• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

The Truth about the Brothers & Sisters

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by BrotherFinn, Jan 25, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    Yes, that is what I believe.

    Relatives were never mentioned on ossuaries unless the relative in question was famous or very well known. It is unheard of to have a close friend's name on an ossuary.

    With these two things in mind, we're looking at a man named Ya`qoov (James) whose father was Yosef (Joseph), and whose famous brother's name was Yeshu` (Jesus).

    Although James, Joseph, and Jesus were popular names in the 1st Century, there's only one combination that I can think of that matches up.

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  2. nyj

    nyj Goodbye, my puppy

    +1,247
    Catholic
    The ossuary is a fake. Moot point.
     
  3. edward

    edward Momma's Boy

    487
    +23
    Catholic
  4. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    For the sake of this argument, we'll keep it moot; but, I would like to remind you that the institution that claims that it is fake has yet to publish their results in a credible academic journal last time I checked (unless things have changed).

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  5. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    Altman is full of it. :) She is NO expert of ancient scripts, because she doesn't even know simple Aramaic constructions. Once she said "As an expert on scripts and an historian of writing systems, I was asked to examine this inscription and make a report. I did" it went downhill FAST.

    Here's an email I sent to her editor some time ago:

    And the editor replied:

    Long and the short of it, Rochelle did not know 1st Century Aramaic as well as she claimed. :) The script -does- check out, as does the spelling and grammar.

    As I said just a bit earlier, for the sake of this argument, let's say it's moot.




    Shlomo,
    --
    Steve Caruso
    (a.k.a. "The Thadman")

    Webmaster & Author, AramaicNT.org
    (http://www.AramaicNT.org)

    Lead Programmer, eBethArke
    (http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke/)

    Assistant to the Livingston College Dean of First Year Students
    Rutgers University, NJ

    (http://livingston.Rutgers.edu)
     
  6. Reader Nilus

    Reader Nilus SISU

    +230
    Eastern Orthodox
    We can speculate all we want, but the Church says Mary is Ever-Virgin and that is a confession that all Catholics and Orthodox are obligated to make, it is not an option. To me that is the most reasonable, and Jesus' brothers are Joseph's children from a prior marriage.
    Jeff the Finn
     
  7. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    All I can really say is, "Does this matter?."

    The only thing I was pointing out were misconceptions concerning the Aramaic language and culture of the 1st Century.

    I honestly do not think that whether or not Mary was an eternal virgin has any effect on salvation.

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  8. Axion

    Axion Senior Veteran

    +295
    Catholic
    This is about as pointless as someone in a thousand years time finding (or forging) a dedication to a "William, son of William, wife of Monica" , and trying to use it as proof that Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky got married!!!

    The straws some people will cling to to try to argue against the virginity of the Virgin Mary!

    And by the way, Yeshua does not translate to Jesus as such. (Jesus is a later Latinisation) It translates to Joshua, one of the commonest names of the time. Just as Ya'qoov is actually the more common Jacob, not strictly "James".
     
  9. Credo

    Credo broken

    +142
    Catholic
    Married
  10. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    1) Er, William, son of William, WIFE OF MONICA?... Er.. Billy's a girl? :)

    Although I understand your point, and I know what you meant (teasing aside), we're talking about 60-ish AD Jewish custom on ossuaries. 2000-ish AD American custom is rather liberal with who is mentioned on tombstones, and ossuaries aren't even used anymore.

    2) I'm talking about Aramaic, not Mary's virginity. As I said before in stating my opinion: "Does it matter?" If yes, why? If no, why? :)

    3)Yeshu` does translate closer to Jesus than Joshua (in english).

    "Joshua"/"Jesus" in Hebrew is "Yehoshua`" where
    "Joshua"/"Jesus" in Aramaic is "Yeshu`"

    The key lies within the tetragrammatical reference in the two languages.

    In Hebrew it is "Yoodh-He" pronounced "Yeho" or "Yahu"
    In Aramaic it is "Yoodh-'Olaf" pronounced "Ye'" or "Yo'"

    For example: "Elijah"
    Hebrew: "'Eleeyahu"
    Aramaic: "Eeleeyo'"

    "Jesus" usually refers to the Aramaic counterpart where "Joshua" refers to the Hebrew, but for all intents and purposes, it's the same name in two sister-languages.

