Posted on 06/13/2011 3:57:07 PM PDT by HarleyD
The word of God vs. the Vatican...
There wasn't any actual church tradition as your religion defines it before the apostles gave us the scriptures...
The apostles were starting the church...And God made changes along the way to counter the changing conditions on the ground...
What the apostles taught was ultimately committed to written scripture and that oral teaching was the only good tradition referred to in the scriptures...
You guys (including your popes, bishops and whoever) don't even know there is no physical Kingdon of God on earth but you act as tho you guys are biblical and Christian authorities...
You ought to 'chuck' everything you learned from your religion and open the word of God and start anew...
The word of God vs. the Vatican...
You guys also tell us Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit/God...That makes Mary the Mother of God and the wife of God...
Yet, Mary's also a child of God...That makes her Jesus brother as well...
That's quite a deity you got going there...
Pagans worship the same Mary but they call her Ishtar...
Thanks. We all get hot-headed around here, myself included, and sometimes it’s very easy to not see how someone will parse a sentence in a way to find greater flaws than were intended. So I greatly appreciate when someone responds with other than more bombast! Because you asked, and not because I want to keep the issue alive, the specific quote was this one, from post 780:
Resorting to your typically juvenile insults is indicative of an [empty hat]. If you have no answer resort to loud stupidity.
The KJV pulls a little shell game, here. The name translated as “Joses” is the same name translated elsewhere in Matthew as “Joseph,” and the name translated as “Judas” is the same as the name translated elsewhere as “Jude.”
So, the question the Jews asked was “And his brethren, James, and Joseph and Simon and Jude?”
This brings to light two problems with interpreting “brethren” narrowly:
Jesus was certainly the firstborn. Why would a second (or likely third, since James was apparently also older) child be named after the father?
James and Jude are the names of his two apostles who are identified as sons of (or from) Alphaeus. Their mother is also called “Mary.” But this Mary is not the same Mary as was the mother of Jesus, for she is listed separately with Mary, the mother of Jesus.
The ancient Jews did not distinguish between “cousin” and “brother.” Someone translating from Hebrew to Greek might well use “adelphos” (brother) instead of “anepsios” (cousin), especially since “anepsios” also means “nephew,” and the Greeks did commonly use “adelphos” to refer to brothers, not cousins. In fact, “anepsos” is where we get the word “nephew,” and King James translated it as “sister’s son” in Col 4:10, the only place where it occurs.
I mean,
“and the Greeks did commonly use adelphos to refer to cousins, not only brothers”
LOL, we're missing connections here. I was looking for the "correct argument" I called "loud stupidity".
"As for resorting to typically juvenile insults, it is ironic that OLD REGGIE is name-calling, posting silly pictures and referring to Cronos correct argument as loud stupidity.
Jesus was not the son of Joseph, but of God, and He was named by God.
Matthew 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."
Further, if James was older than Jesus he would have accompanied his parents to the Passover.
Luke 2:
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the Passover.
42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom;
That is, assuming James was not so much older he was no longer with the immediate family. This leaves the whole nuther problem of the "much older James and his brothers accompanying Mary during Jesus' ministry.
(Of course this is assuming Joseph ever had any children and was also, as according to Jerome, a Perpetual Virgin.
Not to worry. With enough monetary support from your friends? it is possible to purchase enough (free?) Indulgences from the Treasury Of Merit to get a free pass out of Purgatory.
That would be St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church and translator of both Old and New Testaments. The treatise where he refutes the same views we see arising again more than 1,500 years later is Against Helvidius, c. 383. In it he covers the topics of this thread and notes the theory's novelty:
Pray tell me, who, before you appeared, was acquainted with this blasphemy? who thought the theory worth two-pence? You have gained your desire, and are become notorious by crime.
I'm afraid I miss your point. Do you take issue with my claim that Jerome thought of Joseph as a Perpetual Virgin?
Do you claim the following is not a direct quote of Jerome in the treatise "Against Helviduis"?
" You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
The purpose was to link the full document - which refutes most if not all of the questions on this thread; to note the novelty of your theory among early Christians, and to borrow the Doctor’s comments apropos same.
I don't think it should be any surprise at all that Satan uses ALL titles and ALL glory that belongs to God alone in order to deceive. Jesus Christ IS THE ONLY TRUE Lord of Lords, King of Kings, True God of True God, etc., alone. The point being made is NOT that satanic worship seeks to usurp the majesty and glory that is by all rights God's alone, it is that the very term "Queen of Heaven" was used by those who worshiped a false god. Nowhere in Scripture is Mary called the Queen of Heaven, however, all throughout Scripture Jesus, who is Almighty God incarnate, IS accorded those titles as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. There is no Scriptural warrant for attributing Mary the title of Queen of Heaven. Why the Roman Catholic Church choose the title and gave it to Mary is what is in question.
I also say Big Deal because, of course, we know Satan wants to take Almighty God's place, he has always sought to do that. What I understand from Lera's post is that no place in Scripture is the title Queen of Heaven used to describe Mary. It is only stated in Scripture that that title is used for a false god so it is understandable that it would draw into question WHY the RCC used such a title for Mary. But scripture is very clear the true God is the only one who deserves the titles of King of Kings, the Only Potentate, the Savior of mankind. It is also curious that the Hymn to Osiris says:
O thou great one, thou chief of thy divine brethren, thou prince of the company of the gods, thou establisher of Maat throughout the two lands, who placest thy son upon the great throne of his father Seb, the darling of his mother Nut.
I see that the Catholic Church never refers to Mary as "Nut". ;o)
It is also revealing that Osiris is called "prince of the company of the gods", because the true God states that there are no other gods but Him.
True to form. Exactly what I told you happens. Fail to answer in a way only acceptable to him, the dishonest person then assumes you ascribe to his false categorization and then proceeds to run with that to condemn everyone else who might be aligned with you. Ignoring that person is the only logical response. Sad.
LOL
Amen! I'm with you.
But of course! How else to control the sheep???
"It appears to have developed in the Egyptian area"... yep, that certainly explains the point Lera was making about the false gods like Osiris and Isis being transferred from the pagan religions into Christianity. Isis, Venus, Athena - all false goddesses whose legends and powers were taken and infused into a Christian faith under the guise of Mary which was taken over by false leaders who did not believe what they believed.
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.