Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ460.HTM ^ | Dave Armstrong compiles quotes from Martin Luther, John Calvin, et al.,

Posted on 06/24/2003 3:49:56 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last
To: Hermann the Cherusker
Although, I must say that my wife use to be Catholic and she says that is not what she was taught.
51 posted on 06/25/2003 10:44:43 AM PDT by ACAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
What's the big surprise about Calvin, Luther etc.? "Mystery Babylon", "the Mother of Harlots" has daughters". They're just cut from the same "Torahless" mold.
52 posted on 06/25/2003 10:49:20 AM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I presume you're referring to this part of the passage:

"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. [] But he replied to the man who told him, 'Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?'And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!' For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother;" (Matt. 12:46-50).

I don't recall ever saying this passage "dovetails" with the historic Christian teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity. Also, as I demonstrated before, Scripture is silent about whether Mary had other children besides Christ, one way or the other. This passage and the others like it that mention the "brothers" of the Lord (e.g. Matt. 13: 55-56, etc.) don't resolve the issue, again, either for or against the doctrine. At best, this passage shows that some close followers of Christ were called "brothers." They may have been cousins, they may have been step-brothers (i.e. from an earlier marriage of St. Joseph, though there are some problems with that theory), or they may have been close friends. After all, James and Joses are called "brothers" of the Lord in Matthew 13, but we know that they were not the sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but sons of another Mary, the wife of Cleophas (cf. John 19). That's a good example of a non-literal use of the word brother.

I'm not really sure what mileage you think can be gained from Matthew 12.

I guess the best response for the moment would be to quote John Calvin on this subject (see above). If you, like Helvidius, deny the Historic Christian teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity, well, I guess Calvin's words here apply to you just as aptly:

"The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation."

and . . .

"Helvidius [or add alternative name here:____________________] displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned."

Calvin was wrong about a lot of things, but he got it right on this one.
53 posted on 06/25/2003 10:58:30 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: A_Thinker
In other words, I can choose Anarchy or Authority? In the Anarchy of Protestantism, it is impossible to tell anyone they are wrong. After all, its just their interpretation of Scripture. It sure can't be any better or worse than yours.

How can Protestants correct errors without some reference to objective truths? They cannot possibly know they are not simply accepting new errors. Don't appeal to the Bible on me now. There are a zillion different interpretations by Protestants, and you've already granted that every believer may simply look at the Bible and come away from it with whatever he will.

Where is the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in all truth (John 14) in this scheme you propose?

54 posted on 06/25/2003 11:29:35 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: A_Thinker
In other words, I can choose Anarchy or Authority? In the Anarchy of Protestantism, it is impossible to tell anyone they are wrong. After all, its just their interpretation of Scripture. It sure can't be any better or worse than yours.

How can Protestants correct errors without some reference to objective truths? They cannot possibly know they are not simply accepting new errors. Don't appeal to the Bible on me now. There are a zillion different interpretations by Protestants, and you've already granted that every believer may simply look at the Bible and come away from it with whatever he will.

Where is the Holy Ghost confirming the Church in all truth (John 14) in this scheme you propose?

55 posted on 06/25/2003 11:31:01 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ACAC
What Catechism was she taught growing up?
56 posted on 06/25/2003 11:31:39 AM PDT by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; drstevej; Wrigley; CCWoody
don't resolve the issue, again, either for or against the doctrine

Oh please this game your playing is growing old quickly. You deny the obvious, instead turning to Calvin as a protestant road flare as an attempt to lend credibility to the nonsensical notion that Matt 12:46 is anything except literal.

Odd, how he is regarded as a heretic until it suits the Catholic argument

All too amusing

thanks for the laughs

57 posted on 06/25/2003 11:33:19 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; LiteKeeper
Well, Tradition and Scripture have the Pope being married. Let's examine RC doctrine under the same microscope....
58 posted on 06/25/2003 11:33:39 AM PDT by Gamecock (PCA flavored Swarming Calvinist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
"Oh please this game your playing is growing old quickly."

(Chuckle)The only reason you call it a "game" is because you can't win it.
59 posted on 06/25/2003 11:35:58 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
(Chuckle)The only reason you call it a "game" is because you can't win it.

awful quick to answer.. now - No, rather weve seen it all too often from newbies, particularly those that have had information published and consider themselves authorotative in some regards.

