An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[Born_Again]

I give you bible and you give me humpty dumpty..

Nice.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh man. Thats funny!!! HAHAHA!

 

[lforrest]

When Matthew was written around 70 AD, long after Joseph had died, I doubt it was in question if Mary would be intimate with him.

But until Jesus was born it was important she be a virgin for the fulfillment of prophecy. FYI Jesus was born, that is implied here.

 

[epostle1]

All of the early Protestant founders accepted the truth of the perpetual virginity of Mary. How could this be, if it is (as its detractors tell us) merely “tradition” with no scriptural basis? Why was its supposed violation of Scripture not so obvious to them, as it is to the Protestants of the last 150 years or so (since the onset of theological liberalism) who have ditched this previously-held opinion? It has become quite fashionable to believe that Jesus had blood brothers (I suspect, because this contradicts Catholic teaching), contrary to the original consensus of the early Protestants.

It is fascinating to see what the founders of Protestantism taught about this doctrine. If Catholics are so entrenched in what has been described as, for example, “silly,” “desperate,” “obviously false,” “unbiblical tradition,” then so are many Protestant luminaries such as Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Heinrich Bullinger, and even later eminent figures such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism. Strangely enough, however, current-day critics of the belief rarely aim criticism at them.

 

[kerwin]

There is no smoking gun but there are many arguments supporting it.

I have not heard any arguments supporting the tenet that Mary was an eternal virgin except the desires of those that insist it is true.

 

[Mungo]

I have not heard any arguments supporting the tenet that Mary was an eternal virgin except the desires of those that insist it is true.

I have pages of arguments but as I said this thread is supposed to be about "rituals in religions".

Besides I doubt anyone wants to discuss the issue seriously so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

 

[FHII]

Actually I gave ypu lots of scripture. You give me the Humpty Dumpty - words mean whatever I want them to mean.

But I guess you will go into denial over that too!

Giving scripture is one thing. Giving scripture that actually is useful is something different and something you haven't done.

All those verses do not prove your point and do not prove that mat 1:25 doesn't state what is obvious: that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus.

All those verses are meant to do is cast doubt.

I've got that verse, a list of brothers, noted sisters and other verses that I haven't even brought up yet.

Where are you verses that say Mary remained a virgin?

 

[FHII]

I have pages of arguments but as I said this thread is supposed to be about "rituals in religions".

Besides I doubt anyone wants to discuss the issue seriously so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

I don't want pages of arguements, I want a verse!

 

[kerwin]

I have pages of arguments but as I said this thread is supposed to be about "rituals in religions".

Besides I doubt anyone wants to discuss the issue seriously so I'm not going to waste a lot of time on it.

Yes, this is off topic. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[epostle1]

I don't want pages of arguements, I want a verse!

Then give me a verse that supports sola scriptura. There aren't any, yet it is a pillar of Protestantism. Better still, give me a verse that lists the biblical canon. The idea that every single belief, practice or devotion must be explicitly found in scripture to be trustworthy, is not in scripture. It's a man made tradition.

'Sacred Tradition pre-dates the canon of Scripture. it is a branch of the Deposit of Faith, which comprises the oral and written Word of God. It has nothing to with customs and rubrics, or the family tradition of Thanksgiving dinner.

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33 (<<oral or Sacred Tradition)
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34 . . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Without the Tradition of Apostolic Succession, there would be no bishops in the first 3+ centuries to develop the canon of the Bible.
No Tradition, no Bible.

 

[kerwin]

Then give me a verse that supports sola scriptura. There aren't any, yet it is a pillar of Protestantism. Better still, give me a verse that lists the biblical canon. The idea that every single belief, practice or devotion must be explicitly found in scripture to be trustworthy, is not in scripture. It's a man made tradition.

'Sacred Tradition pre-dates the canon of Scripture. it is a branch of the Deposit of Faith, which comprises the oral and written Word of God. It has nothing to with customs and rubrics, or the family tradition of Thanksgiving dinner.

ARTICLE 2
THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations.31

I. THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33 (<<oral or Sacred Tradition)
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34 . . . continued in apostolic succession

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

Without the Tradition of Apostolic Succession, there would be no bishops in the first 3+ centuries to develop the canon of the Bible.
No Tradition, no Bible.

You are taking the tenet of solo scripture too literally since the actual claim is Scripture is the highest authority of the revealed truth. The only difference between a heretic and one who speaks the truth is a heretic will add or/and subtract from what is written in Scripture.

I the original Catholics followed that teaching at the Council of Nice since from what I have heard they debated from Scripture with Arias though even they may have already started the process of pulling away from the revealed truth of God.

 

[Mungo]

Giving scripture is one thing. Giving scripture that actually is useful is something different and something you haven't done.

All those verses do not prove your point and do not prove that mat 1:25 doesn't state what is obvious: that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus.

All those verses are meant to do is cast doubt.

I've got that verse, a list of brothers, noted sisters and other verses that I haven't even brought up yet.

Where are you verses that say Mary remained a virgin?

What are the verses that say Mary didn't remain a virgin?

As I have said before there is no genealogy, no statement that says Mary did not remain a virgin.

 

[Mungo]

You are taking the tenet of solo scripture too literally since the actual claim is Scripture is the highest authority of the revealed truth. The only difference between a heretic and one who speaks the truth is a heretic will add or/and subtract from what is written in Scripture.

I the original Catholics followed that teaching at the Council of Nice since from what I have heard they debated from Scripture with Arias though even they may have already started the process of pulling away from the revealed truth of God.

Protestants seem to have as many versions of sola scriptura as they do with other doctrines.

Where does scripture say it is the highest authority of revealed truth?

 

[kerwin]

Protestants seem to have as many versions of sola scriptura as they do with other doctrines.

Where does scripture say it is the highest authority of revealed truth?

Jesus addresses that question. I just cannot remember where. I do know Scripture has only has the authority God gave it. It is his word and he does not change like the shifting sands.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)

13 [a] If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them’, 3 you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul. 4 The Lord your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. 5 But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the Lord your God—who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery—to turn you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

Footnotes:

Deuteronomy 13:1 Ch 13.2 in Heb

Christians are more tolerant of such teachers today.

 

[Mungo]

Jesus addresses that question. I just cannot remember where. I do know Scripture has only has the authority God gave it. It is his word and he does not change like the shifting sands.





Christians are more tolerant of such teachers today.

I don't see the relevance of your Deuteronomy quote to this.

As for scripture. I take the line that scripture has no authority in the proper sense of the word. Only people have authority.

Scripture is authoritative - meaning true and reliable. Yes, it is God breathed, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. But not all that Jesus taught the apostles is written down.
Paul states as much: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2Thess 2:15)
And John writes: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (Jn 21:25).

However that is another big topic.

I would like to see what you think Jesus says about this.

 

[Born_Again]

I don't see the relevance of your Deuteronomy quote to this.

As for scripture. I take the line that scripture has no authority in the proper sense of the word. Only people have authority.

Scripture is authoritative - meaning true and reliable. Yes, it is God breathed, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. But not all that Jesus taught the apostles is written down.
Paul states as much: "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2Thess 2:15)
And John writes: "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (Jn 21:25).

However that is another big topic.

I would like to see what you think Jesus says about this.

Mungo. Excellent idea! Start a thread about that. I would be curious to see how that would go. (I am not trying to be antagonistic. I really would like to see you start a thread about that.)

BA

 

[tom55]

I don't want pages of arguements, I want a verse!

According to Luke 1:27 we understand Mary and Joseph had taken what would be considered a ratified marriage since there was no such thing as engagement in ancient Israel. Scripture says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused”, not engaged. They were married! This means that Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point and the union would be consummated.

According to Luke 1:34 Mary (who was a newly married woman) asked the question to the angel how she was going to give birth to a son since she is a virgin and she did not know man. Why would she ask this question since she was married to Joseph? Wouldn't she have just assumed Joseph was going to impregnate her since he was her husband? No, she didn't assume that because she had a vow of virginity.

Matthew, written around 80 AD, says Mary was a virgin.

The Gospel of James, written about 140 AD, says she was a virgin. Since it was written around 140 AD it was more than likely commonly known and taught many years before that.

So for the first 145 years of Christianity it was taught or common knowledge that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and a life long virgin.

So now I have to decide. Do I trust the writings of Christians who lived during the first 145 years of Christianity or the writings of the heretics on this website? Tough decision here.

 

[Mungo]

Mungo. Excellent idea! Start a thread about that. I would be curious to see how that would go. (I am not trying to be antagonistic. I really would like to see you start a thread about that.)

BA

I'm sure it has been gone through many times.

 

[Born_Again]

According to Luke 1:27 we understand Mary and Joseph had taken what would be considered a ratified marriage since there was no such thing as engagement in ancient Israel. Scripture says Mary was “betrothed” or “espoused”, not engaged. They were married! This means that Joseph would have had the right to the marriage bed at that point and the union would be consummated.

According to Luke 1:34 Mary (who was a newly married woman) asked the question to the angel how she was going to give birth to a son since she is a virgin and she did not know man. Why would she ask this question since she was married to Joseph? Wouldn't she have just assumed Joseph was going to impregnate her since he was her husband? No, she didn't assume that because she had a vow of virginity.

Matthew, written around 80 AD, says Mary was a virgin.

The Gospel of James, written about 140 AD, says she was a virgin. Since it was written around 140 AD it was more than likely commonly known and taught many years before that.

So for the first 145 years of Christianity it was taught or common knowledge that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus and a life long virgin.

So now I have to decide. Do I trust the writings of Christians who lived during the first 145 years of Christianity or the writings of the heretics on this website? Tough decision here.

All this proves is that she was a virgin when she birthed Christ. And, no one refutes that. But you have yet to provide irrefutable evidence that she remained. You have been provided with the possibility that she may not have remained a virgin and you shoot it down with about the same lack of proof. Neither side can for sure say "Yay" or "Nay".

 

[tom55]

All this proves is that she was a virgin when she birthed Christ. And, no one refutes that. But you have yet to provide irrefutable evidence that she remained. You have been provided with the possibility that she may not have remained a virgin and you shoot it down with about the same lack of proof. Neither side can for sure say "Yay" or "Nay".

Scripture says she was a virgin. It never says she stopped being a virgin. You have failed to prove scripture wrong.

Historical writings (which is what scripture is) written shortly after scripture says she was a life long virgin. You have failed to prove those historical writings wrong.

What more proof do you want than that?

You deny what is written. I accept it. The burden of proof is on you. You have failed.

 

[tom55]

You are taking the tenet of solo scripture too literally since the actual claim is Scripture is the highest authority of the revealed truth. The only difference between a heretic and one who speaks the truth is a heretic will add or/and subtract from what is written in Scripture.

I the original Catholics followed that teaching at the Council of Nice since from what I have heard they debated from Scripture with Arias though even they may have already started the process of pulling away from the revealed truth of God.

Jesus said four times you must eat my body and drink my blood. Heretics say Jesus didn't mean that. Who is adding or taking away from scripture?

Scripture says baptism saves you. Heretics say it doesn't save you. Who is adding or taking away from Scripture?

Scripture doesn't say you have to be submerged to be baptized. Heretics say you do. Who is adding or taking away from scripture?

Scripture says Mary was a virgin. Heretics say she wasn't. Who is adding or taking away from scripture?