M
Mickey
Guest
Bravo Isadore! It is not you who has the sloppy exegesis!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif
- Status
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_28_100.gif
P
puzzleannie
Guest
How is it that even during the Reformation most Protestant reformers did not attack or discount Mary’s perpetual virginity, which remains in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed which are professed by most Christian denominations (except those who reject the concept of a credo altogether)? How is it that until the fundamentalist denominations blossomed and grew in the last 125 years that Christians had no problem with this doctrine at all?
M
michaelp
Guest
I know it implies nothing after because she was dead. The supposition of pregnancy was not terminated because of a usage of the word until, but because of the mortal status of the person. Again, very bad exegesis.
Implication, stopped at dawn.
Until does not equal “before” just because it overlaps semantically. Sloppy.
Michael
B
Benadam
Guest
Can we call this analysis of the word untill an agreed disagreement and move on to evidence supporting one or the other usages of the word? I think if it’s tallied at this point the ever virgin side wins.
S
Scott_Lafrance
Guest
He will reign until His enemies are under His feet.
Does this imply that when Satan is finally defeated, Jesus takes a demotion? Does Jesus stop being King of Kings after His enemies are trampled? Until, by its very definition means “Up to that time”. It implies nothing afterwards.
michaelp:
Does this imply that when Satan is finally defeated, Jesus takes a demotion? Does Jesus stop being King of Kings after His enemies are trampled? Until, by its very definition means “Up to that time”. It implies nothing afterwards.
M
michaelp
Guest
No, but it does imply that a different type of reign will begin when Has all of his enemies under his feet. Thus will begin the eschaton when there will be no enemies. Therefore, this passage does not teach anything about the word “until” but about the type of reign that will that is currently taking place. Once the enemies are under his feet, that reign will end and the eschatological reign will begin.
This is not too difficult to see.
If you were correct that the reign does not change in any way, then this would hardely be worth mentioning. The primary idea is that He is in the process of placing the enemies under His feet. When that is complete, things will be different with his reign in that it will not be one in which His is in the process of defeating His enemies.
Therefore, a paraphrase that catches the spirit of the verse would be thus: Christ is on the thrown bringing his enemies to submission (i.e. reigning). And this will happen until they fully submit.
Once they have submitted, this type of reign that is being spoken of in this context will indeed cease.
Hope that this helps.
Until later!! Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Oh man, I thought the other side was winning. That stinks . . . such is life.
Wait a minute . . . you are trying to pull a fast one. Was your statement infallible or just opinion?
B
Benadam
Guest
I admit to an impression of a tally that exists only in my mind. :whacky:Oh man, I thought the other side was winning. That stinks . . . such is life.
Wait a minute . . . you are trying to pull a fast one. Was your statement infallible or just opinion?
Is the concept valid?
M
MariaG
Guest
I find it interesting that Protestants today disagree with Protestants of yesterday and don’t find that distressing.
Was Calvin sloppy in his work too? Luther sloppy? They both agree with the Catholics on this one.
God Bless,
Maria
Was Calvin sloppy in his work too? Luther sloppy? They both agree with the Catholics on this one.
God Bless,
Maria
M
michaelp
Guest
Reference on this please. Specifically a reference to Calvin and Luther’s view on the usage of the word “until” in the context of which we have been speaking.
I know that you cannot find it and you meant the statment more generally, but I just had to correct you on this.
Sloppy again
Michael
I know that you cannot find it and you meant the statment more generally, but I just had to correct you on this.
Sloppy again
Michael
M
MariaG
Guest
Since I was refering to the virginity of Mary and her lack of other Children not the word itself “until” why should I specifically reference it?
Post # 40 references Calvin. Post # 36 references Luther. Sloppy? Apparently. I assumed people actually *read *all the posts before posting.
Protestants have only recently decided that Mary was not ever virgin. Calvin and Luther would disagree with them. See the above posts. THAT was MY point. You can talk *until *you are blue in the face on what exactly until means, but the fact is that until you accept that Mary was ever virgin, you will disagree with both Calvin and Luther.
And that is what I find so interesting.
Until you can explain why they were wrong on Mary’s virginity, but not wrong on salvation or how many books are in the Bible I’ll stick with the original Christians.
Until next time.
