| 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.
Yes, there are lots of cults out there. I deal with them here too. I think the worst one, aside from Islam, is the Iglesia ni Cristo. That is a cult, with a capital C. If you have never dealt with them, you are not missing anything. That cult is diabolical. I call in the Iglesia ni Manalo. 😄 They are destined for 🔥 unless they repent.
.
P.S.
No actual manuscript of any NT writings exist today.
Everything we have of the Greek copies is roughly 10th generation re-copy or worse!
Of the Hebrew original version of Matthew, there is an early generation in paleo Hebrew at the Hebrew University library in Jerusalem, if you know someone with library access there.
You ‘spittle flecked’ (your priest’s words), “She conceived-— gave flesh to him ...” You cannot prove this assertion, but you continue to male it as if it is axiomatic. It is fundamental to the false dogma of Mary as the genetic source for the Jesus of our Redemption. To take it as axiomatic without scriptural proof is tantamount to dismissing the power of GOD to fashion the morulla JESUS and HE implant in Mary’s womb, by HIS power not using Mary’s gamete/ovum. It also is tantamount to saying ‘Mary vowed herself to Joseph then broke that vow and consented to be impregnated (her genetic pool used by GOD to make Jesus) by God, which scripture DOES show came as a surprise to Joseph! Your dogma makes GOD the source for broken vow of betrothal/marriage, by Mary without Joseph’s fore-consent. But you will let thyis deception impugn GOD’s character so it supports the promotion of Mary to an greater than just mortal being, able to perform god-like fielding of prayers and insure people go to heaven. THAT IS BLASPHEMY. Now, yes, you are done, cooked, defending a great lie.
Spoken in deep ignorance!
He fulfilled the three Spring Feasts only.
The Fall Feasts will be fulfilled soon commencing with the Day of Trumpets, apparently in the early fall of 2024 if the currently pending jubilee plays out as most expect this year.
That will take us to within 1000 years of the fulfillment of Torah.
I hope you're not holding your breath.
You have much to catch up with, so I pray that you are in good health, and can cover the ground in the next 7 years.
Study hard to eventually show thy self approved.
.
Hence the reason the title, "mother of God", is not applied to Mary.
The term gives the meaning that, being the mother, she existed before the son.
It creates may too much confusion and leads to bad theology as exhibited in Roman Catholicism.
There is every reason not to....she is not referred to in that manner in the NT.
"Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" said her kinswoman Elizabeth. And was not this Lord her God?
Yet the NT writers were moved to call her the mother of my Lord.
Come back when you graduate from 6th grade.
***
Oh hey, the personal insults are back!
It really doesn’t say much in favor of yourself when you have to defend yourself with calling other people stupid-heads.
P52 John Rylands Fragment is believed to be dated ~125 AD.
P90 is dated around ~150-200 AD.
http://www.bible.ca/ef/topical-the-earliest-new-testament-manuscripts.htm
“the Hebrew original version of Matthew, there is an early generation in paleo Hebrew”
Just one and fake. Not verifiable or falsifiable - and you make such big claims.
So much cultic blah blah blah.
So we’re you in the way international cult with Rood? Or did you convert to his. Hot later?
“the Hebrew original version of Matthew, there is an early generation in paleo Hebrew”
Oh we have our share of cultists who sign up to promote their anti Christian groups.
They all follow a man and not Christ.
They all make the same theological errors.
It’s just Satan’s fashion show - same “styles” keep being recycled and presented as truth.
2. And that the ascriptions of power and glory rival those of Christ, and is contrary to the precept "not to think of men above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6) And which is actually dishonoring to the holy virtuous blessed Mary of Scripture.
3. And that the claim that Mary is not given latreia=worship but only "hyperdulia" by Catholics is specious semantics, since in their range of devotion they can engage in what would be understood as worship in Scripture, which uses more than one word for worship..
4. And that this devotion was a post-Scriptural, post-apostolic development, which is akin to what is seen in paganism, not Scripture.
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. (Jeremiah 44:16-17)
The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)
Also,
100-150—"Ode 19 of The Odes of Solomon affirms the virginity of Mary before and during the birth of Jesus." (Terrence J. McNally [Catholic, retired professor of literature at Northern Kentucky University], "What Every Catholic Should Know About Mary," p. 185)
The Odes date from the second century, and were probably written in Greek or Aramaic. At least one scholar has suggested they may have an origin in Valentinian Gnosticism, though this is of course speculative. The Church Father Lactantius (third century) quoted from them, and the Pistis Sophia mentions about five complete Odes.
In 1909 the English Scholar J. Rendel Harris discovered an old Syriac manuscript with contained all but the second of the 42 Odes. These texts evidence the close inter-relationship of Christian and Gnostic church piety. Translation below is by James H. Charlesworth.
Ode 19(gnosis.org/library/odes.htm)
A cup of milk was offered to me, and I drank it in the sweetness of the Lord's kindness.
The Son is the cup, and the Father is He who was milked; and the Holy Spirit is She who milked Him;
Because His breasts were full, and it was undesirable that His milk should be ineffectually released.
The Holy Spirit opened Her bosom, and mixed the milk of the two breasts of the Father.
Then She gave the mixture to the generation without their knowing, and those who have received it are in the perfection of the right hand.
The womb of the Virgin took it, and she received conception and gave birth.
So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies.
And she labored and bore the Son but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose.
And she did not require a midwife, because He caused her to give life.
She brought forth like a strong man with desire, and she bore according to the manifestation, and she acquired according to the Great Power.
And she loved with redemption, and guarded with kindness, and declared with grandeur.
Hallelujah.
James Swan adds , "Add in the character of the Protevangelium of James, another key source, and you really start getting a good idea of where these concepts came from, and it was NOT from the Apostles or from Scripture."
More info:
It is Scripture in all its sobriety and sometimes frustrating poverty of information that constitutes the measuring rod of our faith. However, the apocryphal writings have documentary value. They witness contemporary feeling and reverence about Mary. They tell us what some people at a given time thought about Mary, and what their expectations and spiritual beliefs on her behalf were.
The following presentation attempts at gathering most of what the apocryphal writers tell us about Mary, without any claim of being comprehensive. The listing of the various items regarding aspects of Mary's person and life gives reference to their sources (see abbreviations in second column), which in turn are mentioned with more specific bibliographical information as attachment to this presentation.
Legend:
Protoevangelium of James = PJ
Odes of Solomon = OS
Acts of Peter = AP
Sibylline Oracles = SO
The Ascension of Isaiah = AI
History of Joseph the Worker = HJW
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy = AGI
Book of Resurrection of Christ = BRC
Apocalypse of Paul = AOP
Gospel of Nicodemus/Acts of Pilate = NP
Gospel of Gamaliel = GG
ASPECTS OF MARY'S LIFE
Announcement of Mary's birth by an Angel to Anne and Joachim - PJ
When Mary was six months old, she could walk seven steps. -PJ
At her first birthday Joachim held a banquet inviting the High Priests.-PJ
Her bedroom was a sanctuary - PJ
Presentation of M in the Temple at age three - PJ
Mary's betrothal to Joseph at age twelve - PJ
Mary was asked to spin thread for the veil in the temple. - PJ
Added details to Mary's Annunciation (she sees the Angel twice): She went to the well to draw water when she heard a voice. - PJ
Then at home while she was spinning thread for the temple veil the angel appeared to her. Annunciation took place in Jerusalem
The High Priests sent Mary into the wilderness. She returned unharmed. - PJ
Nativity in a cave: Midwife's testimony to Mary’s virginity and Mary's vindication before the High Priest -PJ
The cave where Mary gave birth was illumined with intense light so that the eye could not take it.
Mary encountered Jesus on the Way of the Cross - NP
Christ appeared to Mary after the resurrection -GG
Vision of Hell
Transitus Mariae
Mary's coming in glory before her Son's coming in glory - AOP
Mary is a descendent of David. - PJ
In the temple Mary was fed by a heavenly messenger. - PJ
Intercession
Mary's intercession - PJ,
Due to Mary's intercession God allotted seven periods for penance to straying humans. - SO
Two miracles of the Infant Jesus worked for women who appealed to Mary. - AGI
The apostles asked Mary to ask the Lord to reveal to them all things in heaven. - BRC
Reactions
Upon entering the temple, Mary danced. - PJ
Mary is terrified upon hearing the voice at the well.
