Clauso Utero

Thank you. You guys are the ones claiming a perfectly normal birth, not me. Jesus' conception and birth were miraculous as prophecied in Holy Scripture by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." </font>[/QUOTE]Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Take your choice. You are either twisting Scripture, adding to it; or reading into it things that are not there. Either way you are in the wrong.

God said he will give us a sign. The sign would simply be that a virgin would conceive and bear a son: nothing more, and nothing less.
It doesn't say how he was born, that is, anything about the hymen of his mother, or any other miraculous event that may be associated with his birth. You are adding to the Scripture when you claim such things. It is wrong. Stick to the Scriptures.
DHK

 

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son , and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14


This is the virgin birth. Nothing about a perfectly normal birth here. This was the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ__the word made flesh.

 

So, what is the problem Kathryn? All of this was fulfilled, exactly as it was written without altering the Bible as Catholics have done. Christ was born, by a virgin, in a perfectly normal way. Case closed. There is no need to read anything further into the text. Mary remained a virgin, by definition of what a virgin is. When the Scripture indicates that Joseph "knew her," then she no longer was a virgin. When Mat.13:55 indicates that she had other children, we know that she was not a perpetual virgin, and it is a perpetual lie of the Catholic Church to keep referring to Mary as "the Virgin Mary," for she is not.
DHK

 

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign:
Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son , and she will call His name Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

The virgin birth spoken in Holy Scripture is not a "perfectly normal birth". It is a miraculous birth without reading anything more into Holy Scripture than what is prophecied here. Prophecy was not fortelling of a "perfectly normal" event. The Catholic Church accepts the virgin conception and birth of Jesus Christ as prophecied. As a Baptist you can say "case closed", and believe anything you choose. You believe yourself to have that liberty. I am finished anyway here, at least for now.

 

To be fair, that's not clear in sctipture. It's implied, but it is entirely possible that the persons mentioned as Jesus brothers and sisters are, by what we understand, his cousins, since they hebrews used the same word. However, that being said, scripture does records that Mary remain a virgn until the birth of Jesus, so that also implies that she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Now, i happen to believe that Mary and Joseph went on th have other chirdren, and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were indeed his brothers and sisters, but that's not 100% scripturally affirmed.

 

To be fair, that's not clear in sctipture. It's implied, but it is entirely possible that the persons mentioned as Jesus brothers and sisters are, by what we understand, his cousins, since they hebrews used the same word. However, that being said, scripture does records that Mary remain a virgn until the birth of Jesus, so that also implies that she did not remain a virgin her entire life. Now, i happen to believe that Mary and Joseph went on th have other chirdren, and that Jesus' brothers and sisters were indeed his brothers and sisters, but that's not 100% scripturally affirmed. </font>[/QUOTE]It is quite clear in Scripture. You are stating a Roman Catholic argument which has been amply refuted in previous threads. The Greek has a very specific word for cousin. If Mat.13:55 had meant for these individuals to be referred to as cousins, the word for cousins would have been used, but it wasn't--the word adelphos, meaning brother, was used. In fact, adelphos is used over 330 times in the Bible and is translated brother, or its plural every time. It refers to brothers, not cousins. If it referred to cousins it would say cousins, but it doesn't. It is as simple as that. The context speaks of his immediate family--mother, father, brothers, sisters--not cousins. To force cousins into this context would be to do injustice to the Scriptures.
DHK

 

Matthew was written in Aramaic.

 

That also is a myth. Both Catholics and liberal "scholars" so-called, like to propagate it, but it isn't true. If it is, provide the evidence.
Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and allowed that it was, it still would not make any difference whatsoever because God the Holy Spirit inspired the Divine Scriptures in Koine Greek, the common Greek of the first century. The New Testament manuscripts, inspired of God are written in Greek. That is what is authoritative. That is what we must go by.
DHK

 

