Posted on 08/15/2005 9:01:28 AM PDT by Salvation
Hebrew or Aramaic used the same word for "brother", "half brother", and "cousin", so it does not prove that Mary had other children.
A more positive reference to perpetual virginity of Mary is in this prophecy:
2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut(Ezechiel 44:2)
I didn't say I preferred the KJV, I just think the wording of the Magnificat is very poetic; but you are correct it does make a few subtle, yet important changes. However, I think this had more to do with the translator than any attempt at doctrinal revision.
"Where is John the Baptist's and can you prove it's him? This is the dumbest reason to make up a doctrine about Mary that I've ever seen"
Perhaps you didn't know that there are relics of John the Baptist?
Considering Mary was so highly venerated (HONORED!) by Christians, where are those relics? They have relics of other saints. What about Mary?
Regards
bump
How about John 3:13 NIV? "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man."
This would of course apply to Mary also. The book of John was written about the last decade of the 1st century.....so Mary would have been well over 100 years old....if she was still alive at this time.
This would of course apply to Mary also. The book of John was written about the last decade of the 1st century.....so Mary would have been well over 100 years old....if she was still alive at this time.
You seem to have misread this verse. You are confusing the writings of John with the words of the Lord. John is quoting Jesus, and Jesus was clearly speaking in the present tense. It is entirely possible that no one entered the gates of heaven up to that time, though they would upon the Lord's Ascension (a clear indication of Purgatory). The fact that John did not write the Gospel until many decades later does not mean that in the decades that passed, many others had not entered heaven.
See John 3:13 wriiten during the last decade of the 1st century."No one has ever gone to heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man."
Correction, we know because Christ told us. Ignore His word at your peril. Catholicism IS the guardian of the Truth of Christ. Or perhaps the 31,000 Protestant denominations, all of whom disagree on many things, have a better handle on it? I think not. But hey, I'm just going by what Christ said. Do you presume to say you know better than Christ?
To be accurate it is Catholic belief that before the Resurrection Enoch and Elijah would have gone to the Limbo of the Patriarchs, as did the souls of all the Old Testament saints. After the Resurrection of our Lord, Limbo was emptied as the souls of the saints there entered into Heaven. But it must be noted that Enoch and Elijah were taken from the Earth bodily as well as with their souls. Thus now they are in Heaven in both body and soul.
How about these??? Matt. 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus came about. His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but "before they came together", she was found to be with child through the Holy Spririt.
Matt. 1:25 But he had no "union" with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
John 2:12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. (Why mention both brothers and disciples if they were one and the same?)
Acts 1:14 They all joined together constantly in prayer; along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (The previous verse mentions all the disciples..so again, why the specific distinction?)
Matt. 12:46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, waiting to speak with him.(His answer indicated that all his disciples were inside with him...verse 49.)
Luke 2:7 And she gave birth to her "firstborn", a son. She wrapped him in strips of cloth and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
These passages from Holy Scipture are very plain...and this is the reason Mary did not have perpetual virginity. There is much written to indicate she had a very large family. There is nothing written to indicate she was forever a virgin. The only proof from your quarter is your tradition. Your tradition is lacking.
I am not a protestant! Never been one. Don't buy most of what they say either.
As you may (or more likely may not) be aware, there is absolutely no doctrinal foundation for "sola scriptura" anywhere in scripture. In fact it says quite the opposite:
30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
John 20:30-31, NIV
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25, NIV
Clearly this is telling us that everything IS NOT written in the New Testament, and that many other things, which are central to Christian tradition, are not included because they are not necessary to establish the Lord's act of Salvation or Divinity. This does not preclude tradition, in fact John clearly alludes to it.
Perhaps one of the clearest passages AGAINST the notion of "sola scriptura" is this from Peter:
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:15-16
What is obvious from this is that Peter understood that there is a need for tradition and a church hierarchy for the reading and interpretation of scripture.
On occasion, I will read over evangelical Protestant threads on Free Republic and frankly many of the ideas I see put forth on these I find ridiculous, heretical and ignorant; however, I do not presume to insult other Christians by intruding upon their dialog to tell them that they are wrong. Yet invariably, every single Catholic thread which pertains to any matter which Protestants find disagreeable is hijacked and rather than Catholics having the opportunity to partake in the same dialog as other Christians, we invariably have to defend our beliefs. Most of us do not have any problems defending our faith, but the arrogance with which the anti-Catholics refuse to even acknowledge what we are saying is damnably insulting. Bear in mind that the Catholic Church has survived intact and flourished for over 2000 years and yes, there have been mistakes, but we have learned from them repented and moved forward. In contrast Protestanism has been around for slightly less than 500 years. And what has become of the Reformation? There are a handful of "mainstream" denominations which are basically on the verge of collapse over issues such as homosexuality, the ordination of women and even Christ's Divinity; then there are hundreds of splinter groups with no cohesive teachings whatsoever; and it would seem to me, THAT NONE OF THESE GROUPS CAN AGREE ON ANYTHING! If the Bible is so simple to interpret, then surely there should be one interpretation upon which all Protestants can agree, yet they cannot even all agree on which translation of the Bible is valid! And this leaves me with just one final verse to quote (which interestingly enough, Jonathan Edwards used as the theme for one of the most famous sermons ever preached), and I will quote from the King James Version (I find it useful to try to use Protestant tranlations when speaking to Protestants, that way it is more difficult for them to claim that the Catholics have changed scripture):
To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.
Deuteronomy 32:35
Actually, because of your misunderstanding, these passages are not as plain as you think. Matt 1:18 and 1:25 are only referring to Mary's virginity prior to the moments mentioned. The usage however does not imply that her virginity did not continue afterward.
In the various references to "brothers" read "male relatives", which is what would have been understood in Aramaic.
"First born" in Luke 2:7 is a technical term and refers to the requirement that the first born male child must be redeemed from God under the Mosaic Law. It does not indicate that there must be a second born, etc. A male only child is still a "first born".
AMEN!
It may be viewed as insulting by some, but it is the truth!
"...isn't it funny that these "blessings" these people recieve for their "tithes" bear a striking resemblance to the sale of indulgences that the early Protestants were so opposed to (and that the Catholic Church later put a stop to)?"
I haven't thought of it that way! But be careful, there will always be weeds among the wheat.
Regards
Horrible example of a Bible believing "protestant" but you are correct that those slimeballs are way off base...
Greetings...Out of curiousity...Who confirms the relics are actually from the person that they are claimed to be from?
Also, why does no mention of the importance of relics exist in scripture? In fact, I can't find the word "relic" in scripture anywhere. Where/when did relics take on the importance they do in the RCC today?
Thank you for your insight. God Bless
Take away the authority of the living Church and the authority of the canonical books of the Bible becomes no greater than that of the Gnostic scriptures.
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.