Posted on 04/15/2016 7:25:23 AM PDT by verga
“Checkmate.”
Only because you are playing checkers while everone else is playing chess.
You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you argue from a SINGLE word in a SINGLE verse—in ENGLISH.
What do you do with the fact that the parents of three of the four “brothers” of Jesus are named in the NT—and they are people OTHER than Mary and Joseph?
Oh, I know. You ignore that fact.
What’s with you Hebrew Roots people? We speak English here in America, must speak and read only Hebrew? We must not say, “Lord” or “Moses?”
Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, from which you quoted, not Hebrew.
Since “the builders,” unbelieving Jews, rejected Jesus the chief cornerstone, Psalms 118:22,23, the structure built on that stone, the church, became Jew and Gentile, predominately Gentile. Which is why we have the gospel of Luke written in Greek, the language commonly spoken among Gentiles at that time... to reach Gentiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyUEcE57K3c
“It is truly right to bless thee, O Theotokos,
thou the ever blessed, and most pure, and the Mother of our God.
Thou the more honorable than the cherubim,
and beyond compare more glorious than the seraphim,
who without corruption gavest birth to God the Word,
thou the true Theotokos, we magnify thee.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AE1FzSC8DBs
“Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
O Virgin pure, immaculate/ O Lady Theotokos
O Virgin Mother, Queen of all/ and fleece which is all dewy
More radiant than the rays of sun/ and higher than the heavens
Delight of virgin choruses/ superior to Angels.
Much brighter than the firmament/ and purer than the sun’s light
More holy than the multitude/ of all the heav’nly armies.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
O Ever Virgin Mary/ of all the world, the Lady
O bride all pure, immaculate/ O Lady Panagia
O Mary bride and Queen of all/ our cause of jubilation
Majestic maiden, Queen of all/ O our most holy Mother
More hon’rable than Cherubim/ beyond compare more glorious
than immaterial Seraphim/ and greater than angelic thrones.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
Rejoice, O song of Cherubim/ Rejoice, O hymn of angels
Rejoice, O ode of Seraphim/ the joy of the archangels
Rejoice, O peace and happiness/ the harbor of salvation
O sacred chamber of the Word/ flow’r of incorruption
Rejoice, delightful paradise/ of blessed life eternal
Rejoice, O wood and tree of life/ the fount of immortality.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!
I supplicate you, Lady/ now do I call upon you
And I beseech you, Queen of all/ I beg of you your favor
Majestic maiden, spotless one/ O Lady Panagia
I call upon you fervently/ O sacred, hallowed temple
Assist me and deliver me/ protect me from the enemy
And make me an inheritor/ of blessed life eternal.
Rejoice, O Unwedded Bride!”
"Mary is not a 21st century city girl, She is a 1st century farm girl who understands the mechanics of procreation. Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to. In the usual state of affairs a woman would expect to have children, but Mary is expressing amazement. Remember the angel has not yet told her that the child will be the literal Son of God only that he would be called the son of the most high and sit on the throne of David.
...............
First, hi verga. I hope things are well in your world!
I'm sure many will respond and we will have a good discussion. I will just address your argument about "shall" in Luke 1:34.
The event the angel announces will take place in the future. Mary asks how this will occur, since she will still be a virgin. Hence, the future tense about a future event.
Not an argument that proves or indicates perpetual virginity.
More importantly, there is no prophecy nor theological reason for Mary to remain a virgin. The Virgin birth was a miraculous sign identifying the Savior.
Which leads to this: it really doesn't matter much, if someone believes in perpetual virginity or not. Salvation does not depend on this.
The single question that remains crucial is where you (and all others) will spend eternity. Only by entrusting ourselves to Him and His gracious gift - accepting His righteousness instead of trying to earn our own - do we receive eternal life.
That is what matters. It is available today. Now. Why put it off?
It appears that you contradict yourself: "There are some who will say that the word betrothed meant that they were merely engaged, but scripture shows differently ..." Mary was already betrothed to Joseph when Jesus was conceived in her womb. When the Angel visited Mary to tell her what was going to happen, she was already betrothed to Joseph, she was already in a marriage contract with Joseph. Your comment shows you understand that so long as she was still betrothed to Joseph, she was not free to be the wife of another unless Joseph had divorced her. Whioch divorce The Angel told Joseph not to do. Somehow you have inverted the first betrothal to read in your argument as God was first betrother. THAT IS NOIT ACCURATE based upon your own quoted passages.
