Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
SURE it did...
NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(HMmmm...
Is an Appeal to Authority on my list?)
Which can be translated as “ he had no intercourse with her before she gave birth to a son. “ The point being that HE was not the father of Jesus.”
'Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians argue, in support of the perpetual virginity of Mary, that "until" in this verse does not mean that after Mary had borne Jesus, Joseph and she had marital relations. I.e., they assert that "until" (ἕως οὗ in the Greek) does not automatically or always imply that there is a change of condition after the "until" event occurs.
'They are correct in this. The context of the "until" phrase, the nature and setting of the action or activity - i.e., what's being done or not being done "until" - has to be considered in order to determine if the "until" event marks or causes a change in the prior action or non-action.'
http://theoblogoumena.blogspot.com/2011/04/matthew-125-what-does-until-mean.html
Evolution in the original sense, which is development.
Evolution in the original sense, which is development.
You turn this into a theory which has been shown to be false, for scripture, like anything else, can be misread. The divisions in the church are in fact owing to differences in interpretation. On of the greatest was the Arian controversy, which was a debate over the verses relating to the divinity of Jesus.
Ping
Elsie:
Paul...In them there are some things hard to understand and that the ignorant and unstable destort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures [cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16, NAB Translation]
Paul....Also in all his epistles, speaking of these things; in which are certain things hard to understand, whidch the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction [c.f. 2 Peter 3:15-16, Douay-Rheims Version]
Paul...There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures [cf. 2 Peter 3:15-16, RSV Translation]
Hey, if you want to play the cite scripture ping pong match, I can play it too
Elsie:
Fact 1:
In Genesis which details the account of Noah and the ark, we read “Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made and sent forth a raven and it went to and fro UNTIL the waters were dried from the earth [c.f. Gen 8:7].
Question, Did the Raven return to Noah after the waters were dried?
Fact 2:
In Deuteronomy we read the account of Moses death as we read “But no man knows the place of this burial to this day [UNTIL] this day” [cf. Deut 34:6]
Question, does anyone know Moses place of burial after this day refered to in Deut 34:6
Fact 3:
In Second Samuel, we read about Saul’s daughter Michal as it states “And so Saul’s daughter Michal was childless to the day of her death” [Cf. 2 Samuel 6:23]
Question, do you believe that Michal had a child after her death.
Fact 4:
In the Psalms we read “The Lord says to my lord, sit at my right hand till I make your enemies your footstool” [cf. Psalm 110:1]
Question, this is a clear prefiguration of Christ, so do we believe that Christ does not sit at God’s [The Father] Right hand after the enemies are his footstool, does that mean Christ now sits some other place?
Fact 5:
In First Maccabees we read the revolt against the Greek sacralige of the temple “Judas kept rounding up the stragglers and encouraging the people the whole way, until he reached the land of Judah. They ascended Mount Zion with gladness and joy and offered burnt offerings, because not one of them had fallen” [cf. 1 Mac 5:53-54]
Question, while 1 Macc is not in the Protestant Canon [it is in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox], it is similar in usage. Thus, are we to believe that Judas stopped encouraging his troops after they reached Judah. Does that mean all the soldiers died after they made their offerings?
Fact 6:
In the New Testament we read “For he [Christ] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” [cf. 1 Cor 15:25]
Question, Does this mean that Christ no longer rules after he puts his enemies under his feet. Clearly, the Bishops and Theologians at the Council of Nicea [[325AD] did not interpret it this way because it states “And His Kingdom will have no end” meaning he will rule/reign forever.
Fact 7:
Again in the NT, we read “Until I come, attend to the reading [public reading of scripture], exhortation[preaching] and teaching” [cf. 1 Timothy 4:13]
Question, does this mean that the Church where Timothy was sheparding should stop reading the scripture, preaching and teaching, after Paul arrived.?
So at some level, if you are 100% certain that the word until in Matthew 1:25 means what you say it means, then to internally consistent you should interpret the passages above the same way.
The OTHER point is obvious: He DID have INTERCOURSE with Mary!
I 'turned' nothing; I mis-read nothing.
The onus is Rome's - it owns it.
There is no theory: just fact.
Go ahead.
But first; you'll have to show something hard to understand.
I do?
I thought up thread some of you were saying that you can take the meaning of a word in many different ways.
Which is it going to be?
You assert that it is self-evidently clear, that it implies that the Marian doctrines are wrong. But the Reformers were wrong in thinking that the Marian cult was a product of the Middle Ages. It has been there since the beginning, and as part of the doctrine that Jesus is both man and God. Every text demands an interpreter. Indeed the most radical reformers put aside the Bible and claimed to be inspired directly by the Holy Spirit. Sola Scriptura, as Luther understood it, puts the Biblical scholar at the top of the church hierarchy. Radicals move beyond that and like Quakers, depend on something like the Inner Light.
The word is subject to many until competent authority decides which are allowed. Someone has to choose.
Elsie:
No need to, all one needs to look at are the different undertanding of sacraments [Catholic/Eastern Orthdox], Lutheran-Anglican, Reformed, Baptist, pentecostal.
The different understandings of Ecclessiology, the different understandings of justification, atonement, etc.
It is quite obvious of just on the topics that I cited, there is a wide difference of understanding on those topics [I could cite more] and all those groups read the same New Testament and the OT is the same, save 7 deutercanonicals that the Catholic and Orthodox Have that the Prots threw out.
I rest my case.
Elsie:
And you know this how? The word until does not mean what you want it to mean, there are numerous examples that I cited above, that clearly do not mean that something occurred after the the point in time referenced.
And again, no orthodox Church Father understood those passages the way you are interpreting them. The only groups were heretics, the Fathers that defended Christological and Trinitarian Dogma throughout the early Church do not support your interpretation. I will concede to them, you will concede the Formulations of Elsie.
Good day and I am done with you on these subjects. Sorry that you can’t go tell Pastor Bubba Bob that you couldn’t convince this Catholic.
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.