Mary

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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)  Mo ...[text shortened]... a clear distinction is made between brothers and sisters (adelphos) and relatives (syggenon)

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

Well, a syggenos is not something distinguished from adelphos; adelphos is simply a more specific type of syggenos. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, etc, are all syggenoi. Quite often syggenoi can refer to a whole community or even nation.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]thus a clear distinction is made between brothers and sisters (adelphos) and relatives (syggenon)

Well, a syggenos is not something distinguished from adelphos; adelphos is simply a more specific type of syggenos. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, cousins, etc, are all syggenoi. Quite often syggenoi can refer to a whole community or even nation.[/b]

Lol, i see, as a cousin is simply a different type of relative than an immediate brother or sister 😉

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

Great comment... 🙂

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.

Oh really?

So it's cool with you if we make up some cheap remarks about Buddha or who/whatever you worship? How about we just say Buddha ate babies? Or that Krishna bathed in the blood of virgins?

And I couldn't remotely possibly care less what Vishva says. He is the devil, sent to derail Christians from their religion, and as such, is going to hell, surely as it snows in winter. Why should I pay the least iota of attention to that soldier of Satan?

I'll say it again. Jesus had no kids, and to say he did insults all Christians. So knock it off, unless you want me to hold you in the high esteem I hold Vishva in.

Dan Brown is using sensationalism to sell books. That's his angle. What's yours?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh really?

So it's cool with you if we make up some cheap remarks about Buddha or who/whatever you worship? How about we just say Buddha ate babies? Or that Krishna bathed in the blood of virgins?

And I couldn't remotely possibly care less what Vishva says. He is the devil, sent to derail Christians from their religion, and as such, is going to hel a in.

Dan Brown is using sensationalism to sell books. That's his angle. What's yours?

That's his angle. What's yours?
pi/3?


*uh oh! woman scorned... leggit!!!* 😲
:]

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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 ...[text shortened]... cs likewise maintain that Jesus is the sole mediator; Mary is not an alternative to Christ.[/b]

Ok so what does Co-Redemtress mean ? There is no need why? There is only one thats the point. The doctrine of a co-redemtress is not biblical.




Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Ok so what does Co-Redemtress mean ? There is no need why? There is only one thats the point. The doctrine of a co-redemtress is not biblical.




Manny

I have already explained what the doctrine means. I don't see what the issue here could be. All it entails is that Mary participated specially in Christ's redemptive mission by consenting to bear him into the world. It does not claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven or that she continues to intercede for graces -- all of which may be considered extra-biblical. This is really quite an acceptable doctrine even for Protestants.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And I couldn't remotely possibly care less what Vishva says. He is the devil, sent to derail Christians from their religion, and as such, is going to hell, surely as it snows in winter. Why should I pay the least iota of attention to that soldier of Satan?

Knowing what I do, from personal experience, about the nature and meaning of your words here, I think this is one of the most gratuitously unkind things I think I've ever read on this forum.

"Derail" you? How can you be so insecure about your own faith that you have to project such outrageously mean spirited vitriol as this?

Considering what I know about what these words mean in the Christian framework of thinking, this is way, way, way beyond people telling each other they are dishonest or "in error" or mad.

You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I have already explained what the doctrine means. I don't see what the issue here could be. All it entails is that Mary participated specially in Christ's redemptive mission by consenting to bear him into the world. It does not claim that Mary was a perpetual virgin, immaculately conceived or assumed into heaven or that she continues to intercede for graces ...[text shortened]... e considered extra-biblical. This is really quite an acceptable doctrine even for Protestants.

Well now this I agree with however I don't even like the term co-redemtress. The connotation is that she well took part in the redemptive act. She was a faithful servant of God but that is it.





Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Well now this I agree with however I don't even like the term co-redemtress. The connotation is that she well took part in the redemptive act. She was a faithful servant of God but that is it.





Manny

I know that catholics claim that they were not his brothers becasue Jesus asked John to watch Mary. But ponder this Jesus family had rejected him and that is why John looked after his earthly mother.

Originally posted by RBHILL
I know that catholics claim that they were not his brothers becasue Jesus asked John to watch Mary. But ponder this Jesus family had rejected him and that is why John looked after his earthly mother.

Well, Manny and I were not discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary but rather her status as Co-Redemptrix. As for her perpetual virginity, I think there are strong biblical grounds. Why, for example, did Mary express surprise when the angel announced she would conceive a son, unless she had taken some vow of continence?

I am not sure what makes you think Jesus was rejected by his family. Jesus' brothers are explicitly named and their apostleship is on record. In Galatians 1:19, for example, Paul names James as an 'apostle' and then 'brother of our Lord'. Catholics, however, traditionally recognise James as a distant family relative, as the son of Mary of Cleophas (John 19:25; Matthew 27:56).

I think the virgin birth idea was around way before Mary. Many primitive religions held to that belief.