Posted on 03/12/2016 9:36:07 AM PST by Salvation
And yet, Scripture does not say why Christ chose to do so. And I'd guess you can not mindread FRiend.
Again...context is your key to understanding the Word...along with the Greek.
You are thinking as modern man does — not as the people of that time thought.
You're thinking as a catholic...not as a handler of the Word.
Ps. 111:9 ascribes the term “reverend” to God. If a pastor, rabbi or pope needs any further salutation or title other than “brother in Christ”, then vanity has gripped them. Many (if not all) televangelists adore their “Most Holy and Exalted’ titles.
Christ declared their new relationship from the throne of the Cross.
But - according to you - He didn't mean anything important by it. If I understand you correctly; it was just one of those virtual things that Jesus did.
But we know what happened next. 'From that hour the disciple took her into his own household'.
This would have been a very odd thing to do if Mary had other children.
I agree. And don’t forget the people calling themselves “Bishops” and other such titles, not having them conferred upon them by other pastors.
I once saw a televangelist’s billboard in Dallas Tx it said.
Pastor Larry Lea Presents (The title was large print, with a picture of Larry)
underneath in small letters, lower right “Jesus”.
Ah, you're the one creating Mary's other children out of whole cloth. You go first.
Another Catholic concept with no biblical support.
There is apparently no stretch too far that Catholic teaching will not undertake to maintain the Mariology idolatry.
It is not difficult for me to believe the birth of Jesus happened in such a way as to allow Mary's 'virginity' to remain ... Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone, so He could leave the womb and arrive in our spacetime without passing through the birth canal. But to go further in order to fabricate magic status to Mary is altogether a dose of Catholic Magic Thinking too far to go. The Catholic Bible even changes the reading in Genesis to read 'she will bruise your heel'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
A good overview of the various positions. You might read and then compare the scriptures themselves. However, if you put tradition and church teaching above the scriptures, do not bother, because you won’t change your mind until the Pope does.
I didn’t say brothers; I said relatives.
Not really. At this point none of His brothers and sisters were believers.
Jesus placed Mary in the care of John, the disciple whom He loved.
The Greek behind this indicates that John was to take her into his family. There is no special conferment of Mary being the "mother of the disciples" nor was Jesus giving Mary to all of us to be our "spiritual mother".
I do not have to disprove YOUR assertion of a truth claim. It's up to you. Can you support your claim???
Also: the context in Galatians doesn't point to literal brotherhood. Just to the typical 'kinsman' or 'close relative'.
The Greek in Galatians does however.
Yes, there are 2 examples given in the article that show the word ‘until’ meaning ‘until and after’, so this interpretation in this context is reasonable. (There are other similar examples scattered throughout the old and new testaments.)
Also, something I hadn’t thought of until I saw it on another thread here a few weeks ago. The angel said to Mary, “And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus.” The angel did not mention WHEN this would occur, he didn’t say ‘now’ or ‘tomorrow’ or ‘before you live with your husband’. It could have been any time in the future.
Why would a betrothed woman be confused by this if she intended to have children with her future husband? Wouldn’t she have just assumed it would be a natural conception sometime in the future? Is this an indication that Mary had already committed to remain a virgin in service to God and her planned marriage to Joseph was to be celibate? I don’t know....food for thought.
Those who object to Mary’s perpetual virginity on the basis of Mary ‘depriving’ Joseph of proper marital relations seem to forget that Joseph entered into this arrangement freely after being informed of the situation. We know that he abstained from relations with her while she was pregnant with Jesus. Why? Was that usual behavior for newlyweds?
I don’t believe (and I don’t think it is a Catholic doctrine) that it would have been sinful for them to have relations had they chosen to (either before or after Jesus’s birth). Neither do I believe Mary and Joseph’s marriage would have been sinful if they mutually agreed to be celibate out of respect for the fact that God Himself had inhabited her womb.
I also don’t believe that Mary remaining a virgin elevates her to ‘demigoddess’ status, any more than I believe that that status applies to any other virgin. I do however, consider her full of grace and blessed among women.
Love,
O2
Sigh. Why does that not surprise me? I don't want to hijack this thread but Jesus and getting saved seems second place to "feel good about yourself" and we need to help (code word : donate) for this special cause over here.
Four people are called "brothers" of Jesus in the gospels. And the PARENTS of THREE of them are named. And they are not Mary and Joseph.
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.