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.
Too much the case, but many have seen the light, thanks be to God. The amount of labour and contrivances Mary worshipers must go thru in order to attempt to provide a semblance of support for such traditions testifies to the fact these teachings did not become established due to the weight of Scriptural warrant, and that this is not the basis for the veracity of Cath teaching anyway. And because it is not, it also that testifies that Catholicism did change the Bible, as it would not have been hard to at least add a word of special praise to Mary in the espistles to the churches, and or a word about her perpetual virginity, or at least just remove the "till" from "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:25)
But since that was not practical, and because Truth is only what Catholicism says it is, then that did not happen.
It's always been my understanding the the Greek Orthodox used the Old Latin Bible (not Jerome's Vulgate) and the church still has some copies of that translation...I also understand that the Old Latin matches the KJV and not the Septuagint...
Nice try for a Straw Man. Fail.
When we read Scripture we read God's Word. I'm not reading the Koran. I'm reading God's word.
Hoss
You might have a point -- were your statement true. But, unfortunately for Roman Catholicism, it's not. Christ didn't found the Roman Catholic Church. He founded Christianity... not Catholicanity. Yet, Catholicanity tends to be what's "practiced" instead of Christianity. As for the Catholic Church's claim to teach one truth all times to all people, let me ask you about this "truth":
Is Mary a "mediatrix" as is taught (apparently as ONE truth in the CCC)? CCC 969 states that Mary, in part:
"...she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation..."
So, does the Catholic Church teach that Mary brings "gifts of salvation?" Is that part of the ONE truth to which you allude? If so, it's heresy. It's a falsehood and a false gospel. Why? Let's look at God's Word:
John 14:6 says (and can be understood without being a theologian):
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"
Hmmm. NO one comes to the Father except through me... and my mother? NO. Christ alone. So, by one simple verse, we see that CCC 969 teaches FALSEHOOD.
But, let us continue.
I mentioned the whole "mediatrix" thing. In CCC 969 it says:
"Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
Yet, in 1 Timothy 2:5 we find:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus,"
Again.... ONE mediator. Doesn't say TWO mediators, or a A mediator and A mediatrix.... Only Christ. Yet, CCC 969 teaches as part of that "one truth" that Mary does something that God's very word -- his inerrant, God-breathed word refutes. It's plain. It's simple. No "drive by theologian" needed. Only simple reading skills and the ability to see what's written in God's word, and that it contradicts the Roman Catholic false gospel.
As for your other converts from Protestantism, well, all I can say is the Devil is busy, isn't he? No doubt those folks weren't saved.
So... since God's word refutes this one piece of filth (CCC 969), the rest of the rotten structure can't be too difficult to expose -- and it has been.
Hoss
You're not making sense here, Scholar. What has this to do with what I wrote and you didn't read?
BTW, what are “heretristics”?
A new word I just coined for my vocabulary, and perhaps for others, too. A merging of "heretics" and "patristics" of whom most were stabbing in the dark at the religion of the Christ of the Cross with the spear of Platonism and other Gentile philosophies they wouldn't let go of and be converted. The ones who were undiscipled in the Word, who twisted everything that the Apostles Peter and Paul recorded:
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is
salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according
to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these
things; in which are some things hard to be understood,
which they that are unlearned* and unstable** wrest, as they
do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before,
beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the
wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for
ever. Amen." (2Pe 3:15-18)
* αμαθεις from the verb manthano to learn, from which we get unlearned, but as applied to learners of The Faith (μαθηται = disciples), in this context it means "undiscipled"; that is, not treated with the same personal supervision as the Twelve and Paul were, and after them the men John Mark, Timothy, and Luke that they trained in the doctrines of The Christ. Pew-warming is not discipleship.
** αστηρικτοι unstable, vacillating; in this context implies doctrinally unfixed
Doubtless Peter, addressing the Jewish Diaspora, was having the same problems with undiscipled religious wanna-bes that were plaguing Paul (Phil. 3:17-20) and Beloved John (2 Jn, 3 Jn). Even Jesus was disappointed with local church leaders in Asia (Rev. 1,2,3).
Do you know the difference between worship and veneration?
Duhhhh. They're the same in the Biblical context, with only a sliding scale as to the perceived intensity. There is no point at which "veneration" ceases and becomes "worship." Don't think you can play games with which language expresses it. The golden standard is the Koine Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic in which God's Will is exactly transmitted, and from which any other language is informed as to linguistics. There is one word in the Greek, and one word in the Hebrew. They are exactly equivalent to each other, and they only relate to one's attitude toward God, not any fellow human.
