|
Post by amyghost on Apr 27, 2023 0:30:53 GMT
There was no 'virgin birth'. The four Marian dogmas were folderol made up as early as the Council of Ephesus in 431, and debated, added to, and refined up until as late as 1950 with the proclamation of the Assumption dogma, by Pius XII. They serve the purpose of making certain that Mary is a sinless and 'unstained' virgin in perpetuity, despite her marriage to Joseph and her giving birth to siblings of Jesus, who somehow morphed into being 'close relations' instead.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 27, 2023 2:41:55 GMT
There was no 'virgin birth'. The four Marian dogmas were folderol made up as early as the Council of Ephesus in 431, and debated, added to, and refined up until as late as 1950 with the proclamation of the Assumption dogma, by Pius XII. They serve the purpose of making certain that Mary is a sinless and 'unstained' virgin in perpetuity, despite her marriage to Joseph and her giving birth to siblings of Jesus, who somehow morphed into being 'close relations' instead. There's just one problem there, amyghost . Orthodox Christians believe in those doctrines too (with the possible exception of the Immaculate Conception, but, that's because they do not believe in the doctrine of original sin), & yet, they are not under the authority of the Papacy. They have their own Patriarchs. Only the Protestants believe that Mary & St. Joseph had other children after the Birth Of the Lord Jesus, & they did not break away from the Catholic Church until the 1500s.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 27, 2023 5:12:41 GMT
I suppose some passages of scripture require the assistance of the Holy Spirit to be fully and correctly understood. Is your point that because the virgin birth was a "miracle" only God could do it? And if God did it it would necessarily be included in the Bible? Therefore it could only happen once? What about the "miracles" by Pharoah's magician's? I understand that the serpent of Moses ate the other serpents, but Pharoah's magicians did what is impossible in nature. Also it appears not all miracles are recorded in the Bible. Perhaps there are some details missing that would justify your assumptions. The fact that Moses' serpent ate the serpents of the magicians meant that Moses' God was by far, More Powerful than the gods of the magicians (because Moses' God IS the God of the universe). And you are right. Not all miracles are recorded, by the very admission of St. John the Apostle. That is why the Catholics & Orthodox go by the authority of the Church over the authority of the Bible. Protestants go exactly the other way. They go with the Bible first & then their various churches.
Aha. So there was one and only one virgin birth because the Catholic Church says so. You might have made that point in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 27, 2023 6:04:53 GMT
The fact that Moses' serpent ate the serpents of the magicians meant that Moses' God was by far, More Powerful than the gods of the magicians (because Moses' God IS the God of the universe). And you are right. Not all miracles are recorded, by the very admission of St. John the Apostle. That is why the Catholics & Orthodox go by the authority of the Church over the authority of the Bible. Protestants go exactly the other way. They go with the Bible first & then their various churches.
Aha. So there was one and only one virgin birth because the Catholic Church says so. You might have made that point in the first place.
Because Mary gave Birth to the Son Of God. Christ's Physical Resurrection from the Dead Alone, attests to His Miraculous Birth.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 27, 2023 12:02:09 GMT
There was no 'virgin birth'. The four Marian dogmas were folderol made up as early as the Council of Ephesus in 431, and debated, added to, and refined up until as late as 1950 with the proclamation of the Assumption dogma, by Pius XII. They serve the purpose of making certain that Mary is a sinless and 'unstained' virgin in perpetuity, despite her marriage to Joseph and her giving birth to siblings of Jesus, who somehow morphed into being 'close relations' instead. There's just one problem there, amyghost . Orthodox Christians believe in those doctrines too (with the possible exception of the Immaculate Conception, but, that's because they do not believe in the doctrine of original sin), & yet, they are not under the authority of the Papacy. They have their own Patriarchs. Only the Protestants believe that Mary & St. Joseph had other children after the Birth Of the Lord Jesus, & they did not break away from the Catholic Church until the 1500s. This can be accepted if one wishes to play semantic games with translation, a popular enough pastime for those who wish to place their own interpretations on what the Bible did and did not say. The Bible plainly states Mary had other children with her husband Joseph; the Catholic Church, because it dislikes the fact that this clearly implies Mary either did not remain virginal, or else had other virgin births besides Jesus, lights on the claim that the words for 'brother' and 'sister' were the same as the words for 'cousins' in ancient Aramic. There is no solid evidence to support this. One reason for the Protestant break was based in precisely this sort of wordplay, where Church fathers decided that they, and they alone, were the only ones qualified to interpret what the Bible 'really' was saying, despite the plainly worded statements in it to the contrary. Another reason for the CC to have been so adamantly opposed to widespread literacy in general, and the rendering of the Bible into languages that could be clearly read by the everyday reader, one might safely assume.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 27, 2023 14:41:34 GMT
