Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Wrong Teaching About Mary
Options
Comments
-
solodeogloria wrote: »Good evening!
Could someone please respond to my posts? I think the only way you can make brothers and sisters mean cousins is by adding lots of assumptions to the passage.
The simpler explanation in particular with Matthew 1:25 is that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth and had children later.
We don't need to worship Mary's womb in order to conclude that God used it to bring Jesus into the world.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
That is one perspective.
Another perspective would be that the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
If however you wish to chose to believe Mary did have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born you are of course free to do so.0 -
No two people believe the exact same things about everything.
Therefore a maximum of one person in the world can be exactly right about everything.
I wouldn't worry about it too much.0 -
Appears to be considerable concern by non followers of the RC faith about what followers of the RC faith believe in.0
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Never was going to be much chance of a discussion when other perspectives / view points are dismissed as irrelevant.
Firstborn should only be interpreted as the first of many children, i.e. first born means there was a second born which means there was a third born.....as distinct from the rights and privileges which some cultures bestow on the firstborn male child.0 -
Never was going to be much chance of a discussion when other perspectives / view points are dismissed as irrelevant.
Firstborn should only be interpreted as the first of many children, i.e. first born means there was a second born which means there was a third born.....as distinct from the rights and privileges which some cultures bestow on the firstborn male child.
OK.0 -
That is one perspective.
Another perspective would be that the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.
If however you wish to chose to believe Mary did have sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born you are of course free to do so.
Good evening!
I think when you add the whole case up together the argument for suggesting that Jesus has brothers and sisters is strong. It requires less assumptions to be added to the passage. If 'until' was there on it's own, one could say that it is a loose implication. When the words brothers and sisters are used in the same context as Jesus' mother it makes very good sense to come to the conclusion that it is talking about His brothers and sisters. It's more logical that Mary had sex with her husband. That doesn't make her unclean, that is a normal thing that happens in a loving marriage.
It requires a lot of convoluted thinking to suggest that "brothers and sisters" actually means cousins. Are we to suggest that the passage is also referring to Mary as his aunt? The only way you could reach that conclusion is by applying other material to the passage.
There are other points that I have made in previous posts that haven't been responded to. It would be good to examine this in more depth.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Actually, I think kieranwaldron's overarching point is that he is essentially attacking the Catholic Church's doctrine emanating from Rome; he did say that was what he is doing. I think from the beginning of the thread he has been clear that his intent is solely to attack his perception of Catholic teaching.solodeogloria wrote: »Good afternoon!
I think the overarching point is that we should be always be willing to see the Bible afresh irrespective of what bishops or popes, or a particular church says about it.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
Actually, I think kieranwaldron's overarching point is that he is essentially attacking the Catholic Church's doctrine emanating from Rome; he did say that was what he is doing. I think from the beginning of the thread he has been clear that his intent is solely to attack his perception of Catholic teaching.solodeogloria wrote: »Good afternoon!
I think the overarching point is that we should be always be willing to see the Bible afresh irrespective of what bishops or popes, or a particular church says about it.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria
And of course deeming as irrelevant any explanation offered by a RC believer in attempting to explain the RC Church's teaching about the position of Mary in the RC Church, even if it be from a congress of RC Bishops no less!0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, I think kieranwaldron's overarching point is that he is essentially attacking the Catholic Church's doctrine emanating from Rome; he did say that was what he is doing. I think from the beginning of the thread he has been clear that his intent is solely to attack his perception of Catholic teaching.
Good morning!
Although kieranwaldron did criticise the teaching of the Catholic Church he did so on Biblical grounds. To me and others who disagree with the position it matters little as to who said it but rather to explore the Biblical case for it.
From a Biblical point of view hierarchy matters a lot less than many churches have. Yes, there was a hierarchy in respect to the Apostles and other church leaders but they weren't to lord it over others. God gives the church pastor teachers and yes that's a role with authority but the New Testament is clear that ministers are servants not lords. There's an equality of status between all Christians who know, love and trust the Lord Jesus.
