I take it you've read Bill Myers' Blood of Heaven trilogy?
Posted on 10/06/2010 7:56:37 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Overall, Catholics liked the movie "The Nativity" but had several problems with it. For one thing they changed Scripture during the closing of the movie. On the screen they flashed the Bible passage from Luke 1:46-54. But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name." I don't think they should have taken that out of the Word of God, without using any elypses to show they skipped it. Another issue with the movie is they showed Mary screaming and pushing in pain as she gave birth to Jesus.
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass." Pope Martin in 649 AD defined the doctrine that Mary:
I take it you've read Bill Myers' Blood of Heaven trilogy?
Nope, never heard of it. I get my reasoning from the research I did preparing to write a novel titled ‘Evil Interrupted’. I made the bulk of the research available as a free little booklet on the Internet which I used to link on my profile page. The booklet is a primer on stem cells and cloning, for the lay reader.
Bitterness? Oh contraire mon frere. I am trying to get Christians that I love and care about, to see and embrace "The Orginal Gospel". Brought to the world by G-d, through Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses and the prophets.
You see, there has always been a salvation program for the Jews and Gentiles. You dont need to embrace the pagan hybrid man-god of Rome. Just believe in G-d, HaShem and him only, who over 40 times has told us he is alone and this is key:
Deut 4: 15 You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman
No exceptions! The infinite G-d of the universe (who has no form Deut 4:15, is not going to marry Mary. If that were permissible, He would have said so plainly. There is not one scripture in Tanakh (OT) that says in the future G-d will do this for mankind.
No, she wasn't already married in effect. They were betrothed.
Betrothed is the begining state of marriage. So to take your reasoning then, G-d convincing Mary to have a child of a betrothed woman would make her a fornicator. Either way it is an immoral relationship. G-d doesnt do immoral acts.
It is not weighing Blasater vs Angel. It is G-d vs NT teachings and I choose G-d and so should you! No where the Tanakh (OT) Does G-d say he is going to impregnate a botrothed mortal woman. Christians try to cite Isaiah 7 but it is completely and thoroughly wrong do do so. Read this! I double dog dare you! part 1 and 2.
How is it that you promote yourself as greater than Saul of Tarsus? I think I’ll stick with what Saul/Paul had to say on the subject of the Savior of Mankind. But thanks for trying ...
I applaude your effort but it misses the mark (imho)
A) G-d is infinite. He doesnt need a holy spirt personage to do his "work". B) G-d says is alone dozens of times. G-d says he is not a man Num 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:19, Hosea 11:9 (And yes, I know Christians say this means G-d doesnt lie, which is stating the obvious)C) Your reasoning is circular or begs the question. You are essentially shooting an arrow into a target and then painting the bullseye around it.
The singular unity of G-d could not be more clear. G-d says it over and over and over. So what do Christians do? Defy G-d and proceed to split him into 3 personages. He tells us not to. Then you do it anyway. There is NO need to do that. You are essentially saying that G-d is a deciever and or a liar. G-d tells us who he is and his final revelation at Sinai. He tells all of Israel who he is and his law. He tells us his law is forever. He tell us we can do it (Deut 30 KJV) Christians then tell us...1500 years later, G-d then tells us something completely different! You cant do the law! What? G-d said we could! Now we cant? He revealed himself as One at Sinai and before. Now He is three? We were saved by believing in G-d and serving him only. Now we have to believe in a man? a god-man? who G-d never told us about before? etc etc. You see, this is not of G-d! G-d tells clearly who he is and what we are to do. Besides, in the messianic era, the 3rd temple will be rebuilt and sin sacrifices return (Ezekiel 43/44) Why? if Jesus was the once for all sacrfice? Isaiah 2:
2And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
ANd Jeremiah 16: 19O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.
The gentiles will come to Israel to learn the law! And they see their error! Israel will offer sacrfices continuously!
Jer 33:17For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; 18Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
No need for Jesus. The original gospel is all you need.
Ah. He said so plainly in the New Testament. But I see the problem: you don't believe in the New Testament. Perhaps you should have made that clear at the outset.
G-d doesnt do immoral acts.
Right. So I conclude it was not an immoral act.
"It is G-d vs NT teachings and I choose G-d and so should you!"
Not happening. You in effect asking all Christians to abandon the NT on the basis of your interpretation of the OT, and YOUR evaluation of what God can and cannot, shoul and should not do. You have given me no reason to accept you as the authoritative interpreter of the OT: only your repeated assertion, and nothing is proven by assertion.