That is a major difference between Baptists and Catholics (and possibly Lutherans). There is not magic in the elements, neither any impartation of grace. The bread and wine (or juice) is simply that bread and wine--nothng more, nothing less. They are simply symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. They are to be used as a memorial--a time of remembrance until the Lord comes again. They do not impart grace. Christ is not in those element. That in itself is a heresy. We do not commit cannibalism. That is not what was meant in Mat.26 when Jesus spoke to his disciples, saying. "This is my body, Take, eat of it."
They knew that it wasn't his literal body. He was standing right before them. It was symbolic of his body. If it was that obvious to his disciples it ought to be fairly obvious to us.
DHK

 

The term "brother" (in Greek, adelphos) has a very wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of a full brother or half-brother. The same goes for "sister" (adelphe) and the plural form "brothers" (adelphoi). That is because neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language spoken by Christ and his disciples) had a special word meaning "cousin." And, while the NT was written in Greek, it was an account of things that happenned in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Old Testament shows that the term "brother" had a very wide semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended (male relatives from whom you are descended are known as "fathers"), as well as kinsman such as cousins, those who are members of the family by marriage or law though not related to you by blood, and even friends or mere political allies (1 Sam. 9:13; 20:32; 2 Sam. 1:26; Amos 1:9).

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think Mary remained a virgin after Jesus' birth, and I think Jesus did literally have brothers and sisters. I also think that Mark 6:3 and John 7:5 are literally referring to Jesus' brothers and sisters, not his cousins. However, the use of the words adelphos, adelphe, and adelphoi are not strictly limited to literal brothers and sisters.

 

In 330 plus cases of the use of the word can you show me where the word is employed as referring to anything else but actual brother, or spiritual brother, as it often does. We know by context that those around him are not referring to Christians--spiritual brethren--they were the crowd, probably not even saved themselves. They were asking from whence comes this man. They didn't really know who he was. But the did know his family, and point out his family--his mother, his father, his brothers, his sisters. And then they said: Are they not all with us, as in right here, now. The context even dictates it was immediate family. There is no possible way thet the Catholics could use Mat.13:55 to refer to cousins, all other arguments for "brother" aside.
DHK

Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Context is everything. If they were all cousins there would be no need to mention sisters. Furthermore there is another word specifically used for cousin. Why wasn't it used if these were all cousins? The RC argument that these were cousins holds no water, and is absolutely ridiculous.
DHK

 

HELLOOO????? I said, that, in this context, I believe the word was being used to refer to a literal brother and sister. Sheesh! I'm agreeing with you, and you're all over me like white on rice. I don't appreciate it.

My point is that the terminology, in general, can refer to kinfolk that are not brother and sister. Those who make the claim that "brothers and sisters" refer to cousins have a valid point that it is in the very least possible. However, contextually, I don't believe it to be likely, and I believe that the brothers and sisters referred to are, literally, brothers and sisters.

Kindly get off your high horse and take a deep breath.

 

John you haven't been agreeing with me; you have been disagreeing with me, and agreeing with the Catholics.
Here is your original post on the issue:

Your position is here is the Cathlic position--it cannot be proved that Mary had children, and she could have remained a virgin. This is untrue.

The context of Mat.13:55,56 proves otherwise, both by context and by definition of adelphos. Now, do you believe the Catholics or the Scriptures on this issue. Make yourself clear.
DHK

 

I'm not "agreeing" or "disagreeng". My point was that there's it's not 100% scripturally clear that Jesus did in fact have brothers and sisters. It's scripturally likely, but not 100% scripturally clear. I'm not going to change my scripturally supportable position just because it may support the Catholic view.

That's not my position at all. My position is that it's not scripturally clear that Jesus had brothers and sisters. I never stated anything that supports "prepetual virginity", only the idea that Jesus may not have had brothers and sisters. I said nothing about Mary's virginity, except when I referred to the verse that states Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus. You're putting words in my mouth if you're suggesting I support perpetual virginity.

Except that the word spoken was in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek. In Hebrew and Aramaic, "brothers/sisters" also was known to have referred to cousins. The Greek texts is using that same word (adelphos). I agree that the context suggests that they were indeed brothers and sisters, but this is not 100% scruptirally clear.

I've made myself abundantly clear. I believe scripture on this issue. Whether it agrees with you or with Catholics is of no concern, and I don't change my view based on whose view it supports.

 

No, it is a superstition with no Biblical evidence.
DHK