Posted on 12/23/2010 11:08:38 AM PST by marshmallow
Um......the fact that, in this discourse, he uses nothing but Scripture to prove his case?
His argument is totally Scriptural.
Isn't that what you're demanding?
He uses both the Old and New Testaments to explain the use of the word "brethren", which is the lynchpin of your argument that Jesus had siblings.
The Church Fathers are a problem, aren't they?
I have a mental picture of Protestants reading the likes of Jerome, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Damascene et al., and saying........"ppffffffftttt!!!!.........what does this guy know?"
Tradition is important.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
>>Your original entry to this thread was along the lines of “this issue is totally unimportant”, along with a number of other posters. That’s a canard. It’s quite obvious that this issue is very important to you. How else to explain your multiple contributions? <<
Good catch. It WASN’T important in the same way that gay marriage was not important to our founding fathers. It is only when someone starts pushing something so utterly false as a critical part of Christian doctrine that it becomes “important”.
>>Upon further reading of your posts is clear that the truth is that you actually hold the contrary position; namely that she was not a perpetual virgin. That’s important to the Protestant position because it is an integral part of the argument that Mary was nobody special. Acceptance of the doctrine of her perpetual virginity makes her someone quite important and that can’t be accepted. <<
There is some truth to that. However, you are missing the point regarding my being Protestant. I am not. I am Christian. I do not get my perspective from some church organization. I get it from my personal reading of the bible augmented with other people’s interpretations.
And regarding Mary being someone special: I go along with what Jesus said about her. Regarding acceptance of the doctrine of perpetual virginity, you’ll have to show me scripture that supports it, not the writings of “church fathers”. OTOH, I can give you tons of scripture clearly implying (without videotape evidence) that she and Joseph had sexual relations AFTER the birth.
So, yes, in this case I agree with the protestants partly because the body of evidence us overwhelmingly in their favor, but also because it is what fits in with how the bible describes relative to all other humans. Yes, even Mary.
Yes, he uses scripture in the same way I saw the homosexual minister use it to support homosexuality.
And in both cases, I reject the author’s/speaker’s inferences from scripture.
>>You are saying that you believe his interpretation to be in error.
Does this mean that his translation is also in error? Yes or no.<<
The two are not mutually exclusive. One can translate a book into a specific language and then turn around and misunderstand it’s global meaning. Otherwise, how could he have included the “no sex UNTIL after Jesus is born” scripture and then turn around and say that they never had sex.
“To understand the Bible, it’s important to have some understanding of tradition....”
Uh, no; you have to have some understanding of God’s word.
Hoss
>>Remember the old axiom? Lies travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on her boots.<<
Yes. But that axiom exactly describes the AGW argument (man made global warming). The truth started “putting on her boots” when AlGore said the debate is over.
And the truth won.
The intenet empowers the truth just as the invention of the printing press did, only a thousand fold.
“But men wrote the bible too. Why do you trust men to scribe the words correctly but not to interpret the words correctly?”
Maybe because men didn’t “write” it in the sense of, ‘let’s sit down and spin a good yarn...’
Maybe (actually), those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it... and maybe (actually, really) the Holy Spirit helps us to interpret it based on what the Bible says.. not what we WANT it to say.
Hoss
>>The argument you are going to have with me is not whether she had other children, but convincing me that she is my Savior. Good luck. <<
Excellent post, and I have to add to the above quote that it is also how I feel. It is not that I am insisting they had sex after Jesus’ birth. My problem is that they insist she didn’t, with absolutely NO evidence to support it. That is why it was an “unimportant” issue to me before I started reading these threads.
It is not important to me that she deficated. But if some Mary Worship group started preaching that she didn’t, then it would become important. I’d really need to see some scripture supporting that position.
>>Now, if you are correct about ‘fill the earth and subdue it’...<<
I think you are referring to another poster.
“Oh. How is arguing that Mary was a perpetual virgin contrary to the Virgin Birth?”
The two are as dissimilar as the day is long. The Virgin Birth is Biblical — it’s true — Mary was a virgin. But, as I have asked you over and over and over in another thread, please, please, PLEASE show me in scripture where Mary is shown to have been born sinless?
“Mary wasn’t Joseph’s wife, until after Christ was born, which is why it’s worded this way. You are assuming that ‘till’ heoS refers to him not knowing her, not to the fact that he didn’t accept her to be his wife until after Christ was born.”
Uh, no. I don’t think Secret Agent Man (if I can call you SAM?) meant anything about when Christ was born; he was referring to the “till” as in Joseph did not know (as in the Biblical sense) Mary TILL Christ was born. The issue that Mary and Joseph weren’t married until after the birth is inconsequential to the fact that SAM is saying Joseph didn’t KNOW (have intercourse) with Mary until AFTER Christ was born (the ‘till’ in question).
Mary + Josepth betrothed. Angel visits. Mary gives birth to Jesus. THEN (till, in this argument) Joseph knows her. Nice try to re-direct the argument, but again, your argument fails.
Hoss
Excellent. Thanks for posting this.
Merry Christmas.
“The Catechism explicitly says otherwise. Salvation is through Christ Jesus, who saved Mary from sin at her conception. “
Can YOU source THAT? In Scripture?
I can source it to refute the idea:
Romans 3:22-25:
“22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.”
For ALL. Not, “For all except Mary, mother of Jesus...” — and notice — there is NO distinction.
Hoss
“Man made beliefs invented in the 16th century still hold sway because they were easy to pass around to others.”
Oh, now that’s rich! The whole ‘man-made’ thing started back in the 300’s (or before) — it’s called the Roman Catholic Church! What do you all call it...”Tradition”????
LOL!
Hoss
“refers to Helvidius as an “ignorant boor” and in the next breath complains that Helvidius might resort to attacking him.”
Speaking as an ignorant boor myself, there’s little that’s more satisfying than knocking an ecclesiastic hypocrite off his high horse and down into the mud he’s been slinging.
Psalm 118: It seems that all sorts of non-scriptual teachings
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
were accumulated during the fourth century. 8 It is better to take refuge in YHvH Than to trust in man.
14 YHvH is my strength and song,
9 It is better to take refuge in YHvH Than to trust in princes.
And He has become my salvation.
While that may be technically true, as I said you have to first assume the Mary myth in order to read into the text as Jerome does. Otherwise his argument doesn’t hold water.
And it ended in the 16th century when people saw the light. No manmade tradition here nosiree.
Again, why should I accept Sola Scriptura when Luther was the first to mention it? Why don’t we see it before he came along?
“and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,”
Yes? Isn’t that what I just said about Mary?
Where does scripture explicitly say that Mary sinned?
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.