Is Mary not a Virgin? The German Bishops’ New Bible Translation Leaves it... Unclear

LifeSite News ^ | 9/21/16 | Jan Bentz

[MHGinTN]

I was going to ask something else, but it occurred to me why you constantly attack the Bible: do you even believe in God as The Creator?

[af_vet_1981]

But according to the story, Jesus is a virgin birth — therefore Joseph is not his biological father. Thus, his children, unless they are also Mary’s, would not be siblings

Not his biological father and yet his father; allows for => not his biological siblings and yet his siblings

Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

Luke, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses forty one to fifty,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James, boldness mine

[af_vet_1981]

There is no debate.

True from the perspective in that History already settled the debate.

.., the common community of true regenerated believer-disciple-priests whom Jesus of Nazareth calls Friends ...

That most original name is available, and no other faith community dare reuse it ...

face your assertions right here on FR, and destroy them by concurrently applying the same remedy of Pauline/Petrine Sola Scriptura, sole fide that has brought as many as will to salvation, and deflected as many as won't back to their old false and deceitful doctrines (2 Peter 3:14-18).

Ah yes, the Thirty Years War redux

[MHGinTN]

Have you heard the Gospel of Grace yet?

[af_vet_1981]

Have you heard the Gospel of Grace yet?

Yes, it is mentioned once in the KJV.

Do you think all the following Gospels are all equivalent with the Gospel of grace ?
1. the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is mentioned four times in the KJV
2. the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is mentioned once in the KJV
3. the Gospel of God, which is mentioned three times in the KJV
4. the Gospel of Christ, which is mentioned ten times in the KJV
5. the Gospel of his Son, which is mentioned one time in the KJV
6. the Gospel of peace, which is mentioned twice in the KJV
7. Have you heard of the Gospel of the circumcision, which is mentioned once in the KJV
8. the Gospel of the uncircumcision, which is mentioned once in the KJV
9. the Gospel of your salvation, which is mentioned once in the KJV
10. "the Gospel" by itself, which is also found in the KJV

[MHGinTN]

IF you've heard it, you had better following and be born from above ... as one old man to another, you're runnin' out of chances.

Jesus gave Nicodemus the Essence of The Gospel of Grace in John 3. Raed it, paying special attention to what Jesus explained for the serpent on the pole in the desert. If you know that scene, ANY who had the faith to look at the brass snake were healed of the poison. Sin nature is poison. As Jesus said, the work of God/work that God requires is to believe in the One Whom He sent for your salvation. You can't earn that Grace. You can only accept it or reject it and keep 'striving to obtain salvation someday, after following the sacramental trail of the religion of catholiciism. Institutionalization will not, cannot, and should not save you because your salvation must glorify Jesus your Redeemer, never you for your striving.

[af_vet_1981]

IF you've heard it, you had better following...

Thank you, and you also, whether you have heard or read this, you had better heed it:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luke, Catholic chapter sixteen, Protestant verses nineteen to thirty one,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
boldness mine

[Mark17]

Hey bro, when Jesus told Nicodemas in John 3:3 that a man cannot see the kingdom of God, unless he is born again, do you suppose if a man is NOT born again, he goes automatically to Hell?

[imardmd1]

You might want to include the Everlasting Gospel:

"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having
the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the
earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
Saying with a loud voice,

'Fear God, and give glory to him;
for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven, and earth,
and the sea, and the fountains of waters' "

(Rev 14:6-7 AV).

You might also want to include the προευηγγελισατο (proeuangelisato = pregospel) unto Abram:

"He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and
worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the
law, or by the hearing of faith?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him
for righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
^(But)For as many as are of the works of the law are under the
curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth
not in all things which are written in the book of
the law to do them" (Gal. 3:5-10 AV; see Gen.12:2-3).

The Gospel preached unto Abram/Abraham was that salvation is by faith apart from one's own works. As Matthew Henry writes:

"The apostle proves the doctrine he had blamed the Galatians for rejecting; namely, that of justification by faith without the works of the law. This he does from the example of Abraham, whose faith fastened upon the word and promise of God, and upon his believing he was owned and accepted of God as a righteous man. The Scripture is said to foresee, because the Holy Spirit that indited the Scripture did foresee. Through faith in the promise of God he was blessed; and it is only in the same way that others obtain this privilege.

Let us then study the object, nature, and effects of Abraham's faith; for who can in any other way escape the curse of the holy law? The curse is against all sinners, therefore against all men; for all have sinned, and are become guilty before God: and if, as transgressors of the law, we are under its curse, it must be vain to look for justification by it. Those only are just or righteous who are freed from death and wrath, and restored into a state of life in the favour of God; and it is only through faith that persons become righteous.

Thus we see that justification by faith is no new doctrine, but was taught in the church of God, long before the times of the gospel. It is, in truth, the only way wherein any sinners ever were, or can be justified. Though deliverance is not to be expected from the law, there is a way open to escape the curse, and regain the favour of God, namely, through faith in Christ.

