Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Who said they were corrupted - further corrupted, perhaps; but, I don't think anyone called the civil authorities innocent. Conspiracy makes both parties guilty. The RCC and you all are trying to paint a picture that what was done 'wasn't really that bad' while at the same time indicting the civil authorities as the 'bad guy' and saying the Church was really denouncing it... But wait, the story keeps changing, doesn't it. First the story was that the RCC wasn't responsible for the murders - that's what the official apologetics say. Now that we have a showing from your own councils and bulls to the opposite - showing that the Church was fully responsible - now it's 'well the civil authorities were'nt white as the driven snow.'
You sound like a kid who got caught steeling mom's change. You get caught and rather than admit it, you try to make it look as though everyone else does it 'so it wasn't that bad.' Who do you think is buying this stuff? Are you trying to convince complete morons - because only people who don't take the time to read are gonna buy this stuff. And that's what the RCC is counting on. I don't even need a history book at this point to call your clergy a pack of liars, your own Church Documents say it for me. Revise That.
Havoc has no Biblical reason why he has to consider us brothers. I have seen this type of thinking before. It is very sad for a self proclaimed "Christian" to use his reading of the Bible in a way where he sets himself up as judge. And then, based upon his own judgment he can decide whom he treats as a brother and whom he doesn't.
My religious background has taught me to respect all as God's children, brothers all are we. "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me"
I know some Christians that take this as not an injunction to be caring with everyone, but as a command to be nice to those who think like you do.
SD
'I'm not gonna stop being a Nazi just because some jews were burned'. See the absurdity yet. Not done though. It isn't about Just whether it happened and never has been. What it's about is that it happened AND the Catholic Church is lying about it even to day in order to try and get people to buy it's 'inerrancy' and 'infallibility' "claims". Claims is in quotes because that's all they are. And your church's very own history tells us the claims are a lie too. Care to tell us how that doesn't matter either?
Well, since the thread devoted to this is locked, I'd like to sum up where it seemed to leave us. Sorry, I'm going to wing this without a Bible, so go easy on me!
Did Joseph and Mary have sex?
YES:
The angel told Joseph to take Mary as his wife.
Scripture says he didn't know Mary "until" after Christ was born.
Scripture refers to a few people as the "brothers and sisters" of Jesus.
Scripture refers to Christ as Mary's "firstborn."
Some in the first couple of centuries believed Mary had more children.
NO:
Mary and Joseph's relationship was never "normal." They were never normal husband and wife. She had a child by Another. Joseph's prime role was always to give Mary and Christ credibility (to prevent her from being ostracized or stoned as an adulteress), protection (from the instruments of the devil, such as Herod, who were intent on their destruction), and a male role model (someone to, for example, teach Jesus a trade and help with His upbringing.)
The same Scripture that refers to "brothers and sisters" of Christ also refers to Joseph as his "father," and we all agree that he was not. He was a stepfather.
Scripture, in the OT, multiple times refers to non-blood siblings as "brothers."
Christ commends Mary to John for caretaking from the cross. Orthodox sources I've reviewed all place enormous emphasis on this. Why would this be done if Mary had other living children? It would have been their place to care for her, and a huge breach of Jewish social tradition for someone else to take over this role. Christ says so little from the cross, the fact that He thought to do this obviously means its tremendously important.
"Firstborn" is still under research by Freepers. It seems that it was sometimes used at the time to refer even to only children (the grave found by archaeologists.)
"Until" is another word whose meaning, when examined against other Scriptural passages, is not self-evident. Lots of posts on this.
The Church has accepted Mary's perpetual virginity as doctrine at least since the 4th century. Jerome argued for it stridently. Gregory of Nyssa believed in it, as did Athanasius. It appears in the liturgy of John Chrysostom. Basil spoke on it. The early debates are lost in the swirl of conflicting and apocryphal materials that date from the first two centuries. But there were certainly those who maintained the story of her perpetual virginity then. It is present in the apocryphal Protoevangilium of James.
From the Orthodox and Roman Catholic perspective, there are deeply important theological reasons for maintaining the doctrine. To believe that Mary went on to have other children is to downplay the awesome, world-shattering significance of the Incarnation. Woodkirk posted that Mary was "blessed," and that the most blessed thing that could happen to a Jewish woman would be having many children. Apologies to Woodkirk, but this is a great example of the slippery slope that disbelief in Mary's perpetual virginity can lead to. Obviously, the task of birthing, nurturing, and raising God Incarnate is as far above the blessings of a normal Jewish woman as the heavens are above the earth. We should beware of anything that downplays the significance of the Incarnation.
I am quite willing to admit that there is no Scriptural proof that Mary remained virgin. But I continue to be amazed that people can maintain that there is Scriptural proof to the contrary. Can we call a truce on this, and leave it to each of us to come to terms with as best we can?
A few final passages:
"The Evangelist uses the word "till," (eos) not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards Joseph knew Mary, but to inform thee, that before the birth, the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why the word "till?" It is usual in Scripture often to do this. It uses this expression without reference to limited times. Also, in the account of Noah and the ark likewise, it says, "The raven returned not till the earth dried up". Yet, the raven did not return even after that time. Scripture also says about God, "From age until age Thou art," not as fixing limits in this case. Also in the case, "in His days shall righteousness dawn forth an abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away," it does not set a limit to this fair part of creation...In such a manner having become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail and a childbearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her and kept her in the place of a wife?" - John Chrysostom, 4th century
"Lovers of Christ cannot hear that the Theotokos ever ceased to be a virgin." - Basil, 4th century
"The verse "her firstborn" does not mean the first among several brethren, but One Who was both her first and only Son. For sometimes also the Scripture calls that the first which is the only one: as "I am the First, and I am hereafter: beside Me there is no God."...For though He is the Only-begotten as regards His divinity, yet as having become our Brother, He has also the name of the Firstborn; that being made the first-fruits as it were of the adoption of men, He might make us also the sons of God. Consider, therefore, that He is called the Firstborn in respect to the divine economy or dispensation of God referring to His incarnation; for with respect to His divinity He is the Only-begotten. Again, He is the Only-begotten in respect of His being the Word of the Father, having no brethren by nature ... but He becomes the Firstborn by descending to the level of created things. When the divine Scriptures address Him as Firstborn, they immediately also add of whom He is the firstborn. They assign the cause of Him bearing this title, such as "Firstborn among many brethren" to the fact that He was made like unto us in all things except sin. His title "Firstborn among the dead" is to mean that He first raised up His own flesh unto incorruption. Moreover, He has ever been the Only-begotten by nature, as being the Only-begotten of the Father, God of God, having shone forth as God of God and Light of Light." - Cyril of Alexandria
Forgive the lengthy post, and I will try to remain silent on this topic unless someone really wants to continue with the exchange.
Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!
WS
I too am a contributor to my most favorite place and have actually planned to beginning a monthly contribution..I will always be a freeper ,and I am a political junkie..but I would only visit occasionally if the "Religious threads " were shut down.
Now once the lawsuit is out of the way Jim will be free to sell space , to help with the cost of FR (and so the family can draw the salaries they deserve). I do not know that much about web ads but I would guess you can charge more if you are a heavy traffic site.
I would also guess that alot of the "regular" traffic is for these threads.Just count the numbers of them! I think I know about all the Religion War "regulars" and even if we battle each other I think we have an affection for each other too. So it would seem some kind of compromise is in order. I am not sure what it will finally be but I must say that my initial feeling is similar to yours Xenia..Calvinism is the root of this Nation....if you attack the root the tree dies.
You still don't understand the difference between "infallibility" and "impeccibility." Still. After all these months of conflating the two, you are getting tiresome.
SD
ROFL. Bud, what am I supposed to do? They've built their own version of salvation through philosophy. It is not the same thing that Jesus or the Apostles taught. If they can't even get that right, who cares what else is in the encyclopedias they're tryin to sell? Hmmm? If I got some nutcase on my doorstep trying to sell me encyclopedias that say WWII happened in the 1500s, I'm tellin' him to get lost. These guys are doin that and tellin us the rest of the encyclopedias on the planet are bigotted and biased because they don't agree with what's being pitched. That's when my boot wants real bad to practice branding.
Look, the Bible tells us flat out that if someone comes to us preaching another Gospel, or false doctrine, we're to have nothing to do with them. That's why it's so important to know scripture. Without that basic knowledge, any idiot can sell you on anything. How'd you like to be a Hindu with a picture of Jesus. A little fuzzy logic and a lot of loose footwork and it can happen and has. I'm sayin you'll also know 'em by the Jesus footprint on their butts. If they won't heed sound doctrine, they'll get the heck off the Lord's porch. And you better believe that.
No we can't. Matthew 1;24 and 25 means what it says. No truce. Your interpretation (also Jeromes')requires unbelievable mental gymnastics.
Yes
Oh!....right.
Sola Scriptura - Literaly "Scripture alone".
Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological") In other words, every teaching in Christian theology pertaining to faith and morals must be able to be derived from Scripture alone.
Sounds good. It just isn't you.
I beg your pardon? I am the one accepting that those I disagree with, even Havoc, are fellow Christians and brothers of mine.
Why don't you look deep into your Unitarian philosophy and try correcting Havoc for his offensive and divisive behavior for just once. It is pathetic how you can find fault with anything Catholic, but when asked to give your own opinion you balk. Can you find fault with Havoc? Should I have to hear "sucker mint" and jokes about the Pope's backside? Is this the price I have to pay for trying to be civil with people who harbor a deep intense hatred for me and my kind?
Is "offensiveness for Christ" the best you can offer?
SD
GO PATRIOTS!!!!!!!!
8^)
No, I understand the difference perfectly well. Too bad for you that the early 'popes' didn't draw such a distinction. And we know how the doctrine has been used in practice - which makes the infallibility/impeccibility argument a right lot of nonsense. Just more modern revisionistic handwringing, Dave.
You tell me this. If you can give a straight answer. Your Clergy started off in lies, has sold lies regularly, has not repented of it's lies and is still lying today to cover up the lies of the past. Tell me what they say that any of us should believe. I'm not infringing your right to believe lies, you tell us why the rest of the world should buy them.
I'll second that!
Why? Does he not possess one?
You may wish to look at my #20,538 from this morning.
Let's start by getting an overview of your belief system (you've got one... you likely don't call it that, but you've got one). What church do you most associate yourself with? (I can't remember if you're one of those "just me an Jesus" types, but surely there's something close). Baptist? Evangelical? Pentecostal? Who is closest to counting as a "brother".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.