Posted on 01/31/2010 2:03:15 PM PST by NYer
“So I guess I just have to read Paul, by Paul, about Paul.”
I recall some lady say something at a church I was at about “Oh - but that’s Paul” as she seemed to dismiss anything that he had written. I’m not sure where she was coming from - but I imagine some group(s) have a long history of “anti-Paul” theology? Not sure how you just through out so much of the New Testament though.
I’ll take you up on your kind offer. What Scriptural support do find for a celibate clergy and the cult of Mary?
Well, Paul is really hard often times severe. He is logical, and often times misinterpreted, particularly the misogynist charges. To throw him out would be a mistake as he developed the theology of the church as we know it today.
Mary’s complete biography is not covered in the scripture. What exactly would you like to discuss: theological reasons for the doctrine, evidentiary reasons, the scriptural references to the “brethren” of the Lord, the veneration of Mary, or?
If you have been born again, which I realize your doctrine says you can't really know, the words of Jesus Christ not withstanding, you'd have to be of the belief that Jesus couldn't actually save you to the uttermost and that He has aborted you from the new birth.
1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The idea that Mary remained a virgin the rest of her life after bearing Jesus is what I referred to and what the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity refers to.
“1 John 5:12
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God;
that ye may know that ye have eternal life,
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
Great post, Bodleian Girl! I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts. Thank you for standing for the Gospel!
Acts 23:6 (New International Version) 6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
Acts 26:5 (New International Version) 5They have known me for a long time and can testify, if they are willing, that according to the strictest sect of our religion, I lived as a Pharisee.
Philippians 3:5 (New International Version) 5circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee;
You wrote:
“Easter is Babylonian paganism”
Nope. Easter is the Christian feast of Christ’s Resurrection. It was once a pagan Germanic holiday. The Germans were never Babylonians. Some poorly educated people confuse Ishtar with Easter because they’re too stupid to realize there is no connection between the medieval Germans and the ancient peoples of the Near East.
“Celibate priests is another Babylonian pagan concept”
No, actually the idea of celibate priests comes from Christ and St. Paul. Celibacy was also occasionally practiced by other ancient Jews when they were called to serve the Lord:
Elijah and Elisha were celibate al their lives (Zohar Hadash 2:1; Midrash Mishlei 30, 105, Pirke Rabbi Eliezer 33). When for the sake of the Torah (i.e., intense study in it), a rabbi would abstain from relations with his wife, it was deemed permissible, for he was then cohabiting with the Shekinah (the “Divine Presence”) in the Torah (Zohar re Gn 1:27; 13:3 and Psalm 85:14 in the Discourse of Rabbi Phineas to Rabbis Jose, Judah, and Hiya).
It is well known that the rabbis spoke concerning the obligation of all males to be married and procreated: “He who abstains from procreation is regarded as though he had shed blood” (Rabbi Eliezer in Yebamoth 63b, Babylonian Talmud; see also Shulkhan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law) section Evenhar-Ezer 1:1,3,4). According to Yebamoth 62b, B.T. a man is only half a man without a wife, citing Genesis 5:2 where it is said: “Male and female He (God) created them and blessed them, and called their name Adam (lit. “Man”).
Nevertheless, “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah (i.e., dedicates all his time to it) like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned” (Skulkhan Arukh EH 1:4). Rabbinic scholar Simeon ben Azzai (early second century A.D.) was extraordinary in his learning: “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth” (Sotah 9:15). He never married and was celibate all his life so as not to be distracted from his studies, and because he considered the Torah his wife, for who he always yearned with all his soul (Yebamoth 63b). He was an outstanding scholar (Kiddushin 20a, B.T.) and also renowned for his saintliness (Berakoth 57b, B.T.).
Other celibates
Jewish tradition also mentions the celibate Zenu’im (lit. “chaste ones”) to whom the secret of the Name of God was entrusted, for they were able to preserve the Holy Name in “perfect purity” (Kiddushin 71a; Midash Ecclesiastes Rabbah 3:11; Yer. yoma 39a, 40a).
Those in hope of a divine revelation consequently refrained from sexual intercourse and were strict in matters of purity (Enoch 83:2; Revelation 14:2-5).
Philo (Apol. pro Judaeis 1X, 14-17), Josephus, (Antiq. XVIII. 21) and Hipploytus (Philosophumena IX, IV, 28a) wrote on the celibacy of the Jewish Essenes hundreds of years before the discovery of their settlements in Qumran by the Dead Sea.
