Mary

Originally posted by Suzianne
Only because there was no such kid.

What about "Jesus was without sin" do you not get?

Keep on reading those Dan Brown novels. They turn your brain to mush.

I believe Jesus existed as much as Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday.

Why can I not make a passive remark about a created man having a lucid affair with another fictional character???.....

Vishavetu said all Christians are the anti-Christ.

I'd be more concerned with that, than tongue in cheek passing remarks about the evidence or non-evidence of characters; on a basis of if I was a believer,as you seem to convey to me, then I'd be insulted by being called the antithesis of my belief.

I think you're on the wrong bandwagon with me on this one Sun. 🙁

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
I believe Jesus existed as much as Robinson Crusoe and Man Friday.

Why can I not make a passive remark about a created man having a lucid affair with another fictional character???.....

Vishavetu said all Christians are the anti-Christ.

I'd be more concerned with that, than tongue in cheek passing remarks about the evidence or non-evidence of charac ...[text shortened]... sis of my belief.

I think you're on the wrong bandwagon with me on this one Sun. 🙁

-m.

“That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels.” - Historian Will Durant

Originally posted by RBHILL
1. Well I just don't see someone being married not having sex if they are physically able to after giving birth to Jesus.

2. If Mary had other children then those blood lines would be alive today.

Neither of your points are of any relevance temporal nor spiritual;

of course Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus - but so what? And who cares?

any children born are just normal kids; so what and who cares?

Mary is nothing, same as I and you are nothing. Are your kids worthy of note? No.

Originally posted by divegeester
Neither of your points are of any relevance temporal nor spiritual;

of course Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus - but so what? And who cares?

any children born are just normal kids; so what and who cares?

Mary is nothing, same as I and you are nothing. Are your kids worthy of note? No.

Amen.

Well said.

Originally posted by divegeester
Neither of your points are of any relevance temporal nor spiritual;

of course Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus - but so what? And who cares?

any children born are just normal kids; so what and who cares?

Mary is nothing, same as I and you are nothing. Are your kids worthy of note? No.

of course Mary had sex after the birth of Jesus - but so what? And who cares?

Well, actually it is perhaps one of the most important disputes in Christendom. The fact is that the majority of the early Church, from very early on in its inception, believed in her perpetual virginity, even to the extent that they claimed that her virginity was preserved during birth. Now perhaps you might find the topic uninteresting but for many Christians Mary's perpetual virginity is an essential doctrine and it is hardly clear to them at least why Mary 'of course' had sex.

Was Mary always a virgin and did he have brothers and sister?
Matt. 13:53-56, JB: “When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter’s son, surely? Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers [Greek, a‧del‧phoi′] James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? His sisters [Greek, a‧del‧phai′], too, are they not all here with us?’” (On the basis of this text, would you conclude that Jesus was Mary’s only child or that she had other sons as well as daughters?)
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding the Greek words a‧del‧phoi′ and a‧del‧phai′, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation . . . that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.”
Mark 3:31-35, JB: “His mother and brothers now arrived and, standing outside, sent in a message asking for him. A crowd was sitting round him at the time the message was passed to him, ‘Your mother and brothers and sisters are outside asking for you’. He replied, ‘Who are my mother and my brothers?’ And looking round at those sitting in a circle about him, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. Anyone who does the will of God, that person is my brother and sister and mother.’” (Here a clear distinction is drawn between Jesus’ natural brothers and his spiritual brothers, his disciples. No one claims that the reference to Jesus’ mother means anything different from what it says. Is it consistent, then, to reason that his natural brothers were not that but were perhaps cousins? When what is meant is not brothers but relatives, a different Greek word [syg‧ge‧non′] is used, as at Luke 21:16.)

Originally posted by galveston75
Was Mary always a virgin and did he have brothers and sister?
Matt. 13:53-56, JB: “When Jesus had finished these parables he left the district; and, coming to his home town, he taught the people in their synagogue in such a way that they were astonished and said, ‘Where did the man get this wisdom and these miraculous powers? This is the carpenter’s so ...[text shortened]... ut relatives, a different Greek word [syg‧ge‧non′] is used, as at Luke 21:16.)

