Turning Mary into an adultress

"'Not Until' in Gr/Hb is a difinitive dependent clause in English. What does it mean? AFTER."
Can mean that but it doesn't always as has been shown here many times. If it was as simple as you say don't you think that most of the Christians in the first 18 centuries could read as well as you do now? If they could, why didn't they, Protestant and Catholic, agree with you? You see so clearly what others have such difficulty seeing. I might question why this clarity of vision does not apply to John 6, Mt 16 and other passages that clearly show that the Catholic teaching is correct and your interpretation is false.

 

Neal4whatever:

"That is not to say that they do see works as having a part to play in maintaining our salvatoin.[/b] [/QUOTE]Well, if salvation is maintained by works and you can loose you salvation because of a lack of them, then I think it is clear that salvation depends on works according to you."

Well, in a sense yes but they don't get us saved and that is why James says NOT BY FAITH ALONE. My point is we don't "get saved" by works. That is what I said. But the moment we have our sins wash away and are a new creation, that makes our works of value. "yet it is not I but Christ lives in me" the Apostle Paul says. So even the good that we do we cannot boast about. We would not do the good, or at least unselfishly, were we not a new creation in Christ. Therefore we cannot boast of the good that we do. But when charity and virtue are built up in opposition to vice, this strengthens us. Yet we cannot built Charity and virtue without Gods grace. Therefore all savlatoin is still grace. Neal, you have to get out of your Protestant faith alone and nothing else mindset as if everything else is worthless. What an insult to God to tell him that the work he does through you is of no value in your sanctification and salvatoin. THese works are works of love (as opposed to works of the law, which Paul is talking about in Romans 3), done in faith. They are Christ working through us so that we cannot claim that we save ourselves. There is a beautiful son by John Michael Talbot that says:

Christ has no body now
on earth but yours; no hands,
no feet on earth but yours.

Yours are the eyes through

which looks with compassion on his friends, yours are the hands with

which He wants to do good."



Faith in action is what it is all about. The daily walk in faith, growing in holiness by his grace which assists our free will, and without which our free will cannot be conformed to his will. It is not a freebie welfare project by God to save individual souls.





The word faith is used 273 times in the New Testament. Only once is it matched up with the word alone (except of course when Martin Luther inserted the word in Romans 3:38, I see the KJV has removed it now). That one time unfortunately doesn't do Protestants much good. I will quote it for your enjoyment.


James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

God did not give up on the widow and the orphan. He declare works of the law worthless but not works of charity. Isaiha 1 is what he desires and requires of us.

Isaiah 1:11-20
"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?"
Says the LORD.
"I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle;
And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats.
"When you come to appear before Me,
Who requires of you this trampling of My courts?
"Bring your worthless offerings no longer,
Incense is an abomination to Me.
New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies--
I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly.
"I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts,
They have become a burden to Me;
I am weary of bearing them.
"So when you spread out your hands in prayer,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Yes, even though you multiply prayers,
I will not listen.
Your hands are covered with blood.
"Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Reprove the ruthless,
Defend the orphan,
Plead for the widow.
"Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They will be like wool.
"If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
"But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword."
Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Note the clear distintion beween works of the law (sacrifice of bulls and celebration of new moon festivals) vs. works of chaitiy, Romans 3 vs. James 2.


"As for Sherrie or 3AM or anyone else showing Mary had sex, that is not new and not of them, but is of Scripture, as 3AM has clearly shown."

No, they have just reduced the Gospel to a cheap sex tabloid is all. It does not specificy if Mary had sex. That is not the purpose of Luke's Gospel. The purpose is to show that Jesus was born of a virgin as prophsied in Is 7. I don't see anything in the prophecy that says "and then the virgin will have sex". You completely ignore the arguements that say the language was a bit different back then. They have proven NOTHING! The arguements that show otherwise are given by others here so I won't repeat them.

 

A very few of them could.

Don't you think Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could read this passage too? Why do they differ with your interpretation if it is so obvious?

Because they did not read it and accept it exactly as stated. Instead their prior brainwashing was still largely in effect.

 

Nope. For all those centuries a large portion could not read at all, and the position of the church you represent was that access to the scriptures should be prohibited to most.

 

You sir get a wavey award for unsupported, undocumented rabid dog accusations against the Catholic Church. Congrats.

