robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 22, 2008 18:41:52 GMT -5
I know Im not gonna change your stance on this issue. But common sense still says that the man is not going ot marry a woman and never have sex. I mean he had brothers and sisters. and James and Jude were both half brothers of Jesus Christ. But its always good to discuss these issues with you. the birth of Jesus Christ was a virgin birth and therefore miraculous in conception. And this is proven by the scriptures.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 22, 2008 19:37:21 GMT -5
Certainly we agree that Christ's birth was miraculous, a virgin birth.
As for Him having blood brothers and sisters - there is no evidence of that in the Bible. The verses translated to say He had "brothers" usually refer to the Christian brotherhood of disciples. In the few cases where the context dictates that it means blood relatives, the Greek word translated "brothers" also can be translated to mean "cousins".
As for the chaste marriage, I assure you such things have always been done. They are quite common, even today. Just not in the circles you move in, obviously.
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 23, 2008 13:44:44 GMT -5
Matthew 13:55-57 KJV Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? 57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
The word translated brethren "adelphos" A brother in connection with delphos(the womb) a brother.
the word translated sisters is "adelphe'" feminine of adelphos a sister natural.
I dont see where the word cousin comes in to play here. also I will pull out the word for mother here is meter(pronounce "may-tare") This word translates to a mother. So I looked it up using the Strong's Exahaustive Concordance of the King James Translation of the Holy Bible. So what sources do you use to prove other wise my friend.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 23, 2008 18:04:59 GMT -5
NT:80
adelfos, adelfou, ho
1. a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matt 1:2; 4:18 2. having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, countryman 3. any fellow-man — as having one and the same father with others, viz. God (Heb 2:11), and as descended from the same first ancestor (Acts 17:26) 4. a fellow-believer, united to another by the bond of affection; so most frequently of Christians, constituting as it were but a single family: Matt 23:8 5. an associate in employment or office: 1 Cor 1:1 6. brethren of Christ a. his brothers by blood b. all men: Matt 25:40 c. apostles: Matt 28:10; John 20:17 d. Christians, Rom 8:29 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 24, 2008 13:58:50 GMT -5
The introduction starts by claiming it is impossible to understand passages such as II Thessalonians 2:6-7 (where the word "let" is used as a synonym for "hinder") without the aid of a good Greek Lexicon. (They seem to forget the availability of a good English language dictionary). The introduction then goes on to give a lengthy discussion of the Greek words that are translated "repent" or "repentance" in the Bible. This, in itself, is not bad, but what follows after should open the reader's eyes their very widest. The following is the exact quotation from the Publisher's introduction to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon:
"A word of caution is necessary. Thayer was a Unitarian, and the errors of this sect occasionally come through in the explanatory notes. The reader should be alert for both subtle and blatant denials of such doctrines as the Trinity (Thayer regarded Christ as a mere man and the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force emanating from God), the inherent and total depravity of fallen human nature, the eternal punishment of the wicked, and Biblical inerrancy. When defining metamelomai [the Greek word for regret], Thayer refuses to draw a clear distinction between this word and metanoeo [the Greek word for a change of mind - repentance]. Underlying this refusal is the view that man is inherently good, needing Christ not as a Savior but only as an example."
I went to see if I could find anything on the Thayer's Greek Lexicon. And this is some of what I have found. It seems as if the Thayer's Greek Lexicon is not quite accurate. I however have never heard anything against the Strong's Concordance. And have found it to be the most accurate. I do appriciate your rebutal though. It is hard however to follow Thayer's lexicon when Thayer himself denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity. He was considered an apostate from the Christian faith(and no doubt should have been cosidered so). I know that you and I both agree that the trinity is Biblical. And that Jesus was born of a virgin. And the only diagreance in this subject is on whether or not Mary remained a virgin after that she gave birth to Jesus. But this is what I have found regarding the Thayer's Greek Lexicon.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 24, 2008 15:40:40 GMT -5
Any Greek lexicon would tell you the same. Here is the definition from Vine's Expository Dictionary of NT Words: BROTHER, BRETHREN, BROTHERHOOD, BROTHERLY
adelphos NT:80 denotes "a brother, or near kinsman"; in the plural, "a community based on identity of origin or life." It is used of:--
(1) male children of the same parents, Matt 1:2; 14:3; (2) male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23,26; Heb 7:5; (3) male children of the same mother, Matt 13:55; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19; (4) people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17,22; Rom 9:3. With "men" (aner, "male"), prefixed, it is used in addresses only, Acts 2:29,37, etc.; (5) any man, a neighbor, Luke 10:29; Matt 5:22; 7:3; (6) persons united by a common interest, Matt 5:47; (7) persons united by a common calling, Rev 22:9; (8) mankind, Matt 25:40; Heb 2:17; (9) the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matt 28:10; John 20:17; (10) believers, apart from sex, Matt 23:8; Acts 1:15; Rom 1:13; 1 Thess 1:4; Rev 19:10 (the word "sisters" is used of believers, only in 1 Tim 5:2); (11) believers, with aner, "male," prefixed, and with "or sister" added, 1 Cor 7:14 (RV), 15; 15, male as distinct from female, Acts 1:16; 15:7,13, but not 6:3.