    "Jacob" is actually closer to the Aramaic, but "Jacob" usually refers to the name in Hebrew, where "James" usually refers to the name in Aramaic.



    Shlomo,
    (Peace)
    --
    Steve Caruso
    (a.k.a. "The Thadman")

    Webmaster & Author, AramaicNT.org
    (http://www.AramaicNT.org)

    Lead Programmer, eBethArke
    (http://www.BethMardutho.org/eBethArke/)

    Assistant to the Livingston College Dean of First Year Students
    Rutgers University, NJ

    (http://livingston.Rutgers.edu)
     
  11. Bastoune

    Bastoune Well-Known Member

    +47
    Catholic
    There isn't much biblical support for Mary to have given birth to any other child BUT Jesus. The support is more for the fact she only had one son: JESUS! And remained a virgin afterwards.

    Under Mosaic Law, the term "first-born" was given to the first child regardless of if there were other siblings afterwards. It is the child who would be ritually cleansed (cf. Exodus 34:20). The "first-born" child is the one who opens the womb (cf. Exodus 13:2; Numbers 3:12). It is a title regardless of if there are other children or not, and thus, not exactly the most overwhelming argument "proving" Mary had other children after Jesus.

    Interestingly enough, Sacred Tradition is one reason to believe in the perpetual virginity (certainly a grace bestowed by God, no? -- cf. 1 Cor. 7; Matt. 19:12), as well as mere LOGIC. It is essential to remember that the belief that Mary was ever-virgin in no way exalts her beyond any human status, in that it is a grace from Christ.

    On February 2, 1546, Martin Luther wrote that Mary was "a virgin before the conception and birth, [and] she remained a virgin also at the birth and after it."

    Zwigli wrote in January 1528 to "the holy Church in Zurich" that in his sermons and writings, "I recognize Mary as ever-virgin and holy."

    Calvin held the same belief. In his "Commentary on Matthew" he called "pig-headed and stupid" anyone who believed or implied the Virgin Mary gave birth to other children, citing that "we have already said in another place that according to the custom of the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.'"

    These three men (who upheld their personal interpretations of the Bible, and theologies which contradicted each others', due to "Sola Scriptura") agreed from a BIBLICAL perspective that Mary was ever-virgin.

    There is nothing in the Biblical texts to say that Mary had other children. For we already know ("Protoevangelium of James" aside -- that is HARDLY the basis of the belief in her perpetual virginity, mind you!) that nowhere is it said that the children who are brothers of the Lord are the children of Mary! Just "brothers of the Lord."

    You already know that the term "brother" ("adelphoi") can be translated to mean "kinsmen" just as "brethren" in English has a broader definition than "brother." We don't have to elaborate on that speculation (cf. Luke 1:36; Luke 22:32; Acts 1:12-15, 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21; Rom. 9:3; Gen. 11:26-28("anepsios") / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16; Gen. 29:15; Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7; 2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32; 2 Kings 10:13-14; 1 Chron. 23:21-22; Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14; Tobit 5:11; Amos 1:9)

    Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for "cousin" and this is carried over into the way the Greek is expressed.

    What's more, opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary also point to Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus (see also: Matt. 28:29; Luke 1:80; Luke 2:37, 20:43; 1 Cor. 15:25; 1 Tim. 4:13 ; Gen. 8:7, 28:15 ; Deut. 34:6 ; 2 Sam. 6:23; 1 Macc. 5:54; Revelation 2:24-25).

    Since the ossuary of "James, the brother of Jesus, son of Joseph" has seemingly been found, a lot of people speculate it proves Mary had other children besides Jesus. Actually, if the relic is authentic (and really, there have been lots of fake relics out there - why are fundamentalists so quick to accept this one? After all, Jesus/Joshua, James and Joseph were very common names in the first century, and the only noteworthy thing about this relic is that it denotes a brother's name on it, which was not common.) it does not prove that Mary had other children, for as you yourself wrote, James could have been Joseph's child from a previous marriage (from which he was widowed).

    Now, Church historian Eusebius wrote about "James, the Brother of the Lord":

    "Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because HE WAS KNOWN AS A SON OF JOSEPH, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, 'was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,' as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

    "But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: 'For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.'

    "But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: "The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded." Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, 'Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.'"

    (Eusebius of Caesarea - Church History, Book II)

    According to the same chapter, Eusebius writes: "But Hegesippus, who lived immediately after the apostles, gives the most accurate account in the fifth book of his Memoirs. He writes as follows: 'James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the apostles. He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Saviour to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James. He was holy from his mother's womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath. He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place ; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people. Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, Bulwark of the people' and 'Justice,' in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him. "

    Notice we also see "he was holy FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB" - no mention it is the same womb in which Jesus took flesh!

    Matthew 1:25 tells us that Joseph did not have relations with Mary before the birth of her Son. Why not? There was no ban on intercourse during pregnancy under the Jewish Law under normal circumstances, and if he was going to have intercourse with her after the pregnancy why not before?

    It was because in Jewish culture this would have meant that Joseph acknowledged biological fatherhood over Jesus. Because he refused to do this he was saying in essence that he did not accept Jesus as his biological son though he would accept him as his legal son. By refusing to consummate his marriage with Mary he was in conformity with the Jewish Law. By not having intercourse with Mary before the birth of Jesus he is acknowledging in principle that he was also forbidden to have intercourse with her thereafter. A woman found to be with child that is not her husband’s is forbidden forever more to him and to the man who impregnated her. (In fact, a woman caught in adultery is likewise penalized.) Under Jewish law, because Mary was found to be with child before she had consummated her marriage to Joseph she was forever forbidden to him. He could keep her as his wife but he was not allowed intimate relations with her. Had Mary born any children after Jesus she would have been stoned to death under the Law. Had Joseph claimed those children to be biologically his, he would have been stoned to death also.

    When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, he was going to give her a 'get' or paper of divorce from their betrothal. When he elected not to do so, she remained LEGALLY his betrothed. After they lived together she was considered his wife. But under Jewish law, since Jesus was not his biological son, Joseph was forbidden to have relations with Mary.

    Here are some sites that speak to this further:

    http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-10/orchard.html

    http://www.udayton.edu/mary/resources/documents/RC.html

    http://www.geocities.com/~eingedi/joseph.html

    http://www.geocities.com/~eingedi/maryandjoseph.html

    Theologian and Old Testament scholar Br. Anthony O****o wrote in his essay "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary":

    "We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel 'Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus' (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God' (Lk 1:35).

    "By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For 'to lay one's power (reshuth) over a woman' (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for 'to have a marital relationship with her.'

    "Likewise 'to overshadow' (Lk 1:35) by spreading the 'wing' or 'cloak' over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him 'I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin' (Ruth 3:9).

    "Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, 'to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman' means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21:8). Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: 'I am married to you' (Jr 3:14) and 'your Maker is your husband'? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: 'You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew... you were naked... and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you... I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God' (Ezk 16:7, 8).

    "Having been enlightened by an angel in a dream regarding her pregnancy, and perhaps further by Mary concerning the words of the archangel Gabriel to her at the Annunciation, Joseph knew that God had conducted himself as a husband in regard to Mary. She was now prohibited to him for all time, and for the sake of the Child and Mary he could only live with her in an absolutely chaste relationship."


    But if you also look at the "contractual" agreement which betrothal was, Joseph and Mary were more than likely never "lovers" -- given the age difference (this is not based on "Sacred Tradition" but rather secular historians maintain that Mary must have been around 12-13 when betrothed, and the man was usually much older; it was a "business deal" between him and the father of the Jewish girl being betrothed). Therefore, there is no evidence that he and she would have had romantic, passionate sexual attraction period. Especially when you know that the woman you are supposed to marry is carrying the Messiah in her womb, that in itself changes your whole outlook. Your entire focus would shift to God, worshiping Him constantly, as you (Joseph) are guardian of the New Ark of the Covenant (who is Mary) and the Lord Incarnate, her Divine Son.
     
