Yet another "Mary" thread . . . . .

racer said:

Well the use of the word "firstborn" is a slight indication that her womb was not closed . . . . . . .

Click to expand...

Firstborn is a title . . nothing more . . it says nothing about how many children someone has . . it does not mean that there were more children.

It is a Hebraic title that conveys rights, duties and priviledges in the Old Covenant. . . . It is given to the child that opens the womb. It doesn't matter if that child is an only child or not.

John the Baptist was the Firstborn of his parents. . did they have other children? No . . .


.

Rowan said:

I think the trouble is that most are used to the precision that the English language provides. Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic...not so precise. I generally agree that the term "brother" is not literal, since, as it was pointed out, the term is used different ways in the Bible.

Click to expand...

The English langauge is not precise in its use of the word "brother" . . . .

Just do a word study on the word "brother" in the New Testament . . .


.

racer said:

Thank you, WA, for addressing all of my points! I do mean to get to all of them, but for now I want to quickly address a couple of them.

[/FONT][/SIZE][/SIZE]

So, in other words, there was no word to signify "cousins," and the only option was to use the word which has been translated as "brethrent?"




So, was this entrance barred in both directions? I mean if the argument is that no "man" shall pass through it, would that not exclude Jesus?

Click to expand...

"This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it..."


No one but God racer . . . Jesus is God. . .


.

Benedicta00 said:

Has anyone mentioned that in Jewish tradition when someone was a only child, their cousins was considered their siblings?

Click to expand...

I mentioned first cousins were considered siblings. I did not mention only children calling them siblings.
Thank you.

The New Testament was not written in Hebrew. It was written in Greek. The Greek language is very precise. It makes it quite clear whether or not people have the same parents.
According to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word used here for the "brothers" of Jesus is adelphos. It means, "from the same womb." These are men who have the same mother. Adelphos is also used to describe the brothers of Jesus in Matthew 12:46; John 2:12; John 7:3; and Acts 1:14. Adelphos is used to describe "James the Lord's brother" in Galatians 1:19. Adelphos is also used to describe the brothers Peter and Andrew (Matthew 4:18), and the brothers James and John (Matthew 4:21). Adelphe (the feminine form of adelphos) is used to describe Jesus' sisters (Matthew 13:56)
The Greek language has another word that is used for relatives who don't come from the same womb. The word suggenes is used to describe Mary's cousin, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36). Suggenes means, "a blood relative."
The Old Testament was written by Israelites who spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. It was written primarily in Hebrew, with some Aramaic. (Jews in modern Israel still speak Hebrew.) The New Testament was written in Greek. This was the common language of the people who lived in the eastern area of the Mediterranean Sea. Greek had been widely spoken since the reign of Alexander the Great. In the fifth century, Saint Jerome translated the Bible into Latin. Until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the Bible was read in Latin during Mass.

Good Day, Racer

I have been whating to respond for some time in this thread, but I can not get bogged down here.

The issue for me is when the text says:

Mat 4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

Are not Peter and Andrew brothers??

As has been noted the word the text Matt , "adelphos" and used here and in Mark.

Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

The normal useage of the word is to be of the same womb. That is not to say there is not other sub normal usages. There is nothing in the context in either of these passages that would require us to stray from it's normal useage.

In Him,

Bill

BBAS 64 said:

Good Day, Racer

I have been whating to respond for some time in this thread, but I can not get bogged down here.

The issue for me is when the text says:

Mat 4:18 And walking by the sea of Galilee, he saw two brethren, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers.

Are not Peter and Andrew brothers??

As has been noted the word the text Matt , "adelphos" and used here and in Mark.


Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.

The normal useage of the word is to be of the same womb. That is not to say there is not other sub normal usages. There is nothing in the context in either of these passages that would require us to stray from it's normal useage.

In Him,

Bill

Click to expand...

What you forget is that the word adelphos was not spoken in Greek or initially orally retold and recorded in Greek. The words were spoken in ARAMAIC, in which the word used woul have been Ach - which means brother, cousin and any close kinsman. What you are basing your theories on is a TRANSLATION into Greek.
In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)! Strange that NONE of these children appears or hinders Mary and Joseph from dropping everything to chase after Jesus when He is found in the temple at age 12.

If Jesus had brothers, He had not asked John to take care of His Mother after the Cross.

