Posted on 12/06/2014 3:04:38 PM PST by Salvation
Matt1:11 Josiah begot Jeconiah and his brothers about the time they were carried away to Babylon.
Matt 1:16 And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
Now go to the old testament:
Jer 22:24-30“As I live,” says the LORD, “though Coniahfn the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, were the signet on My right hand, yet I would pluck you off; “and I will give you into the hand of those who seek your life, and into the hand of those whose face you fear—the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the hand of the Chaldeans. “So I will cast you out, and your mother who bore you, into another country where you were not born; and there you shall die. “But to the land to which they desire to return, there they shall not return. “Is this man Coniah a despised, broken idol— A vessel in which is no pleasure? Why are they cast out, he and his descendants, And cast into a land which they do not know? O earth, earth, earth, Hear the word of the LORD! Thus says the LORD: ‘Write this man down as childless, A man who shall not prosper in his days; For none of his descendants shall prosper, Sitting on the throne of David, And ruling anymore in Judah.’ ”
Joseph was of the cursed Jeconiah (Coniah) royal line. Jesus being the adopted son of Joseph was the "first born" (by position) of Joseph but without the blood curse. He was still a son of David through Mary through a non-royal lineage. So Jesus was the son of David with a valid claim to the throne as required by prophesy.
This is the biggest bunch of nonsense and false teaching I've seen you post. There is one part you said that is true....there may be an illusion. There's lots of them in catholicism apparently.
So let's be clear what you're alluding to.
Let's address the "immaculate conception" since that totally disagrees with scripture....not that that has ever bothered catholics.
Paul and Luke are friends. On that we agree.
Paul, a Pharisee by training, who knows the Law and understands the sin offering Mary made according to Luke 2:24 somehow ignores what "we think" the good doctor told him about this.
Paul completely ignores what "we think" Luke also told him when regarding Mary's admission of the need for a savior in Luke 1:47-48 when she says, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior. For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave."
Paul, being a Pharisee of Pharisees, knows Mary is a sinner by these two accounts.
He then goes on to write Romans 3:23, for ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALL SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD.
Yet, he didn't make an exception regarding Mary being sinless in ANY of his writings. Not once did he make even a veiled hint of an exception for Mary. Nor did Luke, Matthew, Mark, John, James, Peter, or Jude make a note on this. For that matter neither did any of the writers of the Old Testament, after the fall, suggest anyone, outside of the Messiah, was free of sin.
Catholics will respond by trying to appeal to the Greek, which I applaud, but they miss the translation of the word, κεχαριτωμένη, used by Luke in his account of the angel Gabriel greeting Mary.
Let's deal with the the greeting first as catholicism has taken that to mean something it is not.
Luke 1:28
And having come in, he said to her, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (NASB)
The Greek for Hail is chaire. It is the present imperative active. Usually the imperative mood is one of command. However, according to Greek scholar, Wallace, the word is used here as a "stereotyped greeting" in which the imperative has suppressed its original injunctive force. The imperative is reduced to an exclamation. This occurs especially in greetings. Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics, p493.
Wallace also translates this passage as Greetings, favored {lady}! The Lord is with you.
So we see this is not a title as catholics claim even if translated as Hail. It is simply a greeting.
The base greek word in question in this passage, charitoo, χαριτόω is a verb. It means God extending Himself to freely bestow grace. It is used twice in the NT. The other usage is in Ephesians 1:6, ἐχαρίτωσεν, where it used as an aorist indicative active. Ephesians 1:5-6 reads as follows. He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.
This is God’s grace being freely bestowed on His children.
The big word catholics pin their hope on in Luke 1:28 is kecharitomene, κεχαριτωμένη. This is a verb acting as a perfect middle/passive participle.
The key to understanding the perfect is that the time is present from the standpoint of the speaker, not necessarily the reader.
The perfect participle carries the same significance that the perfect does in the indicative. It indicates a completed action that has consequences in the present.
To understand this, we have to look at this in terms of time from Luke's perspective. If we do this we'll understand this word and passage much better.
Luke wrote his book around 60 AD. Most scholars agree Christ was born between 6 and 4 BC.
So looking at this from Luke's perspective...remember he's the writer, Mary had already been favored with grace just before she was pregnant with Christ. So somewhere between 6 and 4 BC she was favored with grace by God. This is the past event Luke is recording. This did not occur at her birth. It occurred from Luke's perspective, in the past.
