T
Thekla
Guest
I agree
people do amazing things - it melts the heart, if we bother to look,
God is good !
The passage you requested is in Luke chapter 1, and begins at about verse 26.
Upvote
0
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.
I agreeProps to Joseph.
I've seen fathers,... even a single-father, take & raise as their own children of their wives that weren't their own.
I wish their was more known about Joseph.
Where's that Gabriel visits Mary verse?
Greetings Thekla!! Luke 2:34 and Reve 11:11 are also pretty interesting passages as the "resurrection" is pretty important in Christ-ian TheologyI agree
people do amazing things - it melts the heart, if we bother to look,
God is good !
The passage you requested is in Luke chapter 1, and begins at about verse 26.
the word adelphos has many meanings; one of those meanings is brother
No. Another made a point that the sentance was originally in Aramaic and thus the Aramaic words are normative, not the Greek. You defended this and stated that it can be determined if something is a translation of another language and which original language that was. I'm really lost as to why that matters (since what we HAVE is what we HAVE), but I simply asked you to explain your statement of fact that this can be determined (THEN I'll ask why it matters). I gave you a sentence (I happen to know if it was originally written in English or another language because the author is known to me). I asked you to tell me in what language was the sentence originally written - English or some other, and if some other, which? It's NOT a new argument or point, it's YOUR argument and point - I'm just exploring it.
Wrong.
In the RCC, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary - these are all DOGMAS.
Your point was that the penmen of the BIBLE were "fallible."
I simply quoted for you (verbatim) from The Handbook of the Catholic Faith.
Do you believe that the 4 Gospels are exempt from this?
You seemed to suggest that the Greek is a poor translation of the "original" Aramaic (you have yet to tell me how it can be dogmatically determined that Jesus spoke this in Aramaic). I don't know why you think God did a poor job of the translation, you haven't explained that point, or why what the singular Catholic denomination "thinks" MIGHT have "originally" been said "trumps" what God put in His Holy Scriptures.
You seem to be forgetting that we ARE discussing DOGMAS in the RCC.
And dogmatically, no denomination does. But I would think the speading throughout the world's 6.5 billion people of the much, much MORE private and potentially hurtful and embarrassing to DOGMATICALLY insist - as the highest certainty and highest level of importance - how often you and your spouse have sex (or whatever other details of your sex life) MIGHT be regarded by you as inappropriate at best and perhaps an invasion of privacy and, well, none of our business. Friend, the DOGMA is entirely and solely in your camp, among the 3 denominations that teach it. The other 29,997 denominations that Catholics insist exist have no dogma about Mary's sex life. At all.
Is it LOVING for me to tell all 6.5 billion people the details of your sexual relationships with your spouse, especially since I don't know you and have ZERO evidence for anything remotely related to it? AND to regard such as the greatest certainty and the highest level of importance in all the universe? IF not, then why is it for Our Blessed Lady? My INTENTIONS in telling everyone that you and your spouse do it 3.1 times per week MAY be sincere and honorable, but does that change anything?
I never said that Jesus had any sibs.
NO denomination known to me has a dogma of "Jesus Had Sibs."
Nor is that related to the RCC's Marian Dogmas.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
Back to spreading rumors.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
Red herring. no points awarded but thanks for playing. Remember the points don't mean anything.
and how does any of what you posted substantiate that it is distinctively LOVING to spread around this report about her most private, intimate, personal aspect of her marital relationship?
I speak lovingly but what does these appartions had to do with speaking lovingly? I can speak lovingly of anyone who never appeared after death....
So, how does that acknowledgment that the term could equally mean "brother" as well as "cousin" dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does it substantiate that the spreading of a report about Mary's supremely private, intimate, martial relationship is distinctively LOVING (the point of this thread)?
.
:o Darn........the EO/OO/RC use "Tradition" as the canon for measuring and authentication - the evidence described above strongly supports the teaching per Mary as it stands.
1. A survey of LXX usage as well as the Hellenistic usage (which overlap),
there are easily over half a dozen meanibgs for the word, of which brother and cousin are two. This does not substantiate dogma, but weighs heavily against the narrow use for adelphos as sibling.