Axion said:

What you forget is that the word adelphos was not spoken in Greek or initially orally retold and recorded in Greek. The words were spoken in ARAMAIC, in which the word used woul have been Ach - which means brother, cousin and any close kinsman. What you are basing your theories on is a TRANSLATION into Greek.
In fact if all the people listed as Brothers and Sisters of Jesus were actually siblings, Mary would have had to have had at least SEVEN surviving children after Jesus (meaning about TWENTY babies considering infant mortality at the time)! Strange that NONE of these children appears or hinders Mary and Joseph from dropping everything to chase after Jesus when He is found in the temple at age 12.

Click to expand...

The new testement was written in Greek. I am quite sure that they wrote what they meant..The Old testement was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Some Hebrews still speak this in Isreal... Greek was widley spoken..

a_ntv said:

If Jesus had brothers, He had not asked John to take care of His Mother after the Cross.

Click to expand...

Well the point is He did for reasons that have been discussed. This is just strawmen.

Mary was never thought of as a perpetual virgin until 1850. From then all the catholic church has exaulted her. They say she is the spouse or married to the Holy Spirit..God in neither form has been married.. Neither the Father,Son,or Spirit.. His church is a Spiritual Church. Just as His Kingdom is a Spiritual Kingdom... Mary being a human was also born anew and became part of the Body of Christ.. The Church is not seen as a mother but as a bride..

racer said:

How would Mary have been any less pure if she had had a true marital relationship with Joseph?

Click to expand...

You aren't seriously asking this, are you?:o

What would be the significance of Mary remaining a virgin after she bore Jesus?

Click to expand...

She was both physically and spiritually Pure. As were Adam and Eve before the Fall. 'Tis significant.

Love,
Christina

IamAdopted said:

Mary was never thought of as a perpetual virgin until 1850.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Mary was never thought of as a perpetual virgin until 1850.

Click to expand...

Seeing as the Divine Liturgy of St. James the brother of our Lord attests to it, and we see it up to and including the early Western reformers, I think you might want to revise your statement.

In 107, Ignatius of Antioch described the virginity of Mary as "hidden from the prince of this world… loudly proclaimed, but wrought in the silence of God".[2] The affirmation of the doctrine of Mary's virginity before, during, and after the birth of Jesus was the principal aim of the early second century work, the Protoevangelium of James (c. 120-150).[3] The work, concerned with the character and purity of Mary, claims that Joseph had children from a marriage previous to Mary.[4] However, the text does not explicitly assert the doctrine of perpetual virginity, the earliest such surviving reference being Origen's Commentary on Matthew,[5] where he cites the Protoevangelium in support.

By the fourth century, the doctrine is well attested.[6] Athanasius described Mary as "Ever-Virgin",[7] as did Epiphanius.[8] Hilary argued in favor of the doctrine,[9] and to this may be added Didymus,[10] Ambrose,[11] Jerome,[12] Siricius[13] and others. However, it cannot be said that unanimity existed in antiquity concerning the doctrine, as it was denied by Tertullian,[14] and Jovinian's teaching that childbirth ended Mary's physical virginity had to be condemned by a synod of Milan in 390.

Further important statements of the belief include the Lateran Synod of 649, Thomas Aquinas's teaching that Mary gave birth painlessly in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and without injury to the hymen,[15] Pope Paul IV's Cum quorundam of 7 August 1555 at the Council of Trent,[16] and most recently the statements in the current catechism.[17]

During the Protestant Reformation, the doctrine came to be questioned, although such notable reformers as Martin Luther,[18] Huldrych Zwingli,[19] John Calvin,[20] and John Wesley[21] accepted its veracity.[22] However, the absence of clear Biblical statements expressing the doctrine, in combination with the principle of sola scriptura, kept references to the doctrine out of the Reformation creeds. Additionally, the tendency to associate veneration of Mary with idolatry[23] and the rejection of clerical celibacy[24] lead to the eventual denial of this doctrine amongst most Protestant churches. Lastly, many Protestant communities cite Biblical passages that refer to the "brothers" of Jesus (see below, see also Desposyni).


From here

You can dispute the PV of the Theotokos if you like, but the historicity of the belief is ancient and well documented.

The early fathers rejected it.. It wasn't until 1850 that this became dogma...

Adam and Eve were pure in what way? Are you saying that Eve was a virgin?