An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[Born_Again]

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.

HAHAHA!! I dont deny what is written. I deny the claims you make based on what you choose to believe. In all these posts, all you have presented is the possibility that beyond the birth of Christ she remained a virgin. YOU have yet to provide anything saying "and she remained a virgin". Provide Prima facie evidence. What you cite holds no more weight than that cited by those whom oppose your stance.

Listen, Tom. In my previous post, I tried to give you both the benefit of the doubt. But you refuse to rest unless others accept what you believe. Others could offer you an olive branch and you would burn it in front of them.

 

[FHII]

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.

Here's the problem... None of that is true! Mary was espoused, not married. There was such thing as an engagement. I believe Jacob was engaged for about 14 years to one wife and 7 years to another. Furthermore, espoused means promised to be married, not "married".

Luke 1 does not say they were married, neither does Mat 1; it says they were espoused.

Haven't read the Gospel of James.... Don't usually stray outside the Bible for Biblical information.

No, it was not common knowledge for the first 145 years that Mary remained a virgin. It wasn't until after 145 years that someone developed that mythology. Even after that, it wasn't commonly taught. Not everyone agreed with it.

 

[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.

Revealed in who's truth? Revealed to who? Who is adding or taking away what is written in scripture?

Sola scriptura was the backbone of the Protestant Reformation. It was the theory that no authoritative Church existed and that no authoritative Church was needed. The Bible (nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else) is seen to be all that is necessary for faith and practice.

If one accepts the truth of sola scriptura then one would have to spend the rest of their life figuring out or debating the arguments of various theologians to determine which version of Protestantism to be most in line with Scripture. Is it the Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Lutherans? The Anglicans? The Methodists? The Church of Christ? How about that church down the street started by a charismatic/convincing young pastor with his new angle on how to put the scriptural pieces together? Which one interpreted scripture infallibly and correctly? All the Protestant church's that believe in sola scriptura believed THEY received the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture and they alone got it right. So how did they all come to a different interpretation of scripture if they were all being guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit confused?

The Reformation led to the fragmentation of Protestantism and hence forth Christianity. It led it into countless denominations, sects and independent churches. It made the infallible word of God fallible. That doesn't make sense logically and that isn't the teaching of the New Testament. The Protestant experiment and the sola scriptura theory has not achieved unity in Christianity and it never will. It has turned the infallible word of God fallible.

In other words sola scriptura has refuted itself.

Where in the New Testament writings does it say that when the apostles died authority would reside in Scripture alone? It doesn't say that. The FACT is Christians continued to look to Scripture, apostolic tradition and the ability of the church’s leadership (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to meet in council when needed and authoritatively decide issues of faith and practice for all Christians. Church authority was needed to settle disputes and issue decrees binding on all believers just like at the Council of Jerusalem. The New Testament clearly says that the Church has the authority not sola scriptura.

 

[Mungo]

Here's the problem... None of that is true! Mary was espoused, not married. There was such thing as an engagement. I believe Jacob was engaged for about 14 years to one wife and 7 years to another. Furthermore, espoused means promised to be married, not "married".

Luke 1 does not say they were married, neither does Mat 1; it says they were espoused.

Mary was betrothed not engaged. It's not the same in Judaism.

From Judaism101 (www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm)

The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage). Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.
Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce. However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.
The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together.

Mary and Joseph were between the two stages of marriage. That is why Joseph was going to divorce Mary [put her away] (Mt 1:19), and that is why ion the same verse Joseph is described as her husband.

 

[tom55]

Here's the problem... None of that is true! Mary was espoused, not married. There was such thing as an engagement. I believe Jacob was engaged for about 14 years to one wife and 7 years to another. Furthermore, espoused means promised to be married, not "married".

Luke 1 does not say they were married, neither does Mat 1; it says they were espoused.

Haven't read the Gospel of James.... Don't usually stray outside the Bible for Biblical information.

No, it was not common knowledge for the first 145 years that Mary remained a virgin. It wasn't until after 145 years that someone developed that mythology. Even after that, it wasn't commonly taught. Not everyone agreed with it.