M laughs and her cheeks become flushed at the Annunciation. - PJ
She rejoices and is touched in her heart with shame at the Annunciation. - PJ
Mary cried bitterly when Joseph doubted her, insisting ‘I am innocent.’ - PJ
Mary hid from the people once her pregnancy became visible. She was sixteen years old. - PJ
M urges that Joseph be invoked by the poor. - PJ
At the cross M is overwhelmed with grief, weeping, crying aloud.- NP
FEASTS
Conception of Mary - JP
Nativity of Mary - JP
Presentation of M in the Temple - PJ
TITLES
Highly Favored One - BRC
Tabernacle of the Most High - BRC
Salvation of the World - BRC
Mother, Queen, and Servant - BRC
Mother of the heavenly King - BRC
Mary’s Virginity - PJ
JOSEPH
Joseph’s doubt: he did not want to take Mary as his wife since there was such an age gap. He feared to be made fun of. - PJ
Two brothers of the Lord are sons of J. from a former marriage - PJ
Joseph took Mary out of fear of the Lord but left her alone while going on a journey to build houses. - PJ
Joseph did not know how to register Mary because she was too young to be his wife - PJ
Joseph found a cave where Mary could give birth - PJ
His sons guarded the cave while he looked for a Hebrew midwife - PJ
Bibliography
Hennecke Schneemelcher, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen 1959. English translation edited by R. McL. Wilson
James, M. R. The Apocryphal New Testament 1969
Rush, A. C. "Maria en los evangelios apocrifos," In: J. B. Carol, Mariologia 1964, pp. 156 – 181
Rush, A. C. "Outlines of Mary's holiness in New Testament Apocrypha, In: Virgo Immaculata III pp. 259-268
Schmid, H. R. Protoevangelium Jacobi, A commentary 1965
Schmidt, K. L. Kanonische und apokryphe Evangelien und Apostelgeschichten 1944
Strycker, E. de La forme la plus ancienne du Protévagile de Jacques, 1961 BS2860.2.J2 S8
Tischendorf, C. Evangelia apocrypha Evangelia apocrypha, adhibitis plurimis codicibus graecis et latinis maximam partem nunc primum consultis atque ineditorum copia insignibus, 1876, new edition 1966 BS2850.G7 T5 1966 (International Marian Research Institute, https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/a/apocryphal-writings-on-life-of-mary.php
Edit: “fluent” was supposed to be “knowledgeable” in Scripture. Sorry
.
Assuming a rate of a copy per year, which has to be a low estimate, you’re looking at 30 generations or more with your examples.
.
“When The Way International splintered in the years following the death of founder V. P. Wierwille, many splinter groups formed. Prominent ex-Way leaders took with them networks of ex-followers of TWI. For example, Vince Finnegan formed a new splinter group primarily from the block of Wayers he led in New York state, and John Lynn took the Washington, DC and Indiana limbs (approximately statewide areas) with him to form Christian Educational Services.
“The splinter groups saw themselves as radical departures from TWI, distancing themselves especially from TWI’s corruption in areas of authoritarianism, sex scandal and inept leadership. Yet, they also saw themselves as “reformation” movements, returning to the “pure” teachings on Wierwille. This was a tension, because they had to be like TWI in order to please potential followers, yet different from TWI to keep them from thinking that the splinter groups would repeat all the errors of the old TWI. Some of these, like Bibelcenter, are not strictly speaking a group of people, but are organizations led by ex-TWI leaders which embody TWI doctrine.
“Rood Awakening, Michael Rood. The most radical departure from TWI, and the best showman among ex-Way leaders. Rood began on the Prophecy Club speaking circuit and found his niche promoting observance of Mosaic law and Hebrew festivals. While TWI had anti-Semitic tendencies, Rood is Zionist. The only splinter composed almost entirely of people who were never involved in TWI.
“Ex-followers and leaders of TWI maintain contacts developed in TWI through lists of “believer” links on the Internet, databases held by splinter groups, and forums such as www.greasespotcafe.com
“Intellectually, you’re a rodeo clown without a rodeo.”
You’ve just qualified for the Zot!
“Rood Awakening, Michael Rood. The most radical departure from TWI, and the best showman among ex-Way leaders.”
Funny. They misspelled “con man.”
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.