2. A careful reading of the passages in Luke describing the interaction between Mary and Gabriel establishes two options if one is to hold the narrow meaning 'sibling' for adelphos:
a. the Bible is in error
b. Mary lied
3. A knowledge of Hebraic culture contemporary with the era of the Gospel
yields information which sheds further light on the "adelphos passages":
a. children were rarely if ever named for their parents; the adelphos named Joses/Joseph is most likely not a child of Joseph, hence the term adelphos in its broad usage is the most accurate descriptive
b. unless Mary was an adulteress, Christ would have been "bearing false witness" against Mary by leaving her in the care of one who was not her son.
c. households were combined upon the death of the primary male provider; had Joseph died before the time of Christ's ministry, the term adelphos refers to household not immediate parentage.
4. the witness of the anti-Christian pagan, Celsus, indicates a teaching or knowledge that Mary was the biological mother of a single child (and that Joseph likely died some time before the ministry of Christ commenced).
5. Tradition held by three ancient Churches (in spite of later schism) attest that Mary was the mother of one child.
1. It also weighs heavily against the sole meaning of "cousin." Others interpretation of it as "brother" becomes just as valid (perhaps more so given other Scriptures).
2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.
3. You may also not be aware that there is no dogma of Mary Had One Child. I think you might be confusing this with the dogma in 3 denominations of The Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The dogma is not sibs, it's about sex. The dogma is that Mary had no sex, not that Jesus had no sibs
.
it is evidence of limited childbearing, and goes to the use of adelphos
No. A careful reading of the passage in Luke indicates that Mary is told she WILL conceive and bear a son, and that Mary is confused because she IS a virgin. There is nothing in the text that says that Mary is/will be a PERPETUAL virgin.
please refer to previous posts on the matter;should a future marriage assume relations between spouses in hope or anticipation of childbearing (or not), her statement becomes a lie.
again, Gabriel speaks in the future tense about something that would normally occur in a marriage; Mary denies that this can happen (in the continuous tense which includes the future).
1. This all seems entirely moot to the issue of Mary had no sex ever.
2. Unusual situations does not equal dogmatic substantiation. Sons may or may not be named for their father (remember John the Baptist?). There was no law or absolute custom that mothers be entrusted to sons - it was usual, but not absolute. And how does that dogmaticly substantiate that Mary was a virgin at Jesus' death????
the manner of substantiation for dogma has been reiterated here ad nauseum; absent proof that we must align with your personal canon for
the iteration of dogma, the point is moot
Actually, the dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was proclaimed in the late 7th Century. And again, even IF Mary had no other children that has NOTHING to do with Mary having no sex ever - thus provides ZERO substantiation for the dogma, much less dogmatic substantiation.
.
Josiah said:1. It also weighs heavily against the sole meaning of "cousin." Others interpretation of it as "brother" becomes just as valid (perhaps more so given other Scriptures).
neither retains sole validity;and further, given the fluidity of household arrangements, the use of adelphos ceases to be conclusive evidence of any particular relationship.
Josiah said:2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.
<b>
<b>
</b>I am not RC
Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:b. unless Mary was an adulteress, Christ would have been "bearing false witness" against Mary by leaving her in the care of one who was not her son.
I am not RC
[/QUOTE
He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".
Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:
Matthew 12:46-50 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.I am not RC
[/QUOTEHe said it needs dogmatic substatiation.(sp?)He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".
Now all we need is a defenition(sp?) of dogmatic substantiation.
But then the RCC Dogma of Mary's Ever-Virginity is an article of faith for Catholics.
Peace
Nice evasions, but how does any of that dogmatically substantiate the DOGMA of Mary as a PERPETUAL virgin, and how does any of what you posted substantiate that it is distinctively LOVING to spread around this report about her most private, intimate, personal aspect of her marital relationship?
.
2. You may not be aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary IS dogma, therefore, it needs dogmatic substantiation.
Surely, you are aware that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is DOGMA in the EO, too.
the EO/OO/RC use "Tradition" as the canon for measuring and authentication - the evidence described above strongly supports the teaching per Mary as it stands.
The Second Council of Constantinople, 553, Capitula II:
If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.[6]
We do not need any scriptural substantiation as the council (see bellow) and the Fathers prove to the Ever-virginity... Just the same way the Protestants accept the Holy Trinity after examining the Scripture and find certain verses that support the dogma.
Not necessarily. Especialy not after him saying this:
Matthew 12:46-50 46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. 47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? 49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.I am not RC
I think within the Christian community, it would not be a problem. However, in the larger community, this would have left Mary vulnerable (especially, with the early persecutions, doubly vulnerable).
He said "it needs substantiation", not "you need to substantiate it".
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?