F
Faith1960
Guest
Anyone?
- Status
G
gntlmnr
Guest
This is an extremely weak point, because King Solomon was NOT the first born of King David.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
the terms “brother” and “sister” in biblical times definitely cannot be taken literally all the time, because Semitic languages at the time did not have the terms we use today in English to refer to relatives, and to prove that to you, I am a Catholic from Lebanon, and the official language in Lebanon is Arabic, which is a Semitic language. Even today in the Arabic language we do not have the same set of terms that the English language has to refer to relatives, and the following are only few examples:
We even have a term for a paternal uncle and a different term for a maternal uncle. We have a term for paternal aunt and a different term for a maternal aunt.
Female cousin is referred to in Arabic as “daughter of my paternal uncle”, or “daughter of my maternal uncle” instead of just simply “cousin”, because we do not have a single term for the word “cousin”.
Male cousin is referred to in Arabic as “son of my paternal uncle” or “son of my maternal uncle” instead of just simply “cousin”, because we do not have a single term for the word “cousin”.
Niece is referred to as “daughter of my brother” or “daughter of my sister” instead of simply “niece”, because we do not have a single term for the word “niece”.
Nephew is referred to in Arabic as “son of my brother” or “son of my sister” instead of simply “nephew”, because we do not have a single term for the word “nephew”.
These are complications in the Semitic languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, etc… So this is what was the cause in old times to refer to any relationships as simply “brother” or “sister” to avoid using all that complicated language. We can see that very clearly in the book of KJV Genesis. (Genesis 14:12) refers to Lot as “Abram’s brother’s son”, but in (Genesis 14:14) they refer to Lot as the “brother” of Abram. So it is very clearly evident here that the term “nephew” did not exist at that time, because they used “Abram’s brother’s son” and “brother” interchangeably to refer to the “nephew” of Abram. We can see a similar example in (John 19:25) where they refer to Mary as the sister of Jesus’ mother’ whose name is also Mary. We know very well that Jesus’ mother’s name was “Mary” and (John 19:25) says that Mary had a sister by the same name of Mary as well. We know that both sisters cannot be called Mary, so the relationship has to be something other than literally “sister”.
If we dig even deeper and analyze the scene of the crucifixion, we notice that James, Joses, Simon & Judas are the children of Mary who is the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary; hence, the terminology “brother” was used to refer to them as the brothers of Jesus, but in reality they are the sons of the “sister” of his mother.
I hope that adds some clarification.
F
Faith1960
Guest
What about Scripture which calls Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin?
G
gntlmnr
Guest
I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I know for a fact that Lot was the nephew of Abram, but the Bible referred to Lot as the brother of Abram, and I am pretty certain that Mary, Jesus’ mother, can’t possibly have a sister by the name of Mary; besides, we don’t know for a fact that Elizabeth was the cousin of Mary in the same sense of today’s use of the term cousin. In addition, the Arabic language does NOT have an equivalent term of the word “cousin”. Such a term simply does not exist in the Arabic language.
I think that using the term “cousin” to refer to Elizabeth would have to be an issue of translation. So the original text would have to be examined to see what was used, because, in my humble opinion, I am sure to a certain degree that Aramaic, like Arabic, does not have an equivalent term for the word “cousin”.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Thanks. Do you have an opinion on post # 196? I need help with that.
N
nmgauss
Guest
So we can conclude that the exact meaning of the original nouns when they were written cannot be determined conclusively. Instead we resort to eisagesis, which implies putting a spin on the text to interpret it the way we want it to mean in today’s language. If we follow this concept, the term “parthenos” when referring to the young woman in Isaiah who became pregnant, and this was a sign from God, it is eisagesis to assume that she was a virgin.
D
David_Zampino
Guest
Agreed! And David was not a first-born either. And other examples exist in the genealogy.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
I am fluent in English, French, and Arabic; but I have no clue when it comes to Greek; however, what I can say is that the usage of the term “until” is identical in English, French, and Arabic; and that is, like I mentioned in a previous post, the usage of the term “until” is extremely context sensitive in all three languages. Let’s consider the following examples:
1 - “The doctor won’t be here ‘until’ 10 o’clock” - here what happens before the “until” is the opposite of what happens after the “until”, and that is the doctor is Not here before 10, but the doctor will be here after 10.