So, I'm not hugely fussed if a pope or a bishop said it, I do however care if the Bible says it. Which is why I've outlined my case for. The Scriptures are a self authenticating authority. They themselves are the word of God, living and active. That is hugely exciting! You can understand it for yourself.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »I reply to your post in the order of your points as follows:
1. The word adelphos is used in the NT in all instances of blood brothers. However, a person has to be careful of it in certain instances because there isn't a separate Greek word for brethren. Corinthians 15:16 is an example of this where the correct translation of it is brethren (meaning "followers") because of the context used.
2.The fact that Jesus Christ gave the care of Mary from the cross to John is irrelevant to the topic under discussion on this thread, which is the perpetual virginity of Mary.
3. The assertion made by you in your post dated the 6.1.17 that two of the four brothers listed as Jesus siblings belonged to " the other Mary " is incorrect, as Matthew in the Bible is taking about two different sets of brothers in the applicable quotations.
4. Jesus Christ had two natures -that of man and God at the same time, which makes him abnormal because no other human being who ever lived had this.
1. I love it when people reply to me, telling me basically what I'd already written to them. That word is used over 300 times in the NT alone and has a variety of meanings throughout scripture: blood-brothers, cousins, uncles, step-brother, half-brother, close friend, member of religious community and fellow Countryman...You were the one saying that Mt deliberately chose this word to positively describe a blood-relationship but it appears that adelphos is thrown around quite a lot and seems to be a 'cover-all' word rather than only being a deliberate attempt to designate siblings.
2. No, it's quite relevant. 1 of the reasons you cite as being proof that Mary couldn't have remained virgin was because she had at least 5 sons. My question was 'where were those 4 other sons when it was time for them to fulfill the Law of God in relation to her when Jesus was dying?' If there were 4 other sons, why did Jesus give Mary to John and he took her to his own house? This isn't intended to prove that Mary was still virgin but it does cast considerable doubt on whether she had biological children other than Jesus.
3. How is it incorrect? Can you conclusively show Mt was talking of different people?... And I didn't say it was the 'other Mary'. I'm not the one making a point. I'm just picking apart your points.
4. But he lived the same existence as us; experienced it as we do. He wasn't immune from the human condition and all that it implies and carries with it.0 -
Good evening!
lazybones32 - I responded to your point about other New Testament usages of 'adelphos'. The answer was context. I'd love for you to respond to what I've said. That could be helpful. The context is Jesus with his mother and "brothers and sisters". The most logical understanding of this given the context is that it is referring to his family.
As for Mary not being a virgin after Jesus. The simple point is that Matthew strongly implies that Joseph knew Mary after she was married and that the text says he has brothers and sisters when referring to his mother. I mean in theory one could argue that Mary didn't have sex with her husband but there's no Scriptural reason to claim this wasn't the case. There is also a good argument against it as I've already made. The least likely option needs to be explained the most.
If the only reason you believe this doctrine is extra scriptural then it's not surprising that people won't find it convincing or a central matter of belief. It's also important to think about what we mean when we're saying that Mary couldn't possibly have had a sexual relationship with her husband. There is the implication that sex is unclean or unholy. Neither of which are true or Biblical. Sex is a good gift from God. There is also the implication that Mary wasn't an average person. The truth of the gospel is that God uses ordinary people for His extraordinary purposes. That's the gospel!
I've already replied to the John point also.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
I'll wait for Kieran's reply, if he chooses. It's his claims I've responded to.0
-
lazybones32 wrote: »I'll wait for Kieran's reply, if he chooses. It's his claims I've responded to.
Good morning!
I've already made several responses to your posts. It would be good to engage with all that's been said. This is a discussion forum after all. The reason why I say this is that you're repeating arguments that I've already responded to. That doesn't make for a good discussion.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
@ Solodegloria,
Rather than searching scripture as to whether Mary had sexual relations with Joseph or anybody else for that matter, perhaps you could examine it from another perspective.
