Biblical Mary

[Mungo]

Continued....
There is a twist to all this however, because Rome at that time was under an occupying power, and enemies to the Byzantine emperor, it was necessary that the city be liberated before the pontiff could exercise his new found authority. Legal authority is issues unless it could be put into effect right? This is where prophecy comes to the fore. This took place in 538ad when Bellisarius defeated the Goths and that Arian kingdom could no longer exercise power over the bishop, for until that time the Gothic king Theodosius had the final say on appointing bishops. So you can mark 538ad on your prophetic calendar.................

The date of 538 is wrong and the Justinian Code made no difference to the to the power of the papacy which was already long recognized by the Empire.

Of interest to note from above is that there were in actual fact two Codes of Justinian: the first one was in force from 529 to 534, and the second one from 534 onwards. This is a useful fact when confronted with the anti-Catholic allegation that the Justinian code only came into effect in 538. In actual fact, the first Justinian Code was already being taken out of effect in 534. Yet the anti-Catholic sects say it only came into effect in 538.
Next we shall consider various aspects of the Justinian Code and its historical context, in order to show that the claims of opponents of the Catholic Church cannot use the year 538 in their prophetic calculations.
The standard Adventist and anti-Catholic claim is that the Justinian Code gave new powers to the papacy in 538, thus beginning the 1260 years of “papal power”. How true is this allegation?

It will be shown in this secton that the existence of an earlier Roman Law Code, the Theodosian Code and the Edict of the Three Emperors proves that the Code of Justinian did not make any difference to the power of the papacy which was already long recognized by the Empire.

From the The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (2001) we read:
Latin Codex Theodosianus, Roman legal code, issued in 438 by Theodosius II, emperor of the East. It was at once adopted by Valentinian III, emperor of the West. The code was intended to reduce and systematize the complex mass of law that had been issued since the reign of Constantine I. To a large extent it was based upon two private compilations, the Gregorian (Codex Gregorianus) and the Hermogenian (Codex Hermogenianus). The Theodosian Code was used in shaping the Corpus Juris Civilis.

These two private compilations date from the latter stages of the Emperor Diocletian’s reign (284-305) Though the Theodosian code was supplanted by the Justinian Code in 534, it served as the basis for most European law until the 12th century.

In the same year that it was issued (438 ) the code was forwarded to Valentinian III, the son-in-law of Theodosius, by whom it was laid before the Roman Senate, and confirmed as law in the Western empire.

From the Universite Pierre Mendes France we read:
The Theodosian Code has been composed between AD 429 and 438. In 429 the Emperor Theodosius ordered for the nine men commision to compose all imperial constitutions issuing from the time of Constantine. Together with the Codex Hermogenianus and Codex Gregorianus this collection had to be an actual law book and a model for teaching of jurists.… Codex Theodosianus received an official status together with the Codex Hermogenianus and Codex Gregorianus which before had only [the]character of the private collections. The Codex got in force 15 February 438 at the [Ea]st Roman Empire and 1 January 439 at the West Empire. There are 2529 imperial issues from Constantine to Theodosius II in it. The earliest constitution in the Codex is CTh.13,10,2 of 1 June 311 and the latest is CTh.6,23,4 of 16 March 437.

In an article on the Codex Theodosianus by George Long, M.A., on pp 302-303 of William Smith, D.C.L., LL.D.: A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John Murray, London, 1875 we read:

The laws relating to the Christian church are contained in the sixteenth and last book. It is obvious from the circumstances under which the Theodosian and Justinian codes were compiled, and from a comparison of them, that the Justinian code was greatly indebted to the Theodosian.

From these citations we see that in actual fact the Justinian Code of 529/534 was by no means revolutionary, in that it was merely a compilation of existing Roman law canons, being based, as we saw on the Theodosian Code and its predecessors. When we consider that as early as 380, where we read in the Edict of the Three Emperors Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius(issued on 28 Feb 380):

“[The Emperors demand that all people remain] ‘in the religion which the divine apostle Peter passed on to the Romans’ [and which has flowered to this day of (Pope) Damasus]”. Quoted in Stephen K. Ray “Upon This Rock” (Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999), page 217.

it can be seen that the role and nature of the papacy did not in fact change under the Justinian Code. The papacy was already legally recognized by the Empire as having authority, as the Edict of the Three Emperors from 150 years earlier demonstrates.

Since the Code of Justinian made no new changes to the role of the papacy, it is pointless to try to use the introduction of this Code as the basis of some type of prophetic measurement, as the anti-Catholics are wont to do.

