Brothers of Christ for Mickey

[NDfan]

catholic-legate.com/articles/heoshou.html

The link above - scroll down to the first box - argues against the idea that because Matt 1:25 has heous hou and not heous alone it means that Mary and Joseph definitely had sex.

stmaryscopticorthodox.ca/content/articles/basics/jesus_brothers.pdf

This link is an interesting piece about Jesus’ ‘brothers’

That’s an old argument Canto. We’ve been through this already.

 

[Canto]

Canto heous hou does not have to imply immediately after an action has taken place. The commission was to preach the Gospel to the ends of the earth so to say they stayed in the city doesn’t really make sense.

Jesus says stay in the city **until **you are clothed from on high. In other words once you are clothed leave the city.

If heous hou means an action does take place i.e. Joseph knew Mary after Christ’s birth than heous hou would mean that after they were clothed from on high they would have left the city, but they did not.

 

[Canto]

That’s an old argument Canto. We’ve been through this already.

1. heous/heous hou does not definitvely prove that Mary and Jospeh had sex the 3 web sites posted show this in my op.
2. if brothers always literally means blood brothers Lot would be both nephew and son of Abram and Mary would have given birth to approx 109 children. c.f. Genesis 14:12 and Acts ch1
3. if Psalm 69 refers to Mary’s kids (plural) Jesus would have comitted wrongs

What other evidence is there to show that Mary wasn’t ever-virgin?

“How can this be since I do not know man?”

Why would Mary say this? Surely she knows that to have a baby she would have to have sex with Joseph.

Why is only Jesus called a son of Mary/Joseph. Why is no one else?

St Basil 379 (not 2009) AD “The friends of Christ do not tolerate hearing that the Mother of God ever ceased to be a virgin”

 

[Canto]

HEOUS HOU examples

Matthew 14:22 And forthwith Jesus obliged his disciples to go up into the boat, and to go before him over the water, until he dismissed the people.

Once he had dismissed the people where they no longer over the water?

Matthew 26:36 Then Jesus came with them into a country place which is called Gethsemani. And he said to his disciples: Sit you here,until I go yonder and pray.

Once he had gone off to pray did they no longer sit there?

2 Peter 1:19 And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, **until **the day dawn and the day star arise in your hearts.

Once the day star rises in our hearts do we no longer need to attend to the word?

 

[Mickey]

. Support for the perpetual virginity of Mary did not appear until the late 4th century so let’s dispense with the 2000 year thing…

No—let’s not. Catholics and Orthodox adhere to oral Tradition. It was obviously taught for the first three centuries if not written down. How many centuries did it take before it was decided what would be included in the canon? No, your little Greek argument is a modern innovation that suits your odd theology.

As far as being wiser? That has nothing to do with it at all.

That is good to hear.

More educated could be a better term to use.

Doubtful.

And yes in many cases we today are more educated than many ECFs.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

 

[Mickey]

Which interpretation of the following statement involves gymnastics?

Kinsmen.

Because it has been known for 2000 years that the Virgin Mary, Mother of God was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ. It is not until men came as wolves in sheeps clothing with forked tongues preaching heresies that any other option was considered.

Hope that helps!

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What hath that do with anything

Gabriel of 12:
Much, because the only Christians holding to the perpetual virginity of Mary for the first 300 years were all Catholics who put the books of the bible together. Since your self proclaimed intelligence exceeds the Early Church Fathers, dont you think they would have noted the Gospels conflict by your interpretation of “Cousin” and “Brothers” contesting their outspoken belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary, before putting the bible books together? At this period we have not yet got to St. Jerome and his Vulgate translation.

NDfan;
I can assure you I can decipher between the 2. That has no implication for the so-called Q document you speak of. The Gospels are written in Greek plain and simple and they must be interpreted as such. Trying to justify what may have existed or may have been said in Aramaic has no basis for your argument.

Gabriel of 12;
So tell me, NDfan; how do your account for Lukes Gospel that parallels Mark and Mathew’s Gospels account of Jesus, when Luke was not one who walked and talked when Jesus walked the earth during his ministry? How can Lukes Gospel be included in the synoptics? Can you enlighten us with your intelligence, and explain how can Luke record such accounts when he was not present when Jesus said and did these things in his gospel?