Try putting yourself in Joseph's shoes / Mary's shoes and go over the sequence of events which the family had to endure right up to when Jesus was about 12 years old (finding in the Temple).
Given the number of apparitions of Angels, the flight into Egypt to escape Herod, having been told that Mary is part of God's plan and it was the Holy Spirit which covered her etc.
Given all these events, do you think Joseph was more concerned about "getting his leg over" or would he be more concerned about putting God's plan first and his own human desires (sexual) last?
If I was in Joseph's shoes, I would be following God's plan, would you?0 -
@ Solodegloria,
Rather than searching scripture as to whether Mary had sexual relations with Joseph or anybody else for that matter, perhaps you could examine it from another perspective.
Try putting yourself in Joseph's shoes / Mary's shoes and go over the sequence of events which the family had to endure right up to when Jesus was about 12 years old (finding in the Temple).
Given the number of apparitions of Angels, the flight into Egypt to escape Herod, having been told that Mary is part of God's plan and it was the Holy Spirit which covered her etc.
Given all these events, do you think Joseph was more concerned about "getting his leg over" or would he be more concerned about putting God's plan first and his own human desires (sexual) last?
If I was in Joseph's shoes, I would be following God's plan, would you?
Good afternoon!
Scripture is the only starting point for me. Anything else is mere speculation.
I don't know why you and lazybones32 insist on being so crude. I never said Joseph was "more concerned with getting his leg over" than God's plan. This is what I mean about treating sex as bring dirty rather than God's good gift in marriage.
However the Bible doesn't say that it was God's plan for Mary to be a virgin forever. The Bible does however say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
I will leave you with your Bible then.solodeogloria wrote: »@ Solodegloria,
Rather than searching scripture as to whether Mary had sexual relations with Joseph or anybody else for that matter, perhaps you could examine it from another perspective.
Try putting yourself in Joseph's shoes / Mary's shoes and go over the sequence of events which the family had to endure right up to when Jesus was about 12 years old (finding in the Temple).
Given the number of apparitions of Angels, the flight into Egypt to escape Herod, having been told that Mary is part of God's plan and it was the Holy Spirit which covered her etc.
Given all these events, do you think Joseph was more concerned about "getting his leg over" or would he be more concerned about putting God's plan first and his own human desires (sexual) last?
If I was in Joseph's shoes, I would be following God's plan, would you?
Good afternoon!
Scripture is the only starting point for me. Anything else is mere speculation.
I don't know why you and lazybones32 insist on being so crude. I never said Joseph was "more concerned with getting his leg over" than God's plan. This is what I mean about treating sex as bring dirty rather than God's good gift in marriage.
However the Bible doesn't say that it was God's plan for Mary to be a virgin forever. The Bible does however say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »1. I love it when people reply to me, telling me basically what I'd already written to them. That word is used over 300 times in the NT alone and has a variety of meanings throughout scripture: blood-brothers, cousins, uncles, step-brother, half-brother, close friend, member of religious community and fellow Countryman...You were the one saying that Mt deliberately chose this word to positively describe a blood-relationship but it appears that adelphos is thrown around quite a lot and seems to be a 'cover-all' word rather than only being a deliberate attempt to designate siblings.
2. No, it's quite relevant. 1 of the reasons you cite as being proof that Mary couldn't have remained virgin was because she had at least 5 sons. My question was 'where were those 4 other sons when it was time for them to fulfill the Law of God in relation to her when Jesus was dying?' If there were 4 other sons, why did Jesus give Mary to John and he took her to his own house? This isn't intended to prove that Mary was still virgin but it does cast considerable doubt on whether she had biological children other than Jesus.
3. How is it incorrect? Can you conclusively show Mt was talking of different people?... And I didn't say it was the 'other Mary'. I'm not the one making a point. I'm just picking apart your points.
4. But he lived the same existence as us; experienced it as we do. He wasn't immune from the human condition and all that it implies and carries with it.