Nope. For all those centuries a large portion could not read at all, and the position of the church you represent was that access to the scriptures should be prohibited to most. </font>[/QUOTE]

Let's see, they couldn't read and that nasty Catholic Church (by the way where was your church during these years, did the gates of hell prevail or something.) and somehow the Church was preventing them reading them, which they couldn't do anyway. Perhaps you would like to tell us all how the Church was keeping them from them? By reading them in Mass on Sundays? Oh, I know, they chained these Bibles to pulpits so no one could check them out. Every time I hear this silly arguement I crack up. You guys will believe anything that your anti-catholic authors feed you. Your post is simply a lie.

Blessings

 

thessalonian says:

First of all. I am not going to be a punching bag for anyone. I quoted scripture, That even my 10 year old grandson knows. If you have something to say about what i quoted than say that to me. But your hostle attacks at me, and about me are very much not appropreate.


thessalonian says:

First of all that statement is totally false. Salvation does not come that way. We have discussed this before. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward emotion. But none the less, this statement has no bearing on this topic.


Your attempt at throwing out cheap statements is the best you can do?

Show me the scripture that says Mary never had any children after Jesus! Show me the scripture that says Mary was not Joseph's wife!

When Jesus was but 12 years old, He went to the temple to talk with the leaders in the temple. Luke 2:41-43

Notice in verse 41, it says in the Hebrew-Greek Bible; "His parents".

Now lets go back a little to verse 26, 27, and 28.

Verse 27 says "when the parents".

So now Gods Word has established in Luke, that Jesus has parents on this earth; and they are Mary and Joseph. The other times were established in Matt. (Matt. 1:18-25; Matt. 13:55-56).

To go along with what Abiyah said; it is the custom of the wife to perform her duties with her husband; which sexual intercourse is one of those things. Or the husband does have the right to divorce her. Matt. 13:55-56; shows us God has blessed Mary with children. Which is regarded amongst the Jews as a very special gift from God. Children in the Jewish community were held as the most wonderful gift God could give and children and family were very much apart of celebrating, and celebration.

One of the pagan traditions was to have your children to walk into a firey oven as a sacrifice to the gods. Something that really ticked God off. And so children were cherished.

God also intended for sexual intercourse between man and woman that were married, to be a very beautiful and joyious thing. It was not ever discribed as anything filty as you have discribed, or what you have lead others to think.

I am sure also one of the many blessings God gave to Joseph and Mary for what they did, and went through, was the blessing of children.

There is nothing Adultress to any of what Mary did. She was married to Joseph.

Sherrie

 

thessalonian says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for Sherrie proving that Mary had sex with Joseph. Gee, after 2000 years Sherrie comes along and does something noone else has ever done. The conflict is resolved. Amazing. I must have missed that post.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"First of all. I am not going to be a punching bag for anyone. I quoted scripture, That even my 10 year old grandson knows. If you have something to say about what i quoted than say that to me. But your hostle attacks at me, and about me are very much not appropreate."

You could put a PUNK! at the end of that so we know your from the hood. You used to be so much gentler. Don't you remember that verse about heaping coals on your enemy. I am very sorry I offended you Sherrie. Please forgive me. Abiyah said you proved it, I was rebutting her. Others have done a fine job of showing that scripture is not definitve with regard to whether Mary had sex with Joseph or not. It simply doesn't deal with that issue directly (though there is an indirect method through the Ark of the Covenant in dealing with it).


thessalonian says:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are saved when we are baptized
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"First of all that statement is totally false. Salvation does not come that way. We have discussed this before. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward emotion. But none the less, this statement has no bearing on this topic."

Says you. How about "Baptism now saves you" as Peter says or "repent and be baptized FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS and YOU WILL RECIEVE THE HOLY SPIRIT". How about Acts 22:16 where Paul is baptized to have his sins washed away, etc. etc. and on an on and I haven't even gotten in to the Old Testament with the story of the red sea, crossing the Jordan in to the promised land, and the story of Naaman, etc. etc. Oh so much more that you don't see because your pastor has put a couple verses and their interprutation in your head. By the way I don't say that it is the water that saves. The action with the water is a symbolic one. But at that time we recieve the Holy Spirit. That is more than obvious to the open minded.


"Your attempt at throwing out cheap statements is the best you can do?"

