Posted on 02/15/2006 6:22:47 AM PST by NYer
The Bible says that Paul says that WITH PERMISSION.
Because Paul wrote it does it make it any less valid?
Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...
Also, Paul adds that he wishes all men were as he, celibate, but he knows this can not be the case for most.
1 Corinthians 7:5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
Married couples were only to come apart for a season. And he mentions a time of fasting and prayer.
No one except Jesus fasted longer than 40 days, so I expect that Mary and Joseph, if they abstained, it would never of been longer than 40 days.
The Bible says Joseph knew her in the sexual sense, and that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
deal.
You bet it was.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
I urge you again to refrain from reading the Holy Scripture till someone is there to explain it to you. Your errors in "reading" what pertains to the use of the word "brother" and spousal duties have been shown to you in detail, and with precision, by SoothingDave, Interested Questioner and myself, just recently on this thread.
No, it doesn't. Learn to read.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
You don't understand what 2 Timothy 3:16 means either. Learn to read. I'd be happy to help you.
That's a popular Catholic teaching isn't?
"The Bible doesn't means what it says. The Bible can't be trusted, don't read it by yourself."
I however know that the Bible is true and that it can be trusted, and understood. It's sad that you all don't.
1 Corinthians 2:9
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Paul speaks by permission. From whom do you think he got that permission?
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness
Matthew 1:24
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Generally, the meaning of scripture is not clear outside of the entire deposit of faith that abides in the Church. Specifically, a common error is in reading the Scripture in translation and attaching to it meanings that suggest themselves to a modern man, while disregarding the teaching of the Church fathers, who were much closer to the events in time, culturally and linguistically. So, yes, please do not attempt to read the Bible outside of the tradition of the Church. Seek an advice form a CAtholic or a Protestant, who are trained to do just that. Examples follow.
This is a good example of reading a translation and imagining the meaning. This is an excerpt from my post from another thread that gives a little bit of a background, then explains Matthew 1:25.
Regarding the verses. The Greek word in Matthew 1:25 is "eos" and it simply means "prior to".
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Matthew 1:25, Douay-Rheims)Sometimes "eos" means that the action (or in St. Joseph's case, inaction) before the moment it points to has ceased and sometimes it means that the action continued. We understand which is the case from context, and when we need to translate into English, which has a more finely defined words, we choose between "until", "till", "to" or "before". Both Douay and King James translate it as "till"; I am not suprised that mariophobic translations, that abounded in modern times and Harley is using, mistranslate it as "until". It is most similar to the English "till" which also does not have the strict "before, but not after" meaning. For example, if I say "I did not drink alcohol till the blood test" the likely context is that my blood work should be good, not that I went to the bar right after I went to the clinic. But if I say "I did not drink alcohol till I joined a fraternity in college" then the context is, most likely, that I drank once I joined because that is what fraternities are for, are they not? In Matthew 1 the context is that Christ's birth was miraculous, not the relations John and Mary had after the focus of Matthew's story shifted away. It is reasonable to assume that Mathew's focus was on the absence of marital act before the birth of Christ, not after, all the more so since the testimony of Joseph to that effect had to me made at the time of Christ's birth, but testimonies of one's sex life for reasons other than establishing paternity are not common. Matthew simply had no way of knowing what Joseph and Mary's intimate life was the rest of their days.kai ouk eginosken auten eos ou eteken ton yion autes ton prototokon kai ekalesen to onoma autou iesoun
Go to The Unbound Bible and select any Greek NT as fist choice. Byzantine/Majority (2000) is the easiest to read and is authoritative. Select any other translation unless you fluently read Greek. Configure the criteria New Testament, Matthew, 1, 25. The results should be just that verse. Find the word "eos" ("o" is "omega", looks like "W") in it, copy it and paste it in the search engine. Clear the Matthew, 1, 25 boxes. This will give you the list of all occurences of "eos". See for yourself if it is used in "before not after" sense all the time. For example, see Matthew 23:35 "That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed", -- surely the Pharisees did not stop killing the just after Zacharias. Or see Matthew 27:8 "the field was called Haceldama, that is, The field of blood, even to this day" -- did Matthew indicate here that the field is about to be renamed?
(Quoting myself again).
You said
To: Cronos
Me:God the woman was created for the man, not the other way around.
You:Really -- isn't it what you want to read into it?
No, it's what God says.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1,556 posted on 02/24/2006 9:16:13 AM CST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1545 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
I provide the surrounding verses.
To: Full Court
Since you posted your snippet to show how women are owned by men.... try the ENTIRE Pararaph. Perhaps the next one.
1 Corinthians 11
1Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.
Propriety in Worship
2I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings,[a] just as I passed them on to you.
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. 13Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, 15but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. 16If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
1,562 posted on 02/24/2006 10:46:01 AM CST by Jaded (The truth shall set you free, but lying to yourself turns you French.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1556 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, however you want to slice it or dice it is up to you but you said what you said and then went ballistic when presented with the entire context of the verse. Others addressed you too about removing the verse from context.
Thank you so much for including me in your ping!
They that go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters; These see the works of the LORD, and his wonders in the deep.(Psalms 107:23-24)
Concession or permission, depending on which version of the Bible you reference. Either is acceptable for the Greek, if you check your Strong's. The important point is that it is not by commandment.
Because Paul wrote it does it make it any less valid?
No, it's scripture, so it is valid. It's just not a commandment like you try to make it out to be.
I expect that Mary and Joseph, if they abstained, it would never of been longer than 40 days
Well, you are wrong already. Mary and Joseph abstained throughout Mary's pregnancy and Jesus was born of a virgin. Also, you've not proved through scripture that if they abstained longer than 40 days it was a sin. You can speculate all you want but you haven't proven anything.
The Bible says Joseph knew her in the sexual sense
No, it does not. You've been asked to show where this is stated in scripture, but you can't because it's not there. The scripture is silent on this point. All you are doing is making some assumptions.
Jesus had brothers and sisters
Where does scripture say these brothers and sisters of Jesus were born of Mary? Post scripture, not your speculation.
It already says brother and sisters. Post your NT writings where it says they're not really brother and sisters. No speculation please. The onus on you.
It says they're brothers and sisters. Show me where it says they were born of Mary. No speculation please. The onus is on you.
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.