MikeLigalig.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWy3lUX6azU#ws

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

lisod gyud ni i-explain. naa koy student diri who asked me about this but i couldn't give an answer. i just told her daghan nahitabo sauna nga dli ma-explain hihihihihi

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

More verses to prove that Jesus has brothers.

The family of Jesus
Jesus grew up in a sizable family that included four half brothers—James, Joses, Simon and Judas (who would later write the epistle of Jude)—and "His sisters," showing there were at least two (Matthew 13:55-56

Because the names of Christ's brothers are passed down to us in their Greek forms, it's easy to lose sight of how typically Jewish Jesus' family was. Jesus Himself was Jewish (Hebrew 7:14), because both Mary and Joseph were descended from the Israelite tribe of Judah (Matthew 1:1-16
















; Luke 3:23
- 38). Jesus' Hebrew name Yeshua (or Joshua)—the same as the Israelite hero who conquered the Promised Land—means "God is salvation" (see Matthew 1:21
).
The name of Jesus' mother, Mary, is a shortened form of Miriam , the sister of Moses and Aaron. Joseph ( Yosef in Hebrew), Jesus' stepfather, was ultimately named for the Hebrew patriarch Joseph , one of the 12 sons of Jacob and father of the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.
As for Jesus' half brothers, James is the anglicized Greek form of the Hebrew Ya'akov, or Jacob, the same name as that of the Hebrew patriarch who was the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham. Joses is another form of Joseph. Simon's Hebrew name was Simeon, the name of another of Jacob's sons and father of one of the 12 tribes of Israel.
The Hebrew name of Judas (or Jude) was Yehudah (rendered Judah in English), the name of another of Jacob's 12 sons, from which the word Jew is derived. The popularity of these names is evident in that all of them are used, often repeatedly, for other people mentioned in the New Testament.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

for those keenly interested in this aspect of catholic doctrine, the article The Case for Mary's Perpetual Virginity explains it in accessible layman's terms.  here's the link: http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-case-for-mary%E2%80%99s-perpetual-virginity

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary’s only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.

An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.

According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).

To begin with, the Protoevangelium records that when Mary’s birth was prophesied, her mother, St. Anne, vowed that she would devote the child to the service of the Lord, as Samuel had been by his mother (1 Sam. 1:11). Mary would thus serve the Lord at the Temple, as women had for centuries (1 Sam. 2:22), and as Anna the prophetess did at the time of Jesus’ birth (Luke 2:36–37). A life of continual, devoted service to the Lord at the Temple meant that Mary would not be able to live the ordinary life of a child-rearing mother. Rather, she was vowed to a life of perpetual virginity.

However, due to considerations of ceremonial cleanliness, it was eventually necessary for Mary, a consecrated "virgin of the Lord," to have a guardian or protector who would respect her vow of virginity. Thus, according to the Protoevangelium, Joseph, an elderly widower who already had children, was chosen to be her spouse. (This would also explain why Joseph was apparently dead by the time of Jesus’ adult ministry, since he does not appear during it in the gospels, and since Mary is entrusted to John, rather than to her husband Joseph, at the crucifixion).

According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was required to regard Mary’s vow of virginity with the utmost respect. The gravity of his responsibility as the guardian of a virgin was indicated by the fact that, when she was discovered to be with child, he had to answer to the Temple authorities, who thought him guilty of defiling a virgin of the Lord. Mary was also accused of having forsaken the Lord by breaking her vow. Keeping this in mind, it is an incredible insult to the Blessed Virgin to say that she broke her vow by bearing children other than her Lord and God, who was conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The perpetual virginity of Mary has always been reconciled with the biblical references to Christ’s brethren through a proper understanding of the meaning of the term "brethren." The understanding that the brethren of the Lord were Jesus’ stepbrothers (children of Joseph) rather than half-brothers (children of Mary) was the most common one until the time of Jerome (fourth century). It was Jerome who introduced the possibility that Christ’s brethren were actually his cousins, since in Jewish idiom cousins were also referred to as "brethren." The Catholic Church allows the faithful to hold either view, since both are compatible with the reality of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.




Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

Sometimes we are fed with the wrong analysis the church had imposed upon us that we are inclined to believe that everything is true to their liking. Mother Mary like all of us, first and foremost is a human being. conceiving our Lord jesus christ, she undergoes the same process that a woman is about to give birth, technically speaking she bore out Jesus from her womb, so she must go the process of labor to bring out the child jesus from her womb. On this case she is no longer a virgin.

The church only depicts the "Virgin" on mother mary to indicate that she was chosen to bore our Lord Jesus Christ which is a great distinction. But nevertheless the virgin in her as a human being that undergoes the child bearing process doesn't apply to her anymore. So in this case the church, disregards the human frailty that Mary has as a human being, and put her on a pedestal to proclaim her as a "Virgin pure in chaste" in conformity of which the grounds dictate in everything which is holy.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

With all due respect sir, i can see how well versed you are with regards to Mary, Mother of Jesus our saviour. I for one don't go against for most of what has been said about mary which is justifiable in every sense of the word. What preoccupies my thought with great interest is the fact that Mother Mary was first and foremost a human being,and because she came from this world and not from heaven. I don't take issue in the fact that she deserves special mention and favor from God because she was chosen to bore the child Jesus. but we cant take away the fact that she has still that human element in her in bearing the child Jesus. Granting that she has the blessing from God, she still can't escape the fact that she undergoes what other human beings undergo when it involves the child bearing process.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

It is quite irresistible to make an argument about what God can and cannot do. but be that as it may, with God all things are possible.

I may have to stick with my appraisal though that Mary is first and foremost a human being. That she underwent what the rest of us feel and go through in the rigorous biological process called life. It is only when God intervened that her life was exalted, but i believe that God is a reasonable God. He won't take away what Mother Mary was as a human being from the outset. Regardless of what God can do, he won't do something like a magician's trick to make a fool of ourselves into thinking that Mary was a product from heaven and all of these was already a hatch out plan from the beginning.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

The Greek word for brother in the New Testament is adelphos. The well-known Protestant linguistic reference An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words [by W. E. Vine], defines it as follows:

Adelphos: denotes a brother, or near kinsman; in the plural, a community based on identity of origin or life. It is used of:

1. male children of the same parents . . .

2. male descendants of the same parents, Acts 7:23, 26; Hebrews 7:5; . . .

4. people of the same nationality, Acts 3:17, 22; Romans 9:3 . . .

5. any man, a neighbour, Luke 10:29; Matthew 5:22, 7:3;

6. persons united by a common interest, Matthew 5:47;

7. persons united by a common calling, Revelation 22:9;

8. mankind, Matthew 25:40; Hebrews 2:17;

9. the disciples, and so, by implication, all believers, Matthew 28:10; John 20:17;

10. believers, apart from sex, Matthew 23:8; Acts 1:15; Romans 1:13; 1 Thessalonians 1:4; Revelation 19:10 (the word sisters is used of believers, only in 1 Timothy 5:2) . . . 202

[202 Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. 1, 154-155.]


It is evident, therefore, from the range of possible definitions of adelphos, that Jesus' "brothers" need not necessarily be siblings of Jesus on linguistic grounds, as many commentators, learned and unlearned, seem to assume uncritically. By examining the use of adelphos and related words in Hebrew, and by comparing Scripture with Scripture ("exegesis"), one can determine the most sensible explanation of all the biblical data taken collectively. Many examples prove that adelphos has a very wide variety of meanings:

* In the King James Version, Jacob is called the "brother" of his Uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15; 29:10). The same thing occurs with regard to Lot and Abraham (Gen. 14:14 / 11:26-27). The Revised Standard Version uses "kinsman" at 29:15 and 14:14.

* Use of brother or brethren for mere kinsmen: Deuteronomy 23:7, 2 Samuel 1:26, 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32, 2 Kings 10:13-14, Jeremiah 34:9, Amos 1:9.

* Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic has a word for cousin. Although the New Testament was written in Greek, which does have such a word, the literal rendering of the Hebrew word ach, which was used by the first disciples and Jesus, is indeed adelphos, the literal equivalent of the English "brother." But even in English, brother has multiple meanings as well.

----------


Moving on to more direct biblical evidences of the perpetual virginity of Mary, we discover the following facts:

* In Luke 2:41-51: the story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to the Temple at the age of twelve, it is fairly obvious that Jesus is the only child. Since everyone agrees he was the first child of Mary, if there were up to five or more siblings, as some maintain (arguing, for example, from Matthew 13:55), they were nowhere to be found at this time. This passage alone furnishes a strong argument for the implausibility of the "literal brothers" theory.

* Jesus Himself uses brethren in the larger sense. In Matthew 23:8 He calls the "crowds" and His "disciples" (23:1) "brethren." In other words, they are each other's "brothers" (that is, the brotherhood of Christians). In Matthew 12:49-50 he calls his disciples and all who do the will of his Father "my brothers."

* By comparing Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40, and John 19:25, we find that James and Joseph -- mentioned in Matthew 13:55 with Simon and Jude as Jesus' "brothers" -- are also called sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. This other Mary (Matthew 27:61, 28:1) is called Our Lady's adelphe in John 19:25 (it isn't likely that there were two women named "Mary" in one family -- thus even this usage apparently means "cousin" or more distant relative). Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3 mention Simon, Jude and "sisters" along with James and Joseph, calling all adelphoi. Since we know for sure that at least James and Joseph are not Jesus' blood brothers, the most likely interpretation of Matthew 13:55 is that all these "brothers" are cousins, according to the linguistic conventions discussed above. At the very least, the term brother is not determinative in and of itself.
* Firstborn: the use of this term to assert that Mary had "second-borns" and "third-borns" proves nothing, since the primary meaning of the Greek prototokos is "pre-eminent". To illustrate: David is described by God as the firstborn, the highest of the kings of the earth (Ps. 89:27). Likewise, God refers to Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:9) and the nation Israel (Exod. 4:22) as "my firstborn." Jesus is called "the firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15, meaning, according to all reputable Greek lexicons, that he was pre-eminent over creation, that is, the Creator. The Jewish rabbinical writers even called God the Father Bekorah Shelolam, meaning "firstborn". Similarly, God is called the "first" in Scripture (Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6-7). Christians are called "the firstborn" in Hebrews 12:23. Literally speaking, however, among the Jews, the firstborn was ordinarily the child who was first to open the womb (Exod. 13:2), whether there were other children or not. This is probably the meaning of Matthew 1:25, in which case hypothetical younger children of Mary are not implied at all, contrary to the standard present-day Protestant assertions.

* Mary is committed to the care of the Apostle John by Jesus from the Cross (John 19:26-27). Many Protestant interpreters agree with the Catholic view that Jesus likely would not have done this if he had brothers (who would all have been younger than he was). Many Church Fathers held this interpretation, including St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Hilary, St. Jerome, and St. Ambrose, and used it in the defense of Mary's perpetual virginity.

* Catholics believe that Mary's reply to the angel Gabriel's announcement that she would bear the Messiah, at the Annunciation -- "How can this be, since I have no husband?" (Luke 1:34) -- indicates a prior vow of perpetual virginity. St. Augustine, in his work Holy Virginity (4, 4), wrote: "Surely, she would not say, 'How shall this be?' unless she had already vowed herself to God as a virgin . . . If she intended to have intercourse, she wouldn't have asked this question!"



Reference:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/02/biblical-evidence-for-perpetual.html

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

Yes, i confirm. THe Doctrine of Immaculate Conception that says Mary was virgin was formulated by man. Its not found in the Bible. Mary and Joseph lived a happy marriage life. It would be very impossible that they lived  a sexless life.

Si Kristo matuod nga Diyos og matuod nga tawo. Sa iyang pagka Diyos way labot si Mary. Sa iyang pagkatawhanon, she is the mother of Jesus.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

#2: Mary as New Eve Having Enmity with Satan

Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head, and you shall strike at His heel."

