How does Marian devotion save?

[moondweller]

Do you allegorize it. Do you ignore what the author literally wrote and interpret it by saying that it’s not really at all about the memory of a Jewish boy growing up in N.Y., but rather Catholics in the New Jerusalem?

Scripture is written by culturally diverse individuals using languages differing vastly from English in which terms are often roughly translated to the nearest modern equivalent.

Part of a literal interpretation is understanding the culture in which it was written and some knowledge of the original language, when needed. There’s a difference between translating (words from one language to another) and interpreting.

I think the flaws in your point are obvious even after a moment or two of reflection.

No, there’s no flaws. The next book you read you might want to consider one on hermeneutics. It might help you to understand where I’m coming from. Right now you don’t have a clue.

 

[moondweller]

Because you think it makes no sense doesn’t mean it is so, otherwise that would be clear to every Protestant.

It is not, therefore it is not.

No, you’re missing the point completely. If the literal sense makes sense, then don’t seek another sense. IOW, allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. The text itself will tell the reader if its author intended it to be an allegory.

Like any literature, the reader himself has no right to allegorize an author’s writings. Else he/she corrupts, even destroys, what the author himself intended to originally communicate.

You are clearly anti-Catholic. You think the Church is man-made, made-up, and wrong about the Faith it was instituted to defend. That’s anti-Catholicism.

I differentiate between “the church” Christ is building and “churches” (local assemblies). I don’t even refer to the local assembly I attend as “the church.” Some within my local assembly are part of “the church” Christ is building, and some are not.

The fact you keep insisting that Church teaching we cite are “our” teachings (as if we made them up ourselves) is part of the proof.

I’ve merely asked for “proof” to back up your extrabiblical teachings. Such a request doesn’t at all brand me anti-Catholic. It just makes you angry with me, and so out of your anger you call me “anti-Catholic.” I understand your frustration, but name calling is uncalled for.

 

[brb3]

In the case of Christ’s words at the Last Supper, the literal makes no sense, hence, one must seek another. IOW, He was speaking figuratively/symbolically. There’s no mystery there.

No mystery ? MD … did you ‘figuratively’ or literally receive a ‘Baptism by H.S.’ of Christ ?

John 14:15-23 ---- is your text to decipher for us on ‘Baptism by H.S.’.

 

[LilyM]

The text does not say He passed through doors.

It says the doors were locked. It doesn’t say they were opened at any stage. It says He appeared, not that He walked through the door. Do the math.

Quote:

To the contrary, Lily. He suffered a GREAT amount of pain physically, and most especially spiritually

I’m talking about when Thomas went poking and prodding into His hands and side. A normal body feels physical pain when someone probes its wounds. His didn’t, obviously, after the Resurrection.

He ascended, which means His body was not omnipresent.

I’m not arguing His body was omnipresent, I’m arguing it was endowed with supernatural (more-than-human) power after His resurrection. And it was - YOU can’t levitate at will, can you? Mind you, it’d be a pretty poor sort of God who COULDN’T make His human body omnipresent if He so willed, so if I were you I’d be wary of putting limits on what Jesus’ (God’s) body can and can’t do.

The Gospel records ARE Scripture. Your argument is that there must be an “official” interpreter of those Scriptural Records (as well as all the Books of the Bible). You say only the Bishops of your church are the “official” interpreters of Scripture. But Scripture itself lists no such office or demands such a required position.

Well, d’uh. Of course the Gospel is scripture. It is also commentary on all PREVIOUS scripture - on the OT. Did I say there MUST be an official interpreter? No. But I said, and maintain, that there IS nonetheless an official interpreter, easily discernible and recognisable as such. And that the Apostles were such interpreters. Otherwise Christ’s promise to the Apostles to lead them into all truth is meaningless.

So then you would question the biological relationship between Peter and Andrew since you don’t know the name of their father. Interesting.

