Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
For years there has been disagreement between Catholics and some non-Catholic groups about the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Marian Dogmas, particularly, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. This will attempt to clear up some of the confusion.
Catholics have always held that Mary remained a virgin before, during, and following the birth of Jesus. Many non-Catholics contend that scripture proves that she did not and points to several instances of people being called brothers or sisters of Jesus.
When we study the scriptures carefully, paying particular attention to the order of sentences and view the language with precision, we see that the Catholic position is both logical and scriptural.
We see the annunciation in Luke Chapter 1. Luke 1:26-27 “In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town of Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin’s name was Mary.”
Notice that Mary is described as “betrothed”. For all intents and purposes this means that they are married, but the marriage has not yet been consummated. I will go into more detail about this further on.
The angel says to Mary in Luke 1:30-33 “And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. And of his kingdom there shall be no end.”
It is important to note here that the angel has not specified a time when or how this would occur.
Mary’s response is very telling Luke 1:34 “εἶπεν δὲ Μαριὰμ πρὸς τὸν ἄγγελον Πῶς ἔσται τοῦτο, ἐπεὶ ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω;” Luke 1:34 “And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?” In both the Douay-Rheims and the King James version ἔσται is correctly translated as “shall” From Strong’s concordance 1510 εἰμί eimí (the basic Greek verb which expresses being, i.e. "to be"). Ἔσται is the future tense or “will be.”
Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently; in the Hebrew culture a couple became betrothed then, the husband prepared a house, returned for the wife, and took her into the house to consummate the marriage.
Jesus used the language of the bridegroom in John 14:1-3 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith* in God; have faith also in me”.
2 “In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?”
3 “And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be”.
Months later after she is already living with Joseph on the way to Bethlehem Mary is still referred to as being betrothed,
Luke 2:5 “to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.”
If they were not married but only “engaged” it would not have been necessary for Joseph to divorce her.
Matthew 1:19 “Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν.”
Matthew 1:19 “Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately”. The word ἀπολῦσαι from Strong’s concordance 630 /apolýō ("to release") is specifically used of divorcing a marital partner
We see the exact same term used when Jesus is discussing marriage and divorce in Mt 1:19, 5:31,32, 19:7-9.
At this point the non-Catholics will point out that this does not prevent them from having a conjugal relationship after the birth of Jesus and the purification ritual. I have shown above that Mary had no intention of entering into a conjugal relationship with Joseph and this is is due to her having entered into a “relationship” with the Holy Spirit.
This is evidenced in the language used in Luke when the angel explains how Mary is to conceive.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answering, said to her: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.”
The term “overshadow” is nuptial language. We see similar language in Ruth and Ezekiel. Ruth 3:9 And he said to her: “Who art thou?” And she answered:” I am Ruth thy handmaid: spread thy coverlet over thy servant, for thou art a near kinsman.”
Ezekiel 16;7-8 “I caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field: and thou didst increase and grow great, and advancedst, and camest to woman's ornament: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair grew: and thou wast naked, and full of confusion
. And I passed by thee, and saw thee: and behold thy time was the time of lovers : and I spread my garment over thee, and covered thy ignominy. And I swore to thee, and I entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God: and thou becamest mine.”
At this point some will ask how could Mary be in a matrimonial relationship with both the Holy Spirit and Joseph, The answer is in the exact same way that all Christians are in that relationship with Christ.
Mary had both an earthly temporal nuptial relationship with Joseph and an eternal nuptial relationship with the Holy Spirit, just as all Christians hope to have with God. This comes from the Hebrew word אֲרוּסָה (kiddush) which means betrothed, The root of kiddush is קָדוֹשׁ (kadash) which means holy or sacred.
Matthew 9:14-15 Then the disciples of John came to Him, asking, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but Your disciples do not fast?" And Jesus said to them, "The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? But the days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.” (See also Mark 2:18-20, Luke 5:33-35) Matthew 25:1 "Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom”
Isaiah 61:10 “I will rejoice greatly in the LORD, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”
John 3:29 "He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom's voice So this joy of mine has been made full.
2 Corinthians 11:2 “For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God. For I have espoused you to one husband that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.”
Revelation 21:2 “And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.”
The difference between Mary’s nuptial relationship with God and ours is that hers intersected here in the temporal world and resulted in the conception of the Man, Christ Jesus.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The question will still remain to some: How does this prevent Mary and Joseph from engaging in a conjugal relationship?
