H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
wow … that’s a well formed intellectual argument. I feel really enlightened now
- Status
P
ppasa316
Guest
Dude, please study the whole context of passages before answering with false statements. Now if Mary didn’t have sin where would I find that in scripture. You see the bible doesn’t support your theory of mary not having sin. To the contrary, it affirms her sinfulness. As for Jesus having brother and sisters which those words are used in a family connection, always meaning a literal blood brother or sister (mk 1:16,19,13:12, Jn 11:1-2, Acts 23:16, Rom 16:15). Like i said in my other post, Jesus left Mary in care of John because his brothers didn’t believe in Him Jn 7:3-5. Matt 1:25 also seems to imply that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. It would be unnatural or unbiblical for Joseph not to have sexual relations with Mary. Scripture considers sex to be an essential part of marriage Gen 1:28, 1 Cor. 7:1-7, Heb 13:4. Even some Catholic scholars do not believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin. If you need help understanding God’s Word let me know and I will help you.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
If you will go back to pass thread you can find that this question has been answer over 100 times and I,m thinking as late as two days ago
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Tradition is very biblical 2:Thessalonians 2:14 (Douay-Rheims)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
14 “Traditions”… See here that the unwritten traditions are no less to be received than their epistles
From the Haydock Bible Commentary
Ver. 14. Traditions,…whether by word,[10] or by our epistle. Therefore, says St. Chrysostom, the apostle did not deliver all things that were to be believed, by writing; (Witham) but many things by word of mouth only, which have been perpetuated by tradition, and these traditions, no less than the writings of the apostles, are deserving of faith. Omoios de kakeina, kai tauta estin axiopista. (St. Chrysostom, on this place)
P
ppasa316
Guest
Wrong !!! Dude your statements and scriptures don’t make any sense to this thread. read the post i left for tobinstark. To believe what you say is contrary to the Word of God about mary.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I understand God’s word quite clear. The Douay-Rheims is an accurate Bible
The are not false statements. They come directly from the Bible. That is false your the one that is preaching heresy
And his brethren said to him: Pass from hence, and go into Judea; that thy disciples also may see thy works which thou dost. 4 For there is no man that doth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, manifest thyself to the world. 5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Haydock Bible Commentary
Ver. 3. These brethren of Christ were the relatives of the blessed Virgin, not her children. For, as in the sepuchre, were the body of our Saviour was deposited, no other mortal lay either before or since; so neither did the womb of Mary ever either before or after bear any other body but that of her divine Son. (St. Augustine, tract. 28. in Joan.)
Ver. 5. Neither did his brethren believe in him; by his brethren here, we are to understand his kindred, his townsmen or countrymen, at or about Nazareth. (Witham)
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
How can the word of God contradict itself. Try reading the Douay-Rheims sometimeWrong !!! Dude your statements and scriptures don’t make any sense to this thread. read the post i left for tobinstark. To believe what you say is contrary to the Word of God about mary.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I didn’t comment on the validity of tradition … I merely noted the protestant view towards tradition. However, arguably in this verse Paul is describing his teachings as tradition (in whatever form, whether written or oral). Therefore, the idea that an oral tradition can trump the written word seems nonsensical. In other words if a church tradition contradicts the obvious tenor of scripture it seems to me highly unlikely that it was truly an oral tradition promulgated by Paul or any apostle (since they would have been contradicting themselves). Therefore, the better view seems to be that it’s a later tradition promulgated by the church itself – with no apostolic support.
Indeed the very idea of infallibility, particular as contained within the concept of sacred and ordinary magesterium – is subjective and subject to change and altercation. The idea that a majority view, if well ingrained enough, has been around for long enough, and finds support among an overwhelming majority of the clergy – can become doctrine; creates the obvious risk of overturning scripture.
