A question for some non-catholic,,,The Catholic Church Baptizes infants.

[elvisman]

However, their is a totally different word used for cousin in the NT; Kevin and I do not doubt what the Lord Himself said concerning His brothers (biological) and what God planned for marriage between Joseph and Mary; he would not have them violate His own commands and you being Catholic and against most forms of birth control, smacks in the face of God on this particular subject.

Perhaps since you are a veteran Catholic here; you could start an appropriate thread for this discussion since all of the talk about Jesus brothers has nothing to do with infant Baptism, the actual topic. that is your call but I can’t answer any more questions; i have posted the Biblical facts in light of Gods commands dealing with marriage, what it meant “before they came together” and the words of the Lord Himself and the fact that cousin in the NT Greek is in Scripture; in light of the overwhelming Biblical evidence the only way to deny the obvious truth is to have a prejudice for a different doctrine IMO.

Again, a different thread and let us know if you decide to start one.

Thanks

MS

Actually - while my persistence with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not directly related to this thread - I have used it to compare it to the Biblical standard we Catholics are being expected to adhere to regarding Infant Baptism, while you guys haven’t yet proven that Mary had other children using that same standard.

So far - the weight of evidence is against you in both arguments.

Although there have been hundreds of threads about Mary’s Perpetual Virvinity, if you want to start another thread - I will be happy to engage you there . . .

PS - I’m aware of Anepsios. In fact, I was I who brought it up several posts ago.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Actually - while my persistence with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not directly related to this thread - I have used it to compare it to the Biblical standard we Catholics are being expected to adhere to regarding Infant Baptism, while you guys haven’t yet proven that Mary had other children using that same standard.

So far - the weight of evidence is against you in both arguments.

**Although there have been hundreds **of threads about Mary’s Perpetual Virvinity, if you want to start another thread - I will be happy to engage you there . . .

PS - I’m aware of Anepsios. In fact, I was I who brought it up several posts ago.

Yep your right; your evidence is more convincing than God’s and the zero existence of the evidence concerning the continual virginity is overwhelming in Scripture; so again you win against the Word. You are so absolutely convincing; that I am burning my Bible and buying a Baltimore catechism on Amazon as I post; luckily I am in a state where I can freely burn the Bible. I’m also calling the local Parrish and enlisting in the “Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults”. Got to log off to see if I can catch someone there and ask when the classes begin & how to enroll…bye for now - don’t worry I do have a hose just in case the burning Bible gets out of hand and I’m using charcoal lighter fluid; although gasoline might be more “explosive” & faster.

MS

 

[Dokimas]

I notice how the subject is starting to change since rev and other have lost the debate on infant baptism.

Matthew

Thanks, Matt, for your opinion. As I always try to say, your welcome to your opinion even though it is wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

Yes - this is transparently evident . . .

An you to are welcome to your opinion, even though it’s wrong.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually - while my persistence with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not directly related to this thread - I have used it to compare it to the Biblical standard we Catholics are being expected to adhere to regarding Infant Baptism, while you guys haven’t yet proven that Mary had other children using that same standard.

So far - the weight of evidence is against you in both arguments.

**Although there have been hundreds **of threads about Mary’s Perpetual Virvinity, if you want to start another thread - I will be happy to engage you there . . .

PS - I’m aware of Anepsios. In fact, I was I who brought it up several posts ago.

Don’t need to prove Mary had other infants to show she most likely wasn’t a perpetual virgin. You must do some fancy foot work with Matthew 1:25 which indicates Mary was a virgin until she have birth to her First Born. Boy it would have been nice if the Holy Spirit had had Matthew say that Jesus was her Only Begotten Infant Son as He inspired those words to be used of God toward Jesus.​

Noticed I used ‘infant’. I’m at least partly staying on topic.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually - while my persistence with the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is not directly related to this thread - I have used it to compare it to the Biblical standard we Catholics are being expected to adhere to regarding Infant Baptism, while you guys haven’t yet proven that Mary had other children using that same standard.

