P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
Christ is the one mediator. (See 1 Timothy 2:5)
Christ always lives to intercede for us. (See Hebrews 7:25)
Scripture is quite clear!
- Status
Christ always lives to intercede for us. (See Hebrews 7:25)
Scripture is quite clear!
R
regression
Guest
I (and the Catholic church) agree, Christ is the one mediator. We can (and should) pray for each other (ie, intercede). The verse you listed doesn’t say Christ is the only one that intercedes for us…
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:1–4)
I agree, scripture is quite clear in this matter, we should pray for each other.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Strategy: Associated denials through labels (instead of ACCEPTING historical facts!)
As stated, you’re just like the countless of heretical sects,which claimed the church was WRONG!
Aaahhhhh…Joshua,we are talking about a divine plan that an Eternal God set forth. God is NOT matter or time. We are his creations (space,time,matter) God is neither. As I stated,you think far to much as the typical carnal human. God is not concerned with the concept of human ‘time’ issue,but moreover, eternity.
No double standard on my part. Moreover, I am simply applying your own principles to one specific ORTHODOX doctrine (Trinity) which you accept with no quarrels. Go figure? However, you cringe at Mary remain an ever-virgin, a very natural act God does not forbid or look down upon.Needless to say, apparently you run away from your own words when turned back at you. Now who is playing the double standard game?
And you have missed the entire boat! Precisely! Perception and the current perception corresponds to the perception of the early church. What part do you not comprehend? You are a revisionist and that does not change an iota what has been taught and believed by the early church. Sorry to rain on your parade.
J
Joshua27
Guest
:doh2: Man…one can’t use any part of the word in the definition of a word one’s defining.
uch: You know what…(yeah) I think I’ve done all I can to present my side of the argument with biblical proof and at least some simblance of clarity. So I’ll just recap the standing position [and my comments to it].
So far it is believed that…
1. Mary was the true spouse of Father God (and that her marriage to Joseph was “pseudo” or “not really”).
[But not only is this belief similar to pagan (greek & roman) gods, but it breaks Biblical Law of Adultery]
2. Though not recorded, God requested (or inspired) Mary to remain celibate, though “contrarily” God commanded Joseph to marry her (as opposed to just letting Joseph put her away quietly so that Mary could remained a celibate single mother like past women of biblical record).
[Even though this notion would require Joseph to enter into the Biblical Law of Marriage, and yet allow Mary to break it, since she didn’t need to honor it.]
3. Though the record states that "Joseph married Mary but did not ‘know’ (sex) her until the birth of Christ", the greek and Hebrew words for “until” don’t really mean “until” as we understand it today, and/or the record doesn’t specifically detail whether this actually happened after Christ’s birth.
[Even though the word “not” creates a “negative” statement that ties to “until” (a conditional phrase), so if we invert the statement to “positive” it actually says, “Joseph did **then know (sexed) Mary after the birth of Christ”…as “not & until” are opposites of “then & after” (grammar 101).]
4. Though there’s record of use of the term “brothers” and “sisters” as it relates to relatives of Christ (which is before Christ established his Church, which means there’s yet no such thing as a “brother or sister in Christ”), the conclusion is these were cousins (or maybe children from a previous marriage) and couldn’t possibly be from Mary…not because of proof but because a lack of proof.
[But if Christ is recorded as an “only child” at 12 and began his ministry at approx. 30, this leaves room for at least one younger brother or sister to be alive during Christ’s ministry who’s at least 18yrs old… Not to mention Joseph and Mary had at least 12 years to bear more children (once Christ is 18, even though Jewish males are considered men earlier). Not much is detailed between the years of 12 and 30 so I will not assume this is the case, but simultaneously one can’t assume this is not the case…especially if the main subject of the gospels is Christ and not his siblings.]
5. 2000 years of tradition CAN’T be wrong, so anyone addressing a correction is rebelling against, not just the Church, but God himself.
