• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic
Well the use of the word "firstborn" is a slight indication that her womb was not closed . . . . . . . :sigh:

Firstborn is a title . . nothing more . . it says nothing about how many children someone has . . it does not mean that there were more children.

It is a Hebraic title that conveys rights, duties and priviledges in the Old Covenant. . . . It is given to the child that opens the womb. It doesn't matter if that child is an only child or not.

John the Baptist was the Firstborn of his parents. . did they have other children? No . . .


.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic
I think the trouble is that most are used to the precision that the English language provides. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic...not so precise. I generally agree that the term "brother" is not literal, since, as it was pointed out, the term is used different ways in the Bible.

The English langauge is not precise in its use of the word "brother" . . . .

Just do a word study on the word "brother" in the New Testament . . .


.
 
Upvote 0

thereselittleflower

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2003
34,832
1,526
✟57,855.00
Faith
Catholic
Thank you, WA, for addressing all of my points! I do mean to get to all of them, but for now I want to quickly address a couple of them.

[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE]

So, in other words, there was no word to signify "cousins," and the only option was to use the word which has been translated as "brethrent?"




So, was this entrance barred in both directions? I mean if the argument is that no "man" shall pass through it, would that not exclude Jesus?


"This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it..."


No one but God racer . . . Jesus is God. . .


.
 
Upvote 0

WarriorAngel

I close my eyes and see you smile
Site Supporter
Apr 11, 2005
73,951
10,060
United States Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟597,590.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Has anyone mentioned that in Jewish tradition when someone was a only child, their cousins was considered their siblings?

:wave: I mentioned first cousins were considered siblings. I did not mention only children calling them siblings.
Thank you.
 
Upvote 0

IamAdopted

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2006
9,384
309
South Carolina
✟33,557.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The New Testament was not written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. The Greek language is very precise. It makes it quite clear whether or not people have the same parents.
According to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word used here for the "brothers" of Jesus is adelphos. It means, "from the same womb." These are men who have the same mother. Adelphos is also used to describe the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 12:46; John 2:12; John 7:3; and Acts 1:14. Adelphos is used to describe "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19. Adelphos is also used to describe the brothers Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18), and the brothers James and John (Matthew 4:21). Adelphe (the feminine form of adelphos) is used to describe Jesus' sisters (Matthew 13:56)
The Greek language has another word that is used for relatives who don't come from the same womb. The word suggenes is used to describe Mary's cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). Suggenes means, "a blood relative."
The Old Testament was written by Israelites who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. It was written primarily in Hebrew, with some Aramaic. (Jews in modern Israel still speak Hebrew.) The New Testament was written in Greek. This was the common language of the people who lived in the eastern area of the Mediterranean Sea. Greek had been widely spoken since the reign of Alexander the Great. In the fifth century, Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin. Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Bible was read in Latin during Mass.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Site Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
10,051
1,802
60
New England
✟618,580.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Good Day, Racer

I have been whating to respond for some time in this thread, but I can not get bogged down here.

The issue for me is when the text says:

Mat 4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

Are not Peter and Andrew brothers??

As has been noted the word the text Matt , "adelphos" and used here and in Mark.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

The normal useage of the word is to be of the same womb. That is not to say there is not other sub normal usages. There is nothing in the context in either of these passages that would require us to stray from it's normal useage.

In Him,:hug:

Bill


 
Upvote 0

Axion

Senior Veteran
Feb 5, 2003
2,942
301
uk
Visit site
✟4,616.00
Faith
Catholic
Good Day, Racer

I have been whating to respond for some time in this thread, but I can not get bogged down here.

The issue for me is when the text says:

Mat 4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

Are not Peter and Andrew brothers??

As has been noted the word the text Matt , "adelphos" and used here and in Mark.


Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

The normal useage of the word is to be of the same womb. That is not to say there is not other sub normal usages. There is nothing in the context in either of these passages that would require us to stray from it's normal useage.

