Results 1 - 20 of 31
|Results from: Notes
Author: jawz Ordered by Date
|1||My mom is praying to saints for||Jude 1:9||jawz||48124|
|Quote: "When she "ask" the Saints for intercessory pray, she is wrong because their are dead, and they will be dead until resurrection, if what we belive is true."
oscar, I would like to direct you to what Jesus says in Matthew 22:31-32 "But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
|2||Is the Bible filled with TRUTH?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||48120|
|I want to add my complete agreement with what Hank says. I looked at the examples you quoted earlier, and particulary with John 10:30 "I and the Father are one", there is absolutely no way that the greek can be translated as "like one". You will also not find a single English translation of the bible that translates it this way.|
|3||Sola Scriptura supported by bible?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||48116|
|Hank, I do not attack the authority of the bible, but I do contend that there is synergy between the bible and the traditions. The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible. One is not subordinate to the other. I believe the traditions are necessary for a proper understanding of scripture and to protect against us unwittingly applying our own bias to the interpretation of scripture. Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors.
Just to make my position clear, questioning sola scriptura is not questioning the authority of the bible, simply your interpretation of what scripture says on this issue. Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries. I find this reasoning dubious at the very least and in direct opposition to what Christ said of the church.
|4||jawz, Who's the carpenter, son of Mary?||Mark 6:3||jawz||48015|
|The only traditions that Jesus broke were the false ones created by the Pharasees. God makes it very clear that the family is extremely important. If you believe that Jesus broke this tradition you really need to explain why.|
|5||Was James the son Alpaheus Jesus brother||Matt 10:3||jawz||48011|
|James the son of Alphaeus (aramaic for Clopas) is also the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas. He has a brother named Joses and they are two of the four "brothers" of Jesus. That they are called Jesus' brothers should not surprise us as Mary, the wife of Clopas is elsewhere described as the sister of the virgin Mary. Clearly they cannot be siblings as they would not both be called Mary yet they are still called sisters. Likewise, Elizabeth who is a descendant of Aaron is described as being the virgin Mary's cousin, yet Mary is descended from David and the tribes were not allowed to intermarry.
Steve, I know you don't agree with me but you could at least admit to the existence of different views on this matter.
|6||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47979|
|Married to a beautiful Greek woman and currently working at the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki. I'm a sixth generation Aussie if that means anything.
Tim, there is no point in the history of the Orthodox church that I can find where it was decided that Mary was ever-virgin. The Orthodox church maintains exactly the same traditions now that it has for nearly 2000 years. Church liturgy is filled with scripture such that every service is a recitation of scripture. If you go to a service in Egypt or Palestine or Greece, apart from the language the services will be almost identical, despite having been physically seperate for hundreds of years. This is the nature of the Orthodox church. All of them believe that Mary remained a virgin.
|7||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47966|
|I think you will find that it is almost a direct quote from the greek scripture. You are interpreting it in exactly the same way as you interpreted the passage. Irenaeus is not stating anything more or less than what scripture says.|
|8||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47965|
|It is rather the absence of anything to the contrary of Mary being ever-virgin. When Jerome writes against Helvidius in the 4th century, note the tone of his response. Note also the complete lack of any disagreement from any of the churches at the time or later. If you go to any orthodox church on the globe, whether it be in Syria or Jerusalem or Norway or Egypt or Romania or Russia you will find the same thing taught about the ever-virginity of Mary, yet I do not think you will find anywhere in any ecumenical council where this was laid out as church dogma. It wasn't necessary because it was always understood to be the case.|
|9||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47963|
|I would hardly call it overwhelming contextual evidence. Two passages describe 4 men as being Jesus brothers, yet elsewhere two of them are identified as the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Nowhere is anyone but Jesus described as being the son of the virgin Mary. Mary, wife of Clopas is described as being the virgin Mary's sister which she clearly cannot be. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist is described as her cousin, yet the Jewish tribes do not intermarry, Mary is descended from David, Elizabeth is descended from Aaron, so they cannot be cousins. However, from what we know from tradition, Mary was raised in the temple from childhood and would probably have had a close relationship with Elizabeth, the wife of the priest Zechariah. Clearly, the terms brother, sister and cousin are used to describe a broader range of kinship than we are familiar with in our modern society. We should change our views to fit the bible, not the other way around.|
|10||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47954|
|Ray, I assume that you are saying that the term "firstborn" implies that there will be a 2nd born (and a 3rd, 4th,...). This is not the case. An only child is also a firstborn.
Matthew 1:25 could be understood as saying that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, or as most here assume, Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. The early church (which lived and breathed the Greek language) understood the first to be the meaning of the verse. The latter interpretation has only come into being in our 'enlightened' age.
|11||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47953|
|Raised in the Anglican church of Australia, but over the last nine years God has been dragging me kicking and screaming into the Orthodox church.
I do not subscribe to sola scriptura as the bible itself does not support this notion. The Apostles always taught orally in person and only wrote letters when circumstances did not permit them to travel. Note that they sent others with the letters 'to confirm orally' what they had written. The bible comprises a small, but important part of the traditions passed on to the church by the Apostles. The Apostles did not just give people the gospel, they explained it to them as well, and the Orthodox church has continued to pass on faithfully that which it was taught.
|12||names of mary and Josoph||Mark 6:3||jawz||47952|
|James and Joses are the children of Mary the wife of Clopas (Alphaeus in Aramaic), not the virgin Mary. Mary the wife of Clopas is described as the sister of the virgin Mary in John 19:25 yet clearly they could not be siblings as no one gives their children the same name. Note also that Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist is described as Mary's cousin, yet Elizabeth is from the Levite tribe while Mary is descended from David so clearly they cannot truly be cousins. Jews were required to marry within their tribe.|
|13||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47951|
|I would rather be treated by someone who had been a practising physician all his life than someone who was extrememly knowledgeable but had never practised. The Early Christian Fathers lived and breathed the Greek language and had been taught many more things that had been passed on by the Apostles. We have only the Gospels and a few letters written in a language we no longer speak. If Paul hadn't been locked up so much we probably wouldn't even have his letters. The Apostles taught orally in person, it was only when circumstances did not permit that they wrote letters, but they also sent others to confirm 'orally' what was written. The bible is a small but important part of that tradition that was passed on by the Apostles but it is by no means all that was passed on. The early Christians knew that Mary remained a virgin, it was never disputed until Helvidius in the 4th century and when the dispute was answered by Jerome, it was with reluctance for fear that his reply might make Helvidius appear worth defeating. Every branch of the Orthodox church throughout the world (and of course the Roman Catholics) know without a doubt that Mary remained a virgin, because that is what the Apostles taught and was in turn passed on by their successors and so on within the church. You do not see a "cult of the ever-virginity of Mary" spring up from Jerome and his successors. Likewise, their is no way that Jerome could have influenced and changed the doctrines held by so many churches over such a wide geographic dispersion.|
|14||Christ born out of wedlock?||Matt 1:25||jawz||47950|
|Betrothal was legally binding. It was marriage with all the responsibilities and none of the privileges.|
|15||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47726|
|You are indeed correct and you will notice I have corrected myself in my last post titled "Jesus brothers? Final proof!"|
|16||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47725|
I'm reasonably fluent in Modern Greek and struggling through Koine Greek thus "I must stand on the shoulders of giants in order to see far". I rely on the interpretations of those who had Koine Greek as their mother tongue, the Early Christian Fathers.
Let me give a better example to show how "until" does not always limit.
Mark 12:36 David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared:" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." '
Does this imply that the condition of Jesus sitting at God's right hand will cease when all his enemies are put under his feet?