The FACT is “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged? (Matthew 1:19)

Show me proof "not everyone agreed with it" or that is was not "common knowledge".

 

[kerwin]

Revealed in who's truth? Revealed to who? Who is adding or taking away what is written in scripture?

Sola scriptura was the backbone of the Protestant Reformation. It was the theory that no authoritative Church existed and that no authoritative Church was needed. The Bible (nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else) is seen to be all that is necessary for faith and practice.

If one accepts the truth of sola scriptura then one would have to spend the rest of their life figuring out or debating the arguments of various theologians to determine which version of Protestantism to be most in line with Scripture. Is it the Baptists? The Presbyterians? The Lutherans? The Anglicans? The Methodists? The Church of Christ? How about that church down the street started by a charismatic/convincing young pastor with his new angle on how to put the scriptural pieces together? Which one interpreted scripture infallibly and correctly? All the Protestant church's that believe in sola scriptura believed THEY received the Holy Spirit to properly interpret scripture and they alone got it right. So how did they all come to a different interpretation of scripture if they were all being guided by the same Holy Spirit? Is the Holy Spirit confused?

The Reformation led to the fragmentation of Protestantism and hence forth Christianity. It led it into countless denominations, sects and independent churches. It made the infallible word of God fallible. That doesn't make sense logically and that isn't the teaching of the New Testament. The Protestant experiment and the sola scriptura theory has not achieved unity in Christianity and it never will. It has turned the infallible word of God fallible.

In other words sola scriptura has refuted itself.

Where in the New Testament writings does it say that when the apostles died authority would reside in Scripture alone? It doesn't say that. The FACT is Christians continued to look to Scripture, apostolic tradition and the ability of the church’s leadership (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) to meet in council when needed and authoritatively decide issues of faith and practice for all Christians. Church authority was needed to settle disputes and issue decrees binding on all believers just like at the Council of Jerusalem. The New Testament clearly says that the Church has the authority not sola scriptura.

You of little faith!

There is one God and he sends his one Spirit to reveal his one truth to who he chooses while Satan has many and each sends his spirit to reveal his lie to those God chooses to be deceived.

We are taught to test the spirit of what we hear, believe, and even what we do.

God exists and is a loving God and he will hide his truth from those that are perishing and reveal it to those that love him.

 

[tom55]

You of little faith!

There is one God and he sends his one Spirit to reveal his one truth to who he chooses while Satan has many and each sends his spirit to reveal his lie to those God chooses to be deceived.

We are taught to test the spirit of what we hear, believe, and even what we do.

God exists and is a loving God and he will hide his truth from those that are perishing and reveal it to those that love him.

Who is the one he reveals his one truth to? Who is Satan lying to and deceiving? You? Me? The RCC? The Baptist? The Methodist? The Muslims?

Who is the "we" that are taught to "test the spirit of what we hear, believe"?

Who is God hiding his truth from? What is your evidence?

You didn't even address my statement. You just made another statement without backing it up with facts.

Is it possible YOU have little faith?

 

[kerwin]

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?

Even Roman Catholics do not believe that passage is literal but they have some strange doctrine that makes it pseudo literal since I am fairly sure Roman-Catholics do not believe cannibalism is a righteous action.

Instead Jesus is just teaching an old lesson in that his follower-students must become like him in true righteousness and holiness.

Immersion in water does and does not save you as it is part of a process. Without faith no one should expect anything from God.

Scripture uses the vague word baptism which John the Baptist practiced. John the Baptist is a Jew and they practiced full immersion in living water for conversions during the first century. There is also evidence that even the RCC has done so as well.

Scripture makes it clear that Mary was a virgin til the time Jesus was born and conjecture is conjecture and possibly a vain argument.

 

[kerwin]

Who is the one he reveals his one truth to? Who is Satan lying to and deceiving? You? Me? The RCC? The Baptist? The Methodist? The Muslims?

Who is the "we" that are taught to "test the spirit of what we hear, believe"?

Who is God hiding his truth from? What is your evidence?

You didn't even address my statement. You just made another statement without backing it up with facts.

Is it possible YOU have little faith?

I did answer your statement with the words "You of little faith". The rest of what I said was in regards to your points and the lack of faith they revealed.

I assume those that claim they are Christians are what they claim to be and if that assumption is correct then they as well as myself belong to the group "we".

I assumed that you know Scripture but it looks like I am wrong.

These are all from New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE).

Matthew 13:13

13 The reason I speak to them in parables is that “seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand.”

2 Corinthians 4:3

3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.”

2 Peter 3:15-16

15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

The following passage is a type.

1 Kings 22:22

22 “How?” the Lord asked him. He replied, “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then the Lord[a] said, “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do it.”

Footnotes:

1 Kings 22:22 Heb he

This is about testing the spirit of what we hear. I apply it to believe and do as they are natural extensions and Paul instructed Timothy to watch both his life and doctrine.

1 John 4:1

4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

 

[FHII]

Mary was betrothed not engaged. It's not the same in Judaism.

From Judaism101 (www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm)



Mary and Joseph were between the two stages of marriage. That is why Joseph was going to divorce Mary [put her away] (Mt 1:19), and that is why ion the same verse Joseph is described as her husband.

Your own article doesn't evem agree with you! Neither does the Bible.

 

[FHII]

The FACT is “betrothed” equals “married” for Mary and Joseph. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged? (Matthew 1:19)

Show me proof "not everyone agreed with it" or that is was not "common knowledge".

No betrothed does not mean married, neithet does espoused. Joseph was going to put her away, which is not the same thing as divorced. Engaged people don't get divorced.

Wonderful smoke screen though... Whether Jodrph an Mary were married at whatever time has nothing to do with the topic.

As for showing you proof... The burden of showing proof is on you. You made the claim, now prove that it was "common knowledge". You made the claim with no evidence other than "its common knowledge" (which is code for, "there isn't a lick of historical evidence, but its been belived for a long time, so it must be true!"

But you want proof? Shoot, all i had to do was look at weakipedia for 5 minutes and realize you were making it all up or spinning the facts.

 

[Mungo]

Your own article doesn't evem agree with you! Neither does the Bible.

Well, I see no point in arguing with someone who just goes into total denial of the facts put before them so I will leave you to your errors.

 

[FHII]

Well, I see no point in arguing with someone who just goes into total denial of the facts put before them so I will leave you to your errors.

I love the "sour grapes" endings people give.

 

[FHII]

Matthew 1:18-25:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused [not married] to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. [not divorced]
20But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: [not divorce your wife, but "take her as a wife] for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
21And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
22Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: [because they weren't married yet]
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

Does any of this sound like they were married before Mary was pregnet? NO!!!! Not that it matters anyway... It's all a smoke screen. There is no Biblical evidence for this Catholic myth. The best Catholics can do is say, "Well... There isn't anything to say it isn't true!"
Well, yea... There is.

 

[Mungo]

For those that who would like to know the truth of this (I know FHII is not) let's examine the text and the statement I gave from Judaism101:
"The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage)."
Note marriage is in two stages. The first stage kiddushin is commonly called betrothal.

Scholarly Bibles (as opposed to modern paraphrases) use either the term espoused (e.g. KJV, Wycliffe) or betrothed (e.g. Geneva 1599, RSV, Young's Literal) for Mt 1:18 (the verse FHII carefully omitted):
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" (RSV)

The Oxford Concise English Dictionary gives the following derivation of espoused:
[SIZE=10pt]Middle English: from Old French espouser, from Latin sponsare[/SIZE], from sponsus 'betrothed', past participle of spondere
Hence espoused and betrothed mean the same.

Judaism101 continues:
"Kiddushin occurs when the woman accepts the money, contract or sexual relations offered by the prospective husband. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation. However, the root word also connotes something that is set aside for a specific (sacred) purpose, and the ritual of kiddushin sets aside the woman to be the wife of a particular man and no other.
Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin."
Note kiddushin is not an engagement.

"Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man."
Note they are legally bound. Joseph was legally bound to Mary

"The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce."
Joseph had to divorce Mary not just walk away.

"However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete."
Hence Mt 1:18 says "before they came together". Clearly they were between kiddushin, when they were legally bound and nisuin.

"The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together."
The husband brings the wife into his home. She is already his wife before nisuin.

Mt 1:19 also says "and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly." (RSV)
Note it says "her husband Joseph". Joseph was already her husband before nisuin.

One other quote from Judaism101:
"In the past, the kiddushin and nisuin would routinely occur as much as a year apart. During that time, the husband would prepare a home for the new family. There was always a risk that during this long period of separation, the woman would discover that she wanted to marry another man, or the man would disappear, leaving the woman in the awkward state of being married but without a husband. Today, the two ceremonies are normally performed together."

Again it is clear they are married between kiddushin and nisuin.

 

[tom55]

No betrothed does not mean married, neithet does espoused. Joseph was going to put her away, which is not the same thing as divorced. Engaged people don't get divorced.

Wonderful smoke screen though... Whether Jodrph an Mary were married at whatever time has nothing to do with the topic.

As for showing you proof... The burden of showing proof is on you. You made the claim, now prove that it was "common knowledge". You made the claim with no evidence other than "its common knowledge" (which is code for, "there isn't a lick of historical evidence, but its been belived for a long time, so it must be true!"

But you want proof? Shoot, all i had to do was look at weakipedia for 5 minutes and realize you were making it all up or spinning the facts.

I did show proof. Scripture (a historical writing) which is backed up by another historical writing (The Gospel of James) which shows "common knowledge" or belief.

You did not provide anything to debunk it (except your 5 minute Wikipedia statement) therefor you have utterly failed. I asked you to show me proof "not everyone agreed with it" or that is was not "common knowledge". You could not do that. You failed to back up your own theory.

Scripture says she was a virgin. You say she wasn't a virgin. Scripture says she was married. You say she wasn't married. Scripture said Joseph was going to divorce her. You say the opposite. I believe scripture....not you.

 

[FHII]

Scripture says she was a virgin. You say she wasn't a virgin. Scripture says she was married. You say she wasn't married. Scripture said Joseph was going to divorce her. You say the opposite. I believe scripture....not you.

No, I did not say she wasn't a virgin. No, I did not say she wasn't married. No, scripture does not say Joseph was going to divorce her. Get it right!

 

[tom55]

No, I did not say she wasn't a virgin. No, I did not say she wasn't married. No, scripture does not say Joseph was going to divorce her. Get it right!

Quote from you in post #25: The notion thay Mary remained a virgin is Catholic mythology

Quote from you in post #62: Mary was espoused, not married

When Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Historically we KNOW there was no such thing as being engaged in ancient Israel.

I did get it right. Scripturally and historically. You keep changing your statements. :blink:

 

[FHII]

Quote from you in post #25: The notion thay Mary remained a virgin is Catholic mythology

Quote from you in post #62: Mary was espoused, not married

When Joseph found out Mary was “with child,” he determined he would “send her away privately” (vs. 19). The Greek verb translated in the to send away is apolusai, which means divorce. Why would Joseph have to divorce Mary if they were only engaged?

Historically we KNOW there was no such thing as being engaged in ancient Israel.

I did get it right. Scripturally and historically. You keep changing your statements. :blink:

Tom... No. you didn't get it correct and I did not change my statements. You simply didn't read them correctly. Now, I know you don't have any Biblical evidence to back up this fairy tale that Mary remained a virgin. I on the other hand do have Biblical evidence to say she had children after Jesus. Your only refutation of that is spin. That is, trying to claim the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

Other than the Gospel of James (which is CLEARLY a work of fiction), you have nothing. I am no longer going to reply to your spin.

 

[tom55]

Tom... No. you didn't get it correct and I did not change my statements. You simply didn't read them correctly. Now, I know you don't have any Biblical evidence to back up this fairy tale that Mary remained a virgin. I on the other hand do have Biblical evidence to say she had children after Jesus. Your only refutation of that is spin. That is, trying to claim the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

Other than the Gospel of James (which is CLEARLY a work of fiction), you have nothing. I am no longer going to reply to your spin.

Clearly a work of fiction? Sounds like spin to me.