[And yet Judaism was also established by God himself and existed for thousands of years until Christ came and corrected them on a few longstanding ideas they had in error…and yet we assume this couldn’t possibly be required again today because we have Church Fathers (though so did Judaism have equivalent), and sacred doctrines (though so did Judaism), and sacred traditions (though so did Judaism), and the Holy Spirit (though Judaism had God himself and angels and the Angel of the Lord/Captain of the Host conversing directly with them)]
6. To challenge “perpetual virginity” is to (somehow) besmirch Mary and thus Christ since Christ came from Mary (because Christ is only validated if Mary stays an ever-virgin even though Christ was already born and Christ’s holiness was in himself at this point)…because Mary is the wife of the Father person of the Trinity and thus must be sinless.
[Even though Biblical Law says “to be married (to a spouse) is to be one (with a spouse)”, thus if Mary is the spouse of Father God this would make her equal to Father God. And if she is equal to Father God - who is then one & equal with Christ…who is one & equal with the Holy Spirit - then this destroys the “Trinity” altogether…making it a “Holy Quadity”.]
uch: You know what…(yeah) I think I’ve done all I can to present my side of the argument with biblical proof and at least some simblance of clarity. So I’ll just recap the standing position [and my comments to it].So far it is believed that…
1. Mary was the true spouse of Father God (and that her marriage to Joseph was “pseudo” or “not really”).
[But not only is this belief similar to pagan (greek & roman) gods, but it breaks Biblical Law of Adultery]
2. Though not recorded, God requested (or inspired) Mary to remain celibate, though “contrarily” God commanded Joseph to marry her (as opposed to just letting Joseph put her away quietly so that Mary could remained a celibate single mother like past women of biblical record).
[Even though this notion would require Joseph to enter into the Biblical Law of Marriage, and yet allow Mary to break it, since she didn’t need to honor it.]
3. Though the record states that "Joseph married Mary but did not ‘know’ (sex) her until the birth of Christ", the greek and Hebrew words for “until” don’t really mean “until” as we understand it today, and/or the record doesn’t specifically detail whether this actually happened after Christ’s birth.
[Even though the word “not” creates a “negative” statement that ties to “until” (a conditional phrase), so if we invert the statement to “positive” it actually says, “Joseph did **then know (sexed) Mary after the birth of Christ”…as “not & until” are opposites of “then & after” (grammar 101).]
4. Though there’s record of use of the term “brothers” and “sisters” as it relates to relatives of Christ (which is before Christ established his Church, which means there’s yet no such thing as a “brother or sister in Christ”), the conclusion is these were cousins (or maybe children from a previous marriage) and couldn’t possibly be from Mary…not because of proof but because a lack of proof.
[But if Christ is recorded as an “only child” at 12 and began his ministry at approx. 30, this leaves room for at least one younger brother or sister to be alive during Christ’s ministry who’s at least 18yrs old… Not to mention Joseph and Mary had at least 12 years to bear more children (once Christ is 18, even though Jewish males are considered men earlier). Not much is detailed between the years of 12 and 30 so I will not assume this is the case, but simultaneously one can’t assume this is not the case…especially if the main subject of the gospels is Christ and not his siblings.]
5. 2000 years of tradition CAN’T be wrong, so anyone addressing a correction is rebelling against, not just the Church, but God himself.
[And yet Judaism was also established by God himself and existed for thousands of years until Christ came and corrected them on a few longstanding ideas they had in error…and yet we assume this couldn’t possibly be required again today because we have Church Fathers (though so did Judaism have equivalent), and sacred doctrines (though so did Judaism), and sacred traditions (though so did Judaism), and the Holy Spirit (though Judaism had God himself and angels and the Angel of the Lord/Captain of the Host conversing directly with them)]
6. To challenge “perpetual virginity” is to (somehow) besmirch Mary and thus Christ since Christ came from Mary (because Christ is only validated if Mary stays an ever-virgin even though Christ was already born and Christ’s holiness was in himself at this point)…because Mary is the wife of the Father person of the Trinity and thus must be sinless.