Philo Judaeus (c. 20 B.C.-50 A.D.), a Jewish philosopher, described Jewish women who were virgins who have kept their chastity not under compulsion, like some Greek priestesses, but of their own free will in their ardent yearning for Wisdom. “Eager to have Wisdom for their life-mate, they have spurned the pleasures of the body and desire no mortal offspring but those immortal children which only the soul that is dear to God can bring forth to birth” (Philo, Cont. 68; see also Philo, Abr. 100).
For “the chaste are rewarded by receiving illumination from the concealed heavenly light” (Zohar 11. 229b-230a). Because “if the understanding is safe and unimpaired, free from the oppression of the iniquities or passions... it will gaze clearly on all that is worthy of contemplation” (Philo, Sob. 1.5). Conversely, “the understanding of the pleasure-loving man is blind and unable to see those things that are worth seeing... the sight of which is wonderful to behold and desirable” (Philo, Q. Gen.IV.245). http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
Apparently you were completely unaware of these basic facts.
“Pontifex Maximus is from Babylonian paganism.”
Nope. The title is from Roman paganism. The Romans were not Babylonian and never even conquered Babylonian territory. The Romans possessed the title and office long before they had left the confines of Central Italy. Hundreds of years into the Christian era the title was given to the pope.
“Christmas is Babylonian Paganism”
Nope. The name tells tou what it is = Christ’s Mass.
I think you should read real history rather than the slop from Hislop. A high school history teacher proved to an anti-Catholic like you that Hislop was completely wrong on this issue. A high school history teacher.
Or is the main reason that to find ANY Catholic Church dogma unscriptural would imply that this particular self-declared one true religion is NOT the church Jesus said he would preserve?
I will ask again, why do yo make that stuff up? Each has been clearly refuted many times here on FR yet you continue to spew it like some kind of preprogrammed brainless reflex. FR Religion Forum decorum prohibits me from more accurately characterizing your statements.
Easter is not Paganism. It is the celebration of the Risen Lord. Your earlier falsehood about it never occurring in conjunction with the Passover was refuted when I pointed out to you that Holy Week and the Passover coincided in 2009.....get a calendar.
Celebate does not mean "chaste". It only means unmarried and has nothing to do with paganism....get a dictionary.
Pontif Maximus is a Roman, not a Persian office. Its use to describe the Bishop of Rome dates to the 3rd century....get a history book.
Christmas is not Pagan, it is the celebration of the birth of Christ.....get a clue.
Every thing you quote from is from a man made tradition.shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachYou do not quote from The holy Word of G-d.
YHvH gave to all of His followers commanded Feasts (appointed times).
The pagan Roman "church" founded at Nicea by the Pontiff Constantine
rejected all of YHvH commanded Feasts and replaced them all with Paganism.
However, someone is not telling the truth. Paul claimed to be a Pharisee (Acts 23:6), he arrested the early followers of Jesus and jailed them (Acts 22:4). We are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest.
Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judea sees a problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect.
You are either dense or intentionally wrong. I suspect the later. I have seen you corrected a half a dozen times on this point, yet you persist. I can only question your motives.
Constantine was NEVER a Pontiff or Pope. He was an emperor. The Pope at the time of the Council of Nicea was Saint Sylvester I.
God (not YHvH) satisfied the earlier covenants by the death and resurrection of Christ who brought the New and Everlasting Covenant.
Easter is not Paganism. It is the celebration of the Risen Lord. Your earlier falsehood about it never occurring in conjunction with the Passover was refuted when I pointed out to you that Holy Week and the Passover coincided in 2009.....get a calendar.
Celebate does not mean "chaste". It only means unmarried and has nothing to do with paganism....get a dictionary.
Pontif Maximus is a Roman, not a Persian office. Its use to describe the Bishop of Rome dates to the 3rd century....get a history book.
Christmas is not Pagan, it is the celebration of the birth of Christ.....get a clue.
The Roman "church" is built on paganism ; Where is Easter, Christmas and Sunday worship in the Holy Word of G-d. Despite the pagan astronomers of the Vatican Easter began coinciding with Passover in the year 2000. Again Ignorance of the Holy Word of G-d.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
it is not built on the Holy Word of G-d.
No where; it is all man made paganism impugning the Holy Word of G-d.
making sure that Easter and Passover would
not coincide the non leap year of 2000
changed the best laid plans of the Evil One.
LOL.......unreal.
This would make a good tag line for you. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the teachings of the Catholic Church so you are arguing from a position of complete ignorance. You are stuck in the Old Testament.
Where did you study the Catechism of the Catholic Church and gain for yourself a knowledge or confidence in your understanding such that you feel able to argue it with those who have been formally educated in it?
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
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.