| 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.
Rood can go to hell on his own; I don’t want him dragging my pro-Life FRiend ES with him.
.
>> “This is a man who was ordained by a cult...” <<
Why, just yesterday you were screaming that he was not ordained.
He is not ordained by anyone but the Holy Spirit that brings all the seemingly magical events together with perfection.
Yehova’s called men are not popular with the lost. I don’t really expect you to come to grips with this; you’re showing us that you are deeply invested in the inherited lies Jeremiah spoke of.
Time is short though.
.
What, you mean the copy that were written in 1385? Or maybe the one written in 1537! Or 1555! Or maybe you mean the partial quotations in the polemical writings of rabbis in the 600s, 300 years AFTER the earliest copies of Matthew in Koine?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's hilarious that you think that's anything but pathetic.
Oh, and again? You presented an argument with no links and no proof, just a 'because I said so' and an ad hominem on top of that.
But I'll give you some credit. You also told me to do YOUR research for you instead of providing it yourself. Typical internet tactics, but seriously lame, honestly. I'm adding another 'you lose' for that alone.
Here's my citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbinical_translations_of_Matthew
And, lest you whine that it's Wikipedia, have a quick and dirty copypasta:
Brown, Raymond E. (1997), An Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible, ISBN 0-385-24767-2 Gordon, Nehemia (2005), The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus, Hilkiah Press, ISBN 0-97626-370-X Howard, George (1995), Hebrew Gospel of Matthew (2nd ed.), Macon: Mercer University Press, ISBN 0-86554-442-5 Petersen, William L. (1998), "The Vorlage of Shem-Tob's 'Hebrew Matthew'", New Testament Studies, 44: 490–512, doi:10.1017/S0028688500016696, OCLC 1713962
That's six times so far today that you lose the battle of evidence AND the battle of logic. Care for seven?
.
Time for truth and facts.
Tell us what Michael Rood has prophesied, and what is false.
You stuck your neck out, so let it fly.
.
I agree that Rood is demonic and a false prophet.
I made it a large link so that people would not miss it.
I agree bro. Rood is on the path to destruction, but I wish everyone would come to the knowledge of the truth, even Rood.
Just yesterday you claimed he was not.
.
You do no research before posting.
Your entire post is based on imagination or worse.
Do you know who Papias was?
Try some research and you can then confess how ridiculous your posts are.
Just a claim without evidence - as is usual in your posts.
In one post you discount Jesus' brother and sisters can't be Mary's because the text doesn't say so though we have numerous passages to support the brothers and sisters being His.
Then in other posts you insert Catholic dogma with NO hint anywhere in the Word.
And now you contradict yourself again.
I would say the Angelic Salutation supports the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness, since when God gives someone any sort of an appellation, a name or a title, it us always significant, you we know from Biblical history.
Yet the CE disagrees completely with you.
This is not a title...it is a greeting based on the how this is rendered in the Greek.
This is why it's so essential to understand the original languages.
This is not to say it is thereby a defined dogma tout court.
It is not even close to being a defined dogma...as admitted by the CE...
Further, in the article, "proof from tradition" is brought into question.
Origen, Basil and Chrysostom say Mary was a sinner.
How does the CE deal with this....it's a beaut I gotta tell ya.
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.
This illustrates the point we've been making about the ECFs...the Catholic cherry picks the ones they like and which support their false doctrines. They reject the others.
Additionally, the CE calls these "private opinions." That's all the ECFs are...private opinions...not authoritative teachings.
When one starts examining the RCC closely one finds it's a house of cards.
And these "stray opinions" as they are called, aren't from anyone here on Free Republic. These are big time names in the RCC.
So we can dismiss this business of unanimous opinion among the ECFs when we see there isn't any.
So what does the Catholic rely upon....proof from reason.
When Scripture is against you...when your own ECFS are against you....just make it up.
Or you silence the opposition....hey...sounds like some people we know here in the US.
More from the CE....
Whilst these disputes went on, the great universities and almost all the great orders had become so many bulwarks for the defense of the dogma. In 1497 the University of Paris decreed that henceforward
no one should be admitted a member of the university, who did not swear that he would do the utmost to defend and assert the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Toulouse followed the example; in Italy, Bologna and Naples; in the German Empire, Cologne, Maine, and Vienna; in Belgium, Louvain; in England before the Reformation. Oxford and Cambridge; in Spain Salamanca, Toledo, Seville, and Valencia; in Portugal, Coimbra and Evora; in America, Mexico and Lima. The Friars Minor confirmed in 1621 the election of the Immaculate Mother as patron of the order, and bound themselves by oath to teach the mystery in public and in private.
The Dominicans, however, were under special obligation to follow the doctrines of St. Thomas, and the common conclusion was that St. Thomas was opposed to the Immaculate Conception. Therefore the Dominicans asserted that the doctrine was an error against faith (John of Montesono, 1373); although they adopted the feast, they termed it persistently "Sanctificatio B.M.V." not "Conceptio", until in 1622 Gregory XV abolished the term "sanctificatio". Paul V (1617) decreed that no one should dare to teach publicly that Mary was conceived in original sin, and Gregory XV (1622) imposed absolute silence (in scriptis et sermonibus etiam privatis) upon the adversaries of the doctrine until the Holy See should define the question.