Pleasant day Mr. Madrid

60 posted on 06/25/2003 11:39:51 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Revelation 911
(Chuckle)The only reason you call it a "game" is because you can't win it.

If it starts raining, drop your head or you'll drown.

BigMack

61 posted on 06/25/2003 11:40:33 AM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The scriptures are the objective final authority for Protestants.

Truth proclaimed orally has no edge over truth proclaimed in writing. Both are subject to mis-interpetation.

However, truth proclaimed in writing is, at least, verifiable, from one point in time to another.

Even if I am not sure that I am interpreting a written teaching correctly (and the Holy Spirit will act at this point to teach truth to the receptive heart), ... at least I know that the actual teachings themselves have not changed.

True, I can ascertain the consistency of tradition as well, but to do so ... I still have no choice but to look to the writtn record of such (bringing in yet more risk of incorrect interpretation).

So, ... if I am going to do this (place my faith in the written record) anyway, I may as well go all the way back to the recorded words of God, Himself.

62 posted on 06/25/2003 11:43:44 AM PDT by A_Thinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Please allow me to add to this posting ...

The scriptures are the objective final authority for Protestants.

Truth proclaimed orally has no edge over truth proclaimed in writing. Both are subject to mis-interpetation.

However, truth proclaimed in writing is, at least, verifiable, from one point in time to another.

Even if I am not sure that I am interpreting a written teaching correctly (and the Holy Spirit will act at this point to teach truth to the receptive heart), ... at least I know that the actual teachings themselves have not changed.

True, I can ascertain the consistency of tradition as well, but to do so ... I still have no choice but to look to the writtn record of such (bringing in yet more risk of incorrect interpretation).

So, ... if I am going to do this (place my faith in the written record) anyway, I may as well go all the way back to the recorded words of God, Himself, which He, Himself, will help me to interpret.

63 posted on 06/25/2003 11:47:21 AM PDT by A_Thinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
So speedy replies and being published count against one here?

911, rather than get huffy and walk away from a perectly good discussion, why don't you simply tackle what I wrote in #53? If I made a mistake in my reasoning in that comment, the neighborly thing would be to show me, now wouldn't it?
64 posted on 06/25/2003 11:48:11 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
why don't you simply tackle what I wrote in #53?

at what benefit ? your snide tone has exposed your motive - Youve danced around my assertions and now (as a literalist) insist that a plain reading of Matt 12:46 is inappropriate, yet Catholics turn around and do the same thing with Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 as they relate to the Holy communion

Nah - no thanks

65 posted on 06/25/2003 12:10:38 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: A_Thinker
So if God helps you interpret scripture one way, and helps the man sitting in the next pew interpret it another way, where do you turn? How do you determine who God is helping more?

v.
66 posted on 06/25/2003 12:11:51 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Revelation 911
Wait! I see a hole lifting in the fog!

The Catholic Church contends that Mary had no other children after bearing Jesus.

"The Blessed Virgin had no child other than Jesus. Such is, and has ever been, the faith of the Church, whom Christ has promised to assist till the end of time" (Any Questions?, p. 63). [ I must be careful to point out that this teaching WAS NOT the teaching of the church in the days of the Apostles. The phrase "has ever been the faith of the Church" is entirely false.]
"... the glorious ever Virgin Mary" (Vatican II documents, "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church").

What is the biblical evidence for this dogma? There is none – absolutely none. The doctrine is a matter of dogmatic assumption unmixed with any alloy of factual evidence.

The Catholic defense for the dogma of Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is as barren as one will ever encounter in a religious controversy.

But the reality of the matter is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save that of its own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own rules, has become its own “god”. It is a sad reality that numerous people, quite noble in many respects, should sincerely, though uncritically, follow an autocratic system that stands so adverse to divinely revealed truth.

The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is bereft of any reasonable evidence. It is an ancient superstition that has been thrust upon sincere souls who have been taught to never question the voice of the Church. Many of these good people, however, are now reviewing their faith with a more critical eye. May their tribe increase.

Posted proudly with my nose in the air!!!

:)

BigMack

67 posted on 06/25/2003 12:38:55 PM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Where as the doctrine of sola scriptura is plainly laid out in Scripture...

snort, choltle hahahah.

68 posted on 06/25/2003 1:04:51 PM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: conservonator
snort, choltle hahahah.

Ya need a bucket? :)

BigMack

69 posted on 06/25/2003 1:06:42 PM PDT by PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
You said, "your snide tone has exposed your motive - Youve danced around my assertions and now ..."