I reply to your post above as follows:
1. I am aware adelphos is used numerous times in the Bible but there are separate Greek words, for example, for cousin (exadelfos) and uncle (theios). Can you quote me specific Bible verses where adelphos is used for cousin or for uncle ?
2. I still think the selection of John as Mary's carer is irrelevant because we do not know the reason that Jesus broke with tradition in making his choice. As the Bible doesn't tell us the reason, we can only assume it was for family reasons relevant at the time.
3. Matthew 13:55 & 56 names James as one of Jesus brothers; so does Paul in Galatians 1:19. Matthew 27:56 names another person called James, and identifies him as the son of Mary and Zebedee. It is therefore reasonable to assume the two James are two different persons as it was a very popular name at the time.
4. I agree Jesus lived the same life as us with all the same human experiences; but he also had a divine nature which made him abnormal.0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »I reply to your post above as follows:
1. I am aware adelphos is used numerous times in the Bible but there are separate Greek words, for example, for cousin (exadelfos) and uncle (theios). Can you quote me specific Bible verses where adelphos is used for cousin or for uncle ?
2. I still think the selection of John as Mary's carer is irrelevant because we do not know the reason that Jesus broke with tradition in making his choice. As the Bible doesn't tell us the reason, we can only assume it was for family reasons relevant at the time.
3. Matthew 13:55 & 56 names James as one of Jesus brothers; so does Paul in Galatians 1:19. Matthew 27:56 names another person called James, and identifies him as the son of Mary and Zebedee. It is therefore reasonable to assume the two James are two different persons as it was a very popular name at the time.
4. I agree Jesus lived the same life as us with all the same human experiences; but he also had a divine nature with made him abnormal.
Jacob's uncle, Laban, is called his 'brother' in Gn 29:12,15 and Abram's nephew, Lot, is called his 'brother' in Gn 14:14,16.
I'm having trouble finding the exact location of the cousin usage (think one is in 2Chr) but when I find the bookmark, I'll update it here. 1Chr. 23:22 is one but I think there's other uses too in the Sept.
The Septuagint translators sometimes used adelphos when a kinsman or relative was being written about. It's when it passes through another translation or transliteration that the word is changed to mean brother, sister, cousin, relative, etc.
Also, in your first post you claim Matthew could have used different words to describe relationships. How do you know this when we don't have any original document but rely on copies of copies? Early Church history has it that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic for his flock; if that was the source of the Greek copy of Mt.'s Gospel, do you think nothing could have been lost in translation from Aramaic to Greek, through however many copies and then into English 2,000 years later?! The foreword to Sirach expresses it nicely " Those things, which in this book are written in Hebrew, lose their force when translated into another language. In fact, not only this book but the Law itself, the Prophets and the other Writings differ considerably from the original text."
The eldest son taking care of his widowed Mother wasn't a simple Hebrew human tradition. It was and still is part of the Law of God.
Jesus criticised the scribes and teachers of the Law for allowing people to offer gifts to God, when those gifts should have been used to help their parents (This is Corban). If Jesus had brothers born of Mary, it would have been their God-given duty to care for her on the death of her husband or the next eldest son. Your point of Jesus having some other consideration by giving His mother to a non-relative when her own flesh is able basically boils down to the Word of God contradicting Himself. The Word coming down to do away with the Law? Come off it...
On the human level, Mary living with John would have been scandalous and answer honestly, would you let your mother move in with a young man if she was in need of help?
Another issue raised by the 'brothers' of the Lord: In Mk 3:21, when the family of Jesus came to take charge of him, saying 'he is out of his mind'. What we do know about Hebrew culture, is that if Jesus were the eldest brother, the younger brothers wouldn't dare do this to him. Being the firstborn had more rights and to publicly challenge him would be to disrespect themselves and the family. This wasn't part of the Law but it was a cultural practice. If the members who came to take charge of him were of his family, they must have been older (and definitely not women!), which would lend weight to the Eastern thought that they were Joseph's children, older than Jesus and from a previous marriage.
Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Jn
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. Mt
And there were also women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. Mk 15:40
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where His body was laid. Mk 15:47
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Lk
This Mary has children called James and Joses. Just because the author doesn't mention all her children at every appearance, it is possible to distinguish which Mary is which. The other time in the Gospels where we are shown a woman to have children named James and Joseph is when 4 brothers of the Lord are mentioned. (Maybe 2 believed and 2 didn't? Could that be why there is no further account of them? I'm not making a claim, only questioning)
For all the information and Mary's the Gospels do give us, the telling fact is that Jesus is the only mentioned son of His mother Mary.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good morning!
Let's look at this.lazybones32 wrote: »Jacob's uncle, Laban, is called his 'brother' in Gn 29:12,15 and Abram's nephew, Lot, is called his 'brother' in Gn 14:14,16.
I'm having trouble finding the exact location of the cousin usage (think one is in 2Chr) but when I find the bookmark, I'll update it here. 1Chr. 23:22 is one but I think there's other uses too in the Sept.
The Septuagint translators sometimes used adelphos when a kinsman or relative was being written about. It's when it passes through another translation or transliteration that the word is changed to mean brother, sister, cousin, relative, etc.
It's worth pointing out that we should be looking at the Hebrew for the Old Testament. Leaving that aside - context is very important. We are already told that Lot is his nephew in a different passage. Hence why the translations we have in English use kinsman in Genesis 29. The reality is that Matthew is different for two reasons. First reason Matthew is originally written in Koine Greek as is the rest of the New Testament. The Old Testament isn't. The second reason is that the context is Jesus' mother along with His brothers. The text gives us far more to conclude that the passage is referring to siblings rather than cousins.
Shoehorning the Bible to make it fit your existing understanding isn't a good way to read it. Letting God speak afresh to us through the Holy Spirit is key.lazybones32 wrote: »Also, in your first post you claim Matthew could have used different words to describe relationships. How do you know this when we don't have any original document but rely on copies of copies? Early Church history has it that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic for his flock; if that was the source of the Greek copy of Mt.'s Gospel, do you think nothing could have been lost in translation from Aramaic to Greek, through however many copies and then into English 2,000 years later?! The foreword to Sirach expresses it nicely " Those things, which in this book are written in Hebrew, lose their force when translated into another language. In fact, not only this book but the Law itself, the Prophets and the other Writings differ considerably from the original text."
If you could show that any of the copies have significant differences I wouldn't only agree with you but it would give me serious reason to doubt Christianity. The reality is that the manuscripts that we have in 90+% of cases agree with one another from Biblical scholarship.
How does doubting the transmission of the Bible help your argument? It isn't a reason to believe.lazybones32 wrote: »The eldest son taking care of his widowed Mother wasn't a simple Hebrew human tradition. It was and still is part of the Law of God.
Jesus criticised the scribes and teachers of the Law for allowing people to offer gifts to God, when those gifts should have been used to help their parents (This is Corban). If Jesus had brothers born of Mary, it would have been their God-given duty to care for her on the death of her husband or the next eldest son. Your point of Jesus having some other consideration by giving His mother to a non-relative when her own flesh is able basically boils down to the Word of God contradicting Himself. The Word coming down to do away with the Law? Come off it...
On the human level, Mary living with John would have been scandalous and answer honestly, would you let your mother move in with a young man if she was in need of help?
Another issue raised by the 'brothers' of the Lord: In Mk 3:21, when the family of Jesus came to take charge of him, saying 'he is out of his mind'. What we do know about Hebrew culture, is that if Jesus were the eldest brother, the younger brothers wouldn't dare do this to him. Being the firstborn had more rights and to publicly challenge him would be to disrespect themselves and the family. This wasn't part of the Law but it was a cultural practice. If the members who came to take charge of him were of his family, they must have been older (and definitely not women!), which would lend weight to the Eastern thought that they were Joseph's children, older than Jesus and from a previous marriage.
