A
aspirant
Guest
Yes.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I just looked up this work at Amazon…not a single review from readers and the Editorial Review is filled with typos.
This appears to be a pretty obscure work and you are amazingly familiar with the text…kinda makes me wonder if YOU are Hunter.
O
onenow1
Guest
St. Paul teaches that marriage can introduce worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God (1 Cor 7:28)
I suppose St.Paul, being very educated as a Pharisee, knew celibacy brought you closer to God.
The above, more then likely, would be Joseph and Mary’s understanding as good Jews, they knew heaven came to earth. The preponderance of evidence I believe in all the posts lie with the Catholic position and if I remember correctly some other’s also.
Nothing defiled shall enter heaven.
My 2 cents worth
God Bless All onenow1
I suppose St.Paul, being very educated as a Pharisee, knew celibacy brought you closer to God.
The above, more then likely, would be Joseph and Mary’s understanding as good Jews, they knew heaven came to earth. The preponderance of evidence I believe in all the posts lie with the Catholic position and if I remember correctly some other’s also.
Nothing defiled shall enter heaven.
My 2 cents worth
God Bless All onenow1
A
aspirant
Guest
For the record, I think the opposite is true. It is the mystics, like the Apostle John, who understand the simplicity of the Gospel best.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Mystics and mysticism?
Revelation 17:5
This title was written on her forehead: MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Good Christian folk or even Babdists and such don’t have no mystics. That’s of the devil.
S
shawn38
Guest
1 Cor 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows It is good for them if they abide even as I
32 He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord how he may please the Lord
34 The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord.
But they were married so onto verse 2
2 Nevertheless __ to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife and let every woman have her own husband 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence and likewise also the wife unto the husband 4 The wife hath not power of her own body but the husband and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body but the wife 5 Defraud ye not one the other except __ it be with consent for a time that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer and come together __ again that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency
It’s been put forth that Joseph was a widow and that James and etc are half-brothers. But that would make Joseph of this world and yet again. If they were cousins we’d have a word for that, “anepsios” (Col 4:10)
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world how he may please his wife
34 she that is married careth for the things of the world how she may please her husband
O
onenow1
Guest
A
aspirant
Guest
I think it’s pronounced “debil.”
A
aspirant
Guest
You ignore the fact that many Semitic idioms are used in the New Testament.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I think it’s pronounced “debil.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let me provide the following to expand upon what Aspirant said above:
No Word for Cousin
Because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning “cousin,” speakers of those languages could use either the word for “brother” or a circumlocution, such as “the son of my uncle.” But circumlocutions are clumsy, so the Jews often used “brother.”
The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives. When they wrote in Greek, they did the same thing the translators of the Septuagint did. (The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible; it was translated by Hellenistic Jews a century or two before Christ’s birth and was the version of the Bible from which most of the Old Testament quotations found in the New Testament are taken.)
In the Septuagint the Hebrew word that includes both brothers and cousins was translated as adelphos, which in Greek usually has the narrow meaning that the English “brother” has. Unlike Hebrew or Aramaic, Greek has a separate word for cousin, anepsios, but the translators of the Septuagint used adelphos, even for true cousins.
You might say they transliterated instead of translated, importing the Jewish idiom into the Greek Bible. They took an exact equivalent of the Hebrew word for “brother” and did not use* adelphos* in one place (for sons of the same parents), and anepsios in another (for cousins). This same usage was employed by the writers of the New Testament and passed into English translations of the Bible. To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
catholic.com/library/brethren_of_the_lord.asp
S
shawn38
Guest
No. 10I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought…11 there are quarrels among you.
Why was there division?
12What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephasa”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
because
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him,
Why was Paul chosen?
17For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
2:2 I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power,
Who did God call? 26 Those not wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 29 So that no one may boast before him.
S
shawn38
Guest
Colossians 4:10
aspazetai humas aristarchos ho sunaichmalOtos mou kai markos ho anepsios barnaba peri hou elabete entolas ean elthE pros humas dexasthe auton
Literally "Is-greeting you Aristarchus the together-captive on-me and Mark the cousin of-Barnabas about whom yo-got directions if-ever he-may-be-coming toward you receive-ye him
Douay-Rheims (Catholic) Bible
Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin german of Barnabus, touching whom you have received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him:
The three Greek words used for brother throughout the NT are adelphoi, adelphous, and adelphOn. It’s origin is from the Hebrew word delphe (womb).
