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

[MoreCoffee]

1: What it ACTUALLY says is: "καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν ἕως οὗ ἔτεκεν υἱόν: καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦν."
"[And] he did not know her, until she gave birth to [actually: "Bore", but in the context, "gave birth to" is clearer] a son: And he called his name Jesus"

ἕως is either a clear temporal conjunction, or, when it carries the gentive, as it does here in the following, functions as a preposition. In both cases, the meaning is limited in time: "Until", "till", "up to", etc.
In no way and under no circumstances is it an adversative conjunction. I do not know what translation you used above, but it is a clear mistranslation. The text simply does not say it.

2: There isn't any passage in the Bible that says: "And Jesus went forth to a bush that was nearby, but indeed away, and he did relieve himself". Nor does it mention every single time Jesus ate something.....
Your point, that it doesn't say that Joseph "knew" Mary after Jesus was born, is true, but also wildly irrelevant unless you also don't think that Jesus (or any other biblical figure, for that matter) ate, or slept, or, pardon my French, relieved Himself, except for the times the Bible mentions this.

In fact....I can't recall the Bible saying anything ANYWHERE about ANYONE relieving themselves.... That's a massive constipation! No wonder some of them were a little cranky

Well, you assumed it was a translation from the Greek when it is in fact a translation from the Latin; (Matthew 1:25) et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum

Regarding your fanciful comments about eating and toileting all I can say is that it is not I that asserted that the bible says "Joseph knew Mary" but rather my interlocutor Stryder06 in post #665. I replied in post #669.

 

[Stryder06]

MrLuther, your flaw in your thinking is assuming that marriage is the norm and celibacy some kind of abberation. Throughout Christian history, both marital union and celibacy have been considered holy. So why assume that Mary was not celibate? Some protestants are reading their own anti-celibacy assumptions into the text.

Not so. Marriage was the norm from the beginning - For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

You don't enter into marriage to practice celibacy.

Using this kind of logic... Protestants should encourage their children to have sexual intercourse, even if it is through marriage, as soon as possible, in order to be normal. And yet, they don't really believe this is a good thing to do in practice, even if they frown on Catholic esteem of celibacy. Hence your objection to Mary's perpetual virginity rests merely on prejudice against Catholicism.

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but this doesn't make much sense.

 

[Leuko Petra]

...apparitions, such as Fatima. Eucharistic bleeding miracles, that are confirmed with science? I also recently read in OBOB about a certain saint, that on the celebration of his feast day, every single year, a vial of his blood liquifies before the congregation; the one time it didn't liquify, in 1980, there was an earthquake that killed a lot of people in the region in which this miracle takes place.

Then there's also a bleeding Eucharist miracle that was scientifically tested. The Eucharist fell to the floor, where it began to bleed. Testing was positive for a damaged human heart...

Just curious how non-Catholics reconcile these things. And of course, Mary's wish for Russia to convert with her apparition at Fatima apparently came to pass with the Russian Orthodox Church.

Miracles are no guarantee that they are a sign from God or of His blessing, for Satan himself can do them, even cause blood to come forth...

 

[Rev Randy]

So then why do you folks limit yourself to Scripture? There's more to the Word of God than Scripture. Sacred Tradition provides context to Scripture, and makes clear those parts of Scripture that aren't already. Like Mary's perpetual virginity.

If your last statement is true, who determined "what the Church needed"?

Actually, what is Scripture is what is proper to be read in Liturgy...

Look at it from modern teaching technique. The teacher has the student read the textbook. =Scripture
Then the teacher, the authority, either before reading or after reading, provides context for what the student reads. = Magisterium and Sacred Tradition.

Like anyone actually limits themselves to scripture. That is just a claim some make and never actually true. I read new (to me) traditions about biblical characters just about daily from folks who boast scripture only. Just today i learned some have an odd believe concerning St. John that is nowhere in scripture. And I won't even get into the pre-trib rapture theory. Anyone limiting them self to scripture only could not possibly come up with the same fantastic theory from Scripture alone. It took them hearing some preaching outside of scripture.

 

[Rev Randy]

Miracles are no guarantee that they are a sign from God or of His blessing, for Satan himself can do them, even cause blood to come forth...

True but he doesn't proclaim Jesus as Lord in those manifestations.

 

[MrLuther]

MrLuther, your flaw in your thinking is assuming that marriage is the norm

It.....kinda is

and celibacy some kind of abberation.

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

So why assume that Mary was not celibate?

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).

Some protestants are reading their own anti-celibacy assumptions into the text.

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.

Using this kind of logic... Protestants should encourage their children to have sexual intercourse, even if it is through marriage, as soon as possible, in order to be normal. And yet, they don't really believe this is a good thing to do in practice, even if they frown on Catholic esteem of celibacy. Hence your objection to Mary's perpetual virginity rests merely on prejudice against Catholicism.

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??

 

[Leuko Petra]

True but he doesn't proclaim Jesus as Lord in those manifestations.

Actually he [satan] proclaims a false Christ, a counterfeit, a vicarius christi, an anti christos, for he sends forth those in the place of the Son of God, claiming to be in his stead:

But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: Acts 8:9

To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. Acts 8:10

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15

For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Matthew 24:24

 

[Stryder06]

True but he doesn't proclaim Jesus as Lord in those manifestations.

Says who? How many examples do we have in scripture where the demons called out that Christ was the Son of the living God?

 

[Leuko Petra]

Says who? How many examples do we have in scripture where the demons called out that Christ was the Son of the living God?

Exactly, also:

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: Acts 16:16

The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. Acts 16:17

 

[Leuko Petra]

Most people do not know their Bible, nor what God has to say about certain doctrines, like the state of the Dead, nor of false prophets, nor the deceptive arts of Satan, in the many miracles/wonders he can do, all in close counterfeit of the True:

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel [messenger] of light. 2 Corinthians 11:14

Satan does not care whether he manifests in his miracle as man/woman... or even as 'mary'... an 'apparition' and 'messenger' of light...

That is why all such 'miracles' are all to be tested according to the Word of God, and if they preach any other Gospel, or any such thing against the Law and the Testimony [Prophets], there is no Light in it...

Please watch this Testimony of such an one who also had 'miracles' happen to them...

"From Evolutionist to Creationist" by Walter J. Veith - YouTube

 

[Rev Randy]

Says who? How many examples do we have in scripture where the demons called out that Christ was the Son of the living God?

That is a bit different from calling him Lord.

 

[MrLuther]

Well, you assumed it was a translation from the Greek when it is in fact a translation from the Latin; (Matthew 1:25) et non cognoscebat eam donec peperit filium suum primogenitum et vocavit nomen eius Iesum

1: No text of the Bible was written originally in Latin. The Latin is a translation, and the wording of the Latin translation is, therefore, about as relevant as the wording of the Swedish, German, or Tagalog translation.

Indeed, the Vulgata is a useful tool for insight into what was going on in the "early" church, but authoritative? No. It's the same as the KJV-only-crew's claims.

2: I admit that my Latin is a little bit rusty, but IIRC "donec" has the same meaning as ἕως

Regarding your fanciful comments about eating and toileting all I can say is that it is not I that asserted that the bible says "Joseph new Mary" but rather my interlocutor Stryder06 in post #665 I replied in post #669

Whoops, sorry about that
I didn't mean to attribute someone else's words to you. I hate when that happens.
The point I made, though, still stands.
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.

Exactly, also:

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: Acts 16:16

The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. Acts 16:17

A better example might be Mark 1,24:
"Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God."
(KJV)

 

[Leuko Petra]

That is a bit different from calling him Lord.

Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James 2:19

And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? Acts 19:15

And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. Mark 1:27

 

[Stryder06]

That is a bit different from calling him Lord.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Leuko Petra]

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.

Indeed, there are many which are imbued with the "Lord, Lord"... but yet the Lord does not know them.

 

[Leuko Petra]

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

233 - Signs & Wonders / Total Onslaught - Walter Veith - YouTube

...more scriptural evidence to come if asked.

 

[Rev Randy]

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.

 

[Rev Randy]

Most people do not know their Bible, nor what God has to say about certain doctrines, like the state of the Dead, nor of false prophets, nor the deceptive arts of Satan, in the many miracles/wonders he can do, all in close counterfeit of the True:

True and we also have many who assume they do and are not even close.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Dude, I'm Adventist I find great value in the writings of EGW. That said it's not about "limiting" oneself to scripture. It's about testing all things and holding fast to that which is true. You don't look at scripture through the lens of tradition. You look at tradition through the lens of scripture.

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.

God.



Nope. Scripture is the written word of God, preserved by the working of the Holy Spirit.

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.

Yeah, and some teachers get it wrong. Some text books get it wrong. Sadly your analogy doens't work because the only ultimate authority when it comes to learning scripture is God. Men get it wrong all the time, and will continue to until (no pun intended) the end of time.

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.