To put an end to all further cavilling, Alexander VII promulgated on 8 December 1661, the famous constitution "Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum", defining the true sense of the word conceptio, and forbidding all further discussion against the common and pious sentiment of the Church. He declared that the immunity of Mary from original sin in the first moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into the body was the object of the feast (Denzinger, 1100).
When the appeal to Scripture fails, when the appeal to "tradition" fails, when the appeal to "reason" fails....just silence the opposition.
Catholics have often wondered why few, if any, arose to oppose them.
Now we have an idea why.
Catholicism apparently cannot stand the light of examination so it moves to silence those who disagree.
We see it all the time on these threads.
Catholics don't like the debate so they hide in their caucus threads. It's a good thing Paul didn't hide behind a causus thread.
Mary's entire sinlessness was reasonably inferred and celebrated from very early times, but was dogmatically defined only in the 19th century.
Her sinlessness is not "reasonably inferred" by any stretch as that would contradict the NT teaching that ...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
What part of this verse from Romans Catholics don't understand is almost incomprehensible.
That you admit it was declared dogma in the 19th century....some 1700 years after the last living Apostle could have been there to refute the false doctrine, tells me this was not taught by the Apostles.
I will say this mrs.d....you're well inoculated into Roman Catholicism.
.
He is not ordained by any human corporation.
If he were his ministry would be just as false as any perpetrator of the inherited lies.
He preaches only scripture, not the ideas of men.
.
NO SHE WASN'T.
.
I will pray that soon you will come to accept scripture without man’s embellishments.
Time is short.
.
Well, OK.
Documentation of a brief overview of Rood's ever-changing predictions.
In 1999 Rood was teaching dogmatically that the "Day of the Lord," the Sabbath millennium, the beginning of obvious, public fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation, would commence on September 11, 1999. (Red highlighting has been added to the following excerpts from his website at the time to call attention to the significant points.)
March 29, 1998 at sundown, the first new moon after the vernal equinox appeared. The first sliver of the new moon was sighted at 3% illumination, 18 degrees above the horizon, over the city of Jerusalem. At that moment, for the first time in this millennium, we knew where we were on God's sacred calendar. It was Nisan 1, in the Biblical year 5999, precisely 5,998 1/2 years after the creation of Adam. At that moment, we were exactly 18 Biblical months from the beginning of the 7th, or Sabbath millennium: the Day (or millennium) of the LORD. Our countdown to Tishri 1, 6001: September 11, 1999 at sundown, had begun.
The Hebrew rabbis have taught for thousands of years: "In that God created the heavens and the earth in six days and on the 7th day he rested...man will have his time of reign on earth for 6,000 years and the Messiah will reign in the 7th millennium." When speaking of the last days before the Messiah's return, Peter wrote, " Do not be ignorant of this one thing: a day with the LORD is as a millennium, and a millennium is as a day." Tishri 1, 6001 [Sept. 11, 1999] will be the first day of the millennium of the LORD ... That day will not be the much anticipated rapture of the church. At that time, the intermediate fulfillments of the fall feast will commerce with Yom Teruakh ... When we understand God's method of reckoning time, and get a working knowledge of the Feasts of the LORD, which are all prophetic shadow pictures, we will see the prophecies that were sealed until the time of the end can now be be understood with simplicity as we peel 1,900 years of pagan traditions from our eyes and look at the Hebrew scriptures through a Hebrew lens.
Note that Rood said that understanding the prophecies would be "simple" ... but that his understanding was proven later to be totally false.
Below is an excerpt from Michael John Rood's book The Mystery of Iniquity which laid out his prophetic scenario. Of course, as with most modern prophecy pontificators, in other portions of his writings he occasionally adds "fudge words," such as "may" and "possibly." And he may even include on occasion subtle disclaimers such as "I do not claim to be a prophet" that soften ever so slightly the dogmatism of the statements here.
But the overall effect of both his writings and speaking leaves his audiences with the distinct impression that he has a corner on the understanding of the prophecies of the Bible and unique insight into their fulfillment not available from just the run-of-the-mill Bible commentators of the past 2000 years.
You will note that the dogmatic dates set in the following material have come and gone without fulfillment. Yet again, as with most latter-day prognosticators, this seems to have had little effect on his credibility with his supporters and followers. He has come up with various excuses and "apologetics" why he was just slightly off with his calendar calculations, and why one still ought to look to him as the Ultimate Guru--and not as just a run-of-the-mill False Prophet.
From The Mystery of Iniquity
On Tishri 1, 5994 (Biblical reckoning) Israel entered into a covenant with the world government of the United Nations, with the United States acting as guarantor. The "Covenant with Death" was signed on the White House lawn in front of about 3,000 dignitaries on September 13, 1993. Israel entered into a covenant that caused them to pledge land to the UN that had been given to Israel by an everlasting covenant with God. That covenant was made in response to the UN's promise for peace and safety from their enemies.
God will annul this covenant when the overflowing scourge of troops passes through the land on Tishri 1, 6001 (October 29, 2000). The Messiah will confirm the covenant that was made in his blood, when the Ark of the Covenant is brought forth at the height of the invasion of Israel.
Just as the spring Feasts of the LORD were fulfilled to the day, hour, and moment at his first coming, the fall Feasts will be fulfilled with the same exactitude. The Feasts are all shadow pictures of that which is to come.
As with the Feast of Trumpets itself, we will never know the day or hour that the Messiah will return until it happens, but astronomically we can narrow it down. Why do his servants know in advance? Because he said the Holy Spirit will show us things to come. We can see the finish line and have hope, but it will be too late to do anything but trust in the Lord and do the work of the ministry. We can't change the course of history no matter how hard we try. This is it! When Judah takes Jerusalem and the Ark of the Covenant is brought forth we are eighty-four prophetic months from the Day of Atonement on the sea of fire and glass.
The following schedule will be in effect in fulfillment of the fall Feasts of the Lord at the end of the first seven years of the seventh Millennium.
1 Tishri, 6008 The Feast of Trumpets
The Last Trumpet Gathering Together
The Judgment Seat of Messiah in heaven
The Wrath poured out on the earth
10 Tishri The Day of Atonement
Judgment is executed, preparation for the marriage supper in heaven
Wrath is finished, preparation for Armageddon on earth
15 Tishri The Feast of Tabernacles
The Marriage Supper in the Throne Room
Armageddon logistics executed by Destroyer
22 Tishri The Last Great Day
The Battle of Armageddon
Millennial Reign Begins
Aviv 1, 6001 (May 5, 2000 at sundown in Jerusalem) began the Day of the Lord - The 7th Millennium. Tishri 1, 6001 (October 29, 2000) begins the fulfillment of the fall Feasts of the LORD. Tishri 10 will be the confirmation of the covenant by Messiah. That begins the last Shevua (7 years) prophesied by the Prophet Daniel. The Latter Rain outpouring of the double portion of Holy Spirit will occur on Tishri 22, at the time of the water oblation on the Last Great Day of the Feast of Tabernacles.
Below is an excerpt from some of the claims Rood was making on his website, 6001.com, in May 2000.
Rabbi Shaul [Paul] spoke of the millennium of the LORD coming upon the inhabitants of the earth, "as a thief in the night." They cry out for the world government to deliver peace and security while the freedom to govern ourselves according to God's Torah is being wrestled from us. The inhabitants of the world are about to enter into the birthpangs of the Messiah, but are oblivious to the fact that the "Day of the LORD" is at hand. God's time reckoning and God's seasons (moedim) have been forsaken by most of the world and they have no idea what time it is on the clock of the heavens. Time has run out. In months, millions of lives will lay in ashes without a single warning - unless you speak up.
I will see you when the smoke clears,
Michael John Rood
http://www.isitso.org/guide/rood.html
.
Pathetic!
.
You and I may agree on some political issues, like pro life, or the Hildebeast, but we will NEVER agree about Rood, not now, not EVER.
Thanks for the prayer bro, but I did scripture with man's embellishments, when I was a Catholic. I don't do that anymore, since 1970. As I previously stated, I never even heard of Rood, till maybe a year ago, and I only heard of him on Free Republic. I sincerly hope you come to accept scripture without man's embellishments. I did fine with scripture, since 1970. I figure I can continue to do that.
I agree! Rood is Pathetic!
False Teacher.
False Prophet.
False Levite.
False Rabbi.
False Christian.
.
You have just bought more lies.
The first paragraph of your post has been refuted by literally thousands.
It is a fool’s misunderstanding of what was really said, and that has been shown so many times that nobody should get hooked so easily.
You could go by the original recording, but you have no interest in truth, as demonstrated in your posts.
You believe lies because the lies soothe your misled spirit, and let you believe that Jeremiah was wrong.
Get the real words from the real source, Michael himself. It has been up on YouTube since you tube began, but it won’t soothe your love for the lies.
.
Your initial point about possessing grace is noted.
I think you explained adequately about how you believe that Mary possessed grace within sin, because—let me know if I get this right—you believe that the grace that Mary possessed was to be born without original sin? So the grace came from God; it was not inherent in Mary herself. So it’s only Jesus who is able to forgive sins despite the special grace that you believe that Mary possessed.
I think I get it now, assuming that the above paragraph is accurate to your beliefs. You and I aren’t in agreement about this topic, but I think I understand what you’re trying to say now; thank you.
I do my best on these threads to respond with the same level of rancor as the person I’m posting to, be it fury or calm. Not easy when emotions run high, let me tell you.
I appreciate the civil reply; sometimes asking questions like these results in a torrent of bile right into my virtual face!
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.