Actually, I was not being snide, I was being direct. If I came across as snide, I certainly apologize, as that was not my intention.

As for dancing, no, I think everyone here can see that I was the one who answered your questions, showing that Matthew 12, like Matthew 13, shows simply that some men were called the "brothers of the Lord." I also showed that the fact that someone is called the brother of the Lord does not thereby prove that Mary had other children besides Christ.

Please recall that I have never said that the Bible proves my case. I've freely admitted that tyhe Bible does not explicitly say that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I also showed that the Bible likewise does not prove your case, since, conversely, it does not anywhere say that Mary was *not* a perpetual virgin. (BTW, If you think you can find a verse that does explicitly say that, I welcome your posting it here for our consideration.)

Also, I gave three examples of reasonable, literal interpretations of Matthew 12 & 13, none of which would entail that Mary had other children.

And finally, I pointed out that in Matthew 13 two of them men who were called "brothers of the Lord" were not the sons of Mary the mother of Jesus, but were sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas.

Elsewhere in the earlier thread, others have explained in detail the implicit biblical evidence in favor of Mary's perpetual virginity. You, on the other hand, haven't responded to any of that evidence, mine or theirs, with any kind of meaningful biblical defense. All you have done is complain that I am "dancing around" your assertions.

The fact is, I've restricted myself to the scriptural and historical evidence and asked you to show where and how I made a mistake in my reasoning. I've also documented the fact that even major Protestant reformers and Bible scholars like Calvin and Luther (not to mention the universal unanimity among the early Church Fathers on this issue), agree with the Catholic teaching on the perpetual virginity of Mary.

So, my friend, if you call that "dancing around your assertions," well, I'm at a loss to know what more you would want me to do in the way of offering objective evidence in support of the Catholic position. I think I'm being fair here.

Could it be that you are backing away from this conversation, not because of something I've done (or failed to do), but because you see that your argument this historic Christian teaching isn't holding up so well now that we've examined it in the light of Scripture and Christian history? Forgive me for being blunt, but that's certainly how it looks to me.
70 posted on 06/25/2003 1:16:43 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; drstevej
Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter).

Paging DrSteveJ. You've taken me to task for similar statements about the Trinity. How about discussing this with Patrick?

71 posted on 06/25/2003 1:24:13 PM PDT by Polycarp (Free Republic: Where Apatheism meets "Conservatism.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
The one the Catholic church puts out I assume. This is a 95% Protestant area. I think the Catholic churches are a bit more lax in terms of teaching the Catholic church is the only way. I have never heard any Catholic say that. If you are Catholic, but almost everyone else you know is not, it is hard to believe they are going to burn in Hell.
72 posted on 06/25/2003 1:27:25 PM PDT by ACAC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
....But the reality of the matter is this: the Catholic clergy believes its needs no authority – save that of its own pontificating voice. It creates its own dogma, writes its own rules, has become its own “god”....

As opposed to all the Protestants becoming their own "gods" by putting personal interpretation in what they read.

It just is starting to seem like they are not so much followers of the Word, but followers of the Book. The Word had two feet and walked around Galilee for a bit. There is a whole lot more to the Word than the Book.
73 posted on 06/25/2003 1:29:02 PM PDT by Seraphicaviary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; drstevej; Polycarp
Please. Surely you can see that just because the Bible doesn't contain a single explicit statement regarding the doctrine of the Trinity or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (there are plenty of implicit evidences for theme, yes, but nothing explicit -- just as with Mary's post-partun virginity) that does not mean that they are not important to God.

And don't forget, Becky, that the Bible is absolutely silent on the extent of the canon of the NT (the OT too, for that matter).

Absolutely. I agree with everything above except for the "plenty of implicit evedences" part.

74 posted on 06/25/2003 1:31:03 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ventana
So if God helps you interpret scripture one way, and helps the man sitting in the next pew interpret it another way, where do you turn? How do you determine who God is helping more?

You speak as one who knows not the scriptures ... for God has said ...
"I am the Lord, I change not ..."
So, God doesn't help us to develop different interpretations, ... God helps us to truth.

Now, at times, He's got to deal with our own predjudices, which will distort His truth. But, not to worry, ... God is faithful ... and will deliver His truth to the open heart.

75 posted on 06/25/2003 1:40:14 PM PDT by A_Thinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Hermann the Cherusker
Sirs.