This requires a lot of external assumption. Even if this is true it isn't an argument for perpetual virginity from the Bible. You would need to provide sources to back up the second but also give good reason as to why his brothers could not have simply disobeyed cultural convention in this case on the authority of Mary.
As for John - the argument is simple. The Gospels have two concepts of family. It's entirely possible that Jesus entrusted Mary to his care because Jesus' brothers weren't believers. In any case we don't know and speculation is unhelpful.lazybones32 wrote: »Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Jn
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. Mt
And there were also women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. Mk 15:40
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where His body was laid. Mk 15:47
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Lk
This Mary has children called James and Joses. Just because the author doesn't mention all her children at every appearance, it is possible to distinguish which Mary is which. The other time in the Gospels where we are shown a woman to have children named James and Joseph is when 4 brothers of the Lord are mentioned. (Maybe 2 believed and 2 didn't? Could that be why there is no further account of them? I'm not making a claim, only questioning)
For all the information and Mary's the Gospels do give us, the telling fact is that Jesus is the only mentioned son of His mother Mary.
This could be easily another Mary and another set of children. People often share names! You need a stronger argument.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Jacob's uncle, Laban, is called his 'brother' in Gn 29:12,15 and Abram's nephew, Lot, is called his 'brother' in Gn 14:14,16.
I'm having trouble finding the exact location of the cousin usage (think one is in 2Chr) but when I find the bookmark, I'll update it here. 1Chr. 23:22 is one but I think there's other uses too in the Sept.
The Septuagint translators sometimes used adelphos when a kinsman or relative was being written about. It's when it passes through another translation or transliteration that the word is changed to mean brother, sister, cousin, relative, etc.
Also, in your first post you claim Matthew could have used different words to describe relationships. How do you know this when we don't have any original document but rely on copies of copies? Early Church history has it that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic for his flock; if that was the source of the Greek copy of Mt.'s Gospel, do you think nothing could have been lost in translation from Aramaic to Greek, through however many copies and then into English 2,000 years later?! The foreword to Sirach expresses it nicely " Those things, which in this book are written in Hebrew, lose their force when translated into another language. In fact, not only this book but the Law itself, the Prophets and the other Writings differ considerably from the original text."
The eldest son taking care of his widowed Mother wasn't a simple Hebrew human tradition. It was and still is part of the Law of God.
Jesus criticised the scribes and teachers of the Law for allowing people to offer gifts to God, when those gifts should have been used to help their parents (This is Corban). If Jesus had brothers born of Mary, it would have been their God-given duty to care for her on the death of her husband or the next eldest son. Your point of Jesus having some other consideration by giving His mother to a non-relative when her own flesh is able basically boils down to the Word of God contradicting Himself. The Word coming down to do away with the Law? Come off it...
On the human level, Mary living with John would have been scandalous and answer honestly, would you let your mother move in with a young man if she was in need of help?
Another issue raised by the 'brothers' of the Lord: In Mk 3:21, when the family of Jesus came to take charge of him, saying 'he is out of his mind'. What we do know about Hebrew culture, is that if Jesus were the eldest brother, the younger brothers wouldn't dare do this to him. Being the firstborn had more rights and to publicly challenge him would be to disrespect themselves and the family. This wasn't part of the Law but it was a cultural practice. If the members who came to take charge of him were of his family, they must have been older (and definitely not women!), which would lend weight to the Eastern thought that they were Joseph's children, older than Jesus and from a previous marriage.
Near the cross of Jesus stood His mother and her sister, as well as Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. Jn
Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee's sons. Mt
And there were also women watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joseph, and Salome. Mk 15:40
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph saw where His body was laid. Mk 15:47
It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles. Lk
This Mary has children called James and Joses. Just because the author doesn't mention all her children at every appearance, it is possible to distinguish which Mary is which. The other time in the Gospels where we are shown a woman to have children named James and Joseph is when 4 brothers of the Lord are mentioned. (Maybe 2 believed and 2 didn't? Could that be why there is no further account of them? I'm not making a claim, only questioning)
For all the information and Mary's the Gospels do give us, the telling fact is that Jesus is the only mentioned son of His mother Mary.