  12. Bastoune

    Bastoune Well-Known Member

    +47
    Catholic
    Mary was the daughter of the Father, mother of the Son, and spouse of the Holy Spirit - a unique role of having a complete relationship with the Trinity!

    Now, image the bond a mother has with her child as she carries that child for 9 months in the womb. How much MORE beautiful, amazing, and TRANSFORMING would it be to have the Incarnate Word of God within your body, growing and developing.

    Imagine then having the Word of God, the Son of God, growing up in your house... would that not make you focus your attention more on worshiping God than on having sexual relations with your spouse? There is NOTHING wrong with sex within marriage, of course! It is a holy act, a life-giving act (Gen 1:28, 9:1-7, 35:11; Lev.18:22-23;20:13; 1 Chron. 25:5; Psalm 127:3-5, etc.)

    However, given what I stated above about Joseph, Mary's pregnancy, and Jewish custom, they would not have had sexual relations, but if they could have, would they have? You have God in your house! Wouldn't you rather spend your time doing other things which are spiritual? Especially all that Mary and Joseph had been through, who's to believe they would be "in the mood" for anything but prayer, meditation, thanksgiving, glorifying God.

    Chastity during marriage was not uncommon (though not the norm) in Jewish history. Br. O****o notes several examples:

    "Living a celibate life within marriage was not unknown in Jewish tradition. It was told that Moses, who was married, remained continent the rest of his life after the command to abstain from sexual intercourse (Ex 19:15) given in preparation the seventy elders abstained thereafter from their wives after their call, and so did Eldad and Medad when the spirit of prophecy came upon them; indeed it was said that the prophets became celibate after the Word of the Lord communicated with them (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19; 46.3; Sifre to Numbers 99 sect. 11; Sifre Zutta 81-82, 203-204; Aboth Rabbi Nathan 9, 39; Tanchuman 111, 46; Tanchumah Zaw 13; 3 Petirot Moshe 72; Shabbath 87a; Pesachim 87b, Babylonian Talmud).

    "Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the "Divine Presence") in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya)."

    A vow of chasity was practiced on several levels in Jewish Tradition:

    "Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu'im (lit. "chaste ones") to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in "perfect purity" (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).

    "Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).

    "Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.

    "Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. "Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth" (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100)."

    "For 'the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light' (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because 'if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation' (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, 'the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable' (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245)." (O****o, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary")

    In the New Testament, we see the widow Anna (Luke 2:36-38) who is even called a "prophetess" (probably because people sought out her gift of discernment due to the holy life she led under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) for she dedicated herself (remaining chaste) to "worshiping with fasting and prayer night and day" (Luke 2:37).

    The pro-chastity sentiments of Jewish Tradition are echoed in Matthew 19:12 and 1 Cor. 7.

    Now, these last couple examples seem to deviate from the concept of marital chastity, but they are nevertheless pertinent to understanding the not-so-outlandish (and very HOLY) concept of marital chastity as seen biblically and through Sacred Tradition.

    "Jewish tradition mentions that, although the people had to abstain from sexual relations with their wives for only three days prior to the revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex 19:15), Moses chose to remain continent the rest of his life with the full approval of God. The rabbis explained that this was so because Moses knew that he was appointed to personally commune with God, not only at Mount Sinai but in general throughout the forty years of sojourning in the wilderness. For this reason Moses kept himself 'apart from woman,' remaining in the sanctity of separation to be at the beck and call of God at all times; they cited God's command to Moses in Deuteronomy 5:28 (Midrash Exodus Rabbah 19:3 and 46.3).

    "Again, we may be sure that Saint Joseph remained celibate all his life because throughout his married years he was in daily attendance and communication with Jesus, the incarnate Word of God." (O****o, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary").

    Take a look at Luke 1:31-34. Gabriel tells Mary that she "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be since I know not a man/am a virgin?" Mary's response is in the PRESENT, which is normal; she WAS a virgin as she said those words! However, at this same time, Mary is betrothed to Joseph, meaning she'd be getting married soon. Gabriel tells Mary she "will" have a baby, and for women who are about to get married, the idea of having children sometime in the future is pretty logical! Yet Mary finds the statement perplexing!