I have very much appreciated both of your posts over the last several days. I have found you both to be insightful, unflappable, unbaitable, and coherent.

Well done.

And Patrick, I hope you can find time to spare, and continue to share your gift with us. Welcome to FR.

I would also like to direct the interested readers attention to another treatment of the RC/NC Mary debate, also from Envoy, where a conversation is had between an NC talk show host and an RC call-in. Its a great read.

v.

76 posted on 06/25/2003 1:58:39 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain
Got one;)
77 posted on 06/25/2003 2:06:07 PM PDT by conservonator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: A_Thinker
Well I certainly wish I knew the scriptures better, but I don't feel you are getting my point.
If two men in the same church have differing interpretations of the same scripture. We may assume that God is helping you to be correct, but what of your neighbor?

Driving through the south, I have often been sadly amused by very small towns containing what appears to be a series of diminishing churches. I have imagined a scenario much like what I proposed to you. Two men, both convinced God is on their side, with no magisterium or teaching tradition to be their storm anchor, dividing the parish and forming yet another of the thousands of Protestant denominations formed since vain men first thought God spoke more clearly to them than He did to the current holders of the Keys to the Kingdom.

It is more than likely that we are wrong than right when we seek to raise ourselves over the great minds, holy and true, who have rightly divided the Word of God and preserved it for us in the teaching traditions of the Church.

Surely you don't think it is profitable for a man to break from his Church, and form a new one, when he has made an all-too-human error in judgement, do you? And I can't believe you think all the thousands of Churches are each correct in dividing Gods word.

Rather, it is a tragedy that following the breaking of those first key threads, those who left with Luther et al continue to further unravel into the deepening error of unguided personal interpretation.

v.
78 posted on 06/25/2003 2:19:58 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Hermann the Cherusker; ventana
Yes. Welcome to you both. I don't know what all the hoopla surrounding your entrance was because your contribution was nothing different than what we've heard a hundred times before on this subject. But its nice to have new people around. Welcome.
79 posted on 06/25/2003 2:40:42 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Thanks, Invince. You're right that this stuff has been heard hundreds of times here, and subjects like this one have been debated millions of times since the time of Christ. But just the mere fact that truth claims are debated and debated frequently doesn't mean those claims aren't important.

For example, there are those who argue today that the Holocaust never happened. Others argue that abortion should be legal. Those are claims that are well worth debating and refuting. And if five hundred years from now some are denying the Holocaust of saying abortion should be legal, I hope the debate will be joined by those who will spend time and energy refuting those claims.

So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.
80 posted on 06/25/2003 2:57:31 PM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; RobbyS
So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

Yes I agree. P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.

You missed it? Must happen so much you don't even notice it. Ask Robby. I thought soon he was going to ask for your autograph. :-)

81 posted on 06/25/2003 3:01:23 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; RobbyS
So don't wonder that these Catholic issues are being debated here, as they have been for so long. That's not going to change (unfortunately), until Christ returns and all these questions will be definitevely answered and all debates will become moot.

Yes I agree.

P.S. What hoopla? I didn't see any hoopla. Dang! I missed the hoopla.

You missed it? Must happen so much you don't even notice it. Ask Robby. I thought soon he was going to ask for your autograph. :-)

82 posted on 06/25/2003 3:02:27 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: A_Thinker
The Scriptures are only known to be the "word of God" upon the testimony of the Church and are the most cherished part of Christian writings. But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New, so neither can be understood without the testimony of the Church. But even the Church ses Truth only by flashes of lightning.
83 posted on 06/25/2003 4:44:02 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New,

Who told ya this? Timothy? Aquilla? Presilla? Those in Berea?

84 posted on 06/25/2003 5:13:24 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Matthew 1 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Main Entry: 1un·til Pronunciation: &n-'til, -'tel; '&n-", -t&l Function: preposition Etymology: Middle English, from un- up to, until (akin to Old English oth to, until, Old High German unt up to, until, Old English ende end) + til, till till Date: 13th century 1 chiefly Scottish : TO 2 -- used as a function word to indicate continuance (as of an action or condition) to a specified time 3 : BEFORE 2

I don't believe the Bible was written in English...

Isn't the Catholic Church kind of late to the ball game when the "sinlessness" of Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX at Rome, December 8, 1854?

We did not have to define it before that year, because all Christians believed it.