Original Word: ἀνεψιός
Transliteration: anepsios
Phonetic Spelling: (an-eps’-ee-os)
Definition: cousin
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I agree. There should only be one Church built by Jesus Christ as He promised. But alas, folks have been abandoning the True Faith and following man-made traditions from the beginning. This has grown worse in the last 500 years or so.
I agree. We should follow Christ and this means that we should all be formal members of the one Church that He built upon Peter, the rock (cf. Mt. 16:18-19). One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One Shepherd. One flock.
Okay.
S
shawn38
Guest
Where does Paul mention Mary? My first thought was 1 Cor 15, but he doesn’t.Yes.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Since Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic (not Greek) as their native language, they would have referred to anyone who was a cousin or other more distant relation as their “brother” because the Aramaic language did not contain a word for “cousin”. We see this here:
Genesis 12:5
He took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, all the possessions they had accumulated and the people they had acquired in Haran, and they set out for the land of Canaan, and they arrived there.
Genesis 13:8
So Abram said to Lot, "Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brother****s.
Genesis 14:12
They also carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions, since he was living in Sodom.
And because of this, the phrase “brothers of the Lord” in the English translation cannot be used as an iron-clad proof-text that Mary must have had other children.
Here is another portion of the article I quoted previously (picking up where I left off):
To determine what “brethren” or “brother” or “sister” means in any one verse, we have to look at the context. When we do that, we see that insuperable problems arise if we assume that Mary had children other than Jesus.
When the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that she would conceive a son, she asked, “How can this be since I have no relations with a man?” (Luke 1:34). From the Church’s earliest days, as the Fathers interpreted this Bible passage, Mary’s question was taken to mean that she had made a vow of lifelong virginity, even in marriage. (This was not common, but neither was it unheard of.) If she had not taken such a vow, the question would make no sense.
Mary knew how babies are made (otherwise she wouldn’t have asked the question she did). If she had anticipated having children in the normal way and did not intend to maintain a vow of virginity, she would hardly have to ask “how” she was to have a child, since conceiving a child in the “normal” way would be expected by a newlywed wife. Her question makes sense only if there was an apparent (but not a real) conflict between keeping a vow of virginity and acceding to the angel’s request. A careful look at the New Testament shows that Mary kept her vow of virginity and never had any children other than Jesus.
When Jesus was found in the Temple at age twelve, the context suggests that he was the only son of Mary and Joseph. There is no hint in this episode of any other children in the family (Luke 2:41–51). Jesus grew up in Nazareth, and the people of Nazareth referred to him as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary.” In fact, others in the Gospels are never referred to as Mary’s sons, not even when they are called Jesus’ “brethren.” If they were in fact her sons, this would be strange usage.
Also, the attitude taken by the “brethren of the Lord” implies they are his elders. In ancient and, particularly, in Eastern societies (remember, Palestine is in Asia), older sons gave advice to younger, but younger seldom gave advice to older—it was considered disrespectful to do so. But we find Jesus’ “brethren” saying to him that Galilee was no place for him and that he should go to Judea so he could make a name for himself (John 7:3–4).
Another time, they sought to restrain him for his own benefit: “And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, ‘He is beside himself’” (Mark 3:21). This kind of behavior could make sense for ancient Jews only if the “brethren” were older than Jesus, but that alone eliminates them as his biological brothers, since Jesus was Mary’s “first-born” son (Luke 2:7).
Consider what happened at the foot of the cross. When he was dying, Jesus entrusted his mother to the apostle John (John 19:26–27). The Gospels mention four of his “brethren”: James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. It is hard to imagine why Jesus would have disregarded family ties and made this provision for his mother if these four were also her sons.
S
shawn38
Guest
We should all be one in Christ. We should test all traditions and teachigs according to scripture. If not biblical, we should stay away from them.
Just as Christ builds His Church upon each Christian, it begins with a profession of faith that Jesus is the Christ.
Is 28:16Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
1 Ptr 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, 8And a stone of stumbling, and a** rock (petra) **of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
Who has become a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence? What is that rock? Christ’s and His teachings, not Peter.
The issue is they’ve added to it and taken away from it, thus creating a different gospel. But so has other denominations including Protestants.
