Can I discuss about scientology here?
-
Uncycolpedia is a joke site la LOL.Originally posted by Icemoon:The Uncyclopedia distorted the context because Mary was still a virgin when Jesus was born (after that Joseph knew her sexually).
I don't think it is fair we call Jesus a bastard.
Joseph was at old age.... -
To TS, what the hell for? Unless you planned to be banned or killed.
-
You expected me then to post something so unscholarly?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Uncycolpedia is a joke site la LOL.
Joseph was at old age....
-
HAHA....sorry. But is kinda true, dont ya agree?Originally posted by Icemoon:You expected me then to post something so unscholarly?
But why do you hold the modern day heresy of Mary not being an ever-virgin? Every Church Father, Protestant Reformer and Scripture hold that viewpoint.... -
Because some protestants here show me Joseph knew Mary sexually?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:HAHA....sorry. But is kinda true, dont ya agree?
But why do you hold the modern day heresy of Mary not being an ever-virgin? Every Church Father, Protestant Reformer and Scripture hold that viewpoint.... -
OK, Icemoon. I will quote from Martin Luther to prove to you that the Reformers believe in Perpetual Viginity.Originally posted by Icemoon:Because some protestants here show me Joseph knew Mary sexually?
Well some Protestants today hold many doctrines which contradict luther's belief that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ, the Real Presence etc etc.In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:
There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.
The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).
[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).
No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).
One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).
Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:
It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)
Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).
Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:
It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).
She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).
Martin Luther on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
Here are some of the founders of refom commenting on Mary:
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. {Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
". . . she is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God. . . . it is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."
Ref: Sermon on John 14. 16: Luther's Works (St. Louis, ed. Jaroslav, Pelican, Concordia. vol. 24. p. 107)
"Christ our Savior was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb. . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
(REf: On the Gospel of St. John: Luther's Works, vol. 22. p. 23, ed. Jaroslav Pelican, Concordia, 1957)
"Men have crowded all her glory into a single phrase: The Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her, though he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees." (From the Commentary on the Magnificat.)
Commentaries on Luther
". . . in the resolutions of the 95 theses Luther rejects every blasphemy against the Virgin, and thinks that one should ask for pardon for any evil said or thought against her."
(Ref: Wm. J. Cole, "Was Luther a Devotee of Mary?" in Marian Studies 1970, p. 116
"In Luther's Explanation of the Magnificat in 1521, he begins and ends with an invocation to Mary, which Wright feels compelled to call 'surprising'".
(David F. Wright, Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspecive, London: Marshall Pickering, 1989, p. 178, Cited from Faith & Reason, Spring 1994, p. 6.)
Other Reformers on Mary's Perpetual Virginity
John Calvin
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: 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) }
Huldreich Zwingli
Zwingli had printed in 1524 a sermon on 'Mary, ever virgin, mother of God.'
{Thurian, ibid., p.76}
I have never thought, still less taught, or declared publicly, anything concerning the subject of the ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our salvation, which could be considered dishonourable, impious, unworthy or evil . . . I believe with all my heart according to the word of holy gospel that this pure virgin bore for us the Son of God and that she remained, in the birth and after it, a pure and unsullied virgin, for eternity.
{Thurian, ibid., p.76 / same sermon}
Heinrich Bullinger
Bullinger (d. 1575) . . . defends Mary's perpetual virginity . . . and inveighs against the false Christians who defraud her of her rightful praise: 'In Mary everything is extraordinary and all the more glorious as it has sprung from pure faith and burning love of God.' She is 'the most unique and the noblest member' of the Christian community . . .
'The Virgin Mary . . . completely sanctified by the grace and blood of her only Son and abundantly endowed by the gift of the Holy Spirit and preferred to all . . . now lives happily with Christ in heaven and is called and remains ever-Virgin and Mother of God.'
{In Hilda Graef, Mary: A history of Doctrine and Devotion, combined ed. of vols. 1 & 2, London: Sheed & Ward, 1965, vol.2, pp.14-5}
John Wesley (Founder of Methodism)
The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin.
{"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25} -
The post above contains a list of quotes from Protestant Reformers on whether Mary was Ever-Virgin. Some even considered the thought of her being sexually involved with joseph as heresy.
-
actually I agree with this statement, at least up to, "what the hell for"Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:To TS, what the hell for? Unless you planned to be banned or killed.
so far, there is NO real discussion on scientology, other than the generally accepted Christian POV that scientology is a cult. -
Your english fail one issit?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:The post above contains a list of quotes from Protestant Reformers on whether Mary was Ever-Virgin. Some even considered the thought of her being sexually involved with joseph as heresy.
From the NRSV (arguably the best scholary translation of the bible available):Matthew 1:
24When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son;* and he named him Jesus. -
So the reformers and church fathers all wrong is it???Originally posted by Icemoon: -
*shrugs* .. I have not checked the authenticity of your quotes anyway.Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:So the reformers and church fathers all wrong is it???
maybe they read some faulty translation of the bible. but doesn't seem so because the verse is present in the douay rheims bible also. -
Protestant Reformer:
Calvin:
[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}
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned
And ur exegis of Scripture is flawed. Apologist John Salza uses Greek to explain why.Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":
Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.
Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.
Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.
1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.
Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.
Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.
Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."
2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.
1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace. -
Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:
Calvin does not contradict what I said.
Protestant Reformer:
[b]Calvin:
[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} [/b]
Vince pointed out last time. The verse cannot be used to prove Mary had other children.
In the first place, sex does not guarantee children. Do you need your biology teacher to teach you that? -
Hmm .. upon checking back the previous topic on perpetual virginity, I realized I have been hoodwinked by Ironside and Chin Eng.
Amazingly vince was right. He tried to correct me but I didn't understand his reply back then. In any case, he did not correct my mistake eventually.
So there is no scriptural proof that Mary was a virgin. Or that she was not a virgin.
What a shame. I was confused by the two greats of EH!
-
oh gosh .. how come you have 28:29 in Matthew?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
Which version did you use?
Even the Vulgate doesn't have verse 29!! -
Huh, ur greek fail is it???Originally posted by Icemoon:Calvin does not contradict what I said.
Vince pointed out last time. The verse cannot be used to prove Mary had other children.
In the first place, sex does not guarantee children. Do you need your biology teacher to teach you that?
The term, 'not until' is being misintepretated by you. Look at John Salza translation.
Thats the gist of calvin argument as well.
[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
Martin Luther:
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
I repeat my stance: All Christian (except perhaps those blinded by satan) will accept the perputual virginity.
Is the author of the Gospel of James, Apostolic Fathers, Scripture and Reformers wrong and the 20th century pastor rite? -
what greek? I never learn greek.
I want to learn Hebrew .. not greek!
-
typo...its verse 20Originally posted by Icemoon:oh gosh .. how come you have 28:29 in Matthew?
Which version did you use?
Even the Vulgate doesn't have verse 29!! -
The argument would require considerable effort, in my view. How a translation that is politically motivated enough to have 'inclusive language' could be considered scholarly is really hard to imagine, given that even by secular standards of scholarship, fidelity to source documents is an important criterion.Originally posted by Icemoon:From the NRSV (arguably the best scholary translation of the bible available)
regards,
obiterdicta -
This is not scholarship. You are picking bones with translation theory. Are you saying formal equivalence is always better than functional equivalence?Originally posted by ObiterDicta:The argument would require considerable effort, in my view. How a translation that is politically motivated enough to have 'inclusive language' could be considered scholarly is really hard to imagine, given that even by secular standards of scholarship, fidelity to source documents is an important criterion.
The bible, ultimately, is not for scholars. It is for layman, as such there is always "the danger of linguistic sexism arising from the inherent bias of the English language", to quote the preface to the NRSV.
Note that scholarship often clash with faith. The KJV was translated from inferior late manuscripts and yet Christians are still using it and claiming it is the verbal plenary preservation of the originals. -
Actually the claim that NRSV is the best scholarly translation is not I say one. This statement did not originate from me, as much as I endorse it.
It is the opinion of many scholars themselves. The NRSV is fortunate in having one of the foremost bible scholar today Dr Metzger to chair the committe for translation.
Note that theologians (that includes the Pope, pastors and priests) are ultimately not experts in biblical scholarship. -
didn't you copy the verse from somewhere?Originally posted by Pope Nicholas:typo...its verse 20
you mean you typed out all the verses?? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:Hmm .. upon checking back the previous topic on perpetual virginity, I realized I have been hoodwinked by Ironside and Chin Eng.
Amazingly vince was right. He tried to correct me but I didn't understand his reply back then. In any case, he did not correct my mistake eventually.
So there is no scriptural proof that Mary was a virgin. Or that she was not a virgin.
What a shame. I was confused by the two greats of EH! 
ksm -
here - http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=230156&page=1Originally posted by Chin Eng: ksm quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Icemoon:
hmm .. I conclude this simply tells us Mary had sexual relations.
am I right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
arbuthen? -
I still don't get it.....
I still think the Mary had sexual relationship with Joseph after the birth of Christ.