|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/10/2008 7:03:20 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
Papa-san,
I'm glad that we can agree on the word of the Apostle's creed at least! I do not know what your church background but just so you know these are not things that I am taking for granted. Althought I was baptized Catholic as an infant my parents left shortly thereafter and become protestant. I have spent 7/8ths of my life in varrious protestand churches and I an eternally greatful for the foundation I have in that. Not to say that I am now RC but it is only recently that I have been able to overcome many of my anti-Catholic prejudices and have begun to examine these issues of the faith for myself rather then going on what others have told me.
It has only been in the past few years that the words of Bishop Fulton Sheen of NYC has begun to resonate with me "There are not 100 people in america who hate the Catholic Church, there are thousands who hate what they think the Catholic Church is".
In closing let me use these words from a 5th Century Theologian Prosper of Aquitane "In the Essentials Unity, In the Non essentials diversity, in all things Charity."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/10/2008 9:17:20 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
That agreement comes with the caveat that you understand that I fully believe that though Mary was virgin at the time of the conception of Jesus, and through His birth and her period of cleansing. After that, I believe she and Joseph fulfilled their marital obligations and produced the brothers and sisters spoken of a number of times in scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/10/2008 9:49:17 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
And I am fine with that. For me the understanding of the PV is a matter of personal holiness and devotion and not a matter of Salvation. If I always belive in the PV nad you never do I belive that we each hold the same Salvation in Christ this is because the PV is not an essential.
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/14/2008 8:42:35 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 961
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
While Yahshua was on the earth he had brothers and sisters, in fact He remained with Mary another 18 years to help take care of His other siblings. The following verse prove Mary had other siblings, Mark 3:31-35
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. James, one of the apostles who became one after the resuurection, was a sibling. This "perpetual virginity" garbage is another false teaching of the RCC. 
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/14/2008 9:11:54 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
While Yahshua was on the earth he had brothers and sisters, in fact He remained with Mary another 18 years to help take care of His other siblings. The following verse prove Mary had other siblings, Mark 3:31-35
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. James, one of the apostles who became one after the resuurection, was a sibling. This "perpetual virginity" garbage is another false teaching of the RCC.
First off this verse does not "prove" anything. As we have discussed earlier in this thread the term "brother" is applied in a much broader sence to a 1st century Hebrew then in our narrow 21st century understanding. Brother can refer to extened relatives. There is also the understanding that there were step brothers, sons of Joesephs from another marriage.
Secondly, I really wish people would know their history rathe then making assumptions. The PV is not a construct of the Roman Catholic Church. The PV is a belief of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the RCC. This has has been a belief since long before the Centralized RCC emerged. The following is from Wikipedia:
quote:
Origen, in his Commentary on Matthew (c. 248), expressly states belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. In the words of Luigi Gambero, “Origen not only has no doubts but seems directly to imply that this is a truth already recognised as an integral part of the deposit of faith.”[9] In this context, Origen interpreted the comments of Ignatius of Antioch (d. c 108) as significant:
On this subject, I have found a fine observation in a letter of the martyr Ignatius, second bishop of Antioch after Peter,[10] who fought with the wild beasts during the persecution in Rome. Mary’s virginity was hidden from the prince of this world, hidden thanks to Joseph and her marriage to him. Her virginity was kept hidden because she was thought to be married. [11]
By the fourth century, the doctrine is well attested.[12] For example, references can be found in the writings of Athanasius,[13] Epiphanius,[14] Hilary,[15] Didymus,[16] Ambrose,[17] Jerome,[18] Siricius,[19] and others. However, it cannot be said that unanimity existed in antiquity concerning the doctrine, as it was denied by Tertullian,[20] and Jovinian's teaching that childbirth ended Mary's physical virginity had to be condemned by a synod of Milan in 390.
As you can see this quote came from a bishop of Antioch not the "Roman Bishop"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/15/2008 4:29:10 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
Origen was so TWISTED and psychotic that he castrated himself after incorrectly interpreting the Sermon on the Mount! This man had such messed up sexual issues that NOTHING in regards to it said by him can have ANY real value! Who knows if anything he said was accurate!
Then, understanding how pervasive his influence was with the early church, we can easily see where this faulty teaching was initially introduced into the Church. This is why it is believed by both the RCC and EOC! The defective idea of Mary's perpetual virginity goes back to the early third century at the latest!
