reason.
“If you can’t find it in the word, it isn’t of the word.”
Of course, your cult cuts out all Paul’s NT books...
Keep tryin'; maybe SOMEone will buy it!!
“To be subtracted is the twisting of the rest of the NT that was done after they were first written by the apostles in their native tongue, Hebrew.”
And of course they were not written in Hebrew.
Your cult claims this to undermine the authority of the Scriptures we have.
Your cult daddy makes this claim. You mouth it in this post.
“If it was not given in the tongue of Judah, it is not “the oracles of God.””
Cult perversion. Language is not specified.
This is added by the cult you belong to under cultist Rood, who isn’t a Christian, nor a Jew, nor ordained except by a cult.
“
2) Nowhere in Scripture is anyone called a Son of Mary except Jesus Christ.
Nor “Mother of God”
Isn’t Jesus God?
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.