So far - the weight of evidence is against you in both arguments.

**Although there have been hundreds **of threads about Mary’s Perpetual Virvinity, if you want to start another thread - I will be happy to engage you there . . .

PS - I’m aware of Anepsios. In fact, I was I who brought it up several posts ago.

Sitting here wondering if Peter and Andrew were infant brothers? I can’t help but wonder if John and James were infant brothers. The same Greek word ‘adelphos’ was used for both of those relationships.

 

[rev_kevin]

Kev -
**First of all - *your ***definition of Adelphos is somewhat flawed, in that it only covers ONE part of the meaning. Adelphos has many different meanings in the 1st century Greek - not just uterine brothers:
1. a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3. any fellow or man
4. a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5. an associate in employment or office
You left out, Brethen in Christ, his brothers by blood,all men, apostles, Christian, as those who are exalted to the same Heavenly place. Part of speach: noun masculine. relation: from G1 (as a connective partical) and delphus (the womb),
After the Septuagint was written (c. 200 B.C.) Adelphos took on a broader definition. It can be proven by the over 100 refernces to it by Jesus and the NT writers that that they all studied from the Septuagint.

A****s I already showed you, there are numerous OT references in the Septuagint that confer this title to cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22) and uncles and nephews (Gen. 14:14, Gen. 29:15).

By the way - the Greek word for cousin is Anepsios.

The plain fact is that there is not one shred of Scriptural evidence that Mary had other children - not ONE. Jesus certainly had Ach, Anepsios and/or Adelphos - but Mary had no other children.

Similarly - there is not one shred of Scriptural evidence that Baptism was restricted to only the adult members of a household. The household of Cornelius in Acts was baptized based on HIS faith. NOWHERE does it state that they were baptized because of their own faith.

In conclusion - if you insist that Mary had other children, you must be held to the same standard that you force upon the Catholic Church to PROVE from Scripture that Baptized households did not include infants. And, quite frankly - you haven’t . . .

I see that Adelphos also means his brothers in blood (blood brothers, siblings, of the same mother) and it is connected to Delphus, (the womb, brothers, siblings, of the same mother) Yes I agree there are other meanings of this word, which also means blood brothers, he has infant brothers and sisters.

 

[elvisman]

Don’t need to prove Mary had other infants to show she most likely wasn’t a perpetual virgin. You must do some fancy foot work with Matthew 1:25 which indicates Mary was a virgin until she have birth to her First Born. Boy it would have been nice if the Holy Spirit had had Matthew say that Jesus was her Only Begotten Infant Son as He inspired those words to be used of God toward Jesus.​

Noticed I used ‘infant’. I’m at least partly staying on topic.

Oh, boy - not the old Matt. 1:25 “until” argument again . . .
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
**Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’ **
**Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? **

---

The problem here is that you attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

NNNNNNEXT!!

 

[rev_kevin]

Hey RC -
I was illustrating that if RevKevin and others insist that Mary had other children, then they MUST be held to the same standard that they force upon the Catholic Church to PROVE from Scripture that Baptized households did not include infants.
The reason they haven’t is because they CAN’T.

PS - They are also avoiding or denying the fact that the Koine Greek for Adephos has far broader definition that simply, "uterine brother", which included cousin, kin, countryman, uncle, neighbor, etc.

I have searched the word Adephos also under Koine Greek, which only comes up with Adelphos, and Strong’s #80 (pronounced Ad-el-fos’) From 1 (as connective particle) and Delphus (the womb); a Brother (literally or figuratively) near or remote (much like 1) Brother.
If you can point me to a link of the Koine Greek meaning of the word Adephos I would apperciate it. I really want to know this word.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

Thanks, Matt, for your opinion. As I always try to say, your welcome to your opinion even though it is wrong.

Wrong doki… It’s your opinion. You so far have proven nothing to dispute infant baptism!