85 posted on 06/25/2003 5:38:07 PM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
As you know, Christians and Jews look at the Old Testament differently. The New Testament represents the Christian claim. interpreting the Old Testament in the light of the life and acreer of Jesus. Those Jews who do not accept these claims, are not Christians.
86 posted on 06/25/2003 5:49:47 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ChicagoGirl
We did not have to define it before that year, because all Christians believed it.

Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

87 posted on 06/25/2003 6:24:37 PM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Timothy, Aquilla, Presilla, & Those in Berea were not Christian?
88 posted on 06/25/2003 6:49:36 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

Comment #89 Removed by Moderator

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Jews who are Christians have a hard time being accepted as Jews. Witness the Law of Return as applied by the State of Israel. But this has been the case since about 80 AD.
90 posted on 06/25/2003 6:54:45 PM PDT by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
So pray tell, how did James become the half brother of Jesus Christ? Was he too born of a virgin?

In fact Scripture plainy teaches that Christ had brothers and sisters, we even have names!

Matthew 13:55-56 "Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?"And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

I guess this is the part where you say that Joseph brought these siblings of Christ to the family before Mary, and Mary was nothing more than a step-mother. In that case, Christ would have no common mother or father with these so-called brothers and sisters.

Furthermore, we have some serious problems because where are these kids during the sojourn to Egypt? That would also make Jesus Christ the youngest of the bunch, and I don't recall hearing about them stumbling around in the manger during Christ's birth. We also have other age difference according to Roman Catholic tradition that would make even the youngest child of Joseph older than Mary. Pretty wierd stuff if you ask me.
91 posted on 06/25/2003 9:08:56 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose (Just don't leave any brass with your fingerprints on it behind, OK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Jews who are Christians have a hard time being accepted as Jews. Witness the Law of Return as applied by the State of Israel. But this has been the case since about 80 AD.

I guess your answer is no. I couldn't tell cuz it seems you changed the subject. You're Catholic so I guess you can change it whenever you want.

92 posted on 06/25/2003 9:12:17 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Some time ago, I wrote this piece of Smackdown to some Mary Idolator who referred to the History of Joseph as the consumate authority of the arrangements regarding Mary and Joseph and how Joe's kids were not from Mary's womb.