Please don't ask this question again.
There you go again. Selective quotes that have been demolished by theologians through the centuries including Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism. You exclude references to the the explicit mission given to Peter as the rock on which Christ founds His Church with the unequivocal authority that whatever is bound on earth will be bound in heaven etc....
Similarly, you show no understanding of the sacred oral tradition that existed prior to scripture and was used as a reference point to cross-check the accuracy of the many written scripts by the early Church fathers.
Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No. The Bible itself states that their are “oral” teachings and traditions that are to be carried on to the present-day (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Timothy 2:2; Romans 10:17; 1 Peter 1:24-25). These teachings are what the Catholic Church considers “Sacred Apostolic Tradition.”
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
You might like to know what Dr. A. David Anders has to say. He was born, raised and educated, as an Evangelical Protestant and studied Wheaton College. He set out deliberately to show why Catholicism was wrong. This was a long historical and scholarly quest. He ended up a Catholic convert.
He brilliantly essays the belief in the Eucharist and other Catholic doctrine in these compelling terms:
Here’s a quote from his conversion process to Catholicism:
“By the time I finished my Ph.D., I had completely revised my understanding of the Catholic Church. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture, in the oldest traditions, and in the plain teaching of Christ and the apostles. “
“I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.”
The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”
See, I knew you only posted this thread NOT to discuss the subject but to present what you probably thought was an airtight open and closed defense of your "case". Your boastful presumption added to your posting history has resulted in just another warmed over, stale rehashing of what others have written books on - and you conclude those who disagree with your case do so because we "don't care about the truth". What gall! I do hope you didn't imagine you would change anyone's mind.
In the OT translation, Jerome tossed the Septuagint as being unreliable and instead, translate from the Hebrew. Part of the reason the Septuagint had to be discarded was that so mny of the New Testament verses being explained by Jesus, Paul, and others were a kind of targum on the OT reference (Lk. 4:18-19 vs Is. 61:1, 2a; Heb 10:5 vs Ps. 40:6); and being so, there were some differences. The Greek OT having become presided over by Hellenistic Christians whose ethic was way less than that of the very careful Jews with the Hebrew, the newcomwer Gentiles just copied over the NT changes into the LXX. And now, we have “scholars” trying to convince us that the LXX was more faithful to the OT than the Jew-maintained Hebrew in which it was written! Circular logic, not squaring up to the facts!
No, you are wrong. I did read it -stop insinuating I lied. I never said betrothal was like modern engagement - you were the one doing that when you insisted Joseph couldn't have divorced Mary unless they were "married". Here's what you said which prompted my little lesson on Old Testament Jewish betrothal:
No She was BETROTHED. For all intents and purposes they were WED. 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. On the way to Bethlehem the Scripture still refers to them as BETROTHED.
Can you not understand what I was trying to clarify to you?
Jeanie was INVOKED by rubbing the lamp!
We've no evidence of this.
The bible warns about being led astray; after knowing the Truth.
That is exactly what I said: Had he divorced her Mary would have been subject to at least ridicule and scorn and possibly stoning, which was the punishment for adultery.Learn to read.
Please remember it actually takes intelligence to convert to the Catholic Church, it only takes hurt feelings to leave.
You “Clarified” nothing. I am the one providing clarity, some refuse to accept it.
Yes, that is what it said. Sorry, it was a long day with a lot of reading, but with one less absurdity for you.
That's true; we don't know for certain. Yet, the Bible says once we belong to God, no one can snatch us from his hand. I would think that would include US as well. But they are at the very least deluded.
Hoss
Why haven't you answered post 304?
Hoss
different between what the Church taught and what Scripture taught
A few thoughts:
I think you said something there that should not be passed over too quickly.
Joh 6:31 After all, our ancestors ate manna while they journeyed through the wilderness! The Scriptures say, ‘Moses gave them bread from heaven to eat.’”
Joh 6:32 Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, Moses didn’t give you bread from heaven. My Father did. And now He offers you the true bread from heaven.
Doesn’t the above verse 31 sound familiar? They are quoting scripture. Moses gave them the bread. We read the Bible and say, where would they get that?
Exo 16:15 The Israelites were puzzled when they saw it. “What is it?” they asked each other. They had no idea what it was. And Moses told them, “It is the food the LORD has given you to eat.