This is completely false. While adelphos originally referred to brothers of the same womb, it needn't. By the time of the gospel writers, it had developed a whole host of meanings. I refer you to Liddell and Scott:

2. kinsman, ib.Ge.13.8, al.; tribesman, Ex.2.11, al.
3. colleague, associate, PTeb.1.12, IG12 (9).906.19 (Chalcis); member of a college, ib.14.956.
4. term of address, used by kings, OGI138.3 (Philae), J.AJ13.2.2, etc.; generally, LXX Ju.7.30; esp. in letters, PPar.48 (ii B. C.), etc.:—as a term of affection, applicable by wife to husband, LXX To.10.12, PLond.1.42.1 (ii B. C.), etc.
5. brother (as a fellow Christian), Ev.Matt.12.50, Act.Ap.9.30, al.; of other religious communities, e.g. Serapeum, PPar.42.1 (ii B. C.), cf. PTaur.1.1.20.
6. metaph., of things, fellow,;, of Leviathan's scales, LXX Jb.41.8.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=adelfos&la=greek#Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=a%29delfo/s-contents

Furthermore, the argument made by St Jerome is that the original Aramaic did not distinguish between brothers, cousins and step-brothers and that adelphos is merely a rough translation.

Also, RHP does not support Greek fonts so you need either to transliterate or provide a link, or else omit the Greek altogether.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]There is a cult of Mary who believe in her perpetual virginity and also believe she is the Co-Redeemtress equal with Christ. I guess this would be the reason why this subject matters at all. Also in the natural course of things I'm sure Mary and Joseph being married and all had relations of a sexual nature.

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virgi ed to by the Catholic faith), would obviously reject the idea that Mary is equal with Christ.[/b]

The Virgin birth is important but honestly after the birth of Christ who cares if Mary remained a virgin? It is an irrelevant point. Also Co means equal in most instances that I know of. Co-heirs or Co-pilot ect......Co-Redemtress. There is none equal if you believe in the redemption from Christ. There is only one name under heaven in which men may call and it's Jesus not Mary. It is indeed a cult.


Manny

Originally posted by menace71
The Virgin birth is important but honestly after the birth of Christ who cares if Mary remained a virgin? It is an irrelevant point. Also Co means equal in most instances that I know of. Co-heirs or Co-pilot ect......Co-Redemtress. There is none equal if you believe in the redemption from Christ. There is only one name under heaven in which men may call and it's Jesus not Mary. It is indeed a cult.


Manny

Co means equal in most instances that I know of. Co-heirs or Co-pilot ect......Co-Redemtress. There is none equal if you believe in the redemption from Christ. There is only one name under heaven in which men may call and it's Jesus not Mary. It is indeed a cult.

Well, pilot and co-pilot are decidedly not equal. The pilot is responsible for most of the operations of the plane while the co-pilot is there to assist him and perform ancillary duties. The point is not really important though because a Catholic may wish to use the prefix 'co' in a unique sense. I have never seen what is so fundamentally controversial about the doctrine of co-redemptrix. It does not assert anything extra-biblical, like the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption. It simply says that her assent to bear Christ was important in God's plan of salvation. I don't really get your second point. Catholics likewise maintain that Jesus is the sole mediator; Mary is not an alternative to Christ.

Originally posted by Conrau K
This is completely false. While adelphos originally referred to brothers of the same womb, it needn't. By the time of the gospel writers, it had developed a whole host of meanings. I refer you to Liddell and Scott:

[quote]2. kinsman, ib.Ge.13.8, al.; tribesman, Ex.2.11, al.
3. colleague, associate, PTeb.1.12, IG12 (9).906.19 (Chalcis); member of onts so you need either to transliterate or provide a link, or else omit the Greek altogether.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding the Greek words adelphoi and adelphai, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c. 380) Helvidius in a work now lost pressed this fact in order to attribute to Mary other children besides Jesus so as to make her a model for mothers of larger families. St. Jerome, motivated by the Church’s traditional faith in Mary’s perpetual virginity, wrote a tract against Helvidius (A.D. 383) in which he developed an explanation . . . that is still in vogue among Catholic scholars.”

Either the New Catholic Encyclopaedia states that or it doesn't, what other lexicographers have to say on the matter is irrelevant, for the whole authority of the quotation rests upon not what others deem to be a correct or fashionable translation of the term, but what the original reference states. The reference has a date, a volume number and a page number.

Also noteworthy from your quotation from Liddel and Scot is the omission of the first reference, why is that? To what does the term initially refer to? brothers and sisters? Are you really being intellectually honest in this instance Conrau?

