| 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.
Kinda sounds like.....an ideal marriage.
Trying to prove a negative yet AGAIN?
The fact that the term (Theotokos or its equivalent =- LINK) is not explicitly stated in the NT is not a reason TO use it.
dwilkins acknowledges that the work is in Greek; I believe that his point is that Josephus didn’t initially speak Greek and only learned it for the purpose of translating his work from Aramaic into Greek so that it would be available to a wider audience.
Is this indeed factual? I dunno, but I’m willing to grant dwilkins the benefit of the doubt
The world is FLAT!
You'll fall off the edge if you get too close!
I just LOVE the smell of red herring in the evening!
Psst...
I thought you wuz going for some strawberry stuff?
You’re making all these assertions, but I don’t see PROOF. Where are you working from?
Only place I can see about what language Paul ever spoke in was in Acts 22 where he spoke in Aramaic (which is NOT Hebrew anyways). And in Acts 21, the question of ‘Do you speak Greek?’ Which, in context of the language of the day, means that the Tribune was surprised that Paul DID speak Greek so well.
The way the text is written, it seems that speaking in Aramaic is unusual for Paul because it quieted the crowd. That suggests that Paul spoke other languages and most of them knew that he had, or else they wouldn’t have been so awed that he spoke to them in their own language.
Especially since Paul had already completed at least one missionary journey into the non-Aramaic-speaking world, AND had written letters in Koine to the congregations that he had planted. Pretty blasted tough to be apostle to the Gentiles when you can’t even speak their language.
Don’t forget that issue Catholics had with a helio or earth centric solar system.
Just not as dead....
Yet...
Nope...
That question shows me a complete understanding of shiny objects, rabbit trails and SQUIRRELS!!!
Placemarker - originally written in HEBREW, but then translated into Aramaic, then translated into Koine Greek, then into English.
But God is...God is three people actually...Yet God is one person...
The equine beast has been completely pounded to pulp!
It’s time to remove the shoes, sell them for scrap, and go buy a CAR!
Joe; how many times have I told you to NOT drag all that sawdust home in your pockets!!!
Well; Rome’s ‘system’ WAS deeply embedded in Scripture (or something).
Ya gotta get it from English into Hoosier for ME to grasp it!
I think I’ll bail at The NUMBER...
Come on guys; only 9 more...
.
There is no evidence that anyone of the apostles, nor Yeshua, spoke Aramaic. Those passages show much error and tampering.
Hebrew is a special language created by Yehova to convey his messages. Both the spoken and the written language have deep complexities that speak at multiple levels.
The languages he created at Babel were designed to confound his enemies.
Most of the congregations to whom Paul ministered were genetic Hebrews that had been scattered across the inhabited world by Shalmanesser, and spoke Hebrew, although possibly a little bit tainted by other tongues.
They met in synagogues and many had Torah scrolls, but not necessarily the ability to understand at the needed level. The Bereans for example were well schooled Hebrews that checked every word Paul spoke to them.
.
.
The translation from Hebrew to Aramaic would be kind of like translating from Spanish to Italian.
Greek was a difficult translation, for which the Septuagint was used as as a lexicon.
.
Where did he do that?
...Presently, a Hebrew Bible is useful only for study. The KJV is the Bible of choice for witnessing to English speaking people, and it is the most accurate current version as long as the italicized text is all crossed out. (most of the doctrinal errors are born in the italicized words, which are added in to change the meaning in most cases)
So, are those who read and study the Bible in English not being obedient to Yehova's demands and could not then be His called servants? Do you speak and read ancient Hebrew? Are you at least trying to learn it?
Most certainly we will ALL be able to speak and understand the language of heaven one day (whatever it will be). But to assert ONLY the Hebrew texts are genuine when we have NO evidence that the New Testament writings were written originally in Hebrew seems to be an assertion and not much more and I can't see how that would make the Apostle Paul a mad man or a liar. IF, as you insist, the Hebrew language is the only one by which God can convey His truth "correctly", then it sure sounds like you're contending He dropped the ball on preserving the Scriptures that way for us. I believe the Holy Spirit is able to lead us into ALL truth no matter what language we know. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit? Do you believe that Jesus/Yeshua is 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.