Posted on 12/18/2010 6:01:48 PM PST by Gamecock
The Bible.
God Bless
You could say the same about his belief in the Holy Trinity and everything else concerning Christianity. Yet, he felt free to oppose the Church where he wished - including what constituted scripture.
It's also valuable to know what the early Reformers believed. They were sola scriptura also, yes?
They and the Church knew the scriptures extremely well; and, yet these obvious scriptural problems that some see today were not seen as contrary to their beliefs - until relatively quite recently.
This too undermines the credibility of the more recent innovations on the subject.
Sorry, maybe I am dense but you lost me on that one.
So let me get this straight. Irenaeus, Ambrose, Augustine,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli ALL got it wrong concerning Mary, and yet you, Mr. Vegasrugrat, somehow got it right by just picking up your Bible, the canon of which, of course, was set down by Church councils of the 4th century.
Okay...
PRAISE GOD for His faithfulness . . .
and for your return to Him.
not supported by Scripture
What a grossly wrong assertion.
Wow! That’s disgusting and demonic!
INDEED.
INDEED.
AMEN! AMEN!
If saying "X was A until B" does not mean X was not A after B...
Likewise, your assertion that you will be non-Catholic until you die does not mean you will be Catholic after then.
Again, saying something did not occur "until" does not necessarily mean it happened after. I'm referring of course to the phrase "knew her not UNTIL.."
This also helps explain why this scripture was not any problem to the Church's belief in Mary's perpetual virginity before the reformation and the same is true for the leaders of the Reformation - all of whom were well-versed in scripture. This scriptural find and problem arose only relatively recently.
Matthew 1:24-25 - “When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not UNTIL she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”
Seems clear. Doesn’t it?
IT’S QUITE CLEAR . . . unless one has an agenda from another power . . . focus.
Thus my previous statement:
“Disgusting and demonic!”
WHOOOOOOP T DO!
Bureaucratic political power-mongering pseudo theological elite magicsterical self-serving club members . . . shortly after the 300-400 AD BEGINNING of the
Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology And Reality Mangling
concocted a hideous bunch of heretical horse feathers that their successors have been hawking to this day.
What an unsurprise.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp
Fundamentalists insist that “brethren of the Lord” must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: “[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as “till”) she brought forth her firstborn son.” They first argue that the natural inference from “till” is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called “first-born”? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a “second-born,” perhaps a “third-born,” and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of “until,” instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death” (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word “till” in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: “He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son” (New American Bible); “He had not known her when she bore a son” (Knox).
INDEED.
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
You guys make up scripture to fit your analysis and then tell us that the scripture is bad...What a hoot...
Why are you trying to deceive people???
Great Scripture! Thank You, FRiend!
Your post shows clearly what can be seen as the point of the passage: The virgin birth of Jesus: He had not known her when she bore a son” or “until.” The point is to emphasize this about Jesus.
It’s not a passage about Mary, it’s the story of Jesus’s miraculous birth.
Pretty eye opening, isn’t it?
Catholics can claim all they want that they don’t idolize Mary, that they don’t attribute to her characteristics of God, that they don’t worship her or pray TO her for things, but the mask is torn with the help of the internet.
Their continued denial of the facts that are there plainly for all to see demonstrates a level of delusion that is staggering.
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.