Cafeteria Protestants

[Starwarsfan2]

But the text of the New Testament is written in Greek which is an Indo-European language, not a Semitic language.

Greek also used brother and sister for non siblings relatives usually for cousins.

 

[Thorolfr]

Greek also used brother and sister for non siblings relatives usually for cousins.

But there are specific words in Greek for cousin or relative.

There is the word anepsios ἀνεψιός

So in Collosians 4:10 it says, “Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions—if he comes to you, welcome him.”

Or there is the word suggenes συγγενής

It is used in Luke 1:36 “And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren” (NRSV)

This is translated in the King James Version, “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.”

 

[Michael68]

Yes, I think I can. Matt 13:59, Mark 6:3, Gal. 1:19. James and the others named as the “brothers” of Jesus. Adelphos can mean full brother, and it can also mean half-brother, stepbrother, or even (possibly) a more distant kinsman. All of these interpretations are consistent with the words of the New Testament. The assertion made by some (not all) Protestants that James, Joses, and the others were the offspring of Joseph and Mary cannot be incontrovertibly disproved on the basis of the Biblical text alone.

Correct, Matthew 27:55-56 shows who James and Joseph and Joses mother is. She is the Mary that looked on from afar. Mary, mother of Jesus, was at the foot of the cross. More evidence from scripture that Jesus was an only child

 

[Starwarsfan2]

As Bartholomew pointed out, we cannot prove from Scripture that those described as adelphoi of Jesus were cousins and not full brothers and sisters.

You can use tradition , for example Jerome De Viris Illustribus
James who is is called the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife as some think , but as appears to me the son of Mary , sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book…

 

[JonNC]

As Bartholomew pointed out, we cannot prove from Scripture that those described as adelphoi of Jesus were cousins and not full brothers and sisters.

And scripture in no ways confirms He had brothers and sisters. Luther certainly did not believe so: “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her”

And the second generation reformers believed firmly enough in her perpetual virginity to include it in the Formula of Concord:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

No Lutheran is compelled to believe in her perpetual virginity, but with the whole testimony of the Church Catholic, no direct reference to brothers and sisters in scripture, and the testimony of the Reformers, it just seems strange to me that Lutherans wouldn’t believe it.

Jon

 

[Thorolfr]

And scripture in no ways confirms He had brothers and sisters. Luther certainly did not believe so: “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her”

Mark 6:3 says that Jesus had brothers and sisters: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

If the Catholic Church wants to claim that the words “brother” and “sisters” do not mean real brothers and sisters but only cousins or relatives, even though Greek does have separate words for “cousin” and “relative,” they can certainly make that claim, but it cannot be proven. It seems to me that the belief that Jesus did not have full brothers and sisters is driven more by theology rather than what can be demonstrated from the historical record which is quite sparse on this question.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Mark 6:3 says that Jesus had brothers and sisters: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

If the Catholic Church wants to claim that the words “brother” and “sisters” do not mean real brothers and sisters but only cousins or relatives, even though Greek does have separate words for “cousin” and “relative,” they can certainly make that claim, but it cannot be proven. It seems to me that the belief that Jesus did not have full brothers and sisters is driven more by theology rather than what can be demonstrated from the historical record which is quite sparse on this question.

Precedent, what have all the Apostolic Churches stated from ancient times? The Syriac Aramaic Churches all say Mary is Ever Virgin, as do the Greek, Copt, Armenian, Indian, etc. The Universal Tradiition is overwhelming that Mary has no other children.

 

[andrewstx]

There is one point that really gets my goat. That is the mostly Baptist idea that “getting saved” by proffesion of faith along with repentence is the only thing needed to become a Christian.

Baptism is optional. Even though the bible says in numerous times that Baptism forgives sin. Acts 2:38 is only one example.

Baptism is optional. If you want to baptized anyway, then they get very picky. The amount of water used, and the age of the baptisey are extremely important.

 

[JonNC]

=Thorolfr;13341798]Mark 6:3 says that Jesus had brothers and sisters: “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.”

It isn’t just the Catholic Church, but the Universal Church, with the exception of a few such as Helvidius, about whom Luther said in his typically harsh way:
** Helvidius, that fool, was also willing to credit Mary with more sons after Christ’s birth because of the words of the Evangelist: “And [Joseph] knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born Son” (Matt. 1:25). This had to be understood, as he thought, as though she had more sons after the first-born Son. How stupid he was! He received a fitting answer from Jerome. (“Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi” [1543], St. L. XX:2098; quoted in Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, Vol. II [Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1951], p. 308) **

If the Catholic Church wants to claim that the words “brother” and “sisters” do not mean real brothers and sisters but only cousins or relatives, even though Greek does have separate words for “cousin” and “relative,” they can certainly make that claim, but it cannot be proven. It seems to me that the belief that Jesus did not have full brothers and sisters is driven more by theology rather than what can be demonstrated from the historical record which is quite sparse on this question.

Luther explains the language in Matthew, correctly in my view, and I believe that of the Universal Church.

Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, “Before they came together she was found to be with child.” They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, “Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph,” etc. Again, when he says, “And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son” [Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius which was refuted by Jerome. Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah [cf. Isaiah 7:14], wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man. The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be with child before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. (“That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” pp. 211-13)

Jon

 

[steido01]

And scripture in no ways confirms He had brothers and sisters. Luther certainly did not believe so: “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her”

And the second generation reformers believed firmly enough in her perpetual virginity to include it in the Formula of Concord:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

No Lutheran is compelled to believe in her perpetual virginity, but with the whole testimony of the Church Catholic, no direct reference to brothers and sisters in scripture, and the testimony of the Reformers, it just seems strange to me that Lutherans wouldn’t believe it.

:yup:

 

[SalusaSecondus]

And scripture in no ways confirms He had brothers and sisters. Luther certainly did not believe so: “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her”

And the second generation reformers believed firmly enough in her perpetual virginity to include it in the Formula of Concord:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

No Lutheran is compelled to believe in her perpetual virginity, but with the whole testimony of the Church Catholic, no direct reference to brothers and sisters in scripture, and the testimony of the Reformers, it just seems strange to me that Lutherans wouldn’t believe it.

Jon

The FC is specifically vague. “Remained a virgin” can be forever, or until the birth of Jesus.

 

[benhur]

Catholics have been accused of picking and choosing from the bible. This is what I see Protestants doing. For example, many are not concerned with confession when the bible calls for it. Another example, they say Mary was born a sinner completely disregarding what the Angel told her. Any thoughts?

Hi Mike,

I think whatever one side can be "accused’’ of the other side has also been accused. It is said with same words per your example:“disregard”, “mere”, “not concerned”, “forget”, “twist”, “misinterpret”, “unbiblical”, “unhistorical” etc.

Both sides present a rational, well thought out, even biblical, historical “apology” on most points, if not all.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

There is one point that really gets my goat. That is the mostly Baptist idea that “getting saved” by proffesion of faith along with repentence is the only thing needed to become a Christian.

Baptism is optional. Even though the bible says in numerous times that Baptism forgives sin. Acts 2:38 is only one example.

Baptism is optional. If you want to baptized anyway, then they get very picky. The amount of water used, and the age of the baptisey are extremely important.

I agree. I’ve never understood this one. Its like they completely ignore 1 Peter 3:21 and mistranslate Acts 2:38 to say all baptism is, is an outward symbol of an inward reality. Another symbol? Baptism is for regeneration, remission of sin.

 

[benhur]

But the text of the New Testament is written in Greek which is an Indo-European language, not a Semitic language.

yes ,the “inspired " text” is Greek.

 

[benhur]

Baptism is for regeneration, remission of sin.

Hi M,

Can the flesh glorify God, have saving faith, believe unto righteousness, have anything good in him ? Can flesh having a dead spirit, dead in sin, believe ? Yet no one is baptized unless they believe, and wish to glorify God.

Only a regenerated spirit can do that, and only a regenerated spirit is therefore water baptized.

Blessings

 

[Michael68]

Hi M,

Can the flesh glorify God, have saving faith, believe unto righteousness, have anything good in him ? Can flesh having a dead spirit, dead in sin, believe ? Yet no one is baptized unless they believe, and wish to glorify God.

Only a regenerated spirit can do that, and only a regenerated spirit is therefore water baptized.

Blessings

Baptism washes away original sin. It is a doctrine of the CC and I believe it.

 

[LutheranScholar]

And scripture in no ways confirms He had brothers and sisters. Luther certainly did not believe so: “When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her”

And the second generation reformers believed firmly enough in her perpetual virginity to include it in the Formula of Concord:
On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

No Lutheran is compelled to believe in her perpetual virginity, but with the whole testimony of the Church Catholic, no direct reference to brothers and sisters in scripture, and the testimony of the Reformers, it just seems strange to me that Lutherans wouldn’t believe it.

Jon

Quite right, JohnNC. The Blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin, just as it states in the Formula of Concord.

 

[MaryT777]

Quite right, JohnNC. The Blessed Virgin Mary remained a Virgin, just as it states in the Formula of Concord.

Yet in Post 31 a Wels Poster noted the FOC is specifically vague and the meaning could be until Jesus was born.

?
So apparently the BOC is open to interpretation by the various synods.

Mary.

 

[Michael68]

Hi Mike,

I think whatever one side can be "accused’’ of the other side has also been accused. It is said with same words per your example:“disregard”, “mere”, “not concerned”, “forget”, “twist”, “misinterpret”, “unbiblical”, “unhistorical” etc.

Both sides present a rational, well thought out, even biblical, historical “apology” on most points, if not all.

Blessings

Hi behur! Thank You for responding!

 

[andrewstx]

I agree. I’ve never understood this one. Its like they completely ignore 1 Peter 3:21 and mistranslate Acts 2:38 to say all baptism is, is an outward symbol of an inward reality. Another symbol? Baptism is for regeneration, remission of sin.

Do you know that Baptists think that the water and the Spirit refers to only amniotic fluid.