Your just too touchy. After reading your post, seems like the pot and kettle all over again. Abiyah brought up the issue of salvation and works. Wy don't you lash out at her. I just responded and Neal4 kept it going. You don't have to be so uppety.

"Show me the scripture that says Mary never had any children after Jesus!"

When you show me a verse that says ""Mary's child Bob" or "Mary's other children ....." or "Joseph and Mary's son Bob". Arguements from silence are rather weak, don't you agree.


" Show me the scripture that says Mary was not Joseph's wife!"

Why would I do that. I believe she was.

"When Jesus was but 12 years old, He went to the temple to talk with the leaders in the temple. Luke 2:41-43

Notice in verse 41, it says in the Hebrew-Greek Bible; "His parents"."

Yep, I agree. What are you argueing with me about this for.

"Now lets go back a little to verse 26, 27, and 28.

Verse 27 says "when the parents".

So now Gods Word has established in Luke, that Jesus has parents on this earth; and they are Mary and Joseph. The other times were established in Matt. (Matt. 1:18-25; Matt. 13:55-56)."

I can't for the life of me imagine where I said Jesus didn't have parents. Perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else.


"To go along with what Abiyah said; it is the custom of the wife to perform her duties with her husband; which sexual intercourse is one of those things. Or the husband does have the right to divorce her."

Here is the point you are missing. Joseph, knew that she bore the Son of God! Now perhaps your like my Mother-in-law who thinks that every many has to, or he is going to go bonkers but my guess is, and it has historical meritt, that he was in such awe of the whole situation, he was just fine with remaining celibate. It is a grace given to some you know for the kingdom of God. He became her protector. This thing with Mary bearing the son of God was a special thing. Special things do happen in the Bible you know. Take for instance John recieving the Holy Spirit in the womb. Do you know any other's who recieved the Holy Spirit in the womb? Are there any other theives on the Cross that got the opportunity to be crucified with him after accepting him as their Lord and Savior?


"Matt. 13:55-56; shows us God has blessed Mary with children."

Shall we trace through who Joses and James were. Let's. Read Mt:27:56 for your assignment which has a Mary who is the mother of James and & Joseph (Joses) is the wife of Clopas, (Jn 19:25).
And why in Mk 6:3 is Jesus said to be "THE son of Mary" and not A SON of Mary? Hmmmmmmmmm! Why was Mary entrusted ot John if there were other siblings. That's not very Jewish of Jesus now is it. Him being the most perfect Jew of all.

" Which is regarded amongst the Jews as a very special gift from God. "

Oh yes, I agree, being married is very special. If it were not so special it would be of no use to take vows of celibacy for something that was bad. Though perhaps you don't believe in celibacy at all even though it is quite Biblical. See Mt 19:12 if you don't believe me:

"Some are incapable of marriage because ...some because they have RENOUNCED MARIAGE FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.". Tell me, are there any Baptists who accept it? I have never run accross a Baptist who has taken a vow of celibacy. Correct me if you know of any.


"Children in the Jewish community were held as the most wonderful gift God could give and children and family were very much apart of celebrating, and celebration."

Amen. Celibacy was also highly praised by Paul in 1 Cor 7. I am not saying that marriage and sex is bad. Once again, if it were bad it would not be good to give it up as a vow for the glory of the kingdom of God.

"One of the pagan traditions was to have your children to walk into a firey oven as a sacrifice to the gods. Something that really ticked God off. And so children were cherished."

I have seven. Psalm 127 is one of my favorites so your preaching to the choir. By the way, how do you feel about contraception? I find it funny that the baptist religions don't condemn it (though they used to).


"God also intended for sexual intercourse between man and woman that were married, to be a very beautiful and joyious thing. It was not ever discribed as anything filty as you have discribed, or what you have lead others to think."

Where did I say it was filthy. Your getting way out of line and insulting. Perhaps you could quote me or apologize. I am married and quite happily so. The gift of my wife's sexuality to me is an incredible thing. The fruits of it in the children that we have bring me great joy. I have been in the delivery room watching my children be born. How could I consider that and the cause of it to be something filthy. The Catholic Church has never ever taught me that it was, quite the opposite. Have you ever read Pope JP II's theology of the body or any Catholic material on Natural Family Planning. It speaks of total giving of the wife to the husband and the husband to the wife in the marital embrace. So if you think Catholicism teaches that sex is filthy you are simply wrong. You are really out of line here sister so if you are going to post lies about me, I suggest you at least make some effort to back them up or shut up!