I generally agree with the comments made by solodeogloria , above, who is critical of your post in reply to mine.
As the New Testament was written in Greek, I don't see why it was necessary for you to go back to the Hebrew or OT at all in reply to my questions. Adelphos appears to be used in the NT for brothers, half-brothers or brethren but not cousins or uncles.
The primary care of Mary was Joseph's responsibility. We do not know when Joseph died, so Mary's eldest son, Jesus, appears to have taken on the role. Even in the dramatic circumstances of his death, he made provision for her by asking John to provide ongoing care. By doing this he merely broke with Jewish tradition rather than any absolute binding law.
The logic used by you to promote the idea that Jesus Christ had no blood brothers is poor, and isn't substantiated properly. The statement made by you that the 4 brothers of Jesus are not mentioned in the Bible after Matt 13:55 is wrong. They are further mentioned in John 7:5 and Acts 1:14.0 -
kieranwaldron wrote: »I generally agree with the comments made by solodeogloria , above, who is critical of your post in reply to mine.
As the New Testament was written in Greek, I don't see why it was necessary for you to go back to the Hebrew or OT at all in reply to my questions. Adelphos appears to be used in the NT for brothers, half-brothers or brethren but not cousins or uncles.
The primary care of Mary was Joseph's responsibility. We do not know when Joseph died, so Mary's eldest son, Jesus, appears to have taken on the role. Even in the dramatic circumstances of his death, he made provision for her by asking John to provide ongoing care. By doing this he merely broke with Jewish tradition rather than any absolute binding law.
The logic used by you to promote the idea that Jesus Christ had no blood brothers is poor, and isn't substantiated properly. The statement made by you that the 4 brothers of Jesus are not mentioned in the Bible after Matt 13:55 is wrong. They are further mentioned in John 7:5 and Acts 1:14.
Well, I was replying to the claims made by you but if you want someone else to explain your answers for you, fair enough. I think you aren't actually reading what I write so it might be just as well that you bow out.
Next time you want to start a thread, maybe include a note saying that you won't answer any questions about it?0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »Well, I was replying to the claims made by you but if you want someone else to explain your answers for you, fair enough. I think you aren't actually reading what I write so it might be just as well that you bow out.
Next time you want to start a thread, maybe include a note saying that you won't answer any questions about it?
What you should have said was: " it might be just as well if I bow out ", because I have no intention of going anywhere. Goodbye then.0 -
I'm here. Can you answer for yourself or what? If you want to continue, I'm more than willing. Unless your post was to have the last word and thereby 'win' the argument - if so, you are more than welcome to victory over me.kieranwaldron wrote: »What you should have said was: " it might be just as well if I bow out ", because I have no intention of going anywhere. Goodbye then.
It only took you six pages to acknowledge that the protection of Mary passed from Joseph to Jesus, so I'm prepared to go another 6 for you to acknowledge that her provision would have passed to her next eldest son according to the Law*.
* I don't mean Roman Law, I mean the Mosaic Law...which you've twice called human tradition:eek:0 -
@ Lazybones32,
It is important to understand that Keiran is using a Non Catholic Bible to attack / ridicule / misrepresent Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of Mary.
If you go on Wikipedia and research New International Version it is cleary stated as affiliated with Protestant religions, not Roman Catholic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_International_Version
On another website www.catholic.com there is an example of different interpretations of the Bible with the NIV being used as an example. Here is a copy / paste excerpt below.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide
Literal translations are an excellent resource for serious Bible study. Sometimes the meaning of a verse depends on subtle cues in the text; these cues are only preserved by literal translations.