2 - “Jack had a terrible argument with his wife and they did not speak with each other ‘until’ their divorce” - the purpose of the usage of the word “until” in this example is strictly to tell us what happened between the argument and the divorce, and it is not used to tell us anything about what happened after the divorce, because if they spoke with each other after the divorce, the statement would still be true, and if they did not speak with each other after the divorce, again, the statement would still be true. Personally that’s how I believe “until” is being used in (Matthew 1:25), since Matthew is primarily concerned strictly about the time period between the conception of Jesus and the birth of Jesus, and Matthew, in my opinion, was not trying at all to tell us what happened between Joseph and Mary after the birth of Jesus. So if Joseph had a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, the statement would be true, and if Joseph did not have a marital relationship with Mary after the birth of Jesus, again, the statement would still be true.
I think the focus on (Matthew 1:25) is blown completely out of proportion, because it doesn’t prove anything at all; however, if we consider what happened in the first chapter of Luke, we find out that AFTER Mary was betrothed to Joseph, angel Gabriel announced to her: “Behold, you WILL conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus”. The response of Mary was “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” The question here is: If Mary was planning to have a “normal” marriage with Joseph, why would she give such a response? Since angel Gabriel did not specify exactly at what point in time the conception was going to take place, why did Mary assume that the conception was going to happen before she had relations with Joseph? So her response would make absolutely no sense if her marriage with Joseph was supposed to be a “normal” marriage.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Sorry, but I’m not familiar with the term “eisagesis”. I have no idea what it means.
I am definitely NOT trying to say that we should “interpret the text the way we want it to mean in today’s language.” As a matter of fact, this the exact opposite of what I’m trying to say. I trying to say that the “Bible only” cannot be an exact method to understand the Bible, instead, we need to use the “Oral tradition” that is preserved by the Catholic Church to supplement our understanding of the Bible.
A
adrift
Guest
You are correct. The Greek word used is suggenes 1) of the same kin, akin to, related by blood 2) in a wider sense, of the same nation, a fellow countryman. It has been variously translated as kinwomen, relative and cousin and not KSAthelfos (cousin)
As a side note, I have never seen a thread be resurrected so many times. Started in 2005 last post in that year was May 21st. The next post is July 2009 to August 2009 then there isn’t another posting for another year Sept 2010. After Sept there are no new post until July of 2011-December.
After Dec the next posting comes in Feb 2012-March. There is a break of a few month to August of 2012 then again there is a break of seven months until March of 2013. Again there is a break until now.
A strange odyssey of a thread.
A
adrift
Guest
.
I don’t see how you can some to that conclusion. It is simply wrong.
It is ironic that you state this as it seems you are doing just that putting your own spin on it.
Isaiah 7:14
Parthenos is a Greek word that means virgin. What you are getting at is that the word used in the Old testament was the Hebrew word almah which means a young girl.
Almah and Isaiah is an explanation of why Matthew translated it as Parthenos
N
nmgauss
Guest
It is only natural to interpret the text toward what we want it to mean, especially if the reader has some assumptions, and Scripture is searched to find a passage that supports that assertion.
Eisegesis is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that it introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text. The act is often used to “prove” a pre-held point of concern to the reader and to provide him or her with confirmation bias in accordance with his or her pre-held agenda.
Thus at the time that Isaiah 7-8 was canonized as part of the Tanach, the passage does not necessarily imply that the predicted child, Emmanuel, will be the Messiah. Certainly Jews did not read this into the text. In fact in some exegeses, Hezekiah was the child. This passage was used by Matthew to support the theory that Jesus Christ was prophesied by Isaiah. This is eisegesis. The words say nothing asserting that Emmanuel was the Messiah.
C
Croc
Guest
Proof clears all doubts! Guesswork adds more doubts.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Please refer to my post #205.
Again, the usage of the term “until” is very context sensitive, and in (Matthew 1:25) we cannot come to a definite conclusion from the usage of the term “until”, because think about it this way:
“He had no relations with her ‘until’ she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.”
If Joseph had NO relations with Mary AFTER she had a son, would that make the statement false?