Well, if my salvation doesn’t depend on knowing eschatology (as you yourself held in another thread) then it depends infinitely less on knowing the relationship between Andrew and Peter!!! So you of all people can hardly comment on my not knowing or caring what their relationship was.

The point I made, Lily, is that in the N.T. “adelphos” is used either in a spiritual sense (i.e., spiritual brethren), or a biological sense, for siblings. Every place in the N.T. it’s used biologically it refers to siblings.

RUBBISH! The two sons of Zebedee and his wife were adelphoi BOTH in a biological sense (because they had the same mother and father) AND in a spiritual sense, being among the 120 ‘brethren’ in the Upper Room at Pentecost. It’s not a case of it having only one meaning for them, it had both meanings.

Assuming Peter and Andrew were biological brothers, the same is true of them.

So where it is used it can certainly refer to one or both of these meanings, and you haven’t proven that it always exclusively has to have just the one meaning or the other.

Mark 6:3 “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him."

Seriously, ALL the 120 adelphoi gathered in the Upper Room at Pentecost were biological siblings?
Seriously, no. Never even hinted to such a thing. But Acts 1:14 does state that Mary, with His brothers (siblings, Mary’s children) were also in the room. The text does not at all demand a spiritual context to the “His brothers.” In fact, it would render it nonsensical.

So in Acts it is nonsensical to read ‘adelphoi’ as meaning ‘spiritual brethren’, according to you? And it must be meant in Acts as uterine sons or daughters of Mary?

Then by your own logic all the 120 must have been biological siblings, and biological sons or daughters of Mary. You’ve just more than hinted at it, you’ve flat out said that it must be so.

By your logic each and every one of the 120, including James and John who clearly had different mother (and Father) to Jesus, must really be sons and daughters of Mary.

A previous poster has well and truly corrected you on this, yet you fail to heed them. Adelphoi is used of biological RELATIVES - relatives of any degree. Which includes cousins. Lot, being Abraham’s nephew, was one of his ‘adelphoi’, and accordingly is sometimes described as Abraham’s ‘brother’ in the OT, although it is clear that he wasn’t biologically a brother of Abraham, rather a nephew.

And I don’t dispute that some if not all of these people named in Nazareth or in Acts could be His cousins, stepsiblings or the like. Galilee was a small place.

Adelphoi emphatically DOESN’T, by any definition I have read, automatically mean biological SIBLINGS. Above all in the context of what the people of Nazareth said, it even more emphatically doesn’t mean CHILDREN OF MARY.

Remember stepsiblings would also be counted as biological siblings and hence ‘adelphoi’. Remember too that there is absolutely no indication that the people of Nazareth EVER believed that Jesus was divinely conceived. Presumably they thought He was Joseph’s son. So of course they would count any children of Joseph’s (even those not mothered by Mary) as Jesus’ stepsiblings and hence biological relatives or adelphoi.

 

[PRmerger]

Are they forthcoming or haven’t you found a suitable extra-biblical reference yet?

Folks, I wouldn’t expect Moon to provide back up for his arguments, his man-made, non-authoritative interpretations and extra-biblical traditions. It’s just not his way.

Way back when he posted another absurd statement:

Originally posted, amazingly and undoubtedly with a straight face, by moondweller: It’s documented history that the majority of the RC priests never read the Scriptures but were merely trained in the traditions of the RCC.

When asked, naturally, to provide a source for this, he responded quite transparently with this:

What would that matter to you?

 

[moondweller]

It says the doors were locked. It doesn’t say they were opened at any stage. It says He appeared, not that He walked through the door.

Which is my argument exactly. The text doesn’t say He “walked through” anything. It says He appeared.

I’m talking about when Thomas went poking and prodding into His hands and side. A normal body feels physical pain when someone probes its wounds. His didn’t, obviously, after the Resurrection.

