Translation of the words "brother" and "cousin"

[mcq72]

Look at the list of Fathers that St. Jerome appeals to.

Yes, and I believe we don’t have any of their writings, not even a quotation by any other author or from Jerome

 

[mcq72]

It is CLEARLY Apostolic.

Only by implication.

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . .

Only by implication.

But you don’t even have THAT!

Why not just accept what the Church teaches here? (I just don’t get this).

 

[mcq72]

You are introducing an invention (“explicitness necessary in Scripture”) to give you cover for ANOTHER invention (denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary) all the while you are DENYING Apostolic Tradition and putting heretical ideas you have imbibed in a sacrosanct position.

Actually some might say you do the same, just replace explicit scripture invention with tradition authoritative and inspired infallibly invention, to give you cover on said thread topic, and making it sacrosanct.

At least others do not make it a binding matter of faith, and not really sacrosanct then.

 

[mcq72]

No I don’t even do that (receiver your implication, for it is clearly not the only one). That is the trouble with implied over explicit. I mean it is specific that a virgin would give birth to Messiah, but if one wants to imply remainng intact virgin during birth process, which some fathers deny, go right ahead, but you make it sancrosanct as soon as you call it heresy to think otherwise. You may think it a sin to disagree, but Calvin might say it is a sin to be obstinant over a curiosity (something not explicit). Or as Christ would say, “What is that to you?” ,let everyone be convinced in their own heart, do not lay any bondage on a brother.
.

 

[Cathoholic]

Actually some might say you do the same, just replace explicit scripture invention with tradition authoritative and inspired infallibly invention . . .

Let’s start a thread on infallibilty and show me WHY infallibility is an “invention”.

Denying infallibility is the “invention” mcq72.

mcq72 . . . .

At least others do not make it a binding matter of faith

“Others” don’t have the God-given authority to preserve such teachings.

But the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus founded, does.

 

[mcq72]

Let’s start a thread on infallibilty and show me WHY infallibility is an “invention”.

Denying infallibility is the “invention” mcq72.

Oh there is an infallibility…the invention for some is defining explicitly where it lies and where it does not.

 

[mcq72]

“Others” don’t have the God-given authority to preserve such teachings.

But the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus founded, does.

We are not to Lord over one another as the world does…we all serve one Lord, and we serve one another.

 

[hope]

An interesting article but I found some flaws.

[1 Corinthians 7:34]1 Cor 7.34) “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit.”

Unfortunately he uses the wrong Greek word for unmarried here instead of agamos the Greek word here is 1135 gune {goo-nay’} probably from the base of 1096; TDNT - 1:776,134; n f 1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2) a wife 2a) of a betrothed woman

He also ignores this use of agamos here

[1 Corinthians 7] 8: To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

These destroy his argument.

 

[hope]

Please let us get back to the thread. However I do believe all has been covered. I would like your thoughts on Post 118 you only answered part of it.

 

[mcq72]

Lol, I have no idea now what he proposed

 

[hope]

LOL wrong post 489

 

[Cathoholic]

mcq72 . . . .

Oh there is an infallibility…the invention for some is defining explicitly where it lies and where it does not.

Well the Scriptures that you have been appealing to here, were Canonized by the Catholic Church.

You DO know this right?

(So I have no idea who else you think possesses this charism of infallibilty.)

 

[Cathoholic]

I mentioned . . .

“Others” don’t have the God-given authority to preserve such teachings.

But the Catholic Church, the Church that Jesus founded, does.

Mcq72 replied . . . .

We are not to Lord over one another as the world does…we all serve one Lord, and we serve one another.

Think about the implications of the Scripture passages that you are mis-interpreting here.

.

If you insisted doctrinally on affirming the Trinity, a Unitariarian could just use the same principle as YOU.

.

Phantom mcq72 . . . .

You gotta affirm the Trinity!

Phantom Unitarian . . .

Hey look mcq72. You can’t assert THAT with authority.
We are not to Lord over one another as the world does.

.

Or this scenario . . .

.

Phantom mcq72 . . . .

You gotta affirm Jesus as true God AND true Man!

Phantom Jehovah’s Witness . . .

Hey look mcq72. You can’t assert THAT with authority.
We are not to Lord over one another as the world does.

.

Or this . . .

.

Phantom mcq72 . . . .

You gotta affirm Scripture as God-breathed!

Phantom Hindu . . .

Hey look mcq72. You can’t assert THAT with authority.
I’ll stick with the Bhagavad Gita. Even your Christian teachings say We are not to Lord over one another as the world does.

.

.

Mcq72. You just managed to proverbially nuke Christianty (in principle) with one inappropriate interpretation of yours. Yet another theological novum (the way you are wrongly interpreting NOT Lording it over people).

This is what happens when you chase after traditions of men that nullfy the Word of God.

 

[mcq72]

So mcq how would the writers refer to such a diverse group of relations especially since that same group did not have such distinctions such as already been mentioned. In today’s world, we would say there is the Smith family.

yes , they had extended family. Indeed their could be the Smith family, but so to you had ways of expressing the parts, just as we do today, with either one word or two or three, such as grandmother , mother daughter, brothers, fathers brother etc. The parts can be identified when necessary.

that is second reply to 489…not sure that was your question

 

[mcq72]

Well the Scriptures that you have been appealing to here, were Canonized by the Catholic Church.

You DO know this right?

(So I have no idea who else you think possesses this charism of infallibilty.)

me thinks you go to far with my point, too “either/or” and not “both /and”.

Again with this infallibility thing, reminds me a lot of OSAS (once save always saved) , and ORAR (once right always right)

So, Certainly there is shepherding with authority, even without error, as the ideal at one end of the spectrum, and lording over the flock, authority like the world, to be avoided at the other end of the spectrum that Jesus alluded to.

And I stick to my point, that on this issue at hand (this thread topic), the CC has made it’s understanding sacrosanct (a word you brought up), even binding on the faithful. And given that some say this topic is one of “curiosity”, derived from “implications” and “probabilities”, dogmatism can only lead to divisions unnecessarily, and seems to me , and others, like it be a case of “lording over”.

Now I would hope not to equate this with other issues (on other threads), such as canon, or Christology etc. or being a Hindu or a Jehovah Witness etc…things much more than a curiosity or implication or probability.

 

[hope]

Must of missed your first reply. I did see your reply to

Maybe not but I expect that your answer means that there were none and I disagree with you that it does substantiate that even though it was not scripture it was reliable as to what was believed

.
But not to the family. It is true they had ways of referring to the parts but that is not what I was saying. They were reporting what the people said. If the people was saying His family is among us they would have used the term they were familiar with. They wouldn’t say that His fathers brother’s child that would be way to complicated. No they would say His Brothers which covered all the parts simply.

 

[mcq72]

Ok …but how about this…if we are speaking about how normal conversation would be, then the context of that conversation would be normal. That is most families did not have a virgin, even in childbearing, or even a sinless person as Mary. The presumption then, the higher probability then, is that if conversation is normal (not specific to family “parts”), the family (and it’s parts) are normal.

So for example, if Paul knew such Marion doctrine, he would have been careful not confuse anyone, or to protect, preserve the uniqueness that was Mary, by being specific to the part of family thay he met that was James, and not just say “brethren” which could have indeed meant sibling, amongst all other parts…Perfect time to be specific, but I agree with you, he used a term that was quite colloquial even casual, as if the family was “colloquial”. It is not enough to say it was understood by all of the uniqueness of the family ( like a nun living in extended family) and therefore needed no specificity…I find that to be a lower probability.

Again it is Holy Spirit driven writing , and such non specificness could lead to confusion down the road for someone who was not privy to such first hand knowledge, likeTertulluan, Helvidius, up to present day myself. The best you could say is that the Lord intended such gaps in written scripture so that we could lean on tradition, even on hearsay thru succession of leaders. That in itself has probability problems, of error, as happened in OT…and He shepherded both testsments. He is not the author of confusion. Indeed we see thru a glass darkly now and must be very careful not to extend the gift of faith where He meant it not to go. One can say that Divine Providence left us clues, such as the Protoevangelium for such curiosity/gap fillers, but it could also be said such writings are not of the same wood that is the Lord’s staff, and why venture such risk. Stay in the lighted path that He has most assuredly led.

Understand there is much testimony of saints to your doctrinal cause here and the comfort of much shepherding thru the ages. Indeed I would seem to be on a narrower less traveled path. Yet we both know what is said of narrower paths. Jesus, even the apostles, walked the narrower path also , even amongst the light and salvation of the world that was to be from and of the Jewish people. Only a few of God’s people had it right…Then again, to you (the CC) I could just be a Korah here, and lost in my own priesthood, (along lines of Jerome somewhat mocking Helvidius).

 

[hope]

I am not sure I understand all that you wrote. Paul never spoke of Mary at all. I wonder if they ever met? Paul calls James Jesus brother and Jude calls him his brother as well. Jude says that he is the brother of Jude and funny thing he doesn’t say and of Jesus but instead he calls himself the servant of Jesus.

 

[mcq72]

Paul never spoke of Mary at all.

Correct, but one would think not out of ignorance. I mean Luke was his companion, who did write about Mary.

Did you mean write about Mary, for some would say the apostles may not have written about Mary in regards to these discussed doctrines , but they presume they certainly must have known and taught them orally.

Again my point is Paul had an opportunity to set record straight about James and he used a term that means any possible relation, including sibling, in quite colloquial language.