[Even though Biblical Law says “to be married (to a spouse) is to be one (with a spouse)”, thus if Mary is the spouse of Father God this would make her equal to Father God. And if she is equal to Father God - who is then one & equal with Christ…who is one & equal with the Holy Spirit - then this destroys the “Trinity” altogether…making it a “Holy Quadity”.]
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
REALLY? And um, which celibate single mother would that be?
Tamar married Judah. Bathsheba married David. Hannah was married. Hagar was a concubine, not a ‘celibate single mother’. . .
So which woman was rich and powerful enough to be able to live as a 'celibate single mother '–NOT a widow, not a concubine at the time when this was a legitimate legal status for a woman. . .?
Oh, and it’s gotta be more than one too since you said ‘women’.
N
Nicea325
Guest
know (sexed) Mary after the birth of Christ"…as “not & until” are opposites of “then & after” (grammar 101).]:doh2: Man…one can’t use any part of the word in the definition of a word one’s defining.
So far it is believed that…
1. Mary was the true spouse of Father God (and that her marriage to Joseph was “pseudo” or “not really”).
[But not only is this belief similar to pagan (greek & roman) gods, but it breaks Biblical Law of Adultery]
2. Though not recorded, God requested (or inspired) Mary to remain celibate, though “contrarily” God commanded Joseph to marry her (as opposed to just letting Joseph put her away quietly so that Mary could remained a celibate single mother like past women of biblical record).
[Even though this notion would require Joseph to enter into the Biblical Law of Marriage, and yet allow Mary to break it, since she didn’t need to honor it.]
3. Though the record states that “Joseph married Mary but did not ‘know’ (sex) her until the birth of Christ”, the greek and Hebrew words for “until” don’t really mean “until” as we understand it today, and/or the record doesn’t specifically detail whether this actually happened after Christ’s birth.
[Even though the word “not” creates a “negative” statement that ties to “until” (a conditional phrase), so if we invert the statement to “positive” it actually says, "Joseph did **then
4. Though there’s record of use of the term “brothers” and “sisters” as it relates to relatives of Christ (which is before Christ established his Church, which means there’s yet no such thing as a “brother or sister in Christ”), the conclusion is these were cousins (or maybe children from a previous marriage) and couldn’t possibly be from Mary…not because of proof but because a lack of proof.
[But if Christ is recorded as an “only child” at 12 and began his ministry at approx. 30, this leaves room for at least one younger brother or sister to be alive during Christ’s ministry who’s at least 18yrs old… Not to mention Joseph and Mary had at least 12 years to bear more children (once Christ is 18, even though Jewish males are considered men earlier). Not much is detailed between the years of 12 and 30 so I will not assume this is the case, but simultaneously one can’t assume this is not the case…especially if the main subject of the gospels is Christ and not his siblings.]
5. 2000 years of tradition CAN’T be wrong, so anyone addressing a correction is rebelling against, not just the Church, but God himself.
[And yet Judaism was also established by God himself and existed for thousands of years until Christ came and corrected them on a few longstanding ideas they had in error…and yet we assume this couldn’t possibly be required again today because we have Church Fathers (though so did Judaism have equivalent), and sacred doctrines (though so did Judaism), and sacred traditions (though so did Judaism), and the Holy Spirit (though Judaism had God himself and angels and the Angel of the Lord/Captain of the Host directly conversing directly with them)]
6. To challenge “perpetual virginity” is to (somehow) besmerch Mary and thus Christ since Christ came from Mary (because Christ is only validated if Mary stays an ever-virgin even though Christ was already born and Christ’s holiness was in himself at this point)…because Mary is the wife of the Father person of the Trinity and thus must be sinless.
[Even though Biblical Law says “to be married (to a spouse) is to be one (with a spouse)”, thus if Mary is the spouse of Father God this would make her equal to Father God. And if she is equal to Father God - who is then one & equal with Christ…who is one & equal with the Holy Spirit - then this destroys the “Trinity” altogether…making it a “Holy Quadity”.]
So Joshua…is 2,000 years of Tradition about the Trinity…WRONG? So according to the Arians addressing the church…a correction they believed very firmly- a rebellion against, not just the Church, but God himself?
