S
steve-b
Guest
It’s interesting, not one single person opened the link defining “offspring” in Greek that I posted in this response
- Status
S
SeriousQuestion
Guest
I was in a rush sorry.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
It’s the same word that appears in contexts such as “the seed of Abraham,” as here, in Romans 9:7-8:
http://newadvent.com/bible/rom009.htm
S
steve-b
Guest
point being all those references mentioned in my link Here , can mean direct children or descendants.steve-b:
It’s the same word that appears in contexts such as “the seed of Abraham,” as here, in Romans 9:7-8:
HOLY BIBLE: Romans 9
examples:
Lev 18:20, Heb 11:11, Mt 22:24, Mk 12:19, Lk 20:28, etc etc
G
guanophore
Guest
clearly some other passage than this…
Continuing the discussion from Did Saint Thomas Aquinas reject the Immaculate Conception of Mary?:
"If the soul of the Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain of original sin, this would be derogatory to the dignity of Christ, by reason of His being the universal Saviour of all. Consequently after Christ, who, as the universal Saviour of all, needed not to be saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin holds the highest place . For Christ did not contract original sin in any way whatever, but was holy in His very Conception, according to Luke 1:35: “The Holy which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did indeed contract original sin, but was cleansed therefrom before her birth from the womb. This is what is signified (Job 3:9) where it is written of the night of original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e. Christ, “and not see it”–(because “no defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written in Wisdom 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin, who in her birth was immune from original sin. ( Summa Theologica , III, Q.27, A.2, ad 2)
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
The best answer is to tell them to read Genesis all the way through. Jews had very limited terminology for familial relationships. All ancestors were called “mother” or “father.” All descendants were called “son” or “daughter” and all other relationships were called “brother” or “sister.” So if you weren’t a direct ancestor or a direct descendant, you were a Brother or Sister. Cousins, aunts, uncles, step siblings, half siblings, nieces, nephews, third cousins once removed, adopted and foster siblings, they were all “brothers” or “sisters.” Read Genesis.
W
WileyC1949
Guest
I know that everyone is going to scream at me and probably send me hate mail because my reply it is not Church doctrine because of the teaching that Mary was always a virgin, but I personally have no problem with Mary and Joseph having other children. It is mentioned several other times more than the passage you cited… in Matthew where it states that Joseph and Mary did not have sex “UNTIL” after the when his mother and brothers were outside and He said “Who are my mother and brothers?..”, that James was the “brother of the Lord” and the first Bishop of Jerusalem, as well as at His birth He was referred to as “Their firstborn son.” If He were an only child it most likely would have read “Their son,” To me it doesn’t make sense that you would have a first-born unless you had other children. The Bible says nothing about other children of Joseph from a previous marriage. Since inheritance passed first from father to oldest son then if the other children were from a previous marriage it would follow that Jesus was not the “first born son”. The other explanation was that they were cousins, but except for John the Baptist the Bible does discuss any of His cousins. I think the passage highlights this because I would find it strange that a person as well-known as John the Baptist would be omitted from your list. I do agree however that the word “brother” could indeed have referred to cousins. So while the passages could indeed refer to “cousins”, and the OT does support that point of view, it also may be that the teaching is a result of mental gymnastics from early 3rd Century theologians who could have looked on sex as being somehow tainted or defiling. The teaching was not prominent until the late 3rd Century and not approved until 7th Century Ecumenical Counsels.
The reason that it is not an issue with me either way is simply because I believe the focus of Christianity should ALWAYS be focused on Christ. While I do praise Mary as the mother of Jesus, and I do believe that she has made a number of appearances on Earth such as Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, and I acknowledge that she plays a extremely important role in Christianity, my focus is always on Christ’s teaching of love and the brotherhood of all mankind. To focus too deeply on issues such as the perpetual virginity or the Immaculate Conception of Mary (both of which I see could have been the result of mental gymnastics) is in my mind detrimental in that they to a degree take away from the focus on Christ. I do acknowledge that both of those concepts may be true, but as I said, they are simply not important to me.
The reason that it is not an issue with me either way is simply because I believe the focus of Christianity should ALWAYS be focused on Christ. While I do praise Mary as the mother of Jesus, and I do believe that she has made a number of appearances on Earth such as Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, and I acknowledge that she plays a extremely important role in Christianity, my focus is always on Christ’s teaching of love and the brotherhood of all mankind. To focus too deeply on issues such as the perpetual virginity or the Immaculate Conception of Mary (both of which I see could have been the result of mental gymnastics) is in my mind detrimental in that they to a degree take away from the focus on Christ. I do acknowledge that both of those concepts may be true, but as I said, they are simply not important to me.
Last edited:
S
somecanadian
Guest
You need to research what ‘until’ means biblically.
I’ve taken these quotes from another thread that tackled the subject but I strongly suggest you do a search:
In the Bible, it [until] means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Basically ‘until’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I’ve taken these quotes from another thread that tackled the subject but I strongly suggest you do a search:
In the Bible, it [until] means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
Basically ‘until’ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
At the time of the Council of Rome held in 382, organized by Jerome on behalf of Pope Damasus I, there were three views held among Christians on the identity of the “brothers and sisters of the Lord” mentioned in the NT. The three views are conventionally labeled as follows:
- The Epiphanian view.—They were Joseph’s children by an earlier marriage.
