Ever Virgin

[benedicta00]

Show me my error.

You error may be in assuming that there were pains. lets look at what it says.

13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.

14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and the beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

15 **I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.**

16 To the woman also he said: **I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.**

Now we can not totally skip over verse 15 where it says God will put enmities between “thee and the woman.”

And then it goes on to say that our sorrows will be multiplied. i do not see where one can definitively say this means we had sorrows in the first place.

Do you really think we had sorrow and pain in a state of original justice? We all have been taught specifcally that we did not, so we know we can not interpret the way you try.

You see how orthodox belief begins to unravel when you force a anti Catholic interpretation in scripture *just *so you can disagree with Catholics?

I do not see where this verse says we had pain, just not real bad pain.

 

[sinner06]

You error may be in assuming that there were pains. lets look at what it says.

Now we can not totally skip over verse 15 where it says God will put enmities between “thee and the woman.”

And then it goes on to say that our sorrows will be multiplied. i do not see where one can definitively say this means we had sorrows in the first place.

Do you really think we had sorrow and pain in a state of original justice? We all have been taught specifcally that we did not, so we know we can not interpret the way you try.

You see how orthodox belief begins to unravel when you force a anti Catholic interpretation in scripture *just *so you can disagree with Catholics?

I do not see where this verse says we had pain, just not real bad pain.

Sorry, what Bible version are you using?

 

[benedicta00]

No, but what I was saying from the beginning was that if the only argument you have is that “it’s an infallible teaching” than fine, we can discuss infallibility in another thread. I was asking if there was anything besides that, but there obviously isn’t so we might as well be done with this thread. I was saying if there was anything logically wrong with my statement, outside of the fact that it isn’t what the Church teaches, and no one has presented me with anything, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Yes… the early Christians of the first few centuries that did not in anyway believe like protestants.

These early Christians were closer to the apostolic age and before there was a word of God to pass around, they relied on oral teaching and we can look at that witness and see, the early Church in the first 300 years all believed the same. It this consensus that reveals to us the Church that Christ established was 100% the Catholic Church we see today.

 

[benedicta00]

Sorry, what Bible version are you using?

So we are going to find fault with the translation?

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. This edition is the translation taken from the original Latin Vulgate. We can look at that if you like?

 

[sinner06]

Yes… the early Christians of the first few centuries that did not in anyway believe like protestants.

These early Christians were closer to the apostolic age and before there was a word of God to pass around, they relied on oral teaching and we can look at that witness and see, the early Church in the first 300 years all believed the same. It this consensus that reveals to us the Church that Christ established was 100% the Catholic Church we see today.

So other than “it’s an infallible teaching” you’ve got nothing for me? All right then.

Secondly, you never answered what Bible version you were using. I’m using the New American Bible, which I though was the standard Catholic one now, and it specifically talks about intensifying the pangs of child birth.

 

[sinner06]

So other than “it’s an infallible teaching” you’ve got nothing for me? All right then.

Secondly, you never answered what Bible version you were using. I’m using the New American Bible, which I though was the standard Catholic one now, and it specifically talks about intensifying the pangs of child birth.

whoops, sorry, I didn’t see your post till after

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, but what I was saying from the beginning was that if the only argument you have is that “it’s an infallible teaching” than fine, we can discuss infallibility in another thread. I was asking if there was anything besides that, **but there obviously isn’t **so we might as well be done with this thread. I was saying if there was anything logically wrong with my statement, outside of the fact that it isn’t what the Church teaches, and no one has presented me with anything, so I see no reason to continue this discussion.

Do you have a learning disability?

I really want to know and it is not a flame.

I have posted more than one source and writing that supports “ever virgin” and so have others. Yet you say “but there obviously isn’t”???

So you are either wasting everyone’s time with false questions and interest (which is one of satan’s tricks) or you have some kind of learning disability. Since there is no evil in being retarded I thought it the better of the two. Now… what is it?

• I am not repeating myself that is for sure.

 

[sinner06]

So we are going to find fault with the translation?