Likely earlier, and here is why:
Clement never managed to catch the fact that his star student was a few sandwiches short of a picinic basket. A rudimentary understanding of human psychology and sociology tells us that for this insanity to be missed, they must have shared some common delusions. There is more likelihood than not that their psychiatric issues fed off of one another.
So, if this untruth was introduced at that time, there is no wonder that it is shared by both branches of Orthodoxy. This heretical teaching happened so early that it's roots are almost as deep as the Church itself! This is why God tells us that we MUST compare teachings up against His word to see if they are true or not! He knows how quickly human beings can mess up even the best things!
Fortunately, there were some people who held on to the teachings of Christ and His apostles as opposed to Clement, Origen, Ignatius, and Polycarp... The truth was quietly handed from one generation to another, and thus the fulfillment of Gods promise to have His Church prevail against all odds. These people eventually ended up realizing that what had become the "Church" really had no resemblance to what Christ and His apostles had started. Hence the Protestant Movement, and the rest is history! All of this quite easily provable by the fact that these "Orthodox Churches" have beliefs and doctrines that stray so far from scripture that it couldn't be recognized if somehow one of the original apostles was to stumble across what the "Church" is today...
Nowhere in scripture is there ANY verification that Mary remained a virgin. Thus, in following Gods command to compare this teaching to His word, we see that this teaching is heretical, and should be corrected. It's just pretty hard to break through 1,700 years of 'Tradition', even though this tradition springs from man rather than God!
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/15/2008 4:36:09 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 961
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
I'm sorry, I don't care who says or perpetuate this line of thinking it's unscriptural and the scripture I gave proves just that. I rarely follow the teaching and traditions of man. 
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/15/2008 4:55:28 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Origen was so TWISTED and psychotic that he castrated himself after incorrectly interpreting the Sermon on the Mount! This man had such messed up sexual issues that NOTHING in regards to it said by him can have ANY real value! Who knows if anything he said was accurate!
Then, understanding how pervasive his influence was with the early church, we can easily see where this faulty teaching was initially introduced into the Church. This is why it is believed by both the RCC and EOC! The defective idea of Mary's perpetual virginity goes back to the early third century at the latest!
Likely earlier, and here is why:
Clement never managed to catch the fact that his star student was a few sandwiches short of a picinic basket. A rudimentary understanding of human psychology and sociology tells us that for this insanity to be missed, they must have shared some common delusions. There is more likelihood than not that their psychiatric issues fed off of one another.
So, if this untruth was introduced at that time, there is no wonder that it is shared by both branches of Orthodoxy. This heretical teaching happened so early that it's roots are almost as deep as the Church itself! This is why God tells us that we MUST compare teachings up against His word to see if they are true or not! He knows how quickly human beings can mess up even the best things!
Fortunately, there were some people who held on to the teachings of Christ and His apostles as opposed to Clement, Origen, Ignatius, and Polycarp... The truth was quietly handed from one generation to another, and thus the fulfillment of Gods promise to have His Church prevail against all odds. These people eventually ended up realizing that what had become the "Church" really had no resemblance to what Christ and His apostles had started. Hence the Protestant Movement, and the rest is history! All of this quite easily provable by the fact that these "Orthodox Churches" have beliefs and doctrines that stray so far from scripture that it couldn't be recognized if somehow one of the original apostles was to stumble across what the "Church" is today...
Nowhere in scripture is there ANY verification that Mary remained a virgin. Thus, in following Gods command to compare this teaching to His word, we see that this teaching is heretical, and should be corrected. It's just pretty hard to break through 1,700 years of 'Tradition', even though this tradition springs from man rather than God!
So basically Papa-San to do not trust the very words of our Lord. Our Lord' very words were that He would never leave or forsake his church. By all accounts following your line of thinking, once The apostle John died the whole church went to hell in a handbasket and remained there until 1517 when Luther wrote his 95 Thesis. Well if that Is a case I guess I might as well give up on the whole of Christianity becasue if our Lord did not remain with his church to comfort and guide it then Jesus must be a liar. If Jesus is a liar then he is not God but rather a deamon from the pit of Hell and I want nothing to do with the religion He founded.
I have said it before and I will say it again, Since these men can not be trusted with what they taught then I cannot trust that they picked the right books for the Bible, If I can't trust the Books they placed in the Bible then I might as well be reading the Bagvad Gita or the Gospel of Judas.