- The Hieronymite view.—They were Jesus’ cousins, possibly the children of Joseph’s brother, possibly of Mary’s sister.
- The Helvidian view.—They were the children of Joseph and Mary.
Last edited:
H
Hodos
Guest
Or your could take scripture at its word. So strange that we can accept that the Eucharist is Jesus body and blood because he says so, yet create elaborate theories to explain away the obvious in regard to Jesus siblings.
H
Hodos
Guest
Actually, the opposite view with regard to the order in which these beliefs were held could be taken. Given that the gospel accounts were written in the generation of the apostles and that they most clearly and most likely propose that James, Joses, Simon, and Judas were Jesus brothers, these would be the earliest accounts. Documents such as the Protoevangelium of James from which the theory was derived that Joseph was not the father of children by Mary would have been the later innovation.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
If the family were all living together in the same household, where Joseph was recognized as the head of the family and Mary was his wife, then the kids would be regarded—and would regard themselves—as brothers and sisters even if they were only what we would today call half-brothers and half-sisters, or stepbrothers and stepsisters, or even first cousins. It wouldn’t have made any difference as far as the use of language was concerned.
W
WileyC1949
Guest
I do not believe your take on the word “until” is valid. The examples you cited certainly are valid examples of a different definition of the word. First the word “till” has different ramifications than “until”. In the context used it would mean throughout her life. Likewise the use of the word until in the Deuteronomy quote means just what it says… “until this present day”. The author is acknowledging that at some future date is could be discovered, but from the time of the event until the author wrote the words it still had not been. But the way it is used in Matthew does not seem to leave any wiggle room as to its meaning. “But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.” (NIV)
B
BartholomewB
Guest
What you call @somecanadian’s “take” on the word “till”/“until” is the view held on the subject by most academics having a specialist knowledge of Biblical languages.
Last edited:
A
anon10271182
Guest
Indeed, not only living in the same household, but as poor Galilleans ( as nearly everyone was), sleeping in the same room. Joseph, Mary, and the Incarnate Son of God.
And–Mary the Mother of the Incarnate Son of God. Holy vessel for the Most Holy. Holier by far than any of the many consecrated virgins who ever lived.
To insist that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations is blasphemous.
thread muted
And–Mary the Mother of the Incarnate Son of God. Holy vessel for the Most Holy. Holier by far than any of the many consecrated virgins who ever lived.
To insist that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations is blasphemous.
thread muted
Last edited:
J
JohnR77
Guest
.
To choose to Not meditate on these beautiful mysteries is to insult God.
You are Not focusing on God, but on your own false perception of God.
The Immaculate Conception, and Mary’s Perpetual Virginity are THE works of God made manifest in her life.
Devotion to Mary leads us directly to her Son, Jesus
http://www.defendingthebride.com/direct/direct2.html
See Going Directly to God
http://www.defendingthebride.com/direct/index.html
God bless,
John
D
dochawk
Guest
Generally, expecting people to go read something else as part of reading your post is a breach of netiquette . . . it is not surprising at all that noone cooperated.
And if it’s to something that the poster can count the hits on, well . . .
hawk
T
twf
Guest
The Eastern, and arguably older, tradition is that they were St. Joseph’s sons by his first wife. Even in the Latin West, you will find iconography that depicts St. Joseph as an older widower.
Of course, Catholics are free to accept either tradition…cousins or step-brothers.
Of course, Catholics are free to accept either tradition…cousins or step-brothers.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Actually, it is, and here’s the reason why: we’re not really talking about the word “until” or even “till” – we’re talking about the Greek word heos which is translated as ‘till’ or ‘until’ in English translations of the Bible. If you want to discuss what’s going on in this passage, you have to ask the question of what heos means in Koine Greek, not in English.
You’re still talking about English words, and that’s a problem for your exegesis. Do you speak any foreign languages? Or, do you regularly converse in English with anyone whose first language isn’t English? If so, then you know that prepositions are among the most difficult words to translate correctly. Typically, the problem is that the ways languages use prepositions differ from one to another. The paradigms for describing spatial or temporal relations, causation, and other ways that nouns relate to one another are simply different among languages (not to mention language groups!). And therefore, when we move from one language to another, we need to study the paradigm before selecting individual words.
The practical effect here is that we need not look at how we use “until” or “till” in English, but how heos is used in Koine Greek, in the Bible.
If you look at the passage in context, you’ll see that there’s precisely reasonable cause for this interpretation. Ask yourself: why is Matthew making this point? What’s his goal here? The answer is pretty straightforward: he’s writing to an intended audience of Jewish converts to Christianity. They’ve heard the rumors that have been swirling: “Jesus is the natural son of Mary and Joseph.” And so, in order to put these rumors to rest, Matthew must demonstrate only that the only possible parentage for Jesus doesn’t flow through Joseph. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for him to use a preposition that’s used to describe actions up through a particular time, but without reference to what happens beyond that time.
B
BoomerangToo
Guest
What is the word? What does it mean? What does “brother” mean to a 1st century Jew? What does “sister” mean to a 1st century Jew? It might not have the same meaning to them as it does to us.
It’s not “obvious” when the meaning of the word is not understood. Why do you think Biblical scholars exist? They exist because not everything in the Scriptures is obvious.
- Status