So what is the source of this “scripture” they are quoting? Tradition says that Moses gave them the manna. Tradition has become confused with scripture. Tradition is a higher authority than Gods word. And what is the source of that tradition passed on since the beginning? It is the Talmud. Here is an example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_in_rabbinic_literature
Of course Jesus quickly addresses that matter with the truth.
RC has a long history of established traditions they lay claim to. Sadly protestants have traditions too and we as individuals have traditions. The first few chapters of Revelation give us strong warning to reform and get back on target. Jesus knew we would drift........................
I trust I will see similar comments from you when metmom makes her regular (Daily?) "Studying God’s Word ping"
I wrote and posted this for two reasons:
1) It is the absolute unvarnished truth that needed to be said and heard.
2) Not one of you can say that "There is no scriptural backing for the Catholic belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary."
If you are honest the very most you can say is: "There is scriptural backing, we just choose to read/ interpret it differently."
But wait! There's more!
You asserted, "Similarly, you show no understanding of the sacred oral tradition that existed prior to scripture" and that is stated (giving you the benefit of the doubt) in such a non-specific way as to be useless drivel. The Bible of Judaism had been around for a very long time and Paul referred heavily to it and taught his new born Christians what they needed to know for their growth in Grace and knowledge. When Paul wrote to Timotheus, what SCRIPTURES do you suppose Paul was referring to that Timotheus should study to show himself approved, a workman worthy of his hire? And what do you suppose the Bereans searched daily in order to confirm what Paul and Barnabas had been teaching them? And we could go on, to note the words of Peter, instructing newborns in Christ to consult the teachiong of Paul, which can still be found in letters written by Paul to various gatherings of believers who were born from above ... and when do you suppose those letters started to be generated ... Paul gives you all the clues to have a very firm pattern for dating the letters, if you actually studied The Letters and Paul's words, instead of blindly following the magicsteerignthem dictates.
But wait! There's more!
You asserted: "Is the Bible the sole “teaching from God?” No." And I would agree with that! Prophecy is direct communication from God to man and is not scripture until recorded in print. Trouble with catholiciism is, your traditions contradict the character of God and the Word of God. One simple example will show this, though the contradictions run wide and deep in the religion of catholiciism:
Where do the Laws given in Leviticus originate? An ignorant catholic might jump in with, 'They were Judaism laws, not Christian laws.' But that ignores the reality that God gave those laws and JESUS confirmed that those laws would not pass away. Yet the catholic Mass poses gross violation of those laws as the basis for the authority of the pagan rite called catholic Mass(es). Do you even know why those laws will not pass away? ... They give an outline of the CHARACTER of God The Father Almighty! God is not a liar, therefore thou shalt not bear false witness. God is not a murderer from the start --satan is, and he murders souls daily-- hence the law that thou shalt not commit MURDER. God made the living things to have their LIFE in their blood. The life is in the blood --the blood is not life, the life is IN the blood. Therefore God commanded for all their generations that they shall not eat the blood, for therein is the life of the living thing. Yet catholic Mass commands adherents to eat the blood of Jesus Christ ... a more satanic demiurge you will not find!
Like Mormons, catholics want to insist that they have the ONLY true Christianity. Also like the Mormons, the catholic hierarchy is absolutely the opposite of Christianity, as illustrated with that simple lesson on the catholic Mass.
And I will end this with the following assertion. You cite David Anders as a prime example of catholic fealty. But in reality David Anders is a prime example of an unregenerate man falling prey to the great lies sown in catholiciism by the father of lies: "He brilliantly essays the belief in the Eucharist and other Catholic doctrine". Such a lack of discernment of the idolatry of the catholic Mass is evidence of a dead soul. The catholic Mass has several idolatrous aspects, not the least of which is claiming to eat in a wheat wafer the SOUL and DIVINITY OF GOD! And these wheat wafers are carried around in a closed box and veneration is directed to this box of wafers, as if these are the real presence of Jesus Christ kept sequestered in a box until a paganism priest takes him out for their purposes! And that added to the blasphemy of eating the blood of Jesus Christ, the real blood, but magically remaining hidden from view by seeing the wheat wafer when 'it has been transubstantiated' by the magic incantation of the catholic priest!
God can 'wink' at ignorance, but you have cited men you believe to be scholars, and chrisitians and catholics. They might be scholars, and catholic, but they are not Christians if they can study the catholic Mass and conclude it to be Christian.
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.