    After all, for all we know, Gabriel could have meant "In 10 years you will have a child." Look at Sarah and Isaac, and how long it took for that prophecy to be fulfilled. So why was Mary so perplexed by Gabriel's words?

    Perhaps this demonstrates (as the "Protoevangelium of James" suggests) that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

    When Jesus is lost in Jerusalem in Luke 2:41-51, there is never any mention of other siblings. In John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 we see that younger "brothers" were criticizing Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus' biological brothers.

    And in John 19:26-27, John is told to take care of Mary, as Jesus is dying on the Cross. It would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers, especially since families lived very close-knit back then.

    Now given all the biblical verses attesting to Mary, it stands to reason that the Church (as well as the Protestants) have always maintained that Mary did not give birth to other children. Now, if the "evidence" I have presented in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity do not sway you, so be it. But you must admit that there is a lot more of a case for perpetual virginity than against it, both biblically, and based on 2,000 years of Christiandom. The "evidence" of Mary's having born other children is based solely on a few vague biblical verses, not on history, nor on theology, nor on Tradition.

    In any case, the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity is NOT based on some apocryphal work, but on biblical, Christological theology.

    In no way did someone decide to sit down and say, "Today let's venerate Mary because we like her." There would be no value to that. The deeper understanding of doctrine's revolving around Mary are linked to the redemption of Christ and the role she played in the life of Christ, as His mother. They were not something taken lightly, and Mary, apart from Christ, is nothing. However, she is the most blessed of all women (cf. Luke 1:42) but again, this is only because of the child she bore.

    I have the hardest time understanding why most Protestants so outright, flatly reject the notion? Is it really that hard to fathom that Mary and Joseph would consecrate their lives, entrusted to raise Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, to the Lord God Almighty in such a way? Why are they so opposed to the very concept?

    In any event, I believe it is because most Protestants do not understand that the concept is not something to exalt Mary, but rather, exalts Christ and reaffirms sound doctrine (as it did against the Nestorian heresy, and other heresies throughout the centuries). Mary's "veneration" is an INDIRECT result of this theology, but that is totally biblical. After all, Mary was humble "handmaid of the Lord", and as the Bible tells us, "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted" (Matt. 23:12; cf. James 4:10; 1 Peter 5:6).
     
  13. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    Greek has a worse case than the Aramaic, because Greek has words that stand for "brother from another father" as well as "brother from another mother" as well. Jesus would not have used this Greek word, nor would the people in Judea.

    This is patently false and I have already dealt with this in this thread :)

    Cousin is "'akkyoho'."

    Shlomo,
    (Peace!)
    -Steve-o
     
  14. edward

    edward Momma's Boy

    487
    +23
    Catholic
    Thadman,

    What is the Aramaic word for step-brother? Have you figured that one out yet?

    Edward
     
  15. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    I know that there are more but the only one that comes to mind is "akko'-sh'eel".

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  16. edward

    edward Momma's Boy

    487
    +23
    Catholic
    What Aramaic word is used in Genesis 13:8 and Genesis 14:16 for the English word kinsman?

    Edward
     
  17. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  18. edward

    edward Momma's Boy

    487
    +23
    Catholic
    And how would you translate the Hebrew to Aramaic for those two verses? How would you translate those two verses to Greek?

    Edward
     
  19. The Thadman

    The Thadman Well-Known Member

    +58
    Pagan
    Married
    US-Others
    I honestly don't know what word I'd use in Greek, but I would use "'akkyone'" (kinsmen) or "sharvtho'" (family). A literal translation here would be "akke'" (brothers and/or sisters), but it would be slang.

    Shlomo,
    -Steve-o
     
  20. edward

    edward Momma's Boy

    487
    +23
    Catholic
    Well Thadman, your whole argument to this point has been a literal interpretation of the word for "brothers". Abraham and lot were not brothers. Abraham was Lot's uncle.

    Edward
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...