Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

  • Thread starter Thread starter roseproject
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes , but virginity during marion doctrine formation took on a much holier walk view
 
there is no unanimous consent of the church fathers on any Marion doctrine. That is from day one of the church it can not be shown that all fathers thought her to be ever virgin, or with not other children, or immaculate or assumed, or co redemptrix .
 
mcq72 said:
I believe some early on thought Joseph was ever virgin also…might find it here
Click to expand...
I didn’t see anything in your source that suggested that.
mcq72 said:
there is no unanimous consent of the church fathers on any Marion doctrine.
Click to expand...
And the Marian doctrine of the Church does not require unanimity between the Fathers, obviously, yes?
 
@ mcq72 perhaps you would like to explain to me why a married woman would ask how she and her husband would have a baby?
 
correct did not see mention of Joseph ever virgin …sorry…but I have heard some Catholics state that some have thought that…but no recall at this time where I saw it.

As to unanimous , correct not needed, just that some decrees state that exact terminology, and post I reacted too pretty much said same thing(that church has “always understood” or a universality, as opposed to doctrinal “development”
 
mcq72 . . .
there is no unanimous consent of the church fathers on any Marion (sic) doctrine. That is from day one of the church it can not be shown that all fathers thought her to be ever virgin . . .
Click to expand...
First I want to get something explicit from you (then we can go into more details regarding the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

Are you DENYING " The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary"?
 
Last edited:
Yes…perpetual virginity “developed”, in my opinion. The church has at times insisted that whatever she decrees had been from the beginning , which I deny. That is not to say that some from day one thought her ever virgin…just saying some also thought her to have other children at day one of church formation…it was open to
discussion and no command from day one on what to believe here…

Just think "always understood’’ is contrary to “development”, that I think history shows.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 . . .
Just think "always understood’’ is contrary to “development”, that I think history shows.
Click to expand...
So you think the CCC 500 is wrong here?
 
Last edited:
mcq72 . . .
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, And an alien unto my mother’s children.” Psalm 69:8

This is speaking of Jesus here.
Click to expand...
Psalm 69 has many layers. If you reduce it down to being ONLY JESUS you will have a problem mcq72.

You turn Jesus into a sinner.

Why?

Because just 3 verses earlier contextually, this same person being alluded to in Psalm 69:8 (and the SAME person in Psalm 69:5) committed “wrongs” and “folly”.
PSALM 69:5a 5 O God, thou knowest my folly ; the wrongs I have done . . . .
Click to expand...
Do YOU think Jesus committed “wrongs” and “folly” mcq72??

Does THIS sin concern Jesus too? No!

But it DOES have to do with King David.
 
Last edited:
It is david and jesus…the next verse is quoted in Nt as reference to Jesus (zeal for his house i think)…i thought most Catholics see it as Jesus but explain that “mother” is Israel or Jerusalem and her “children” rejected , did not know, their own Christ.

Plus wether you believe in cousins or brothers or half brothers, it still fits because none of them believed in Jesus before resurection or while he hung on cross (consequently, beloved and faithful John was told “behold your mother”).
 
Last edited:
I disagree with the wording ,yes. It can be misleading, or inaccurate.
 
Cathoholic to mcq72 . . .

Do YOU think Jesus committed “wrongs” and “folly” mcq72??

mcq7w’s response?
It is david and (sic) jesus
Click to expand...
.

To readers of this thread.

Now you know WHY guys like Tim Staples say . . .

“All Marian doctrines hsve Christologuc implications”.

Now we’ve got for all practical puposes mcq72 asserting not only the heresy of DENYING the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but tacitly DENYING the Divine nature of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Beware of mcq72’s ideas as we proceed here on this thread!
 
I asked mcq72 here . . .
So you think the CCC 500 is wrong here?
Click to expand...
mcq72’s response?
I disagree with the wording ,yes. It can be misleading, or inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Here is the CCC 500 excerpt I used for context . . .
CCC 500 excerpt . . . the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary.
Click to expand...
And here is ALL of CCC 500 for further context . . .
CCC 500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus.157 The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus”, are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary”.158
They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.159
Click to expand...
.

mcq72. You seem to think that ancient Church Fathers DENIED the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Name one.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 . . .
No, i mispoke…the verse i quoted refers to Christ and partly David…of course the Christ was sinless though hung as criminal.
Click to expand...
OK. Fair enough.

But if you are going to posit this about Psalm 69:5, in keeping with context you cannot ignore this dimension for Psalm 69:8.

In keeping with this then . . . . Psalm 69:8 does not teach that the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children.
 
Last edited:
Most scholars see it as refence to Christ…not sure Davids family rejected him, though he had much turmoil with one son…plus agrree with poster that said it is a layered book, with shifting or layered applications.

Vers 5 does not negate rest of verses being about Christ, especially verse 9 which nt says is about Christ.
 
Last edited:
mcq72 . . .
Most scholars see it as refence to Christ…not sure Davids family rejected him.
Click to expand...
It IS a reference to Christ. That’s not the issue.
The issue would be attempting to say it ONLY is a reference to Christ.

And if you attempt that, you are right back to making Jesus a sinner.

Psalm 69 has many layers.

If you read the CCC 113-117 you can see the types of layers you should be looking for.

But if you start absolutizing any prefigurement as being equivalent to the New Covenant FULFILLMENT, you get yourself into trouble.

No other children from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Perpetually a Virgin.

Always maintained by the Church.

No dissent from the Fathers. None whatsoever.
 
mcq72 . . .
Not sure what you mean…a prophecy, or prefigurement, is at least just that.It applies or it does not.
Click to expand...
Then tell that to the author of Hebrews who used that SAME PRINCIPLE talking about the prefigurement or “foreshadowing” of “the law”.
HEBREWS 10:1 For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near.
Click to expand...
.

But I am still waiting for you to trot out all these ancient Church Fathers who DENIED the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I’ve never heard of ONE.

So I will wait to see your list and take it from there.
 
Last edited:
Again either verse applies to Christ or it does not, or does just half the verse apply?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top