mary, the eternal virgin?

[onenow1]

I don’t mind.

I think that in a few instances, the CC is incorrect.

As I read the NT, I’m convinced that Paul was God’s replacement for Judas. Peter and the others tried but, IMO, did not do it God’s way. Jesus didn’t cast lots for the first 12 but called them personally. I doubt that He changed His way of choosing a replacement.

=onenow1 What convinces you they did not do it God’s way, after all Jesus did give the Apostles power to bind and loose on earth? As a matter of fact, they had a dillemna,both Matthias and Barsabbas Qualified according to scripture, it was not a gamble it was just a choice of one over the other;and I might remind you it is from the word of the Lord.

Peace and God Bless

 

[Dokimas]

=guanophore;6811722]

Are you suggesting that the Apostles committed a sin by praying then using lots to select Matthias? Can you explain what sin that was?

Boy is this fun. NOT.

Here we go again. Could someone please explain to me why I continue to answer questions that have NO applications to what I’ve said or meant? I’ll entertain insanity.

No sin.

I can’t.

And, for what ever its’ worth I don’t care if Matthias is the apostle chosen by God to replace Judas. It’s God’s business.

And, how did we get off topic? If I brought it up, sorry.

Can you explain why the HS allowed Luke to continue to write about Matthias as if he were one of the Apsotles selected by God?

What are you referring to? As I asked you before, please post verses so we can discuss specifics.

Can you explain how the Church could not be corrected by Christ until you came along?

He did. He chose Paul. Did you miss that part, sarcastic one?

Well, please continue to correct me. It seems that you are in a better postition to correct me that Jesus is to correct His Church. He was unable to convince them that Saul of Tarsus was His choice for the replacement of Judas.

I dare not take the place of the Holy Spirit. It is His job to correct. I just share my understandings, as incomplete or inaccurate as they are. Nothing more.

 

[Dokimas]

You are right, I can only go by your posts. It appears that you think and believe these things. I explained why it comes across this way using the condition espression “for your theory to be true…” and followed it by citing the conditions necessary for your assertions to be correct.

Is there a commandment that speaks to the issue of bearing false witness?

You have to be all knowing to take what I’ve said and extrapulate it forward to what it might mean. But only God is all knowing.

 

[Dokimas]

What convinces you they did not do it God’s way, after all Jesus did give the Apostles power to bind and loose on earth? As a matter of fact, they had a dillemna,both Matthias and Barsabbas Qualified according to scripture, it was not a gamble it was just a choice of one over the other;and I might remind you it is from the word of the Lord. Peace and God Bless

Where does it say they used the qualifications spelled out in the Bible?

Are these the verses you refer to?

Acts 1:
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

 

[guanophore]

Here we go again. Could someone please explain to me why I continue to answer questions that have NO applications to what I’ve said or meant? I’ll entertain insanity.

Clearly you have not sufficiently thought through the implications of your assertions.

And, for what ever its’ worth I don’t care if Matthias is the apostle chosen by God to replace Judas. It’s God’s business.

It is interesting that you feel so inclined to assert your novel doctrines, when it has no worth to you? Why did you bring it up?

And, how did we get off topic? If I brought it up, sorry.

We never did get off the subject. The subject where you are concerned is a denial of the CC to hold and teach the Apostolic faith. In that authority is the doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In that authority is the fact that God led Peter to choose a successor for Judas.

What are you referring to? As I asked you before, please post verses so we can discuss specifics.

If you want to follow our discussion, you just need to click on the little blue mark next to the name above. I always include the post number to which I am responding so that people reading can wind their way back. I posted the verses up the thread that show where Luke refers to Matthias as an Apostle, and told the story (after his selection) of "the Apostles’ laying hands on the Deacons. Obviously Luke thought he was chosen by God, since we are in agreement that the HS did not make a mistake calling M. an apostle.

He did. He chose Paul. Did you miss that part, sarcastic one?

God appointed many Apostles. None of them were considered part of the 12 except those listed as such.

I dare not take the place of the Holy Spirit. It is His job to correct.

That is interesting, since you stated you were having such joy correcting me.

Indeed, you certainly HAVE taken the place of the HS. You seem to believe your assessment of the replacement for Judas should supercede that of the HS as recorded in the NT.

 

[onenow1]

Where does it say they used the qualifications spelled out in the Bible?

Are these the verses you refer to?

Acts 1:
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

onenow1 They are Indeed ! >unanswered Question>What convinces you they did not do it God’s way, after all Jesus did give the Apostles power to bind and loose on earth?

 

[Dokimas]

Clearly you have not sufficiently thought through the implications of your assertions.

It is interesting that you feel so inclined to assert your novel doctrines, when it has no worth to you? Why did you bring it up?

We never did get off the subject. The subject where you are concerned is a denial of the CC to hold and teach the Apostolic faith. In that authority is the doctrine that Mary was a perpetual virgin. In that authority is the fact that God led Peter to choose a successor for Judas.

If you want to follow our discussion, you just need to click on the little blue mark next to the name above. I always include the post number to which I am responding so that people reading can wind their way back. I posted the verses up the thread that show where Luke refers to Matthias as an Apostle, and told the story (after his selection) of "the Apostles’ laying hands on the Deacons. Obviously Luke thought he was chosen by God, since we are in agreement that the HS did not make a mistake calling M. an apostle.

God appointed many Apostles. None of them were considered part of the 12 except those listed as such.

That is interesting, since you stated you were having such joy correcting me.

Indeed, you certainly HAVE taken the place of the HS. You seem to believe your assessment of the replacement for Judas should supercede that of the HS as recorded in the NT.

You continue to make personal remarks so I will move on rather than defend myself against your accusations. Have a good night, sir.

May God watch between you and me.

 

[onenow1]

Mary had to bear Jesus in total Holiness: from her birth to death, she was closer to God then anyone in history. With Jesus in womb, she treked to see Elizebeth, John jumped in the womb WOW !
Elizebeth declared Mary Mother of her Lord WOW ! With this in mind why would anyone gossip otherwise. My contention is This.>Luke,and the other writers were lousy chroniclers if Mary had other children and made no mention of something as important as that. Could you even imagine being a brother or sister of such a well known Person ?:nope:

God Bless
onenow1

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dokimas reread Numbers 30 verse 7 please;

I did find this in Numbers 30:

3 ¶ "Or if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth,
4 "and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand.
5 "But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will release her, because her father overruled her.
6 "If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself,
7 "and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand.8 "But if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it, he shall make void her vow which she took and what she uttered with her lips, by which she bound herself, and the LORD will release her.

If Mary had vowed to be celibate (and there’s no real evidence, just speculation for this assumption) then her father or husband could have freed her from it without any penelty of breaking a vow. Matthew 1:25 makes more sense now, that Joseph didn’t ask her to break her vow until Jesus was born.

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas reread Numbers 30 verse 7 please;

I did. There’s no evidence she made the vow. There’s no evidence Joseph upheld the vow.

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is as clear as it gets that there was no vow or that Joseph did not hold her to it.

 

[Dokimas]

My contention is This.>Luke,and the other writers were lousy chroniclers if Mary had other children and made no mention of something as important as that. Could you even imagine being a brother or sister of such a well known Person ?:nope:

God Bless
onenow1

The chronicles are not about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. It’s about Jesus alone.

Now that you mention it, seeing that the CC holds all it’s doctrines about Mary as so important, why aren’t the doctrines of Mary mentioned by John, James, Peter or Paul in their epistles? Luke didn’t mention Mary in Acts except in chpt 1.

 

[mark_a]

Now that you mention it, seeing that the CC holds all it’s doctrines about Mary as so important. . . . .

And don’t forget about these good folks:

Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, **Syro–Malabarese, **Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevci, Greek, Hungarian, Italo–Albanian, **Melkite, **Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian

**AND **

All the Orthodox.

In fact, every church with valid apostolic succussion and some without apostolic succession.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

QUOTE=Dokimas;6812508]I did. There’s no evidence she made the vow. There’s no evidence Joseph upheld the vow.

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is as clear as it gets that there was no vow or that Joseph did not hold her to it.

Its plain as day to my faith here in Lukes gospel because Mary does not get cursed for doubting the angel and Zechariah does for doubting the angel’s message.

Mary was betrothed to Joseph, the angels visit to announce she would concieve would of brought great joy to Mary, but instead it brought fear and trouble to her soul, that the angel comforted her, that it will happen not by her betrothed husband but by the holy spirit. Mary becomes overjoyed now because God allowed her to conceive without breaking her vow to God to remain a consecrated virgin. Oh, you probably don’t know Mary’s mother St.Ann or her father St. Joaquim? how is it that the Catholic church knows of her mother and father yet the scripture does not mention them?

Luke 1:31
Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.
34
But Mary said to the angel,** “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?” **12
35
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.

You know what Iam talking about from numbers that a virgin (maiden) can keep her vow so long when the husband learns of it, and never says anything contrary, when Joseph Learns of Mary’s vow from the angel, according to Numbers and does not say anything, the maiden keeps her vow. What you lack in evidence is lacking in faith you prescribe too. What I see in scripture with the full deposit of faith which includes both what is apostolic written and apostolic oral Tradition handed down brings me the full deposit of the Apostolic faith.

Not all that Jesus said and did is written.

 

[Dokimas]

And don’t forget about these good folks:

Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, **Syro–Malabarese, **Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevci, Greek, Hungarian, Italo–Albanian, **Melkite, **Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian

**AND **

All the Orthodox.

In fact, every church with valid apostolic succussion and some without apostolic succession.

I think it was Guanophore, maybe not, but someone said we don’t establish truth by vote. The Holy Spirit tells us what’s true and not. It’s up to us to listen and obey.

 

[onenow1]

The chronicles are not about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. It’s about Jesus alone.

Doki do you believe Jeus in His humanity obeyed the commandments,especially honor your father and mother. Don’t you think He kept that one too? There is certainly ample Scriptural evidence to show that He honored His Father, and there is evidence that He honored His mother as well. In fact, He, GOD Himself, must have obeyed His mother’s, everyday living, ‘mother to child’ commands as He was growing up. This is shown in Luke 2:51, “And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was SUBJECT to them.” That is a very profound verse about the Hoily Family if you think about it.

 

[guanophore]

Is there a commandment that speaks to the issue of bearing false witness?

That pertains to a deliberate attempt to deceive someone, or misrepresent. In this case, I am giving my testimony of how I understand your posts. While it may not be accurate, that is the way it seems to me, and it is my accurate perception.

You have to be all knowing to take what I’ve said and extrapulate it forward to what it might mean. But only God is all knowing.

Not at all! One need only start from your assumptions, and follow them forward to their logical conclusion. I certainly may have made an error in logic, about which I am pleased to be corrected.

Where does it say they used the qualifications spelled out in the Bible?

Are these the verses you refer to?

Acts 1:
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Yes. This is why there were no more Apostles after the death of those who were with Him from the beginning, and witnessed the resurrection. This is also the reason we reject all self styled modern “apostles”, who cannot meet these criteria.

You still have not explained how it was that the HS ignored the prayer of the Apostles. If He did not show them which one God had chosen, why did He not?

 

[guanophore]

I did. There’s no evidence she made the vow. There’s no evidence Joseph upheld the vow.

Well, the fact that you refuse to accept the evidence does not mean there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence in the Church. It just does not “count” in your scale.

Matthew 1:

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is as clear as it gets that there was no vow or that Joseph did not hold her to it.

No, the husband had to decide on the day he learned of the vow. Therefore, Joseph would have made the decision before they were betrothed.

The chronicles are not about Mary and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. It’s about Jesus alone.’/quote]

Except that Jesus chose not to be alone. He could have descended from heaven fully grown, but He chose to be born into a family. He chose to be part of a clan, and to grow up in a small villiage with a lot of close relatives.

Then, when He came of age, He surrounded Himself with lots and lots of people. The chronicles reflect that He chose not to be alone.
Dokimas;6812519:

 Now that you mention it, seeing that the CC holds all it's doctrines about Mary as so important, why aren't the doctrines of Mary mentioned by John, James, Peter or Paul in their epistles?  Luke didn't mention Mary in Acts except in chpt 1.

The Church holds the Faith as important. There is One Faith, and we are not at liberty to excise any part of it. We are duty bound to the WHOLE gospel, just as it was committed to the Church once for all. It is not up to us to decide which parts can be removed or to condense it in any way. When one thread is pullled out, the whole thing starts to unravel.

As we can see, the doctrines about Mary are inseparably woven with the identity of Christ. We have also seen that it is the parts of the Apostolic Gospel such as this that polarizes people. It becomes quickly very clear when people such as yourself reject the authority of the Church. It seems to me that all the Marian threads always end up on the issue of authority. I find that very interesting, since Christ submitted Himself to the authority of His earthly parents.

I think it was Guanophore, maybe not, but someone said we don’t establish truth by vote. The Holy Spirit tells us what’s true and not. It’s up to us to listen and obey.

Yes, I did say that. However, he was not enrolling voters. He was responding to your assertion that there was “no evidence”. The evidence is found in each and every one of those Churches because all of them were founded by Apsotles, and have retained the Apostolic Doctrine to this day. These people hold the evidence that you refuse to accept.

 

[elvisman]

So you retract you false accusation that I lied?

It all depends on WHICH if the following choices you made:
There are only 2 explanations:
1. You simply do not have the capacity to understand what you read (you’re not very bright).
2. You refuse to accept what the text says (you lied).**

 

[elvisman]

What’s your definition of herecy?

Denial of a revealed truth - especially about God.
You have implied that he does not have the power to make decisions - that’s heresy.

 

[Doxiemom]

Why?

All the miracles Jesus performed would answer every important question about who He was. All the rest fits in nicely to all who are of a mind, heart and soul to believe.

Because prophecy dictates that He be born of a virgin. not everyone is satisfied with being told she was a virgin , just as thomas was not satisfied being told He lived. Jesus allowed Thomas to touch the physical proof that His Body was real. Mary being intact
is the physical proof of her virginity forever. Yet, she bore that baby.