| 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.
Then later, after Christ was conceived, Joseph was head of the household, head of the Holy Family, for the nurturing and maturing of God's Son. "He [Jesus] grew in wisdom, age, and favor before God and men."
Please post the gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and demonstrate using evidence, that it has an unbroken chain of authority back to Matthew.
It is. But then every book I’ve ever read by FF Bruce has been excellent.
.
Michael and I have the full faith in Yeshua that can come only from the scriptures, not from the lies called “christianity” these days.
Someday you too may come to be a believer in Yeshua and his infallible word. Your present vehement rejection of his words and commandments of course stands as a barrier to that.
Your visible embrace of the satanic web sites here on this thread is quite revealing.
I will continue to share Yehova’s abundant truth with you until you cease to reject his Son and his teaching. Hatred for the truth of the scriptures is a block to Yeshua’s narrow path that you must overcome.
.
I have a copy of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History.
Page 106..
Of Matthew he had stated as follows: "Matthew composed his history in the Hebrew dialect(8), and everyone translated as he was able.
The footnote reads as:
The author here, doubtless means the Syro-Chaldaic, which sometimes Scripture and primitive writers called Hebrew. p437
Mary’s confusion over the angel’s announcement and message certainly uts into the fantastic claims Catholics make about Mary’s alleged vows.
The way they talk about Mary, everyone knew she was special and set apart for some sacred holy purpose, and yet nothing in any account relating to her in Scripture, especially regarding how she and others i teracted, ever suggests that anyone ever thought she was ore that the carpenter’s wife, herself included.
When the angel greets her with “ Hail, you highly favored one” she wonders what kind of greeting it was and what it meant.
Not a good indicator that she was sinless from birth, consecrated to God, and knew it.
No one spoke Hebrew at the time. It had been superseded by Aramaic from the time of the Babylonian exile and Aramaic remained the common vernacular language. But Koine Greek was the language of the literate class who could write, which certainly would have included tax collector Matthew. Koine Greek dominated the region since the conquest by Alexander the Great three hundred yrs earlier. Koine was so dominant a group of Jews in Alexandria Egypt had sponsored the translation of the OT from Hebrew into Greek, which is today known as the Septuagint.
“Your present vehement rejection of his words and commandments of course stands as a barrier to that.”
Project much??
I’m grateful to proclaim Christ as my Savior - by His grace alone.
He fulfilled the Law perfectly for me. My salvation rests on Him alone and apart from any human effort or self-righteousness.
It depends on no man, no group, no cult, no cult-daddy, no Hebrew garments.
Him.
His sacrifice.
His grace.
Red herring.
We’re not talking about Christ. We’re talking about Mary and what terms are and are not found in Scripture that relate to her.
Ane “ mother of God” is NOT one of them.
“Mother of Jesus” is.
Why do you change Scripture?
I don't own the copyright on any of the researchers’ books so it would be against Jim's strong policy on that to post it, and also against Religion Forum rules.
Here are a few links that an honest searcher might follow up on:
Disappearance%20Hebrew%20Matthew%20Gospel
Hebrew-version-of-matthew-shem-tob-matthew-shem-tov/
disciplesofyeshuwa.com/gospel_of_matthew.html
http://www.disciplesofyeshuwa.com/gospel_of_matthew.html
Enjoy your education.
Everything you said here is true. Mary was not His mother before He came to earth. He existed from all eternity co-equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit, consubstantial, or as some put it, "one in Being" with the Father and the Spirit.
But she became His mother at a point in earthly time: when He was conceived in her womb. She is the mother of a Person. That is to say, she conceived, carried, and gave birth to someine. Who was that "someone?" Jesus. It does not mean she was the origin of his Divinity, that she's some kind of big ol' goddess, or that shes older than God or anything like that.
I think the reason people have his misconception, is that they don't know the history of the term. The Church adopted the term in order to combat the heresy that there were two Jesuses, one God and one Man, and that the Jesus who was born from her was not God. (But that's false. He's not two people.)
He existed through all eternity. She conceived--- gave flesh to him ---, gestated, and gave birth to Him only "at a point in time." Not from all eternity.
Obviously, Mary was, like us, a human person. Like us, she did not exist before her earthly life, at all.
She did bear God in her womb, however. Jesus is God.
There is no reason why any Christian should hesitate to call Mary the Mother of God.
"Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" said her kinswoman Elizabeth. And was not this Lord her God?
So you’re going to translate backwards back into Hebrew and then claim that your guess of what the Hebrew said was actually inspired by the Holy Spirit?
Bwahahahaha,,,,....
Mark, thanks br’er!
The cultic force has a strong grip on that one.
Self-righteousness, legalism, and merit by works always identify those in human religions.
And they cherish all three.
Utter nonsense! You must reconfigure the timeline to suit the cultic pagan appointment of Mary as a demigoddess. You have been shown the timeline from The Bible, but you reject that and twist the timing to fit the pagan appointment.
None of your links are to an actual manuscript amigo.
It does not exist.
.
I can’t imagine what you are raving about (and I don’t think you can either) but I am not going to do anything but post the very fine work of others for the prevaricators here to play with.
.
“But she became His mother at a point in earthly time:
She carried him and provided for him and loved him. That is all.
“I think the reason people have his misconception, is that they don’t know the history of the term. The Church adopted the term in order to combat the heresy that there were two Jesuses, one God and one Man, and that the Jesus who was born from her was not God. (But that’s false. He’s not two people.)”
This sounds like a rationalization read back into history to justify the pagan belief of Mary as demigoddess.
Unless you can back up this claim with a citation of the decision making process.
Even then, good motives are never a reason to add to God’s Scripture.
“There is no reason why any Christian should hesitate to call Mary the Mother of God.”
Except that God not only hesitated, He didn’t do it!
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.