Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Of course Adam and Eve’s sin(did you realize her name was not Eve when she ate the fruit) was their fault But I as I read the entire Bible, and understand more about God’s ways, I can see that He knew these two would fall from grace(that’s why He had Jesus). We can only assume that Judas was saved; by virtue of walking with Christ. But Jesus, being God, knew from the beginning that Judas would betray Him. But He also knew, as He constantly reminded His disciples, that it was to fulfill prophecy. And yes, I believe that before Judas was born, God knew He would betray Christ. Judas was alot like Pharoah, in that his heart was hardened; but through that action, God’s glory was revealed! God still uses people today for His purposes, and there are many Judases out here in this world. And Peters, and Gideons, and so many others. Do you not believe that God is powerful enough to fulfill those things He has set forth? I never indicated that God pushed anyone into sin Do you believe any of the great servants in the OT, and NT were pushed into their sins?

 

[Janet1983]

My concept of God is thus very different from yours.
A true God is not that vain as to require continuous praise and adoration from his/her/its creation. After all, we did not ask to be created.
If the CC believes that we were created to obey and worship Jehovah in this life and spend eternity with him, no doubt praising him for ever and ever it makes Jehovah hooked on praise as if it were a drug.
A true God does not require the shedding of blood to forgive his creation.
A true God would not reveal him/her/itself to a selected group and any commandments he/she/it would impart on mankind would not be written in a particular language. It would be universally understood by all peoples of the Earth.

Well I guess that’s why I serve the One and Living God and you have a concept of your own personal god, which does not require anything nor give anything, nor feel anything…

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Psalm 5:5
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Psalm 11:5
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.

Leviticus 20:23
And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

Nehemiah 8:10
Then he said unto them, Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto them for whom nothing is prepared: for this day is holy unto our LORD: neither be ye sorry; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.

Deuteronomy 29:27-28
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, to bring upon it all the curses that are written in this book: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation, and cast them into another land, as it is this day.

God does not become angry because of the “heat of the moment” or because He possesses a confusing, constantly fluctuating emotionality. On the contrary, God’s anger is rationally retributive. His anger is His direct, calculated response to sin. Nowhere is His anger observed more clearly than in the pages of the Old Testament, where we read often of God exhibiting His anger at the children of Israel in a very demonstrative and graphic manner.

You call yourself a believer, but what do you believe in?

But seeing that you are happy with worshiping a repenting God who is jealous, hates, orders genocide, requires blood and sends people to a lake of fire for all eternity, then I am happy for you too.

Your view of the One True God is not only lopsided, but also focused on you. You do not see the whole picture (of course how could you?). You don’t know my Jesus! You don’t know my God!
Without the knowledge I cannot expect you to understand what great things He has done for me when I was still a sinner. As long as you are outside of His saving grace it will not apply to you and you will not be able to understand the splendor of His grace and mercy that has been extended to us while we were yet sinners.

 

[PRmerger]

This quote is about the temple…
“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

This “east gate” has indeed long been completely sealed. The most remarkable testimony of this verse is that “the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it.” In the new temple the gate will be open again and the God/man, the King of kings, Jesus Christ, will enter thereby

As usual, the Catholic Answer is: it’s both/and. We are certainly free to believe it refers to the Temple, but it certainly fits with Mary, too, doesn’t it?

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: Of course Adam and Eve’s sin(did you realize her name was not Eve when she ate the fruit) was their fault But I as I read the entire Bible, and understand more about God’s ways, I can see that He knew these two would fall from grace(that’s why He had Jesus). We can only assume that Judas was saved; by virtue of walking with Christ. But Jesus, being God, knew from the beginning that Judas would betray Him. But He also knew, as He constantly reminded His disciples, that it was to fulfill prophecy. And yes, I believe that before Judas was born, God knew He would betray Christ. Judas was alot like Pharoah, in that his heart was hardened; but through that action, God’s glory was revealed! God still uses people today for His purposes, and there are many Judases out here in this world. And Peters, and Gideons, and so many others. Do you not believe that God is powerful enough to fulfill those things He has set forth? I never indicated that God pushed anyone into sin Do you believe any of the great servants in the OT, and NT were pushed into their sins?

You ask: “Do you not believe that God is powerful enough to fulfill those things He has set forth?”

My answer: I believe God is powerful enough to fulfill those things He has set forth, which include Blessed Virgin Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.

God bless you

 

[elvisman]

elvisman: I read Ezekiel 44:2, and understood it to mean that the Eastern Gate would forever be sealed, because the Lord had entered the Temple through it I guess if I were catholic, I could see the way you do! I heard from someone who visited Israel, that the East Gate was indeed sealed:thumbsup:

This quote is about the temple…
“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.”

This “east gate” has indeed long been completely sealed. The most remarkable testimony of this verse is that “the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it.” In the new temple the gate will be open again and the God/man, the King of kings, Jesus Christ, will enter thereby.

Zechariah 14:4
And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

Acts 1:10-12
And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day’s journey.

WRONG**. **
Whereas many prophetic texts use polyvalent symbolism (one thing that symbolizes multiple things) the Early Church Fathers applied the symbolism of Ezekiel 44:2 to Mary.
Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin called Mary the “East Gate” in Ezekiel 44:2.

---

Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen** called her the Temple, the Holy of Holies in which God dwelt, and where God met Israel for their salvation.**
Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose referred to her as “King’s Palace” (the place which God dwelt)
**She is also referred to as “Rod of Jesse" from whom blossomed Christ by such Fathers as Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Jerome, Ephraim the Syrian. **

---

This is similar to the Protestant rejection of the Catholic view of Mary as the WOMAN in Rev. 12. Here, polyvalent symbolism is once again used to illustrate Mary, the church and Israel.

---

**One last thing: When Ezekiel had his vision, the Glory of the Lord entered the house by the East Gate (Ezekiel 43:4). Ezekiel wrote down what he was told, *“This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut” *(Ezekiel 44:2).

When was the East Gate permanently shut? There is absolutely no record the actual Eastern Gate was ever shut during or shortly after the time of Christ. It is not likely that “the Glory of the Lord” is referring to anybody else.**

 

[avflf]

Well I guess that’s why I serve the One and Living God and you have a concept of your own personal god, which does not require anything nor give anything, nor feel anything…

Correction’ you seem to serve a 3 way split personality God

Exodus 20:4-5
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

(Exo 25:18) And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.

God does not become angry because of the “heat of the moment” or because He possesses a confusing, constantly fluctuating emotionality. On the contrary, God’s anger is rationally retributive. His anger is His direct, calculated response to sin. Nowhere is His anger observed more clearly than in the pages of the Old Testament, where we read often of God exhibiting His anger at the children of Israel in a very demonstrative and graphic manner.

*Exo 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Exo 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
Exo 32:11 And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?
Exo 32:12 Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.
Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. *

Move aside Solomon and behold the wisdom of Moses who talked some sense into Jah.

You call yourself a believer, but what do you believe in?

In a Supreme Being that is much more God-like than yours

Your view of the One True God is not only lopsided, but also focused on you. You do not see the whole picture (of course how could you?). You don’t know my Jesus! You don’t know my God!
Without the knowledge I cannot expect you to understand what great things He has done for me when I was still a sinner. As long as you are outside of His saving grace it will not apply to you and you will not be able to understand the splendor of His grace and mercy that has been extended to us while we were yet sinners.

You call my view lopsided? What about yours? I’m just pointing out to you the unsavoury part of your God that you have swept under the rug. You see your Deity only as a always good loving father God (attributes that were developed as time went) and I’m balancing this view by presenting to you his darker side.

 

[Janet1983]

Whereas many prophetic texts use polyvalent symbolism (one thing that symbolizes multiple things) the Early Church Fathers applied the symbolism of Ezekiel 44:2 to Mary.

Jerome, who translated the Scriptures into Latin called Mary the “East Gate” in Ezekiel 44:2.
Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose, Gregory Nazianzen called her the Temple, the Holy of Holies in which God dwelt, and where God met Israel for their salvation.
Ephraim the Syrian, Ambrose referred to her as “King’s Palace” (the place which God dwelt).
She is also referred to as “Rod of Jesse" from whom blossomed Christ by such Fathers as Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Jerome, Ephraim the Syrian.

This is similar to the Protestant rejection of the Catholic view of Mary as the WOMAN in Rev. 12. Here, polyvalent symbolism is once again used to illustrate Mary, the church and Israel.

So I disagree with Jerome’s interpretation of Scripture… what a bummer…
I disagree with him because said text refers to the temple and not to Mary. Just because someone like Jerome had to interpret things into the text.
If you go about like that you had better lay the Bible aside and only read the texts of others who are approved by the CC because then there is no way of telling how many meanings are behind every verse of scripture…

“Rod of Jesse” cannot be Mary either by the way… Even your scholars should agree with that…
According to Isaiah 11:1 we are talking about a “rod out of the stem of Jesse”…
Did you ever read the text of the medieval hymn “O come, O come, Emmanuel”? We’re getting closer to Christmas, so you might here it very soon…

This is not the whole hymn, but parts of it… the whole text is here…

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

Refrain
Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

O come, Thou Wisdom from on high,
Who orderest all things mightily;
To us the path of knowledge show,
And teach us in her ways to go.

Refrain

O come, Thou Rod of Jesse, free
Thine own from Satan’s tyranny;
From depths of hell Thy people save,
And give them victory over the grave.

Refrain

One more thing: “King’s Palace”?? Where would there be any proof for that?
Where are your sources anyway?

 

[Janet1983]

Correction’ you seem to serve a 3 way split personality God

As I said: You don’t know my Lord.

 

[avflf]

Oh, good, you’ve decided to come back!

So, how is it that you know all these things about the Divine?

I think you understand what the underlying dichotomy is here, which is why you’ve refused to answer that question even after the 5th time I’ve asked you. The problem that you’re seeing is that you have the underlying assumption–based on the principles of a God that were revealed to you in the Bible--that God should be a loving God. However, if you reveal that your understanding of God is Scripturally based, then you’ve backed yourself into a corner.

Q.E.D.

Sorry, not with you. Please explain what you were trying to say in the last paragraph

 

[guanophore]

guanophore: I dont carve up the Gospel, to form my "own" agenda or plan of salvation:p

I realize that you do not see it that way, and that it is not your intention… However, that is the fruit of your hermeutical approach.

I do though wish youse guys would prove to us that belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity was required for eternal life; and to be wholly savedIt seems that the way the cc explains the Gospel, is not to say, “This is what Jesus says is the way to be saved,” rather you use “blanket” explanations, by saying that the apostles taught it, sp we should believe it

Yes. Our faith has been handed down to us as a Sacred Deposit, guarded by the HS working through the Apostolic Succession. It was delivered to us whole and entire. The reception of it, (paradosis) is a matter of faith, not of “proof”. It does not come from science (subject to proofs) but from Divine Revelation.

We are not at liberty to carve out parts of what was committed to the Church, and declare that some of it is “essential” while other parts are not. You take those liberties because you are separated from the Apostolic Succession. Part of that departure is the idea that one can come up with one’s own ideas about what is “essential”.

 

[Arandur]

So I disagree with Jerome’s interpretation of Scripture… what a bummer…
I disagree with him because said text refers to the temple and not to Mary. Just because someone like Jerome had to interpret things into the text.

Not just St. Jerome. You made yourself higher than many of the early Church Fathers much nearer the Apostles and Mary herself.

On what grounds do you limit the text in question? Do you deny the reality of the use of polyvalent symbolism?

then there is no way of telling how many meanings are behind every verse of scripture…

What, you think Scripture verses have only a single meaning and are quite shallow, not requiring much exploration, easily understandable, not yielding up ever more meaning? There are human works of literature that are greater than such a Bible as that. God could apparently learn something from them, if that’s what you think His Scriptures are about.

2 Peter 1:20-21 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.”
2 Peter 3:16 “In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”

Scripture is deep and properly understood in context with the Church that the Holy Spirit guides into all truth (not by personal interpretation alone), and apparently Peter thinks it’s not particularly easy to understand, as one would expect if meanings were clear and simple without the depths of multiple symbolism and types.

avflf, you ought to read Scriptures more carefully and in context of the whole, the times, and the Church. Your presumed “gotcha” about “graven images” is nothing of the sort. “Graven images” refers to the practice of creating idols to worship. The figures on the ark, as well as any other statues, icons, or paintings, are not created to be worshipped. Clear difference.

Similarly, you misunderstand the context and meaning of “repent.” God showed to Moses what justice was, the gravity of turning from Him, what it effectively causes by one’s own choice (destruction, by not fulfilling the purpose of your creation and choosing against it instead). By doing so, Moses was inspired to plead for mercy, which God then showed. The “repentance” spoken of is not the same here as it is in the NT applied to mankind in relation to our sins, because the subject is different. God has choice, but His choice is always good by definition (He is the reference point of all that is good, necessarily, as the only omnipotent, necessary being and creator of all), whether it be justice or mercy, etc. “Repent,” or turning about, changing direction/choice, merely illustrates a choice. “Repent” as used in the NT came to mean changing one’s life and choices from those not in alignment with God to those in alignment with God. Since God is always in alignment with Himself, using the same definition/sense of the word in context with Him just makes no sense.

 

[guanophore]

guanophore: You are correct, that it is vital to remain in Him!!!:thumbsup:But, as we all know, even the staunchest of believers, falls away, from time to time Thank goodness for forgiveness(1John 1:9). So, let me ask you, are all those catholic priests who were caught in the sex abuse cases, headed for Heaven, or what? Are they. or have they been forgiven? If I, a 42 year saved, follower of Christ, cheats on my wife or my taxes, am I condemned to Hell?

I am surprised that you would ask this, 1beleevr. I thought you had been on here long enough to know that Catholics do not attempt to determine whether an individual is going to heaven or hell. We know them by their fruits. Anyway, this is off topic in this thread.

 

[avflf]

avflf, you ought to read Scriptures more carefully and in context of the whole, the times, and the Church. Your presumed “gotcha” about “graven images” is nothing of the sort. “Graven images” refers to the practice of creating idols to worship. The figures on the ark, as well as any other statues, icons, or paintings, are not created to be worshipped. Clear difference.

Similarly, you misunderstand the context and meaning of “repent.” God showed to Moses what justice was, the gravity of turning from Him, what it effectively causes by one’s own choice (destruction, by not fulfilling the purpose of your creation and choosing against it instead). By doing so, Moses was inspired to plead for mercy, which God then showed. The “repentance” spoken of is not the same here as it is in the NT applied to mankind in relation to our sins, because the subject is different. God has choice, but His choice is always good by definition (He is the reference point of all that is good, necessarily, as the only omnipotent, necessary being and creator of all), whether it be justice or mercy, etc. “Repent,” or turning about, changing direction/choice, merely illustrates a choice. “Repent” as used in the NT came to mean changing one’s life and choices from those not in alignment with God to those in alignment with God. Since God is always in alignment with Himself, using the same definition/sense of the word in context with Him just makes no sense.

Arandur, I have been given the same excuses before. It’s called Apologetics - the science of pulling the Scriptures out of hot coals. Words do not mean the same, that’s not what was meant etc. etc. Sorry friend, same word, same meaning, for David, Saul, God and the Devil. Nice try though

 

[guanophore]

Sure… they were married and didn’t become one flesh…
Mary and Joseph were first of all a Jewish couple. It is just logical for him to not have sex with her until she gave birth and even after that there is a healthy waiting time, but after that it is just reasonable to assume that they went ahead and consummated the marriage like every other couple would have back then (and till today).

I agree. However, our faith is not based upon what seems “reasonable” to the human mind, but upon Divine Revelation. In this case, as in many, Divine Revelation flies in the face of what seems “reasonable” to humans. Joseph never did “consummate” the marriage with Mary, the Mother of God. He considered her “a gate closed up”. As the custodian of the Ark of the New Covenant, He did not consider it his position to enter in to her.

The prophecy was fulfilled at the point that Jesus was conceived without a human father… Jesus divinity is not changed in any way through any further actions of His mother.

I agree.

She was an honorable wife and she was expected to have more children…

Perhaps by those who did not accurately understand the plan of God for His Son.

Throughout the Old Testament we see that children are a blessing and a man considered himself blessed if he had a lot of sons as heirs and as those who would take care of him in his old age.

Yes, indeed. However, in this case, that was not part of God’s plan for the Mother of His Son.

 

[Janet1983]

Not just St. Jerome. You made yourself higher than many of the early Church Fathers much nearer the Apostles and Mary herself.

How do you think I could trust someone like Jerome? I mean I don’t even trust his translation of the Bible…

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, not with you. Please explain what you were trying to say in the last paragraph

Firstly, the fact that you have not answered the question of how you come to your “information” about the Divine speaks volumes. It says “I’m making it up as I go along. I’m going to create a God that feels right to me”, which of course shows a dismally elementary theology.

Secondly, when you say you believe in “a Supreme Being that is much more God-like than yours” that’s a nonsensical statement unless you’re a Christian. Where do you get your idea of what exactly is “God-like” **except from the Bible **which tells you that *God is Love. * That’s a Christian concept, and you ought to be intellectually honest and acknowledge that.

Thirdly, after you’ve affirmed that your understanding of God comes from Christianity, you ought to take the entire message of Christianity, the entire Gospel, the entire deposit of revelation before you make any sort of profession of faith about what God is and what God isn’t.

That’s all I’m saying.

 

[PRmerger]

How do you think I could trust someone like Jerome? I mean I don’t even trust his translation of the Bible…

Ok. But do you trust the Catholic bishops who told you exactly what was to be in the Bible? If they professed belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity would that give credence to the doctrine?

That is, how could the Church get it so right about what’s canonical and inspired but so wrong about everything else?

 

[Janet1983]

Ok. But do you trust the Catholic bishops who told you exactly what was to be in the Bible? If they professed belief in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity would that give credence to the doctrine?

That is, how could the Church get it so right about what’s canonical and inspired but so wrong about everything else?

Well back then it was definitely not Catholic in the modern sense…
A bishop’s conference (wow, no pope!) who voted on which book was to be included… (Hebrews by the way was really getting close to be excluded.)
The CC does get it wrong concerning the Bible however… how many books are in the Bible again?

 

[elvisman]

How do you think I could trust someone like Jerome? I mean I don’t even trust his translation of the Bible…

Hmmm, you can’t trust Jerome - a Father of the Church.
Do you trust Luther, Calvin or Zwingli?

 

[PRmerger]

Well back then it was definitely not Catholic in the modern sense…

Arguable, but also irrelevant.

A bishop’s conference (wow, no pope!) who voted on which book was to be included… (Hebrews by the way was really getting close to be excluded.)

What about Pope Damasus? Didn’t he get the ball rolling?

The CC does get it wrong concerning the Bible however… how many books are in the Bible again?

Do you have any documentation that these councils concluded that the deuterocanonicals were not part of the canon? My understanding is that they were part of the Bible originally for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Is there something that says otherwise, Janet?