St. Mary . . .

[ezra]

Perhaps you can address the post in which he is referenced? Do you have a rebuttal? Do you have evidence that in Jewish / Semitic antiquity, families were in fact exclusively nuclear as our Western families are today?

i stick with THe Bible i am not really into the post other than i disagree i looked up your source and that is what i come up with

 

[ezra]

Feel free to offer a rebuttal to what is written.

not my cup of tea

 

[Walpole]

not my cup of tea

Obviously.

 

[Walpole]

i stick with THe Bible i am not really into the post other than i disagree i looked up your source and that is what i come up with

Then what does the Bible say? For example, what do these passages say about the concept of family in Biblical antiquity?

Genesis 10:5, 32; 12:3 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33

Numbers 1:2

Judges 17-18

Amos 3:1-2

Joshua 7:16-18

1 Sam 20:6, 29


These are but a few examples of families / households in Biblical antiquity. They are not like our modern notion of nuclear family units. Thus, you cannot impose a 21st century Western notion of a nuclear family onto Biblical texts written in the context of a Semitic concept of family / households / clans.

 

[ezra]

if your trying to convince me ..its not working i do not buy into Mary a virgin all her life .if that what you want to believe that is between you and God

 

[MarkT]

Nevertheless, you seem to be arguing that it requires a work for a woman's salvation, according to this philosophy a woman must bear children. How do you square that with 'Faith Alone'?

I think Paul is saying childbearing is one way of serving God. Since women are not allowed to teach or have authority over men, so Paul allows women serve God by bearing children, (especially God fearing sons). Then he adds, "if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." 1 Tim. 2:15

Which were what? So, when the hour does come, Mary can ask for miracles, then doesn't she become a conduit of His grace?

Feeding the 5000, healing the sick, raising the dead. I believe his hour began when he left his mother to begin his ministry. I believe Jesus' steps were ordered from the hour of his birth to the hour of his death. Pr. 20:24

Mary was his earthly mother. She didn't have anything to do with his ministry.

I have no doubt; but how much louder a voice do you suppose His spouse has?

Are you suggesting Mary is married to God?

"Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners; but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God," [Ephesians 2:19]

"Fellow citizens" are of one nation. All Catholics, whether in the Church Militant, the Church suffering or the Church Triumphant are of one nation, one Body. Hence, we pray for one another. . . "pray one for another, that you may be saved." [James 5:16]

James 5:16
Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. RSV

So this is about prayer and healing the sick. Like he said, the elders should pray over the sick man. James 5:13:14

 

[billybalke]

Galatians 1:19 validates the Catholic position and destroys any possibility that James is a uterine sibling of Jesus. I don't want to re-type what someone has already dissected...

---> http://shamelesspopery.com/st-jude-and-the-brothers-of-jesus/

Sorry Walpole, Gal.1:19 most definitely proves Jesus had a brother. Language could not be clearer. Gal.1:19 in no way "validates the Catholic position"

 

[Walpole]

Sorry Walpole, Gal.1:19 most definitely proves Jesus had a brother. Language could not be clearer. Gal.1:19 in no way "validates the Catholic position"

Obviously you didn't read the link.

 

[billybalke]

Obviously you didn't read the link.

Hello Walpole---YES, I did read the link. It the essence of wishful thinking. The link reminds me of Peter in II Pet.3 who wrote of Paul's writings: "---they that are unlearned and unstable wrest , as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" vs.16.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVANIST

 

[JosephT]

Please consider Gal.1:19

Then you didn't even read the verse. “But other of the apostles I saw none”. Then St. Paul says that the only Apostle present was [save] “James the brother of the Lord." [Galatians 1:19]. James was one of 12, the only one present. It proves that the James was a spiritual brother of Jesus Christ in the New Covenant Kingdom.

JosephT

 

[JosephT]

Hi Joseph ---I don't believe the word "likely" is what we need here but rather "what saith the scripture?" Rom.4:3.

Please consider Gal.1:19

We do know with certainty that Sacred Scripture rules out a blood sibling relationship with Jesus Christ as the so called “brothers” by the process of elimination. Each “brother” can be accounted for as sons of different mothers and fathers or simply some other relationship. Yet, we don’t know in each instance whether ins saying “brother” author means clansmen, or some family relationship other than blood related sibling or simply a spiritual brother. Consequently, in saying James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (Jude) are “likely nephews” of Joseph I am leaving open the possibility that there are other intended by the author. Where the authors took pains to define the relationship of all the major figures in the Gospel, it’s impalpable to believe otherwise. Reasoning rightly in a Sacred Scripture that makes no clam of blood related brothers of Christ one can only conclude there are none.

But, if serving another purpose, you must find reason to support some theology then truth is lost.

JosephT

 

[billybalke]

We do know with certainty that Sacred Scripture rules out a blood sibling relationship with Jesus Christ as the so called “brothers” by the process of elimination. Each “brother” can be accounted for as sons of different mothers and fathers or simply some other relationship. Yet, we don’t know in each instance whether ins saying “brother” author means clansmen, or some family relationship other than blood related sibling or simply a spiritual brother. Consequently, in saying James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (Jude) are “likely nephews” of Joseph I am leaving open the possibility that there are other intended by the author. Where the authors took pains to define the relationship of all the major figures in the Gospel, it’s impalpable to believe otherwise. Reasoning rightly in a Sacred Scripture that makes no clam of blood related brothers of Christ one can only conclude there are none.

But, if serving another purpose, you must find reason to support some theology then truth is lost.

JosephT

Hi Joseph T
Gal.1:19 says different.

 

[MarkT]

Your error stems from forcing a modern Westernized concept of a family unit (i.e. a nuclear family) onto an ancient Hebrew / Semitic (tribal) culture. The ancient Hebrews did not view family in this manner. Thus, you skew the text by applying modern concepts to ancient cultures, thereby incorrectly interpreting those passages by doing so through the lens of a modern nuclear family.



First born was a title given at birth, not after subsequent maternities (cf. Exodus 13:1-2).





Once again, St. Matthew's teaching is only concerned with the events up until the Nativity. His narrative is not implying anything about Joseph's alleged sexual activity after the Nativity. St. Matthew would have written 'until after' if he had wanted to do so, to avoid the obvious ambiguity. Matthew 1:25 is about Jesus' identity as the Messiah, not Joseph's sex life.

How are James and Joseph and Simon and Judas related? Are they brothers? So it's ok to call them brothers, but when it comes to Jesus, the word has a broader meaning.

 

[JosephT]

How are James and Joseph and Simon and Judas related? Are they brothers? So it's ok to call them brothers, but when it comes to Jesus, the word has a broader meaning.

James, Jose, Simon and Jude are related through their Mother, Mary of Clopas, and their father Clopas; hence neither of which are sons of Mary of Joseph. Judas is known as Jude, the author of Scripture with that name and Joseph is known as Jose as we understand for Jewish tradition.

See the following link

Mary is Ever Virgin for reason. God is all knowledge that has contemplated himself, thus becoming "the brightness of his glory, and the [express image, and most perfect resemblance], and upholding all things by the word of his power, making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high." [Hebrews 1:3]. His acts then, the incarnation, have expressed meaning. Just is God is incapable of sin, He acts within the confines of His own laws, first given to Judaism. The Jews carried the ark of the Covenant from site to site for millennia after millennia, each location the ark rested was a holly place, not to be violated by man. In Mary the Mother of God, we find the "Living Covenant", Christ Himself, hence to violate that holly place would result in death, spiritual death. The consequence then is Mary becomes inexplicably tied to your salvation; not as the primary source of grace, but rather a channel through which the Living Grace comes. Failing to recognize this simple truth makes the vision of Christ flawed, perverted and distorted by one's own will. Christ then becomes a magical figure, unreal, without substance and without Wisdom, incapable of your salvation.

If you wish to say, your grace comes directly through God, He need not act through others, a Truth of the forgone act of salvation lies unrecognized. We know the Living Salvation comes to us through others by simple acknowledgement of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God. Thus, the salvation you think can have without Ever Virgin Mary is nothing more than 'good vibes', a nice feeling somehow comforts you while facing our ultimate demise. Without her, as the Mother of the Church, one remains outside the walls of His Kingdom, subject to all the real threats of the wilderness.

JosephT

 

[JosephT]

Hi Joseph T
Gal.1:19 says different.

I disagree for the reasons stated in my post.

JosephT

 

[WIP]

Okay fellas. It has been thoroughly established that you have a disagreement. No need to continue with the reminders. Instead, work toward finding common ground to build on.

 

[Walpole]

Hello Walpole---YES, I did read the link. It the essence of wishful thinking. The link reminds me of Peter in II Pet.3 who wrote of Paul's writings: "---they that are unlearned and unstable wrest , as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" vs.16.

TO BE DEEP IN SCRIPTURE IS TO CEASE BEING CATHOLIC, PROTESTANT, JEW AND CALVANIST

Obviously you didn't, as James' mother is identified in the Gospels and it's not Mary of Nazareth.

Once again, Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows they were not uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.

 

[Walpole]

How are James and Joseph and Simon and Judas related? Are they brothers? So it's ok to call them brothers, but when it comes to Jesus, the word has a broader meaning.

Again, Scripture does say Jesus had brothers (and sisters). However, Scripture shows none are ever identified as being uterine brothers. As I stated in previous posts here, the term "brother" in Jewish antiquity had a much broader meaning than a uterine or agnate sibling.

Scripture calls Jesus THE son of Mary; not a son of Mary.

 

[stovebolts]

I am issuing temorary thread bans for overly aggresive comments or rude replies. Please PM me if you were effected and want to discuss it.

For those receiving this thread ban, you will be removed from the Theology forum on your next infraction.

We're not going to spend our time in this topic or any other topic debating. Speak your differences and either move on or hopefully seek a mutual understanding.

 

[JosephT]

Okay fellas. It has been thoroughly established that you have a disagreement. No need to continue with the reminders. Instead, work toward finding common ground to build on.

There's no real common ground as we commune at different altars. As a consequence, I'm left with describing how and why the true altar appears in reality. I do not accept what isn't real; it would be like saying we can turn gravity on and off at will - it doesn't describe reality. Whereas Catholics have a single altar, while each non-Catholic has his own altar of reality within himself. This is the non-Catholic's choice to be grounded in himself as an authority whose rule and measure is not in himself. Conversely in Catholicism the "church of the living God" is the "pillar and ground of the truth." [1 Timothy 3:15].

As such, common ground looses all sense of mutual understanding.

This post in and of itself is an example, likely you don't have a clue as to why I would say there is no common ground. The practice of non-Catholics to accept principles not their own insofar as meet some vague image of their own concept of truth, whether it be true or not, i.e. accepting the “the tyranny of tolerance" [Pope Benedict XVI]. That is to say tolerance can be a virtue, however tolerance is its own enemy as it cannot tolerate intolerance.

So, were back to the subject of the thread. Mary should be, must be, for right reasoning in the faith of Jesus Christ a central figure through which God acts for our salvation. She is a singularity in Christology tying Old Testament prophesy with God's New Covenant, without whom Christ remains a mystic - a bad thing.

JosephT