Tell us Joshua? How about the Incarnation? How about the canon of scripture? The Resurrection? ALL TRADITION as well.
But as for Mary remaining an ever-virgin? NNaaaaa…that cannot be right,she HAD to have had relations later.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Matthew 16:18-19
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
By the clear promise of Christ to Simon Peter, our first Pope (we see him being ordained to be chief shepherd of the Church in John 21:15-19), it is impossible for the Church to teach any false thing, and by the authority of Christ, the Church established on Peter has the right to bind us to her disciplines, and to free us from our sins.
J
Joshua27
Guest
Celibate = “an unmarried person who has taken a religious vow of chastity; abstaining from sexual intercourse; an unmarried status”…which says nothing about being a virgin.
Hagar was indeed an unmarried single mother. Don’t set boundaries to terms as they’re convenient for you, just like many have done (and continue to do) with the word “until”…and with the word “mediator” and “interceder”.
You will NOT address my points, will you? I didn’t say the Trinity was wrong.
Here I’ll repost it:
6. To challenge “perpetual virginity” is to (somehow) besmirch Mary and thus Christ since Christ came from Mary (because Christ is only validated if Mary stays an ever-virgin even though Christ was already born and Christ’s holiness was in himself at this point)…because Mary is the wife of the Father person of the Trinity and thus must be sinless.
[Even though Biblical Law says “to be married (to a spouse) is to be one (with a spouse)”, thus if Mary is the spouse of Father God this would make her equal to Father God. And if she is equal to Father God - who is then one & equal with Christ…who is one & equal with the Holy Spirit - then this destroys the “Trinity” altogether…making it a “Holy Quadity”.]
I challenge you to address this point: Prove how Mary is married to Father God while not breaking the definition of the Holy Trinity because Mary is (indeed) a person, and if she’s married she’s (indeed) one with her husband, though separate and distinct.
For Mary to be the spouse of Father God, the Trinity CAN’T be possible. This is a contradiction of beliefs.
Choose one or the other…either Mary is Father God’s Spouse (and there is a Holy Quadity, not Trinity) or there is only a Holy Trinity (and Mary must NOT be God’s Spouse).
The onus of proof is on you (or anyone else who’d like to try).
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Well Joshua, it looks like you want to be the one ‘defining’ terms to suit YOUR case. And it also looks as though you don’t have very much knowledge of Biblical history. . .that is, of customs and culture. If you’re going to impose 21st century ‘definitions’ to people living thousands of years ago, with all respect, you are wasting my time as well as your own, and any others reading your posts.
B
benidict
Guest
so the apostles were promoting their own laws?I don’t need a sign, Ben, as I wasn’t who required confirmation from God through prayer (please reread the dialog)…But you’re right; I would (honestly) deny it if Mary appeared to me, but not because of a lack of respect of her! I would deny her because there is only one mediator (bridge; advocate; go between) between God and man. It is clearly stated…so anyone else could not be from God by default. Now if Christ appeared to me and confirmed everything you just said, then I would (without a doubt) believe in a heart beat…forsaking all other “logic”.
…You see that’s the underlying issue I’m trying to address here. How many of us are willing to - at a moment’s notice - forsake all we hold if it was proven by God himself to be wrong? I don’t things many would even in the face of God, which begs the question: what do most people worship God or religion?
You mention Moses and the Prophets. BTW, I follow Moses (establisher of the eternal Law) and the Prophets (promoters of the eternal Law). Christ also preached support of the eternal Laws. The Apostles also promoted the eternal Law as well as spread “the Gospel of Christ”. However, while the Church Fathers promoted “the Gospel of Christ” they promoted their own laws…but this is a discussion for another thread.
thats an interesting take. are you saying they were not acting with the guidance of the Holy Spirit? just wanna make sure i can understand where your coming from, and not mis reading you. are you saying you deny the authority of the apolstles? because Jesus said, that those that did not listen to to them, do not listen to him. or is there another possibility? are you stating the apostles were starting tradition? to which do you ascribe to? the old law, with all its regulations and rules. or the New law, which is found in Christ? thanks in advance. Peace
B
benidict
Guest
this will be my last day on CAF for awhile. when next we converse, i will be in a very hot place…NO NOT THAT ONE! 
