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.
She understood it to be immediate. She understood it to mean before she and Joseph were to be wed. And that is exactly how it happened.Nothing in the story says it will be immediate. The Angel told Mary that she WILL have a son. WILL is future tense.
[/QUOTE](sigh) I didn't say the mocked him on the cross.
His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. (Joh 7:3-5)
They did not believe Jesus, in fact, there is a mocking, ridiculing sarcastic tone in their statements above. It is very similar to Satan trying to tempt Jesus to perform a miracle by throwing himself off the pinnacle of the temple. Secondly, there is the passage from Mark:
And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.
(Mar 3:20-21)
The phrase οἱ παῤ αὐτοῦ refers to kinsmen, those who had same origin. These, in the entire context refer to his siblings and mother as seen in the verses that follow down to v. 31. VV. 22-30 are parenthetical to the entire narrative. The narrative picks up again at v. 31.
What I said was that you can't simply plug that usage into adelphos any time it suits you. I said that you had the burden of proof in order to demonstrate that when that word is used referencing Jesus' siblings that it always referred to cousins. You can feel free to show me from the Greek that "cousins" is the intended meaning. It's not enough to say what a word can mean. You have to show in a given text that the context requires a specific usage.
I expect you to follow the words of Paul who tells us to follow the traditions and church authorities. The ever virginity has been since the first century and has been passed down by the elders we are commanded by an apostle to obey. You can pick and choose which Scriptures to follow all you want, but to listen to Paul is to follow Apostolic tradition.
No youve ben "told" by a church systen that started 120 odd years After the apostles.
When we follow pauls words we follow the foundations of the apistles and prophets...
Niether of whom said Any such thing as what the msn made institution began to say a centure + later.
You see the very fact you have to fall on " YOUR " churches tradition. ..which begane well over a century after the apostles is because there is NO direct unambiguoius Scripture to base it on
The apostles never once said Any of it.nor did the prophets of Old that God sent.
So to follow thier foundations we cannot adhere to what "your" church said.
ad hominem much ?No offense, but your attitude doesn't exactly draw me to believe what you are saying bares any fruits. I primarily came to Orthodoxy because the people were more humble then any I had met in other Churches. You making your own opinion as infalible (becoming your own Pope), isn't going to convince me that what you say is of the spirit.
ad hominem much ?
The fact remains
We read what is written and believe it.
You read what is written and manipulate it to match your traditions.
Jesus warned of those who make the word of god null and void . -by thier many traditions.
ad hominem much ?
The fact remains
We read what is written and believe it.
You read what is written and manipulate it to match your traditions.
Jesus warned of those who make the word of god null and void . -by thier many traditions.
ad hominem much ?
The fact remains
We read what is written and believe it.
You read what is written and manipulate it to match your traditions.
Jesus warned of those who make the word of god null and void . -by thier many traditions.
Same here.St Ignatius and St Polycarp were writing letters while various apostles were still alive. St Ignatius was a personal student of the Apostle John and met Christ (he was 3rd Bishop of Antioch).
And lol that you think I'm "told" these things. As a protestant I studied the Church Father's critically but realized the evidence was in favor of them and converted.
you need to study it more.No, it is not demonstrably wrong. The plain and natural sense of the text indicates they were his biological siblings through Mary.
I didn't say singing hymns was extra-Biblical.Singing hymns is not extra-biblical, no.
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (Eph 5:19)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col 3:16)
The perpetual is a false teachig and is not found in the Bible.
Remember that Matthewis the most Jewish of the Gospels. Some have opined it was originallay written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
- Matthew 1:25 clearly states (regarding Joseph) “and he knew her not UNTIL she had brought for her FIRSTBORN son.” I think that says it all right there, but there is more.
- Mattthew 13:55 and 56 record disputes about the Messiahship of Jesus. Note a) there WAS no New Testament church, per se, yet, and b) these people were not believers. Therefore, this was NOT talking about the use of the word “brethren” in the sense of being of the same faith or from the same church background. Here the verses are: “Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?” Note also that this context is Jesus’ nuclear family—his aunts and uncles are not mentioned, thus this is not about his cousins.
- Paul refered back to James in Galatians 1:19, saying “I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. ... The only other
apostle I met at that time was James, the Lord's brother.”
The second, and primary reason I do not hold to your opinion is that the Council of Nicea, convening in 325 AD and composed of men who spoke the original language of the new testament, declared the virginity of Mary to be the belief of the Church.
Can you provide references for this point? Mary is not even mentioned in either of the Nicene Creeds and was not on the agenda at Nicea. IF you can point me to some prime source documentation (english translations : ) I would be interested. It seems that Mary's perpetual viriginity is a later addition that began to pop up in the second century but didn't become dogmatized until the 7th century.
My biggest issue with this dogma by Catholics (not sure how big of a deal it is for E.Orthodoxy) is that it has been made a mandatory doctrine and rejection of it on reasonable, rationale and biblical grounds is anathema (damning) for the person who so believes. That right there is a deal breaker since it is a non-issue in the gospels and the canon. Regardless of how 'early' a new theological issue develops, it can be no earlier that the Lord and the Apostles. Since they did not make it a "believe or burn" issue, no church has the power to make it so. It is an unnecessary obstacle to unity.
What's the E.O. view?
The Bible also does not say that Joseph wasn’t married before.The bible doesn't say he was married before therefore any sisters and brothers that are mentioned are children of Mary.
I beg to differ...But they didn't.
Many times, the Bible uses "brothers" without their necessarily having the same mother.
An example of this is in Matthew 1, where we read of "Judah and his brothers," though they actually had 4 mothers among them.
You've caught a mistake of mine. It was the second Council of Nicea that decreed the perpetual virginity of Mary, not the first Council of Nicea.
To Orthodoxy, Mary's perpetual virginity is simply accepted by the Church. Why should it not be? I mentioned earlier in this thread, or maybe in a similar thread, the protoevangellion of James. It is a non canonical work rejected by the Church long ago, but it does establish that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus was the belief of the early Church. The writer would first have to get that idea from somewhere before creating a narrative, fictional as that narrative is. There is certainly no reason to believe that a person could not be set aside to remain celibate after being chosen by God for some task.
But for the incessant and needless attacks against the Roman Church by some protestants, Mary's perpetual virginity would be accepted without controversy. But then those attacks are not merely against Mary, but continue into attacks against the foundations of Christianity itself.
True, but if you just read the text as a normal human being reading a story, what conclusions would you come to if you didn't have any concepts of Marian theology overlaying your vision?The Bible also does not say that Joseph wasn’t married before.
It may be your thinking. It is demonstrably wrong.
Where does it say that in the Bible?She understood it to be immediate. She understood it to mean before she and Joseph were to be wed. And that is exactly how it happened.
She must have told him personally, since there is no other way he could possibly know what her thoughts were at the timeWhere does it say that in the Bible?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?