Posted on 12/23/2010 11:08:38 AM PST by marshmallow
Trust what the Bible clealy says and beware those who twist and turn scripture for their own ends. It is the BIBLE that is the Word of God...not what men (even revered men) say about it.
The Church Fathers come as an unpleasant surprise to many people.
"Too long.......", "Irrelevant......", "......Unbiblical", are just some of the throw away lines used to dismiss them summarily.
"Irrefutable" is the word which applies.
Why in the world would that change anything you believe about Christ?
Yes, I know that, but the imagery in Revelation 12 specifically says that pain accompanied the birth of the child. Now, it’s pretty straightforward here. Roman dogma says that Mary gave birth without pain. In fact they teach that there was no damage whatsoever to her birth canal, no tearing of her hymen, etc. If that’s all true, why then should be believe that Revelation 12 is about Mary who suffered no pain according to Romish mythology.
>>Much too detailed and scholarly for the usual “da Bible sez.........” style of argument...<<
Yeah, I was waiting for that particular ad-hominem.
Have you never been to college or read a non-fiction book? All sorts of idiocy is masked under a thick film of “detailed and scholarly”.
And you are rejecting the bible a little too easily. I mean, the bible actually DOES say. It is intellectually dishonest to believe an interpretation of bible scriptures solely because you think the interpreter is “More educated than you”.
“Of education, knowledge and wisdom, the greatest is wisdom and the least is education.” - Robroy
>>Important to the Church Fathers, certainly. <<
Why?
Seriously. Why is it so important for some to believe that Mary was perpetually virgin? What Christian precepts does it nullify if she had relations with Joseph after Jesus’ birth?
God wants heaven to be full with the children of the believers. For the believers themselves to “forgo” having children so that can be “more” holy is perverse. Non are righteous, except by the blood of Jesus. Whether we marry or not does not in one wit effect our “Holiness”. It is only effected by our relationship to Jesus.
In exactly the same way that the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin is important to the truth, and with just as much relevence.
Yes, I know that.
And I've explained that "the woman" is the Church. And the Child is those whom the Church brings forth.
All you're saying is that you disagree.
Any thoughts on Jerome?
The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary's virginal integrity during the birth. In other words, her Hymen didn't break. St. Augustine said "Jesus passed through the womb of Mary as a ray of sun passes through glass"....This was confirmed by Pope Paul IV and many others before and after. If Jesus emerged from a sealed tomb, and passed through closed doors, surely he could pass through Mary's womb without breaking her hymen and causing her pain.Excerpted from the article:
Did Mary Have a Bunch of Kids? Mary's perpetual virginity before, during and after Jesus' birthSee also the much longer and heavily footnoted study:
THE VIRGINITY OF OUR LADY IN PARTU: The Painless, Miraculous Birth of Our Lord Jesus Christ
And the prophet Litekeeper has no agenda either.
>>Why in the world would that change anything you believe about Christ?<<
I was seeing a thick, gooey layer of sarcasm in Mr. K’s post.
Move along, these are not the droids you are looking for...
>>In fact they teach that there was no damage whatsoever to her birth canal, no tearing of her hymen, etc. <<
In sales that is called a “Big Fat Claim” (BFC). It is a very effective tool, IF YOU CAN PROVE IT.
;)
What a horribly non-Christian view of marriage Jerome had! I wonder how someone who spent as much time thinking about theological things could think so poorly of the one human institution ordained by God before the fall of man.
Matthew 1:24-25 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
It is very clear from the original greek words, they had normal marital relations, but had children. They weren’t cousins. Words mean things and there’s no reason to use the greek word ‘firstborn’ in the context of Jesus’ birth except to denote the order of birth. If he’s an only child Scripture would say “only” rather than “firstborn”, as “firstborn” would be misleading.
It doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t change the virgin birth. There’s nothing in the prophecy that the woman who was going to give birth to the Christ would remain a virgin forever. There’s no necessity for it.
“God wants heaven to be full with the children of the believers. For the believers themselves to “forgo” having children so that can be “more” holy is perverse.”
Yet this is what Apostle Paul says:
“An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.”
Is Apostle Paul perverse?
Exactly!
>>The Early Church Fathers are almost unanimous in the assertion that the birth was painless and had no loss of Mary’s virginal integrity during the birth.<<
Where do any of the apostles mention that in the Bible? Where is there any implication of that?
I’m not interested in what “church fathers” say unless they can back it up. Men are fallible. Even well meaning, well educated men.
Yet the apostle Paul scarcely if ever mentions her name let alone her thousand lofty and deifying titles.
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.