Obviously not, it was His glorified body, not His body of humility. It is interesting though that His glorified body retains the scars of His crucifixion. No doubt an eternal reminder for all the eternally redeemed by faith through His shed blood :bowdown:

I’m not arguing His body was omnipresent, I’m arguing it was endowed with supernatural (more-than-human) power after His resurrection. And it was - YOU can’t levitate at will, can you? Mind you, it’d be a pretty poor sort of God who COULDN’T make His human body omnipresent if He so willed,

If it was omnipresent then it wouldn’t be a truly human body. A human body cannot be in more than one place at one time. Nor can it be crucified and resurrected at the same time. Nor can it be both dead and alive forevermore at the same time. Through the incarnation the Son took on TRUE humanity.

so if I were you I’d be wary of putting limits on what Jesus’ (God’s) body can and can’t do.

Can you show me in Scripture where it’s recorded that Jesus was, bodily, in two places at the one time? Can you show me where’s it’s recorded that He was, bodily, dead and alive at the same time? Where He was both in His body of humility and glorified body at the same time?

Well, d’uh. Of course the Gospel is scripture. It is also commentary on all PREVIOUS scripture - on the OT.

It is true that the Gospel accounts do make reference to the fulfillment of O.T. prophecies concerning Christ first advent. And interestingly enough they testify that those prophecies were fulfilled literally. In the same way, the O.T. prophecies that describe a glorious, earthly kingdom at the time of the King’s return will also be fulfilled literally.

Did I say there MUST be an official interpreter? No. But I said, and maintain, that there IS nonetheless an official interpreter, easily discernible and recognisable as such. And that the Apostles were such interpreters.

Then where is the book in which they interpret all the Scriptures.

Otherwise Christ’s promise to the Apostles to lead them into all truth is meaningless.

No it isn’t. He did lead them into all truth, and that truth He led them into was preserved for us in Holy Writ: The N.T.,* theopneustos* Scriptures.

Well, if my salvation doesn’t depend on knowing eschatology (as you yourself held in another thread) then it depends infinitely less on knowing the relationship between Andrew and Peter!!! So you of all people can hardly comment on my not knowing or caring what their relationship was.

Your salvation was not the context of my response. I think it went over your head.

So where it is used it can certainly refer to one or both of these meanings, and you haven’t proven that it always exclusively has to have just the one meaning or the other.

The text itself does. When it says Peter and Andrew were brothers it means, in context, they were biological brothers. In context it is not referring to their being spiritual brothers.

So in Acts it is nonsensical to read ‘adelphoi’ as meaning ‘spiritual brethren’, according to you?

In Acts 1:14 it most definitely means Christ’s biological brothers. Just as it means, in that verse, that Mary was His biological mother.

And it must be meant in Acts as uterine sons or daughters of Mary?

Acts 1:14 only mentions His biological brothers.

Then by your own logic all the 120 must have been biological siblings, and biological sons or daughters of Mary. You’ve just more than hinted at it, you’ve flat out said that it must be so.

:whacky:

A previous poster has well and truly corrected you on this, yet you fail to heed them. Adelphoi is used of biological RELATIVES - relatives of any degree. Which includes cousins.

Can you show me where “adelphos” is translated “cousin” in the N.T.? In Col. 4:10 Barnabas’ “cousin” Mark is mentioned. The word used is not “adelphos,” but “anepsios.”

Adelphoi emphatically DOESN’T, by any definition I have read, automatically mean biological SIBLINGS.

Of course not. Not if the context clearly means spiritual brethren. But if not, in the N.T., it means biological brethren.

Above all in the context of what the people of Nazareth said, it even more emphatically doesn’t mean CHILDREN OF MARY.

There’s nothing, even remotely, in the context to interpret it other than biological. It’s your Marilology that prohibits you from allowing the text to be interpreted normally.

Remember stepsiblings would also be counted as biological siblings and hence ‘adelphoi’. Remember too that there is absolutely no indication that the people of Nazareth EVER believed that Jesus was divinely conceived. Presumably they thought He was Joseph’s son. So of course they would count any children of Joseph’s (even those not mothered by Mary) as Jesus’ stepsiblings and hence biological relatives or adelphoi.