look forward to this discussion later. this has been very enlightning. Peace to all of us.
look forward to this discussion later. this has been very enlightning. Peace to all of us.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
The Christian teaching is that Mary was the wife of Joseph. The Bible does teach that Joseph and Mary were married. It does not teach different kinds of spouses. There is no such thing as a heavenly and then earthly spouse. In fact, we are not married in heaven, as scripture teaches.
Give me the earliest one who teaches it and a complete access to the context it was used.
J
Joshua27
Guest
—To Ben—
Oh blessed Father please help me! You know that I didn’t write that the “Apostles were promoting their own laws”. You see in my quoted statement that I talked about (1) Moses & Prophets, (2) Christ, (3) Apostles, and THEN (4) the Church Fathers (which was even followed by a “HOWEVER” to separate the thoughts)…so why must people insist on perverting what I state?]
My comment was about the Church Fathers which are distinguished from the early apostles. “Church Fathers” are labeled as the first generation after Christ’s apostles, or at least that’s what I meant by the term. I did not equate Apostles and Church Fathers.
Have a good trip, Benedict.
—To Tantum—
I gave full Princeton definitions, Tantum. I even shared the greek/hebrew words, context, and their definitions, but that wasn’t neutral enough, I guess. I guess I’m “twisting” words or I’m “wicked” (from the word “wick”; of a candle, which were “twisted” and bound into columns of wax)?
I’m wasting your time and yet you continued to read and reply? I concluded with you twice: once when I said ‘I would pray and we’d talk at the end of the year’, and again when I said ‘I was stating the position [and my comments] and then ending’…but you (and others) continued.
Even though you would attack my biblical knowledge, what you haven’t yet realized is that I’m a biblical scholar, Tantum. My business is to study scripture - every day. Not READ scripture…study it.
So with respect, please don’t let me waste anymore of your time by forcing you to read or reply to any more of my posts.
Oh blessed Father please help me! You know that I didn’t write that the “Apostles were promoting their own laws”. You see in my quoted statement that I talked about (1) Moses & Prophets, (2) Christ, (3) Apostles, and THEN (4) the Church Fathers (which was even followed by a “HOWEVER” to separate the thoughts)…so why must people insist on perverting what I state?]My comment was about the Church Fathers which are distinguished from the early apostles. “Church Fathers” are labeled as the first generation after Christ’s apostles, or at least that’s what I meant by the term. I did not equate Apostles and Church Fathers.
Have a good trip, Benedict.
—To Tantum—
I gave full Princeton definitions, Tantum. I even shared the greek/hebrew words, context, and their definitions, but that wasn’t neutral enough, I guess. I guess I’m “twisting” words or I’m “wicked” (from the word “wick”; of a candle, which were “twisted” and bound into columns of wax)?
I’m wasting your time and yet you continued to read and reply? I concluded with you twice: once when I said ‘I would pray and we’d talk at the end of the year’, and again when I said ‘I was stating the position [and my comments] and then ending’…but you (and others) continued.
Even though you would attack my biblical knowledge, what you haven’t yet realized is that I’m a biblical scholar, Tantum. My business is to study scripture - every day. Not READ scripture…study it.
So with respect, please don’t let me waste anymore of your time by forcing you to read or reply to any more of my posts.
B
benidict
Guest
my apologies, you did state church fathers—To Ben—
My comment was about the Church Fathers which are distinguished from the early apostles. “Church Fathers” are labeled as the first generation after Christ’s apostles, or at least that’s what I meant by the term. I did not equate Apostles and Church Fathers.
Have a good trip, Benedict.
—To Tantum—
I gave full Princeton definitions, Tantum. I even shared the greek/hebrew words, context, and their definitions, but that wasn’t neutral enough, I guess. I guess I’m “twisting” words or I’m “wicked” (from the word “wick”; of a candle, which were “twisted” and bound into columns of wax)?