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition. This edition is the translation taken from the original Latin Vulgate. We can look at that if you like?

I thought the New American Bible had taken over as the official Bible now? That’s the one my parish uses, and that’s the one that’s been used by every Catholic I’ve met and has been used at every Catholic school I’ve attended. I’d heard of the Douay, but I thought that was the old one?

 

[sinner06]

Do you have a learning disability?

I really want to know and it is not a flame.

I have posted more than one source and writing that supports “ever virgin” and so have others. Yet you say “but there obviously isn’t”???

So you are either wasting everyone’s time with false questions and interest (which is one of satan’s tricks) or you have some kind of learning disability. Since there is no evil in being retarded I thought it the better of the two. Now… what is it?

• I am not repeating myself that is for sure.

Sorry, I didn’t have look at all of your articles in depth yet, I’m being barraged on several threads at once. I was referring to the other guy that just went on a rant about how great the church and its tradition was and didn’t help me at all. Sorry.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I thought the New American Bible had taken over as the official Bible now? That’s the one my parish uses, and that’s the one that’s been used by every Catholic I’ve met and has been used at every Catholic school I’ve attended. I’d heard of the Douay, but I thought that was the old one?

It is only one of at least several accepted translations of the Catholic church in the USA.

 

[benedicta00]

So other than “it’s an infallible teaching” you’ve got nothing for me? All right then.

Secondly, you never answered what Bible version you were using. I’m using the New American Bible, which I though was the standard Catholic one now, and it specifically talks about intensifying the pangs of child birth.

It is not an infallible teaching… the ECF are NOT infallible. ONLY the Church is becuase it is Jesus’ Christ. **That **is why it can not err, becuase she is the bride of Christ.

Do you really think Christ’s Church could ever be capable of teaching the faithful error?

protestants basically believe that god was incapable of giving us a Church and having it not teach us a error… why do you think that?

if God wanted to, He indeed could give us a Church and have it not be wrong when it comes to teaching us faith and morals, couldn’t He?

Now to answer you more fully… the ECF, as i said is a witness to what was always taught and believed since day one, in the early days.

It itself is not our teaching. It itself is** just a witness to our teaching**.

it is what proves to you that the apostles taught this, how do we know? becuase we see the very early Christians teaching it. They had to get it from somewhere… right?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Sorry, I didn’t have look at all of your articles in depth yet, I’m being barraged on several threads at once. I was referring to the other guy that just went on a rant about how great the church and its tradition was and didn’t help me at all. Sorry.

I apologize as well.

I took your post as meaning you read my posts and likely their supporting links.

Please let me know what you think of the two letters and their authors.

 

[sinner06]

It is not an infallible teaching… the ECF are NOT infallible. ONLY the Church is becuase it is Jesus’ Christ. **That **is why it can not err, becuase she is the bride of Christ.

Do you really think Christ’s Church could ever be capable of teaching the faithful error?

protestants basically believe that god was incapable of giving us a Church and having it not teach us a error… why do you think that?

if God wanted to, He indeed could give us a Church and have it not be wrong when it comes to teaching us faith and morals, couldn’t He?

Now to answer you more fully… the ECF, as i said is a witness to what was always taught and believed since day one, in the early days.

It itself is not our teaching. It itself is** just a witness to our teaching**.

it is what proves to you that the apostles taught this, how do we know? becuase we see the very early Christians teaching it. They had to get it from somewhere… right?

You make a lot of assumptions. “Protestants basically believe that…” First of all, I don’t think, and no Protestant I’ve ever met thinks, that God is incapable of anything, but just because God could do something doesn’t mean He did. That’s what I’m asking, why do you believe He did.

 

[sinner06]

I apologize as well.

I took your post as meaning you read my posts and likely their supporting links.

