| 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.
It “certainly” appears that they were looking forward to having sex together? That doesn’t seem to occur to Mary when she’s talking with the Archangel and troubled about where this promised future baby was gonna come from.
It does in that she is saying she and Joseph haven't had sex yet as she says she has not "known a man"...nor has she had sex with any man. That's why she was asking the "how" this was going to happen.
You've read the text...right??
The Ark
Co-redemptrix
Mediatrix
Advocatrix
Queen of Heaven,
the list goes on and on.
To be clear...you're saying we have original copies or copies of Matthew in Hebrew or Greek?
[[What Rome is really saying, and acting out with a celibate priesthood, is that the marriage bed is somehow defiled by intimate relations by a husband and wife.
Which of course is unBiblical as well.]]
Of course it is unbiblical.
The Roman Catholic church used to allow their priest to marry.
They changed purely for financial reasons . They have no wives and families to support now and no families to leave an inheritance to either. It’s was all about the money.
But for me, the Bible does say it in plain language. Mary and His brothers went to seek an audience with Him at a house where He was teaching. That’s plain enough for me. Sorry it does not meet your requirement for substantiation, but it is plain Koine Greek.
Of course he doesn’t.
But don’t call him out on it; all he’ll do is insult your intelligence and then lie about it after the mods delete his insult.
BTW, I was laughing at the following: “... why would they be referred to as Jesus`s brothers and sisters if they were Mary`s children?”
You continue to advance this already disproven claim.
.
The cult of doesn’t matter calls Yehova’s apostle to the Romans a liar!
What a surprise (NOT!)
Yes, the language matters; that is why the Holy Spirit led Paul to declare that it does.
You keep calling for Michael Rood to yield to the nicolaitan cults. Why is that?
Christians and Jews both are totally ensnared in nicolaitanism that Yeshua denounced in the strongest of terms. ordained nicolaitans and “Rabbis” are the blind guides that Yeshua cautioned us about.
Yeshua’s sheep do not follow nicolaitans; they follow his scriptures, and that is what all of his called ministers preach.
None of his called men are ordained. To be ordained is to be a certified lying blind guide.
The Word!
The Word!
The Word!
The Word!
.
.
You laugh, it makes me want to cry.
.
Yep, see you in the clouds.
.
We have what we have of all scripture: reliable copies of an original letter, hand copied by a believer.
As Papias stated, Matthew wrote in his native tongue, and others copied it and translated it as best they could.
That is how all of the NT has been carried forward.
.
.
>> “Vatican archives are notorious disappearing vaults. “
One of the best copies of the original Gospel of Matthew was found by Nehemiah Gordon in Vatican archives, labeled simply “writings in Hebrew.”
It was well preserved. It survived most likely because they couldn’t understand Matthew’s paleo Hebrew hen scratches.
.
I am waiting for my Greek friend, to return to the Islands, (balikbayan) from Bangkok, so I can ask him more questions about these words. I know you study Greek, but Greek is his first language. 😀
RESOUNDINGLY YES!
He was God before He came to earth.
Perhaps this is why God doesn't ever refer to Mary as "mother of God."
I'd love to see him come to faith in Christ - and you as well - and break free from the cultic teaching. I also realize only God can open eyes.
Yeshua’s sheep do not follow nicolaitans; they follow his scriptures, and that is what all of his called ministers preach.
And yet you deny God's full revelation.
None of his called men are ordained. To be ordained is to be a certified lying blind guide.
HA! Oh, I love that!!
.
>> “Of course, your cult cuts out all Paul’s NT books.” <<
One of your most willfully false statements yet!
Paul’s letters are central to Michael’s first book: “The Mystery of Iniquity.”
It is based on Paul’s total denouncement of the pre-trib rapture in 2Thessalonians, as Paul listed the many things that must first come, such as the revealing of the Man of Sin.
If you’re going to deceive, try to get the basics right.
So far you have missed them all.
.
There exist extensive collections of the letters of early Christians such as ‘The Ante-Nicene Fathers’. They quoted so extensively from the NT that the NT could be reconstructed from these sources alone had all NT copies themselves been lost. Koine Greek was the dominant language. IIRC British scholar FF Bruce’s ‘The New Testament Documents’ and his ‘Canon of Scripture’ are an excellent source on all of this.
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.