Results 21 - 40 of 59
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jawz Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 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. |
||||||
22 | 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. | ||||||
23 | 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. | ||||||
24 | 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. | ||||||
25 | 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!" | ||||||
26 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47725 | ||
Greetings Tim! 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. |
||||||
27 | 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. |
||||||
28 | Galatians 3:1-9 what is justify? | Gal 3:8 | jawz | 47718 | ||
I'd recommend you look at this article to understand it properly. http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/JustificationPaul.html |
||||||
29 | 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? |
||||||
30 | 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. |
||||||
31 | Did Mary and Joseph marry? | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47712 | ||
Hank, you make a big deal about marriage here, but I must ask you this; Where in the NT does it say that Joseph and Mary were married? It says they were betrothed, but nowhere does it say they progressed beyond this stage. The traditional understanding is that a betrothal gives a couple all the responsibilities of marriage, but none of the privileges. Once betrothed, one can only break the betrothal with a divorce. Nevertheless, the couple were not permitted to have marital relations until after the marriage ceremony. | ||||||
32 | 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. |
||||||
33 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47710 | ||
Steve, I apologise. Your response to my description of the grammar in my original post is correct. I was mistaken in my description of it being perfect continous. I have since dug up my sources and repeatedly hit myself over the head with them (figuratively speaking). The greek in Matthew 1:25 is "kai ouk eginwsken autin ews ou etekev uion" ("w" is omega and the "i" in "autin" should be eeta) which 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 stopped when Jesus was born. BTW, I can appreciate your interpratation of those four passages being answered yes, except for the last one which I think is a bit disingenious. If we are with him, it automatically follows that he must be with us. |
||||||
34 | was peter the first of a succession of p | Ps 118:22 | jawz | 47708 | ||
No other cornerstone (or capstone) is described as being the foundation of the church in scripture but Christ. Jesus is the stone the builders rejected in Psalm 118:22 which Jesus quotes in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, and again by Peter in Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:4-7. Paul says in Ephesians 2:19-20 "Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." Regarding Jesus giving Peter the "keys to the kingdom", he says the same to all of the Apostles again in Matthew 18:18. This promise was fulfilled in the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If Jesus had made Peter the head of his church, over all the Apostles, then you would expect the Apostles to obey Jesus in his choice of leader. But if you look at the council held in Jerusalem in Acts 15, we see that it was James who presided over the council and not Peter. Also, if you read the early christian fathers, you will discover that Peter's successors as heads of the church in Rome did not believe that they had primacy over the the other churches, but rather lovingly rebuked those who held them in such esteem. |
||||||
35 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47586 | ||
This James (the Lord's brother) is one of the twelve apostles is he not? In Galatians 1:19 Paul says "I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother". In which case he is either James, the brother of John (the sons of Zebedee) or James, the son of Alphaeus, neither of whom are sons of Joseph. Thus you have given clear evidence from scripture that to be called Jesus' brothers does not necessarily mean they are his siblings. Thank you for making this clear. |
||||||
36 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47585 | ||
quote: "MATTHEW EXPLICITLY CONNECTS THEM WITH MARY" It does not call them Mary's children however. |
||||||
37 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47584 | ||
srbaegon: You are trying to use english grammatical rules with greek text, but english and greek grammar are very different creatures. Also regarding John 7:5, if they were Mary's children they would have had the responsibility of looking after their mother whether they believed in Jesus or not. Quite clearly however, they did believe after Jesus' resurrection, look at Acts 1:14. So if they were Mary's children there is absolutely no reason for Jesus entrust his mother to John. They are not Mary's children which is why Jesus does so. Lionstrong: It make make perfect sense to you in English, but in Greek the opposite meaning is clear. Hank: I gave a subjective opinion of mine as a follow on from the points I had made, perhaps that was a mistake. The points, however, stand on their own and are not the result of my opinion. I would ask you to consider why Mary and Joseph got married at all, since Joseph was not the father of Jesus. However, if Mary was to have a child with no apparent father, all would have assumed that she had commited adultery and as a consequence she would have been stoned to death. Thus Joseph was necessary to give the semblance of fatherhood to Mary's child in order to protect her reputation and life. It does not automatically follow that they had sexual relations as a normal husband and wife. I think it is an understatement to say that they were far from a normal husband and wife. You again quote Matt 1:25 and state that my "translation" goes against every reliable translation that exists in English. I'm not giving you a translation though, I am telling you what is says in Greek. Unfortunately, all literal translations of the text in English miss this point because we read with English grammar and not with Greek. I will quote other passages below to illustrate this point. Also, there is no mention of other children early on in Jesus life. In Luke 2:41 it tells how Mary and Joseph went every year to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When Jesus was twelve years old and they were returning home, Jesus had stayed at the temple without them being aware of it. They assumed he was with friends or "relatives" in their company and travelled a day before going back to search for him. Note that this is twelve years after their marriage and there is only Joseph, Mary and Jesus, plus their relatives. There is no mention of other children. Psalm 72:7 "In his days the righteous will flourish;prosperity will abound till the moon is no more." Does this mean that when the moon is no more the righteous will no longer flourish? 1 Corinthians 15:25 "For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet." Does this mean that Christ will no longer reign after all his enemies are put under his feet? Psalm 123:2 "As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God, till he shows us his mercy." So when God shows us his mercy, we no longer look to the Lord our God? Matthew 28:18-20 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to (eos/until) the very end of the age." Again, does this mean that at the end of the age Jesus will leave us? The answer to all the above is no, the conditions are not bound by the events but rather are ongoing, eternal. The whole point of Matthew 1:25 is to state clearly that Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations. In Greek it is clearly understood to mean this, there is no ambiguity. That is the "plain reading of the text" in Greek and all mention of Jesus' brothers and sisters in the scriptures must be understood in the light of this fact. |
||||||
38 | Could "me" be John? | John 14:6 | jawz | 47575 | ||
I find the opposite is very clear. This is obviously Jesus speaking and it should be obvious to you too if you read the rest of the passage you have quoted. Whenever John refers to himself in his gospel, he always refers to himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. There is absolutely no mention of John speaking in this passage. |
||||||
39 | didn't Mary and Jiseph have another chil | Mark 6:3 | jawz | 47501 | ||
They were not however the children of Mary. I go into this in more detail in following up your other question "Was Mary a virgin her whole life?" | ||||||
40 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | jawz | 47499 | ||
Many quote Matthew 1:25 as clearly stating that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after Jesus was born. In fact it states the opposite. The greek word "eos" does not translate simply as "until" in English but is used in a perfect continuous form which makes it an unbound condition, not tied to the event of Jesus birth. As a stark example look at the text of 2 Samuel 6:23 "As to Michal daughter of Saul, she had no child till the day of her death."(YLT) We clearly understand that Michal's not having children is not tied to the event of her death, she did not suddenly start having children after she died. (I quoted Youngs literal translation because most do not translate "eos" as "till"). The structure of Matthew 1:25 is the same as that of 2 Samuel 6:23 and there are numerous other passages that use the same unbound expression of the greek "eos". If you read them with the same English grammar interpretation "until" in Matthew 1:25 they make no sense. Regarding other passages where Jesus brothers and sisters are referred to, remember that very few people were privvy to the knowledge that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit so all who were acquainted with Mary and Joseph would have considered Jesus as Joseph's son. If Joseph had other children (he may have been a widower) or if Mary and Joseph had nephews and nieces then they would have quite rightly called Jesus their brother they would not have called him anything else. Now if Joseph's other children were by Mary then Jesus would have been the eldest and as such would have had considerable influence over his younger siblings, especially after the death of Joseph. Yet what do we read about Jesus' brothers; John 7:5 "For even his own brothers did not believe in him." It is hard to believe that if they were also the children of Mary that she would not have explained to them the extraordinary circumstances of Jesus' birth, nor that they would not believe that which their oldest brother, the head of their household, told them. Also, as Emmaus pointed out with John 19:26-27, if Mary had other children then there would have been no need for Jesus to place his mother under John's care. The simple fact of the matter is that Mary had no other children Finally, I would ask you to put yourselves in the shoes of Joseph and ask yourselves as God fearing people, would any of you even consider having sexual relations with the woman who bore the Son of God? Would you even dare to presume to put your seed in the same womb which God himself had chosen to bear the Saviour of mankind? Within Mary's womb had grown the most holy Son of God become man. On Mary's breast was sustained the creator and sustainer of all life. Her body became a sacred temple. The very thought of someone having sexual relations with the one who had been so intimately connected to Christ simply fills me with horror. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |