Hail, Holy Queen (Part 2)

Carson: It doesn't mean cousins there either. It's brothers in a racial sense.

You're starting with that gobbly-gook about MAry being the New Eve again? I suggest you go look this thread over a bit: http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=001697;p=1

[ June 12, 2003, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

Sure would have been nice if God had cleared this all up for you guys by sames James, son of Joseph or Joses, son of Joseph somewhere in the Bible. All I see is "Jesus THE SON of Joseph". He could have at least said Jesus ONE of the SONS of Joseph. But that's not in their either. Don't see anwhere where he says "Mary's sons James and Joses either", other than of course in a text where the Mary wasn't Jesus mother Mary.


Oh well.

 

Carson: It doesn't mean cousins there either. It's brothers in a racial sense.

"Brothers in a racial sense" or "cousins" - the selection of one definition over the other is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If adelphos can refer to kinsmen who do not share the same mother, then you have buttressed Catholic dogma from a Biblical standpoint, even if in the smallest fashion.

You're starting with that gobbly-gook about MAry being the New Eve again?

No, I'm merely continuing what God started in Genesis, carried out through fulfillment in Mary, St. John the Divine recorded theologically through literary allusion, the Church has perpetuated, and that which I have studied.

Whether you disagree with the Church's timeless interpretation of Scripture (i.e. paradosis or tradition) is what is at stake here, not whether Scripture can be interpreted in the fashion, which the whole weight of intellectual Christendom has embraced throughout the centuries. It's your problem, bro, and I'll leave it to you. I don't have the time to repeat the stated, and I can't mess with man's free will - any more than the Lord can.

 

While brothers in a racial sense can be cousins, the point is that the word doesn't mean cousin - it may be used with reference to them, but doesn't mean them. From the context of the passage I mentioned above, it is obvious that only brothers and sister in the most literal sense could be intended. Plus, Jesus is called Mary's firstborn not onlybegotten.

 

Well I guess that "brothers in a racial sense" means that all the males directly descended from David were his brothers since Jesus too is descended from David. It should be noted that Jesus did not leave Israel, the land of the Jews.

 

I personally don't know why we are trusting the judgement of this person anyway (the person who is being quoted, not the author of the Gospel), because they also state that Jesus is the son of Joseph, which we know not to be the case.

God bless,

Grant

 

"Plus, Jesus is called Mary's firstborn not onlybegotten."

Been a while since I have seen the firstborn arguement. Do you suppose every firstborn boy born in Egypt had a brother? Does firstborn always mean that there is a second born. Seems unlikely. The term has religious significance to the Jews. The firstborn

Exodus 12:12
'For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and will strike down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments--I am the LORD.

The term firstborn was of religious significance to the Jews and that is why Jesus is called Mary's firstborn. Not to imply that there was a secondborn.

Exodus 13:2
"Sanctify to Me every firstborn, the first offspring of every womb among the sons of Israel, both of man and beast; it belongs to Me."

Blessings

 

Your argument does not rule out second born and third born children of the same womb.