In this verse God addresses Satan. The Seed here is Christ. The Woman is His Mother, that is, Mary. Thus Satan has perfect enmity with Christ and with His Mother. The Catholic Church has interpreted this as indicating the sinlessness of Christ and Mary. If either actually committed sin, then they would not be at enmity with Satan but actually a cooperator with Satan at times.


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

The Doctrine of Immaculate Conception has been professed by Holy Mother Church for over 2 millenia. All scripture supports this. I would remind you, Mr. Daray, that the protestant bible is the incomplete and adulterated version of the Roman Catholic Bible. The former is devoid of 7 books that the heretic, Martin Luther, removed. Incidentally, the 7 books that were removed also supports the Sacramental Truths. I would invite you, Mr. Daray, to read the unblemished version of Holy Scripture, the Roman Catholic Bible.

God Bless.



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT "FULL OF GRACE" IS A MISTRANSLATION. MY BIBLE SAYS "HIGHLY-FAVOURED".


I'm afraid that those who translate the angel's greeting as "highly-favoured" have been guilty, for whatever motive, of making a false and rather misleading distinction. The Greek word used by the angel is Kecharitomene. The root of this word is Charis, meaning Grace. The prefix Ke means that the grace was already perfectly present before the angel appeared. The suffix mene means that Mary was the recipient of this grace.

Now Charis can also be translated simply as favour. So Highly-favoured could be a conceivable translation - but this would only be acceptable if the word "favour" were used as a translation for "Charis" everywhere else in the New Testament. But THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Even those bibles which translate "Charis" as Favour" when referring to Mary, translate it as "Grace" everywhere else. This is highly misleading because in the New Testament the word "Grace" has a particular meaning distinct from "Favour". In the New Testament "Grace" is a gift of God that saves from sin and its effects. So translating the word any differently is wrong. The correct translation is rightfully "Full of Grace".




Reference:
http://www.ourladyweb.com/mary-defended.html#5

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

What did Martin Luther, the father of protestantism, have to say about the Doctrine of Immaculate Conception?



When concentrating specifically on Mary herself as the Mother of God, Luther acknowledges God's singular action in bringing her into the world, but in making general comments about the universality of human sinfulness, he includes her among all the rest of humanity:

Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are. For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy pure fruit, at once God and truly man, in one person."


Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Marian_theology

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

Mr. Daray,

Please note that Martin Luther, the man who was responsible for removing the 7 books from the Holy Bible and renamed it the 'Protestant Holy Bible' , had the following views regarding Mary and the Immaculate Conception as well as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. The bible that you read is the one that was a product of Luther's editing.

Even the editor of the Bible and the creator of the Protestant Holy Bible manifests veneration for the Immaculate Nature of Mary. Despite his heresy, he still maintains a sense of Marian veneration.



God Bless !

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

Mr. Daray stated:

Walay "Protestant Bible,". We used the KIng James VErsion.
Walay mabasa nga Immaculate Conception sa Bible kay mugna ra na sa tawo.It's a doctrine of Man, not Biblical.


There are many variants of the protestant bible, the most widely used by many protestant denominations is the King James Bible, which is based on the Textus Receptus, based on Erasmus' writings. The leaders of many major protestant churches such as John Calvin (father of Calvinism), Martin Luther (father of the Lutheran church), as well as John Wesley (father of the United Methodist Church) all maintain the theological notion of Mary's Perpetual Virginity.

Holy Mother Church, as the bride of Christ, is not of man, but of God. Christ Himself established Holy Mother Church and appointed Peter, Petros, as the Rock on which the Church stands. The Doctrine has been professed for over 2000 years. 1500 years before the Protestant Bibles, including the King James Version, even came to being, the Doctrine of Mary's Perpetual Virginity was already preached.

Even your brother protestants, namely the Calvinists, the Methodists and the Lutherans, hold the same veneration for Mary's Perpetual Virginity.


God Bless !



Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0

well done Lorenz

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=59444.0