Matthew

 

[adrift]

Don’t need to prove Mary had other infants to show she most likely wasn’t a perpetual virgin. You must do some fancy foot work with Matthew 1:25 which indicates Mary was a virgin until she have birth to her First Born. Boy it would have been nice if the Holy Spirit had had Matthew say that Jesus was her Only Begotten Infant Son as He inspired those words to be used of God toward Jesus.​

Noticed I used ‘infant’. I’m at least partly staying on topic.

It always amazes me that there are those who believe that the womb of Mary who contained God would be contaminated by an ordinary human. The claim that another human came from that womb is unbelievable.

Mary asked the angel how could she have a child. She was a married woman who was in that part of the Jewish marriage where she was not yet living with her husband. To ask the angel how could this be is silly unless there would be a vow of virginity.

Col 4:10 Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and {also} Barnabas’s cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him);

This is the only time that this word is used in the entire bible.
However in Gen 13:8 Abraham and Lot are described as brothers whereas they are uncle and nephew.
Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).
There are many places used in the bible where brother is used to mean other than a uterine brother.
Some points to be made.
The way that Jesus is spoken about by his “brothers” indicate those who are older than Jesus. Jesus was the first born so they cannot be Mary’s children. Mark 3:21
In Mark 6:3 Jesus is called THE son of Mary not A son of Mary. Nowhere are any of these “brothers” referred to as Mary’s sons. Some of these “brothers” list other women as their mothers.
St Jerome complained about Helvetius interpretation that Mary had other Children as being a new invention.

Not to your point of until and I assume first born, I hope you are aware that until only means to a certain point like these scriptures

Referring to Moses

that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6),
Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23)

As for first born, that was a theological title that does not mean that there was a second born. Colossians 1:15-21

My cousin was a first born son. He was an only child but he was still first born.

 

[adrift]

Oh, boy - not the old Matt. 1:25 “until” argument again .

You posted before I got my answer written. Not only the old until argument but the first born as well.

 

[Dokimas]

Oh, boy - not the old Matt. 1:25 “until” argument again . . .
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children* after* she died*?*
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."’
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?

---

The problem here is that you attempt to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.

NNNNNNEXT!!

OH no, not the Samuel 6:23 argument again. You must compare ‘apples with apples’, not ‘apples with pears’. Could Michal have children after her death. NO. Could Mary have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born? YES, unless she too died. See how ‘apples with pears’ doesn’t work.

Let’s try ‘apples with apples’.

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until <same Greek word as in Matt 1:25> I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Using your logic, Joseph, Mary and Jesus are still in Egypt. If you need more verses, I’ll produce more verses with the ‘apples with apples’ comparison.

 

[Dokimas]

You posted before I got my answer written. Not only the old until argument but the first born as well.

Looking forward to your resonse to my post to Elvis.

 

[elvisman]

I see that Adelphos also means his brothers in blood (blood brothers, siblings, of the same mother) and it is connected to Delphus, (the womb, brothers, siblings, of the same mother) Yes I agree there are other meanings of this word, which also means blood brothers, he has infant brothers and sisters.

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough, so I’ll reiterate:
**The Septuagint usage of the word, Adelphos employs the same broad definition of the Hebrew word, Ach. “Ach” is used for brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, kinsman, fellow countryman, neighbor, etc. **
In the Septuagint, "Ach" was translated at “Adelphos”. I even gave you examples from the Septuagint:

**In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was his nephew - the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28). **

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.

In 1 Chr. 23:21–22, brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren," the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins.

**Lastly, in Acts 1:15 - it says that 120 “brothers” were gathered when Peter got up to speak. **Guess what word is used here? You guessed it - “Adelphos”.
Are we to believe that they were ALL uterine brothers?

So much for “Adelphos" meaning only "uterine brother” . . .

 

[elvisman]

OH no, not the Samuel 6:23 argument again. You must compare ‘apples with apples’, not ‘apples with pears’. Could Michal have children after her death. NO. Could Mary have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born? YES, unless she too died. See how ‘apples with pears’ doesn’t work.