S
shawn38
Guest
The OT passages you refer to were in Hebrew. There are translations for some words such as wine. OT uses three words depending whether it’s fermented or unfermented, the NT uses one word. But what is the literal translations of the verses?
u·iqch abrm ath - shri ashth·u u·ath - lut bn - achi·u (only the first half)
Literally: and·he-is-taking Abram Sarai woman-of·him and Lot son-of brother-of·him
u·iamr abrm al - lut al - na thei mribe bin·i u·bini·k u·bin ro·i u·bin roi·k ki - anshim **achim **anchnu
Literally: and·he-is-saying Abram to Lot must-not-be please ! she-is-becoming contention between·me and·between·you and·between ones-being-shepherds-of·me and·between ones-being-shepherds-of·you that mortals brothers we
u·iqchu ath - lut u·ath - rksh·u **bn - achi **abrm
Litterally: and·they-are-taking Lot and goods-of·him **son-of brother-**of Abram
R
Radical
Guest
you are Sancho to his Don Quixote?
ahhh….imitation, the sincerest form of flatteryI see. How did you phrase it…ah, yes:
Thanks, I suspect that you just supplied the entire content right there and then
Thanks for the compliment…btw, who do you think types out the editorial review for Amazon?I just looked up this work at Amazon…not a single review from readers and the Editorial Review is filled with typos.
This appears to be a pretty obscure work and you are amazingly familiar with the text…kinda makes me wonder if YOU are Hunter.
I guess you would be missing that you have assumed that the novelties that became the “Catholic doctrines of Mary” would necessarily fall into the sort of novelties that the ECFs would “jump all over”.My question would be this: Since the Early Church Fathers were fairly quick to jump all over anything that they considered heretical or a theological novelty, shouldn’t we expect to have something from them condemning an fabrication like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary?
Instead, it appears that the exact opposite has occurred in this instance. When Helvidius dares to suggest that Mary did NOT remain ever-virgin, Jerome leaps to her defense.
What am I missing?
Kidding aside, I think this question of yours reveals the difference between our two views. Regarding the beliefs about Mary that you hold and that I reject (the Marian beliefs) there is an undeniable silence in the historical record wrt those beliefs. The silence starts at the beginning and the silence is the shortest wrt to the PV. We look at that silence and come to two different conclusions.
You assume that the ECFs would jump all over anything (absolutely anything?) novel that anyone would try and introduce to the set of Christian beliefs. Given that the historical record doesn’t disclose that “jumping all over” wrt the Marian beliefs your assumption causes you to conclude that they must not have been introduced and must have existed from the start. Your assumption is not w/o reason…the question is whether it is made with sufficient reason. In contrast, I don’t make that assumption and conclude that the best explanation for the silence is the non-existence of the Marian belief. I would suggest that the discussion on the validity of the doctrine of the PV should focus on two things: a) the strength of the inferences that Catholics make and the extent to which that strength should cause us to believe that the belief was in place at the time the scripture (in question) was written and b) the validity/strength of your assumption
So let me make sure that I have got this theory of yours correct. At the time that the Church (across the empire) was being split by the dispute between the Gnostic Christians and the Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox all decided not to hit the Gnostics over the head with Mary’s special attributes b/c they were afraid the information (on Mary) would fall into pagan hands and cause them to believe that Christians (Orthodox and Gnostic alike?) were in fact not monotheists. They decided it was better to lose Gnostic Christians than take the chance that pagans would think them to be other than monotheists. That’s about it?
That would be the pitfall of convincing Gnostics not to leave orthodoxy?..or would it be the pitfall of sticking to the truth and not fabricating things about Mary?
Yes indeed, it was a grave concern of the early church, which is why we see (across the empire) no mention of the resurrection (by Christians) for about 175 years…just like with the PV of Mary.They did have to be very cautious about presentation. Some of the folks in Athens thought Paul was preaching about “foreign gods” named “Jesus” and “Resurrection.”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The Bible does not impose this restriction. In fact, nowhere does the Bible tell us that everything we can or should believe is found in scripture. This is a “tradition of Protestant men”.
This is a false understanding of Matthew 16:18-19. Jesus promised to build ONE Church upon Peter, the rock.
Just because the scriptures use a metaphorical image in one passage, it does not mean that that image cannot be applied differently elsewhere. Protestant author George Salmon explains:
“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).
- Status