The asterisks and numbers in Galvos texts are not created by a Greek font but through the use of certain punctuation symbols, not supported by RHP.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967, Vol. IX, p. 337) admits regarding the Greek words adelphoi and adelphai, used at Matthew 13:55, 56, that these “have the meaning of full blood brother and sister in the Greek-speaking world of the Evangelist’s time and would naturally be taken by his Greek reader in this sense. Toward the end of the 4th century (c ...[text shortened]... eated by a Greek font but through the use of certain punctuation symbols, not supported by RHP.

I do not have access to that volume at the present time. There are, indeed, multiple editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some, such as the most recent Encyclopedia of Catholicism, have been condemned as heretical. The 1917 encyclopedia, however, explicitly states 'Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives.'

I am not, however, particularly concerned what the Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) states. Even if Galveston has accurately quoted it and represented the meaning of it (which I doubt), I don't see why this should be important because: 1. an encyclopedia is not a catechism and is not an authority on the faith; 2. Liddell and Scott is the most famous lexicon of the Greek language and is a much more authoritative source.

Also noteworthy from your quotation from Liddel and Scot is the omission of the first reference, why is that? To what does the term initially refer to? brothers and sisters? Are you really being intellectually honest in this instance Conrau?

There is no mystery. I had already acknowledged the first meaning of adelphos. Of course its original meaning is a brother with the same mother: delphos is in fact Greek for womb. The fact however is that it does not necessarily mean that and by the time of Koine Greek, I don't think it was even the primary meaning. As a student of Koine Greek, I encountered such alternative meanings quite a few times. The point of my quotation was to illustrate other meanings. There is no underhanded conspiracy here.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not have access to that volume at the present time. There are, indeed, multiple editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some, such as the most recent Encyclopedia of Catholicism, have been condemned as heretical. The 1917 encyclopedia, however, explicitly states 'Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of O of my quotation was to illustrate other meanings. There is no underhanded conspiracy here.

My apology, yes i can see it now, you acknowledge that the initial meaning of adelphos was brothers and sisters, that is fine. Why are we to assume that is has a different shade of meaning in the context of the scripture and in the discussion as a whole? are we to seriously consider that it was used with reference to a kinsman? an associate? clearly it cannot be number four, a term of address from a wife to a husband, or one used by Kings. why would Christ speak of his immediate family in a metaphorical sense? please explain.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not have access to that volume at the present time. There are, indeed, multiple editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Some, such as the most recent Encyclopedia of Catholicism, have been condemned as heretical. The 1917 encyclopedia, however, explicitly states 'Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of O ...[text shortened]... of my quotation was to illustrate other meanings. There is no underhanded conspiracy here.

The 1917 encyclopaedia, however, explicitly states 'Finally, the "brothers of Jesus" are neither the sons of Mary, nor the brothers of Our Lord in the proper sense of the word, but they are His cousins or the more or less near relatives.'

Is it not so that a different word is used when referring to relatives in general, as at

(Luke 21:16)  Moreover, you will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death;

thus a clear distinction is made between brothers and sisters (adelphos) and relatives (syggenon)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
My apology, yes i can see it now, you acknowledge that the initial meaning of adelphos was brothers and sisters, that is fine. Why are we to assume that is has a different shade of meaning in the context of the scripture and in the discussion as a whole? are we to seriously consider that it was used with reference to a kinsman? an associate? clearl ...[text shortened]... Kings. why would Christ speak of his immediate family in a metaphorical sense? please explain.

Well, the argument is that adelphos was the evangelists' translation for the Aramaic term, which had a much broader meaning.

There are biblical grounds, though, to believe that adelphos does not mean a literal consanguineous brother. In Matthew 13:55-56, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are named as brothers of Jesus. However, this clearly cannot mean literal brothers. Matthew 27:56 states, "Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee" but John 19:25 states,"Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala". This indicates that the mother of James and Joseph was in fact the cousin of Mary -- so the two of the brothers in Matthew 13 were actually cousins (I think we can take for granted that it is the same Joseph and James in both chapters.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, the argument is that adelphos was the evangelists' translation for the Aramaic term, which had a much broader meaning.

There are biblical grounds, though, to believe that adelphos does not mean a literal consanguineous brother. In Matthew 13:55-56, James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are named as brothers of Jesus. However, this cl ...[text shortened]... s (I think we can take for granted that it is the same Joseph and James in both chapters.)

yes indeed, but there is a different word used for relatives, please see above 🙂