Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Actually, people back then could count to nine. "Son of Mary" is, in a patriarchal culture, another way of saying "father unknown." A taint that dogged our Lord wherever the family moved.
I hear ya...And believing the bible is superstition...Hocus Pocus...
And they justify this mockery by making the absurd claim that their religious organization wrote the scripture and they apparently can change it, corrupt it, or ignore it at will...
I suppose it would be in bad taste to refer to it as "The immaculate hymen".
Yeah, I suppose it would.
Where did you get that last sentence from. By working backwards from your conclusion?
Actually, I don't think "immaculate hymen" is derogatory or anything. I does sort of sum it up.
I had no idea that was out there.
And now we're getting this "Jesus wasn't conceived" idea that's coming up. I don't know where that's gonna go. It might just be semantics, but who knows. Maybe a "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster" will jump out of the dark and say, "Haaah! Didn't know about me, either, didja?"
It just kinda jumped out at me one day while I was reading through the gospel account of our Lord's reception in Nazareth -- "Isn't this Mary's son, the carpenter?" Why was Jesus identified by His relationship with Mary, when just about everyone else in the Bible is identified by the name of his father? I'm assuming you don't start a marriage by running off to spend three months with your cousin (Elizabeth). If I'm not assuming too much (hey, I'm not infallible!) -- then the earliest Jesus could have arrived would have been six months after the wedding. There's a folk saying, "The first baby can come at any time. All the rest take nine months." Still, everyone knows how long gestation normally takes.
Alright. What Biblical inferences draw your way to show that Mary was a perpetual virgin? A few times BD has given a list of scriptures showing that Jesus had siblings. What scriptures do you offer to show that He did not? It would seem that your best possible argument, one in which every single verse was interpreted exactly as you needed, would be that the Bible is silent on the matter. Nothing that is actually in the Bible really helps you here. The Marian doctrines are (mostly) completely extra-scriptural. That is why our side is the only one that actually HAS Biblical inferences. All your side can do is interpret some verses out of meaningful existence, and then rely solely on extra-scriptural text for the "facts".
Here, Sola Scriptura makes a strong case against Mary's perpetual virginity. If your refutation was based on other scripture, then you would have a case. But it does not appear to be. It appears that it is only based on re-interpreting the "positive" argument in scripture out of existence, and then using only extra-scriptural text to support an alternative "positive" argument. I would imagine that an unbiased observer would find this very unpersuasive if a premise was that scripture was an equal authority. Sola Scriptura is only dangerous to the RCC. :)
That's very interesting. Not that I ever thought otherwise... I'm going to look at that when I get home.
We can also add:
Jesus was not the seed of Mary so He can't be the seed prophecied to Abraham or to Eve in Gen. 3:15.
Jesus was not conceived so Mary is not the virgin (young girl) prophecied in Isaiah.
The birth was miraculous, not natural, so as to exempt Mary from the impurities caused by the fall.
They worship the same god that Islam does.
Words can mean anything you want them to like, "brother", "brethren", "sister", "grace", "all","any", etc.
Tradition, no matter when started, always interprets scripture when it is necessary to protect dogma.
The Magisterium can trump the plain meaning of scripture when necessary.
I could VERY well be wrong about this, but I have a vague memory from the L&E thread that the Orthodox don't agree with "something" about Transubstantiation, but I can't remember what it is.
And in doing so, the Trinity is diminished and a human being, Mary, is elevated.
"I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them." -- Isaiah 48:5
I'm glad I was on this thread. I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me.
"This entire discussion reveals a tangible fear of Christ's humanity."
_____________________________
Amen!
Our Lord and Saviour could have come as the emporer of Rome if he wanted. Instead he came to us through a humble, poor, peasant woman. He grew up in a rural, poor, backwater of the Roman Empire and he transformed us and the world.
The truth is a million times more powerful than fairy tales.
"The confession of divine justification touches man's life at its heart, at the point of its relationship to God. It defines the preaching of the Church, the existence and progress of the life of faith, the root of human security, and man's perspective for the future."1 So wrote G. C. Berkouwer of the doctrine of justification by faith set forth by Paul and reapprehended with decisive clarity at the Reformation; and in so writing he showed himself a true heir of the Reformers. For his statement is no more, just as it is no less, than a straightforward spelling out of what Luther had meant when he called justification by faith articulus stands aut cadentis ecclesiae—the point of belief which determines (not politically or financially, but theologically and spiritually) whether the Church stands or falls..."
Amen.
Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house. And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief." -- Matthew 13:54-58"And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
I always found the last verse interesting. "And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief."
If Christ had wanted to save them, he could have done His mighty works before their eyes and caused them to believe. But Christ understood their disbelief was ordained by God, and so He moved on and worked miracles in front of those whom He knew were His whom God had given Him.
The doctrine of Justification is certainly on the list, but it is not one that is specific and to the point regarding total lack of scriptural support. The others are....to include opulence.
I just can't imagine Peter wandering around in all that gold filigree, gold crowns, and gold scepters and staffs.
Or Paul.
Or John
Or....name the 12
Inasmuch as it means "Real Presence," i.e. True Body and True Blood of our Lord and Savior,it is in full agreement with Orthodoxy.
Eastern Orthodox, however, do not attempt to "explain" how God's Mysteries (Sacraments) happen.
In Eastern Orthodoxy, the priest asks the Holy Spirit to intercede and change mysteriously the blessed bread and wine into Body and Blood (epiklesis). In the Catholic Church, the epiklesis is invoked, but is less prominent, because the change is mediated by the priest, acting in the place of Christ.
With that we do not agree. Both traditions have always maintained the Real Presence, but the theory of transubstantiation is alien to Orthodox phronema (mindset).
Because that is all Protestantism is: a calumny of the intent of the Pope and the Church. The rationalizing false theologies of the "solas" came later.
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.