NDfan:
To take it a step further let’s talk about how inaccurate the Vulgate Bible is. Jerome himself demanded that all scripture be corrected against the originals, that of Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT. He never once supported the Vulgate translation as being the official one for the church and often cited erroneous verses. So let’s not talk about deciphering between Aramaic and Greek when the very Bible you use doesn’t even reconcile back to the originals.

Gabriel of 12:

Lets talk about this; and I will end it with this: The Vulgate translation was and still is the official bible of the Cathoilc church. Did you forget St. Jerome transliterated the Vulgate using all original letters available to him at the time. Had he had the Dead sea scrolls he probably would not have argued against the Deuterocanonical books. The Catholic bible contains all the books Jesus and the apostles taught from. The protestant bible has removed 7 bible books, which does not contain the full Truth of Jesus Christ, only part of the Truth. Arguing against the Word of God as he has given his word to his Catholic church is between you and God, not me or the Catholic church. The facts of history present themselves very well on the Catholic bible, not the protestant bible.

NDfan
You know non-catholics get tired of hearing scripture mis-interpreted and twisted to support the declarations of 1 very fallible human being.

Gabriel of 12:

I disagree with your stance on this. Because it is the protestant protest against 2000 years of Catholic Christianity that makes the noise against the body of Jesus Christ, is what you hear over and over, not the Catholic church existing for all ages until Jesus comes for his bride. Non Catholic 19-20th century bible interpretations should be getting tired of their own 30, 000 “different” bible interpretations, not the one same old 2000 year old Catholic teaching unchanged now these last 2000 years.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I can assure you I can decipher between the 2. That has no implication for the so-called Q document you speak of. The Gospels are written in Greek plain and simple and they must be interpreted as such. Trying to justify what may have existed or may have been said in Aramaic has no basis for your argument.

Gabriel of 12:
I want to try and help you with this difficult explanation. I can tell you have already prejudices against the document of “Q”. I think we all did at a first glance. I have read and heard both side of the argument. The point why I bring this up, because of this "new founded argument never heard of until this 19th century contesting the Virginity of Mary from Lukes gospel using the Word “Cousin” for Elizabeth and “Brothers” for Jesus. I call your attention to the incident parallels of the Synoptic Gospels about the brothers of Jesus. And then the only recorded Gospel that has the “Annunciation” and the “Visitation” detailed out from Lukes gospel, who could of walked and talked with both Mary and Elizabeth after he converted to the “New Way” . All the other accounts of Luke of Jesus, he did not eyewitness them personally. Thus the “Synoptics”. History proves whenever one transcribed or transliterated a Word of God, great care was given not to hinder the original writing. Thus by Tradition Brothers of Jesus meant family relatives not siblings, or of the same tribe. The biblical account belief of this Hebrew Tradition does not get taken out When Luke records the “Brothers of Jesus”. Had Luke try to distinguish Sibling from relative, He would of recorded the names or Son of Joseph, or Son of Mary not “Brothers of Jesus”.

 

[rinnie]

Sure it does. Matthew 1:25.

Where. The greek word translated until does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth. Actually the greek work could go either way. So the Church who has the power of the Holy Spirit tells us no. So who should we listen to the RCC or other people here who do not claim (I hope they are not claiming that) to have the Power of the Holy Spirit.

I would have to say that the RCC gets this one!:extrahappy: And I believe the Pope and the Bishops will agree with me.:bowdown: :clapping:

 

[rinnie]

** How about if we try to decide if Mary and Joseph even had marital relations let alone children?**

**That’s already been decided centuries go.

No to both parts.**

If they had kids where did they hide them? As many people that were in the business of our Lord Jesus Christ and they missed his Mother having kids And what when Jesus was being crucified on the cross they didn’t feel a need to be there. Come on. They just left their Mother and Brother out in the cold and didn’t even show up. Does not add up. Will never add up. Because there were no brothers and sisters.