So then when you say the RCC is “the church” and it’s guided by the Holy Spirit (which will ensure she remains free from error in areas of faith and morals) – that provides an objective measuring stick to judge the validity of that claim. The RCC doesn’t deny (to my knowledge) the infallibility of scripture. So when we have numerous references to the siblings of Christ, which appear in a context where they can only mean siblings (and even Paul uses different words for brother and cousin in his epistles) protestants can fairly say the RCC is wrong. From there it provides a logical avenue to attack every basis of authority upon which the RCC validates its status as “the church.” If it’s wrong in such a crucial area of doctrine, how can it be “the church” much less infallible in all matters of critical importance to the faith? Logically it undermines itself with its hard line on Mary (since scripture seems to clearly debunk its position). From there it becomes easy to attack the Catholic view of apostolic succession (and it might be logical to say that the idea of succession merely means remaining in accordance with apostolic teachings; and Christ never meant to establish the church at Rome as his one and only church).
St. Chrysostom also said the Jews are fit for slaughter … so I’m not willing to take his word in any matter.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
I assume that you are very fluent and well versed in Koine Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew and know how to translate from Aramaic, to Greek, to English quite well???Wrong !!! Dude your statements and scriptures don’t make any sense to this thread. read the post i left for tobinstark. To believe what you say is contrary to the Word of God about mary.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
that’s a red herring. First, Paul uses the term cousin and brother in scripture (so Aramaic is not necessary, since Paul only wrote in Koine Greek). Moreover, most of the NT authors wrote in Koine Greek (i.e. Luke was a Greek physician from Antioch and allegedly wrote both Luke and Acts).
*Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd (Luke 8:19).
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19).
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him) (Col. 4:10). *
The Koine Greek for cousin is: Anepsios (and can only mean cousin). The Koine Greek for brother is: Adelphos (which can mean brother or step-brother in the familial sense, or people united by a bond of affection like fellow countrymen, a fellow believer, fellow soldier, etc.).
*Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd (Luke 8:19).
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers (Acts 1:14).
I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother (Galatians 1:19).
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him) (Col. 4:10). *
The Koine Greek for cousin is: Anepsios (and can only mean cousin). The Koine Greek for brother is: Adelphos (which can mean brother or step-brother in the familial sense, or people united by a bond of affection like fellow countrymen, a fellow believer, fellow soldier, etc.).
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Same as Acts 15:37, 39
Ver. 39. There was a dissension,[2] or dispute, with reasoning, and arguing upon the matter. St. Paul represented to St. Barnabas, that he was not for having John Mark to be their companion, because he had before left them, but St. Barnabas was for having with them his kinsman Mark; and the dispute was such, that upon it St. Paul and Barnabas separated; which gave occasion to the preaching of the gospel in more places. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xxxiii. — The fault in this contention lay with St. Barnabas; o Paulos to dikaion, o Barnabas to philanthropon: Paul sought what was just; Barnabas what was pleasing to nature. The Greeks, moreover, remark, that this severity of Paul was of service in strengthening the too pliant character of Mark, and as such he is saluted by Paul. (Colossians iv. 10.) They separated, as formerly Abraham and Lot, without prejudice to their friendship. (Genesis xiii. 9.) (Mat. Polus, synop. criticorum, fol. 4. p. 1528.)
The Koine Greek for cousin is: Anepsios (and can only mean cousin). The Koine Greek for brother is: Adelphos (which can mean brother or step-brother in the familial sense, or people united by a bond of affection like fellow countrymen, a fellow believer, fellow soldier, etc.).
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
I’m well aware of what these Catholic theologians had to say – and I say they’re wrong. The idea that brother is an idiom for cousin is frankly absurd.
The idea I’m hearing expressed here is that we had a translation from Aramaic to Greek to English (or to Latin then to English). However, this is a misnomer. Paul wrote in Greek, not in Aramaic. Luke wrote in Greek, not in Aramaic. There was a Greek word for cousin, which Paul uses in his epistles. Why would Paul use the word for cousin when referencing a cousin in some letters, but then use the word for brother when referencing a cousin in other letters.