Further, you make a huge assumption not supported by what you've offered: "Her response only makes sense if she had no intention of having a conjugal relation with the man she was already betrothed to." That is an aside, not a portion of the argument you have posed. It is an assumption not supported by any data in evidence. It makes Mary to be duplicitous, continuing in a betrothal to Joseph that she has no intention of honoring after she gives birth. I don't have that image of the Blessed Mary, the Mother of Jesus. That is an implied dishonesty not warranted by the data presented.
Pretty clear the people saying this were indignant and stating what they thought would diminish Jesus: "We know this guy, his family, his trade and he's nothing special"
Of course they were wrong.
Once the birthing process begins and the cervical os is dilating, if the amniotic sac is detached from the uterine wall, the shedding of blood from the detachment can be extensive or just normal, like a menses. The cleansing for the shedding of blood need not mean the virginity is terminated by the 'opening of the birth canal'.
I addressed as many of the common objections that I could recall. I cited the Scripture, quoting chapter and verse from both Testaments, and I also cited the Talmud where it applied.
I must admit to being somewhat surprised by people that think they have one the "argument" quoting a verse that I already disproved.
Please re-read what I wrote, Mary was in a “spiritual” relationship with the Holy s Spirit. It was addressed in the article.
If Mary gave birth to Jesus, then it would be impossible for Mary to remain a virgin. To pretend otherwise is to say that Jesus was created directly by non-physical means, or that Mary is not human. It reminds me of the Greek and Roman myths about their gods.
If Mary had several children of varying ages and her Husband died leaving her that many mouths to feed, the natural course of action in that day and even in America, until recently, would be to send children to live as adoptees with close relatives, allowing the Mother to concentrate on raising the youngest, the little ones still in her care. But of course that would not fit your assumptions, so you would naturally discard such a reasonable explanation. But that explanation makes what Paul wrote (James the Brother of Jesus) no error on his part or any error in 'translation'.
quote-You can’t expect to be taken seriously if you argue from a SINGLE word in a SINGLE verse—in ENGLISH.
It is written, RSV Catholic edition-
Genesis 4- Now Adam ‘KNEW his wife Eve and she conceived.’ (Knew- Hebrew Yada, Strongs 3045- to know, recognize, understand, TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS)
Mathew 1:25 he(joseph) took his wife, but KNEW her not until she had borne a son. (Knew- Greek Ginosko, Strongs 1097- to know, come to know, recognize, TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS)
It is impossible for a "Man " to be crucified and raise from the dead.
It is impossible for Lazarus to come back life, or the daughter of the official. It was impossible for Jesus to cure the paralytic.
If you look closely at the Bible you will see many "impossible things that occurred and are recorded.
Your argument appears to be confusing contractual obligations, as if seeking to open a gap into which you intend to insert the presumption of perpetual virginity.
FRiend, if you are going to offer what you deem scriptural proof of this assumption of perpetual virginity then you will need to stick to one line of argument at a time, rather than bouncing between two disjoined lines and trying to conflate them.
I am so please however that you are studying the scriptures using more than one language, because your soul will have opened to it more than merely reading King James English, which is500 years away from our vernacular.
May I add that it is also ‘impossible’ to stand invisible in a party central room and yet have your hand visible as it write upon a wall there, and it is ‘impossible’ to end a locked and shuttered room without opening some portal. HA HA. With God these are not impossible! This should give us a hint that it is indeed not impossible for Mary to gestate the body and placenta of Jesus, and this child be delivered without passing along the birth canal. ... If and old memory serves, doesn’t the Didache imply this means of birthing Jesus from the water world in Mary’s womb, into the air world of our spacetime limits?
“Notice that John refers to Mary the mother of Jesus and Mary the wife of Clopas as “sisters” Most families do not give uterine relatives the same first name. At best they are probably first cousins, which would make the sons of Clopas 2nd cousins to Jesus.”
suggenes
anepsios
The NT writers used words to describe non-sibling relatives.
As a mainline Protestant who is raising his kids as Catholic because of all the problems in the protestant churches, I have seen both sides of this debate:
On the bad side, the Catholics have some really odd ideas on Mary. Literally they are trying to make her a co-redeemer, which is blasphemy. They cover it a lot of fancy words, but the reality is they have statements to the fact you look to Mary to get to Jesus, which is really a false teaching and quite dangerous as to misleading folks to where their salvation lies. (hint; it isn’t Mary)
On the other hand the Catholics have not gone down the path of inviting each and every pervert into the church, under a new doctrine discovered in the last 20 years about tolerance. So the Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans have some ideas that are equally off and in fact very dangerous.
