| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 05/22/2017 3:39:19 PM PDT by Jim Robinson, reason:
childishness |
Posted on 05/13/2017 6:28:38 AM PDT by Salvation
Also, extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof, of which none has been shown.
How so?... are they not just men?
“An evil root can’t bring forth good fruit”
You are so right!
That horn-dog prophet ol’Joe Smith was evil and vile.
You know, the founder of your Mormon cult.
Would Mary's lifelong fidelity to the One who was the Father of her Son, not have been expected? Would it have meant nothing to her, to Him, or to us? A fidelity which extended from earth to heaven, from time to eternity:
"The Spirit and the Bride say, Come." Revelation 22:17
John's Book of Revelation also tells us that she did have other children -- in fact, they include you and me --- because she is the image of Mater Ecclesia (Holy Mother the Church) and, as such, the mother of all believers:
Revelation 12:17 "...the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Christ." Since she had no other earthly children to care for her in her bereavement, Our Lord, from the Cross, entrusted her to St. John. What did she and John talk about in that little house in Ephesus, I wonder?
You are claiming these two verses reference Mary. They do not.
please read the context - heck, read the whole book.
Your idea this doctrine of Mary;s ever-virginity consists of Charles Pope's "presuppositions and agendas" needs a little gentle correction.
He derives this doctrine from the doctrine and example (practice) of the early church, which was informed by the instructions of the Apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The Liturgy of St. James, which is the earliest known written Liturgy and which came to us from Apostolic times, contains the lines:
"...our all-holy, spotless, exceeding glorious Lady and Ever-Virgin Mary, with all the Saints and just men, let us commend ourselves, and each other, and our lives unto Christ our Lord."
Similar terms (Aeiparthenos, Gr. "ever-virgin") are found in the oldest written manuscripts every ancient liturgy without exception: the Assyrian Church of the East, the Armenian Church, the Coptic (Egyptian) Church, etc. . --- which were not at all culturally "sourced" or dominated by the "Roman" (Latin) Church.
The first Christian on record to claim that Mary had other children was Helvidius (approx. 350 A.D.) Jerome referred to Helvidius's theory as "novel, wicked, and a daring affront to the faith of the whole world". This [judging by Jerome's reaction] was an entirely new interpretation, one nobody had ventured before.
In any case, Helvidius new hypothesis got zero traction with the Apostolic churches, which strongly clung to Apostolic-age doctrines against any theological innovations.
For you : RE Rev. 12:1
That this is not a symbol of Mary the mother of Jesus, as some have suggested, seems clear from the fact that she will be the object of persecution during the Tribulation (v. 13; cf. v. 17).
In view of Old Testament imagery (cf. Isa. 54:1–6; Jer. 3:20; Ezek. 16:8–14; Hos. 2:19–20) and the following reasons, the “woman” seems to symbolize the nation of Israel. She wears a crown (Gr. stephanos) with the sun, moon, and stars, as God pictured Israel in one of the nation’s early symbolic representations (Gen. 37:9–11; cf. Isa. 26:17–18; 60:1–3, 20). There are many figurative references to Israel as a travailing woman in the Old Testament (Is. 26:17–18; 66:7–9; Jer. 4:31; 13:21; Mic. 4:10; 5:3). She eventually gave birth to Christ (v. 5). In Genesis 37:9–10, the sun corresponds to Jacob, the moon to Rachel, and the 12 stars to Israel’s 12 sons (cf. 7:5–8; 21:12).
(Copied from Dr. Thomas Constable’s commentary on the Bible)
“He derives this doctrine from the doctrine and example (practice) of the early church, which was informed by the instructions of the Apostles and the guidance of the Holy Spirit”
Except there is zero evidence any Apostle taught this.
You are calling something “the early church” to avoid saying it was believed hundreds later.
I also have full confidence in those who wrote, translated, canonized and handed on to us, the Book.
Context is very helpful--- essential --- in this regard. There is as much about Mary in the prophecies, multi-valent foretellings and types of the OT as there is in the NT. It goes from Genesis to Revelation. I have an intense interest in the biggest context you can comprehend. Bigger than either of us can comprehend.
If you doubt sources like St. Justin Martyr, St. Jerome, and the first regional synods and Ecumenical Councils, you really have no reason to accept the veracity of the Bible, which was penned, collated and put in your hands by these very same churchmen.
Some more recent commentators, of course, have a puny view--- if not an outright hostility --toward the church of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries (and therefore, logically, of the canonical Scriptures they handed on to us.)
You see it all the time in the writings of Muslims and feminists, interestingly enough: a completely penetrating hermeneutic of suspicion.
The whole writing of Scripture was not complete until almost the end of the First century (Revelation of John.) Please keep in mind that the most important cultural artifacts of the 2nd+ centuries of the Christian Era was the collection and canonization of those same Sacred Scriptures. This is, beyond dispute, one of the most important elements of Apostolic Tradition.
I posted the Ruth.
Joe Smith was a horn-dog, a scammer and began a cult.
You follow the con man.
Show us an Apostle teaching this.
Show us evidence during the life of the Apostles.
You cannot.
The entirety of your “evidence” came later along with paganism.
Ruth=truth
You only see Mary, as you describe her, in the OT if you allegorize Scripture which is exactly what the RCC has done. It stems from a form of Gnosticism in which the reader believes he/she can see something others cannot.
In doing so you depart from the actual meaning of the text in that the text can't mean more than the author intended.
It is not sound Biblical exegesis and those who practice it fall into error.
**You are getting false information.**
That’s your opinion.
This about the mother:
Joseph knew her not TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son...
This about the Father:
God so loved the world that he gave his ONLY begotten Son...
Then the close call with DCFS....
Leaving Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph don’t notice Jesus missing all day. You had one job,..one child to keep an eye on......
I think she and Joseph where busy with all the ones mentioned years later when the locals of Nazareth (that had known the family for years!) were greatly astonished at how much different Jesus was from the others; his mighty works, his great wisdom, etc.
I’m reminded of the ridiculous extent that the perpetual virgin believers go to in order to keep propping up their vanity:
The story of a neighborhood devastated by superstorm Sandy. One home was demolished. Yet in the front yard a Mary statue had survived the fierce wind and fires. Virgin Mary fans are amazed. Also mentioned was the closet that survived, with a roll of paper towels still on its shelf.
Let’s see....a rock doesn’t blow away....and neither does a wooden closet. Which is more remarkable?
Then there’s the Virgin Mary statue being paraded down the church aisle somewhere, when it is dropped....
As Jed Clampett would say: “Paaathetic, jeeessst pathetic”.
Without any disparagement of your own character, I find I get this type of comment from people who couldn't write a coherent paragraph about 1st and 2nd generation disciples of the Apostles. They know and care to know nothing about the authors of the Didache; the formulators of the early canons; men like Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna or Irenaeus of Lyon; churches like those in Cyprus (founded by Barnabas, who preached from the Gospel of Matthew) and Crete (founded by Titus, around AD 57) and the early writings of their subsequent bishops.
"Pagans"? I can only shake my head. Tell that to the Armenians, who were an officially Christian nation --- the first one in history --- before Christianity was even legalized in the Roman Empire. You don't augment your own credibility by flicking the early churches off like pieces of lint.
You really ought to look into it.
“Pagans”? Really?
No. I wrote “paganism.
Now, if you have proof from 100ad or before please share it.
If you do not, it happened as paganism was incorporated into Romanism.
“You don’t augment your own credibility by flicking the early churches off like pieces of lint.”
I don’t flick off the early churches.
I flick off your unsupported claims.
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.