"I am sure also one of the many blessings God gave to Joseph and Mary for what they did, and went through, was the blessing of children."

Once again, show me where it says "joseph and Mary's son Fred."

God bless you Sherrie, inspite of your very insulting post. I wish you peace and God's grace.

 

Let's see, they couldn't read and that nasty Catholic Church (by the way where was your church during these years, did the gates of hell prevail or something.)

For a while they prevailed, but that finally stopped a few centuries ago.

and somehow the Church was preventing them reading them, which they couldn't do anyway. Perhaps you would like to tell us all how the Church was keeping them from them?

From www.newadvent.org/cathen/15367a.htm [The Catholic Encyclopedia]:

"Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum)."

"It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council."

From www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm :
"Because the Roman Catholic church opposed his translation of the Bible into English, Tyndale was forced to leave England for Germany in 1524. For the next two years, staying one step ahead of Papal persecution, he managed to complete his first translation of the New Testament, which was then printed and smuggled into England and snapped up by an eager public."

Oh, I know, they chained these Bibles to pulpits so no one could check them out.

That's a reasonable illustration for "the Vulgate alone was to be held as authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes" [From Catholic Encyclopedia, pasted above]. Since most people could not read Latin, the "authentic" Bible was officially 'chained' from them.

Every time I hear this silly arguement I crack up.

I knew you had to be cracked up, but I was not certain as to how it happened.

You guys will believe anything that your anti-catholic authors feed you.

What I am believing here is from mostly pro-Catholic authors. And BTW do you know what displacement is? It is attributing one's own perceivedly poor qualities onto another, and this is a good example. The fact is-- you are obligated to believe anything your church tells you... I have no obligation to believe anyting anyone tells me. I am free to evaluate statements in light of facts, and you are not. If either one of us believes anything a certain source tells us, it is you.

 

What I am saying is that yoou must consider what the original word would have meant at the time it was written. Not merely what the word translated into Engish means now. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, I understand what you are saying. But, If the word that meant brother, cousin, fellow believer was used in the context with the names of Mary and Joseph...it seems that the context has indicated what the word means in this text.

As far as the arguements that Carson provided earlier about Joseph having children from someone other than Mary, I can see how that could be possible. But I'm not sure given how the Bible talks about Mary's children if they were in fact step children as suggested. I never tried to research God's word outside of God's word before. Where would you suggest that I start? I wouldn't have the vaguest idea.

I think what I will do for now, is try to keep an open mind about it all. I had a hard enough time trying to retain the Spanish I learned in school. I don't think I could handle learning Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek at this point in my life to relearn all I thought I knew. You are all giving me something to jar my way of thinking, that's for sure.

Take Care everyone. And, please try to remember that God made each of you, and try to be kind to each other when making your points. I'm not your mother, but you people seem to be losing your cool a bit. And I hate to see any casualties because of it.

Laurenda

 

Alcott,

"Their circulation with other Latin versions led to increasing uncertainties as to a standard text and caused the Fathers of the Council of Trent to declare that the Vulgate alone was to be held as "authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes, and that nobody might dare or presume to reject it on any pretence" (Sess. IV, decr. de editione et usu sacrorum librorum)."

Oh my, how old are you Alcott. You take this paragraph way out of context. What it says is that the Church compiled an official Latin version of the Bible so that they would not be reading corrupt versoins. This seems prudent to me. How does having an official translatoin of the Bible that is carefully translated prevent people from reading the Bible. Will any old translatoin do? How do you feel about the New World Translatoin of the JW's or the KJV version of the Mormons that Joseph Smith added to? Or how about the new nuetered bibles that Protestants are coming out with with phrases like "Father Mother God"?

"It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council."


Did you catch that Bob, "unauthorized vernacular versions.". It is the job of the Church to protect the scriptures from corruption. I sure want to know that the Bible in my hands is not corrupt. How about you. How can you have an inerrant corrupt Bible. You've taken things way out of context in order to decieve people. That is all I can attribute it to since you have the whole article before you. There were many approved vernacular versions so this prohibition is not nearly the problem you make it out to be.


"Because the Roman Catholic church opposed his translation of the Bible into English, Tyndale was forced to leave England for Germany in 1524. For the next two years, staying one step ahead of Papal persecution, he managed to complete his first translation of the New Testament, which was then printed and smuggled into England and snapped up by an eager public."


