| 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.
They learned well from the Catholic church.
Sometimes old habits die hard.
Most people in the world are multilingual.
We in America tend not to be as there’s no real need.
That’s why the thought that they were not in those days seems weird to some people.
The fact that that was the case is shown in the inscription Pilate wrote.
He wrote it in three languages. Clearly at least those three were in widespread use in Jerusalem in those days.
I’m sure Jesus would have been fluent in any language He needed to use on the occasion.
It’s interesting that when Joseph considered revoking his wedding vows, God sent an angel and told him not to.
Don’t you mean whine to the mods as grammar Nazi?
Only sinners need grace.
If Mary had been given grace, it’s because she sinned.
(This placeholder was created without original sin, will be kept sinless for its existence on earth, and forevermore - former Catholic dude)
A must-read for every Catholic.
A must-read for every Catholic.
BURN!
*Giggle*
A very good read.
Who taught you science?? (/obscure KKBB ref)
conception:
The formation of a zygote resulting from the union of a sperm and egg cell; fertilization.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Implantation is when the embryo implants into the wall of the uterus. That’s why it is called implantation. Not all embryos which are conceived implant. Implantation and conception are not the same thing. Many birth control methods, such as IUDs, are designed to cause failure of implantation of an embryo. That is why they are considered abortifacients; they cause a conceived embryo to die by preventing its implantation.
Conception is the joining of the DNA from the sperm and the egg to form a unique human being. Since the bible tells us that Mary conceived, she contributed the egg. That is what participation in conception means for a female, there is nothing else a human female must do to participate in conception. Even if the conception occurs outside of her body, as in in vitro fertilization, and she never carries the baby, she has still conceived. So unless the Angel lied or was ignorant of human reproduction, Mary contributed the egg.
Surrogate mothers who have embryos implanted (as opposed to being artificially inseminated) are never said to have conceived, only to have carried and borne the child. Therefore, if the angel had intended that Mary would be a surrogate of a Child to whom she had contributed no DNA, he would not have said “you will conceive”.
What exactly was the other half of the conception is not clear from a scientific standpoint. God contributed the other half of His DNA in whatever manner He chose. We have no way of knowing this, other than that we assume Jesus was a normal human male with the requisite 23 pairs of chromosomes, otherwise He wouldn’t have been human at all.
The blood of mother and baby do indeed mix. If not there would be no problem with RH incompatibility, which is caused by a mother being exposed to the blood of a prior RH-incompatible child in utero.
Your ignorance is showing, else you are making inexcusable false assertions.
None of this addresses the fact that Mary is the mother of Jesus, Who is God, by virtue of her giving birth to Him. This is not changed whether or not she contributed DNA, although the bible proves that she did. Surrogate mothers are mothers just the same.
Love,
O2
*************TTTTAAAAGGGGLLLLIIIINNNNEEEEE************
Genesis 11:
[27] And these are the generations of Thare: Thare begot Abram, Nachor, and Aran. And Aran begot Lot.
[14] Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken,...
Brother does not always mean brother. Scripture tells us this.
Until does not always mean the condition stops afterwards. Scripture also tells us this.
We simply have different interpretations of whether or not Mary and Joseph had sex. I believe the bible supports my interpretation, you believe the bible supports yours.
I have cited several passages of scripture which can be interpreted to support this. From Mary’s reaction to being told she would conceive, which is totally incongruous from a person expecting to have normal marital relations soon, to the use of brother to mean other relatives, to until not meaning the previous condition stops.
Are you saying that I have no right to my own thoughtful, scripture-based interpretation? That I must accept yours? Who gives you authority over me?
I have at no time gone to a Protestant thread and attacked the beliefs stated there...I couldn’t care less what you believe, however, I will defend my own beliefs when they are challenged.
Remember it was not I who started this discussion. You came to an obviously Catholic-based thread, which was discussing Catholic beliefs, to dispute them. These threads are not trying to impose Catholic beliefs on anyone who chooses not to hold them, they simply explain why Catholics believe what they do for anyone who is interested. No one is forced to read them, no one is forced to accept what they contain. Why can you not just leave Catholics to believe what they believe?
Love,
O2
If it hasn't yet occurred to you, these are uncharted waters. Neither of us knows how GOD did this miracle of JESUS's formation, so try to be at least fakey civil, Catholic. BTW, your fake courtesy is duly noted hereafter.
Consider the implications of your mental meanderings ...
Luke 2:40 KJV
And the child [Jesus] grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 2:9
"We see Jesus...that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
I believe in the truths revealed in the Bible, and the Angelic salutation ("Chaire, Kecharitomene") reveals God's view of things: that Mary was "full of grace," not "full of sin."
St. Luke quotes St. Gabriel --- God's Ambassador -- am convinced that the Church has explained the matter rightly, and you have attempted only to explain it away.
With Catholic Magic Thinking you can believe GOD can do anything ... and you’re wrong, but it doesn’t slow the Magic Thinking.
God is omnipotent. My friend, on that I think we agree.
.
Your post indicates that you do not understand Pentecost, unless you were deliberately dismissing it for the snark.
.
GOD IS omnipotent, but the oft pleaded statement that God can do anything is wrong, and we both should know 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.