Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Good thing Paul didn’t feel that way!
DO WHAT????
Yeah right. When the rcc says all of our hope is in Mary......that isn’t focusing on Christ.
You should know the greek admits Jesus had brothers and sisters. The others I can excuse even though the context makes it clear.
This source cannot contradict anything in the written Word as Paul wouldn't give conflicting instruction.
They are One God. But Jesus is not the Father and The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit. This is Trinitarian belief. Jesus has to be a different person from the Father to be sent by the Father (Gal 4:4). The Father has to be a different person from the Son to be the one who sends. Read the Cappadocian fathers Like Basil the Great or Anthanasius, they understand all this really well. Catholics honor these Eastern Fathers of the Church today.
Which is it? Unseparated, meaning mixed, and unmixed meaning separated.
Both, because He is one person, a hypostatic union. See the Council of Calcedon
https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/CHALCHRI.HTM
They are essential because your Church teaches that Catholics believe in a false God.
You have to convince me first that you even understand what it means to believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God. Your questions indicate you've been unable to explain how His sacrifice on the Cross is efficacious for the salvation of sins.
Because really, if God did not act in the person of Jesus, therefore the salvation of humanity is untenable. But because He does, in the person of Jesus who is the incarnate God, He therefore saves. But the meaning of the incarnation literally means that Mary bore and gave birth to the Son of God. This therefore makes Him the Son of Mary And Mary the mother of God. Because such realities are communicable within in the second person of the Trinity. Its round and round we're going here...The incarnation is the essential reason for the title Mother of God. I'm attempting to explain it to you in many ways.
If you don't believe me, get a degree in Christian theology and come back and explain it otherwise.
This is pretty humorous; the Catholic Church, for some reason, does not believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is efficacious either; I do -- he paid the price for my sins; I'm saved by grace through faith. Catholics, on the other hand, are taught that you have to do more.... so, personally, I believe the issue here is what you, if you are Catholic, believe: is Christ's death enough? And, if so, why must works be added to this? Works are a natural outgrowth of salvation -- an evidence of it -- they do not aid in obtaining or securing it! If Christ's sacrificial death on the cross is enough, why do Catholics believe in Purgatory -- a final "purging'? Wasn't Christ's death and resurrection enough?
You can attempt to explain it many ways; I have an issue that the term implies that Mary bore GOD. She didn't. She bore Jesus. Jesus is God incarnate. God has no beginning and no end. I have no issue with professing the Trinity -- regardless of your belief, I am a Christian. However, it is the Catholic faith that raises Mary to a level that at best borders on idolatry and at worst IS idolatry. The CCC teaches that Mary is a "mediatrix" completely in defiance of Scripture, much less the very words of Christ himself! I have yet to see you explain this! The same entry indicates that Mary has a saving office. She does not. She cannot save; if she could have saved, there would have been no need for God to send his Son into this world, would he? Again, blasphemy taught as doctrine.
You are focused on the Mother of God issue so tightly that for some reason, you're not seeing why the sources I've listed for you that cause such consternation. CCC 969 is wrong; Mary does nothing to save, to mediate or to benefit. God's Word proves it to be a lie, yet you do not answer as to why it is not a lie. Why not? Does Mother Church trump God himself?
Hoss
And what part of that verse says she had any relations thereafter ?
Your reading of that verse is like reading an obituary that says, "Susie had no children prior to her death" and therefore assuming Susie had children after she was dead.
Sorry, any way you cut it there's no proof in Scripture that Mary had other children and given the fact that she accepted the Holy Spirit as the father of Jesus Christ she was therefore already joined with the Holy Spirit and any relations with anyone else thereafter would be adulterous.
Of course, those who take adultery lightly are free to argue whatever they choose to believe based on their faith in their Self and Self Alone which is the only place someone can come up with 99.999% of the trash non-Catholics have to say about Catholics.
have a nice day
Galatians 1:19
19But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. NASB
But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord. Douay-Rheims
If read in context there are numerous other passages that tell us Joseph and Mary had other children on their own.
The Greek backs this up.
In Luke 2:7 the word prototokon, first among others, is used in describing Christ.
If the good doctor had wanted to indicate no other children would come from Mary he would have used monogenes, to refer to Christ.
The word monogenes means only, only begotten, unique. One of a kind. Definition from HELPS Word-Studies
I think with Luke being a doctor he would know about how couples have other children and if Joseph and Mary had had other children.
let's take a look at one of the verses that protestants like to throw out as defending their position:Mat 1:25 and knew her not until (till) she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS. The key word being ἕως
Bible Hub; Strong's concordance 2193/ Thayer's Greek Lexicon 1. the temporal terminus ad quem, till, until (Latindonee,usquedum); as in the best writings a. with an preterite indicative, where something is spoken of which continued up to a certain time:
Notice it specifically says it continued up to a certain time. It does not say or imply that the condition changed afterward.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. Will Jesus's reign end after His enemies are under his feet?
Gen_3:19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Will Adam eat bread after he dies?
2Sa 6:23 Therefore Michol the daughter of Saul had no child till the day of her death.
How many children did she have after she dies?
Now lets take a look at the issue of "First born" We firs see it when God directs the Israelites to dedicate the first born of man and animals to him: Exo 13:2 Sanctify unto me every firstborn that openeth the womb among the children of Israel, as well of men as of beasts: for they are all mine.
If you look at 1 Samuel you will see that Anna dedicated her firstborn Samuel to God.
we see in Colossians Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Jesus is referred to as the first Born of God?
How many other children did God have?
Means simply firstborn see my post 184 Colossians refers to Christ as the first born of the Father, Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
Means simply firstborn see my post 191 Colossians refers to Christ as the first born of the Father, Exodus 13:2 Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.
Mary had other children as she had normal marital relations with Joseph after she gave birth to Jesus.
There’s nothing in Scripture to support the romanticized fantasy that Mary was perpetually virgin.
The names of Jesus’ brothers are listed in Scripture. Scripture tells us that Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Jesus.
What is it with Catholic mentality that thinks that sex between a husband and wife is dirty or sinful?
If Mary was betrhothed to the Holy Spirit then why didn’t the Holy Spirit tells us that in the Scripture He inspired? If she was betrothed to the Holy Spirit, then what was she doing being betrothed to Joseph? That would make her an adulterer. And if the marriage was just to provide support for her while Jesus grew up, then they were both in deception, leading others to think that they were husband and wife while she was betrothed to God.
Mary was human. She was not any more pure than anyone else, she was not sinless, she was not a perpetual virgin, and she was not betrothed to God.
THAT kind of thinking is from Satan.
I’ll get out the popecorn while waiting for an answer for that one.
The passage you cite in Matthew, if read in context with the other passages involving His brothers and sisters, clearly indicates Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.
The verse in Matthew 1:25 for context:
but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. NASB
And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. Douay-Rheims
The word to focus on is "knew" or "kept". The Greek is ginosko. It has the meaning of to know, especially through personal experience.
Now we know Joseph and Mary knew each other. They had met so it doesn't have that meaning.
For additional context, as we are discussing Joseph and Mary's intimacy, refer to Luke 1:34 where Mary asked Gabriel, "How will this be since I do not know (ginosko...same word in Matthew) a man?"
Mary asks this question right after Gabriel had told her she was going to have a child.
As Mary was a virgin, which we all agree on, she was asking Gabriel how she would be a mom when she had not had sexual intercourse.
Mary was a good girl and had kept herself pure.
The passage in Matthew, if read in context with Luke, can only indicate one thing....Joseph kept Mary a virgin until Jesus was born.
After His birth, Joseph and Mary "knew" each other as married couples do.
If read in context.... after that they consummated the marriage producing other brothers and sisters.
we see in Colossians Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;
Just so we have the verse for context.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:15 NASB
Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Col 1:15 Douay-Rheims
The Greek word for firstborn in this passage is prototokos. It is an adjective. The definition means first born, eldest; the first among others.
Jesus is referred to as the first Born of God?
Actually in this passage He is the first born of all creation.
How many other children did God have?
Jesus is the only begotten, (GR: monogenes), Son of God as used in John 1:14,18; John 3:16,18; Hebrews 11:17; 1 John 4:9.
There is no contradiction of the text to call Jesus the only begotten Son of God, which He is, and to say He was the first born of Mary, which He is.
The Greek, along with context, indicates Joseph and Mary had sexual relations producing other children.
Means simply firstborn
Ok, using your definition does nothing to change the fact that Joseph and Mary had other children.
The key is context.
In the eight passages where this is used in the NT it does not limit the meaning to just one. It does not limit the passage to mean just one or only as monogenes does.
Again, context is your key on how a word is used.
I’m painting my house!
Ever notice how the catholic ignores the original languages when it doesn't fit their theology or agenda?
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.