By law he was strictly prohibited from entering this type of relationship with Mary. To understand this we need to refer to the Old Testament, specifically the book of Deuteronomy and Jeremiah.
Deuteronomy 1:1-4 1 “When a man, after marrying a woman, is later displeased with her because he finds in her something indecent, and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house,
2 if on leaving his house she goes and becomes the wife of another man,
3 and the second husband, too, comes to dislike her and he writes out a bill of divorce and hands it to her, thus dismissing her from his house, or if this second man who has married her dies, 4 then her former husband, who dismissed her, may not again take her as his wife after she has become defiled. That would be an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring such guilt upon the land the LORD, your God, is giving you as a heritage.”
Jeremiah 3:1 “If a man divorces his wife and she leaves him and then becomes the wife of another, Can she return to the first? Would not this land be wholly defiled? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers, and yet you would return to me!—oracle of the LORD.”
In the The Babylonian Talmud: (Neusner vol 11 pg 123) It states that a man can not enter into a marriage contract with a woman who has been made pregnant by a former husband. If he does, he is required to give her a bill of divorce.and not remarry her.
We see this in 2 Samuel. Absalom had relations with ten of David’s concubines.
2 Samuel 16:22 “So a tent was pitched on the roof for Absalom, and Absalom went to his father’s concubines in view of all Israel.
After Absalom’s plot to overthrow his father failed David did the only thing he could. He took them back but he never had relations with them.
2 Samuel 20:3 David came to his house in Jerusalem, and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left behind to care for the palace and placed them under guard. He provided for them, but never again saw them. And so they remained shut away to the day of their death, lifelong widows.”
As we saw in Matthew 1:19 Joseph had planned to divorce her quietly, but again an angel intervened.
Matthew 1:20 “But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.”
Now we need to compare the language used 1:18 and in 1:20 Matthew 1:18 “Τοῦ δὲ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου.” Sunerchomai συνελθεῖν to come together, to assemble, to marry to have marital relations.
Matthew 1:20 “ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος Κυρίου κατ’ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυείδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκά σου, τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ Πνεύματός ἐστιν Ἁγίου·”
Paralambanó παραλαβεῖν I take from, receive from, or: I take to, receive (apparently not used of money), admit, acknowledge; I take with me.To take charge of.
At this point Joseph became her guardian/ protector and legal spouse. This fulfilled the prophecy that the Messiah would come from the line of David of which Joseph was a member. Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery. Joseph was able to fulfill all the temporal duties of a father that the Holy Spirit could not.
Further evidence of Mary’s perpetual virginity is seen Ezekiel.
Ezekiel 44:1-2 “Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary facing east, but it was closed.2The LORD said to me: This gate must remain closed; it must not be opened, and no one should come through it. Because the LORD, the God of Israel, came through it, it must remain closed.”
The Sanctuary is the Temple and only God is permitted to enter through that gate. Jesus told us in John that He was the Temple
John 2:19-21
19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up.” 20The Jews said, “This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and you will raise it up in three days?”
21 But he was speaking about the temple of his body.
Logically if Jesus is the temple then Mary must be the eastern gate since she is how He entered the world.
There will still be some die hards that will say: But what about the “brothers” and “sisters” referred to in the gospels?
In John 19:26-27 we read 26 When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son.”
27 Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his home.
Some have offered that his siblings were unbelievers. Paul describes James in Galatians 1:19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” So much for James being an unbeliever if he was one of the Apostles. Also nowhere does James describe himself as related to Jesus.
Jude describes himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James” (Jude 1). If Jude is a sibling of Jesus, why does he talk in this weird way?
If any of them were to be unbelievers it would be a very temporary state of affairs. We see this in John 17:12 When I was with them I protected them in your name that you gave me, and I guarded them, and none of them was lost except the son of destruction, in order that the scripture might be fulfilled.
The claim of unbelief came in John 7:5 For his brothers did not believe in him. During the feast of tabernacles (See John 7:2). That was 6 months prior to the Passover and both James and Jude were present for that.
Further Jesus would have known that they would to him based on his predictions of the behavior of others in the gospels.
Matthew 26:13 He knew the woman that anointed Him with oil would be remembered.
Matthew 26:34 He knew of Peter’s triple denial.
Peter's death in John 21:18-19, and the list goes on.
