Posted on 04/22/2016 12:35:41 PM PDT by ebb tide
Finally, since the Church has never looked for the bodily relics of the Blessed Virgin nor proposed them for the veneration of the people, we have a proof on the order of a sensible experience.
Links please.
I always have to laugh when American Protestants tell us what is and is “not supported by the Greek”.
Why don’t we just ask the Greeks?
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith9174
I’m on my little Kindle and don’t know how to copy the links from here, but you can easily find them by googling the following keywords:
Mary “Catacomb of Priscilla”
Mary “House Church” “Dura Europos”
I’m glad you’re interested in this. It fills me with fascination. Fascination mixed with anxiety, since the Dura Europos sites (both the Synagogue and the Christian House Church) are now in the hands of ISIS.
I know the Church never looked for relics of Mary -— I’m the one who drew attention to that in this discussion. The reason why is not because the ancient Church thought Mary was unimportant, *obviously*, but because they knew there could be no relics. It would be like claiming to find relics of Enoch, or Elijah, or for that matter, Jesus.
I thought I was going to learn something. It sounded just like all of the talking points from roman catholicism.
I always have to laugh when catholics think a language cannot be translated with the nuances of that language.
If you study you can.
Assuming that we do not have to dig out the nuances underlying the Greek words. Suppose the Greek is a translation of an earlier hebrew text.
I didn’t say a language couldn’t be translated with nuances.
I said it’s kinda silly to sit here and tell me what the Greek says when native speakers of Greek from the 4th century to today don’t agree with you.
Don’t you think in 2000 years they would have noticed if what you are saying was true? Don’t you think the doctrine would have been snuffed out in the cradle if the NT was so obviously contrary?
No. The passage in Luke is 1:34. This is the one Catholics claim Mary makes a vow of virginity. It does not say that. Regarding the use of first born. Other passages use this world also in discussing other people.
As before. The info on the website you provided could have been found on any catholic website. Pretty much the same verses Catholics use. I didn’t see a breakdown of the grammer of Luke 1:34. The review of until is the same as a catholic site. Context is ignored in both.
Could be possible but what the people who study this tell us is it was Greek the texts were written in.
No. The cult of belief around Mary in the roman catholic church is so strong I don't think anyone would dare speak out against it.
If you wanted to be a priest you had to tout the "company line" so to speak. There was no dissent from the established message.
Look at how Luther and others who have disagreed with roman catholicism have been treated by catholicism. Go back to before Luther and see how those who disagreed were treated.
Force is a compelling motivator.
The other issue with all of the mary teachings is when I read them I see a lot of "doesn't it seem right", or "she could not have" or "we think".
That is eisegesis....not exegesis.
No, the plain reading of the texts, in context, tell us Joseph and Mary had children in addition to Jesus.
And you know what? It doesn't diminish Mary or Jesus in the process....except in catholicism.
Ah right. We're all too afraid to speak against it....not that, ya know, we actually *believe* it or anything.
What was Luther's excuse for believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary? What was Calvin's? What was the Orthodox Church's? The Copts? The Ethiopians? The St. Thomas Christians of India? Were they all afraid of Rome too?
Most of the men do, but it was said early on that Matthew was written in Hebrew. Further, some scholars say that Mark, when back translated into Hebrew easily fits Hebrew syntax. Luke, of course, is likely a composite of earlier texts, and his Greek also back translates easily. John seems to be an often deducted text, and may have an Hebrew original at its core.
Teachers of the day gathered disciples around them. What they said was jotted down by disciples. How probably is it that among his disciples were not literate men who took down notes? The is the way the prophets writings were handed down.not by the teachers themselves but but by their disciples? Bible scholars have this theory that the Gospels were written down long after the time of Our Lord, based on oral teaching. /taintt necessarily so.
The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text and nowhere does he claim to have been an eyewitness to events. It probably originated in a Jewish-Christian community in Roman Syria towards the end of the first century AD,[4] and there is little doubt among modern scholars that it was composed in Koine Greek, the daily language of the time[5] [although this is disputed; see, for example, Carmignac, "Birth of the Synoptics", and Tresmontant, "The Hebrew Christ", both of whom postulate early Hebrew gospels.] The author, who is not named in the text itself but who was universally accepted by the early church to be the apostle Matthew, drew on three main sources, the Gospel of Mark, the alleged sayings collection known as the Q source, both in Greek, and material unique to his own community, called M.[6] Mark and Q were both written sources composed in Greek, but some of the parts of Q may have been translated from Aramaic into Greek more than once.[7] M is comparatively small, only 170 verses, made up almost exclusively of teachings; it probably was not a single source, and while some of it may have been written, most seems to have been oral.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis#CITEREFAlandAland1995
But let's stay with your suggestion it was written in Hebrew and translated. If I'm not mistaken there is a way to translate the phrase in question from Hebrew to Greek and retain the Hebrew meaning.
However, that does not alleviate the responsibility of reading the text in context of the overall passage.
If one does this, the result continues to show Joseph and Mary produced babies.
First of all, translations are notorious for losing the flavor of the original. Second I have been persuaded by and have restated to you an argument by Claude Tresmontant respected scholar at the Sorbonne, and a Hebraist. that not only Matthew but all the Gospels are translations. Back in 1980 he wrote a well-respected but not well-received (by most Bible scholars;Raymond Brown would be an example) because he goes against the narrative, held even by most Roman Catholic scholars. he also favors the revisionist liberal Anglican Bible scholar John Robinson, who after taking a close look at the evidence, came up with the hypothesis that the dating used by modern scholars is wrong. Instead he proposes and this is what drives people crazy, that Fundamentalists have thought all alone, which is that Jewish’s disciples were not just a bunch of illiterate fisherman etc. but included scribes and even Pharisses. They would have taken down his words as the disciples of every teacher would have done. They would have taken the words from his lips which would have been in Aramaic or even Hebrew. We see reference to Q. Well, suppose that “Q” was not one but several documents and that some of them were first versions of Matthew, Mark, or John. That Luke had access to other materials. All of this is speculative. BUT. I have learned since I first began looking at Bible scholarship about 25 years ago, that ALL of modern scholarship is speculative, and revisionist. Revision of the long history of scholarship dating back to there time of the Fathers in full confidence that their scientific knowledge somehow overthrows the tradition followed by Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants up to the 17th century.
I disagree with this. We have excellent translations of the Hebrew and NT available to us. The majority of these agree in the English translation.
Where we run into problems is the interpretation of the Word.
Some, like roman catholicism, rely heavily upon analogy for the interpretation. This is not a recommended way to understand the Word as the meaning of the text is what the reader sees into the text.
If the background of the book in question, a knowledge of the time period, the original language, etc, are not understood you can go off the rails real quick in the understanding of the Word.
Often, the plain meaning of the text is just that....the plain meaning of the text. Usually people get bad theology when they go beyond that.
The other problem I see in interpretation is taking a verse out of context. An example is Mary's statement to the hosts at Cana. Do what He says. That has been blown up from the simple meaning of her telling the hosts to do what Christ says to do to Mary now being the Queen of Heaven and answering prayers Jesus won't answer or won't answer as fast.
The other info you provided is interesting. What we don't know for 100% certain is did Jesus speak in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek all the time.
No doubt He knows all three.
The scholarship we have today indicates everything was written in Greek and for a reason. It was the common language of the day.
And my point is that we cannot be sure that, as we can in the case of the Hebrew Text, that we close to the original words of the prophet. This is why rabbinical Jews put aside the Septuigent in favor of a a Hebrew Canon. I think we c an assume that Jesus taught his disciples in Hebrew/Aramaic. Yet the New Testament that we use is part and parcel of the Septuigent tradition.
Outside of the post you offered earlier the scholarship shows the NT was originally written in Greek. It is well testified to in history.
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.