It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[BreadOfLife]

We do need some relief here.

Tell me why this is so important.

Is it because Mary is almost declared a co-redemptrix?
Do you think this Pope is going to curb that, or encourage it?
I say curb.

Why is ANY OT Type and NT fulfillment important??
Because they ALL point us to Christ.

The OT type that was the Ark of the Covenant is fulfilled in Mary, the Ark of the NEW Covenant:
OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

St. Augustine, speaking with the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers, wrote that the “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New”. This statement means that unless one understands the Old Testament, one cannot understand the New Testament.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No - we only worship God.
YOU seem to worship the god of lies, though . . .

Anyway - "Adelphe" doesn't necessarily mean uterine sibling or blood relative - and neither does "Adelphos."

And what school do you have a degree in Greek from?
I know.
From "How to get a degree in anything for dummies".

 

[GodsGrace]

Why is ANY OT Type and NT fulfillment important??
Because they ALL point us to Christ.

The OT type that was the Ark of the Covenant is fulfilled in Mary, the Ark of the NEW Covenant:
OT - The Word was written by God on Tablets of Stone (Ex. 25:10) placed inside the Ark (Deut. 10:1)
NT - The Word of God became Flesh (John 1) conceived inside Mary (Luke 2:38) Mary carried the Word of God.

OT - "Who am I that the Ark of my Lord should come to me?" (2 Sam. 6:9)
NT - "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Luke 1:43)

OT - The When the Ark carrying the Word of God returned “David was leaping and dancing before the Lord” (2 Sam. 6:14)
NT - When Mary came into Elizabeth's presence carrying the word of God, the baby “leaped for joy” in Elizabeth's womb (Luke 2:38)

OT - The Ark carrying the Word of God is brought to the house of Obed-Edom for 3 months, where it was a blessing. (2 Sam. 6:11)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) carrying the Word of God goes to Elizabeth's house for 3 months, where she is a blessing (Luke 1:56)

OT - The Ark is captured (1 Sam 4:11) and brought to a foreign land and later returns (1 Sam 6:13)
NT - Mary (the new Ark) is exiled to a foreign land (Egypt) and later returns (Matt. 2:14)

OT - The On the Day of the Dedication of the Temple which Solomon built, there were 120 priests present (2 Chron. 5:11). The Ark of the covenant was carried into the Temple (2 Chron. 5:7) and fire came down from Heaven to consume the burnt offering (2 Chron. 7:7).
NT - The On the Day of Pentecost, there were 120 disciples of Jesus present in the Upper Room (Acts 1:15). Mar, the Mother of Jesus and the Ark of the NEW Covenant was also present while the Holy Spirit came down as tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).

St. Augustine, speaking with the wisdom of the Early Church Fathers, wrote that the “New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is revealed in the New”. This statement means that unless one understands the Old Testament, one cannot understand the New Testament.

I do like this post.
I said so the first time I saw it.
Don't agree with Augustine too much because he kept changing his mind about things, but he hit this one on the nail.

 

[BreadOfLife]

You say it wrong.
You list 3 women instead of four.
His mother (comma), his mother's sister (comma), Mary the wife of Clopas (comma), and Mary Magdalene (period).

That's why you need to read ALL THREE accounts in context, Einstein:

Matt. 27:56 says, "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother (Mary), and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

That's why you need to read ALL THREE accounts in context, Einstein:

Matt. 27:56 says, "among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee".

Mark 15:40 states, "There were also women looking on from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES THE YOUNGER and of Joses, and Salome".

Finally, John 19:25 tells us, "But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother (Mary), and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene".

Regardless of which one you use, YOU still said it wrong.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And what school do you have a degree in Greek from?
I know.
From "How to get a degree in anything for dummies".

Just a rudimentary study of the NT and Greek Septuagint shows us that "Adelphos" has MANY meanings.
For

- In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (Adelphos), even though he was the son of Haran, Abraham’s brother (Gen. 11:26–28).
- In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" (Adelphos) of his uncle Laban.
- Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brethren," (Adelphoi) the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).
- In Acts 1, the Apostles are trying to shoose a successor for Judas. It says that 120 "brothers" (Adelphi) were there to decide the matter.