Now The Methodists and most remaining protestant churches have all allowed in female preachers and they have changed the doctrine of male headship. Most of these mainline churches are frankly pussy-whipped and not worth going into, they teach some kind of feminist crap for the most part. The Presbyterians for example had their women folks erect a stature of the goddess Sophia back at a women’s conference in 1989, something they have not lived down to this day. So they also have false doctrine.
So you are left with various sects that are into once saved always saved with the implication we lose our own free will once converted.....too chicken to deal with that one here, but folks who have studied this will have their own conclusions. There are also ideas such predestination, the 180 year old doctrine of rapture, handling snakes for fun and profit, absolute pacifists and a whole host of doctrines folks can argue about. Likely a lot of these ideas are right to some extent, but pushed to the extreme become false teachings. Which is what the Maryism of the Catholic church is. They are not alone in some false ideas.
In the end each and every church today has major flaws. Fact is we all likely have errors in out belief, the more we study things, we cannot help it, we are flawed humans. I suppose that is good in a way. If one church was perfect we would worship the institution, rather than G-d.
One person’s view, which could be very off. I am sure it is in some manner. I expect to be surprised about a lot of things when I die. Hopefully I get a few things right, which in the end is all that matters (I hope but I may be wrong).
If Hebrew isn't important, then how come the writers of the New Testament, including the Revelation of Jesus given to John, felt that it was so important so to include it in their writings?
Act_21:40 And when he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the steps, motioned with his hand to the people. And when there was a great hush, he addressed them in the Hebrew language, saying:
Act_22:2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew language, they became even more quiet. And he said:
Act_26:14 And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’
Php_3:5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee;
Rev_9:11 They have as king over them the angel of the bottomless pit. His name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek he is called Apollyon.
Rev_16:16 And they assembled them at the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.
And as far as the Hebrew no longer being valid, the early church fathers have much to say about the assemblies of Christ that continued in the Hebrew language, even unto the 4th century...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)
...and while I do not agree that the Nazarenes were “Jewish” as ‘Jewish” is defined by the Talmud and not the bible, I have studied and verified the writings in this book, historical writings of the earliest church fathers that clearly reveal that indeed, the Hebrew language was never cast aside for the Greek and why? Because the Greeks were going to the Hebrew speaking synagogues to hear the Gospel of Christ!
Act 13:42 As they went out, the people begged that these things might be told them the next Sabbath. 43 And after the meeting of the synagogue broke up, many Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who, as they spoke with them, urged them to continue in the grace of God. 44 The next Sabbath almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord. 45 But when the Jews saw the crowds, they were filled with jealousy and began to contradict what was spoken by Paul, reviling him.
http://www.amazon.com/Nazarene-Jewish-Christianity-Ray-Pritz/dp/9652237981
So the questions are “Why did the majority of the church fathers divorce themselves from the original sect of the Nazarenes that Paul was accused of being the leader of?” “Why were these Nazarenes hated by both Jew & Greco-Roman religions?”
Therefore, why nit pick over tongues rather than reply with substance? Ad hominem attacks are used by those who can not support their theological beliefs using His Word alone.
And yes, the chief cornerstone is Christ and it was the faith of Peter, i.e. the faith of Christ in him that Christ's assembly is built upon.
Acts 7:38 Christ's assembly was gathered in the wilderness at Mt Sinai...
1Peter 1-2 Peter instructs us on that assembly in the wilderness and the difference between those who believed and those who did not
1Cor 10 Paul instructs us that Christ was with the Israelites in the wilderness and that they are examples that we are to learn from (see also Heb 3-4)
And finally, why where the "KEYS" of binding and unbinding given to ALL the disciples of Christ? Jesus said He gave them to ALL, not just to Peter. Matthew 18:18 Shalom!
So Mary who had not consummated her marriage to her husband Joseph commits adultery and consummates a marriage with a spirit, the Holy Spirit...And then Joseph commits adultery under the law by remarrying Mary...
You are a hoot...a Kook...
Mary has to remain a virgin because sex between a husband and wife is a dirty, evil thing. Or so Catholics apparently think.
1Cor 7:5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
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.