They were there when Mary gave physical birth to Jesus. They were there when she gave physical birth to her other children. Hence, they were known to them as ALL Mary’s biological children. Which is what is reflected in Mark 6:3. Again, it’s your Mariology that prohibits a normal interpretation of this verse.

 

[LilyM]

Can you show me where “adelphos” is translated “cousin” in the N.T.? In Col. 4:10 Barnabas’ “cousin” Mark is mentioned. The word used is not “adelphos,” but “anepsios.”

Are you saying language changed so drastically that in between the time of the translation of the OT into Greek (where Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is nonetheless among his ‘adelphoi’) and Jesus’ day, the word ‘adelphos’ completely changed and narrowed its meaning so that it became, in that intervening period, restricted to meaning one and only one of either a) biological sibling or b) ‘spiritual’ relative?

I’d love to see the linguistic scholarship that demonstrates that the word so radically altered in meaning in that particular time period.

They were there when Mary gave physical birth to Jesus.

Of course they weren’t. Mary was in Bethlehem for the birth, many many miles away from her kinsfolk in Nazareth. Straight after that she, Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt, where they spent several years until Herod died. Her relatives probably didn’t see Jesus before He was at least a toddler.

They were there when she gave physical birth to her other children.

I’d like to see scriptural support for THAT!

 

[moondweller]

Are you saying language changed so drastically that in between the time of the translation of the OT into Greek (where Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is nonetheless among his ‘adelphoi’) and Jesus’ day, the word ‘adelphos’ completely changed and narrowed its meaning so that it became, in that intervening period, restricted to meaning one and only one of either a) biological sibling or b) ‘spiritual’ relative?

I said in the N.T. adelphos is used either in a spiritual sense (brethren in Christ) or a biological sense (siblings). It’s translated 345 times in the KJV as “brother.” The context tells you it’s use: spiritually or biologically.

Of course they weren’t. Mary was in Bethlehem for the birth, many many miles away from her kinsfolk in Nazareth. Straight after that she, Joseph and Jesus fled to Egypt, where they spent several years until Herod died. Her relatives probably didn’t see Jesus before He was at least a toddler.

The point is, Mary conceived Jesus in Nazareth and those living there knew she was pregnant. She was close to giving birth when they left for Bethlehem. When they finally came back to Nazareth they came back with the Child that she had conceived there in Nazareth.

When Jesus Himself came to minister in His home town they drew offense with Him because they were so very familiar with His family. They knew His trade, His Mother, and the names of His brothers and sisters (Mk. 6:3). And because of this they drew offense. You know the old adage: “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

The point is, Lily, a plain, normal interpretation of those Scriptures clearly reveals that Jesus had half brothers and sisters which were well known in Nazareth. According to the Scriptures, after the birth of Jesus God blessed the marriage of Joseph and Mary with children of their own - a real marriage with a real family (Matt. 1:25).

 

[Lycorth]

No, you’re missing the point completely. If the literal sense makes sense, then don’t seek another sense. IOW, allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves. The text itself will tell the reader if its author intended it to be an allegory.

If that were the case, all Protestant sects would be instead one sect teaching one thing.

Like any literature, the reader himself has no right to allegorize an author’s writings. Else he/she corrupts, even destroys, what the author himself intended to originally communicate.

Yet this is what Protestants do - some have X interpretation, some have Y interpretation, and so on. The readers ever since Luther’s rebellion have been interpreting Scripture to mean whatever they want it to.

I differentiate between “the church” Christ is building and “churches” (local assemblies). I don’t even refer to the local assembly I attend as “the church.” Some within my local assembly are part of “the church” Christ is building, and some are not.

The problem is that you leave out the Church, the ecclesial organization Christ instituted to see to the building of the church worldwide.