The date of 1798 is used as the end-point of the 1260 years, beginning, as they allegedly do, in 538.
1798 seems like a good date to use by Adventists and anti-Catholics, coming as it does, 1260 years after 538. However, just as the date of 538 is the wrong date for the introduction of Justinian’s Code, the date 1798 is also, to all intents and purposes, irrelevant from the point of view of Daniel 7.

(1260 and Justinian’s Code of 538) my emboldening

and from the same source
One (unofficial) Adventist apologist says the pope had, from 538, a “legal authority” so this amounted to the antichrist “papal power” of Daniel 7. I quote from his page below:

In an imperial rescript in 534 A.D. the Roman bishop was recognized as the head of all the churches, and given full authority as such. However the Gothic king Theodahad was reigning in Italy. That meant German law was the rule in Rome. Therefore the exaltation of the papacy in Rome was in decree only and could not be put into effect.

So, according to this logic, the “exaltation of the papacy” could only be put into effect in 538, when Rome was won back from the Goths. Right?

Wrong. Belisarius took Rome in December 536, not 538. Not to mention the fact that Justinian threw Pope Vigilius in prison between the years 547 and 555.Also the distinction between “effect” and reality is unworkable. If Belisarius took Rome in 536, how can the Goth law still apply? The anti-Catholic position can’t fit 534 or 536 into his theology, so he has to use 538.

 

[Mungo]

I gqave you some and told you I would provide others, but you snobbily rejected it as improper without even looking. Why should I run around for you when you won't even acknowledge the evidence I did give, mock others, and refused to answer one question I posed to you? This is supposed to be a two way discussion- not an INquisition on your part. that means you are supposed to reply back when I do things.

You made claims in posts #17, #24, #51, #64. You gave not a shred of evidence for any of them.

In post #51 you claimed that the feast of Saturnalia was on 25th December. I showed it wasn't.
In post #64 you made reference to the Encyclopedia Brittanica that was irrelevant to the issue.

As I said - if you provide evidence I will look at it. Until then you are just trolling.

 

[Mungo]

Absolutely not! You've lost the argument when you have to retreat to a foreign language.

LORD - YWH

Jesus - not ever referred to as YWH but Yeshua.

Retreat to a foreign language!. That's hilarious!
What language do you think the scriptures were written in?
English?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

WOW.
Your ignorance and gullibility FAR exceed that of any uneducated rube I've ever come in contact with.

For starters - just because you "Googled" something DOESN'T make it true. For your information - according to REAL sources like the Encyclopedia Americana, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Judaica, Encyclopedia of Religion, and World Book Encyclopedia - not only do they say NOTHING of Semiramis and Nimrod being married - but that they didn't even live in the same century.
Everything you said after that on the subject collapses like so many dominoes . . .

As for your incredibly idiotic claim in RED about Constantine - not only is this manure, it can't be proven.
The Romans were REAL sticklers about records, decress, declarations and other documents.
SHOW ME the document from Constantine that promulgated the Catholic Church.

If you can't do that - then YOU as guilty of violating god's command against bearing FALSE WITNESS against over a billion people.

Well as I am an uneducatred rube and guilty of bearing false witness to you- I shan't waste your "precious time" giving you answers that are so uneducated in your mind.

But you are just as snobbish as mungo. Well my cite to mungo showing Nimrod and semiramis were married came fromo teh Britannica oh nose in the air one!

And your laqck of careful reading is glaring, constantine did not promulgate Roman Catholicism, but His actions and the events He initiated were the seeds that help conceive roman Catholicism.

and you sir are simply a liar. I do not bear witness for anything agains t1 billion Catholics. But if you get get your nose down straight, perhaps you can stoop so low as to tell this uneducated rube what I am supposed to be bearing false witness against these 1,000,000,000 people.

BTW, Encyclopedias are not the be all , end all, final arbiters of everything that took place in Christendom throughou t history.

Point of fact. a google search of the INQUISITION. Of the first 8 pages of references Only two references were from your infallible REAL sources and it hardly covered anything other than general information. But I can get you loads of real dirt on what the church did during the dark ages that your real sources would not report on.

 

[amigo de christo]

Well as I am an uneducatred rube and guilty of bearing false witness to you- I shan't waste your "precious time" giving you answers that are so uneducated in your mind.

But you are just as snobbish as mungo. Well my cite to mungo showing Nimrod and semiramis were married came fromo teh Britannica oh nose in the air one!

And your laqck of careful reading is glaring, constantine did not promulgate Roman Catholicism, but His actions and the events He initiated were the seeds that help conceive roman Catholicism.

and you sir are simply a liar. I do not bear witness for anything agains t1 billion Catholics. But if you get get your nose down straight, perhaps you can stoop so low as to tell this uneducated rube what I am supposed to be bearing false witness against these 1,000,000,000 people.

BTW, Encyclopedias are not the be all , end all, final arbiters of everything that took place in Christendom throughou t history.

Point of fact. a google search of the INQUISITION. Of the first 8 pages of references Only two references were from your infallible REAL sources and it hardly covered anything other than general information. But I can get you loads of real dirt on what the church did during the dark ages that your real sources would not report on.

They are soldiers of Rome now my friend . There is little that can be done but continue to expose the dangerous deception of that said
institution . Ensuring not one person takes a step in that direction . And praying for and warning all that are of it , to COME ye out
from amongst her .

 

[amigo de christo]

Mary= blessed but still just a woman in need of the Savior=Jesus.

Very true sister . The way they promote mary , sets her far above even Christ .

 

[amigo de christo]

you won’t find Protestant in the Bible or biblical but only catholic

faithful obedience not rebellion Jn 15:1

OH the bible does warn against that system . Paul knew they were coming in after His departing .
As the harlot sucks the life out of the jews , so too she stood over christendom and sucks the life
out of all who do enter her chambers .

 

[Curtis]

therefore He was glorifying His mother
Lk 1: 45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord

Protestant fundamentalism is NOT biblical

That’s not what the account says:

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Mar 3:32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”

Mar 3:33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”

Mar 3:34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!

Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

I’m equal to Mary in Gods eyes, when I do Gods will.

The RCC has elevated Mary to idolatry status: praying to Mary, building shrines to Mary where they idolize her with “adoration” on their knees, inventing non biblical mythology of Mary such as the immaculate conception myth that she was sinless, the perpetual virgin myth, refuted by scripture plainly saying Joseph had sex with his wife after Jesus was born, the mythology that she co-rules along with Jesus as the queen of heaven, and more.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You made claims in posts #17, #24, #51, #64. You gave not a shred of evidence for any of them.

In post #51 you claimed that the feast of Saturnalia was on 25th December. I showed it wasn't.
In post #64 you made reference to the Encyclopedia Brittanica that was irrelevant to the issue.

As I said - if you provide evidence I will look at it. Until then you are just trolling.

Well irrelavent to you! And I said that the feast was on the 25th in honer of the sun god. I mistakenly conflated saturn with Sol Invictus. That is my bad.

so it is very relavent!

Your aqccusations are like music to my ears!

why is the bishops miter designed the way it is?

Why was Limbo removed and what happened to all them unbaptized babies? Who gave the chruch th eauthority to promote them or condemne them and biblical proof please.

Why was eating meat on Friday a sin?

 

[theefaith]

You are correct about Constantine. His involvement in the establishment of the Papacy had been overrated. The actual establishment of the Papacy didn't take place until 200 odd years later, and the emperor involved in that was Justinian.

the church was founded by Christ alone on Peter and the apostles according to scripture Matt 16:18

 

[Ronald Nolette]

They are soldiers of Rome now my friend . There is little that can be done but continue to expose the dangerous deception of that said
institution . Ensuring not one person takes a step in that direction . And praying for and warning all that are of it , to COME ye out
from amongst her .

I am more than willing to discuss points, but these snobs who pooh pooh modsern fomrs of info gathering I suspect are fearful of finding out that much of thast info is heavily referenced and cites historical sources. They wish to rely on generic encyclopedias which will not write in depth about these spiritual things. It is an easy cop out for them. Destroy anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

I do but it is beneath your lofty throne so I know you will not accpet it!

 

[amigo de christo]

the church was founded by Christ alone on Peter and the apostles according to scripture Matt 16:18

The church was , not the RCC . Come ye out from amongst her and let none heed this most dangerous pope francis .
Though he smiles and seems friendly , He is the most deceptive pope to ever sit the throne . At least in my lifetime .

 

[amigo de christo]

I do but it is beneath your lofty throne so I know you will not accpet it!

Thanks for this reminder . Me thinks i just found another character in the story line i have been writing .

 

[theefaith]

That’s not what the account says:

Mar 3:31 And his mother and his brothers came, and standing outside they sent to him and called him.

Mar 3:32 And a crowd was sitting around him, and they said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, seeking you.”

Mar 3:33 And he answered them, “Who are my mother and my brothers?”

Mar 3:34 And looking about at those who sat around him, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers!

Mar 3:35 For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

I’m equal to Mary in Gods eyes, when I do Gods will.

The RCC has elevated Mary to idolatry status: praying to Mary, building shrines to Mary where they idolize her with “adoration” on their knees, inventing non biblical mythology of Mary such as the immaculate conception myth that she was sinless, the perpetual virgin myth, refuted by scripture plainly saying Joseph had sex with his wife after Jesus was born, the mythology that she co-rules along with Jesus as the queen of heaven, and more.

even luther and calvin oppose you’re fundamentalism


Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 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)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).

 

[amigo de christo]

even luther and calvin oppose you’re fundamentalism


Martin Luther

It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin. … Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact. (Weimer’s The Works of Luther, English translation by Pelikan, Concordia, St. Louis, v. 11, pp. 319-320; v. 6. p. 510.)

John Calvin

(On the Heretic Helvidius) Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ’s “brothers” are sometimes mentioned. (Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke, sec. 39 [Geneva, 1562], vol. 2 / From Calvin’s Commentaries, translated by William Pringle, Grand Rapids, Michigan: 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)

Under the word “brethren” the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. (Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, [7:3])

John Wesley

‘I believe that He [Jesus] was made man, joining the human nature with the divine in one person; being conceived by the singular operation of the Holy Ghost, and born of the blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as before she brought Him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin’ (‘Letter to a Roman Catholic’, The Works of Rev. John Wesley, vol 10, p. 81).

I would not follow calvin peroid . And even some of the other early reformers still had a bit of the mother harlot still attached .
Calvin was as dangerous as the popes . And his tribunal had folks killed . SO DO try and perhaps , in the future not bring those names .

 

[Mungo]

Well irrelavent to you! And I said that the feast was on the 25th in honer of the sun god. I mistakenly conflated saturn with Sol Invictus. That is my bad.

so it is very relavent!

Your aqccusations are like music to my ears!

why is the bishops miter designed the way it is?

This is typical of trolls.
Can't provide evidence for their claims that they make and then dodge off into other questions, and then more questions and claims without evidence

Let's have a test. You ask why is the bishops miter designed the way it is?
So tell me - WITH EVIDENCE

 

[Mungo]

I do but it is beneath your lofty throne so I know you will not accpet it!

Translation.
No I don't have evidence

 

[BreadOfLife]

.
FAQ: Seeing as how Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, then wouldn't any
Jewish man have served as well to be Mary's husband; why especially
Joseph?

A: This matter is of little importance to the average Gentile, but very
important to Jews.

God appointed Jesus to take David's throne (Luke 1:32). However:
successors have to meet two prerequisites. They have to be directly related
to David, and they have to be directly related to David's son Solomon. These
prerequisites are non negotiable. (1Kings 1:13, and 1Chron 22:9-10)

Jesus was directly related to David via his mother; but she wasn't directly
related to Solomon. However; Joseph was directly related to both David and
Solomon.

Now whereas successors to the throne have to be David's biological
posterity, they don't have to be Solomon's biological posterity; they only
have to be one of his direct descendants; which made it possible for Joseph
to pass the throne on to Jesus by means of adoption: a process that gives
children just as much standing in the home as biological children, including
the right to inherit, the right to their adoptive father's name, and the right to
a place in his genealogy.

This is very important in matters related to not only the man's estate, but
also his status. In other words: it's possible for a child to circumvent blood,
and go from pauper to prince by just the stroke of a pen.

Jacob set the precedent for this procedure when he adopted his two
grandsons Manasseh and Ephraim in the book of Genesis; effectively
endowing Joseph's two boys with the status of tribal heads equal in rank and
privilege to Jacob's original twelve sons. So then, what Joseph did with Jesus
was neither innovative nor unheard of.

FAQ: How do you know Joseph adopted Jesus?

A: Joseph was instructed to name Mary's baby. (Matt 1:21)

Joseph complied. (Matt 1:25)

Thus; Joseph became bound to Jesus as his genealogical father (Matt 1:1
thru Matt 1:16) because that's how it worked in those days when a man
stood with a woman to name her child-- effectively claiming the child as his
own. (cf. Luke 1:59 and Luke 2:21)
_

Yup - and yet NOTHING you just posted indicates "coincidence".
It indicates that it was ALL part of God's perfect plan.

 

[theefaith]

I would not follow calvin peroid . And even some of the other early reformers still had a bit of the mother harlot still attached .
Calvin was as dangerous as the popes . And his tribunal had folks killed . SO DO try and perhaps , in the future not bring those names .

There is always the saints


St Augustine, Sermons 186.1 (early 5th century):

“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).

“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).

“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).

St Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III.28.3 (13th century):

"Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children.

For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring.

“Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb, wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with man.

“Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her.

“Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.

“We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards."

The blessed Mary mother of God, is a perpetual virgin to the glory of God!