In Genesis 8:7 we read that Noah "sent forth a raven; and it went forth and did not return till [eos] after the water had gone from off the face of the earth." We know from Scripture that in fact, the raven never returned to the ark. It says that it did not return "until after," but in fact, it never returned at all. You might argue that it is expressed differently in the Hebrew, but since the Septuagint is commonly quoted in the gospels I think it is safe to accept it.
Anyway, have a look at my last post in response to kalos. It's titled "Brothers of Jesus? Final proof!" which I hope will put this issue to bed once and for all.
|17||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47722|
|Brothers of Jesus? Final proof!
Ok, I've done a bit more digging with regards to the so called brothers and sisters of Jesus.
Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 list as brothers of Jesus - James, Joseph (Joses), Simon and Jude. James and Joses were not sons of Mary or Joseph, as they are identified as children of a different Mary, who was the wife of Alphaeus-Cleopas (Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40). James is also referred to as the "son of Alphaeus", in the listing of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13) In John 19:25 we read "Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.". Mary, the wife of Clopas is named as the sister of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Now we are pretty certain from tradition that Mary was an only child, but beyond that no one would give both their children the same name, so Mary, the wife of Clopas must be a close relative of Jesus' mother. Note that she is called her sister, just as James, Joseph (Joses), Simon and Jude are called Jesus' brothers. Now the bible clearly identifies this Mary of Klopas (Cleopas), as the mother of Jesus' "brothers". The name Klopas or Cleopas is the same as Alphaeus in the Aramaic language which Jesus spoke. So we see that the so called brothers of Jesus identified in Mark 6:3 are elsewhere clearly identified as the sons of Alphaeus and his wife Mary of Klopas - the "sister" of the Virgin Mary.
Thus the scriptures show that the "brothers" of Christ are not His brothers, but some relation. There is no scriptural evidence to support the notion that the Virgin Mary bore any other children apart from Jesus Christ our God.
|18||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47717|
|Wholehearted agreement here. The Roman Catholics, with their doctrine of original sin, could not conceive of sinful flesh giving birth to the Holy Son of God. Jesus became flesh through the flesh of Mary, but if everyone is born in sin Jesus would have inherited the sinful nature of Mary's flesh. Thus they came up with the doctrine that Mary was somehow, by the grace of God, born without the sinful nature of the flesh. There is of course nothing in the bible which supports this.
Original sin was never a doctrine taught by Christ and the Apostles though. When Adam sinned he brought death into the world by separating himself from God, the source of all life. We as children of Adam do not inherit his sin, God does not judge people for sins they themselves never committed, but we do inherit his fallen nature, that is we are born into a fallen world and as such will die. We are born separated from the source of life and are condemned to slowly decay and die. So there is no need for Mary to have been "immaculately conceived" for her to be without sin since we are all born that way. Did Mary remain without sin though? Paul says "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" but what about Enoch in Genesis 5:24 who "walked with God" and was taken up by God without tasting death?
|19||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47715|
|I'm not Roman Catholic, but this intrigues me. The statement - "rather than the mother of the physical properties of Jesus of Nazareth" - is claiming that Jesus is not fully god and fully man. This is a serious heresy that was condemned by the third Ecumenical council held in Ephesus in 431 A.D. Read the proceedings here http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum03.htm
The term "Mother of God" was not something that was invented to combat heresy, but rather the natural outcome of a proper understanding of the incarnation of the Word.
|20||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47711|
|You would do well to question my scholarship Chris. I have been posting from memory and have not done a particularly good job of remembering up till now. I have managed to find my references now so let me try and clarify and clear up my earlier mistakes. Alas, with an online forum it is all too easy to post quickly without proper preparation. My sincere apologies to all.
The greek in Matt 1:25 is "kai ouk eginwsken autin ews ou etekev uion" ("w" is omega and the "i" in "autin" should be eeta) What we have here is an imperfect tense, continuous or linear action, "he was not knowing" or "he kept on not knowing". It does not imply that this condition changed after the birth of Jesus.
|Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last  >>|