|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/21/2007 3:20:43 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
I think the problem is that I wasn't clear that that argument I have heard was from non-Catholics--does that make more sense?
I have heard non-Catholics say that since Jesus is called the "first-born," it necessarily implies a seond born, which is not true. For inheritance purposes, the firstborn designation was given at the birth of the firstborn--not at the birth of a subsequent sibling, so it matters not if there were other children. The firstborn is still the firstborn.
Also, for the Jews, the firstborn of all children and animals were dedicated to the Lord. They did not wait until there was a second (or third, etc) birth to dedicate the firstborn--the firstborn is what opens the womb, regardless of whether there is another birth.
That is what I was trying to say before. Is it clearer now, or have I muddied the waters even more? 
My response to this theory is that it isn't so much just the "firstborn" thing...
Scripture speaks clearly about God's "only-begotten". If Jesus was Mary's "only begotten" I contend that scripture would have stated that just as clearly.
Because of this, I believe that in Mary's case, it means He was her first of at least two... Couple that with scripture's specific mention of His "brothers and sisters" and the conclusion is obvious! However, this would do very bad things to the Mariolotry that is so popular amongst some groups...
The idea that all those billions of hours of prayer, and even thousands of entire LIVES, have been wasted on what is no more than guesswork and fables would collapse some HUGE ideals!
So... what this means is that those organizations MUST do EVERYTHING they can to perpetuate this... Once the pope has made it an official "ex-cathedrea" statement, they can't go back on it and retain even a shred of credibility. So the whole 'church' makes a shift from having their foundation made of the Rock of Gods word to the (frequently) shifting sands of 'Tradition'... All this so nobody has to go public and say: "Ummm.. Sorry, but we got it wrong."
Such a shame!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/21/2007 3:29:24 PM
|
|
|
WesP
Posts: 2451
Joined: 11/28/2005
From: Where God needs me to be
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: kielbasa
I think the problem is that I wasn't clear that that argument I have heard was from non-Catholics--does that make more sense?
I have heard non-Catholics say that since Jesus is called the "first-born," it necessarily implies a seond born, which is not true. For inheritance purposes, the firstborn designation was given at the birth of the firstborn--not at the birth of a subsequent sibling, so it matters not if there were other children. The firstborn is still the firstborn.
Also, for the Jews, the firstborn of all children and animals were dedicated to the Lord. They did not wait until there was a second (or third, etc) birth to dedicate the firstborn--the firstborn is what opens the womb, regardless of whether there is another birth.
That is what I was trying to say before. Is it clearer now, or have I muddied the waters even more?
My response to this theory is that it isn't so much just the "firstborn" thing...
Scripture speaks clearly about God's "only-begotten". If Jesus was Mary's "only begotten" I contend that scripture would have stated that just as clearly.
Because of this, I believe that in Mary's case, it means He was her first of at least two... Couple that with scripture's specific mention of His "brothers and sisters" and the conclusion is obvious! However, this would do very bad things to the Mariolotry that is so popular amongst some groups...
The idea that all those billions of hours of prayer, and even thousands of entire LIVES, have been wasted on what is no more than guesswork and fables would collapse some HUGE ideals!
So... what this means is that those organizations MUST do EVERYTHING they can to perpetuate this... Once the pope has made it an official "ex-cathedrea" statement, they can't go back on it and retain even a shred of credibility. So the whole 'church' makes a shift from having their foundation made of the Rock of Gods word to the (frequently) shifting sands of 'Tradition'... All this so nobody has to go public and say: "Ummm.. Sorry, but we got it wrong."
Such a shame!
Papa-san,
Look at the bright side: when all the religions unanimously state that they got it wrong, the anti-christ will be smiling into a tv camera somewhere!
_____________________________
Peace,
Wes
___________________________________
<--- BTW, this is the true function of corn! It is to help the oil industry and its functionaries, not detract from them!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/21/2007 8:01:13 PM
|
|
|
WhiteWindWarrior
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/25/2007
From: The cold North side of the Mountain
Status: offline
|
quote:
Hi, WhiteWindWarrior!
I wasn't being deliberately obtuse--sorry!
I think the problem is that I wasn't clear that that argument I have heard was from non-Catholics--does that make more sense?
I have heard non-Catholics say that since Jesus is called the "first-born," it necessarily implies a seond born, which is not true. For inheritance purposes, the firstborn designation was given at the birth of the firstborn--not at the birth of a subsequent sibling, so it matters not if there were other children. The firstborn is still the firstborn.
Also, for the Jews, the firstborn of all children and animals were dedicated to the Lord. They did not wait until there was a second (or third, etc) birth to dedicate the firstborn--the firstborn is what opens the womb, regardless of whether there is another birth.
That is what I was trying to say before. Is it clearer now, or have I muddied the waters even more?
Yes... it does, and thanks for your response. I have heard the same argument often and taught it myself as a matter of fact for quite a few years while in a very fundamental church, in the same way it was taught to me. I began to dig for myself however in later years and view this a bit differently now based on my own cultural studies and research. So no... you did not muddy the waters for me (others viewing this thread notwithstanding) but I am very comfortable with your added clarity. 
_____________________________
"...I was in prison, and you came to Me." (Jesus) Mat 25:36b
"For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the Day of Christ Jesus." Phil 1:6
~ A fellow brother and servant in Christ Jesus ~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/29/2007 7:05:05 PM
|
|
|
ukfan
Posts: 354
Joined: 12/31/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Soxfan
I find it interesting that two pages have passed, and not ONE RC has attempted address the verse in Luke where Jesus is referred as Mary's FIRSTBORN.
Please tell me how your man-made traditions, supercede this Scripture
This has already been addressed. On the first page of this thread no less. But to freshen the dialogue here's something I read on EWTN's site, "But the word "firstborn" literally means "a child not preceded by another" and, in itself, makes no reference to the existence of other children."
_____________________________
"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church...." -ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/30/2007 7:09:16 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Since this is a perpetual discussion, most likely I will say something that's already been said.
I've become quite familiar with this doctrine, especially while studying to become a Roman Catholic. Once, while praying the Rosary at church with others, the man leading the prayer said, "Mary, without sin pray for us." He went on to address her with other titles, such as Mary, Virgin most pure, etc. I had what some of you might call a kneejerk reaction. Still, I wanted the Marian dogmas to be true. I wanted them to be true because Holy Mother Church could not teach error when it came to matters of faith and morals. I wanted these teachings to be true because this was the teaching of the one, holy, apostolic Church founded on St. Peter. This is what I had come to believe. Therefore, it was necessary for me to submit to and trust the Magesterium. I reasoned that if the Church through the bishops in union with the pope, could not err in her teachings on faith and morals, then all of these Marian dogmas had to be true.
I have not become a Roman Catholic, and the reasons are many. If I came to the conclusion to trust the Church completely, then believing in Mary's perpetual virginity throughout her life would not be a problem. However, I could not reconcile what Sacred Scripture makes plain against many of the RCC's teachings.
Although scripture does not say word per word that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, neither does it explicityly say that Mary remained a virgin until her death. However, there is far more evidence that is written in the word of God that points to Mary not remaining a perpetual virgin.
While Roman Catholics say that the term "brothers" cannot mean actual blood brothers, they cannot uncompromisingly say what the word does mean. Some say perhaps it means cousins. Some say perhaps these were Jesus' half brothers. There is no proof in scripture or history that Joseph had children from a former marriage. The matter is not conclusive one way or the other. So it is boils down to supposition.
Oddly enough, while praying the Rosary one day and meditating on the second Joyful Mystery, the Visitation, the Word of God made it clear to me. The angel Gabriel said to Mary, "And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age;" Luke 1:36 If there was no word for "cousin" in the original language, why was cousin being used here? In other translations it says "kinswoman." So, if scripture used the word cousin in this case, then why was it not used in reference to Jesus' brothers? Scripture says what it means and therefore, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe Jesus had no brothers, it would have used the term cousin, or kinsmen. I concluded that scripture says brothers, because it means brothers, not cousins or kinsmen.
My decision resulted in trusting the Word of God over Tradition. As to what others decide, we each must answer to God. I could not disobey what my informed conscience had shown me.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/30/2007 8:05:12 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3614
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
My decision resulted in trusting the Word of God over Tradition. As to what others decide, we each must answer to God. I could not disobey what my informed conscience had shown me.
HD
Good post.
God Bless You.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/30/2007 8:31:16 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lurker
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The implication here is that he did know her after Jesus was born.
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). So then you'll agree the implication here is that she had children after her death then, right?
Lurker, you have ignored the rules of logic and basic grammar in your example. No, there is no implication of the kind. Why? Because the meaning of the verse is obvious. Michal bore no children and then she died. So in this case, "until" means that Michal had no children throughout the course of her life, and then she died. There is no implication of what you are trying to make because it is a physical impossiblity to bear children once one is dead. If I were to apply the same rule of logic as you have used, then one could argue as to why Luke didn't write "And he (Joseph) knew her not until the day she (Mary) died." Which of course would be perversion.
As far as the verse from Luke 1:25, you are ignoring the word construction and syntax of this sentence. In this verse, the word "until" is being used as a conjunction, joining one idea to another. And in this case, it is a complex sentence, because it is using a subordinating conjunction. That is, the second part of the sentence (or the second clause) is dependent upon the main clause, and not the other way around. Thus, the meaning of this verse is quite clear. If the Holy Spirit wanted to say that Joseph never knew Mary intimately, then Luke would have written, "Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife, and he knew her not." Here the verse would have ended, implying that Joseph did not know Mary intimately in a sexual way. But instead the main clause is followed by a second idea. In this case, that it was not until after our Lord was born, that Joseph knew (had sexual relations with) his wife Mary.
We do not insult the Mother of our Lord, or take away from God's glory by saying Mary did not remain a virgin all of her life. Having children was especially glorifying to God in the Jewish culture. Women boasted of having several children. And sexual relations between two married people is not impure or dirty.
HD
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/30/2007 11:16:51 PM
|
|
|
CATHEVAN
Posts: 79
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Heavendweller
quote:
"Mary, without sin pray for us." He went on to address her with other titles, such as Mary, Virgin most pure, etc.
I had what some of you might call a kneejerk reaction
Perhaps at the time you were still studying and needed to really get down to studying, why are these references of The Blessed Virgin Mary being made. You seem to be a studious and sincere. Wouldn't you want to discern the meanings?
quote:
Still, I wanted the Marian dogmas to be true. I wanted them to be true because Holy Mother Church could not teach error when it came to matters of faith and morals. I wanted these teachings to be true because this was the teaching of the one, holy, apostolic Church founded on St. Peter. This is what I had come to believe. Therefore, it was necessary for me to submit to and trust the Magesterium. I reasoned that if the Church through the bishops in union with the pope, could not err in her teachings on faith and morals, then all of these Marian dogmas had to be true.
In fact some Dogma's are accepted by Catholics on 'faith'. For example The Real Presence, at Mass. It is believed but cannot be proved scientifically. I would suggest however to check out on the web for example - The miracles of The Holy Euchrist. One comes to mind is at Lanciana. Italy. (It is not a miracle required to be believed by Catholics however.)
quote:
I have not become a Roman Catholic, and the reasons are many. If I came to the conclusion to trust the Church completely, then believing in Mary's perpetual virginity throughout her life would not be a problem. However, I could not reconcile what Sacred Scripture makes plain against many of the RCC's teachings.
I do trust the Church completely. Here are some reasons why I do. *The Lord Jesus promised The gates of Hell will not prevail against it. I believe Him. *The Teachings of the Total Truth had to be protected by The Holy Spirit. And it has been for two thousand years. I expect that promise to be reliable. *I sure don't expect another 'total truth.' *Part of the Truth is the Real Presence. I know and Trust in Him. It is at The Catholic Church and has also been throughout the world for two thousand years. (Check out the interesting Eucharistic Miracles on the web like I said) Enough for now.
quote:
Although scripture does not say word per word that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life, neither does it explicityly say that Mary remained a virgin until her death. However, there is far more evidence that is written in the word of God that points to Mary not remaining a perpetual virgin.
The references you have regarding 'not remaining a perpetual virgin' would be helpful for me to review. If you would post them it would be most appreciated.
quote:
While Roman Catholics say that the term "brothers" cannot mean actual blood brothers, they cannot uncompromisingly say what the word does mean. Some say perhaps it means cousins. Some say perhaps these were Jesus' half brothers. There is no proof in scripture or history that Joseph had children from a former marriage. The matter is not conclusive one way or the other. So it is boils down to supposition.
Oddly enough, while praying the Rosary one day and meditating on the second Joyful Mystery, the Visitation, the Word of God made it clear to me. The angel Gabriel said to Mary, "And behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age;" Luke 1:36 If there was no word for "cousin" in the original language, why was cousin being used here? In other translations it says "kinswoman." So, if scripture used the word cousin in this case, then why was it not used in reference to Jesus' brothers? Scripture says what it means and therefore, if the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe Jesus had no brothers, it would have used the term cousin, or kinsmen. I concluded that scripture says brothers, because it means brothers, not cousins or kinsmen.
My decision resulted in trusting the Word of God over Tradition. As to what others decide, we each must answer to God. I could not disobey what my informed conscience had shown me.
The references to 'brothers' and the reference to 'firstborn' leave Scripture readers left to question and even decide for themselves what the references mean definitivly. I myself am going to research and post what I find regarding The Perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary! As soon as possible. I appreciate very much the posts on this doctrine. People deserve some understanding including myself. :)
PEACE
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/31/2007 9:44:13 AM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3614
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
have ignored the rules of logic and basic grammar
quote:
Dogma's are accepted by Catholics on 'faith'. "Faith or not in believing dogmas", rules of logic are violated to come
to the conclusions the RCC enforce upon the followers. Not to mention
violation of the Word itself.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/31/2007 4:51:30 PM
|
|
|
CATHEVAN
Posts: 79
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline
|
Heavendweller Re: Your post 1106 & my post 1109
The objections to the belief in the Catholic Church doctrine regarding The Perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary are particular Words in Scripture are equated to definitions we understand today. The problem is some of these Words in Scripture, when they were spoken and/or written had different understandings at that time than we have today. The meaning today does not always coincide with the meanings in ancient times. Another impediment to discerning the correct meaning is in the language translation. It is necessary to know the particulars in order to remove the impediments as much as possible so it can be possible to discern the true meanings of the Word.
Regarding the topic here is a link that represents a discussion between a Catholic and an Objector. It discusses the mentioned impediments. (One of which caused you apparently not to become a Catholic.) The title is "Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin? By Christine Pinheiro
The link is:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp
I have some thoughts also about this topic at this point.
1- God secured a 'virgin birth of The Lord Jesus'. Why would He protect her virginity beyond The Birth of Jesus, unless He wanted her to be 'Perpetually Virgin'?
2- The Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without sin a virgin birth for Incarnate, Sinless, Lord Jesus.
Would The Blessed Virgin Mary then have children to be born with Original Sin, only to defile the very Womb that bore Jesus?
May you have a Happy - Joyful New Year!
PEACE
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/31/2007 6:55:12 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CATHEVAN
I have some thoughts also about this topic at this point.
1- God secured a 'virgin birth of The Lord Jesus'. Why would He protect her virginity beyond The Birth of Jesus, unless He wanted her to be 'Perpetually Virgin'?
2-
Would The Blessed Virgin Mary then have children to be born with Original Sin, only to defile the very Womb that bore Jesus?
May you have a Happy - Joyful New Year!
PEACE
1a - Yes, God secured a virgin birth of the Lord Jesus. There is no argument there. 1b - Nowhere does scripture say that He had any desire whatsoever to protect her virginity beyond that point. It actually mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus who happened to show up to see him. God had no desire for her to be perpetually virgin, or He would have hinted to that, at least...
2a - Yes, again, mostly agreement: "...Mary conceived without sin a virgin birth for Incarnate, Sinless, Lord Jesus." 2b - Yeah, she had other children who were born with original sin so that she could fullfil her marriage covenant with Joseph. After Jesus was born, it wasn't like God was going to need another Saviour for us or anything, but Joseph's bloodline would need to be continued...
It all makes perfect sense...
EDIT: Yes, What I agreed to in 2a is that JESUS was conceived without sin. Mary herself was conceived in the same way as all of the rest of us.
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 1/1/2008 12:38:55 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 12/31/2007 7:33:19 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3614
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
The Blessed Virgin Mary conceived without sin
This statement is a falsehood. Mary was born in sin like anyone else.
She, as a virgin, gave birth to the "sinless" Messiah. He was born without sin.
Mary did not pass the sinless down to her son. The sin is passed down in the blood.
The blood is supplied by the father. That is the reason for the virgin birth.
Not having a natural father born in sin, Jesus was born "without" sin.
This doctrine was concocted to deify Mary. But not really. Mary is just another
christianized name for the Madonna, Semiramis, or whatever name you want to call her.
Mary, a mortal, was betrothed to Joseph, a mortal.
She conceived not "knowing" a man by the power of the Holy Spirit.
She gave birth to a man child void of the sin passed down from Adam over all the
generations. The truth really isn't that hard to comprehend. It's in the nurse's handbook.
But many mythological gyrations have to be made to defend the false doctrines.
It is by the blood of Yeshua, and his alone that supplies redemption.
The life is in the blood, and blood is required for the remission of sins.
Yeshua supplied the blood once and for all, and not Mary.
In view of reality, perpetual virginity is moot.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 1/1/2008 12:38:26 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CATHEVAN
The objections to the belief in the Catholic Church doctrine regarding The Perpetual Virginity of The Blessed Virgin Mary are particular Words in Scripture are equated to definitions we understand today. The problem is some of these Words in Scripture, when they were spoken and/or written had different understandings at that time than we have today. The meaning today does not always coincide with the meanings in ancient times. Another impediment to discerning the correct meaning is in the language translation. It is necessary to know the particulars in order to remove the impediments as much as possible so it can be possible to discern the true meanings of the Word.
So you are saying that you doubt that God did what He said He would by preserving His word for "all generations"? It's His word, and it says what He wants it to say. It says nothing about Mary remaining a virgin once Jesus was born... Period. Face that truth and grow...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 1/1/2008 2:01:50 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CATHEVAN
Heavendweller Re: Your post 1106 & my post 1109
The problem is some of these Words in Scripture, when they were spoken and/or written had different understandings at that time than we have today. Another impediment to discerning the correct meaning is in the language translation. It is necessary to know the particulars in order to remove the impediments as much as possible so it can be possible to discern the true meanings of the Word.
Hello Cathvan,
I think if one would leave it at that, that the words from ancient times had different meanings, it could be possible to deduce that "brothers" could consist of other relations. But it is the very language translation of the word "cousin" which describes Elizabeth, that convinced me there is no impediment, and no ambiguity in translation. We know for a fact that there were words to differentiate brothers from cousins in New Testament times, else scripture would not have used "cousin" when referring to Elizabeth. Words mean what they say. We have no question as to what relation Elizabeth was to Mary. In the same way, there is no question as to the word "brothers" when referring to Jesus' siblings. Had the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe otherwise, Luke would have penned the word "cousins" since it was available to use. IOW, if cousin was used in one instance, then it could & would be used in other instances to clear up any abiguity. The Holy Spirit would not leave so much up to supposition when it comes to such an important matter as Mary's perpetual virginity.
The problem that I arrived at, is there is too much suppostion in this teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity. The teaching is implicit and cannot be stated emphatically from Sacred Scripture. I understand all the Catholic reasoning behind it, because I studied it extensively. But, that reasoning can be challenged. Roman Catholics suppose that Mary had to be a perpetual virgin, because God would not allow children born of Original Sin to possess such a womb that had held our sinless Savior. Yet this line of thinking can be dispelled. Look into the history of Jesus' geneology. What a myriad of sinful people we see. Think about Rahab the harlot, who is in the line of Jesus. Then we have Ruth, who was not a Jew by birth. And David who commit adultery. And Soloman who forsook God to follow pagan gods. The list is endless. So, that line of reasoning doesn't convince me.
Happy New Year to you.
HD
[edited by moderator to fix quote--no text changed]
< Message edited by Ps103 -- 1/1/2008 6:11:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 1/2/2008 3:00:21 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Words mean what they say. We have no question as to what relation Elizabeth was to Mary. In the same way, there is no question as to the word "brothers" when referring to Jesus' siblings. Had the Holy Spirit wanted us to believe otherwise, Luke would have penned the word "cousins" since it was available to use.
"words mean what they say"--well thats a mouthful around here. If you just do a lexicon search here at crosswalk you will see that adelphos has meaning beyond blood siblings. Don't you have "brothers" at your church? They used adelphos like that and Luke is just writing what was the common usage. I found this at a bible research site:
"But most often in the New Testament we see that this word (adelphos in the Greek) was used by Christians when they wanted to refer to another member of the Church. Paul even uses the word pseudadelphos "false brother" in reference to his Jewish "brothers" who pretended to be Christian brothers (i.e. the Judaizers denounced in Galatians 2:4). This is how Christians spoke in the earliest days of the Church. The fellow-Christian was a brother. Footnote: See the article "Αδελφος," in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 145-6, where it is stated that the usage "plainly derives from Jewish religious custom. "Web Site
quote:
I understand all the Catholic reasoning behind it, because I studied it extensively. But, that reasoning can be challenged.
Of course like anything in the bible it can be challenged--is the trinity explained in the bible? Did you study Helvidius and his thumping by Jerome when this issue first came up? Did you know Luther and Calvin defended the Catholic position?
quote:
Roman Catholics suppose that Mary had to be a perpetual virgin, because God
has revealed this fact about Mary.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 1/2/2008 5:53:07 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 576
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
[ Did you know Luther and Calvin defended the Catholic position?
[color=#000000]Hello Otis,
First of all, when you say such things about Luther and Calvin, you are failing to understand them within their own contexts. Luther had been strongly influenced by Roman Catholicism. After all, he was an Augustinian monk. So, in his earlier writings he still clung to such beliefs as Mary's perpetual virginity.
Let me explain it this way. I have known people who have come out of cults. When they left, they held on to many of those beliefs for some time. Even when a person comes out of a certain faith tradition that isn't a dangerous cult, it takes them time before they let go of certain beliefs. For example, I have known hyper Arminians who have become Calvinists. Did they depart from their former beliefs and instantaneously become Calvinist? No. It took them quite some time before they embraced all of the doctrines of grace. And I could give examples of Roman Catholics who have left the faith, but don't immediately let go of the Marian doctrines. Even when I look at my own faith journey, it encompasses twists and turns, as I pray and ask the Lord to show Himself to me.
quote:
Roman Catholics suppose that Mary had to be a perpetual virgin, because God
has revealed this fact about Mary.
[color=#000000]Otis, did you read my post to Lurker regarding Luke 1:25 addressing the meaning of "until." Even if one wants to suppose that "brothers" could mean other relatives when it is referenced to Christ, the meaning of "until" within the context of that sentence is clear. One may suppose to argue that Mary never had any other children, and that Jesus' brothers were not his blood brothers. But, it is difficult to argue from the perspective of Luke 1:25 that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Roman Catholics somehow feel that to strip Mary of her perpetual virginity is to take away the wonderful work that God did within her. They suppose that Mary having marital relations with Joseph is disgraceful. But this view is one that comes from looking at sexual relations as something that would stain a person's reputation. Mary does not lose anything of what God gave her, should we look at her as one who had sexual intimacy with Joseph. Think of Peter the Apostle for a moment. The one whom RC say was the first pope. He was a married man. Does that take away anything from what God established him to be? Not in the least. And such is the case with Mary as well.
HD[/color]
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 1/2/2008 9:53:54 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
First of all, when you say such things about Luther and Calvin, you are failing to understand them within their own contexts.
Not really, but even if I grant you that it still doesn't explain away Calvin, who was never a priest, or Zwingli or Bullinger or even Wesley. Quotes provided upon request.
quote:
did you read my post to Lurker regarding Luke 1:25 addressing the meaning of "until."
No but Calvin answers it pretty well...
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation. (From Here
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/9/2008 12:33:15 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
Greating As this is my first time here I may repeat that which is already said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
My response to this theory is that it isn't so much just the "firstborn" thing...
Scripture speaks clearly about God's "only-begotten". If Jesus was Mary's "only begotten" I contend that scripture would have stated that just as clearly. Interesting Concept However the term begotten is to imply that Jesus came forth from God with out the help of and procreative process of feminie evine counterpart. Since with Mary There was a gestation period and it was done with an egg from mary and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit a term such as only "begotton" cannot be used here.
Because of this, I believe that in Mary's case, it means He was her first of at least two... Couple that with scripture's specific mention of His "brothers and sisters" and the conclusion is obvious! However, this would do very bad things to the Mariolotry that is so popular amongst some groups... This statement is quite tell as you say YOU choose to believe even in the light of the testamony of the faithful for 200 years trans denomination. The faith is not about personal belief but that which has been handed down from the faithful This is why when we say the creeds it is properly said WE BELIVE..... not I BELIVE....
The idea that all those billions of hours of prayer, and even thousands of entire LIVES, have been wasted on what is no more than guesswork and fables would collapse some HUGE ideals!
So... what this means is that those organizations MUST do EVERYTHING they can to perpetuate this... Once the pope has made it an official "ex-cathedrea" statement, they can't go back on it and retain even a shred of credibility. So the whole 'church' makes a shift from having their foundation made of the Rock of Gods word to the (frequently) shifting sands of 'Tradition'... All this so nobody has to go public and say: "Ummm.. Sorry, but we got it wrong."
Such a shame!
Further reflection on this the question of the Nicene/Constantinopolitian Creed leads me to the following question. Do we agree with the Creed? If so do we only agree with the portion that we recite in church or do we ascent whole heartedly (however uncomfortable it may be) to the whole Creed. If the later then there are a set of ten anathamas which the fathers at the council wrote that are hardly mentioned. One of these states: If anyone does not confess that Christ is not twice born Once before all times and in these later times of the ever virgin mary let them be anathama.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/9/2008 5:20:34 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Greating As this is my first time here I may repeat that which is already said.
Further reflection on this the question of the Nicene/Constantinopolitian Creed leads me to the following question. Do we agree with the Creed? If so do we only agree with the portion that we recite in church or do we ascent whole heartedly (however uncomfortable it may be) to the whole Creed. If the later then there are a set of ten anathamas which the fathers at the council wrote that are hardly mentioned. One of these states: If anyone does not confess that Christ is not twice born Once before all times and in these later times of the ever virgin mary let them be anathama.
Welcome to Crosswalk Forums!
We do not recite this creed in our church. The words in it are the words of man, not the words of God, so there is the distinct possibility of error in them. In Gods inerrant word, it says nothing about her remaining virgin beyond her time of cleansing after Jesus was born, so anything beyond this is supposition, and therefore not appropriate to build doctrine, dogma, or tradition upon. There is no promise of anything beyond the preserved word of God being without error.
The testimony of the faithful for all those years is no more sure than the testimony of any person who has ever been in a court of law. Are you gullible enough to believe that people don't lie? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they did lie. I am saying that because there is the possibility that they might have, their words cannot be relied upon enough to build things like doctrine, dogma, and 'Tradition' on. God promises us that His Word is reliable, so this would be the source of reliable doctrine, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/9/2008 6:09:27 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Greeting As this is my first time here I may repeat that which is already said.
Further reflection on this the question of the Nicene/Constantinopolitian Creed leads me to the following question. Do we agree with the Creed? If so do we only agree with the portion that we recite in church or do we ascent whole heartedly (however uncomfortable it may be) to the whole Creed. If the later then there are a set of ten anathamas which the fathers at the council wrote that are hardly mentioned. One of these states: If anyone does not confess that Christ is not twice born Once before all times and in these later times of the ever virgin mary let them be anathama.
Welcome to Crosswalk Forums!
We do not recite this creed in our church. The words in it are the words of man, not the words of God, so there is the distinct possibility of error in them.
Ummmm so do you sing songs in your church which have been written by men or do you only sing the Psalms?
quote:
In Gods inerrant word, it says nothing about her remaining virgin beyond her time of cleansing after Jesus was born, so anything beyond this is supposition, and therefore not appropriate to build doctrine, dogma, or tradition upon. There is no promise of anything beyond the preserved word of God being without error.
Not that I disagree with the infalibility of the Bible but if you do not get the idea of infalibility from the tradition of men than where, you certainly do not get it from the Bible. Any reference that the the authors of the NT make about the infalibility of Scripture is in refernce to the OT alone since what they were writting was not yet considered scripture.
quote:
The testimony of the faithful for all those years is no more sure than the testimony of any person who has ever been in a court of law. Are you gullible enough to believe that people don't lie? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they did lie. I am saying that because there is the possibility that they might have, their words cannot be relied upon enough to build things like doctrine, dogma, and 'Tradition' on. God promises us that His Word is reliable, so this would be the source of reliable doctrine, etc.
Let me ask you this you believe the bible to be the final authority on matters of life faith and salvation. Yet the Bible did not drop down from Heaven in it's current form as a library of 66 (or 72) books all neatly bound together. The books we have were chosen by MEN over and against other texts SO.... I suppose that if I am going to be gulible enough to belive that the books in the Bible are the infalible word of God and trust the men who bound them together, than yes I am gulible enough to believe that the SAME MEN that give us the bible can also be trusted in the words they carefully crafted to be the rule of faith. For If they could have made a mistake with the words of the Creed then they could have made a mistake with the books they chose for the Bible. However, If I can trust that the Holy Spirit let them to pick the right books for the bible then I can trust that the Holy Spirit led them to pick the right words for the creed.
< Message edited by lgpreacherman -- 2/10/2008 1:10:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/10/2008 9:59:57 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
You don't get it...
God said it... GOD! You know... Him?
God. Jehovah... YHWH...
Yeah... HIM!
...The one who could bring all of existence into being with nothing more than his words...
Yeah, HE was the one who said He would give us His word, and would preserve it and protect it forever. He didn't just say this, either... He PROMISES to do it!quote:
Not that I disagree with the infalibility of the Bible but if you do not get the idea of infalibility from the tradition of men than where, you certainly do not get it from the Bible. (Psalms 12:6&7 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.{The hebrew says this, even if a few corrupt Greek manuscripts have tried to change this, like Vaticanus, which, unfortunately was pulled from where it truly belonged! (I don't know if many people realize that this manuscript was 'found' in the trashcan! LOL})
He isn't limited by time. He isn't concerned about whether it is (was) Old Testament times or New Testament times.... The one who worked through all kinds of people throughout the ages to prepare and preserve the thing He promised He would preserve and prepare... HIS WORD.
His word is perfect because He promised He would make it so! Did He work through people? YES! He always has, but even so, it is Him working... Yet through all of this, He only makes a few promises. So, at this point everyone needs to decide on some things. Is He able to keep His promises? (I say yes, just like He does.) Is He bound by anything to fulfil things He did not promise to do? (I say no, and I believe He would agree.)
As a result of this, it is not only I who believe the Bible is the final authority, but my 'camp' also contains God (at least accord | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