I’ve merely asked for “proof” to back up your extrabiblical teachings.

And I’ve asked you to provide proof that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, when it clearly neither teaches nor implies that it is, or to justify private interpretation of the Scriptures, which is unsupported in Scripture itself (see 2 Peter 1:20).

Such a request doesn’t at all brand me anti-Catholic. It just makes you angry with me, and so out of your anger you call me “anti-Catholic.” I understand your frustration, but name calling is uncalled for.

It’s not name-calling, but an honest appraisal. We are either with Christ or against Him, as we read in Luke 11:23 - "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters. Protestant theology has scattered Christians one from another since the time of Luther and it is still doing so now.

 

[Lycorth]

I said in the N.T. adelphos is used either in a spiritual sense (brethren in Christ) or a biological sense (siblings). It’s translated 345 times in the KJV as “brother.” The context tells you it’s use: spiritually or biologically.The point is, Mary conceived Jesus in Nazareth and those living there knew she was pregnant. She was close to giving birth when they left for Bethlehem. When they finally came back to Nazareth they came back with the Child that she had conceived there in Nazareth.

Jesus’ “Brothers” (adelphoi)) = Cousins or Kinsmen*

*Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.” *

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

*Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin. *

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

*Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.” *

*2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend. *

*2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen. *

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 

[Lycorth]

When Jesus Himself came to minister in His home town they drew offense with Him because they were so very familiar with His family. They knew His trade, His Mother, and the names of His brothers and sisters (Mk. 6:3). And because of this they drew offense. You know the old adage: “Familiarity breeds contempt.”

But none of that proves He had siblings.

Mary is Ever Virgin*

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.*
Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

*Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times. *

*Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings. *

*John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers. *

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

*John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary. *

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

 

[Lycorth]

The point is, Lily, a plain, normal interpretation of those Scriptures clearly reveals that Jesus had half brothers and sisters which were well known in Nazareth. According to the Scriptures, after the birth of Jesus God blessed the marriage of Joseph and Mary with children of their own - a real marriage with a real family (Matt. 1:25).

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her “not until”)

                   *Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":*

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

It is dangerous to interpret Scriptures privately. It leads to scattering where there was once gathering.

It is also the teaching of the Church fathers that Mary was immaculately conceived, ever-virgin, assumed into Heaven, and is a powerful intercessor.

 

[Pitcharan]

…Mary is the mother of grace. She is full of grace,as the angel Gabriel called her. Devotion to her releases grace. As the chosen Mother of God,her prayers for us are especially powerful. As scripture says,the prayers of a righteous man are very powerful.

Doesn’t devotion to other saints release Grace? But the fact remains that while some saints are considered tall (Elijah, Moses, John, Peter, Paul, Mary) some have great following in terms of devotees (Mary, Anthony of Padua, Jude). We also have other popular devotions like “Sacred Heart of Jesus”, “Infant Jesus” and “Divine Mercy”. Who can explain these things?

The Church in her wisdom permits and even encourages such things based on merit after ensuring that it is no heresy. They can be explained as typical social behaviour patterns and are there in all religions including Judaism of OT times. They always faced opposition, criticism and attack from fundamentalists. The catholic church is right in understanding human behaviour and permitting what is good and prohibiting heresy.

There was a time when such tendencies had to be discouraged; but it was done in beautiful Hebrew tradition by the theologians during OT times who carefully ensured that even the tallest saint was not worshipped or misunderstood as God by simple uneducated faithful. That is why we come across unexpected things like Moses being told by God that he will not see the promised land but die before that, for having broken faith. There was also a problem during Jesus’ time of people misunderstanding John the Baptist to be the Messiah. This problem is dealt again in beautiful Hebrew tradition in the gospels (John 1:30 & 3:22-36. Matt 3:11).

