Speak lovingly of Mary

[MamaZ]

according to the culture; please show where in the Gospels Christ FORCED someone to be at risk in that culture

In all the NT we see men put at risk and thrown in Jail and killed for their faith in Christ. Culture is just culture made from the tradtions of men. Truth comes from the very mouth of God and we are to worship God in Spirit and in truth. Not in culture.

 

[Thekla]

CaliforniaJosiah said:
Thus, it offers NO substantiation for it NOT meaning sibling....
You have been undermining your own argument.

I do not change the definition of a word in order to support my argument; I have given the definition of adelphos because that is the definition of adelphos.

 

[Thekla]

In all the NT we see men put at risk and thrown in Jail and killed for their faith in Christ. Culture is just culture made from the tradtions of men. Truth comes from the very mouth of God and we are to worship God in Spirit and in truth. Not in culture.

were those men at risk because they chose to follow Christ or because He gave false testimony against them ?

I believe it was the first option. Christ does not force anyone to be at risk; instead He asks us to follow Him, and if we do the world is not at peace with us.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Where in the Gospels does Jesus make a false accusatipon against anyone ?

For Mary to be given into the care of someone who is not her child would mean she was an adultress.

codswollop.

it's moved from "well, it would be a slap in the face to his siblings" to "he'd be accusing her of adultery" why does the apologetic regarding this passage bounce all over the place?

simple fact: Jesus gave Mary into the care of John.

this does not confirm, nor deny, the existance of siblings, whatever the case. It's a supposational apologetic that assumes to get inside the head of Christ and tell us what he would or wouldn't be thinking.

I reject it utterly as a valid apologetic for one side, or the other.

 

[MamaZ]

were those men at risk because they chose to follow Christ or because He gave false testimony against them ?

I believe it was the first option. Christ does not force anyone to be at risk; instead He asks us to follow Him, and if we do the world is not at peace with us.

you make no sense here for when Jesus gave Mary to the care of a Spiritual brother how was Christ accusing anyone of anything? ForGods Kingdom is not of this world nor of this or that culture. Gods Kingdom is of the Spirit. Here is Jesus take on as
you say culture.

Mat 5:31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE';
Mat 5:32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
Mat 5:33 "Again, you have heard that the ancients were told, 'YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FALSE VOWS, BUT SHALL FULFILL YOUR VOWS TO THE LORD.'
Mat 5:34 "But I say to you, make no oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 or by the earth, for it is the footstool of His feet, or by Jerusalem, for it is THE CITY OF THE GREAT KING.
Mat 5:36 "Nor shall you make an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 "But let your statement be, 'Yes, yes' or 'No, no'; anything beyond these is of evil.
Mat 5:38 "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
Mat 5:39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Mat 5:40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
Mat 5:41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.
Mat 5:42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
Mat 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.'
Mat 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Mat 5:45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
Mat 5:46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Mat 5:47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
Mat 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Thus, it offers NO substantiation for it NOT meaning sibling....

You have been undermining your own argument. I do not change the definition of a word in order to support my argument; I have given the definition of adelphos because that is the definition of adelphos.

...and you admitted that it CAN mean "sibling" just as much as it could mean "cousin." Thus, undermining your own position and revealing the problematic nature of your argument.


But back to the issue before us.
1) Where is the dogmatic SUBSTANTIATION for the dogma of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY?
2) The Catholic Catechism states that to spread a popularly held story or report that is unsubstantiation is a rumor and a sin and thus is NOT loving. Thus, is it LOVING to share a story or report (especially one of such an intensely personal and private nature) if it is not substantiated?

Again, please don't confuse an opinion of self that self is correct with substantiation. Apples and oranges, as we all know.





.

 

[MamaZ]

Sorry CJ for taking your tread to a different postion. I ask forgiveness for this..

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Sorry CJ for taking your tread to a different postion. I ask forgiveness for this..

Not my thread, LOL.
It's the thread of WarriorAngel - one of our two Supervisors for GT.

And you raised some solid points, for which I'm thankful. I appreciate your posts, you raise important issues and your perspective matters a lot to me. I'm all ears! Keep up the good work!




.

 

[MamaZ]

Not my thread, LOL.
It's the thread of WarriorAngel - one of our two Supervisors for GT.

And you raised some solid points, for which I'm thankful. I appreciate your posts, you raise important issues and your perspective matters a lot to me. I'm all ears! Keep up the good work!




.

Awe okay then. I thought maybe I went on a rabbits trail and never found the rabbit tee hee..Thank you for being understanding.

 

[Thekla]

codswollop.

it's moved from "well, it would be a slap in the face to his siblings" to "he'd be accusing her of adultery" why does the apologetic regarding this passage bounce all over the place?

simple fact: Jesus gave Mary into the care of John.

this does not confirm, nor deny, the existance of siblings, whatever the case. It's a supposational apologetic that assumes to get inside the head of Christ and tell us what he would or wouldn't be thinking.

I reject it utterly as a valid apologetic for one side, or the other.

1. it would be both (including Iakovos/James to whom He appeared after the Resurrection)
2. I am responding to information provided by LionRoar
3. the information refers to the culture in which Christ's ministry occurred
4. providing cultural background per practice and linguistics is valid in argument
5. please take a look at my posts in reference to your response to my earlier statements

 

[MamaZ]

1. it would be both (including Iakovos/James to whom He appeared after the Resurrection)
2. I am responding to information provided by LionRoar
3. the information refers to the culture in which Christ's ministry occurred
4. providing cultural background per practice and linguistics is valid in argument
5. please take a look at my posts in reference to your response to my earlier statements

Jesus did not follow the culture of men. He followed after His Father and in fact only Did what He saw the Father doing. NOT the culture of man.