From Notes on Thessolonians, by Hogg and Vine, p. 32.
Notes: (1) Associated words are adelphotes, primarily, "a brotherly relation," and so, the community possessed of this relation, "a brotherhood," 1 Peter 2:17 (see 5:9, marg.).; philadelphos, (phileo, "to love," and adelphos), "fond of one's brethren," 1 Peter 3:8; "loving as brethren," RV.; philadelphia, "brotherly love," Rom 12:10; 1 Thess 4:9; Heb 13:1; "love of the brethren," 1 Peter 1:22 and 2 Peter 1:7, RV.; pseudadelphos, "false brethren," 2 Cor 11:26; Gal 2:4.
(2) In Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, the RV has "son," for KJV, "brother."
(3) In Acts 13:1, for suntrophos, see BRING, B, Note (6). (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers) Strong's is KJV biased. Actually, most of the sources I use have a Protestant bias. I'm very slowly building up an arsenal of Catholic resources.
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 26, 2008 15:25:18 GMT -5
I am very KJV biased myself. Because to date it is the perfect translation from the original hebrew greek and aramiac texts of what comprises the Bible(being the word of God and God would not allow his word to go unpreserved and used the KJ translators to translate accuratly and wholly the word of God into the english language). But as far as the Jesus having brothers issue goes. In the context that you read about his brethren. We know that John the Baptist was the cousin of Jesus. But the Bible gives the specific names of the Brothers of Jesus. And we know that John the baptist is not mentioned as one of his brothers. So if it was refering to cousins and not blood brothers then why would it leave out his cousin John. And why would Josephus mention James as the brother of Jesus the one they called the Christ. Again you have got to look at the context of the passage to see what it is actualy talking about. As far as I can see it makes the most sense that the scripture is speaking of this half brothers and sisters. And I understand the many different meanings of the word brother or brethren seems to have all the same meanings that the word in english has. So again it makes sense that in the context used in this passage would be therefor biological half brothers and sisters.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 26, 2008 16:27:26 GMT -5
I am very KJV biased myself. Because to date it is the perfect translation from the original hebrew greek and aramiac texts of what comprises the Bible(being the word of God and God would not allow his word to go unpreserved and used the KJ translators to translate accuratly and wholly the word of God into the english language). Funny, that's the reason I don't hold to the KJV. I don't believe God would have allowed His Word to be corrupted for more than 1600 years waiting for King James to call for a version to ease the collective British conscience about remaining apart from the Church. Okay, suppose Jesus did have brothers and sisters. Since Scripture says He was "firstborn", they must have been younger. Therefore, it would be likely that they would have been living at the time of His crucifixion. Yet, Jesus didn't speak from the Cross about His brothers and sisters taking care of His mother. Rather, He gave her over to the apostle John for her care. (John 19:26-27) If He had brothers and sisters, why did He feel a need to speak in such a way in the moments before His death?
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 28, 2008 18:28:49 GMT -5
The church that they were not desiring to be apart of anymore was the Catholic church(at the time killing and burning at the stake any who disagreed with their pagnistic ideas of Christianity and praying to the pagan goddess(Queen of Heaven)under a different name. They did not hold to such doctrines as the physical presence in the elements during the sacraments. And this among many other things they did not agree with. And nor should they have. The Bible in its original tongues were not allowed to be read by the common folk(because if they could read it they would know what it really said for themselves. And then they could think for themselves). This is the reason why the catholic church at the time did not want to Bible tyranslated into the common laguage. And the King James translators were definitly used of God to bring his Almighty word to the common folk rich and poor alike. I know this kind of attacks the catholic church. But you do know it has a dark history. And sometimes it has to be brought up. Today its alot different because people can read the Bible for themselves and make up their own minds.
