How do non-Catholics explain Eucharistic miracles, such as bleeding, and Marian...

[MoreCoffee]

How so? This is the difference between us and the fallen angels. They know Christ is Lord. They don't need to be told, or convinced. They don't need a measure of faith. To say that Christ is Lord would be making a statement of fact. It's not like they are incapable of making the utterance. As stated before, the way most individuals end up walking in deception is because they have received a lie that is mixed in with some truth.

Say Jesus is Lord and then teach them a false form of worship.

Because most people will allow their senses to override what they have learned from scripture, they will assume these manifestations are from God when they really are not.

Lord denote a master one is submitting to.

Saint Paul asserts that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit and his context is the exercise of spiritual gifts so is it not possible that his assertion is that when one speaks by (a) spirit (that is, by some kind of inspiration) that the words "Jesus is Lord" are the proper sign that the inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit? Is that not also the nature of the test that saint John mentions?

(1 Corinthians 12:3) Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

1 John 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

​

 

[Stryder06]

The verse does not say nor does it imply that Joseph had sex with Mary; quite the contrary Matthew's gospel is at pains to point out that Joseph did not "know" Mary till .... and the reason for stating that is that the author is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word εως translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Exactly where does the author go to great pains to prove Joseph didn't have sex with Mary? The genealogy given shows us that Jesus is the Son of David.

Saying "He knew her not till she gave birth" is no different than "He knew her after she gave birth."

For example - "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.

The sentence shows that the leaven was hidden up till the point that it was leavened (one could rightly assume that once it was leavened, it was no longer hidden). Look at the following: Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

With this text one would rightly assume that once you paid the last cent you'd be let out. It's no different with And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[Stryder06]

Saint Paul asserts that no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit and his context is the exercise of spiritual gifts so is it not possible that his assertion is that when one speaks by (a) spirit (that is, by some kind of inspiration) that the words "Jesus is Lord" are the proper sign that the inspiration comes from the Holy Spirit? Is that not also the nature of the test that saint John mentions?

(1 Corinthians 12:3) Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

1 John 4:2-3 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: (3) And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

​

Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

If simply declaring that Christ is Lord was all it took to prove you were of God, then there's no way someone lost would be able to utter what Jesus says above. I believe that too many people take John's words at surface value.

Remember that scripture says every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. That includes those who are lost and demons. If they do it at the end of time, what makes you think they can't do it now to deceive others?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Pics (or in this case: Links to the alleged "scientific" investigation), or it didn't happen.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Lanciano1.pdf

The question that should be asked here isn't "is it supernatural?", because that isn't the main issue. The question that should be asked is: "Does it focus our attention on Christ, or on someone or something else (Mary, miscellaneous saints, etc)?"

Even satan can, as we learn from Scripture, appear as an angel of light.

Actually, Satan is/was the angel of light...

And I'm surprised that someone who claims to be Lutheran can so implicitly put his faith in alleged "miracles". What, are we going to be asked to take the whole "gold dust from the ceiling"-thing that some pentecostals have got going on seriously as well?

How does verified eucharistic bread turn into verified flesh and blood? Hmm?

Look for Christ in the Word, and in the Sacraments. That's where He has PROMISED us He is. Don't go running around like decapitated chicken, seeking the Lord in the storm. He isn't there.

Well it is the Sacrament of the Real Presence. No?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It says it a lot different, but since you cherish your modern translations so:

NLT - But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus.

NAV - but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.

EXV - but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

ISV - He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus

ERV - and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.

This verse clearly shows that Joseph did what married men do with their wives once she had given birth to Christ. I'm not sure which version you're using, but all the ones I see have not seen fit to remove the word "unitl/till" from the translation. It's amazing how the removal of a single word can completely change the meaning. You said the version you're using is the one approved by the Catholic church right? I can see why they like that one.

The translations do, not the text.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
Edit: I re-read it, and in the post I responded to, you made the implicit claim that since the verse in question didn't say "Joseph knew Mary", that means he didn't. Ergo, my original point stands.
...

The verse does not say nor does it imply that Joseph had sex with Mary; quite the contrary Matthew's gospel is at pains to point out that Joseph did not "know" Mary till .... and the reason for stating that is that the author is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word εως translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Exactly where does the author go to great pains to prove Joseph didn't have sex with Mary? The genealogy given shows us that Jesus is the Son of David.

Saying "He knew her not till she gave birth" is no different than "He knew her after she gave birth."

For example - "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.

The sentence shows that the leaven was hidden up till the point that it was leavened (one could rightly assume that once it was leavened, it was no longer hidden). Look at the following: Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

With this text one would rightly assume that once you paid the last cent you'd be let out. It's no different with And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

What I wrote was "Matthew's gospel is at pains to point out that Joseph did not "know" Mary till ...." but you seem to be answering a claim I did not make; your answer is premised on a statement like "Joseph didn't have sex with Mary". Nevertheless, is that not precisely what Matthew 1:25 says when it reports that "but [Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son."?

 

[Stryder06]

Dude, testing all things and holding fast to that which is true = look at scripture through the lens of tradition. Except we define tradition differently than you.

How can you tell if your tradition is wrong?

Dude, the Catholic Church decided the canon of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit. The part you're forgetting is that the Catholic Church gave you your Scripture.

I didn't forget that.

The analogy works fine. If the teacher gets it wrong, it's because he's not listening to the Holy Spirit. Men do get it wrong a lot, but when the Holy Spirit instructs those He duly ordained, they cannot teach error.

Was Judas an ordained disciple of Christ?

 

[Root of Jesse]

It.....kinda is



Even as early as the Pauline letters, the church understood that celibacy was something for which not everyone were suited. It is a gift.

Does this mean to say that marriage is suited for everyone? Marriage is also a gift.

So, why assume that Jesus, or any other character in the Bible ate, slept, or relieved themselves? The Bible doesn't specifically say: "And lo, the Lord did proceed to defecate in yon bush which Simon Peter had pointed out for him".
Mary was a married woman. Marriage has always, ALWAYS involved sexual activity. In every culture, and certainly every culture relevant to our discussion her (ancient mediterranean and near-east).

Judaism is not "every culture relevant to our discussion here (ancient mediterranean and near-east". The point was that the Hebrews were extracted from the nomadic tribes and brought out of the barbarism of them gradually, until they could live in a relatively stationary society. They were the only mono-theistic people. There are several, at least, that were consecrated to God. Priests purified themselves during their time serving the temple...by not engaging in sex.

That may be. And some RCs and RC wannabes are reading their own celibacy assumtions into the text, because the church they belong to have backed them into a corner from which they must try desperately to escape by any means necessary.



I can't post pictures yet, but the Jackie Chan-face-meme would be an appropriate response here.
What you're saying is nonsense, and it doesn't follow from what we've established at all!

"Mary had sex with Joseph, like every other wife had/have sex with her husband, therefore children should get married and have sex and if you don't think this, it's just because your prejudiced." What in the name of everything sacred and sane are you on about??

Mary was not like every other wife. Period.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Stryder06, let's examine the verse if we substitute your interpretation for what is actually said in Matthew 1:25

but [Joseph] knew Mary after she had given birth to a son.
compared to the original which reads
but [Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son.
​

In the former Matthew would be making no point of significance.
In the latter Matthew makes the significant point that Joseph could not be Jesus' father because he did not have sex with Mary.

 

[Stryder06]

What I wrote was "Matthew's gospel is at pains to point out that Joseph did not "know" Mary till ...." but you seem to be answering a claim I did not make; your answer is premised on a statement like "Joseph didn't have sex with Mary". Nevertheless, is that not precisely what Matthew 1:25 says when it reports that "but [Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son."?

We've been discussing the verse and it's usage of the word "know" in regards to sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.

Matt 1:25 is saying that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

We've been discussing the verse and it's usage of the word "know" in regards to sexual relations between Joseph and Mary.

Matt 1:25 is saying that Joseph didn't have sex with Mary until after she gave birth to Christ.

That's right; and the verse does not say a thing about what happened after she gave birth to Jesus. Which is, of course, the point I've made several times and which you've rejected each time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Exactly where does the author go to great pains to prove Joseph didn't have sex with Mary? The genealogy given shows us that Jesus is the Son of David.

Saying "He knew her not till she gave birth" is no different than "He knew her after she gave birth."

For example - "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three pecks of flour until it was all leavened.

The sentence shows that the leaven was hidden up till the point that it was leavened (one could rightly assume that once it was leavened, it was no longer hidden). Look at the following: Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

With this text one would rightly assume that once you paid the last cent you'd be let out. It's no different with And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

We've already shown that until does not guarantee that something will happen in the future.

Just like when you buy stock. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Until is really an incorrect word here. As in other cases, sometimes English is inadequate for translation.

 

[Stryder06]

We've already shown that until does not guarantee that something will happen in the future.

Just like when you buy stock. Past performance is no guarantee of future returns. Until is really an incorrect word here. As in other cases, sometimes English is inadequate for translation.

Until works just fine unless you're trying to prove an unsustainable position such as the ever-virginity of a certain woman. I doubt if this was a text about Moses and his wife you'd show such arguments.

If you tell me to leave the house to meet you at 3pm and I never show up, are you seriously going to tell me that you'd be ok with a "Well 'until' doesn't necessarily mean that an action has to happen afterwards, so I wasn't sure if you wanted me to leave at all. So I just stayed put" excuse?

 

[Stryder06]

That's right; and the verse does not say a thing about what happened after she gave birth to Jesus. Which is, of course, the point I've made several times and which you've rejected each time.

It doesn't have to spell it out. It's just as good as saying "They had sex after she had the baby." It means the same thing, but you've rejected that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It doesn't have to spell it out. It's just as good as saying "They had sex after she had the baby." It means the same thing, but you've rejected that.

I do not accept your claim. It is not just as good as saying "They had sex after she had the baby." Because what it actually says is "but [Joseph] knew her not until she had given birth to a son."

If your theology requires you to MAKE the verse say what you claim okay, eisegesis is not new. If you're saying it for some other reason then what is the reason?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As stated, Signs and Wonders are no guarantee it is from God, and in many instances it is satan's working to deceive:

...more scriptural evidence to come if asked.

QFT!


http://www.christianforums.com/t7405089-4/#post53043894
What the sign?


Matt 24:3....and what? the Sign...
Mark 13:4...and what? the Sign...
Luke 21:7....and what? the Sign....

.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Until works just fine unless you're trying to prove an unsustainable position such as the ever-virginity of a certain woman. I doubt if this was a text about Moses and his wife you'd show such arguments.

If you tell me to leave the house to meet you at 3pm and I never show up, are you seriously going to tell me that you'd be ok with a "Well 'until' doesn't necessarily mean that an action has to happen afterwards, so I wasn't sure if you wanted me to leave at all. So I just stayed put" excuse?

Yes, I already showed you. If I tell you "Until we meet again", it does not mean we will meet again. If I place a condition, "I won't get in the car until you clean it." does that guarantee that you'll clean it? Does it even guarantee that I'll get in the car if you clean it? "I won't get home until 7" doesn't mean I will get home after 7, does it? The point is until is different from unless. I won't get in that car unless you clean it. That's a promise.

 

[MrLuther]

The Greek word εως translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it.

Agreed, there is nothing inherent in the word that says "And after this, Joseph and Mary had sex". But there doesn't need to be. Because "until", or εως specifies that something did or, in this case, did not happen before a certain event took place.
It does indeed say nothing about what happened afterwards, which leaves everyone who isn't painted into a corner thinking "Well, what happened afterwards? Since nothing else is specified, it makes sense to assume that it was "business as usual" in a marriage".

Does this mean to say that marriage is suited for everyone? Marriage is also a gift.

Well, it is a gift in the sense that not everyone FINDS a spouse. However, the fact that marriage is the normal human condition cannot be disputed. Whereas celibacy is not suited for everyone - as is clear from Scripture.

The point was that the Hebrews were extracted from the nomadic tribes and brought out of the barbarism of them gradually, until they could live in a relatively stationary society.

True. Relevance?

They were the only mono-theistic people. There are several, at least, that were consecrated to God. Priests purified themselves during their time serving the temple...by not engaging in sex.

True. Relevance?

Mary was not like every other wife. Period.

How very convenient!
Hey, I can say "Period." too, and then not present any other argument for what I said, because "Hey, I said period, ok?!".
Premise 1:Mary and Joseph were married.
Premise 2: Married people had (and have) sex.
Ergo: Mary and Joseph had sex.

For them NOT to have had sex would have been extremely...wierd by the time's standard of marriage (and by ours too, but ours isn't relevant to the topic at hand). And since nothing of the sort is even HINTED at, anywhere in the Scriptures, the case for it is rather weak, to put it politely.
I've never understood the reason why some insist that the world will end and everything will come a'tumbling down, if Joseph and Mary "got busy" after Jesus' birth. But I suspect it has to do with the well-known "Oh boy, we've said this for so long that to admit it's not all that likely, would cause the whole house of cards to fall".

In all honesty, I don't really care if Mary and Joseph had sex or not. It doesn't really matter, after all. What DOES matter, is the borderline-obsession some have with how it's all-important that they didn't, and the bad exegesis employed to support it. Bad exegesis DOES matter, after all...

 

[MrLuther]

Yes, I already showed you. If I tell you "Until we meet again", it does not mean we will meet again. If I place a condition, "I won't get in the car until you clean it." does that guarantee that you'll clean it? Does it even guarantee that I'll get in the car if you clean it? "I won't get home until 7" doesn't mean I will get home after 7, does it? The point is until is different from unless. I won't get in that car unless you clean it. That's a promise.

Actually, no, it's the same thing. You set up a condition, but unless you add "And if you DO clean it, I will get in the car", you have not made a promise. There is the possibility that you will not get in the car, even though it has been cleaned.

 

[sunlover1]

Yes, I already showed you. If I tell you "Until we meet again", it does not mean we will meet again. If I place a condition, "I won't get in the car until you clean it." does that guarantee that you'll clean it? Does it even guarantee that I'll get in the car if you clean it? "I won't get home until 7" doesn't mean I will get home after 7, does it? The point is until is different from unless. I won't get in that car unless you clean it. That's a promise.

i didn't eat my dessert until after my baby was born.
I didn't have sex until after my baby was born
I didn't go to the store until after my baby was born.

Gee, why did I even MENTION the store or dessert.
You can't prove that I WENT or ATE.
I just wanted to add extra goofy words in there.
I don't go to the store or eat dessert OR have sex..