Please let me know what you think of the two letters and their authors.

no need to apologize, that is possibly the only time someone has called me retarded and I really knew they weren’t trying to offend me. It’s a new experience lol

 

[benedicta00]

I thought the New American Bible had taken over as the official Bible now? That’s the one my parish uses, and that’s the one that’s been used by every Catholic I’ve met and has been used at every Catholic school I’ve attended. I’d heard of the Douay, but I thought that was the old one?

There is no official bible translation. the DR is old and one of the most accepted, one that is closet to the original Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome.

So are we done trying to poke holes with the translation?

But it doesn’t matter… you are saying that pre fall we experienced pain, just not real bad pain and I want to know where on earth you came up with that? From a loosely translated Protestant bible?

Even so, it’s still a huge stretch.

You begin to get into a unorthodox area you really do not want to get into. of course we never experienced pain pre fall.

You are boarding heresy to claim that we did.

 

[benedicta00]

You make a lot of assumptions. “Protestants basically believe that…” First of all, I don’t think, and no Protestant I’ve ever met thinks, that God is incapable of anything, but just because God could do something doesn’t mean He did. That’s what I’m asking, why do you believe He did.

becuase **historically **we can prove it. facts are facts. Benedict in Rome can be traced right back to Christ.

but just because God could do something doesn’t mean He did.

can you give me a logical reason why He would not??

 

[sinner06]

There is no official bible translation. the DR is old and one of the most accepted, one that is closet to the original Latin Vulgate translated by St. Jerome.

So are we done trying to poke holes with the translation?

But it doesn’t matter… you are saying that pre fall we experienced pain, just not real bad pain and I want to know where on earth you came up with that? From a loosely translated Protestant bible?

Even so, it’s still a huge stretch.

You begin to get into a unorthodox area you really do not want to get into. of course we never experienced pain pre fall.

You are boarding heresy to claim that we did.

I was not trying to poke holes about translation, I genuinely didn’t know there were other versions, you are very arrogant in your speech, and somehow think you can accurately judge me without any knowledge of me. Secondly, you went from saying that the New American Bible was an approved Catholic version, to saying it’s a “loosely translated Protestant Bible”? Was the Church wrong for approving it then? Threatening me with heresy won’t do much either, I am tired of Catholics accusing people of horrible things just because that person dares question the Church teachings. The purpose of the Apologetics section is to question church teachings, right?

 

[sinner06]

becuase **historically **we can prove it. facts are facts. Benedict in Rome can be traced right back to Christ.

can you give me a logical reason why He would not??

He is the last Bishop of Rome, of which Peter was the first, probably, though I’ve read some stuff about breaks in the chain of Apostolic succession, I’ll have to read up on that. However, assuming there is an unbroken line, does that mean that all of Peter’s powers were necessarily passed down? Now I have a horrible headache and it’s late were I am, so I’m going to stop posting before I say something stupid that makes me look like an idiot, if I haven’t already. I’ll resume this discussion later. God Bless everyone!

 

[benedicta00]

I was not trying to poke holes about translation, I genuinely didn’t know there were other versions, you are very arrogant in your speech, and somehow think you can accurately judge me without any knowledge of me. Secondly, you went from saying that the New American Bible was an approved Catholic version, to saying it’s a “loosely translated Protestant Bible”? Was the Church wrong for approving it then? Threatening me with heresy won’t do much either, I am tired of Catholics accusing people of horrible things just because that person dares question the Church teachings. The purpose of the Apologetics section is to question church teachings, right?

The Catholic Church has a New American edition but it is not the same as a Protestant NAE version and it’s used but not really preferred.

But I can post form that. it still does not say what you force it to.

I’m sorry but you began this as if you had established some infallible premise, that we had pain pre fall.

No we did not.

We *know *we can not translate Genesis 3 in this way for the simple fact, it goes against how were originally created which is sin free with out any of the sorrow or pain we have now. The sorrow and the pain is a punishment, why would have it pre fall?

There is just no way one can say we had pain, not just real bad.

This goes against mainstream Christianity altogether, so you should know not to interpret this way.

This just goes to show the problems with sola scripture and one giving themselves authority to interpret the bible how they like.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

God Bless you sinner06