There's just one problem there, amyghost . Orthodox Christians believe in those doctrines too (with the possible exception of the Immaculate Conception, but, that's because they do not believe in the doctrine of original sin), & yet, they are not under the authority of the Papacy. They have their own Patriarchs. Only the Protestants believe that Mary & St. Joseph had other children after the Birth Of the Lord Jesus, & they did not break away from the Catholic Church until the 1500s. This can be accepted if one wishes to play semantic games with translation, a popular enough pastime for those who wish to place their own interpretations on what the Bible did and did not say. The Bible plainly states Mary had other children with her husband Joseph; the Catholic Church, because it dislikes the fact that this clearly implies Mary either did not remain virginal, or else had other virgin births besides Jesus, lights on the claim that the words for 'brother' and 'sister' were the same as the words for 'cousins' in ancient Aramic. There is no solid evidence to support this. One reason for the Protestant break was based in precisely this sort of wordplay, where Church fathers decided that they, and they alone, were the only ones qualified to interpret what the Bible 'really' was saying, despite the plainly worded statements in it to the contrary. Another reason for the CC to have been so adamantly opposed to widespread literacy in general, and the rendering of the Bible into languages that could be clearly read by the everyday reader, one might safely assume. No. Nowhere does the Bible say that. In fact, it clearly shows that Christ Was her Only Child. Gospel according to St. John chapter 19, verses 26 - 27 has Our Lord Giving His Holy Mother over to the care of St. John the Apostle. Why? Because He was Dying right then & there, & in those days, if the son knew that he was going to die before his mother, & his mother is a widow, then he has to make sure that she will be cared for, before dying.
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 28, 2023 8:06:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 29, 2023 0:59:27 GMT
This can be accepted if one wishes to play semantic games with translation, a popular enough pastime for those who wish to place their own interpretations on what the Bible did and did not say. The Bible plainly states Mary had other children with her husband Joseph; the Catholic Church, because it dislikes the fact that this clearly implies Mary either did not remain virginal, or else had other virgin births besides Jesus, lights on the claim that the words for 'brother' and 'sister' were the same as the words for 'cousins' in ancient Aramic. There is no solid evidence to support this. One reason for the Protestant break was based in precisely this sort of wordplay, where Church fathers decided that they, and they alone, were the only ones qualified to interpret what the Bible 'really' was saying, despite the plainly worded statements in it to the contrary. Another reason for the CC to have been so adamantly opposed to widespread literacy in general, and the rendering of the Bible into languages that could be clearly read by the everyday reader, one might safely assume. No. Nowhere does the Bible say that. In fact, it clearly shows that Christ Was her Only Child. Gospel according to St. John chapter 19, verses 26 - 27 has Our Lord Giving His Holy Mother over to the care of St. John the Apostle. Why? Because He was Dying right then & there, & in those days, if the son knew that he was going to die before his mother, & his mother is a widow, then he has to make sure that she will be cared for, before dying. The Bible assuredly does say this, and in more than one place: www.gotquestions.org/did-Mary-have-other-children.htmlHence the necessity for the translational wordplay that attempts to claim the Bible is saying other than what it is; namely that Mary had other children, and Jesus had siblings who were the product of non-parthenogenic birth.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2023 14:13:01 GMT
No. Nowhere does the Bible say that. In fact, it clearly shows that Christ Was her Only Child. Gospel according to St. John chapter 19, verses 26 - 27 has Our Lord Giving His Holy Mother over to the care of St. John the Apostle. Why? Because He was Dying right then & there, & in those days, if the son knew that he was going to die before his mother, & his mother is a widow, then he has to make sure that she will be cared for, before dying. The Bible assuredly does say this, and in more than one place: www.gotquestions.org/did-Mary-have-other-children.htmlHence the necessity for the translational wordplay that attempts to claim the Bible is saying other than what it is; namely that Mary had other children, and Jesus had siblings who were the product of non-parthenogenic birth. "Until" does not necessarily mean that things changed after the period referred. In the Old Testament, it said that Michal "did not have children" up until she died. Does that mean that she had children after she died? The point that St. Matthew was making in the first chapter of his Gospel, was that St. Joseph was not the biological father Of the Christ. God Alone, Is His (Christ's) Father. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Our Lady had younger children after the Christ.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 29, 2023 21:11:32 GMT
The Bible assuredly does say this, and in more than one place: www.gotquestions.org/did-Mary-have-other-children.htmlHence the necessity for the translational wordplay that attempts to claim the Bible is saying other than what it is; namely that Mary had other children, and Jesus had siblings who were the product of non-parthenogenic birth. "Until" does not necessarily mean that things changed after the period referred. In the Old Testament, it said that Michal "did not have children" up until she died. Does that mean that she had children after she died? The point that St. Matthew was making in the first chapter of his Gospel, was that St. Joseph was not the biological father Of the Christ. God Alone, Is His (Christ's) Father. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Our Lady had younger children after the Christ.If you engage in semantic wordplay and translational gimmickry, it doesn't. If you quote from the source minus the obfuscatory tactics, it does.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 29, 2023 22:15:38 GMT
"Until" does not necessarily mean that things changed after the period referred. In the Old Testament, it said that Michal "did not have children" up until she died. Does that mean that she had children after she died? The point that St. Matthew was making in the first chapter of his Gospel, was that St. Joseph was not the biological father Of the Christ. God Alone, Is His (Christ's) Father. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Our Lady had younger children after the Christ.If you engage in semantic wordplay and translational gimmickry, it doesn't. If you quote from the source minus the obfuscatory tactics, it does. Wrong.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Apr 30, 2023 1:52:10 GMT
I only claim virginity in the presence of three wise men bearing really expensive gifts.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 30, 2023 13:08:23 GMT
If you engage in semantic wordplay and translational gimmickry, it doesn't. If you quote from the source minus the obfuscatory tactics, it does. Wrong. Nope. Cherry-picking Matthew because it supports the RCC's fairy tales about Mary's perpetual virginity does not obviate the multiple other instances in the gospels and NT where it is quite plain Mary had other children post-Jesus by her husband Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 30, 2023 16:08:33 GMT
Nope. Cherry-picking Matthew because it supports the RCC's fairy tales about Mary's perpetual virginity does not obviate the multiple other instances in the gospels and NT where it is quite plain Mary had other children post-Jesus by her husband Joseph. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Mary gave birth again, after Having Our Lord Jesus. Nowhere. Sorry.
|
|
jackbrock
Sophomore
@jackbrock
Posts: 119
Likes: 20
|
Post by jackbrock on Apr 30, 2023 16:18:53 GMT
Nope. Cherry-picking Matthew because it supports the RCC's fairy tales about Mary's perpetual virginity does not obviate the multiple other instances in the gospels and NT where it is quite plain Mary had other children post-Jesus by her husband Joseph. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Mary gave birth again, after Having Our Lord Jesus. Nowhere. Sorry. It doesn't say she didn't. Think of it this way....if a woman doesn't put out, chances are the man won't stick around.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 30, 2023 21:13:37 GMT
Nope. Cherry-picking Matthew because it supports the RCC's fairy tales about Mary's perpetual virginity does not obviate the multiple other instances in the gospels and NT where it is quite plain Mary had other children post-Jesus by her husband Joseph. Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Mary gave birth again, after Having Our Lord Jesus. Nowhere. Sorry. I've just shown you several instances where it does. Because the Bible does not use the phrase 'give birth to' does not mean Jesus had no siblings; several passages point to his having them, exact number not known but most probably seven. All the futtering about with phraseology won't change this, unless you're implying that Mark, John, James and Jude (all books where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned, or the clear implication is that Mary did indeed give birth to other children) are incorrect or not actual gospel or NT documents. The RCC might insist that Matthew and only Matthew is the one book that delineated the Jesus family tree--or lack of one--correctly, but non-adherents need not heed their insistence as, pardon the pun, gospel truth. And for that matter, Matthew 1:24-1:25 implies this as well, no matter how much one wishes to wordgame with that 'until'.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 30, 2023 22:53:14 GMT
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Mary gave birth again, after Having Our Lord Jesus. Nowhere. Sorry. I've just shown you several instances where it does. Because the Bible does not use the phrase 'give birth to' does not mean Jesus had no siblings; several passages point to his having them, exact number not known but most probably seven. All the futtering about with phraseology won't change this, unless you're implying that Mark, John, James and Jude (all books where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned, or the clear implication is that Mary did indeed give birth to other children) are incorrect or not actual gospel or NT documents. The RCC might insist that Matthew and only Matthew is the one book that delineated the Jesus family tree--or lack of one--correctly, but non-adherents need not heed their insistence as, pardon the pun, gospel truth. And for that matter, Matthew 1:24-1:25 implies this as well, no matter how much one wishes to wordgame with that 'until'. No. St. Matthew chapter 1, verses 24 - 25 doesn't imply that Our Lady & St. Joseph consummated their marriage. All it emphasizes is, that St. Joseph was not the biological father Of the Christ. The Gospels say who St. James' father was: Alphaeus. He was not the son of Mary & St. Joseph. He was a cousin of Our Lord. In the Koine Greek, the word for cousin & the word for brother were the same.
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Apr 30, 2023 22:54:36 GMT
Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that Mary gave birth again, after Having Our Lord Jesus. Nowhere. Sorry. It doesn't say she didn't. Think of it this way....if a woman doesn't put out, chances are the man won't stick around. St. Joseph was a very devout Jew. The chances are, he would not even dare think of having sexual relations with Our Lady, after she Conceived the Son Of God.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 30, 2023 23:08:33 GMT
It doesn't say she didn't. Think of it this way....if a woman doesn't put out, chances are the man won't stick around. St. Joseph was a very devout Jew. The chances are, he would not even dare think of having sexual relations with Our Lady, after she Conceived the Son Of God. Did you know that Peter the first Pope had a mother-in-law? So he had to be married, right?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on May 1, 2023 1:39:16 GMT
I've just shown you several instances where it does. Because the Bible does not use the phrase 'give birth to' does not mean Jesus had no siblings; several passages point to his having them, exact number not known but most probably seven. All the futtering about with phraseology won't change this, unless you're implying that Mark, John, James and Jude (all books where Jesus' brothers and sisters are mentioned, or the clear implication is that Mary did indeed give birth to other children) are incorrect or not actual gospel or NT documents. The RCC might insist that Matthew and only Matthew is the one book that delineated the Jesus family tree--or lack of one--correctly, but non-adherents need not heed their insistence as, pardon the pun, gospel truth. And for that matter, Matthew 1:24-1:25 implies this as well, no matter how much one wishes to wordgame with that 'until'. No. St. Matthew chapter 1, verses 24 - 25 doesn't imply that Our Lady & St. Joseph consummated their marriage. All it emphasizes is, that St. Joseph was not the biological father Of the Christ. The Gospels say who St. James' father was: Alphaeus. He was not the son of Mary & St. Joseph. He was a cousin of Our Lord. In the Koine Greek, the word for cousin & the word for brother were the same.Once again, more linguistic wordplay. The Koine Greek for 'brother' is adelphos, plural adelphoi. Although it can mean 'cousin', there are precise words for cousin, nephew and other close relatives in Koine Greek, so why were those not used? Insistence on the multifaceted use of adelphos simply gave the church fathers wiggle room to reinterpret select NT passages as meaning Jesus had no other blood siblings through Mary, but it fails to explain why, when the Greek was generally used in pretty clear and precise terms elsewhere, it would have failed to have been used that way in this particular instance. Of course, when most of the general population couldn't read their own language, much less Aramic or Greek, it hardly mattered, did it? Making it quite easy to pull the wool over many eyes once again. ἀδελφός, (οῦ, ὁ (from ἆ copulative and δελφύς, from the same womb; cf. ἀγάστωρ) (from Homer down);
a brother (whether born of the same two parents, or only of the same father or the same mother): Matthew 1:2; Matthew 4:18, and often. That 'the brethren of Jesus,' Matthew 12:46, 47 (but WH only in marginal reading); f; Mark 6:3 (in the last two passages also sisters); Luke 8:19; John 2:12; John 7:3; Acts 1:14; Galatians 1:19; 1 Corinthians 9:5, are neither sons of Joseph by a wife married before Mary (which is the account in the Apocryphal Gospels (cf. Thilo, Cod. Apocr. N. T. i. 362f)), nor cousins, the children of Alphaeus or Cleophas (i. e. Clopas) and Mary a sister of the mother of Jesus (the current opinion among the doctors of the church since Jerome and Augustine (cf. Lightfoot's Commentary on Galatians, diss. ii.)), according to that use of language by which ἀδελφός like the Hebrew אָח denotes any blood-relation or kinsman (Genesis 14:16; 1 Samuel 20:29; 2 Kings 10:13; 1 Chronicles 23:2, etc.), but own brothers, born after Jesus, is clear principally from Matthew 1:25 (only in R G); Luke 2:7 — where, had Mary borne no other children after Jesus, instead of υἱόν πρωτότοκον, the expression υἱόν μονογενῆ would have been used, as well as from Acts 1:14, cf. John 7:5, where the Lord's brethren are distinguished from the apostles. See further on this point under Ἰάκωβος, 3. (Cf. B. D. under the word ; Andrews, Life of our Lord, pp. 104-116; Bib. Sacr. for 1864, pp. 855-869; for 1869, pp. 745-758; Laurent, N. T. Studien, pp. 153-193; McClellan, note on Matthew 13:55
|
|