< Message edited by lgpreacherman -- 2/15/2008 5:08:06 PM >
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/15/2008 5:01:52 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LBolt
I'm sorry, I don't care who says or perpetuate this line of thinking it's unscriptural and the scripture I gave proves just that. I rarely follow the teaching and traditions of man.
Then you disregard the words of the Bible because while the Traditions of man should never be taken over somethng the Bible speaks clearly and I say CLEARLY not vaugely then then we are supose to turn to the tradition of the church. Paul is Quite clear that we are to hold fast to the apostolic teachings we recive whether written down or by word of mouth. So if you do not follow the teachings and traditions of man but only the Bible then I suppose you follow the whole Bible or at bare minimum the New Testament. This would mean that your wife wears a head covering in church, your wife does not wear jewelery, your wife does not speak in church... Need I go on?
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/15/2008 5:48:06 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3614
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
Funny how a topic of nonsense always goes down other nonsense trails. lol.
Miriam was a virgin Hebrew that gave birth to Yeshua.
Being virgin allowed for Yeshua to be born without sin.
But another nonsense topic is that Mary was born without sin
and passed that heritage to Jesus.
So, a person has to make a choice to what they want to believe.
I dictate no choice, I give a free-will to others.
_____________________________
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 - 2/15/2008 6:23:15 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: carlkeigley
Funny how a topic of nonsense always goes down other nonsense trails. lol.
Miriam was a virgin Hebrew that gave birth to Yeshua.
Being virgin allowed for Yeshua to be born without sin.
But another nonsense topic is that Mary was born without sin
and passed that heritage to Jesus.
So, a person has to make a choice to what they want to believe.
I dictate no choice, I give a free-will to others.
Amen and Amen, All I say is have a friendlt discussion about it if you choose not to belive that is upto you but don't tell me that I am wrong if i choose to belive.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 10:39:48 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
So basically Papa-San to do not trust the very words of our Lord. Our Lord' very words were that He would never leave or forsake his church. By all accounts following your line of thinking, once The apostle John died the whole church went to hell in a handbasket and remained there until 1517 when Luther wrote his 95 Thesis. Well if that Is a case I guess I might as well give up on the whole of Christianity becasue if our Lord did not remain with his church to comfort and guide it then Jesus must be a liar. If Jesus is a liar then he is not God but rather a deamon from the pit of Hell and I want nothing to do with the religion He founded.
I have said it before and I will say it again, Since these men can not be trusted with what they taught then I cannot trust that they picked the right books for the Bible, If I can't trust the Books they placed in the Bible then I might as well be reading the Bagvad Gita or the Gospel of Judas.
Not at all! We can have absolute assurance of the words of our Lord! He HAS been intimately involved with His true Church since day one! So, I will say, yet again: His true Church simply is something other than what you think it is! I'm glad you want something to do with the Church that He founded! If you can manage to break away from the one that man (many men) built, you might understand what He was telling us to do!
I have posted before about how the catholic Church has become what it is through a slow process of decay. I'm not saying that it's all bad, either. Just that it's teachings have few instances where it parallels Christ's teachings anymore.
As to trusting what they taught: No... take it with a grain of salt, except in those areas where it is TOTALLY off-base. (Those ya just toss out.) As far as trusting whether or not the right books are in the Bible, you may trust it absolutely, as it was God who put them there. For you to think that it was these men who chose them is your own admission of a limit to God's abilities. You don't HAVE to trust whether or not these men got the right books into the Bible, because God did it... NOT them! He worked through them, just as He always has!
He promised us that His word will endure for ALL generations. Your church fathers decided to change this and have their words and traditions survive at the expense of God's word. It has to be one way or the other, and I'm going to be in the camp that God told us He'd be in: The one that believes His word is the ultimate authority!
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 10:46:19 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Then you disregard the words of the Bible because while the Traditions of man should never be taken over somethng the Bible speaks clearly and I say CLEARLY not vaugely then then we are supose to turn to the tradition of the church. Paul is Quite clear that we are to hold fast to the apostolic teachings we recive whether written down or by word of mouth. So if you do not follow the teachings and traditions of man but only the Bible then I suppose you follow the whole Bible or at bare minimum the New Testament. This would mean that your wife wears a head covering in church, your wife does not wear jewelery, your wife does not speak in church... Need I go on?
