Immaculate Conception - Why Did It Take 1,854 Years to Discover This Doctrine?

[chilehed]

Not so. Actually, almost those exact words have been part of the marriage ceremony since ancient times.

Which one? I just read throught Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonium Intra Missam and nothing like it is there.

 

[Brennin]

But Jesus is Mary's only Child. If Mary did have other children then Jesus would not have given custody to John to take care of her. Unless Jesus ment to insult his brothers...but Jesus wouldn't have done that. If your looking at translation of previous passages in the Gosples about brothers and sisters of Christ. These could just be close followers of Christ or even close family out side of the western look of the nuclear family of Mom, dad, brothers and sisters.

No. Jesus' siblings were not believers at the time, which is why he entrusted his mother's care to John.

 

[mont974x4]

No. Jesus' siblings were not believers at the time, which is why he entrusted his mother's care to John.

They did become believers later tho, praise God!!

 

[Ormly]

When we use the term believer in this kind of discussion, it means those who have been born again, not one who affirms Christ as a nice teacher, great moralist, or anything else that makes the 'believer' short of being a disciple in the real sense.

In the 'real sense of discipleship' isn't where most are who claim the name of Christ. So what, in your estimation, is the cut off point and still be considered a follower of Him? Answer that honestly and you will understand my reasoning when making distinctions.

 

[Catholic Christian]

No. Jesus' siblings were not believers at the time, which is why he entrusted his mother's care to John.

Talk about something that isn't in scripture!!!
Please show me ONE scripture that Jesus' so-called siblings were unbelievers

 

[Thekla]

No. Jesus' siblings were not believers at the time, which is why he entrusted his mother's care to John.

where did Christ (or any of the NT writers) state that as true ?

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40). Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

 

[Brennin]

Talk about something that isn't in scripture!!!
Please show me ONE scripture that Jesus' so-called siblings were unbelievers

John 7:3-5

3So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4for no one who wants* to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ 5(For not even his brothers believed in him.)

I humbly suggest that you devote less time to Mariodoulia and more time to the scriptures. You will find the errant doctrines of your church peeling away.

 

[Catholic Christian]

John 7:3-5

3So his brothers said to him, ‘Leave here and go to Judea so that your disciples also may see the works you are doing; 4for no one who wants* to be widely known acts in secret. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.’ 5(For not even his brothers believed in him.)

I humbly suggest that you devote less time to Mariodoulia and more time to the scriptures. You will find the errant doctrines of your church peeling away.

Okay. Point taken. Im big enough to admit when I made a mistake. However, those "siblings" are not children of the Blessed Virgin. In this, there is NO mistake.

 

[Brennin]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

There are about ten instances in the New Testament where "brothers" and "sisters" of the Lord are mentioned (Matt. 12:46; Matt. 13:55; Mark 3:31–34; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19–20; John 2:12, 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5).

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term "brother" (Greek: adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). The Old Testament shows that "brother" had a wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers") and who are not descended from you (your male descendants, regardless of the number of generations removed, are your "sons"), as well as kinsmen such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or by law rather than by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Lot, for example, is called Abraham’s "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28), he was actually Abraham’s nephew. Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar had no sons, only daughters, who married their "brethren," the sons of Kish. These "brethren" were really their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

The terms "brothers," "brother," and "sister" did not refer only to close relatives. Sometimes they meant kinsmen (Deut. 23:7; Neh. 5:7; Jer. 34:9), as in the reference to the forty-two "brethren" of King Azariah (2 Kgs. 10:13–14).

Today, the most commonly accepted view is that they were Jesus’ cousins. Of the four "brethren" who are named in the Gospels, consider, for the sake of argument, only James. Similar reasoning can be used for the other three. We know that James the younger’s mother was named Mary. Look at the descriptions of the women standing beneath the cross: "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Matt. 27:56); "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome" (Mark 15:40). Then look at what John says: "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If we compare these parallel accounts of the scene of the crucifixion, we see that the mother of James and Joseph must be the wife of Clopas.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp

We are not talking about the Hebrew Scriptures. We are talking about the New Testament, and adelphoi refers to children of the same mother in the context of the verses that speak of Jesus' family, not to cousins or anything else Mariodules throw out in a vain attempt to save their doctrinal idol.

 

[Hentenza]

Talk about something that isn't in scripture!!!
Please show me ONE scripture that Jesus' so-called siblings were unbelievers

John 7:5
5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

And please don't go into the adelphos and adelphe debate. It's been beaten to death.

 

[Brennin]

However, those "siblings" are not children of the Blessed Virgin. In this, there is NO mistake.

You are wrong about that as well, despite the absurd claims of the Romish Church to the contrary.

 

[Hentenza]

You are wrong about that as well, despite the absurd claims of the Romish Church to the contrary.

Brennin, play nice!!!! The RC claims can be refuted without the name calling.

 

[Thekla]

John 7:5
5For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

And please don't go into the adelphos and adelphe debate. It's been beaten to death.

without adelphos/suyennis stuff

the cited passage does not (nor any other) prove that Mary was left in the care of John because of the 'whatevers' unbelief ...

 

[Brennin]

without adelphos/suyennis stuff

the cited passage does not (nor any other) prove that Mary was left in the care of John because of the 'whatevers' unbelief ...

You are right. It does not "prove" that was the case but it ably answers the objection re: why Jesus would entrust her to John's care instead of his brothers.

 

[Hentenza]

without adelphos/suyennis stuff

the cited passage does not (nor any other) prove that Mary was left in the care of John because of the 'whatevers' unbelief ...

LOL!!! It does not, but does not disprove it either.

 

[Hentenza]

Talk about something that isn't in scripture!!!
Please show me ONE scripture that Jesus' so-called siblings were unbelievers

Hey Terry,

I have one for you.

Is Psalm 69:8 talking about Mary's other children? Have you studied typology?

 

[Thekla]

You are right. It does not "prove" that was the case but it ably answers the objection re: why Jesus would entrust her to John's care instead of his brothers.

c'mon; can't hold us "non-scripture-only folks" to scripture only if you don't hold yourself to that; your explanation is not much different from EO and RC statements

 

[Brennin]

c'mon; can't hold us "non-scripture-only folks" to scripture only if you don't hold yourself to that; your explanation is not much different from EO and RC statements

What are you talking about? I answered an objection with scripture.

 

[WarriorAngel]

[bible]Psalm 69:8[/bible]

This is psalm 69?