In Him,:hug:

Bill

What you forget is that the word adelphos was not spoken in Greek or initially orally retold and recorded in Greek. The words were spoken in ARAMAIC, in which the word used woul have been Ach - which means brother, cousin and any close kinsman. What you are basing your theories on is a TRANSLATION into Greek.
In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)! Strange that NONE of these children appears or hinders Mary and Joseph from dropping everything to chase after Jesus when He is found in the temple at age 12.
 
Upvote 0

IamAdopted

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2006
9,384
309
South Carolina
✟33,557.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What you forget is that the word adelphos was not spoken in Greek or initially orally retold and recorded in Greek. The words were spoken in ARAMAIC, in which the word used woul have been Ach - which means brother, cousin and any close kinsman. What you are basing your theories on is a TRANSLATION into Greek.
In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)! Strange that NONE of these children appears or hinders Mary and Joseph from dropping everything to chase after Jesus when He is found in the temple at age 12.
The new testement was written in Greek. I am quite sure that they wrote what they meant..The Old testement was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Hebrews still speak this in Isreal... Greek was widley spoken..
 
Upvote 0

racer

Contributor
Aug 5, 2003
7,885
364
60
Oklahoma
✟32,229.00
Faith
Pentecostal
You need to read more on early christianity. Brothers and sisters said in those days meant alot of different meanings than what people would think today.
Such as? Can you give me some examples?

Read the protoevanglium of james of you want outer evidence.

I've read it.

Read up on the miracle at Fatima. And then ask yourself. Can 70,000 people ALL be wrong??

I have. Have you ever heard of "mass hysteria" or "mass hallucinations?"

As well as the hundreds upon hundreds of Early Church Fathers who claimed she was a virgin her whole life.

Hundreds upon hundreds? You've read them all yourself?

A virgin is more purer than a non virgin.

I can understand that a virgin may be more pure than an unmarried non-virgin, but why so than a married non-virgin?

How would Mary have been any less pure if she had had a true marital relationship with Joseph?

Since God is the purest of all it is natural he would chose a virgin.

What would be the significance of Mary remaining a virgin after she bore Jesus?

Is the only reason that God insisted that a virgin bear His son for the sake of purity? How about the fact that this was one of the signs of the coming of the Messiah? Jesus was to be born of a virgin, a woman who having no husband therefore no other explanation than God being the father. This was a very important piece of evidence of Jesus’ identity.

A non-virgin does not go well with Gods ultimate majesty and pure grace. For God to bear his son, it would be natural for God to chose the most pure, faithful woman he can. Ask yourself, why did God chose Mary??

If Mary really had other children, they would have been followed by the early fathers. And the church would have recorded it. Yet there is not one recording of a blood line son or daughter of Mary. Not one. Don't you think if mary had children the early church fathers/apostles would have come in contact with them and recorded it??...However there is much evidence claiming otherwise in scripture and outside scripture(protoevangelium). The evidence outweighs the claim.

These are good questions. Still, “lack of evidence in support of” is not evidence against. But, why do you argue that the ECFs would have addressed children of Mary other than Jesus? For what purpose? The Bible speaks very little about Mary and his brothers and sisters, why do you suppose the ECFs would?

Also, regarding brothers referred to as “brethren” (you say cousins, others say siblings) such as James, did the ECFs write nothing about him?

Read Matthew 1:23

BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD AND SHALL BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL," which translated means, "GOD WITH US.

THE virgin..

The messiah will be born of a virgin in bethlehem. Period.


What is your point? We all know that Mary was a virgin when she was overcome by the Holy Spirit and became pregnant with Jesus and was a virgin until His birth.

JOSIAH! It i proven that the BIBLE DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT MARY LOSING HER VIRGINITY!

But for those who believe that Mary had other children, it’s a given that she lost her virginity.

Yet you claim sola scriptura, the sole authority. Since the bible says nothing about Mary being married again or losing her virginity then it goes in accordance with Sola Scriptura.

Well, this thread is not about SS, however, you need to educate yourself regarding Sola Scriptura if in the future you plan to argue further against it.

And yet you say this, that maybe OUTSIDE SCRIPTURE that something about Mary could be true?

Maybe, but it is irrelevant regarding what you and I need to know about salvation and what is expected from us of God.

hmmmm... It sounds like you use sola scriptura when you can when supporting a interperatation of yours, but when something like this arises you take a 360 on the sola scriptura theory.

Please, do some studying on the topic of Sola Scriptura.

And one last thing:

Why did Jesus while he was hanging on the cross say to John to take Mary in as his Mother?? Surely if Mary had other siblings he wouldn't have said this..


What was He suppose to say? What if His siblings were not there at the Crucifixion? What should He have said?
 
Upvote 0

IamAdopted

Well-Known Member
Nov 22, 2006
9,384
309
South Carolina
✟33,557.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Mary was never thought of as a perpetual virgin until 1850. From then all the catholic church has exaulted her. They say she is the spouse or married to the Holy Spirit..God in neither form has been married.. Neither the Father,Son,or Spirit.. His church is a Spiritual Church. Just as His Kingdom is a Spiritual Kingdom... Mary being a human was also born anew and became part of the Body of Christ.. The Church is not seen as a mother but as a bride..
 
Upvote 0

Asinner

Seeking Salvation
Jul 15, 2005
5,899
358
✟30,272.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private


How would Mary have been any less pure if she had had a true marital relationship with Joseph?


You aren't seriously asking this, are you?:o



What would be the significance of Mary remaining a virgin after she bore Jesus?

She was both physically and spiritually Pure. As were Adam and Eve before the Fall. 'Tis significant. :)

Love,
Christina :hug:




 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Mary was never thought of as a perpetual virgin until 1850.

^_^

Seeing as the Divine Liturgy of St. James the brother of our Lord attests to it, and we see it up to and including the early Western reformers, I think you might want to revise your statement.
 
Upvote 0

Oblio

Creed or Chaos
Jun 24, 2003
22,324
865
65
Georgia - USA
Visit site
✟27,610.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In 107, Ignatius of Antioch described the virginity of Mary as "hidden from the prince of this world… loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God".[2] The affirmation of the doctrine of Mary's virginity before, during, and after the birth of Jesus was the principal aim of the early second century work, the Protoevangelium of James (c. 120-150).[3] The work, concerned with the character and purity of Mary, claims that Joseph had children from a marriage previous to Mary.[4] However, the text does not explicitly assert the doctrine of perpetual virginity, the earliest such surviving reference being Origen's Commentary on Matthew,[5] where he cites the Protoevangelium in support.

By the fourth century, the doctrine is well attested.[6] Athanasius described Mary as "Ever-Virgin",[7] as did Epiphanius.[8] Hilary argued in favor of the doctrine,[9] and to this may be added Didymus,[10] Ambrose,[11] Jerome,[12] Siricius[13] and others. However, it cannot be said that unanimity existed in antiquity concerning the doctrine, as it was denied by Tertullian,[14] and Jovinian's teaching that childbirth ended Mary's physical virginity had to be condemned by a synod of Milan in 390.

Further important statements of the belief include the Lateran Synod of 649, Thomas Aquinas's teaching that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen,[15] Pope Paul IV's Cum quorundam of 7 August 1555 at the Council of Trent,[16] and most recently the statements in the current catechism.[17]

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine came to be questioned, although such notable reformers as Martin Luther,[18] Huldrych Zwingli,[19] John Calvin,[20] and John Wesley[21] accepted its veracity.[22] However, the absence of clear Biblical statements expressing the doctrine, in combination with the principle of sola scriptura, kept references to the doctrine out of the Reformation creeds. Additionally, the tendency to associate veneration of Mary with idolatry[23] and the rejection of clerical celibacy[24] lead to the eventual denial of this doctrine amongst most Protestant churches. Lastly, many Protestant communities cite Biblical passages that refer to the "brothers" of Jesus (see below, see also Desposyni).


From here

You can dispute the PV of the Theotokos if you like, but the historicity of the belief is ancient and well documented.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.