And this line of thinking is where the problem arose in the first place! Anywhere scripture was vague at all, the RCC decided to fill in the blanks with whatever suited the needs of the high-ranking leaders of that man-made institution! (BTW... Gods word is Gods word! He says we do these things, so we do these things! I understand that Catholics, EOC, and most Protestant denominations don't because it isn't currently 'fashionable', but God's word doesn't need to be fashionable... It just needs to be followed!)
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 10:51:12 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Amen and Amen, All I say is have a friendly discussion about it. If you choose not to belive that is up to you, but don't tell me that I am wrong if i choose to believe.
I won't tell you that I believe you are wrong... What I am saying, (and, I think carl is as well) is that Gods word says you are wrong, and it also says we are REQUIRED to try to correct you! (See my signature line.)
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 11:45:32 AM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Amen and Amen, All I say is have a friendly discussion about it. If you choose not to belive that is up to you, but don't tell me that I am wrong if i choose to believe.
I won't tell you that I believe you are wrong... What I am saying, (and, I think carl is as well) is that Gods word says you are wrong, and it also says we are REQUIRED to try to correct you! (See my signature line.)
THis is were the impass has come. First off while I hold to a catholic view of the faith I am not Roman Catholic (see my links). God only calls you to correct me if I am in clear flagrant error. you are interpereting your understanding of the bible from what makes sense to a 21st western Christian. I am following a chain of thought that goes all the way back to the mindset of the 1st century middle east. I should think that the commentary of those who wrote the Bible and the people who soon followed them should have a better and clearer understanding of what is being said then those reading it of an unconnected culture 2000 years later.
Think of it this way. I would guess we are both politically conservative people who get mad as hell when revisionist judges and liberal politicians put their own spin on what the Constitiution and Declaration of Independence says. They take what the founding Fathers wrote and twist it so that it fits their 21st century mindset. Now I am not comparing our countries founding documents to the Scripture but what I am saying is that if our politicians are wanting to reinterperet these docments to fit their comfort levels and they are only 230 years removed from the documents and in the 'same' cultural context, then why do we think we should be able to interperet the Bible in whatever way makes sence through our 21st century western lenses. If we expect the Constitution and Declaration of Independence to be interpreted through the lenses of an 18th century mentality then for God's sake we should be reading & interpreting scripture through 1st century middle east lenses.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 11:49:26 AM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Then you disregard the words of the Bible because while the Traditions of man should never be taken over somethng the Bible speaks clearly and I say CLEARLY not vaugely then then we are supose to turn to the tradition of the church. Paul is Quite clear that we are to hold fast to the apostolic teachings we recive whether written down or by word of mouth. So if you do not follow the teachings and traditions of man but only the Bible then I suppose you follow the whole Bible or at bare minimum the New Testament. This would mean that your wife wears a head covering in church, your wife does not wear jewelery, your wife does not speak in church... Need I go on?
And this line of thinking is where the problem arose in the first place! Anywhere scripture was vague at all, the RCC decided to fill in the blanks with whatever suited the needs of the high-ranking leaders of that man-made institution! (BTW... Gods word is Gods word! He says we do these things, so we do these things! I understand that Catholics, EOC, and most Protestant denominations don't because it isn't currently 'fashionable', but God's word doesn't need to be fashionable... It just needs to be followed!)
Papa-San,
You did not answer my question. I have now underlined, italicized and placed in Bold that question.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 11:58:14 AM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
So basically Papa-San to do not trust the very words of our Lord. Our Lord' very words were that He would never leave or forsake his church. By all accounts following your line of thinking, once The apostle John died the whole church went to hell in a handbasket and remained there until 1517 when Luther wrote his 95 Thesis. Well if that Is a case I guess I might as well give up on the whole of Christianity becasue if our Lord did not remain with his church to comfort and guide it then Jesus must be a liar. If Jesus is a liar then he is not God but rather a deamon from the pit of Hell and I want nothing to do with the religion He founded.
I have said it before and I will say it again, Since these men can not be trusted with what they taught then I cannot trust that they picked the right books for the Bible, If I can't trust the Books they placed in the Bible then I might as well be reading the Bagvad Gita or the Gospel of Judas.
Not at all! We can have absolute assurance of the words of our Lord! He HAS been intimately involved with His true Church since day one! So, I will say, yet again: His true Church simply is something other than what you think it is! I'm glad you want something to do with the Church that He founded! If you can manage to break away from the one that man (many men) built, you might understand what He was telling us to do!
I have posted before about how the catholic Church has become what it is through a slow process of decay. I'm not saying that it's all bad, either. Just that it's teachings have few instances where it parallels Christ's teachings anymore.
As to trusting what they taught: No... take it with a grain of salt, except in those areas where it is TOTALLY off-base. (Those ya just toss out.) As far as trusting whether or not the right books are in the Bible, you may trust it absolutely, as it was God who put them there. For you to think that it was these men who chose them is your own admission of a limit to God's abilities. You don't HAVE to trust whether or not these men got the right books into the Bible, because God did it... NOT them! He worked through them, just as He always has!
He promised us that His word will endure for ALL generations. Your church fathers decided to change this and have their words and traditions survive at the expense of God's word. It has to be one way or the other, and I'm going to be in the camp that God told us He'd be in: The one that believes His word is the ultimate authority!
You are arguing a circular argument. What gives you the absolute assurance that you can trust the scriptures which man chose from a vast many options, but that you can't trust the other choices of these same men? You trust because in scripture Paul says you can trust Scripture. However, the Scripture Paul is talking about is the OT scripture not the NT. So you want to now make something that Paul said apply to Paul's own words which was not what Paul ment. In doing so you trust these 4th century men that they picked the right words to become the scripture, so that you can so so confidently proclaim the words of the NT to be infalibile. In turn however you cannot trust the other writtings of the fourth century men, or the third century, or the second century or the first century! That is not logical.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 12:50:55 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I told you that we DO follow what it says. Yes, we get a lot of weird looks, but Jesus and His disciples weren't the most popular people of their times, either; they went against the grain...
Psalm 12 states that the Lords words are pure, and that He will preserve them forever. MY God is actually Almighty, and can and has made good on His promise! I can rest assured that when I am reading in my Bible, I am reading His word... The way HE wanted to have it presented to me. In there, he says that what's there is it: Don't add to it or take away from it.
In just a few sentences, we know that Paul would present words that were from the Lord, and words that were his own. God saw fit to have these words make it in, so they pass the test of legitimacy. He made sure that many other writings of the time did NOT get included in His word, and if you study them, the reasons are pretty obvious. This is the stuff that God Himself decided to toss in the trash, and you guys built a church on it! LOL
This, I guess, is a matter of faith. You either believe that God did what He said He would, or you believe that a bunch of guys threw some stuff together. If the things these people had to say were of enough importance to God, He would have included them in His word. When the scholars and translators got around to making the translation in the 1600's, they certainly had the writings of these people, and if God would have wanted them included, He would have made sure they were included at that time. (Or at any time, for that matter, 'cause He is God!) However, they were not, so we need to consider them to be something other than the word of God, and therefore not build anything on them...
Yes, my argument is as circular as yours. The main difference is I am going on the presumption that God is God, and knows what He is doing!
Where I believe your argument falls flat is where you think God wasn't the One deciding what was to be included in His own Word! You think it was just people!
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 2/16/2008 1:14:15 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/16/2008 10:58:30 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Papa-san
Where I believe your argument falls flat is where you think God wasn't the One deciding what was to be included in His own Word! You think it was just people!