 

[moondweller]

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

We’re dealing with the Greek, not the Hebrew. The Greek word used here is “suggenes.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Yes, adelphos is used figuratively here, in a spiritual sense. He was to strengthen his spiritual brethren, not just Andrew. And I’m sure it’s not limited to just the other Apostles, but as an Apostle he was to strengthen those who would believe in Christ through their preaching of the cross to be believed unto eternal salvation, his “brethren” according to the faith.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

In context Acts 1:14 is referring to Jesus’ half-brothers. His mother with His brothers, Mary’s sons. Acts 1:14 is not referring to all 120.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Did I not agree that in the N.T. adelphos is used figuratively or biologically? The text itself defines its usage. You refuse to accept the obvious use of adelphos, biologically, in connection with Jesus because your Mariology prohibits it, even though the text itself communicates otherwise.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Paul himself defines his use of adelphos in this passage. He was referring to his fellow Jews, his kinsmen according to the flesh. Obviously he was using it figuratively. As I said, the text itself defines its usage. But figuratively is far from the case in Mk. 6:3 where His mother and biological half-brothers are named, and His biological half-sisters mentioned. It’s silly to contend that these were cousins or fabricate a story that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. But I understand why men have done it: Scripture must conform to their Mariology, not the other way around.

 

[PRmerger]

Exactly!

I read this

(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6753943&postcount=167”) from another CAFs poster, excubitor, and loved it so much I saved it on my Word Document I’ve created of Apologetics/Scripture quotes:

Surely if the Roman church was in the business of corrupting doctrine they would have corrupted the scripture also in order to support their corrupted doctrine. And yet very few protestants claim that the scriptures have been corrupted

 

[moondweller]

Would you not agree that canonization and interpretation are two different things? And much of Catholic Mariology is extrabiblical, would you not agree?

 

[moondweller]

Misunderstanding about Matthew 1:25 (Joseph knew her “not until”)

                   *Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":*

Take a look at the very next chapter, verse 13. There “heos” is also used. Are you also going to conclude that they never left Egypt?

A normal reading/interpretation of Matt. 1:25 communicates to us that Joseph did not “know” Mary, in the sexual sense, “until” she gave birth to Jesus. Just as they remained in Egypt “until” (heos) the angel gave them orders to leave. Then a change of action took place - they left. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Then a change of action took place - children between them were subsequently born based on that change of action. The males are named in Mk. 6:3, and the females mentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

Take a look at the very next chapter, verse 13. There “heos” is also used. Are you also going to conclude that they never left Egypt?

A normal reading/interpretation of Matt. 1:25 communicates to us that Joseph did not “know” Mary, in the sexual sense, “until” she gave birth to Jesus. Just as they remained in Egypt “until” (heos) the angel gave them orders to leave. Then a change of action took place - they left. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Then a change of action took place - children between them were subsequently born based on that change of action. The males are named in Mk. 6:3, and the females mentioned.

Catholics will not argue that sometimes in Scripture “until” indicates a subsequent change in activity.

However, sometimes, it doesn’t. As in 2 Samuel and Matt 1. Sometimes it just means up to a particular moment in time.

Anyway, why would Joseph not have relations with Mary while she was pregnant? What was the inspired writer communicating about that? Is there something sinful about having marital relations while pregnant?

 

[moondweller]

Again you’re missing the point I was making based on your point. Canonization cannot corrupt the text or cater to false doctrines, whereas interpretation can (as can the introduction of extrabiblical doctrines when Scripture is made to conform them). This is where a good hermeneutics must come into play.

 

[moondweller]

Catholics will not argue that sometimes in Scripture “until” indicates a subsequent change in activity.

However, sometimes, it doesn’t. As in 2 Samuel and Matt 1. Sometimes it just means up to a particular moment in time.

Anyway, why would Joseph not have relations with Mary while she was pregnant? What was the inspired writer communicating about that? Is there something sinful about having marital relations while pregnant?

He kept her a virgin “until” the Christ Child was born. This has nothing to do with sin.