St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
The writings of the Reformers is extra-biblical, correct?
That's my point.
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's my point.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Yes, Protestantism was a pretty small step away from the mother church.
Quite another story today.
Thanks.
In retrospect I think stuff going on at work was bugging me and I took it out on the forum.
Appreciate your understanding.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Miriam is wonderful, love her very much. Not believing in her has its own punishment.
But Yeshua is the real Son of God…..not a zap. A zap would mean nothing, God could have had a million zaps, He would not even need a womb. God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Zap. It does not have the same ring to it!
For Yeshua to be the real Son of God she had to lose her virginity and conceive. Miriam was not a virgin then and she is not a virgin now. Like a lot of false terms that have been generated over the centuries the phrase “Virgin Mary” was promulgated to support a series of lies.
A lot of people argue over this, and that is fine. But so as not to add ignorance to the argument….no one can blame the Catholic Church for the veneration of Miriam. At first the Catholic Church was against it, for a couple of reasons. But eventually because of its popularity with Christians, they had to accept it.
It is hard to reclaim early Christian history before the Ecumenical Councils and there is no way to tell how many Christians believed in Miriam’s involvement with mankind. There were things that were developing that a lot of Modern Christians would not agree with. There were some that believed that Yahweh was God Almighty and the Supreme God and some that Believed that Yeshua was God Almighty and the Supreme God, even the Creator God. And there were other variations of this, which is one of many reasons the Catholics came up with the one God formula for the Trinity….to stop these disagreements. Emperor Constantine did not influence specific doctrines but he was insistent on one belief….the one God formula for the Trinity was necessary for this to happen….but scripturally it is false.
As far as Miriam, her veneration…if you want to call it that….started before the 2nd century. Hard to prove that but a lot of beliefs during this period are hard to prove. What did the “common” Christian believe? No real survey if you will. Today there is a distinct division between the Gnostics and other Christians but not so back then, even the ECF’s had some interests in Gnostic beliefs.
The first documentation of her veneration occurs in a manuscript known as P-470 in the Rylands Library in Manchester, which appears to be a prayer to her, referring to her as the God bearer. The Catholic Church changed that to Mother of God because of the one God formula, which is out of context. The old adage applies, once you tell a lie, you have to tell a dozen to cover for it. Just like the doctrine of Original Sin, it was produced to support the belief that sex and women were dirty, nasty, and sinful….and the primary cause of the fall of man.
Eye witnesses to Marian apparitions and miracles number in the thousands and I am one of those eye witnesses. Most of Christianity in South America owes its start to the Lady of Guadalupe. And the veneration of Miriam there is quite different than anywhere else.
I can tell you that she exists because I have seen her and she spoke to me and wonderful does not even begin to describe her. But a lot of the beliefs regarding Marion theology has been caught up in the religious politics of the Catholic Church and it is a lot to sort it out.
But for those that believe that sex and women are to blame for everything…. you cannot believe in Miriam. For those that like to research things…find out why people call here Mary instead of Miriam.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Interesting. Of course we have a contingent of Catholics who lay claim to their church's assertions that Rome was the center of Christianity and responsible for giving us the Bible. In order to bolster that claim we see a jump to Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and given the opportunity, others, who held on to the Catholic traditions despite their reform leanings and protestations to truth as revealed in scripture. Can't blame them for that, they were deeply indebted to Roman education throughout their lives and weren't wholly converted overnight. Their protestant teachings developed over time, just as Catholic teachings did. What remained constant from the very beginning was scripture, despite the attempts of some to pervert and obliterate them altogether.
However. The center of early Christianity was not Rome. Early Christianity had to contend with a battle between two cities. Not Rome, but Antioch and Alexandria. Rome didn't come into the picture as a contender for the faith until after Constantine.
In saying no-one knew what the real gospels and the real epistles were as written by the apostles, that's nonsense. The original manuscripts were still around at the turn of the first century. Those manuscripts were faithfully translated into Syrian, and old Latin (itala) , and these were copied again and again meticulously and faithfully through out Christendom for the following centuries, and manuscripts of those copies still exist, and were used by such giants of the faith in their mission schools and colleges and translated into their own languages, like Lucian, Wulfilas, Columbanus, Aiden, Columba, and their students. Illiteracy was rampant indeed in Europe under the leadership of the priesthood of Rome, because it helped Rome of the peasants were kept in ignorance. To say that the Christians of the early centuries elsewhere had no Bible is wrong. The Celtic church, the Assyrian church, the Gauls, and the early Waldensians had the scriptures, and this from the second century. No-one had to wait for Constantine to publish his corrupted Bibles based on Alexandrian faulty manuscripts with the teachings of Clement, and the Gnostics such as Origen and his students interesting into the Vaticanus and Sinaitucus manuscripts that were used by Jerome, and the production of the Jesuit Douay, and 90% of the modern translations since, including the popular NIV, ESV, RSV, the Message, and the JW Bible.
The KJV, with it's foundation of the Antiochan line of over 5000 manuscripts is the only truly reliable Bible for Christians who desire the whole truth without the input of heretics and Catholic apologists.
However. The center of early Christianity was not Rome. Early Christianity had to contend with a battle between two cities. Not Rome, but Antioch and Alexandria. Rome didn't come into the picture as a contender for the faith until after Constantine.
In saying no-one knew what the real gospels and the real epistles were as written by the apostles, that's nonsense. The original manuscripts were still around at the turn of the first century. Those manuscripts were faithfully translated into Syrian, and old Latin (itala) , and these were copied again and again meticulously and faithfully through out Christendom for the following centuries, and manuscripts of those copies still exist, and were used by such giants of the faith in their mission schools and colleges and translated into their own languages, like Lucian, Wulfilas, Columbanus, Aiden, Columba, and their students. Illiteracy was rampant indeed in Europe under the leadership of the priesthood of Rome, because it helped Rome of the peasants were kept in ignorance. To say that the Christians of the early centuries elsewhere had no Bible is wrong. The Celtic church, the Assyrian church, the Gauls, and the early Waldensians had the scriptures, and this from the second century. No-one had to wait for Constantine to publish his corrupted Bibles based on Alexandrian faulty manuscripts with the teachings of Clement, and the Gnostics such as Origen and his students interesting into the Vaticanus and Sinaitucus manuscripts that were used by Jerome, and the production of the Jesuit Douay, and 90% of the modern translations since, including the popular NIV, ESV, RSV, the Message, and the JW Bible.
The KJV, with it's foundation of the Antiochan line of over 5000 manuscripts is the only truly reliable Bible for Christians who desire the whole truth without the input of heretics and Catholic apologists.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Too bad the KJV it is virtually unreadable. I mean, unless you are a fifteen century court attendant.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL don't worry about it. The KJV is the most inaccurate Bible in print right now....It is so inaccurate it could start it own religion.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Not sure where you get your strange ideas.
First of all – excommunication is a disciplinary action – NOT a curse. It is designed to bring the person BACK to the fold.
In Matt. 18:15-18, Jesus recommends excommunication when a person refuses to be reconciled with the Church.
Similarly, Paul recommends – and ALWAYS for the eventual restoration of the sinner.
1 Cor. 5:4-5
“So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.”
As to being obedient to the Church – we are SUPPOPSED to be, according to Jesus Christ:
Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."
Paul reiterates this command:
2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."
Finally, as too your charge that Mary’s position as Mother of God is not Biblical – I suggest you read the following verses: Matt. 1:18, Luke 1:32-33, John 2:1, John 2:3, John 19:26
So, unless your position is that Jesus is NOT God – which is a heresy for another discussion – Mary is His mother.
Her Perpetual Virginity is alluded to un Luke 1:34 – but it is further highlighted by the fact that there is not a SINGLE mention of Mary having children other than Jesus.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Greetings Bread of Life.....
The word excommunication is not in the Bible. The reason I keep bringing this up is because when people (usually Catholics) use more modern words in context to ancient times…these more modern words have meanings that are not applicable to earlier time periods.
But then the description of disassociation does fit in the time period and would be the correct wording. As far as Christian excommunication, this mostly applies to the Catholic Church and could lead to death because if they were labeled a heretic they were also the enemy of the Roman Empire. It could also be believed that excommunication could lead to hell because the Catholic Church believed it had control of salvation.
Miriam is definitly Yeshua's mother. But God bearer was what she was defined as before the Catholic Church got a hold of it and used it to support its reteric of the one God formula for the Trinity. As in the logical misconception that if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person and she was the mother of Yeshua, she was also the mother of them all....so voilà, Mother of God
But then again I do say the "Hail Mary" so I am guilty also.
Perpetual Virginity?....not according to scripture and the reality of the time period.
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 Marriages were formed by sexual union. No requirement in the Old or New Testament for a wedding ceremony to be married. The first requirement for a wedding ceremony was made by the Protestants in the mid 1500’s, and the Catholic Church followed suite shortly after that.
For a Jewish man not to have sex with his wife would be consider tantamount to a Christian spiting on a cross. There is no biblical reason to assume that Miriam was a virgin after conceiving. No biblical reason to assume that she did not have sex with Joseph. No reason to assume that Yeshua’s brothers and sisters were not Miriam’s children. This whole set of assumptions are part of the whole “sex is dirty, nasty, and sinful thing” so it cannot be associated with Christ or His mother. More false beliefs.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
As usual - your response is born from etreme ignorance of Catholic teaching as well as a complete Scriptural bankruptcy . . .
Your main argument here is that the word "excommunication" is not in the bible althought he teaching CLEARLY is?? This is an asinine position. The word "Incarnation" isn't in the Bible - yet it is the main tenet of Christianity.
As I'be already provn - the discipline that is excommunication is spelled out very clearly by both Jesus and Paul.
This argument is even more idiotic than your last one.
For your information – it was the Catholic Church that gave Mary the title of “Theotokos” (God-Bearer) at the Council of Ephesus in 432. This was in response to the Nestorian Heresy, which claimed that Jesus was NOT God – and that God merely dwelt IN Him. The Council defined the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union – that Jesus is FULLY God and FULLY man.
The doctrine of Theotokos was defined at that same Council as a logical consequence.
Absolutely, Perpetual Virginity.
The Bible make NO mention of Mary having other children than Jesus.
I've already proven this to you on several occasions . . .
There is NO Biblical reason to assume that Mary WASN’T a virgin after conceiving.
NO Biblical reason to assume that she HAD sex with Joseph.
NO reason to assume that the “Adelphoi” of Jesus were Mary’s children.
We learn from the Crucifixion accounts that they are the children of Mary’s relative – also named “Mary” and her husband Clopas/Alphaeus (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25).
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
And you are a dirty dung beetle! LOL And as such you are once again pushing your dung around.
Main argument? No. Once again warning people that modern words transplanted in Christian theology is usually a red flag about inaccuracy or deception. The fact that you are attempting to associate excommunication with something in the biblical era is a red flag, Which means you have to look at it closely to see if it is accurate, as it is the Catholic processes of and consequences of excommunication does not fit in 1st century Christianity. Disassociation is much more accurate.
And there is a reason why the word incarnation is not in the scriptures… there is no need for that hocus pocus….Yeshua is the real Son Yahweh and as such inherits his Divinity from His real Father, Yahweh. It is just that simple. The Truth cuts through all the false beliefs and laughs at all the lies that have to be told to cover for other lies.
Just like Immaculate Conception, because the doctrine of Original Sin is a lie. The Catholic Church had to come up with another lie to make Miriam pure. This is so indicative of lies, you tell one and have to tell a dozen to cover for the first.
No, the Catholic Church did not come up with concept that Miriam was the God bear….the Catholic Church affirmed the concept of God bearer…..the veneration of Miriam was in full swing by the time the Catholic Church was formed. She was veneratied because "the fruit of her womb" was a God. Words mean things....Mother of God is a completly different context.
Do you read the Bible? The Bible says that Yeshua had brothers and sisters...nothing saying that they were from another marriage. And once again...the phrase Virgin Mary is not in the Bible. Red Flag! Catholic deceptions have a modus operandi, come up with fantasy beliefs and generate clichés to popularize them.
Again....
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus. Matthew 1:24-25 Marriages were formed by sexual union. No requirement in the Old or New Testament for a wedding ceremony to be married. The first requirement for a wedding ceremony was made by the Protestants in the mid 1500’s, and the Catholic Church followed suite shortly after that.
For a Jewish man not to have sex with his wife would be consider tantamount to a Christian spiting on a cross. There is no biblical reason to assume that Miriam was a virgin after conceiving. No biblical reason to assume that she did not have sex with Joseph. No reason biblical reason to assume that Yeshua’s brothers and sisters were not Miriam’s children. This whole set of assumptions are part of the whole “sex is dirty, nasty, and sinful thing” so it cannot be associated with Christ or His mother. More false beliefs.
Yes there is a reason to assume that Mary was not a virgin after conceiving. Women are not virgins after conceiving. And the Bible does not explain different. More fantasy beliefs. And your verses do not prove that Yeshua's brothers and sisters were not through Miriam. Nor is there any biblical support for false belief that Joseph was a widower. More lies to cover for other lies. Back to the concept that because sex is diry, nasty, and sinful, Christ's mother would never have sex.....again!
Last edited:
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
No biblical reason?
Do you mean no biblical reason that you AGREE with?
What do you make of this?
Matthew 1:24-25 NIV
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.
25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Behold
Well-Known Member
Tertullian denied the virginity of Mary after Jesus' birth. Origen, by contrast, taught Mary's perpetual virginity.
The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 gave her the title "Aeiparthenos", meaning Perpetual Virgin, and at the Lateran Synod of 649 Pope Martin I emphasized the threefold character of the perpetual virginity, before, during, and after the birth of Christ.
Mary was not a "Perpetual Virgin"
Many didn't ascend into Heaven from earth.
Mary is not the 2nd Mediator, helping Christ to bring in souls.
Mary is "blessed among women" not blessed Above women.
Initially the Catholic Church was titled "the cult of mary"., and with good reason
If you study the Goddess Diana, you'll find that she is a 'perpetual virgin"
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
If you had actually STUDIED Scripture and the languages in which it was written – you would understand that the Greek word for “until” (he’os) is used MANY times in situation do NOT require a following consequence.
Matt. 1:25 says: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Did Mary have other children after Jesus? The Bible does NOT support this idea. Let’s see what the Scriptures say about the use of the word, “until”.
2 Samuel 6:23 tells us: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child UNTIL the day of her death.
Are we to assume that Michal had children after she died?
Moses was buried by God in the valley of Moab after his death. Deut. 34:6 explicitly states:
And he buried him in the valley of the land of Moab over against Phogor: and no man hath known of his sepulchre UNTIL this present day.
Sooooo – did they find his grave after this??
Let’s also examine Acts 2:34-35 (also see Psalm 110:1, Matt 22:44): For David did not go up into heaven, but he himself said: 'The Lord said to my Lord, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."'
Are we to surmise that Jesus will cease to sit at the right hand of the Father after his enemies are made his footstool? The problem here is that the anti-Catholic attempts to apply 21st century English to Hebrew and Greek from a culture thousands of years ago.
As any FIRST YEAR Bible student can see – “Until” doesn’t always mean that something happened afterward. There is ZERO mention of Mary having other children in Scripture or in ANY extrabiblical source.
BreadOfLife
Well-Known Member
- Jan 2, 2017
- 20,950
- 3,391
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
Are you so dense that you don’t understand that Excommunication and Disassociation is the SAME thing?
Your heresy is moted.
Rom. 5:12 states emphatically:
“. . . sin came into the world through one man and death through sin.”
Verses 15–19 state: “Many died through one man’s trespass. . . . For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation. . . . Because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man. . . . Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men. . . . By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.”
This is the very definition of Original Sin.
The fruit of her womb was “A” God?
Only in YOUR JW New World Translation, which is a perverted document.
And the Catholic Church was formed from the time of the Apostles, who were the original Catholics. The term,”Theotokos” (God-Bearer) was defined at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
I OPENLY CHALLENGE you to prove me wrong on that point.
Produce the evidence . . .
Funny how YOU keep telling ME to produce Biblical evidence – uet YOU refuse to provide ANY.
I ALREADY showed you how the “named adelphoi” of Jesus were NOT Mary’s children – but the children of another woman identified as her “Adelphe” (relative). This woman is also named “Mary” and was married to a man named Clopas (also called, Alphaeus). She was standing near the cross with Mary, Mary Magdalene and Salome (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25).
You have LOST this argument because you have never been able to Scripturally-refute it . . .
Augustin56
Well-Known Member
You do realize that all of the original Reformation fathers believed in Mary's perpetual virginity, right? Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc. (see the following article:
Perpetual Virginity of Mary: Held by All Protestant Reformers
The notion that Mary was not a perpretual virgin is relatively new and made up by those who misinterpret Scripture. Scripture was never meant to be personally interpreted according to each person's own light. See 2 Peter 1:20-21, where St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I can disassociate myself from you without killing you or ruining your life. Which is usually what happened with Catholic excommunication but not what the Bible suggests
Nature of all men....not contagious sin through sex with babies going to hell. The doctrine of Original Sin is a lie from a mad man.
That is another lie. Never ask a Catholic about history....LOL
Not much of a challenge.....I am losing count of how many times I have corrected you on this.....no bishops...no Popes....no central organization, no power....until after the Ecumenical councils…..keep pushing that poop dung beetle.
If you had any understanding at all about Christian history you would know that the overall purpose of the Ecumenical Councils were to establish all that. Before that, no organization and no power.
The scholars disagree.....push that poop.
Last edited:
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
And if they jumped off a cliff I would not follow them.
The fetish for virginity came about after the biblical era. The phrase Virgin Mary does not appear in the scriptures...that is a red flag....it usually means some one wants you to believe a lie. The whole New Testament is there.....If Yahweh impregnated Miriam in an abnormal way, miraculous zapping, it would have been described that way....Ok beam Him in Scotty! Ok now beam Him out Scotty! And Miriam swore off sex with her husband because it was so dirty, nasty, and sinful, created by the devil to tempt men.........laughable theology at best.
Lies are hard to support. As I said once you tell one you spend your life tap dancing to explain it.
Tell us how you think this sequence happened, without Yahweh having sexual relations with Miriam.
Did He cast his seed into here like baseball pitcher? Is there a strike zone?
Did He manifest His seed in her?
For the pre-existing people….Did Yahweh shrink Yeshua to a seed or fetus and then throw Him in there?
Did Yeshua shrink Himself and manifest in her, which means He is His own father?
The only way for Yeshua to be the real Son of God is for things to go along the normal way.
But I would love to hear your explanation of it.
As far as Miriam not having sex with her husband or having children….of coarse the scriptures do not indicate that....but explain the reason why she would do that and what benefit it would be?
Similar threads
