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 |
Becky
Becky
Give the guy a break. He might not know things have changed just a wee bit.
Understood. I hope all works out for you on this!
Oh, where is that in scripture. So you can earn an indulgance?
Does not the Catholic church teach that they are the final interpretators of Scripture?
As for 'lies about Catholics' history is the great exposer of Catholicism. When the Catholic church could not stop the reading of Bibles, then and only then did they agree to put the Bible in the common language of the people.
The burning stakes of Tyndale and others are an eternal witness of the real attitude of Rome about the Bible.
The burning stakes of Tyndale and others are an eternal witness of the real attitude of Rome about the Bible.
You really are foolish. Tyndale was burned for smuggling in bad Bibles. Faulty translations. That you can see the difference between not approving of faulty Bibles and disapproving of the Bible in general is indicative.
There was a Catholic Bible in English before the KJV was written. So much for a "conspiracy" to keep it out of peoples' hands. If you guys put even a tenth as much efort into spreading the truth as you did into spreading your lies, you would have conquered the world long ago.
SD
I went to catholic church for years and didn't even know the Bible existed until my Luthern cousins told me. And that aint no LIE.
This isn't true, at least when looked at historically. The Scriptures have existed for millenia, but widespread literacy even in the non-Catholic world is a fairly recent innovation - within the past few centuries.
The point I want to make is that the image of the individual at home, with his family, reading the Bible and discussing it and explaining it, is a recent historical creation. It is not Scriptural. We are of course to discuss the Scripture, to meditate on it, to reflect on it, to communicate its messages to others. But the idea of doing this primarily through print is a fairly recent innovation. Its a good innovation, and of course we should all be grateful to those who pushed for it. Its been adopted by Christians of all kinds, including Roman Catholics and Orthodox. Likewise, Christian Internet forums are good. But its silly to look for them in the Scriptures either.
There are other ways of spreading and learning the faith besides reading Scripture. And some of these ways are more "Scriptural" in that they were the more common practice at the time that the Scripture was compiled.
The illiterate Orthodox believer, and probably the Catholic as well, has always heard Scripture read to him. If one attends the regular cycle of services, over the course of a year one would hear read almost the entire NT, most of the OT, and countless passages over and over - so many times that it would be hard to keep from memorizing them.
What I'm trying to do, probably poorly, is help you see that the RC and Orthodox believers of the past - and of today in places where reading is not widespread - were not denied access to the teachings of Scripture. If anything, the opposite is true. They were literally steeped in it. It formed the foundation of their cultures, and typically served as the raw material for their creative arts.
This is why the accusation that the RC's, and the Orthodox, are somehow denied access to Scripture sounds to our ears so elitist. It sounds like those who make that kind of accusation are saying that there is only one good and proper way to receive God's Word - direct reading of Holy Scripture. This despite the fact that so many of the people whose stories are told in Scripture received God's Word in no such way. I'm not saying that its a wrong way, although IMO it does have its weaknesses that need to be balanced with other methods of receiving God's Word (for example, through song and art.) But it should not be the only way.
FYI, the Orthodox world has long translated Scripture in to the native tongue. The written Russian language was born out the evangelical work of St. Cyril, thus the "Cyrilic" alphabet. I don't speak for the RC's here, although we often agree on matters of faith.
"...an eternal witness of the real attitude of Rome about the Bible."
Wow. So, even if what you say is true, you deny the possibility of the Church of Rome ever changing its "attitude?"
Wow, what an incredible shame. I believe you, although I find it hard to believe that the RCC is that bad as a rule. Its hard to miss the Bible in the Orthodox Church. Our Church in Worcester is fairly typical. There is a gold covered copy of the Gospels that sits on the altar at all times. Every single service, the priest carries it out in a procession with it held over his head. He kisses it, we pray, and then he reads at length from it.
Worcester? I really liked going into Spags on Rt. 9 in Shrewsbury. Is it still open?
I lived in Leominster and really enjoyed it there...
The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary
Question #1, What is your understanding of the difference between betrothed and marriage?
Without looking up the specific words, right off hand, I would say that betrothed would be the same as our engaged, and marriage would be when it is legalized by the civil courts or a Church, so with that said, I’ll do a little researching.
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
Now, here it is asked, (paraphrased) who is the man who is engaged (has betrothed) a wife, to be, but hasn’t married her, he should go back home and marry her, lest he die in battle before he marries and has a child.
This clearly states that the betrothed is a wife before they are married.
Deut 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman ….married to an husband,…. then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
23. If a damsel that is a ….virgin be betrothed unto an husband,…. and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
V-24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
V-25 But if a man find a ….betrothed damsel…. in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die
V- 27. For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
.This makes it clear that a betrothed woman is his wife, but not in the same sense as we use today. When they are married, she remains his wife, but the partnership is completed, and she becomes a ….“married wife.”….
This same term is used in Isaiah.
.Isaiah 54:1 Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of ….the married wife,…. saith the Lord.
So, back to your question. What is your understanding of the difference between betrothed and marriage?… Betrothed is one who is committed to marriage, and is called the man’s wife, but she is not a married wife, until it has been completed legally by the authorities.
Question #2, Do you believe that the first comes before the second, and carries the full responsibilities of marriage without the benefits of consummation, as is consistent with Jewish tradition of the time?
Yes, short of living together, and her cooking his meals and tucking him in at night. Lol
Question #3, If Joseph and Mary were ever more then betrothed, were (they) ever married, why is this not mentioned in scripture?
But, it is mentioned in scripture, as we learned from before, a woman was betrothed and considered a wife at the same time, the difference was that they could not consumate the marriage until they had taken the final step of marriage.
In Israel, there were two phases to becoming married,
Phase #1, our word betrothed, was called erusin, or Kiddushin,
Phase #2 was called “nesuin,” which was the finalizing act of the marriage ceremony.
