The Virgin Mary

Mik

Well-known member
Mary had other children, or at least one more child...Luke 2:7 should end this debate...Or will the rc denomination Scripture twisting begin?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Mary had other children, or at least one more child...Luke 2:7 should end this debate...Or will the rc denomination Scripture twisting begin?
Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.
 

Mik

Well-known member
Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.
Your comment has nothing to do with Luke 2:7
Try again?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Your comment has nothing to do with Luke 2:7
(Note: I don't know why this is emboldened. I am not doing this intentionally.)Correct. It is with regards to the Greek word which most translators translate as "brethren". It is the text used by most Catholics to defend their position. I don't mean to speak for their position(I don't adhere to it), but if I remember correctly, their argument goes something like: 'if God can impregnate Mary without her losing her virginity, he can cause her to give birth with the same results.

I don't agree with this argument, but I don't have anything to refute it either. I can only go so far as to say she was a virgin up to the point where she became pregnant by Joseph.

 

Mik

Well-known member
(Note: I don't know why this is emboldened. I am not doing this intentionally.)Correct. It is with regards to the Greek word which most translators translate as "brethren". It is the text used by most Catholics to defend their position. I don't mean to speak for their position(I don't adhere to it), but if I remember correctly, their argument goes something like: 'if God can impregnate Mary without her losing her virginity, he can cause her to give birth with the same results.

I don't agree with this argument, but I don't have anything to refute it either. I can only go so far as to say she was a virgin up to the point where she became pregnant by Joseph.
Did you even read Luke 2:7? . I can say that Mary had more children than Jesus based on Luke 2:7.
 

pilgrim

Well-known member
Probably because there is no Protestant doctrine of sinlessness.

'
NOT unbelievable, because our sinlessness comes from Christ's sinlessness being imputed to us by grace through faith in Him. Mary's sinlessness supposedly comes from her being conceived without the stain of original sin, the "Immaculate conception."
So are protestants sinless? Yes? No?
 

balshan

Well-known member
Did you even read Luke 2:7? . I can say that Mary had more children than Jesus based on Luke 2:7.
Mik they twist it. But when you put all the facts together it is obvious that Mary had other children.
Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.
It has to do with their theological belief. If RCs they prefer cousins it suits their purpose to promote the pV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mik

balshan

Well-known member
Mik they twist it. But when you put all the facts together it is obvious that Mary had other children.

It has to do with their theological belief. If RCs they prefer cousins it suits their purpose to promote the pV.
There is Luke 2:7 which states Jesus is the first born.

Next there is Matt 1:25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Then there are passages that mention Jesus had siblings - Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, and Mark 3:31, Matt 13:55, 56,John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14

Gal 1:19 clearly states James is Jesus' brother.

Then there are sources outside scripture that clearly state that Jesus had siblings and nephews. Josephus and Sextus Julius Africanus's reference to "desposyni" which means blood relatives of Jesus, Hegesippus mentions tow desposyni who became church leaders and
the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother.(from wiki brothers of Jesus)
From got questions:

Some Roman Catholics claim that these “brothers” were actually Jesus’ cousins. However, in each instance, the specific Greek word for “brother” is used. While the word can refer to other relatives, its normal and literal meaning is a physical brother. There was a Greek word for “cousin,” and it was not used. Further, if they were Jesus’ cousins, why would they so often be described as being with Mary, Jesus’ mother? There is nothing in the context of His mother and brothers coming to see Him that even hints that they were anyone other than His literal, blood-related, half-brothers.

A second Roman Catholic argument is that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. An entire theory of Joseph’s being significantly older than Mary, having been previously married, having multiple children, and then being widowed before marrying Mary is invented without any biblical basis. The problem with this is that the Bible does not even hint that Joseph was married or had children before he married Mary. If Joseph had at least six children before he married Mary, why are they not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23)?


There is overwhelming evidence both in scripture and outside that through Mary Jesus had blood siblings.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Mik they twist it. But when you put all the facts together it is obvious that Mary had other children.
I'm not buying this claim. I don't take their claim, but your claim is no better than there's when they say the same thing.
It has to do with their theological belief.
And your doesn't?
If RCs they prefer cousins it suits their purpose to promote the pV.
Doesn't "brothers" suit your purpose or point of view?

Why not just settle the issue by looking at the context itself? Why not just prove it must be "brothers" rather than "cousins"?

Again, I'm not taking their position. I just haven't seen anyone come up with evidence one way or the other.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I'm not buying this claim. I don't take their claim, but your claim is no better than there's when they say the same thing.

And your doesn't?

Doesn't "brothers" suit your purpose or point of view?

Why not just settle the issue by looking at the context itself? Why not just prove it must be "brothers" rather than "cousins"?

Again, I'm not taking their position. I just haven't seen anyone come up with evidence one way or the other.
It is not my claim it is the truth. It seems you are double minded on these things. As I said I have posted outside evidence, sources that used the term for blood relative in nuclear family. That confirm that Jesus had siblings. The normal way to translate the word is with brothers. So not to make it cousins is moving to the unusual use of the word, especially when there was a Greek word for cousins that was in use. But you can choose what you like to believe, that is your choice.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
,
Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.'
Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.
=======================================================

in other words it depends on the "Translation" you use;
such as one says "Born Again"
another says "Born Anew"
one says "contained in the Commandments"
another says "Written in the Law"
etc. etc. etc.

Woman
without
her
Man
is
a
Beast

Who is the Beast ???????

one Preach says it the woman
another preach says its the Man

depends on which school of theology you adhere too
and the "Translation" you use;

so who is correct ????????
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
,

Greek doesn't contain as many words as English, thus one word has a wider meaning which means that a translator has to pick whichever meaning fits best. Claiming someone is twisting scripture without supplying any evidence is the fallacy of Begging the Question.

I don't recall the reasons for why one translator would necessarily go with "children" rather than "cousins", but that would probably be a great way to prove one position over another.
=======================================================

in other words it depends on the "Translation" you use;
Not exactly. It depends upon which meaning is more appropriate, but these needn't be translated in the first place.
such as one says "Born Again"
another says "Born Anew"
Another uses a figure of speech, e.g. "born of water and spirit" which according to the figure Hendiadys means to be born of spiritual water. The following verses confirm this interpretation e.g. "that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit", and "the spirit breathes where he will, you hear his voice, but you know not where it comes from. So it is with everyone who is BORN of the SPIRIT".
depends on which school of theology you adhere too
Depends upon which school is better at teaching grammar, syntax, etc.
 

mica

Well-known member
shnarkle said:
Agreed. However, it is important to note (as you just did) that Paul's comments in Romans and Hebrews as well as the remarks in John's letters refer explicitly to past sins.

I think it says more than that. It is important to note that John's letters contrast two very distinct scenarios, i.e. those who sin, versus those who don't.

Who I am isn't as important as the content posted so I'm not sure why you're asking.
Because if you are not an RC we cannot debate one another. The rule is at the top of the forum. It is not about importance.
it's not clear by his/her posts whether catholic or not. posts seem to waffle back 'n forth.
 

Mod10

Moderator
Staff member
Not exactly. It depends upon which meaning is more appropriate, but these needn't be translated in the first place.

Another uses a figure of speech, e.g. "born of water and spirit" which according to the figure Hendiadys means to be born of spiritual water. The following verses confirm this interpretation e.g. "that which is flesh is flesh, that which is spirit is spirit", and "the spirit breathes where he will, you hear his voice, but you know not where it comes from. So it is with everyone who is BORN of the SPIRIT".

Depends upon which school is better at teaching grammar, syntax, etc.
Shnarkle....if you are not a Catholic, then you cannot debate non-Catholics on this board. This board is for non-Catholics and Catholics to debate each other.

If you are not Catholic, then take debating with non-Catholics on here to the Apologetics board. Thank you.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
it's not clear by his/her posts whether catholic or not. posts seem to waffle back 'n forth.
I apologize for intruding into this discussion.

I will do my best to be more cognizant of what thread I am clicking on and reading in the future.

I've noticed that there's a feature to ignore the posts of other people. Is there some way for me to ignore the Catholicism thread to insure that I don't inadvertently make this mistake again?

Again, I apologize for causing this problem and wasting other people's time with this issue.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Shnarkle....if you are not a Catholic, then you cannot debate non-Catholics on this board. This board is for non-Catholics and Catholics to debate each other.

If you are not Catholic, then take debating with non-Catholics on here to the Apologetics board. Thank you.
I apologize for intruding into this discussion.

I will do my best to be more cognizant of what thread I am clicking on and reading in the future.

I've noticed that there's a feature to ignore the posts of other people. Is there some way for me to ignore the Catholicism thread to insure that I don't inadvertently make this mistake again?

Again, I apologize for causing this problem and wasting other people's time with this issue.
 

4Him

Administrator
Staff member
I apologize for intruding into this discussion.

I will do my best to be more cognizant of what thread I am clicking on and reading in the future.

I've noticed that there's a feature to ignore the posts of other people. Is there some way for me to ignore the Catholicism thread to insure that I don't inadvertently make this mistake again?

Again, I apologize for causing this problem and wasting other people's time with this issue.
You can turn off notifications for any thread, but there's not an ignore feature for a thread.
 
Top