Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Read it no. I’ll clarify - provide a proper reading of the Greek in the context in which it was understood when the Aramaic concept was transcribed.
Read it no. I’ll clarify - provide a proper reading of the Greek in the context in which it was understood when the Aramaic concept was transcribed.
Metmom,
Given that Jesus has four brethren as listed in Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55, namely James, Joseph, Jude, and Simon, and given that two of them are explicitly listed as the sons of Alpheus in Acts 1:13, James and Jude (actually James is listed numerous times as the son of Alpheus to differentiate him from James the son of Zebedee as they were often found together at the same events), I propose a truce.
If you will give me two cousins/close relatives in James and Jude, I will give you two siblings of Jesus in Joseph and Simon. I think it is a fair deal.
But in order for me to make this concession, you have to admit that the other two where close relatives, explicitly named as sons of Alpheus, that they were not Jesus’ siblings.
Over all I think everyone would be happy with this arrangement.
Black Pacific
“Hail Mary FULL OF GRACE, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.” This is something I say numerous times during the day while I contemplate deep mysteries from the life of Jesus Christ, my Creator, my Lord (Adonai), my Savior and Redeemer, my beginning and final end. The Alpha and the Omega.
What is self evident to Catholics is that Marian devotion always leads us closer to Jesus. I suppose those on the outside do not understand this?
I am so glad you cited the passage, it is so awesome, I love verse 43, here it is in full:
“And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. [43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? [44] For behold as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy. [45] And blessed art thou that hast believed, because those things shall be accomplished that were spoken to thee by the Lord.
Wanna BET!!??
LOL
But why the middle man (woman)?
What is self evident to Protestants is that Marian devotion is entirely unneeded to lead us closer to Jesus. Why can't Catholics understand this?
The Lamb of GOD!
Go check with His mom to see if you can follow Him.
What is self evident to Protestants is that Marian devotion takes up time that COULD have been used being DEVOTED to Jesus.
Why can’t Catholics realize this?
Because the blessedness of the Mary of Catholicism was not because of who she was privileged to carry and to mother by God's grace (though that is what the Mary of Scripture expressed), but it was due to her surpassing all creatures in holiness and virtues, and perpetual virginity is one of those virtues necessary for elevation to Godhood. You must remember reading that in Gnosticism 3:16. And in Acts 29 it was prophesied that this Mary would precede all other believers by being bodily resurrected and even crowned in glory, thus completing her near parallelization with Christ, as the divinized Mother of God.
Moreover, in detailing the many ways the New Covenant is "better" - the key word in Hebrews - this Mary is presented as the fulfillment of the ark of the covenant, who no man was to touch, just as she is set forth as our great high priestess, who was tempted in all points as we are yet without sin - including during nights with Joseph - and ever lives to make intercession for us, and by whom we have access into the holy of holies in Heaven. Therefore we are exhorted to come to her at the throne of grace to obtain mercy and help in time of need. (Hebrews 14:6-66) For all such "scripture" is given by the seducing spirit of Catholicism.
The above actually falls under the heading, "Proofs that the Catholic church did not change the Bible." but instead she just exalts mortals far far far above what is actually written.
Why would Luke use an Aramaic term, when he was not a Jew, and traveled with Paul, who knew well both Aramaic and Greek? If the point was as critical to the Christian’s understanding of the Bible, why would Luke not use a more precise term, as he did for the offices of the Roman officials?
Also, where is this original Aramaic document? I know there are some Aramaic translations that post-date the earliest known Greek versions, but I have not heard of any that pre-date the Greek.
53When Jesus had finished these parables, He departed from there. 54He came to His hometown and began teaching them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? 55“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Matthew 13:53-55 NASB
1Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown; and His disciples followed Him. 2When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? 3“Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?†And they took offense at Him. Mark 6:1-3 NASB
In both of these passages the context is clear the writers are talking about Jesus' family. The greek uses the genitive case to denote possession in these texts.
They are in His hometown. It would be natural for His family to be there.
The suggestion that James is the son of Alphaeus and not Joseph and Mary falls apart when Galatians 1:19 is read where Paul notes he did not see "any of the apostles except James, the Lord's brother."
Paul either did or did not know who James was. The text says he identifies him as the brother of Christ. Again the genitive is used in this text.
The catholic will often try to point out that the world adelfos can mean something other than a brother within your family.
That point is correct but only when evaluated in the context of the passage(s) in question.
For example, in Luke 21:16 "But you will be betrayed even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death,..."
The word for brothers is adelfos. We see in this passage Luke is going through an order of people who will betray you beginning with those closest to you. Your parents, your brothers, your relatives and then your friends.
Often the appeal is made to the argument that the names in Matthew and Mark are His cousins. If this were the case there is a Greek word for cousin, anepsios (an-eps-ee-os). It means a cousin or nephew.
However, it is used only in Colossians 4:10.
That Mary did not remain a virgin is shown by the above passages.
Further, there is nothing in either the Matthew or Luke account of the angel's appearance to suggest that Joseph and Mary, after the birth of Christ did not consummate the marriage as any newlywed couple would.
So no, there is no compromise on what the Word says.
That would be Luke as written in the Greek.
Again the Greek word does not indicate biological brotherhood for reasons that are readily explained on other sites. Moreover if you are correct why do modern greeks disagree with you? Why does every christian group that was around since before Luther disagree with you?
Are sure you want to stay with "every" Christian group before Luther? This means there was no dissent at all from anyone.
If you're sticking with that claim proof is required to back it up.
Oh, sorry, I thought this was on reference to the Vulgate mistranslation of grace in Luke 1:28, which has been explained most recently in post 2457.
As brothers and sisters, why do you worry if Mary had more children, since you yourself said this is not an issue for one’s salvation?
LOL, you would now call the eyewitnesses liars recorded in The Bible! Bwahaha, catholics will go to any extreme to keep believing the heresies and support the blasphemies.
Not how it works bud. You can’t create a claim there were dissident groups and them ask me to disprove your claim. Mainstream history proves there were no dissident groups at that time that were of any significance so as to be mentioned in the historical record. Gussied Cassava are proto protestants. Moreover your little gotcha question proves that the view that Mary was not always a virgen is a dissident position ie not accepted by the group.
Yes because a protestant interpretation 1500 years after the fact is an eyewitness account. Right. Can I go live in your reality?
I asked you for proof to substantiate your claim.
It is clear you cannot prove that so your claim is invalidated.
In reality the dissident group is the roman catholic church as it's teaching is in opposition to the Word.
The Greek proves she was a virgin until Christ was born. After that, the text notes Joseph and Mary had children....if one reads it in context. The catholic, or anyone else, has the burden to disprove the original language.
If you don't want to believe that I cannot help that.
Want list? Armenian Copic Chalcedan oriental Assyrian Ethiopian Malabar Russian Orthodox Greek, Ukranian, Bulgarian etc. Name one that existed in 1500 that agreed with you you cant so you avoid the question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.