It did not occur at her birth as catholic teaching claims. We have no record of this in the Bible. More importantly, catholics have no record of this either….other than they said so. Recall that Luke, guided by the Holy Spirit, had meticulously researched what he wrote (Luke 1:1-4) so that, as he put it, we would “know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”
So who are we to believe? The good doctor Luke who has thoroughly researched this? Or the catholic church who has just said it happened offering no proof. That it took until 1854 to make this official dogma of the church is telling. If this was that well known beforehand why wasn’t it mentioned by any of the writers of the NT?
The impact of that action, Mary being favored with grace, is being felt in the present. Mary is still blessed. She is still favored with grace. It is something she doesn't lose. Generations still rightly called her blessed.
We've already addressed the issue of Mary remaining a virgin based on the use of the Greek language so I will not repost this again.
It amazes me that catholics still remain wedded to proven false doctrine when confronted with the truth of the Word.
Is it possible that a man and woman might be married but not consummate the marriage? Isn’t that weird? Furthermore, doesn’t it negate the meaning of marriage? Yes, the normal understanding of marriage assumes that the couple will have sexual intercourse and produce children. However, this marriage was unique, and the idea that an older man might be marry a girl in order to look after her, but not have sexual relations is unknown in our society, but in the Middle East it is still accepted that a girl who is an orphan might be ‘adopted’ by an elderly relative or family friend through betrothal and marriage. This gave the girl security and a stable position in the society at a time when there were very few options for a girl other than marriage.
A marriage without sexual relations was accepted for these practical purposes, but there were also members of the Essene sect in first century Judaism who were married, but observed perfect continence within marriage. The husband and wife did not have sexual relations as part of their mutually committed religious vows. Therefore, a marriage without sex–while it seems so strange to us–was not out of the question in the time of Mary and Joseph.
It is difficult in our sex obsessed age to understand what the early Christians meant by perpetual virginity. This was not simply a negative definition. We tend to define this as “Mary never had sex.” The first Christians meant more than that, but not less. For them Mary’s perpetual virginity meant a fullness of goodness–an abundance of natural, simple wholeness and holiness. Mary was a virgin like a primitive forest is “virgin”. She was full and overflowing of natural, simple innocence and purity as a Spring morning or a mountaintop at sunset. The church has always tried to convey this sense of fullness of purity in this definition–not simply the fact that “Mary never had sex.” This is an adolescent, shallow and simplistic understanding. I discuss this idea of purity further in this article: Purity is Power.
Therefore the question which vexes so much of Protestant and Catholic discussion on this matter: “Did Mary have sex with Joseph and bear his children” rather misses the point. It focusses on the simple definition and debaters go around and around over the issue. The physical question is important because facts matter, but the meaning and implication of the perpetual virginity is much more important.
The physical virginity of the Blessed Virgin was preserved in order to retain and make obvious the Virgin Birth of Christ. If Mary had had children by Joseph everyone would have assumed that Jesus was his son conceived out of wedlock. Any idea of a miraculous virgin birth would have been inconceivable if Mary had had other children. Furthermore, the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin is a sign–not that there is anything wrong with marital sexual relations, or that there is something “dirty” about sex, but because, by remaining a virgin Mary is identifying more closely with her Son, and showing a “better way” of celibacy for the kingdom.
To explain this doctrine to a Protestant we should say, “The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin show us the first person who has vowed herself completely and utterly to Christ. Her love is given to no other person. She shows the way of complete and total goodness and shows us what it means to be completely redeemed by Christ.”
Pretty strange to single out four "brothers" and "sisters" when the translation could mean any number of thousands of people... ?
Carry on with your traditions...
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/1-25.htm
"καὶ ouk ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν;"
ἕως is the greek preposition "until."
And this from the "Greek Expositors Bible":
"ἕως does not settle the question. It is easy to cite instances of its use as fixing a limit up to which a specified event did not occur, when as a matter of fact it did not occur at all. E.g., Genesis 8:7; the raven returned not till the waters were dried up; in fact, never returned (Schanz)."
There are number of commentaries discussing the use of the word until and this question.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/1-25.htm
Good studying!
Unless Joseph was older and had previously been married and these were Jesus’ older half brothers.
That’s a possibility, but you would think as much as that time period was orally and written by multiple people and historians that fact would at least be hinted at or referenced in some form or fashion...
I think I will stick with ocams razor...
We? I locate it just fine, thank you, in the word that Gabriel used to salute blessed Mary, kecharitomene, which Jerome quite correctly rendered into Latin as "full of grace". It means that Mary was already "graced" in a completed and past act. And remember that the angel came directly from the throne of God, and addressed her that way as though it was her name.
Catholics say it occurred at her conception, not at her birth. Her conception is past to Luke, as is her birth, as is her lunch the day before.
It is absolutely correct that Luke does not tell you exactly when Mary was completely graced as a completed and past act. However, since there is no question that original sin is present in all other humans (since Adam and Eve) from conception, it is at least perfectly reasonable and consistent with the scriptures to suppose that that past date, when Mary was perfectly and completely graced, was in fact at the moment of her conception.
There is a further argument here that doesn't involve /kecharitomene/. It's the argument from the Law. Jesus bound himself to keep the Law perfectly, including the commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother". Yet, uniquely, he himself created his own mother. How can you reconcile creating his mother in a state of sin and enmity with God, while simultaneously "honoring" her perfectly in keeping with the demands of the Law?
If you could have created your own mother, would you have created her as an enemy of God and a slave of Satan? Would that have been "honoring" her? I don't think so!
James and Joses are identified elsewhere in the Scriptures as the sons of a man named "Alphaeus". The Gospels call James and Judas (not the Iscariot) Jesus' "brothers" in one place, but in another, it's clear that Judas is actually James' son. None of Jesus' "brothers and sisters" are ever identified as sons or daughters of Mary.
” I locate it just fine, thank you, in the word that Gabriel used to salute blessed Mary, kecharitomene, which Jerome quite correctly rendered into Latin as “full of grace”.”
Not so much. We discussed that on FR already this week. Mary was a recipient of the unmerited grace of God by being chosen to bear Messiah. That was a finished act of God. It does not mean Mary was born immaculate.
If you wish to believe that, no problem. It just isn’t in the Greek word, or the context, or in prophecy. Christ alone was born without sin.
Such Roman Catholic scholars miss the mark by claiming that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, his FOUR (half) brothers (Matt 13:55), were not, else we should be worshiping the SONS of God, rather than the SON of God! Other references to Jesus half-brothers and half-sisters occur in Matthew 12:46, Luke 8:19, Mark 3:31, Matthew 13:56, John 7:1-10, Acts 1:14 and Galatians 1:19.
Some claim that these men were cousins, yet in the Greek, there are separate words for 'cousin' and 'brother', yet in each case, the word for 'brother' is used. AFA the idea that His brothers were from Joseph's previous marriage, where is the Biblical evidence? They are not mentioned in Joseph and Mary’s trip to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-7) or their trip to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-15) or their trip back to Nazareth (Matthew 2:20-23).
In the first paragraph of the article, it states, "The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception was declared in 1854, and is based on Catholic Tradition & the following information." Therein lies the problem!
Mark 7:6-8 reads, "He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’
You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”
While Jesus was talking of the Pharisees, the same can be said for ALL man-made traditions since, by our very nature, we ARE evil, or as Calvin put it, totally depraved. Such depravity affects ALL our actions, to one degree or another, including our man-made traditions.
You're basing the remainder of your argument on what ifs and doesn't it seem which is a very dangerous line of thinking.
Again, if this were the exception we should have record of it from one of the writers of the NT to clearly address this. That we don't is the key.
Where does scripture say Mary was not immaculately conceived?
You claim there's disagreement where there is none.
Scripture never said you or I would be born; but it happened anyway.
-——James and Joses are identified elsewhere in the Scriptures as the sons of a man named “Alphaeus”.-——
Please kindly point out where....
I cannot seem to recall such a passage....in Scripture...
The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the conception of Christ....the dogma declares that Mary herself was conceived without original sin.
Your post 34 is without any logic or reason. Go back and read my post on this. I think the tide is out on these issues.
Go sleep it off.
I think you are confused, you must be thinking of either Sola Scriptura, or Sola fidei, or perhaps both.
You are wrong.
Where did the posted article mention the Immaculate Conception?
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.