God Bless,
Maria
Post # 40 references Calvin. Post # 36 references Luther. Sloppy? Apparently. I assumed people actually *read *all the posts before posting.
Protestants have only recently decided that Mary was not ever virgin. Calvin and Luther would disagree with them. See the above posts. THAT was MY point. You can talk *until *you are blue in the face on what exactly until means, but the fact is that until you accept that Mary was ever virgin, you will disagree with both Calvin and Luther.
And that is what I find so interesting.
Until you can explain why they were wrong on Mary’s virginity, but not wrong on salvation or how many books are in the Bible I’ll stick with the original Christians.
Until next time.
God Bless,
Maria
B
Benadam
Guest
What about their acceptance of Mary’s virginity? Do protestants recognize the validity and effective nuetralizer a perfect unadulterated maternal bond is to corruption’s perpetual point of entry into humanity?Reference on this please. Specifically a reference to Calvin and Luther’s view on the usage of the word “until” in the context of which we have been speaking.
I know that you cannot find it and you meant the statment more generally, but I just had to correct you on this.
Sloppy again
Michael
Yes, I did say that.
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
Hello, Michael
Sloppy exegsis What ever happened to a simple Faith and logical thinking.God is a jealous God,that is in scripture,Mary concieved by the Holy Spirit,Mary is the spouse of the Holy Spirit The Children Mary was given is all of us who hold the Words of Jesus,we are part of Jesus Body,Mary was given to us as our mother.God Bless
P
pnewton
Guest
Wrong! The basis of any lexicon is comparison to how words are used in different context. It is not sloppy, but rather depth that is shown by bringing out how the same word is used elsewhere. “Until”'s use elsewhere in this fashion (before) proves at least the possibility that it can have this meaning. Since the possibility exists, the scripture in question can not *prove *Mary had other children.
Also, continuing to call everything you disagree with “sloppy” based on the fact that you do not agree shows that you really aren’t open, even to logic. The human propensity for self-deceipt is one reason we must have a divinely inspired interpreter of scripture, along with a divinely inspired Scripture.
S
SusanG
Guest
And we wait again…
Were Calvin and Luther wrong? They agreed with Mary’s perpetual virginity…**were they wrong? **Bear in mind these are the men who formed the very basis of what you believe, or purport to believe.
So were they wrong or were they right?
Blessings to all
Were Calvin and Luther wrong? They agreed with Mary’s perpetual virginity…**were they wrong? **Bear in mind these are the men who formed the very basis of what you believe, or purport to believe.
So were they wrong or were they right?
Blessings to all
M
michaelp
Guest
It is just all the examples that you have given are not good. Sorry, I will not call them sloppy anymore. They just don’t work to prove your point in any way as I have demonstrated. This does not mean you cannot find one. But using Rachel is not good. She was DEAD. The continuation of her bearing of children had nothing to do with the word “until.” It had to do with her mortal status.
Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Lisa, just sloppy concerning the word until.Hello, Michael
M
michaelp
Guest
Benadam, If you want to know the truth, the doctrine of perpetual virginity does not make any difference to me theologically speaking one way or the other.What about their acceptance of Mary’s virginity? Do protestants recognize the validity and effective nuetralizer a perfect unadulterated maternal bond is to corruption’s perpetual point of entry into humanity?
Yes, I did say that.
To me, it does seem to be spoken against in Scripture in many places concerning “until” “brothers and sisters” and “first-born.” It is also never spoken of, explicitly or implicitly, as being truth in Scripture. It was never part of the regula fidei (rule of faith) of the early church. There is just no reason for me to believe it at all. This work that you all are doing on the word until is just a little out there. It seems like you all are stretching into the most unlikely of interpretation to get by all of these issues.
Not only is there this positive evidence against it. But the historical evidence is not in its favor since it reigned at a time when sex itself was looked down apon. Most through the early and medeval church through that the act of sex itself was sin. This stemmed from a Gnostic separation between the physical and the spiritual. The Church has gotten past that. Now there is no need for Mary to be perpetually a virgin. In fact, it would have been more dishonoring, from my understanding, to remain a virgin even though she was married to Joseph.
So, historically and biblically, this doctrine seems to be wanting.
But that is just my fallible opinion.
Michael
M
MariaG
Guest
posted by michaelp
I don’t understand why it does not distress you or why you do not seek a deeper look into the historical church and what they believed.
These men read Scripture and came to the conclusion that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet they also read Scripture and came to different conclusions about what Jesus taught than what the Catholic Church taught.
So are you not at all interested in seeking out the writings of those who talked with the apostles to see if Calvin and Luther, whom you disagree with on at least on point, were consistent in interpreting Scripture in the same manner that the apostles taught?
Medeval?
Origen
“The Book [the *Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (*Commentary on Matthew *2:17 A.D. 248]).
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
There is in fact much evidence that it was completely believed by the early Church. Doesn’t it bother you that you disagree with those who talked to the apostles? Whether or not Mary was ever virgin may not matter to you, but what else do you disagree with that the historical church believed?
The Catholic Church is so completely “biblical” that it grabbed ahold of this poor soul. But it distressed me to find different interpretations of Scripture by different pastors, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Historical and Biblical = The Catholic Church
God Bless,
Maria
This is what I find so interesting. You disagree with those who formed Protestant theology, on a seemingly basic fact, yet follow where their scholarship and the “Holy Spirit” led.
I don’t understand why it does not distress you or why you do not seek a deeper look into the historical church and what they believed.
These men read Scripture and came to the conclusion that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet they also read Scripture and came to different conclusions about what Jesus taught than what the Catholic Church taught.
So are you not at all interested in seeking out the writings of those who talked with the apostles to see if Calvin and Luther, whom you disagree with on at least on point, were consistent in interpreting Scripture in the same manner that the apostles taught?
Medeval?Origen
“The Book [the *Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity” (*Commentary on Matthew *2:17 A.D. 248]).
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
There is in fact much evidence that it was completely believed by the early Church. Doesn’t it bother you that you disagree with those who talked to the apostles? Whether or not Mary was ever virgin may not matter to you, but what else do you disagree with that the historical church believed?
The Catholic Church is so completely “biblical” that it grabbed ahold of this poor soul. But it distressed me to find different interpretations of Scripture by different pastors, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Historical and Biblical = The Catholic Church
God Bless,
Maria
M
michaelp
Guest
] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the firstfruit of virginity" (*Commentary on Matthew *2:17 A.D. 248]).posted by michaelp
This is what I find so interesting. You disagree with those who formed Protestant theology, on a seemingly basic fact, yet follow where their scholarship and the “Holy Spirit” led.
I don’t understand why it does not distress you or why you do not seek a deeper look into the historical church and what they believed.
These men read Scripture and came to the conclusion that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet they also read Scripture and came to different conclusions about what Jesus taught than what the Catholic Church taught.
So are you not at all interested in seeking out the writings of those who talked with the apostles to see if Calvin and Luther, whom you disagree with on at least on point, were consistent in interpreting Scripture in the same manner that the apostles taught?
Origen
"The Book [the *Protoevangelium
catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
There is in fact much evidence that it was completely believed by the early Church. Doesn’t it bother you that you disagree with those who talked to the apostles? Whether or not Mary was ever virgin may not matter to you, but what else do you disagree with that the historical church believed?
The Catholic Church is so completely “biblical” that it grabbed ahold of this poor soul. But it distressed me to find different interpretations of Scripture by different pastors, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Historical and Biblical = The Catholic Church
God Bless,
Maria Don’t blow your history out of proportion. While it was found, it was not paramount whatsoever. It was not part of the regula fidei by any stretch of historical studies, just variously held opinions that seemed to be heavely influenced by the platonic dualism of the day. No one really cared that much until the pope stated making dogmas concerning these issues. Then Marian theology began to be elevated to the status of preimenence.
The reformers also believed that the earth was flat as did the Roman catholics and all of church history. They were all wrong. But this did not make any difference since it was not part of the regula fidei, it was rarely spoken about with any significance, and it has no theological bearing on the faith one way or the other (although, for Rome, it might since the controversy places added doubt to the doctrine of infallibility-- but that is another thread).
If it was some thing important and it did not seem to contradict so many biblical passages, then I would have not problem since it has no theological bearing on our faith whatsoever.
I would just say that it made Mary more in need af a savior since she neglected her husband, willingly or not.
Michael
- Status