Even if they did not believe in Him they were still faithful Jews and had a responsibility that Jesus went into great detail about ignoring parents for “religious” reasons.
Mark 7:9-12 9 He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’
11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban” (meaning, dedicated to God),
12 you allow him to do nothing more for his father or mother.
We also know from the Gospel that Jesus was the First born of Mary, and siblings would be younger and it was absolutely unheard of in the middle eastern culture that a younger sibling would upbraid and older brother for any reason.
If non-Catholics are going to be consistent then are they willing to say that Joseph is the biological father of Jesus?
John 6:42 and they said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, ‘I have come down from heaven’?
Luke 2:33 The child’s father and mother were amazed at what was said about him; Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” Of course not, every Christian realizes that Joseph was His father by adoption not by nature.
Let’s look further at the gospels.
Matthew 13:55 “Is he not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas?”
Matthew 27:56 “Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.”
Matthew 28:1 “After the sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.”
We see when we look at John that the biological father of these men is actually Clopas. John 19:25 “Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala.”
Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.
Paul states in Galatians 1:17-19
17 “nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia and then returned to Damascus.”
18 “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Cephas and remained with him for fifteen days.”
19 “But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.”
There were two Apostles named James. The first was the son of Zebedee He was killed by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). This James must be the son of Alphaeus referred to in Luke 6:15-16. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James in Jude 1:1
Three of the four have been ruled out as uterine brothers of Jesus. It should also be noted that not one of these “brothers” was ever referred to as either the son of Joseph or Mary. Also note that in Luke 2:41-52 when Jesus was lost and later found in the temple no mention is made of any other children.
The only conclusion that can be drawn, based entirely on the Scriptures, is that Mary did remain a virgin for her entire life.
“Checkmate.”
Only because you are playing checkers while everone else is playing chess.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you argue from a SINGLE word in a SINGLE verse—in ENGLISH.
What do you do with the fact that the parents of three of the four “brothers” of Jesus are named in the NT—and they are people OTHER than Mary and Joseph?
Oh, I know. You ignore that fact.
What’s with you Hebrew Roots people? We speak English here in America, must speak and read only Hebrew? We must not say, “Lord” or “Moses?”
Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, from which you quoted, not Hebrew.
Since “the builders,” unbelieving Jews, rejected Jesus the chief cornerstone, Psalms 118:22,23, the structure built on that stone, the church, became Jew and Gentile, predominately Gentile. Which is why we have the gospel of Luke written in Greek, the language commonly spoken among Gentiles at that time... to reach Gentiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyUEcE57K3c
“It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos,
thou the ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
Thou the more honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,
who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word,
thou the true Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
“Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
O Virgin pure, immaculate/ O Lady Theotokos
O Virgin Mother, Queen of all/ and fleece which is all dewy
More radiant than the rays of sun/ and higher than the heavens
Delight of virgin choruses/ superior to Angels.
Much brighter than the firmament/ and purer than the sun’s light
More holy than the multitude/ of all the heav’nly armies.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
O Ever Virgin Mary/ of all the world, the Lady
O bride all pure, immaculate/ O Lady Panagia
O Mary bride and Queen of all/ our cause of jubilation
Majestic maiden, Queen of all/ O our most holy Mother
More hon’rable than Cherubim/ beyond compare more glorious
than immaterial Seraphim/ and greater than angelic thrones.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
Rejoice, O song of Cherubim/ Rejoice, O hymn of angels
Rejoice, O ode of Seraphim/ the joy of the archangels
Rejoice, O peace and happiness/ the harbor of salvation
O sacred chamber of the Word/ flow’r of incorruption
Rejoice, delightful paradise/ of blessed life eternal
Rejoice, O wood and tree of life/ the fount of immortality.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
I supplicate you, Lady/ now do I call upon you
And I beseech you, Queen of all/ I beg of you your favor
Majestic maiden, spotless one/ O Lady Panagia
I call upon you fervently/ O sacred, hallowed temple
Assist me and deliver me/ protect me from the enemy
And make me an inheritor/ of blessed life eternal.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!”
"Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
...............
First, hi verga. I hope things are well in your world!
I'm sure many will respond and we will have a good discussion. I will just address your argument about "shall" in Luke 1:34.
The event the angel announces will take place in the future. Mary asks how this will occur, since she will still be a virgin. Hence, the future tense about a future event.
Not an argument that proves or indicates perpetual virginity.