Deut 20:7 And what man is there that hath betrothed a wife, and hath not taken her? let him go and return unto his house, lest he die in the battle, and another man take her.
Here is a situation where a man has betrothed a wife, but has not gone to phase # 2 of the marriage. It is suggested he go back home and (taken) her, take her, took her, all meaning the same thing when used in the context of marriage..
Now notice Mt 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Joseph took unto him his wife, that was phase #2, marriage, complete except for the physical consummation, with “took” being the marriage word.
Took her, as one took in marriage, Deut 24:3, and Luke 20:30
Taken her, as to take in marriage, Deut 20:7, and Gen 12:19 and 20:7
Take her as in marriage, Deut 27:7, and Deut 25:5
This conclusively proves that Joseph and Mary were legally married.
Question # 4, When were all of Mary’s additional children supposed to have been born?
Quite possibly all were born by the time Jesus was 12 years old, but it could have been a few years longer. Remember, since God used her womb to bring the Savior to us, God surly left Mary in better physical condition then when he found her.
Question # 5, Why does Luke 2 make no mention of other small children in the account of the journey to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12?
The fact that there is no mention of small children is not the uncommon thing but the common, and would have been rare indeed if they had been mentioned.
Throughout the Bible, there is never an emphasis put on any child under the age of seventeen with the exception of course of Joseph being 17, and David was considered a child, and Jesus of course, but nowhere does the Bible elude to the image of little children running around that I can recall,
Just how would you suggest that the Holy Spirit or Matthew could have brought small children into the scripture, since they were never talked about until they were considered responsible?
Matthew and Luke had both made it a point to give all the names of Jesus brothers, and to mention he had two sisters, don’t you feel they thought this was plain enough for anyone to understand, and for the first time in the Bible, all their names are given, even though I can never recall that happening anywhere before, that a whole family is named before any of them had made a significant contribution to the Bible.
Question #6, And why would Christ commend Mary to the care of John from the cross if she had other children whose place it would have been to care for her on the death of her only son?
I’m sure you meant on the death of her oldest son rather then only son, but the reason is clear,
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! V-50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Jesus put his money where his mouth was. He had told them that a spiritual brother was even more of a true brother then a blood brother, such as James, who wasn’t a believer at that time, but it looks as though that may have changed shortly afterwards since the apostle Paul said that Christ saw James alone 1 Cor 15:7, and this was quite possibly when James gave his life to his Lord.
Question #7, Why is the burden of proof in this discussion on those who believe that Mary remained ever-virgin, when Scripture does not state that she bore additional children?
But it does state she had additional children, when in Mt 13 55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? V-55 And his sisters, are they not all with us? V-56
If this is not a clear referral to the whole family of Joseph and Mary I don’t know what could be.
And, if this wasn’t enough, it was repeated in Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Regardless of whether John Mark wrote this from memory with the Holy Spirit or if he peeked over Matthew’s shoulder, it is clear that it is written differently enough that some thought had to go into it, and we know he would not have repeated this false hood of Matthew’s if he had know it to be untrue now would he?
Some make the claim there was no Greek word for cousin, but in Acts 23:16, Paul had no problem distinguishing between a cousin and a brother now did he? V-16. And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul.
Mt 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. V-48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Here again, is the opportunity to distance himself from his so called cousins, and Matthew or the Holy Spirit could have done so easily at this time, but Christ doesn’t question the one who went to the door, the door man ID’d them as his brethern, and Christ even repeated it, a second time.
When Christ said these are my brethern,
V-49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Jesus was saying that the spiritual bond between a brother who shares God’s Spirit is closer then these my blood brothers, and would it have made sense if Jesus had said, these my spiritual brothers that my Father has given me, and they are so much a part of me they are like a distant relative…. NOT!…He was demonstrating a closeness of a blood brother, a mother and sisters.
Question # 8, Why don’t the two sides here agree that the sources we are examining provide no definitive proof?
Well, it’s because I see no proof of your claims what so ever, not one. When I do a long research on a subject, many times I find things that disagree with the point I am trying to make, and I have to work out these discrepancies before I can put all the facts together and sum up what I’ve found, but I’ll be completely honest, other then when I thought the term “wife” meant they were married, and then found out that a betrothed is a wife, and when they marry she is still a wife, but a married wife, this was the only problem I encountered.
When all the research and debating is done, there is one thing to remember, there is one truth on the matter, and only one, either Mary remained childless after Jesus, or she didn’t, there is no compromising on the truth.
Unless you can show more scripture to support your belief, then I have to support what I see as the truth, then you have no leg to stand on. Every statement must be disproved before you have a case. JH
See the PVM thread that was locked. Lots of good information there. Again, we will agree to disagree ;)
Translated???? (^g^) JH
Yes, it is, although I think the ownership has changed and its not what it used to be. Its also suffered under the competition from Wal-Mart.
We live in western Massachusetts now, near Amherst, but still drive in to Worcester to go to Church. One of the burdens of being Orthodox in America - parishes can be few and far between, at least when you get outside of the major cities. But Worcester has had a very active Orthodox community for a long time. A lot of Middle Eastern Christians immigrated to the area and worked in the textile mills.
I lived in Leominster and really enjoyed it there...
I've been through that area a few times, most recently en route to New Hampshire. Lovely!
Yes, it was. All that work for nothing. Lol (^g^) JH
So now you're going to tell us "Unanimous" doesn't mean "unanimous"... When people don't understand something, they start making assumptions. You guys made your assumptions into philosophy and then doctrine. You can't follow the Bible; so, your clergy makes up it's own rules - then it can't even follow it's own rules. This is what we call anarchy. Your religion is whatever your clergy decides - not whatever Christ dictated.
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.