It was not deception to be observant when with Jews, and more free when with Greeks. I am a Christian. When I taught Bible study in a Baptist Church, I abstained from all the foods that would have caused disruption to the Baptists. Being free in Christ, when I taught Bible study at an Episcopal Church, I was free to enjoy a glass of wine or mixed drink. Abstaining is a matter of respect, not deception, twister.
I am solidly convinced that Saul of Tarsus was far more knowledgeable on Judaism than you and when you try to smear Saul/Paul, you reveal the bitterness within you. Instead of kicking against the pricks, why not become free in Christ? You're too bitter to open your heart to Christ. BUT, your zeal does remind me of Saul on the way to Damascus to torment and persecute the rebels to Judaism there.
Or maybe you're more the judaisers who snuck around behind Paul and Silas and the other Apostles, trying to drag free Christians into the dos and don'ts of judaism? I see why you haunt the anti-Catholic threads. Where you can accentuate division and dissension you have a chance to gain a fellow bitter soul and keep them from the freedom in Christ!
Your effort to denigrate Jesus Christ is duly noted. You are of your father, and I'm not referring to Abraham. From this point onward, your opinions and posts are as if not even there to me. You're a twister, a deceiver, a spreader of deceit, a spirit of anti-Christ.
That the Catholic religion is based upon untruths and outright deception when dealing with scripture is again evident in this sentence...
But they left out the words "for me" from middle of the sentence "The Lord has done great things for me, and Holy is his name.
Luk 1:49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.
As can be seen, God did not do great things for Mary...She knows that...We know that...God did great things TO Mary...
And they claim it's all because we interpret the scriptures wrong...We don't know the difference between TO and FOR...
"The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break.
Almost??? You guys should have stuck with the guys who rejected the idea...
This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after.
Your pope and a couple of old commentators claim it's true so you believe it??? What does God HImself say about it in the scriptures??? We already know, don't we...
Actually it's an attack on the Koran...What does that mean that you guys side with the muzlims and their Koran and NOT with the God breathed scriptures???
Unless they were there watching their opinions on the matter are ignorant speculation.
I have decided not to dispute with you, because we do not share the basic assumptions necessary for constructive discussion.
Peace and, for now, goodbye.
They did...They used the word 'cousin' where is was appropriate...Shoots your unbiblical theory out of the sky...
You forget, we have bibles so we can check you out...
Eze 44:1 Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut.
Eze 44:2 Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
Eze 44:3 It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
C'mon now...Save this stuff for your caucus threads...You know making things up about scripture is not going to fly on an open thread, where the scriptures get posted...
Jesus entered Mary's womb the same way He left??? There goes Mary's virginity right there...
What bizarre argument is that?
Catholic deception at it's best...
We all know that the Hebrew word used can and does have many meanings...In Samuel 6:23 it is translated as:
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
Again, your defense turns to salt...
Apparently, you read and post the Catholic arguments without consulting with what they fail to tell you...
When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.
God already told us about the virgin birth...NOW, God is telling us that it was not a virgin Marital relationship...God wants us to know that Mary did not remain a virgin, lest some would build statues of her and bow down before her...
4."What about Psalm 69:8? If your friend takes this Psalm to be a literal prophecy of Christ, he runs into bigger problems. Look three verses earlier, "O God, thou knowest my folly; the wrongs I have done are not hidden from thee" (emphasis added). Since Jesus did no wrong and had no follies, it seems clear we shouldn’t take this passage literally.
Then you can take none of the Psalms literally...So it was an allegory??? What does the verse then allude to, or allege to mean??? Your religion doesn't have an answer for that...
At the end of a wedding, the minister announces that the couple has become man and wife. They exchanged vows, and so they are married—without having consummated the marriage yet. When the marriage is consummated, the marriage—which was already valid—becomes indissoluble. So Joseph and Mary’s marriage was a real marriage, even if it was never consummated.
Not so...A Jewish marriage was never a marriage without the consummation...
In regard to it not being natural, the prophet Isaiah said that God’s ways are not like our ways (Is. 55:8–9). When the Second Person of the Trinity is in your wife’s womb, you can expect to have a different marriage than most folks!
Says who??? Did God say that??? Or did your religion again make that up???
Surely you can provide a list of those that knew Mary personally, that lived to write about her...
" Catholic deception at it's best..."
It's a belief not deception! Also notice Psalms with hidden meanings until explained later. There are double meaning words in scripture. Just say you do not get it, Or to you does not make sense.
"Catholic deception"
It's a belief.
Watch you words. I try not to flame the threads.
Think by your choice of words. Are you Paranoid? Good Grief. God Bless and may he Guide You!
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.