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law; being made sin, or a sin-offering, for us, he was made a curse for us; not separated from God, but laid for a time under the Divine punishment. The heavy sufferings of the Son of God, more loudly warn sinners to flee from the wrath to come, than all the curses of the law; for how can God spare any man who remains under sin, seeing that he spared not his own Son, when our sins were charged upon him? Yet at the same time, Christ, as from the cross, freely invites sinners to take refuge in him."

I don't know about your story on the various gospels, AFV, but here's the real one, titled "WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?" (click here). It's in HTML. You can probably just highlight it, and cut it and paste it into a good word processor to read it.

But for your information, it's crucially important that you get the idea that the Bible says that a human's acceptance by God as His child only requires that he/she admits of his/her innate sinful character governs one's thoughts and actions, and is willing to turn from that life by yielding oneself totally and forever into the care of God's Son, the Jesus of the Bible, by trusting in God's promise that the yieldedness will result in the birth of a new spiritual person in the old human shell, never to be misused or forsaken.

That's one way of understanding the Gospel, the joyous news that salvation is free and instantaneous, with no guilt attached, sins gone, forgiven an forgotten by God, with spiritual growth to follow.

It also means leaving old false concepts of Jesus and The Father, and its religious system, as well as abandoning a false burden of having to slave away in "good" works to obtain a final ticket for Heaven; and instead freely entering into loving fellowship with the truly regenerated followers of The Lord and Christ in a local assembly of fellow believers, one which has been gathered by the Holy Spirit, delivered from the wrath of God, for the new convert's individual benefit and fruitful discipleship into spiritual maturity in the new life.

Jesus' promise for the reborn disciple is that upon physical death, as He promised the repentant and forgiven malefactor on Calvary with Him: "This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise."

No Purgatory, no further condemnation, but rather peace in Him.

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; for the Law of the Spirit--of Life in Christ Jesus--has made us free from the Law of Sin, and Death." (Romans 8:1-2;physical, spiritual, and eternal death is the wages of sin).

[MHGinTN]

You’re not listening, you’re lobbying. GOD does not recognize lobbying, HE deals in truth not excuses.

[MHGinTN]

Sorry, the light blue is too difficult for my old eyes. I'm sure you mean well, but as I've mentioned on a few occasions, that light blue is diificult to track on a computer screen, so thanks for the ping, but I'll have to just pass on a response to your effort.

I kept asking if you had hear the gospel, not if you had read the term in the Bible. Your 'appeal to technical' indicates that you have not yet heard The Gospel of Grace. That is what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost, that is what Peter preached int eh House of Cornelius, and that is what Paul and Barnabas and Silas and Timothy, etc. preached. That simple message of God's Grace in Christ sent to be our redeemer, which results in spiritual new birth or rejection of His saving Grace, well it is that message which is The Gospel of Grace toward us.

When you hear that simple message of the Gospel of Grace toward you, either you accept it and get born from above right then and there, or you do not accept it and continue to strive, massaging your self-worth, thinking you can work your way to worthiness.

Have you hear the Gospel of Grace yet?

[af_vet_1981]

Sorry, the light blue is too difficult for my old eyes. I'm sure you mean well, but as I've mentioned on a few occasions, that light blue is diificult to track on a computer screen, so thanks for the ping, but I'll have to just pass on a response to your effort.

Ok, you pass

I kept asking if you had hear the gospel, not if you had read the term in the Bible. you had hear the gospel, not if you had read the term in the Bible. Your 'appeal to technical' indicates that you have not yet heard The Gospel of Grace.

False; mind reading does not indicate what you have written. I gave you the scriptural answer. I listed gospels in the scriptures and asked you the question, do you think all those gospels are equivalent with the gospel of grace ? It's a simple question.

[af_vet_1981]

Yes to the former (everlasting gospel), the latter was included under 10.

Do you think the gospels I listed, and the one you listed (everlasting gospel) are all equivalent to the gospel of grace ?

[MHGinTN]

So you can tell me and the readers what is the Gospel of Grace in Christ Jesus? Why don’t you tell us. That is one of the work assignments for those already born from above don’tchaknow.

[af_vet_1981]

Can you answer my question ? Were you able to read it ?

[MHGinTN]

Am I able to answer your twisted question? Yes, and it is very simple once you have availed your soul of the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ. In fact, imardmd1 answered it and you missed the answer!

"... do you think all those gospels are equivalent with the gospel of grace ?"

ANS:

1.the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is mentioned four times in the KJV This is a part of the Gospel of God's Grace for as the Bible tells you, a man cannot see the Kingdom until he is born from above. See John 3, Jesus to Nicodemus

2.the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is mentioned once in the KJV Jesus IS the Grace of God offered to you

3.the Gospel of God, which is mentioned three times in the KJV Jesus is God with us, so the Gospel of God with us offering His redemption because HE IS GOD making the Grace offer thus He is HIS Gospel.