Where were they? They were not at the cross. They did not believe in their half brother as the Son of God(God incarnate in human flesh). James and Jude only believed after the death and ressurection of their half brother. So we have John and Mary right there with him when he died. I dont know all of the answers. But I can say this. There was only one disciple left by his side. And that one took his mother in. And we know that he was not subject to her in any means. As he was her savior just as he is all Christians today. I think that that could be one reason why he told that to John instead of his brothers or sisters. Because they were not there. Nowhere to be found when her firstborn son(born befor she ever knew a man)was being beaten and mocked and scourged and crucified for the very sins that ought to have sent her to hell. And he went to hell in her stead. And I can imagen that this had to have been going through her mind as she watched him in his final moments. For her to think that this was the reason for it all. This is why God used her as a vessel. This was the whole purpose of her son's virgin birth. So that he could die for her and everybody elses sins. And at this moment only his disciple John was there with him. That had to mean something. Her own children did not and could not understand what she knew in her heart and mind. And Jesus saw the only two who stayed by his side. This was important. John had something in him that the others did not have. I can not say for sure. But this could very well be the reason why Jesus said to John this behold your mother. And to Mary Woman behold your son.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 28, 2008 19:31:31 GMT -5
The church that they were not desiring to be apart of anymore was the Catholic church This part of your post is true -- though they had separated some 100+ years earlier under King Henry VIII, because he wanted to divorce his wife and this is not permitted in the Church. Not so - the Church has never had the authority to put anyone to death. Rather it was secular leaders of Catholic countries who sentenced dissenters to death. You've swallowed a bunch of anti-Catholic bunk. What? Mary is the Queen of Heaven, but she certainly is no pagan goddess. She is mother of our Lord. I would have thought we would have agreed on this much. More anti-Catholic rhetoric. Wrong. The Church of England initially kept most (if not all) of the beliefs of the Catholic Church -- including papal authority, though they transferred this authority to King Henry VIII ... and later to Queen Elizabeth. Their position on transubstantiation did not change until her reign. The Bible in its original tongues was not read by common folk because common folk were not literate until the industrial revolution about 400 years later! (Largely due to the work of Catholic educators pushing for reform of schools... but that's another topic.) Educated folk did study the Bible in its original languages -- how else do you think Martin Luther managed to translate from the Greek and Hebrew to German? He was no one special -- just a plain old Augustinian monk. News for you: John Wyclif translated the Bible to (Middle) English in 1383 -- more than 200 years before the KJV. I can assure you I have a far better grasp of the history of Christianity than you do -- it is clear from this post. I advise you to get out there and study for yourself instead of repeating what you've been told by KJV-only folk. As you say, think for yourself. Not evidenced here. I'm hopeful your next post will reflect more study and thought and less regurgitation. Clearly not. Whether or not the imaginary brothers and sisters were present at the Cross has no bearing on my question. Nor does their belief or unbelief. They believed in their own mother, didn't they? If so, He would not have needed to be concerned for her welfare at all. It will surprise you, I suppose, to hear that Catholics believe that too. No one believes that Mary was not in need of salvation like all people. The rest of your post is pure speculation. I thought you didn't believe in adding to God's Word?
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 29, 2008 15:52:19 GMT -5
The second part of my post was only speculation. I do not deny that. But its perhaps food for thought. My opinion is all. And I can say that to call Mary the Queen of Heaven is paganistic. In the book of Jerimiah God curses his own people for baking cakes to the Queen of Heaven. I agree that Mary was indeed a godly woman. She obviously stood out in the eyes of God to be used for this great purpose. But to call her the Queen of Heaven and then to pray to her is not what I think she would have ever thoguht would happen. Being that she prayed to her Son Jesus why not we pray to Jesus the only intersessor between God and man. I may not be fully knowledgable in all aspects of the Catholic church. But I do have records of Christians being burnt at the stake by Catholic priests. I can pull some of them up for you if you want. I find it very encouraging to read the sacrifices made for Jesus Christ by his saints. So again I may not be acurate on all of my statments. But I can say for certanty that the Catholic church has a dark history.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 29, 2008 18:58:50 GMT -5
Yes, you will have to provide evidence of members of the Catholic hierarchy putting anyone to death. Oh, and be sure it's not from some polemic source -- it needs to be objective from an historian. Not something written by a Protestant reformer -- a lot of what was written by them is out and out lies. I'm not kidding. Until you study history for yourself, you have ignorance as an excuse for believing what the Reformers wrote. But once you get deeper, you'll discover that they were not above lying for their cause. As for the Queen of Heaven comments, just because there was a goddess called "Queen of Heaven" doesn't have any bearing on Mary's true claim to that title. Many, many leaders (including several of the Caesars in Rome) were referred to as "King of Kings" but that doesn't have any bearing on our Lord's truly holding this title, does it? Same with Mary. As for intercession, do you not pray intercessory prayer for those who request you to? Same with Mary -- we ask her to pray for us. Same with the other Saints. They are just people who lived exemplary lives and are believed to be with Jesus in Heaven. As such, we believe that their prayers are powerful. Scripture says, "The prayers of a righteous man availeth much." (KJV, just for you ) If this applies to those still on earth, how much moreso must it be true of those living with Him? Jesus is the only intercessor in that it is only in Him and through Him that our prayers are heard by God. That is as true of Mary and the Saints as it is of you and I. But we don't stop praying just because Jesus is the only intercessor, do we? Hope this helps...
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Dec 31, 2008 16:10:41 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying. In Iraq I had a Catholic priest as my chapian. He was a good guy. He never expected me to call him father or confess anything to him. He did tell me kinda the same thing as you are telling me with praying to the saints though. I do not believe that it is right because they are with the Lord already. The Bible forbids any pagan practice. And when I see statues and dead people being bowed down to in the name of Christianity(as I saw in the Philipians and in shri-Lanka)it sickens me. I understand me praying for you or you praying for me. All Christians are saints. So we can all pray for each other and for the sinner as well. I can understand the idea you are putting forth. But I do not agree with praying to the dead. Because you and I are here we ought to pray for each other.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Dec 31, 2008 18:35:28 GMT -5
And I know what you mean - I used to feel the same way exactly about Mary and the Saints and other Catholic practices. I still do not show very many signs of reverence before statues, etc. for this very reason. Even though I understand that there are degrees of reverence -- bowing being one of the least of them -- I still refrain because these practices can be so scandalous to onlookers who do not understand.
There are some practices, though, where my beliefs outweigh my concern for onlookers. For example, in the presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, I always genuflect and, if I'm not there very long, remain on my knees. I'm not kneeling to a piece of bread -- I'm kneeling because my Lord is truly there before my eyes. That's an amazing thing, and I pray I never lose that sense of awe in His presence.
There is an aspect of this in the Catholic practice. The people do not kneel or bow to just any old statue. It is only to statues which have formally been blessed by a priest. So it is really the connection to the Saints present with those sacramentals through that blessing (we believe Christ does the blessing through the priest) which make it okay to show reverence. They would not kneel or bow if you brought a statue to them and said, "This is Mary" or "This is St. Francis" -- they would ask you if they could have the statue blessed.
|
|
robl
Guide
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Posts: 185
|
Post by robl on Jan 2, 2009 12:04:37 GMT -5
This is where I shy away from the Catholic church. Because idols(statues images of any kind)are abomination unto the Lord God. And I do not even have so much as a picture of someone's idea of what Jesus looked like. I do have two crosses. One in my little war memorial I have in my room. And a neckless(I dont like to wear jewlery unless its a watch. its just not my thing)that hangs on a picture of my niece and nephew. But as far as statues or pictures of Jesus I do not have any. I believe that the 2nd commandment to have no images before the Lord my God is very important. I am reminded of the Philistines. How that they stole away with the ark of the covenant. And they saw this as repesenting the Lord God of Israel. And they placed it under the statue of Dagon. And when the priests of Dagon came into the temple the next day they found their beloved idol fallen down bowed before the God of Israel. And so they foolishly placed him back in his place. And the next day when they came back they had found their beloved god face down before the God of Israel with his head and hands broke off. God humbled these fools who worshipped a false God. If you read the whole story you will find thaty in the end they pay homage to the God of Israel to get rid of the plague of emrods that God smote them with. I love that story.
Because in the end blessed by a priest or not blessed the idols are still blind deaf and dumb. And can do nothing to save the people from their sins. The Shri-Lankans prayed to their idols of everything from buddha and Krishna to Mary and the saints. And they did nothing for them in the day of distater. 39,000 people died and perished eternally worshipping and serving something that had no power to save them. I was there to clean up the mess after the tsumoni. I pray that I never have to see such death and destruction again in my lifetime. But there was a preacher and his church that were in a boat trying to escape. And the preacher prayed in the name of Jesus and rebuked a wave that was sure to crush him and his small church. And the wave fell silent and they were carried to safety. Thank God that he is real and I do not need an image or statue to pray or bow to.
|
|