It’s a ridiculous proposition.
The idea I’m hearing expressed here is that we had a translation from Aramaic to Greek to English (or to Latin then to English). However, this is a misnomer. Paul wrote in Greek, not in Aramaic. Luke wrote in Greek, not in Aramaic. There was a Greek word for cousin, which Paul uses in his epistles. Why would Paul use the word for cousin when referencing a cousin in some letters, but then use the word for brother when referencing a cousin in other letters.
It’s a ridiculous proposition.
E
elvisman
Guest
Wrong again.
Jesus isn’t the bearer of the word - he IS the word. Mary was the God-Bearer (Theotokos) because she carried the Word incarnate.
The OT Ark carried the word in stone.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
So you are fluent in foreign languages Greek?? Give examples were Catholic theologians were wrong. I highly doubt Paul and Peter and early Church fathers were in err when they received the worlds and wrote them down. They were Christian. It was highly likely that Paul and others were fluent in Aramaic(language of Christ) and Greek as Jesu spoke some Greek as well. I don’t think they translate wrongly. You have only said one thing over and over, which indicates you don’t know any Koine Greek and just rely on what you have seen or heard. Provide examples that the Early Church Fathers were wrong.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
sounds like your fluent with Koine Greek.Wrong again.
Jesus isn’t the bearer of the word - he IS the word. Mary was the God-Bearer (Theotokos) because she carried the Word incarnate.
The OT Ark carried the word in stone.
E
elvisman
Guest
WRONG.Wrong !!! Dude your statements and scriptures don’t make any sense to this thread. read the post i left for tobinstark. To believe what you say is contrary to the Word of God about mary.
The passages I provided show a very clear link to Mary - from OT typology to the fulfillment of the NT.
I read your weak response to Tobinatorshark. I say, “weak” because it is full of holes that I already exposed in my last post.
These are the facts and the passages I gave you are spot-on.
Here are some linguistic the facts:
The writers of the New Testament were used to how the Septuagint used the word, adelphos*as the ordinary Greek meaning of the Hebrew word ach (blood relation) with its multiple applications to immediate and extended family. These meanings had a much broader sense than just uterine brothers or sisters.*
If you study history and linguistics - adelph-family were not confined to uterine brothers or sisters in mainstream Greek for FIVE centuries before the time of Christ. So, passages which call James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude adelphoi of Jesus don’t indicate conclusively that they were Mary’s children or younger brothers of Jesus.
Every cousin is a kinsman, but not every kinsman is a cousin. Because of this - adelphos, was the right word to use in Matthew 13:55 and elsewhere to describe Jesus’ relatives and not anepsios.
PS - I’ll try to refrain from using big words so you won’t be confused.
**PPS - CAN you answer my question about Acts 1:15 when they were going to choose the successor of Judas? The word “Adelphoi” is used here to describe the 120 believers who were there. **
Here is the question, again:
**Do you actually believe that they all had the same mother?? **
humble_in_doubt couldn’t answer it - can you?
E
elvisman
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t say, fluent, but thanks.sounds like your fluent with Koine Greek.
The problem with these guys is that they won’t even do a rudimentary study of the post-Septuagint Greek usage of these words - then try to argue their point. They assume they know more than the Early church Fathers, yet they are coming from a position of ignorance - and arrogance.
H
humble_in_doubt
Guest
are you fluent in English? Because if you are then reread my post … I just did give examples of where they’re wrong.
I doubt it all … but that’s not the point is it? What you’re saying is that Paul wasn’t very careful in his choice of words & god apparently inspired poor grammar.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
Well consider I live in the U.S. yet I am fluent in English. You have shown no evidence whatsoever and elvisman will back me up on it. He is a bit better in apologetics than I am. You are twisting my words. In no way am I saying that Paul wasn’t careful in his choice. It is very possible somethings could have been told in Aramaic and written in Greek. You don’t know Koine Greek and please stop acting like you do.
- Status