I’m wasting your time and yet you continued to read and reply? I concluded with you twice: once when I said ‘I would pray and we’d talk at the end of the year’, and again when I said ‘I was stating the position [and my comments] and then ending’…but you (and others) continued.
Even though you would attack my biblical knowledge, what you haven’t yet realized is that I’m a biblical scholar, Tantum. My business is to study scripture - every day. Not READ scripture…study it.
So with respect, please don’t let me waste anymore of your time by forcing you to read or reply to any more of my posts.
i stand corrected. and thank you for the well wishes. i didnt get alot of sleep last night. sgts. turning the screws and all that. will take this up with you when i get to where im going, dont think ill be anymore rested tho. Peace
J
jmcrae
Guest
You get paid to come up with this stuff?
You need to read The Sources of Catholic Dogma, by Denzinger, published by Loreto House. You should also get Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, and refer to it frequently.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I have no idea what “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” means when one half of the relationship is human and the other half human. It would seem to me that if she were “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” that even a human marriage without sexual relationships would be a violation here. I guess this phrase originally comes from Matthew 1, but it still seems a leap to me to go from this text to “spouse of the Holy Spirit”. But that might be me. But I still don’t know what “spouse of the Holy Spirit” actually means.
But let’s for grins and giggles assume this is just me and that Mary was the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. And that she never did have marital sexual relationships with Joseph.
Remember I was responding to post 82 which used the language “filthy smear campaign” without any explanation at all.
The term “filthy smear campaign” implies malicious motives in which those who disagree are intent on destroying the name and reputation of Mary. Do you and the other readers of this thread really believe that is our intent? Why should that be our motives when married people having marital relationships is the norm for marriage. Why would believing she had a normal marital relationship (even if we are wrong) constitute a “filthy smear campaign”. It seems to me that would be the normal assumption one would make on any marriage without any evidence to the contrary.
Now it would be if “normal marital relationships” were somehow impure. I could then get it as to why it is a “filthy smear campaign”. I just don’t get it otherwise.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Of course not,because it jives with our ORTHODOX traditions,so it is not wrong or against our beliefs.But Mary does rub you wrong because it does not jive with your novelty,hence it has it to be wrong because Joshua says so and everyone has been wrong. Pretty arrogant Joshua.
Here I’ll repost it:
First of all, where does Scripture or the early church teach that Mary HAD to have sexual relations with Joseph or else they were in grave error against God? Remember,we are talking about the SON OF GOD and the chosen woman to conceive Him. It is not just an ordinary family Joshua. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Okay…and? The scribes also had an issue when Jesus told them, the Son of Man also had power to forgive sins (Matt: 9-1-8) Oh but wait, Jesus was ONLY a man to them…how dare Jesus be above God. Hello! God can do whatever He chooses! He came to earth incarnated…WOW! Imagine that? God CAN do whatever he chooses.
Wife? Wife? The RCC calls her the Mother of God,we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God “in the flesh” (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.
Precisely why I DO NOT ACCEPT your biblical exegesis Joshua. You are out to be the Judge and corrector of divine revelation. You make yourself the Teacher and God the student. Finally, the ancient church and the RCC has never TAUGHT Mary is EQUAL with God.
What? Where do you come up with these ideas? Kindly show me the RCC doctrine saying Mary is MARRIED to God the Father and not Joseph? I am starting to place you in the same category with Jim Jones and David Koresh.
The only contradictions I have seen are your wannabe self-made theologian beliefs.
On the contrary, the onus of proof is on you to PROVE the ancient church taught the Holy Quadity and not the Trinity.
[/quote]
N
Nicea325
Guest
You are a biblical scholar? Yep! David Koresh,Jim Jones,Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate),etc. all claimed the same and look where they all ended up?
Apparently your methods of studying are ineffective…no offense.
P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
And when you pray **for **someone, who do you pray to?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,Joshua. Those were a poor choice of words. My apologies.
uch:- Status