 

[Thekla]

...and you admitted that it CAN mean "sibling" just as much as it could mean "cousin." Thus, undermining your own position and revealing the problematic nature of your argument.


But back to the issue before us.
1) Where is the dogmatic SUBSTANTIATION for the dogma of the PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY?
2) The Catholic Catechism states that to spread a popularly held story or report that is unsubstantiation is a rumor and a sin and thus is NOT loving. Thus, is it LOVING to share a story or report (especially one of such an intensely personal and private nature) if it is not substantiated?

Again, please don't confuse an opinion of self that self is correct with substantiation. Apples and oranges, as we all know.





.

1. refusing to provide skewed definitions does not undermine argument
2. the strength of the possiblity of one meaning for adelphos (yours - sibling) is more than counterbalanced by the more numerous other options available in the Greek definition, the Hebraicized definition, and the cultural vernacular use of the term.
3. you have apparently skipped other posts that provide argument (and supporting evidence) that the broader definition is more likely
4. you have skipped the following information (in a previous post):
Gabriel speaks to Mary about a FUTURE event (that she will conceive); Mary responds "I do not know a man" in a verbe tense that conveys a CONTINUOUS state (a statement of fact of something that was, is, and continues to be fact).

 

[Thekla]

Jesus did not follow the culture of men. He followed after His Father and in fact only Did what He saw the Father doing. NOT the culture of man.

then please provide citation from either the OT or NT that God the Father falsley accused someone by His actions.

 

[MamaZ]

then please provide citation from either the OT or NT that God the Father falsley accused someone by His actions.

You show me where in Jesus giving Mary to Johns care accuses anyone of anything. This is a made up concept born out of the tradtion of man and not out of the truth of scripture. The culture of man as been said and proven is not what Jesus followed. So how does giving Mary to the care of a Spiritual brother accuse Mary of anything? For we are to recoginze NO ONE according to the flesh which is what you are trying to say Jesus Himself would recoginze instead of recognizing those who are His by the Spirit?

 

[Philothei]

Jesus did not follow the culture of men. He followed after His Father and in fact only Did what He saw the Father doing. NOT the culture of man.

How do you support this? So Christ did not eat because his Father did not do it?

 

[lionroar0]

So when the Holy Spirit fell and many spoke in tongues and in different languages it was not pure from the Holy Spirit how? Since God is creater of all things even the language how can what is written in greek not be pure from God?

My point being that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Gospels took the semetic(sp?) linguistic conventions of the time and translated them into the Greek.

So which words are purer?

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

You show me where in Jesus giving Mary to Johns care accuses anyone of anything. This is a made up concept born out of the tradtion of man and not out of the truth of scripture. The culture of man as been said and proven is not what Jesus followed. So how does giving Mary to the care of a Spiritual brother accuse Mary of anything? For we are to recoginze NO ONE according to the flesh which is what you are trying to say Jesus Himself would recoginze instead of recognizing those who are His by the Spirit?

non-sequitor.

Argument does not follow the evidence.

Had Jesus had other siblings they would have had to take care of Mary. Regardless if there were there or not. They would have had to come and pick her.

Jesus giving Mary to John shows that there is something wrong with her merriage to Joseph and His other "siblings." were not required to take care of her as per Jewish culture

The two options left are that Mary had an affair, Mary remarried.

Out of the two the only one left to pick is: Mary had an affair, because Jesus had other brothers who are the sons of Joseph.

Peace

 

[Uphill Battle]

My point being that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Gospels took the semetic(sp?) linguistic conventions of the time and translated them into the Greek.

So which words are purer?

Peace

It's likely he spoke more than just Aramaic. He probably spoke greek as well. In fact, it's more like a given that he spoke greek.

 

[Thekla]

It's likely he spoke more than just Aramaic. He probably spoke greek as well. In fact, it's more like a given that he spoke greek.

Greek was the "official language", Hebrew was used in the Temple, Aramaic "on the street".

the following is Wikipedia; I'm pressed for time, but it does reiterate the other sources I've heard this from.

Most scholars believe that historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic,[1] with some Hebrew and Greek, although there is some debate in academia as to what degree.[2] Generally, most scholars believe that the towns of Nazareth and Capernaum, where Jesus lived, were primarily Aramaic-speaking communities, that he was knowledgeable enough in Hebrew to discuss the Hebrew Bible, and that he may have known Koine Greek through commerce as a carpenter in nearby Sepphoris and because Greek was the common language of the eastern part of the Roman Empire.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

My point being that Jesus spoke Aramaic. The Gospels took the semetic(sp?) linguistic conventions of the time and translated them into the Greek.

So which words are purer?

Moot.

1. IF Jesus originally said these words in Aramaic (and that is not - and cannot be known), then we don't have those words. What we all HAVE is the NT words infallibly inspired by God Himself (which is in Greek).

2. IF Jesus spoke the words in Aramaic (and see # 1 above), and IF God had to translate those words into Greek, then I trust God's translation.

3. It seems to me all you've done is attempted to reveal that the word doesn't NECESSARILY mean blood sibling, it CAN mean a cousin as well as a blood sibling. Okay. Now, how does that substantiate dogma that Mary had no sex ever?









.