Available on google.com from the usenet newsgroups

Now you have done it. I know that you wish to believe what your handlers have programmed you to believe, and your post demonstrates the fact that all you are doing is parroting the party line. For instance, I have demonstrated the problems with your campfire story with principles in Scripture, you have just used wave of the hand denials, and unsubstantiated repetition of your claims. That is an indicator to all of us reading your posts that you don't have any rational or objective reason to beleive what you believe and you choose to take non-canonicals and tradition and treat them as superior to holy writ. Lets look at your highly esteemed new testament apocryphal writings, particularly "The History of Joseph the Carpenter". As the legend goes, Joseph is married to some unnamed woman, and with this woman he has four sons and two daughters before she dies of unknown causes. About the time of her death, Mary is twelve years old and has been offered to the temple since age three. The priests of this temple decided that she needs to be in the care of an honorable man so that she would not be tempted into sexual relations prior to her expected marriage. Enter Joseph. Problem is, the so-called narrative offered by Jesus while on Mt Olives to his disciples indicates that there was no intention of any marriage to go between this old man and this child (v3). In fact v4 tells us that she shacked up with Joseph for two years before getting pregnant. Compare this line with Scripture: Matt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Here the Bible says that Joseph was to marry this child, ~"and before they came together"~ (which pretty much is in conflict with "two years in Joseph's household") she was found pregnant. Since THoJtC says that she stayed with Joseph merely for protection, and the Bible says that she was "espoused" to Joseph, we have another conflict between this narrative and Scripture. Another problem I detected in (v2). "This same man [Joseph], being well furnished with wisdom and learning, was made a priest in the temple of the Lord." So much for the Bible declaring the tribe of Levi as priests in the temple of the Lord. Joseph descends from the tribe of Jacob not Levi. In Luke 2, Jesus is presented to Simeon to perform the circumcision, why not Joseph the priest? Later why would Joseph, the priest, be unaware of his twelve year old son's tarrying in the temple? The prologue to the narrative declares that Joseph died at the age of 111. It then tells us the day of his death, but nothing else so we are to guess the year or any nearby occasion. This leads me to ask this question. The lifespan of men rarely exceeded 70 years of age. Since Joseph is never again mentioned at any part of Christ's life after the temple incident, and we know Christ died at the age of 33, 111-33 gives us at bottom threshold of 78 years of age when Joseph got married to Mary. Verse 18 says that Jospeh was 89 when his first wife died. Add two years before Mary, and we are talking about a 91 year old man marrying a 14 year old girl. So what band of idiots would entrust a man who should be dead or old age, the life and possibly the marriage of a child. Talk about pedophilia or December January relationships. Why, every one of Jesus' half brothers and sisters were probably older if not significantly older than His mother. This is really wierd because at the age of 12, Mary allegedly ran across James the Less who was old enough to understand death and have a meaningful relationship with his biological mother - yet "she brought him up". Since Joseph's alleged first wife was wonderful and pure and her death is not associated to sin (as every other death in this narrative is strongly tied) then we should assume she died of old age, which makes sense because six children and an older man, usually parents arrange the marriages of their children, and it would be uncommon to espouse an old man to a child in this kind of arrangement. Also, because of the age of menopause, these kids would have to be in their teens up into their fourties and fifties. This is what makes the James the Less/Mary event really perverted. It is because of this peculiar event that James, and everyone who knows him, forever more considers Mary to be his true mother. (clearly this lame excuse was fabricated to answer those who point out that Scripture declares James a son of Mary by making Scripture tell a white lie). In verse 11, we are told that at least two of the sons were married and had children of their own, and both daughters were out of the house and married. This further lends support to James the Less being significantly older than Mary if this narrative is to be believed. If he wasn't so old, then why isn't James mentioned when Joseph, Mary and baby Jesus fled to Egypt? This narrative creates more problems than it tries to answer. There is another historical error that crops up in v8 where Herod the Great (who died while Christ was in Egypt re:Matt2:15) was not the one who had John beheaded, but it was his son Herod Antipas. (Mtt 14:1). The narrative is rife with errors, none more so than in v23 where the narrator (Jesus) is saying that both Michael and Gabriel took Joseph's spirit to heaven in a "shining wrapper". This is utter heresey because it teaches a salvation that precedes the death and resurrection Jesus Christ. Christ is no longer made the first fruits; His death and resurrection have absolutely no bearing on salvation, and we are told that Joseph, not only never sinned, but didn't inherit the sin of Adam. If it is possible to be sinless and not be guilty via representation (see Romans 5) of Adam's sin, then why, by necessity, did Jesus Christ have to be born of a virgin? Your narrative make Jesus Christ a heretic, and teaches a myth that good people die nicely and get special treatment from angels, while evil people die horribly. (see how other deaths are described in the narrative) This battle for Joseph's soul and body makes a mockery of the single angel dealing with Moses' (Jude 1:9).

93 posted on 06/25/2003 9:21:23 PM PDT by Dr Warmoose (Just don't leave any brass with your fingerprints on it behind, OK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid
Second hand information, in my opinion. I had rather see the quotes in complete context.
94 posted on 06/25/2003 9:52:31 PM PDT by snerkel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Patrick Madrid; Polycarp; the_doc; Revelation 911; BibChr; RnMomof7
Luther, Calvin, and Other Early Protestants on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary

Well, that's all fine and dandy, but John Calvin ain't my Pope.
And much as I respect his arguments in favor of Infant Baptism (which seem to me stronger than Calvin's, though that's just my Opinion) Martin Luther ain't my Pope either.

Let's take it Back to the Bible. Maybe you don't like "Sola Scriptura" -- neither do I. It is often misunderstood. Let us instead consider the Scriptures to be THE FIRST-CENTURY MAGISTERIUM -- By the direct and immanent inspiration of the Holy Spirit, absolutely Binding and Irrevocable upon all subsequent Magisterial Teachings.


BROTHERS

FIRSTBORN

PAPACY

The choice of relatives of Jesus known as the DESPOSYNOI, "The Sons of the House," is in keeping with Jewish family feelings and practices and messianic principal.... This dynastic succession of episcopacy is also suggested by Eusebius account of the descendants of Jude (another of Jesus' siblings) after their return from trial by Domitian as they stood "at the head of every Church."

And this is directly confirmed in Scripture.

There was never any such thing as a "Papacy", amongst the First-Century Church. But if one wishes to identify an "administrative President", it was not Peter, it was the Lord's eldest-brother James.

This is a Debate which Protestants really do not have to win.

