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).
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.
The Old Testament passages that are referenced in this doctrine were written in Hebrew prior to the 6th century B.C E. and then translated to Greek for the Septuagint in the 4th century B.C.E. The New Testament was written in Greek as its ORIGINAL language. The difficulties of stiff and often inaccurate translational Greek from Hebrew is not found as much in New Testament writings. The Greek ADELPHOS is not contextually like the Hebrew ACH, meaning "brother" or "blood relation." ADELPHOS as used to describe Jesus' brothers, is very precise Greek and means "from the same womb." The Greek word for "cousin", ANEPSIOS and is used clearly in Colossians 4:10 (Xederfos is another Greek term for cousin, but Anepsios enjoys more common usage in Scripture). Perpetual Virginity proponents confuse the Greek concept with the Hebrew concept by citing these Septuagint sources. In spite of this, "cousin" is clearly translated to ANEPSIOS in the Septuagint in Numbers 36:11 and Tobit 7:2. The Hebrew idiom is not related to the New Testament Koine usage of ADELPHOS for "brother" in the context of Jesus siblings. The use of ADELPHOS for those of "mutual bond," countrymen, or associates is not uncommon but is clearly suggested by context. This is not the case in both the canon and histories regarding Jesus' brothers. Additionally, there is not one case where ADELPHOS is used for "cousin" in the New Testament.
But here's the "kicker"... Protestants don't "need" to Win this debate. But Roman Catholics DO. To us, this debate is incidental. A Protestant could affirm "Perpetual Virginity" and still be Protestant -- Luther and Calvin did, and surely were. But to the Roman Catholics, this debate is potentially FATAL. Here's why:
In fact, good interpretive evidence for something very dramatic happening after Jesus crucifixion lies in the very fact that Jesus brothers didn't believe who He was (would your brothers?) until the resurrection (which would convince anyone!). Suddenly, the oldest surviving sibling is the head of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus Movement Jews.
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 is absolutely no record of anything like a "Papacy" anywhere in Scripture. But the Early Church did possess a "President of the Communion" (or dare I say, a "President of the Presbytery"?), and this President was not Peter, it was Ya'akov He Tsedek.
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.
1:22 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The Bible clearly says that he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son.
It seems that Catholics have the mistaken belief that knowing each other even in marriage is sinful. Adam and Eve were instructed to be fruitful and multiply before sin ever came into the world. The very definition of marriage involves two becoming one flesh. Joseph and Mary were married. The marriage bed is set apart and holy.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.