Let’s try ‘apples with apples’.

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until <same Greek word as in Matt 1:25> I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Using your logic, Joseph, Mary and Jesus are still in Egypt. If you need more verses, I’ll produce more verses with the ‘apples with apples’ comparison.

Hmmmm . . . Michal was only one example.
Funny how you didn’t address the other two verses I gave you:
Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'

Jesus stop sitting at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool?
I actually had one Protestant who told me that he probably would!

 

[adrift]

OH no, not the Samuel 6:23 argument again. You must compare ‘apples with apples’, not ‘apples with pears’. Could Michal have children after her death. NO. Could Mary have relations with Joseph after Jesus was born? YES, unless she too died. See how ‘apples with pears’ doesn’t work.

Let’s try ‘apples with apples’.

Mt 2:13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until <same Greek word as in Matt 1:25> I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

Using your logic, Joseph, Mary and Jesus are still in Egypt. If you need more verses, I’ll produce more verses with the ‘apples with apples’ comparison.

You are talking about the meaning of the word until.
Until as used in each of the examples given you mean that the action happened until a certain point but does not say what happens after that point. You are making a distinction that does not exist.

You mentioned the Greek.

I found this for the usage of Acts 2:34-35 and Mt 2:13
The until in the verses I gave you is the same word used in the versus you have quoted.
heos {heh’-oce} of uncertain affinity
This word is the Greek word used for both Matt 1:25 and Samuel 6:23
3739 hos {hos} including feminine he {hay}, and neuter ho {ho} probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588);; pron 1) who, which, what, that ++++ Wigram’s count is 1309 not 1393.

So your argument that apples are being compared to apples falls apart.

 

[rev_kevin]

Maybe I didn’t make myself clear enough, so I’ll reiterate:
The Septuagint usage of the word, Adelphos employs the same broad definition of the Hebrew word, Ach. “Ach” is used for brother, cousin, nephew, uncle, kinsman, fellow countryman, neighbor, etc.
In the Septuagint, "Ach" was translated at “Adelphos”. I even gave you examples from the Septuagint:

In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother", even though he was his nephew - the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" of his uncle Laban.

In 1 Chr. 23:21–22, brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren," the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins.

Lastly, in Acts 1:15 - it says that 120 “brothers” were gathered when Peter got up to speak. Guess what word is used here? You guessed it - "Adelphos".
Are we to believe that they were ALL uterine brothers?

So much for "Adelphos" meaning only "uterine brother" . . .

I see that you only cut and pasted one part of what I wrote. You did not use the part where I gave the definition that agreed with you. Why? Why didn’t you post everything I wrote instead what you only chose to post of mine which was one small part of my post.
I didn’t say it was only uterine brothers. Read what I wrote, I agree that both have many meanings. What I’m saying is since it has many meanings it could also meanblood brothers along with cousin kinsman, nephew, and so on. They chose to use it to mean cousin.
I also asked you for a site for the Koine Greek word meaning do you have one so I can look it up.

 

[guanophore]

And? I do not go to please my husband, I go because that is his choice and I respect him. I worship God whereever I go. If I chose to go else where it would be fine with hubby, I chose to go to church with him.

Tweety, I think it is very loving that you might do anything just to please your husband. I think it is great that you are willing to support his choice, and respect it, especially given how many difficulties you have with the Catholic faith. I am also sure you often miss your Protestant community, so it is very self sacrificing of you.

 

[guanophore]

BTW, Jesus was circumcized and baptized. Seems one could not replace the other if He (and His disciples and all male Jew converts to the Messiah) had both done to Him.

Yes, Jesus is the bridge between the Covenants. He completely fulfilled the Old, and ushered in the New.

How do you account for the Church’s understanding that being “born again by water and Spirit” was a reference to Baptism? Have you read the early fathers on this point?