We cannot be definite and answer this question with a “yes, it would make it false.”
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Okay…enough speculation. Here’s proof based on the facts.
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (The blog is mine)
According to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
(Cont’d)
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (The blog is mine)
According to the Word of God…
If Jesus had been the eldest among children then the others would have been responsible for taking care of their mother. This was not true of step children, who would not have had that responsibility.
If, as some ancient sources say, Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children by his previous wife, then this passage makes perfect sense.
Why then was one of the last things that Our Lord did from the cross the act of assigning his mother to the care of a non-family member?
If He had blood siblings instead of step siblings (who were not responsible for their step mother), why would he have done that?
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.
Furthermore, it was scandalous in Jewish society for a younger sibling to rebuke or mock the eldest, yet this is what we see happened in the New Testament. However, if His step brethren were older than He then this might occur. Look at Jacob’s sons and Jesse’s sons in dealing with Joseph and David.
Also, it was virtually criminal for a younger sibling to mock or rebuke the first born son, and yet the word of God shows that this happened to Our Lord This would only be possible if they were the older step siblings by another mother.
With historical documents that suggest that Joseph was a much older man and a widower with children, your assertions fails.
‘Brethren of the Lord’
Mary: Ever Virgin (Fathers)
If Mary had other children, then where were they the day their eldest brother Christ was Crucified? Their mother was there and Jesus’ best friend John? If she had other kids they would’ve been there too and they would’ve been responsible for taking care of Mary. Instead, from the cross and with almost his last breath Jesus gives her to St. John. Something that he wouldn’t have done under Jewish customs back then IF HE HAD SIBLINGS.
The New Testament clearly indicates that they were his cousins…the children of Mary’s cousin Mary (John 19:25-27).
"25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen.
See! Even his mom’s cousin was there…where are these supposed siblings of his? Nowhere…that’s where, because they simply did not exist.
(Cont’d)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
My thanks to San Juan Catholic Seminars for publishing this in their Beginning Apologetics # 5 booklet.
The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)
John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)
Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)
The three “pillars of the reformation”, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli all believed.
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Martin Luther: “ It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin… Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.” ( Works of Luther, Vol. 11, pages 319-320; Vol. 6, page 510.)
John Calvin: “ There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company… And beside this Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25. Published in 1562.)
Ulrich Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” ( Zwingli Opera, Vol. 1, page 424.)
C
Croc
Guest
I seem to differ on the area of authority.
Scripture is not as difficult to understand as we are made to understand. In fact in the Old Testament, children were taught the Word of God by their parents. Jesus himself must have learnt alot from his parents before he became of age.
If somebody took one book in the New testament eg Mathew, he/she would be able to understand. In fact some of the debates we have here are self explanatory, the difference is the literal meaning, and what the church authority would want the people to believe.
In Mathew 28: 19-20, Jesus was speaking to the apostles. But they all died, so what they taught had to be passed-on faithfully by men full of the Holy Spirit.
Matt 16: 18 Jesus said to him, “That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”
As we look at the interpretation of it, we need to understand how Peter himself understood it and how the other apostles understood it?
It cost God His son to redeem mankind; the same son, Jesus would not make a mortal man like Peter to be a foundation of His church. If Jesus was to build a church, it had to have a foundation by which it will stand. The church today does not stand because of Peter, it is built on the revelation of Christ. So the Rock which Jesus talked about was that revelation which Peter had received from the Father.
I John 4;6 “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error”
In such an interpretation, we should look at the context, the audience, and circumstances that precipitated such a statement.
When we look at the timing, we see that John was defending the faith as there were others Jews who had come with a different kind of teaching.
G
gntlmnr
Guest
Thanks for the explanation of the term “eisegesis”. This is certainly the first time I’ve heard this term; anyhow, I can see your point if we were trying to read into the text that Mary was a virgin before the birth of Jesus, because there is big importance on Jesus being born from a virgin, but reading into the text that Mary was a virgin after the birth of Jesus doesn’t really make any sense. Why would the Catholic Church want to read that into the text, what would be the alterior motif to do so? We have to remember that this is not strictly a Catholic phenomenon. All Christians believed that Mary was ever virgin until very recently. Even the reformers Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, as well as the Anglican Church believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
- Status