Posted on 04/07/2015 11:01:38 AM PDT by NYer
Good run down. Thanks.
“... zero data...”
must we shout?
The data is in the bible - these are sons of another Mary:
Matthew 27:55-56
Matthew 28:1
Mark 15:40
John 19:25
Also it is an unbroken Sacred Tradition that Mary remained unknown to man; “I do not know man”.
Adherence to Sacred Tradition (not human tradition) is required by the bible:
1 Corinthians 11:2
2 Thessalonians 2:15
2 Thessalonians 3:6
The bible itself is Tradition since its books included in the canon were for years orally passed on as Tradition before anything was written.
Very few early Christians were literate and even if they all could read, there was no paper available for copies. Multiple copies of books just did not exist in those times.
Sola scriptura is an error and not found in the bible.
Oh?
Who?
Too bad Mary did NOT 'adhere' to common human nature...
1 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband.
What would Paul have thought about the Catholic teachings about Mary??
Two opposite ends of the spectrum. On the Left Catholics and Mormons with their pagan inventions and disregard for the bible. On the Right people who don't believe any doctrine not found in the bible.
Then, as a doctrine with vast implications, one should be able to find it in the scriptures - particularly the prophets, as the Father does nothing but that he reveals it to his prophets... And it's genesis (forgive the pun) should find at least a root in Torah... But no... Nada. Zip. Not a peep. Nothing, to my knowledge, until the Protoevangelium of James - A work found to be spurious very early on, and decried by Tertullian and Origen (IIRC). Funny how all the weirdness in the Roman church finds it's beginnings in such works... Admitted false, yet retained... Fake, but accurate...
False; the premise remains. If there had been natural children of Mary other than Jesus, then those children had a solemn Jewish obligation to care for her as a widow, modern revisionist theories notwithstanding.
Indeed, the obligation exists - but it is not as rigid as you would hope. As an example, if a widow's sons are destitute and a benefactor volunteers a better life than they can provide, then their duty to care for her is best served in relinquishing that duty to the benefactor (providing her acquiescence, of course). The purpose is the provision for the widow in her elder years, and there is nothing that says she must suffer in poverty (and be a burden to her sons) if a better arrangement is available. While not directly on point, the Book of Ruth is instructive.
So while we are in agreement that the obligation exists, without knowing the particulars and parameters, your premise cannot be sustained.
False;they had the authority of Moses seat, and the Messiah said to obey their authority, but not their example if it were unrighteousness.
No, the authority remains in Moses, they can speak within his authority, but only to the degree that they adhere to Moses - They have no authority of their own. No disciple can gainsay his master.
As to the commentary from 'Did Jewish Temple Virgins Exist and was Mary a Temple Virgin?' by Dr Taylor Marshall:
The absolute paucity of evidences outside of the Roman/Ortho paradigm, and particularly amongst the Jews, whose histories and regulations are incredibly well defined - That absence of evidence (particularly regulatory) leaves the whole argument wanting, to be kind. There is no evidence of temple virgins because vestal virgins were not part of Hebrew life and religion. Every part and order of Temple and Tabernacle worship is well defined in Torah, yet *nothing* regarding any sort of nunnery whatsoever.
That the Hebrews valued virginity goes without saying, but neither does that require consecrated temple virgins in order to quantify that respect. In fact, it is the height of hubris to impose upon them cultural norms which they deny outright. However, temple virgins are part and parcel of Greek and Roman worship - One doesn't have to wander too far to understand where the concept comes from.
As to the meager defenses from Scripture: Without the need for a defense of consecrated virgins, the scriptures stand with the meaning the Hebrews give it. Eisegesis.
As to Josephus, I myself have read Josephus numerous times, and I recall no passage that mentions 'cloisters'... Certainly nothing specific to vestal virgins.
As to 2Macc, Let me know when the full books of Jason of Cyrene are found and maybe we can revisit the matter - I highly doubt the 'condensed version' that 2Macc purports to be would be inspired. It certainly has none of what I look for in that regard.
Pro_4:2 For I give you good doctrine, forsake ye not my law.
Joh_7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
While we're recalling, didn't those two die heretics? I can't remember right now but I think Tertullian was a montanist or became one... or maybe he was one and converted, I can't remember. But neither one are listed as saints... unless Francis has been busier than I thought.
Yes to both, but that is not to say that their opinion on the Protoevangelium of James is less than qualified - If you have some defense for it, I would entertain a look, but to my knowledge it was committed to psuedepigrapha very early in it's life. No one I know of endorses it.
.
But then there are those here that are convinced that 2Timothy 2:15 says that the Old Testament was “hung on the cross.”
I wouldn’t want to be one of them when they get to explain that theory at the Great White Throne.
.
I was just making the point that both people you mentioned went down the wrong path, not that the protoevangelium of James is canonical.
ref: http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/war-5.htm
As a result of curiosity, I find I must correct myself: Above linked you will find Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book Five, wherein Josephus does indeed mention 'cloisters' numerous times... as an expression of architecture - a covered colonnade or walkway - In every case... Which is why I couldn't recall it according to a convent or nunnery.
All the same, for what it's worth, I stand corrected.
"To this day, I detect a persistent antiJewish, as well as antiCatholic, bias in some branches and twigs of Protestantism. It affects and guides interpretations. The Jewish laws and customs of caring for parents are, and were, observed. The Messiah spoke against those trying to avoid righteous behavior, not those practicing it. There have always ben those seeking to cast off righteousness with a cloak of piety."
Except one be in the Masoretic and/or Catholic tradition of succession he is orphaned from the Sola Scriptura he imagines and is one of many orphans making up a religion for himself and others.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
2Ti 2:19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
(e-Sword:KJV)
Depart from iniquity... iniquity==lawlessness... Being without law... Being without Torah... Seems pretty simple to me.
.
What an incredible wast of bandwidth!
Any part of “Jewish tradition” that is not from Torah was fully condemned by Yeshua.
Oral traditions are plainly Satan’s traditions!
.
Seems simple to me too.
Iniquity is the problem that men must conquer to find Yeshua’s narrow path. Transgression of Torah is the very definition of sin.
False
Once there was a gentile who came before Shammai, and said to him: "Convert me on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Shammai pushed him aside with the measuring stick he was holding. The same fellow came before Hillel, and Hillel converted him, saying: That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it." - Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 31a And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses thirty nine to forty,
John, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses one to ten,
John, Catholic chapter ten, Protestant verses twenty two to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
False, and here we see the Jewish tradition in full form with the synagogue, order of reading certain passages from the Torah and Haftorah portions throughout the year (Law and Prophets), which by the way, the Catholic tradition is to do likewise, only adding the New Testament books as well. This liturgy is Jewish Tradition and Yeshua observed and honored it. The various Protestant derived denominations and sects, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentecostal, Baptist, et al. have their own traditions that are probably quite different from this tradition that Jesus observed, Paul observed, the Jews observe, and the Catholics observe (allowing that the Orthodox and older mainline Protestants may also; my point is those orphaned from the Jewish/Catholic traditions do not; they made up their own traditions). And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Joseph's son?
Luke, Catholic chapter four, Protestant verses sixteen to twenty two,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Thank you, so noted; I would add that Josephus, Chapter 4, paragraph 3, clearly shows rooms and bathing rooms built over one of the cloisters. I would further add the term "cloistered life" is related to the architecture with respect to religious buildings.
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.