Maybe we need to go over this again. I nor would any good catholic Christian think it was "just" people. We believe that the "people" were inspired of the Holy Spirit. We believe that God does not change. Therefore if God worked on continuous revelation from the creation of the world through the calling of the Hebrew people. From the founding of Israel through the coming of the Christ. Then the unchanging God who does not change continues to reveal his will to mankind.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/17/2008 3:16:56 PM
|
|
|
sudzer
Posts: 29
Joined: 2/13/2008
Status: offline
|
Hi may I join in your discussion, probably with both feet. Any way James the Just is indeed recorded as being the brother of Jesus. Joshephus, Hillier, and Iusebius all state that fact. Now as for Mary, the worship of her was not recorded until 353AD by a Pope I think was Grecrey not sure, anyway history records that he had a vision one nite from Mary and he was given the rosary to pray. If you will do some research into church history you will find all of the above. Boring reading but enlightening. The Catholic Church has made up many of the rules that govern churches today, Catholic and Protestant, changing the Sabbath to Sun. Dec 25 etc etc. If I may let me quote Eusebius who wrote the Nicene Creed at the council. This letter was written to the church in " The faith which I declare to you, and which I now hold, I accepted from the bishops who lived before me. It was accepted at my first intruction and at the time of my baptism. It is that faith which I learned from the holy Criptures and which as prebyter and bishop I have held and have taught. It is as follows. I believe in on God, Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in on Lord Jesus Christ the Word of God, God from God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, First born of all creationbegotten of the Father before all ages, through Whom all thins were made. He was made flesh for our salvation. He lived among men and suffered and rose on the third day, and ascended to His FAther. And He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. I also believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe in the existence of each of these Persons. I believe that the Father is truly the Father, that the Son is truly the Son, that the Holy Spirit is truly the Holy Spirit, for our Lord said when sending His disciples to preach the Gospel, " Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I affirm that this is my faith that it was always so and the until I die I shall hold it, anathematizing all ungodly heresy. Before almighty God and before our Lord, Jesus Christ, I testify that I have always belived thesr things in my heart and soul and from the time I was capable of reflection. This is what I now believe and I speak the truth. I have thie means to prove to you and to persuade you that this has been what I believed and taught in the past." end of quote, so I leave this with you knowing full well that the Church changed this belief. Do some research, start with Holy Scripture and then read some of the ancient manuscritps and writtings there are some available online. Blessings to all.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/18/2008 11:00:52 AM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lgpreacherman
Maybe we need to go over this again. I nor would any good catholic Christian think it was "just" people. We believe that the "people" were inspired of the Holy Spirit. We believe that God does not change. Therefore if God worked on continuous revelation from the creation of the world through the calling of the Hebrew people. From the founding of Israel through the coming of the Christ. Then the unchanging God who does not change continues to reveal his will to mankind.
No need to re-hash it again. I understand that the general teaching of the Catholic church is that the word of God is a secondary authority to the word of popes. The justification follows the thought that it was people who were inspired by God to write and decide, but there is no trying to hide the fact that they believe that there is the possibility of error in the Bible these men compiled. This is why the church is the final authority, not the Bible.
My point is that this thinking does not consider the fact that God promised to provide the world with His inerrant word. In the Word He provided, commonly known as the Bible, He states that even though His word took many thousands of years to be completed, it WAS completed! Done... Finished... It is QUITE clear that He states this. Just like Creation, it took some time, but was finished. The work of Jesus. It took some time, but ultimately, He said, "It is finished." And, in the Revelation of John, it is finished, with the caveat that anyone who adds or takes away from the 'things that are written', will be condemned. Unfortunately, He wasn't quite so clear on what would happen to those who followed after the 'additions', so we cannot really say what these consequences will be. It IS in His word, just not stated as clearly as these times that He "finished' other things.
God is able to make His word perfect, even though He used others to pen it, translate it, and compile it. It is up to the individual to believe that or not.
No 'catholic christian' would think it was just people, however they do believe that the Word is subject to the authority of the pope. That's OK! You are entitled to that view, just as God is entitled to the opposite view...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/18/2008 4:40:46 PM
|
|
|
lgpreacherman
Posts: 89
Joined: 2/9/2008
Status: offline
|
Papa San,
THank you for your most humble response. I am so glad that you have so united yourself with Christ that you know exactly what God does and does not beleive.
Wait a minute, unless you are God so you are speeking first hand and know that what I believe is opposite what God believes because you are God.
Secondly, a catholic christian would not put the pope above the word. but since you knoe God so intamitely I must be wrong on that account too.
_____________________________
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.
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
www.iccec.com
www.cechome.com
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The perpetual discussion on Mary's Virginity - 2/18/2008 6:32:53 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 995
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
I do not claim anything beyond having read and having an understanding of what He has told us. It IS a really awesome thing to be so intimately connected with Him that I can know what He believes! (At least as far as it concerns us lowly humans...) It's in His word!
Practices and beliefs that are contrary to what He has written are anti-scriptural, thus anti-God. Additionally, God tells us to compare the practices and beliefs that people hold and teach against what is written in His word. Those things that do not mesh are heresy. It is REALLY quite simple.
< Message edited by Papa-san -- 2/18/2008 6:43:43 PM >
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
I'd be on trtial for murder!! Did not Mary and Joseph get married? Would it be wrong to assume that married folk have sex? He must have possessed enomous restraint not to consumate his marriage. LOL Seeing that in their society children were seen as a blessing from YHWH and not a curse also leads me to believe that Mary probably had more children. Why would Yahshua stay 18 additional years at home to help Mary after Joseph died if their were no more children? 