More importantly, there is no prophecy nor theological reason for Mary to remain a virgin. The Virgin birth was a miraculous sign identifying the Savior.
Which leads to this: it really doesn't matter much, if someone believes in perpetual virginity or not. Salvation does not depend on this.
The single question that remains crucial is where you (and all others) will spend eternity. Only by entrusting ourselves to Him and His gracious gift - accepting His righteousness instead of trying to earn our own - do we receive eternal life.
That is what matters. It is available today. Now. Why put it off?
It appears that you contradict yourself: "There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently ..." Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when Jesus was conceived in her womb. When the Angel visited Mary to tell her what was going to happen, she was already betrothed to Joseph, she was already in a marriage contract with Joseph. Your comment shows you understand that so long as she was still betrothed to Joseph, she was not free to be the wife of another unless Joseph had divorced her. Whioch divorce The Angel told Joseph not to do. Somehow you have inverted the first betrothal to read in your argument as God was first betrother. THAT IS NOIT ACCURATE based upon your own quoted passages.
Further, you make a huge assumption not supported by what you've offered: "Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to." That is an aside, not a portion of the argument you have posed. It is an assumption not supported by any data in evidence. It makes Mary to be duplicitous, continuing in a betrothal to Joseph that she has no intention of honoring after she gives birth. I don't have that image of the Blessed Mary, the Mother of Jesus. That is an implied dishonesty not warranted by the data presented.
Pretty clear the people saying this were indignant and stating what they thought would diminish Jesus: "We know this guy, his family, his trade and he's nothing special"
Of course they were wrong.
Once the birthing process begins and the cervical os is dilating, if the amniotic sac is detached from the uterine wall, the shedding of blood from the detachment can be extensive or just normal, like a menses. The cleansing for the shedding of blood need not mean the virginity is terminated by the 'opening of the birth canal'.
I addressed as many of the common objections that I could recall. I cited the Scripture, quoting chapter and verse from both Testaments, and I also cited the Talmud where it applied.
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by people that think they have one the "argument" quoting a verse that I already disproved.
Please re-read what I wrote, Mary was in a “spiritual” relationship with the Holy s Spirit. It was addressed in the article.
If Mary gave birth to Jesus, then it would be impossible for Mary to remain a virgin. To pretend otherwise is to say that Jesus was created directly by non-physical means, or that Mary is not human. It reminds me of the Greek and Roman myths about their gods.
If Mary had several children of varying ages and her Husband died leaving her that many mouths to feed, the natural course of action in that day and even in America, until recently, would be to send children to live as adoptees with close relatives, allowing the Mother to concentrate on raising the youngest, the little ones still in her care. But of course that would not fit your assumptions, so you would naturally discard such a reasonable explanation. But that explanation makes what Paul wrote (James the Brother of Jesus) no error on his part or any error in 'translation'.
quote-You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you argue from a SINGLE word in a SINGLE verse—in ENGLISH.
It is written, RSV Catholic edition-
Genesis 4- Now Adam ‘KNEW his wife Eve and she conceived.’ (Knew- Hebrew Yada, Strongs 3045- to know, recognize, understand, TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS)
Mathew 1:25 he(joseph) took his wife, but KNEW her not until she had borne a son. (Knew- Greek Ginosko, Strongs 1097- to know, come to know, recognize, TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS)
It is impossible for a "Man " to be crucified and raise from the dead.
It is impossible for Lazarus to come back life, or the daughter of the official. It was impossible for Jesus to cure the paralytic.
If you look closely at the Bible you will see many "impossible things that occurred and are recorded.
Your argument appears to be confusing contractual obligations, as if seeking to open a gap into which you intend to insert the presumption of perpetual virginity.
FRiend, if you are going to offer what you deem scriptural proof of this assumption of perpetual virginity then you will need to stick to one line of argument at a time, rather than bouncing between two disjoined lines and trying to conflate them.
I am so please however that you are studying the scriptures using more than one language, because your soul will have opened to it more than merely reading King James English, which is500 years away from our vernacular.
May I add that it is also ‘impossible’ to stand invisible in a party central room and yet have your hand visible as it write upon a wall there, and it is ‘impossible’ to end a locked and shuttered room without opening some portal. HA HA. With God these are not impossible! This should give us a hint that it is indeed not impossible for Mary to gestate the body and placenta of Jesus, and this child be delivered without passing along the birth canal. ... If and old memory serves, doesn’t the Didache imply this means of birthing Jesus from the water world in Mary’s womb, into the air world of our spacetime limits?
“Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.”
suggenes
anepsios
The NT writers used words to describe non-sibling relatives.
As a mainline Protestant who is raising his kids as Catholic because of all the problems in the protestant churches, I have seen both sides of this debate:
On the bad side, the Catholics have some really odd ideas on Mary. Literally they are trying to make her a co-redeemer, which is blasphemy. They cover it a lot of fancy words, but the reality is they have statements to the fact you look to Mary to get to Jesus, which is really a false teaching and quite dangerous as to misleading folks to where their salvation lies. (hint; it isn’t Mary)
On the other hand the Catholics have not gone down the path of inviting each and every pervert into the church, under a new doctrine discovered in the last 20 years about tolerance. So the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans have some ideas that are equally off and in fact very dangerous.
Now The Methodists and most remaining protestant churches have all allowed in female preachers and they have changed the doctrine of male headship. Most of these mainline churches are frankly pussy-whipped and not worth going into, they teach some kind of feminist crap for the most part. The Presbyterians for example had their women folks erect a stature of the goddess Sophia back at a women’s conference in 1989, something they have not lived down to this day. So they also have false doctrine.
So you are left with various sects that are into once saved always saved with the implication we lose our own free will once converted.....too chicken to deal with that one here, but folks who have studied this will have their own conclusions. There are also ideas such predestination, the 180 year old doctrine of rapture, handling snakes for fun and profit, absolute pacifists and a whole host of doctrines folks can argue about. Likely a lot of these ideas are right to some extent, but pushed to the extreme become false teachings. Which is what the Maryism of the Catholic church is. They are not alone in some false ideas.
In the end each and every church today has major flaws. Fact is we all likely have errors in out belief, the more we study things, we cannot help it, we are flawed humans. I suppose that is good in a way. If one church was perfect we would worship the institution, rather than G-d.
One person’s view, which could be very off. I am sure it is in some manner. I expect to be surprised about a lot of things when I die. Hopefully I get a few things right, which in the end is all that matters (I hope but I may be wrong).
If Hebrew isn't important, then how come the writers of the New Testament, including the Revelation of Jesus given to John, felt that it was so important so to include it in their writings?
Act_21:40 And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:
Act_22:2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet. And he said:
Act_26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
Php_3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
Rev_9:11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.
Rev_16:16 And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
And as far as the Hebrew no longer being valid, the early church fathers have much to say about the assemblies of Christ that continued in the Hebrew language, even unto the 4th century...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)
...and while I do not agree that the Nazarenes were “Jewish” as ‘Jewish” is defined by the Talmud and not the bible, I have studied and verified the writings in this book, historical writings of the earliest church fathers that clearly reveal that indeed, the Hebrew language was never cast aside for the Greek and why? Because the Greeks were going to the Hebrew speaking synagogues to hear the Gospel of Christ!
Act 13:42 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. 44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him.
http://www.amazon.com/Nazarene-Jewish-Christianity-Ray-Pritz/dp/9652237981
So the questions are “Why did the majority of the church fathers divorce themselves from the original sect of the Nazarenes that Paul was accused of being the leader of?” “Why were these Nazarenes hated by both Jew & Greco-Roman religions?”
Therefore, why nit pick over tongues rather than reply with substance? Ad hominem attacks are used by those who can not support their theological beliefs using His Word alone.
And yes, the chief cornerstone is Christ and it was the faith of Peter, i.e. the faith of Christ in him that Christ's assembly is built upon.
Acts 7:38 Christ's assembly was gathered in the wilderness at Mt Sinai...
1Peter 1-2 Peter instructs us on that assembly in the wilderness and the difference between those who believed and those who did not
1Cor 10 Paul instructs us that Christ was with the Israelites in the wilderness and that they are examples that we are to learn from (see also Heb 3-4)
And finally, why where the "KEYS" of binding and unbinding given to ALL the disciples of Christ? Jesus said He gave them to ALL, not just to Peter. Matthew 18:18 Shalom!
So Mary who had not consummated her marriage to her husband Joseph commits adultery and consummates a marriage with a spirit, the Holy Spirit...And then Joseph commits adultery under the law by remarrying Mary...
You are a hoot...a Kook...
Mary has to remain a virgin because sex between a husband and wife is a dirty, evil thing. Or so Catholics apparently think.
1Cor 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
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.