Z
zografou
Guest
Thank you! And the Lord Bless you too!! -zGod Bless…teachccd
- Status
J
jcrichton
Guest
***Hi, Old Scholar!
…they say that you can*** teach and Old Scholar new Truth!..
…Enoch walked with God. After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch lived for three hundred years and he fathered sons and daughters… Enoch walked with God, then was no more, because God took him (Genesis 5:21-24)
Yahweh must have been a hypocrite… allowing a sinner to walk with Him and then be taken into Heaven, sins and all!
…well… you know about that thing you do… “Bible Only” no Sacred Traditions! there’s this Jude character… when he runs oout of Scriptures he starts making things up:
Nevertheless… in their delusions they not only defile their bodies and disregard Authority, but abuse the Glories as well.
Not even the archangel Michael, when he was engaged in argument with the devil about the corpse of Moses, dared to denounce him in the language of abuse; all he said was, ‘May the Lord rebuke you.’
But these people abuse anything they do not understand…
They are a dangerous hazard at your community meals,…
It was with them in mind that Enoch, the seventh patriarch from Adam, made his prophecy when he said, ‘I tell you, the Lord will come with his holy ones in their tens of thousands,
to pronounce judgement on all humanity and to sentence the godless for all the godless things they have done, and for all the defiant things said against him by godless sinners.’
…But remember, my dear friends, what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.
‘At the final point of time’, they told you, ‘there will be mockers who follow nothing but their own godless desires.’
It is they who cause division, who live according to nature and do not possess the Spirit.
But you, my dear friends, must build yourselves up on the foundation of your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit;
keep yourselves within the love of God and wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to give you eternal life. (St. Jude 1:8-21)
You see! Not only is he making thins up but he talks about spiritual battles that no one can prove as though they actually happened… he even credits Enouch as being a prophet–where did he get that? Which Biblical books contain these prophecies and battles?
Paul wanting to shine comes up with a beaut… imagine… he claims that Jesus was the rock that gave water to Israel, in the desert–what was he reading from? And not one of the other Apostles challanged him on this issue.
My brother in Christ, I have terrible terrible news for you… you know that fellow you call Lord… well… He twists Scriptures about… yep! He talks so smoothly people don’t even know it… just think… He gets everybody worked up and He throws a whammy… He tells them that Abraham saw His Day… He makes no effort in correcting any misunderstanding; not even when they query Him about not being 50 and seeing Abraham… He vexes them with this “I AM” thing… they just never knew what hit them.
Yes, seemingly, there are contradictions in the Holy Scriptures. As a Catholic I understand, as the Apostles did, that the Holy Spirit was not confined to the text in the Scrolls (later the Bible). The Holy Spirit has existed throughout time inspiring men of God (prophects, apostles, and saints) and imparting them with knowledge and Wisdom.
Just look at the Jesus’ expirience… He speaks about building a Church but gives Peter and the others nothing: no written plan, no diagrams, no work schedule, nothing but the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete (St. John 14-16). So from one single Biblical passage the Church is founded and brought to completion outside of written text!
Yet, you claim to understand God’s design better than God Himself who chose Jacob rather than Essau, Ephraim rather than Manasses, a simple manger rather than a palace. As you claim a God who is not born of Mary you deny Jesus’ humanity and you usurp God’s Authority and you contradict God’s own Word as you place yourself diviner of God’s Truth:
My dear friends, not every spirit is to be trusted, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets are at large in the world.
This is the proof of the spirit of God: any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature, is from God, (1 St. John 4:1-2)
There are many deceivers at large in the world, refusing to acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in human nature. They are the Deceiver; they are the Antichrist. (2 St. John 1:7)
Maran atha!
Angel
P.S.: Restrictions forced cuts on Bible passages, the cited text can be read in full from your own Bible.
C
CSJ
Guest
If we believe that the New Testament was hidden in the Old and that the Old Testament is revealed in the New, then we can see a clear parallel. In the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant carried God`s Word (Law) in the form of the 10 Commandments. In the New Testament, The Word (Christ - who fulfilled the Law) was carried, nurtured, and raised by Mary (new Ark of the Covenant). Mary even prophesied herself that ALL generations would call her blessed. Where else is Mary venerated other than the Catholic & Orthodox Churches - she gets nary a mention in the Protestant denominations except a brief cameo appearance at Christmas.
Many Protestants claim that Mary takes away from Christ
Many Protestants claim that Mary takes away from Christ
s work, but they forget that it is only by Christs work that she was who she was.
F
Ferdinand_Mary
Guest
NOTICE: Please return to the OP’s topic or this thread will be closed.
Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
Mane Nobiscum Domine,
Ferdinand Mary
T
teachccd
Guest
For the sake of restoring this thread here is my original post. While I am just as guilty by moving toward one poster’s response, I would like this thread to continue.
What if Scripture was explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary? How would that change Christianity according to Protestant theology? Would that lessen the role of Christ? Why are Protestants so up in arms concerning this teaching??
What if Scripture was explicit concerning the perpetual virginity of Mary? How would that change Christianity according to Protestant theology? Would that lessen the role of Christ? Why are Protestants so up in arms concerning this teaching??
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I like your approach - it doesn’t sanitise things; it’s realistic, not idealised. That helps one to appreciate something of the self-humbling in the Incarnation - there was nothing dainty or idealised in the Crucifixion either, but plenty of blood, sweat & tears.
Some piety makes Jesus sound inhuman - as though He were God acting as a man: which is a denial of the reality (the “vulgarity” ?) of the Incarnation. What good is that ? If Jesus does not sweat, bleed, eat, drink, sleep, need sleep, suffer, grieve, weep, if He never asks questions to which he doesn’t know the answer, if he is not like us in all things (sin alone excepted) - then whatever else He may be, He is no true man; so He is not “God-with-us”. Life is not a play - it’s extremely grim for a lot of people: a pretend Incarnation would be a hideous mockery of human misery; not Good News at all.
T
teachccd
Guest
This is totally off of my original topic and does not refer to Mary as originally intended. You have not read through the thread and to encourage this poster is to mock the Catholic faith.I like your approach
Some piety makes Jesus sound inhuman - as though He were God acting as a man: which is a denial of the reality (the “vulgarity” ?) of the Incarnation. What good is that ? If Jesus does not sweat, bleed, eat, drink, sleep, need sleep, suffer, grieve, weep, if He never asks questions to which he doesn’t know the answer, if he is not like us in all things (sin alone excepted) - then whatever else He may be, He is no true man; so He is not “God-with-us”. Life is not a play - it’s extremely grim for a lot of people: a pretend Incarnation would be a hideous mockery of human misery; not Good News at all.
If the moderator chooses to close this thread, I can fully understand why…God Bless…teachccd
T
TOME
Guest
teachccd,
I agree that your thread has gone down some unexpected roads.
However, in its own pecular way I think the post of Righlydivide as quoted by Gottle of Geer does reenforce part of your point about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION (soory for the capitals but I thought it was necessary. Rightlydivides began with what I inferred a low christology approach but it remained just that. When Mary held Christ she held the living Jesus she held God.
Maybe I misread Gottle of Geers post entirely but from what I got out of it and how I understood this in relationship to your thread is we often forget just how brutal a death Christ suffered (for me the is the real value of “The Passion of the Christ” movie - but that’s a different subject).
How does this tie in with Matry’s Perpetual Virginity? If we reflect on the Infancy Narratives of which the Virgin Birth is an important part, we find Mary being open to and responding to the Will of the Father. It is clear from these naratives she was open to God’s Will but she didn’t fully understand what this really meant - she had to grow in this understanding for the rest of her life with Jesus as proclaimed in the incident of the finding of the child Jesus in the temple and Christ’s response to her and St. Joseph. But if we reflect on the infancy narratives I think you will agree that these narratives all point to Christ Paschal Sacrifice. Our Blessed Mother may not have seen all the physical suffering Christ went through but she saw enough at the foot of the cross. Yet she accepted it as the Will of the Father. Isn’t this another way of Scripture shows that Mary was totally given to accepting the Will of the Father and that her total self - her total being was given to the God and God alone?
I agree that your thread has gone down some unexpected roads.
However, in its own pecular way I think the post of Righlydivide as quoted by Gottle of Geer does reenforce part of your point about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
WITH ONE EXCEPTION (soory for the capitals but I thought it was necessary. Rightlydivides began with what I inferred a low christology approach but it remained just that. When Mary held Christ she held the living Jesus she held God.
Maybe I misread Gottle of Geers post entirely but from what I got out of it and how I understood this in relationship to your thread is we often forget just how brutal a death Christ suffered (for me the is the real value of “The Passion of the Christ” movie - but that’s a different subject).
How does this tie in with Matry’s Perpetual Virginity? If we reflect on the Infancy Narratives of which the Virgin Birth is an important part, we find Mary being open to and responding to the Will of the Father. It is clear from these naratives she was open to God’s Will but she didn’t fully understand what this really meant - she had to grow in this understanding for the rest of her life with Jesus as proclaimed in the incident of the finding of the child Jesus in the temple and Christ’s response to her and St. Joseph. But if we reflect on the infancy narratives I think you will agree that these narratives all point to Christ Paschal Sacrifice. Our Blessed Mother may not have seen all the physical suffering Christ went through but she saw enough at the foot of the cross. Yet she accepted it as the Will of the Father. Isn’t this another way of Scripture shows that Mary was totally given to accepting the Will of the Father and that her total self - her total being was given to the God and God alone?
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I do not feel like I was mocking the Catholic faith. I was expressing what I consider to be beautiful about what happened.
A
anthony022071
Guest
davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
Martin Luther:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
John Calvin:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Martin Luther:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: “On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God,” 1527).
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that ‘brothers’ really mean ‘cousins’ here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers.
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
John Calvin:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s ‘brothers’ are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55}
[On Matt 1:25:] The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called ‘first-born’; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
I’m not sure what your point is w/ the Calvin quote(s) above since you just posted them and don’t add your own comments.
But, you do realize the above quotes DO NOT show that Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary don’t you?
C
CSJ
Guest
I sometimes lose track of the thread’s original intent as well.
If it was explicit, then Protestant theology would be forced to simply accept it or ignore it. At worst, it would be misinterpreted (such as the case with the literal meaning of John 6) or simply skimmed over like James 2. As a Protestant, there were verses that never seemed to make sense to me in the context of Protestant doctrine, but upon looking at them in the light of Catholic doctrine…everything fits.
Explicit or not, it would certainly be downplayed by some denominations for fear that it would lessen Christ’s role. Protestants are very up in arms regarding any Marian doctrine simply because they don’t understand its intent and it’s just “too Catholic.” My wife and I are very strongly considering converting to the Catholic faith and Marian doctrine is the most challenging for us to come to terms with. 20+ years of “Bible Alone” and anti-Catholic indoctrination are not easily dismissed. The more I’ve studied, the more I see that this is one doctrine that I am going to have to simply accept on the premise of Church Authority. If it were scripturally explicit, I suppose it would be easier to accept, but only with those with ears to hear.
CSJ
A
anthony022071
Guest
It sure sounds like he was inclined to believe it.
“There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest that from this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than the Son of God, and that Joseph then dwelt with her later; but what folly this is! For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards; he simply wished to make clear Joseph’s obedience and to show also that Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent His angel to Mary. He had therefore never dwelt with her nor had he shared her company…And besides this, Our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This is not because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of naming the first-born whether or not there was any question of the second.” (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562.)
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Calvin held that scripture does not reveal to us the answer to the question of whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin.
P
Pwrlftr
Guest
Again, Calvin is clear on stating that the scriptures do not reveal what happened next…they are ambiguous (in his opinion) w/ regards to whether or not Jesus had siblings.
T
teachccd
Guest
Very well said. I will keep you and your wife in my prayers. Being Catholic all of my 48 years, I only see Mary as the one chosen to elevate Jesus. She brings Him into this world by her “yes” to the will of God and then remains the handmaid of the Lord. But I can see how some cultures will elevate Mary which seems to take away from Christ. This is not, nor ever has been, official Church teaching.
The perpetual virginity of Mary does make perfect sense in light of elevating Jesus not Mary. We would come to understand the immense honor that Mary would have realized to save herself only for the King of Kings. And how much Joseph would have revered the womb that Christ housed for nine months so as not to invade such a sacred dwelling. It does all make perfect sense.
But only for those with ears to hear…God Bless…teachccd
T
teachccd
Guest
Mocking was a harsh word and for that I apologize. You do challenge the Catholic faith with some pretty strong words, however. Yes, the birth of Christ was a most beautiful event. So beautiful that we Catholics know that no other birth would compare. God knew that and gave Mary the graces necessary to accept the greatest birth in human history and then leave it at that. Thinking that Mary would have other children only takes away from that beauty by mixing the infinite with the ordinary…God Bless…teachccd
T
teachccd
Guest
Sounds to me like Calvin wasn’t promoting Mary’s ongoing childbearing…Just what I see, perhaps…
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
No problem and I apologize for any offence on my part. When I strictly stick to the text of the Bible, like is my intention, that does not happen.Mocking was a harsh word and for that I apologize. You do challenge the Catholic faith with some pretty strong words, however. Yes, the birth of Christ was a most beautiful event. So beautiful that we Catholics know that no other birth would compare. God knew that and gave Mary the graces necessary to accept the greatest birth in human history and then leave it at that. Thinking that Mary would have other children only takes away from that beauty by mixing the infinite with the ordinary…God Bless…teachccd
J
jimmy
Guest
That Mary never had other children is no less biblical than that she did have other children. There is not one time in scripture where any one is said to be Mary’s child other than Christ and there is none that says that Mary is anyones mother other than with Christ. The children that are mentioned as Jesus’ brothers are also mentioned at the crucifixion as the children of another Mary.
- Status