4.the Gospel of Christ, which is mentioned ten times in the KJV I find it odd that you would disconnect this as if this reference is something other than The Gospel.

5.the Gospel of his Son, which is mentioned one time in the KJVSame thing, odd for you to try and make this something different than God offering to you Redemption!

6.the Gospel of peace, which is mentioned twice in the KJV JESUS IS the Peace of God being offered to you

7.Have you heard of the Gospel of the circumcision, which is mentioned once in the KJVIF you were familiar with Paul's teaching, he explains this one for you ... the circumcision is of the heart! Have you opened your heart

8.the Gospel of the uncircumcision, which is mentioned once in the KJV Have you figured out yet that those of the uncircumcision are to be included in the circumcision of the heart by faith in Jesus as the One Jesus sent for your redemption?

9.the Gospel of your salvation, which is mentioned once in the KJV THIS IS referring to the Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ!

10."the Gospel" by itself, which is also found in the KJV Here is a clue for you and your twisted questioning: The Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ encompasses ALL the gospels you have sought to technicality sequester from the Gospel you apparently cannot articulate!

Now, have you heard The Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ? Why don't you state it for us ...

[af_vet_1981]

The Gospel of the Grace of God in Christ encompasses ALL the gospels you have sought to technicality sequester from the Gospel you apparently cannot articulate!

Thank you for your answer. Regarding the more than ten designations of the gospel, it seems to me your complaint is with the author(s) of the New Testament and the KJV translations. You have answered that they are all describing the same gospel. There are Protestants who think otherwise. For example, they teach that the gospel of the kingdom that the Messiah taught in the synoptic gospels is different from the gospel of grace that Paul preached. They do not accept an obligation to obey the Messiah as they exclude themselves from that gospel as if it doesn't apply to them.

[MHGinTN]

BTW, IF you do write for us The Gospel of The Grace of GOD in Christ Jesus, please don't do it in light blue. ;^)

[af_vet_1981]

What you call “light blue” is actually named “royalblue” in HTML and I use it for the scriptures out of respect. I’m scarcely aware that some people are color blind to some extent and don’t know which colors are difficult for them to distinguish.

[imardmd1]

True from the perspective in that History already settled the debate.

The Scripture record of Jesus' particularly chosen words was that He did not offer them up for debate. They were a memo describing the context and his intent with figurative-literal language to draw attention to His Authority and the rock-solid unbreakable foundational principle upon which His authority would be exercised through the assembled and organized bodies, each of which He was the Head, Lord, and Master at that moment, as well as throughout the continuing generations to come.

He was not debating with Simon as to who was that Head. The specificity of the demontrative pronoun "this" in number, case, and gender refers to the figurative indestructible doctrinal statement, "Thou art the Messiah"; which was already assumed and known by all the disciples in company with Jesus.

Jesus indicated that The Father had given this concept to Simon, but He did not say just when this truth had been imparted to the group Simon was in. It cannot be said that this was a novel idea just then crystallizing in Peter's mind, because the idea was already known and acted upon, the basis of their association with Jesus as Rabbi and ring-leader, they thought a leader to overcome the hated Gentile domination.

What we can say is that Simon, without the trepidation and cautionary hesitation of his fellow disciples, was outspoken in declaring the accepted fact. That is all. Simon was not the rock-like doctrine of massive import upon which Jesus was to build his vast spiritual house of human disciples.

Nor, actually, was Simon quite so incautious as to His belief in Jesus as Messiah on the night of Jesus' trial, was he? Why do you think he wept bitterly after his six denials of The Christ/Messiah within three hours of verbal challenges by the staff of the high priests? Regarding your claim, the only debate in history about this vignette is the gross misuse of Levi's passage, by reading into it something that is not there--eisegesis--whilst obscuring that which is plainly and grammatically there--via proper exegesis--and understood by all present and all those to whom the document was addressed.

It is worthy of note that neither the account of John Mark (Peter's disciple; Mk. 8:27) nor that of Luke (Paul's disciple; Lk. 9:18) made much of Simon Peter's role, either positive or negative. Peter merely vocalized the belief that all present had in common. Jesus asked, "But whom say y'all that I am?" To which Peter obstreporously answered, before anyone else could open their mouth, "The Messiah of God!"

Please take a moment to consider that when Jesus indicated that when he said Simon would be delegated keys and a measure of authority to bind and loose, He most certainly did not day that it was to Peter alone that these administrative duties would be delegated (compare Mt. 18:18 which is plural); else why at the time of the last supper would they still be arguing as to which of them would be the greatest in what they presumed would be an ecclesiastical episcopacy?

But, of course, that was not then, and never has been the form of church polity that Jesus' true church would ever take.

An episcopacy is the form of the anti-christ's church government, according to what I read (2 Thess 2:3,4; Rev. 2:6,13:8,12-16).