But it is also a Debate which Roman Catholics cannot possibly afford to lose.

Unless you wish to Re-Join the True Church of Jesus Christ, in which case -- New Jerusalem beckons you Come Home, Jeroboam.

The Apostasy of Jeroboam runs deep and wide; the Faithful of Rehoboam have always been scattered. Sometimes, we have numbered 7,000 at best. But we remain Faithful.

You're under no obligation to bring your sacrifices to Samaria forever, Mr. Madrid. Come home to Jerusalem.


Ya'akov Ha Tsedek and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple

95 posted on 06/26/2003 3:09:41 AM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian (We are Unworthy Servants; We have only done our Duty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Easy there, fellas. Relax, take a deep breath, and read what I actually *wrote* in my posts.

I'll repeat it again: The Bible says in several places that there were men who were called the "Brothers of the Lord." There is no argument about that. The issue is, were they sons of Mary the mother of Jesus or sons of another woman? James and Joses, for example, who are called the "brothers of the Lord" in Matthew 13, were in fact not the sons of Mary the mother of the Lord. They were the sons of Mary the wife of Cleophas (aka. Clopas). There is an example of what you don't seem to want to face up to. It's NT evidence that at least some of the very men who are called the Lord's brothers were not literally his brothers. That's the issue here. The Bible doesn't say explicitly that Mary had other children. The Bible doesn't say explicity that she did not have other children. Aside from the implicit evidence, pro and con, the Bible is silent.

As the telephone 411 operator recording says, "Please make a note of it."

Also, Warmoose, did you intend the humor you delivered so nicely when you said in one breath "we have to get back to the Bible! Sola Scriptura . . . etc." and then you launched into a post of something someone else wrote? Pretty clever. Did you catch it?
96 posted on 06/26/2003 5:24:38 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Why are you trying to muddy the waters and distract attention away from the subject of this thread by introducing an irrelevant (at least as far as this topic is concerned) subject: the papacy?

When someone (such as 911) has painted himself into a doctrinal corner he can't escape from because he can't vindicate his position (as has happened on this very thread to 911 and a few others who keep beating their heads against the wall in a futile attempt to *prove* that Mary had other children besides Christ), they do two things. 1) Start the name calling (which is the fallacy of ad hominem) and 2) attempt to change the subject to something else they think they can do better on.

Anyway, regarding the papacy arguments you raised, if it's of any interest to you, I wrote a book on the subject that answers those arguments from Scripture and Christian history. It's called "Pope Fiction: Answers to 30 Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy." I'm not looking to sell anything here. If you're sincerely interested in a Catholic response, I'd be happy to send you the book gratis and with my compliments. Just send me an e-mail and let me know where to send it -- no strings attached.
97 posted on 06/26/2003 5:38:37 AM PDT by Patrick Madrid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
But just as the Old Testament cannot be completely understood except with the aid of the New

Is that so?

A more accurate statement, IMO, is that the Hebrew scriptures cannot be interpreted the way you interpret them without being filtered through the lens of the Christian scriptures. No one reading the Tanakh, with no familiarity with the gospel, would understand it to be pointing to a dying-and-resurrecting God-man savior. Ya'll should put the gospels and epistles at the front of your bibles, since that's the way you read it anyway.

98 posted on 06/26/2003 6:29:36 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Moravians too ? - you may want to qualify that comment

I must admit, I have never heard of Moravians. How many Moravians are there exactly? Not to be mean, but if they were right about this, perhaps God would have blessed them with more numbers.

99 posted on 06/26/2003 6:41:59 AM PDT by ChicagoGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Well-said. Roman Catholics just don't get that the whole beauty of being a Christian is that God has spoken directly to each of His children in His Word (see the opening words of virtually any Epistle). We are bound to His Word — not to the accreted errors of a millennia-long game of "Telephone." We may be Calvin's students; we may not be his slaves. In other words, it isn't like being a Protestant Roman Catholic.

Further, this whole thing of "this word CAN mean ____ — so it does" is the WORST kind of lexicographical hocus-pocus. "Father" CAN MEAN non-related-predecessor. THEREFORE (I speak as a fool) God is not really the Son's Father — He is His non-related predecessor. Right? Right?

Wrong.

MOST of the time a cigar is just a cigar... and a man's brothers are just his brothers.

Dan
100 posted on 06/26/2003 6:44:51 AM PDT by BibChr ("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson