Old topic, new thought

[Asinner]

right Yunaika....
so...

Matthew 1:20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as YOUR WOMAN, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Ephasis mine.

Still means much the same thing.

Not everything is what is appears to be. The incarnation of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary was not as it appeared to be. Jesus was known as Joseph's son, most of his life because it was how it appeared. Mary was put into Joseph's care, not to have a normal, married life . . . Here again, is an earthly understanding. The incarnation and the role of Mary cannot be understood in earthly ways.

Love,
Christina

 

[Uphill Battle]

Not everything is what is appears to be. The incarnation of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary was not as it appeared to be. Jesus was known as Joseph's son, most of his life because it was how it appeared. Mary was put into Joseph's care, not to have a normal, married life . . . Here again, is an earthly understanding. The incarnation and the role of Mary cannot be understood in earthly ways.

Love,
Christina

so... understanding things "the heavenly way" means ignoring what scripture seems to say? gotcha.

 

[Asinner]

so... understanding things "the heavenly way" means ignoring what scripture seems to say? gotcha.

Holy Scripture does not contradict the PV of Mary.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Holy Scripture does not contradict the PV of Mary.

disagree.

 

[Asinner]

disagree.

I know. So, when you ask questions and start threads on this same topic continually, it makes me wonder why?

 

[Uphill Battle]

I know. So, when you ask questions and start threads on this same topic continually, it makes me wonder why?

same reason why you assert what you believe, I suppose.

and none of my threads are identical, thanks.

 

[Asinner]

same reason why you assert what you believe, I suppose.

and none of my threads are identical, thanks.

Mainly, I am here to defend the mother of God, although I fail miserably.

 

[IamAdopted]

Holy Scripture does not contradict the PV of Mary.

Really? then how do we read of Jesus brothers and sisters. And how do we reconcile that Jesus was Marys first born son? How does this reconcile with scripture?

 

[Uphill Battle]

Mainly, I am here to defend the mother of God, although I fail miserably.

defend her against what?

people not believing that she was a sinless perpetual virgin?

I fail to see how that is an attack on Mary. This has been gone over and over and over again, we aren't Mary haters because we don't glorify her with things that Scipture does not attribute to her, and most evidence points away from.

I really hate that line of thinking...

 

[Asinner]

d

I fail to see how that is an attack on Mary. This has been gone over and over and over again, we aren't Mary haters because we don't glorify her with things that Scipture does not attribute to her, and most evidence points away from.

I really hate that line of thinking...

Misrepresenting someone's character is an attack. It is best just to not say anything about her if you are truly uncertain or wish to understand.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Misrepresenting someone's character is an attack. It is best just to not say anything about her if you are truly uncertain or wish to understand.

we are not attacking her Character!

 

[IamAdopted]

Misrepresenting someone's character is an attack. It is best just to not say anything about her if you are truly uncertain or wish to understand.

Okay and so if it is better to say nothing about her why is it that in the cc she is talked about as she is when scripture don't back up what is believed about her? Are we to assume that the churchs theory is right and that the scriptures are wrong? Or so some say because it can't mean brothers and sisters it has to mean something else in order to contend with the Mary teachings of the cc? The writer knew the words to write Gods only begotten Son but then meant the same thing when they spoke of Marys first born?

 

[IamAdopted]

we are not attacking her Character!

Amen. For she was truly blessed among women. She was indeed the Mother of Jesus.

 

[Davidnic]

Care to share that record?

An Eastern sect which flourished about A. D. 200 to 400, and which was so designated as being the "opponents of Mary". The Ebionites were the first who maintained that Our Lord was merely the son of Joseph and Mary. This doctrine became repugnant even to their own adherents, and it was afterwards modified so as to teach that, although Our Lord was born of Mary through the Holy Ghost, afterwards Joseph and Mary lived in wedlock and had many other children. The sect denied the formula "ever-Virgin Mary" used in the Greek and Roman Liturgies.

The earliest reference to this sect appears in Tertullian, and the doctrines taught by them are expressly mentioned by Origen (Homilia in Lucam, III, 940).

Certain Arians, Eudocius and Eunomius, were great supporters of the teaching. The sect attained its greatest development in Arabia towards the end of the fourth century, and the name Antidicomarianites was specifically applied to it by St. Epiphanius who wrote against them in an interesting letter giving the history of the doctrine and proofs of its falsity (St. Epiphanius, Contra Hæres., lxxviii, 1033 sqq.).

Source:

The Catholic encyclopedia : an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline, and history of the Catholic church / edited by Charles G. Herbermann ... Edward A. Pace ... Condé B. Pallen ... Thomas J. Shahan, D. D., John H. Wynne, S. J., assisted by numerous collaborators ...

Volume 1
AACHEN-ASSIZE
Pg. 562

Publication info: New York : Robert Appleton company, [c1907-1912].


Library of Congress number: BX841 .C25 1913

Entry taken from references from:

Origen (Homilies on Luke)
St. Epiphanius (Contra Hæres., lxxviii)
Tertullian (Against Marcion)

Encyclopedia text public domain.

 

[repentant]

right Yunaika....
so...

Matthew 1:20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as YOUR WOMAN, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Ephasis mine.

Still means much the same thing.

Byt your sarcasm are you saying you don't believe me that yunaika means woman?

And actually no it doesn't mean the same thing. Gabriel told Joseph to take her as his woman, to look after her and to care for her.

 

[repentant]

Scripture never ONCE says Mary had other children, or that she and Joseph had sexual relations. Why must people continue to say it does?

 

[ScottBot]

The Bible never stated that they married; only that they were betrothed.

Jesus was Joseph's son legally because he and the Theotokos were betrothed. Betrothal in the traditional sense entails all the legal aspects and responsibilities of marriage, except for sexual relations.

Furthermore, that Christ was accused of being the result of fornication. Also, for the sake of argument, if the Virgin and St. Joseph were married at some point, it is clear that it happened after Christ's birth; so the flimsy argument that God "decieved" people would apply in either case.

Furthermore, where in the world did you get the idea that God had them get betrothed in order to hide things from Satan?

Exactly.

[bible]luke 1:27[/bible] They were only betrothed. it was a legal commitment.
[bible]luke 1:34[/bible]
Mary here herself says that she has no husband.

In Jewish marriage practice, couples were legal bound by betrothal. However, until they married, the wife continued to live with her parents. This betrothal was legally binding, which is why in Matthew, it talks of Joseph seeking to quietly divorce her.

[bible]matthew 1:18[/bible]

Notice how after angelic intervention, he finally agrees to take her into his house as his wife.

[bible]matthew 1:24[/bible]

In Jewish custom, they would have "consumated" their marriage that night. But Mary was pregnant, and the bible clearly states that they did not have relations, at least until after Jesus was born. There are multiple interpretations of this. Catholic and Orthodox believe in the understanding of "until" to mean, not up to that point, but does not mean that it occured AFTER that point. Most modern protestants (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and King Henry VII all believed in the perpetual virginity) believe "until" to mean "not before a certain point in time, and then definitely afterwards". I believe Scripture supports the traditional understanding. Notice the word "till".

[bible]matthew 1:25[/bible]
[bible]matthew 22:44[/bible]

So, Jesus sits at God's right hand UNTIL God puts His enemies at Jesus' feet? And then Jesus will not longer sit at God's right hand?

 

[ScottBot]

Scripture never ONCE says Mary had other children, or that she and Joseph had sexual relations. Why must people continue to say it does?

Because of a misapplied understanding of the word "until" in:

[bible]matthew 1:25[/bible]

It is assumed that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary started kickin' it.

 

[IamAdopted]

Because of a misapplied understanding of the word "until" in:

[bible]matthew 1:25[/bible]

It is assumed that after Jesus was born, Joseph and Mary started kickin' it.

It never ceases to amaze me how some say scripture either does not mean what it says or it is misapplied or that it could have meant. When we have the Prophetic writings of David stating she did. We have eye witness accounts stating Jesus had brothers and sisters. We have Apostle Paul stating that she did.. But yet this cannot be what it means why? Because someone somewhere has started a belief that Mary was a PV so therefore instead of that being wrong it must be the scriptures and all the eye witness accounts that are wrong. When the bible doesn't state that Mary was a PV..

 

[ScottBot]

It never ceases to amaze me how some say scripture either does not mean what it says or it is misapplied or that it could have meant. When we have the Prophetic writings of David stating she did. We have eye witness accounts stating Jesus had brothers and sisters. We have Apostle Paul stating that she did.. But yet this cannot be what it means why? Because someone somewhere has started a belief that Mary was a PV so therefore instead of that being wrong it must be the scriptures and all the eye witness accounts that are wrong. When the bible doesn't state that Mary was a PV..

The Nicene Creed does.

"who was born of the Virgin Mary", not
"who was born of an ordinary jewish girl who was at one point a virgin."

The Virgin, in the Greek is used in the definitive perfect sense. It means that she was and is always "The Virgin".

Its not my fault that you don't understand the context and language in which Scripture was written, or the culture of the Hebrews in 1st century Palestine.