Um. Alcott it says "church opposed HIS". That does not mean they opposed all English translatoins. In fact they did not as the Douay Rheims was written shortly after Tyndale's version.


That's a reasonable illustration for "the Vulgate alone was to be held as authentic in public readings, discourses, and disputes" [From Catholic Encyclopedia, pasted above]. Since most people could not read Latin, the "authentic" Bible was officially 'chained' from them.

Latin was the universal language of the time Alcott. Those who could read, could read Latin. There are several reasons they were chained to pulpits. Not the least of which was Bibles took a long time to copy and create new ones so they were quite precious. They were also inlaid in the bindings with gold. Therefore they didn't wnat people walking off with them. Now think about it. If you had a copy of the Bible back then, do you think you might have protected it from theft and destruction. Your just not being very rational.

"I knew you had to be cracked up, but I was not certain as to how it happened."

Hatred spews from you posts Alcott. Perhaps you could act like someone I might want to fellowship with if someone could ever convince me that Protestantism was true rather than bash Catholicism with dim witted arguements from anti-catholic manefestos.



"What I am believing here is from mostly pro-Catholic authors. And BTW do you know what displacement is? It is attributing one's own perceivedly poor qualities onto another, and this is a good example. The fact is-- you are obligated to believe anything your church tells you... I have no obligation to believe anyting anyone tells me. I am free to evaluate statements in light of facts, and you are not. If either one of us believes anything a certain source tells us, it is you. "

Well from the way you distorted the quotes above and took them out of the obvious context, it is apparent that not believing anything anyone tells you means that you can twist and distort text to your liking. It makes me wonder how you can possibly interprut God's words when you mangle the meer words of a man beyond recognition.

Blessings Alcott. I will pray for you.

 

"For all those centuries a large portion could not read at all, and the position of the church you represent was that access to the scriptures should be prohibited to most."
Well I am assuming Augustine, Jerome and the other Early Church Fathers could read. I think Jerome translated the bible so I guess he could read. Seems to me that they could write a little bit too. I doubt if too many people alive today will be read in 100 yrs, much less 1500+.

"Don't you think Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli could read this passage too? Why do they differ with your interpretation if it is so obvious? Because they did not read it and accept it exactly as stated. Instead their prior brainwashing was still largely in effect."
AMAZING!!!! They could read well enough to thrash more than a few Catholic doctrines and throw some books out of the Bible.

3AM"You honestly think that because the people in the 'first' 18 centuries (the 18th was only 200 years ago) believed something, that they were RIGHT?"
Well in this case they are right and you aren't.

"And I know for a fact that when the dark ages ended and the BIBLE was no longer obscured from their eyes, they IMMEDIATLY saw the error of the CC and PROTESTED."
WRONG AGAIN...As has been shown the 'protesters' believed what the Catholic Church believed regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. Perhaps they did not protest too much!

"Why are you so adimate about Mary being a perpetual virgin? Why is this so important to you?"
It is the truth. Why do you want to denigrate God's mother? Perhaps you can get away with trashing someone's mother in your neck of the woods but it doesn't go over too well here.

 

3AngelsMom.....well said!

Sherrie

 

Thessalonian,

I did not read any of your post. I am offended by your 'cute' little name change. As for me, I have tried to be polite with all of the Catholics here because everyone enjoys bashing them. However, I am through for a while on this whole issue. I will have no respect for you posts any longer, it is a shame you have to take jabs such as this.

Neal

 

Thessalonian,

I did not read any of your post. I am offended by your 'cute' little name change. As for me, I have tried to be polite with all of the Catholics here because everyone enjoys bashing them. However, I am through for a while on this whole issue. I will have no respect for you posts any longer, it is a shame you have to take jabs such as this.

Neal </font>[/QUOTE]My apologies Neal. It was out of line.

 

Prehaps you should be putting bids on my plank picker on Ebay. I'm upgrading. "Inquiring minds want to know" was offensive to me. Thus my comment that this thread redeces Catholic beliefs to a sex tabloid issue. You disrespect trash and distort every day AngelMom. Your means of spreading the SDA False Gospel is bash Catholicism and they will come rolling in the SDA doors.
You SDA's are the most viral people of all on this board and others and hell would freeze over before I would fellowship in an SDA Church. Blessings.