There are HUNDREDS of other examples that show the definition of Adelphos is very broad and has MANY uses.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Regardless of which one you use, YOU still said it wrong.

Like I told you before - denial is NOT an argument.
It's just desperation . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

k, we're back at Matt 13; and i am prolly the most open guy on the planet to alt interpretations of Scripture, but i am not getting why you are led to jump to Matt 27 to justify that Mary did not have the children that Scripture plainly states she did in Matt 13, wadr.

What is the connection?

Are YOU that dense, also, bbyrd??

Matt. 27:56 simply shows WHOSE mother those "brothers" of Jesus was, along with Mark 15:40 and John 19:25.
In Matt. 13:55, they are asking about the "Adelphos" of Jesus - by NAME.
Jesus's mother in Matt. 27:56 and Mark 15:40, they are mentioned again - but as the sons of ANOTHER Mary.

 

[bbyrd009]

How many do YOU see??

Jesus's mother Mary was in the company of the James, Joseph, Simon and Judas - the sons of the other Mary near the cross.

ha pls, even you cannot really believe that this explains Matt 13:55, i mean here you are back at the cross scene, months later, again, with no explanation as to why the two should be connected to anyone's mind. Jesus' mother was not in any other Mary's company in the synagogue in Nazareth, where her relationship to Jesus and her other children is made crystal clear, except to a Catholic. At least you haven't connected them yet that i can see.

 

[bbyrd009]

Like I told you before - denial is NOT an argument.
It's just desperation . . .

imagine how we feel lol

 

[BreadOfLife]

ha pls, even you cannot really believe that this explains Matt 13:55, i mean here you are back at the cross scene, months later, again, with no explanation as to why the two should be connected to anyone's mind. Jesus' mother was not in any other Mary's company in the synagogue in Nazareth, where her relationship to Jesus and her other children is made crystal clear, except to a Catholic. At least you haven't connected them yet that i can see.

This is a lie.

I never said that the Church was "crystal clear" about their relationship. The Bible simply calls this other Mary, the mother of Apostle James the Younger (Less) the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus. She is called the wife of Clopas, which is also rendered as Alphaeus. This James the Less is ALSO known as the con of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:32).

Don't really know why this is so difficult for you to grasp . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

imagine how we feel lol

And I'm not arguing by denial like our friend Rollo or YOU.
When I argue a point - I come fully-equipped with Scripture, history and linguistics on my side.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

This is a lie.

I never said that the Church was "crystal clear" about their relationship. The Bible simply calls this other Mary, the mother of Apostle James the Younger (Less) the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus. She is called the wife of Clopas, which is also rendered as Alphaeus. This James the Less is ALSO known as the con of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:32).

Don't really know why this is so difficult for you to grasp . . .

You can't answer any of my 7 questions in post #721 but you blast Greek words all over the place like you are some kind of big shot.
Well, I'm simply not impressed.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Bible simply calls this other Mary, the mother of Apostle James the Younger (Less) the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus.

in Matt 13:55 too, is what you're saying? Ah, ok then. Still not sure how that connection is made, but at least there is some explanation

 

[bbyrd009]

This is a lie.

I never said that the Church was "crystal clear" about their relationship. The Bible simply calls this other Mary, the mother of Apostle James the Younger (Less) the "Adelphe" of Mary, mother of Jesus. She is called the wife of Clopas, which is also rendered as Alphaeus. This James the Less is ALSO known as the con of Alphaeus (Matt. 10:32).

Don't really know why this is so difficult for you to grasp . . .

i'm actually persuaded that you have some kind of case, because Matt 13:55 asks a question, by way of making a declaration, and i am aware that this is a dialectic device; unfortunately i am too new to that to make sense of it yet, and for whatever reason i cannot follow your connection to this other Mary at the cross and Jesus' mother--or i guess maybe i should say Mother, to you, sorry--Mary in the synagogue in Nazareth. Maybe @aspen could help here.

What's the RCC position on Matt 13:55 aspen? ty

Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

 

[Marymog]

Well Curious Mary,
I still say that because someone does not agree it does not make them dishonest.

Here's an example using a document YOU quoted:
The Protevangelium of James,
Chapter 18:

18. And he found a cave there, and led her into it; and leaving his two sons beside her, he went out to seek a widwife in the district of Bethlehem.

It's "James" telling the story of Mary's birth and her voyage to Bethlehem. The above is saying that Joseph left his two sons with Mary and went to look for a midwife.

1. I've always said that the other children might be half brothers of Jesus. This document would seem to prove that. I say "seem to" because there is some question as to its authenticity.

2. Do you notice that it says that Joseph left his two sons with Mary?
Does it mention this in the account of Luke? No.
So because it is NOT mentioned, does that mean it didn't happen?

If something is mentioned in the N.T., we can be sure that it happened.
If something is NOT mentioned, we cannot be sure that it did NOT actually HAPPEN.

Without looking for it now, there is one gospel writer that says there were two demon possessed men that went to Jesus.
Another gospel writer says that there was one demon possessed man that went to Jesus.
So we could be SURE that there was at least ONE.
Probably two but for some reason the other wasn't mentioned in one of the gospels.

So because the bible does not state names of siblings does not mean they did not exist.

And anyway, they are mentioned but you refuse to accept it.
Mathew 13:55
"His mother, Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph, and Simon, and Judas."
NASB

Sounds like we are in agreement. The only evidence we have is that Jesus 'brothers' were Joseph's children, not Mary's. Some question it's (Proto. of James) authenticity. You seem to lean towards the some that question, I lean the other way.

Which makes my statement true: "It would be dishonest to say that the belief is not backed up by 2,000 years of Christian history".

I have made the assertion that Christianity has been teaching perpetual virginity for 2,000 years. I asked you: Can you show me that Christianity HAS NOT been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years? I don't see anywhere in your above statement disproving my assertion.

I refuse to accept Matthew 13:55? Really? I have made it clear they are his brothers and their father is Joseph. That is the entire point of this discussion.

Love, Mary

 

[Marymog]

BTW,
The same Protoevangelium of James states that Joseph did have other children.

Paragraph 9:


9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord your God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; Numbers 16:31-33 how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in your house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received you from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave you in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to you. The Lord will protect you.

Hi GG,

You won't get an argument from me. That is what I have been saying all along.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

You can't answer any of my 7 questions in post #721 but you blast Greek words all over the place like you are some kind of big shot.
Well, I'm simply not impressed.

I answered all of your question with one answer because they were all basically the same stupid question.
Do some homework and come back with an intelligent response for a change.

 

[BreadOfLife]

i'm actually persuaded that you have some kind of case, because Matt 13:55 asks a question, by way of making a declaration, and i am aware that this is a dialectic device; unfortunately i am too new to that to make sense of it yet, and for whatever reason i cannot follow your connection to this other Mary at the cross and Jesus' mother--or i guess maybe i should say Mother, to you, sorry--Mary in the synagogue in Nazareth. Maybe @aspen could help here.

What's the RCC position on Matt 13:55 aspen? ty

Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't His mother called Mary, and His brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?

The Catholic Church doesn't have an "official" position on most verses of Scripture.
The Church, in its wisdom does, however, takes the different Gospel accounts in CONTEXT.

When comparing the different accounts of the "brethren" of Jesus and the places where they are named - it also takes the accounts of the women standing near the cross into consideration. We cannot "wish away" the fact that there were THREE Mary's at the Crucifixion and ONE of them is named as the mother of these "brethren" - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

THIS Mary is related to the mother of Jesus because she is called her "Adelphe". She cannot be her uterine sister, however, because her name is ALSO Mary. Her children are called the "Adelphoi" of Jesus.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The Catholic Church doesn't have an "official" position on most verses of Scripture.
The Church, in its wisdom does, however, takes the different Gospel accounts in CONTEXT.

When comparing the different accounts of the "brethren" of Jesus and the places where they are named - it also takes the accounts of the women standing near the cross into consideration. We cannot "wish away" the fact that there were THREE Mary's at the Crucifixion and ONE of them is named as the mother of these "brethren" - and it's NOT Mary, mother of Jesus.

THIS Mary is related to the mother of Jesus because she is called her "Adelphe". She cannot be her uterine sister, however, because her name is ALSO Mary. Her children are called the "Adelphoi" of Jesus.

Nobody's listening to you.
No one ever did.
We just like to hear you rant.