The disadvantage of literal translations is that they are harder to read because more Hebrew and Greek style intrudes into the English text. Compare the following renderings of Leviticus 18:6-10 from the New American Standard Bible (NAS—a literal translation) and the New International Version (NIV—a dynamic translation):
The NAS reads: "None of you shall approach any blood relative of his to uncover nakedness. . . . You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness. The nakedness of your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether born at home or born outside, their nakedness you shall not uncover. The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for their nakedness is yours."
The NIV reads: "No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. . . . Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father. Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere. Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you."
Because literal translations can be difficult to read, many have produced more readable Bibles using the dynamic equivalence philosophy. According to this view, it does not matter whether the grammar and word order of the original is preserved in English so long as the meaning of the text is preserved. This frees up the translator to use better English style and word choice, producing more readable translations. In the above example, the dynamic equivalence translators were free to use the more readable expression "have sexual relations with" instead of being forced to reproduce the Hebrew idiom "uncover the nakedness of."
The disadvantage of dynamic translation is that there is a price to pay for readability. Dynamic translations lose precision because they omit subtle cues to the meaning of a passage that only literal translations preserve. They also run a greater risk of reading the translators’ doctrinal views into the text because of the greater liberty in how to render it.
For example, dynamic Protestant translations, such as the NIV, tend to translate the Greek word ergon and its derivatives as "work" when it reinforces Protestant doctrine but as something else (such as "deeds" or "doing") when it would serve Catholic doctrine.
Kieran Waldons attempt to rubbish Catholic teaching about Mary by using a non Catholic Bible is poor debating technique but not at all surprising given his admitted intention in attacking the Roman Catholic Church's doctrinal position.
In addition Keiran uses the word SHOULD a lot. He used this word in his first post and again in his last post above. This is again poor debating technique.
Solodegloria and Keiran are of course free to read to read any Bible version they wish, but attempting to undermine R Catholic Doctrinal teaching by using a Non R Catholic Bilbe is misleading at best.0 -
@ Lazybones32,
It is important to understand that Keiran is using a Non Catholic Bible to attack / ridicule / misrepresent Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of Mary.
It doesn't matter which bible version he uses, there are many loose threads in his position and I've no problem unraveling them one by one.0 -
lazybones32 wrote: »@ Lazybones32,
It is important to understand that Keiran is using a Non Catholic Bible to attack / ridicule / misrepresent Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject of Mary.
It doesn't matter which bible version he uses, there are many loose threads in his position and I've no problem unraveling them one by one.
Fair enough but given his approach to debating on a non level debating field I think you are wasting your time / effort.
IMO this thread should be closed as it is a contradiction in terms to criticise the doctrinal position of Faith X by using the resources of Faith Y, in this case X= R.Catholic and Y = Protestant denominations.
If Keiran and Solodegloria are genuinely interested in debating whether Mary had other children or not then a new thread should be started with a level debating table in which Believers in any faith can come to the table and be allowed to use the resources which support their own doctrinal positions.
Anything else is just a waste of oxygen.0 -
Fair enough but given his approach to debating on a non level debating field I think you are wasting your time / effort.
IMO this thread should be closed as it is a contradiction in terms to criticise the doctrinal position of Faith X by using the resources of Faith Y, in this case X= R.Catholic and Y = Protestant denominations.
If Keiran and Solodegloria are genuinely interested in debating whether Mary had other children or not then a new thread should be started with a level debating table in which Believers in any faith can come to the table and be allowed to use the resources which support their own doctrinal positions.
Anything else is just a waste of oxygen.
I don't think using the NIV gives unfair advantage but he later used the KJV to make a point, so if he can use extra sources other than the NIV, so can everyone. Bring whatever tool you think necessary.0 -
Advertisement
-
Good morning!
I actually use the English Standard Version usually which is a more literal translation than the NIV.
I don't think translations really make a huge difference. However, I'm happy for you to use whatever translation you see fit to prove your point. It's not my job to prove your position for you.
To date on this thread there has been no clear Biblical argument for the perpetual virginity of Mary. I'd also love for someone to respond to my posts.
Much thanks in the Lord Jesus Christ,
solodeogloria0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement