Jesus didn't pray to mary
chri...@fiberpipe.net
The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
The disciples didn't pray to mary.
NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
NONE of them claimed she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
Why is that?
Why, it is OBVIOUS! That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
TRUE OF MARY!
The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
bam
<chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
news:ot2fm11b93bpg56le...@4ax.com...
> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>
> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
>
> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>
> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>
> NONE of them claimed she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
Translated: Since there is no scriptural evidence, then it couldn't have
happened. A feeble brained conclusion.
Secondly, to pray is to ask. So pray tell, poster, did no one ever ask Mary
a question?
>
> Why is that?
> Why, it is OBVIOUS! That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
> TRUE OF MARY!
>
> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
We're allowed to make things up. You aren't.
BAM
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
><chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote in message
>news:ot2fm11b93bpg56le...@4ax.com...
>> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
>> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
>> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>>
>> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
>>
>> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>>
>> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>>
>> NONE of them claimed she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
>
>Translated: Since there is no scriptural evidence, then it couldn't have
>happened. A feeble brained conclusion.
You should really learn to speak the language before you attempt to
"translate," bammy.
There is NONE of that garbage in the writings of the first century of
Christ's church either.
>
>Secondly, to pray is to ask. So pray tell, poster, did no one ever ask Mary
>a question?
>
No, prayer, bowing down before statues, pretending she helps redeem us
are acts of WORSHIP, not merely asking her a question.
And NOBODY in the first century of Christ's church EVER asked her
questions AFTER SHE DIED.
Sorry bambo, but your religion has lied to you.
>>
>> Why is that?
>> Why, it is OBVIOUS! That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
>> TRUE OF MARY!
>>
>> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
>
>We're allowed to make things up. You aren't.
>
Jesus never said any such things. He talked about the "traditions of
men. . .
Col 2:8-10
8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit,
according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles
of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the
fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is
the head of all principality and power
NKJV
Your religion practices philosophy and empty deceit. Stuff it has
made up out of thin air, but claimed came from God.
The above is only a small part of it.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
David
Christian, good to hear from you again! Still waiting for you to answer
my questions.
> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
Very true, he talked to her instead.
> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
Very true, they talked to her instead.
> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>
Very true, they talked to her instead.
> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
>
> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>
Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>
True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
> NONE of them claimed she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
>
Wrong. The Gospel of Luke makes very clear she remained a virgin after
Jesus was born.
> Why is that?
Because Luke 1:26-35 makes it clear she remained a virgin.
> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
virgin.
> That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
> TRUE OF MARY!
>
Wrong. The Gospel of Luke 1:26-35 is very clear that Mary always
remained a virgin.
> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
>
Wrong. First it is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Second, it did not make up anything about Mary, her virginity is
clearly established in the Bible.
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian
So Christian, have you calmed down from your last temper tantrum? Are
you ready to answer my questions now, as you promised?
bam
<chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote
> There is NONE of that garbage in the writings of the first century of
> Christ's church either.
Jesus advised the following:
Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of
Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and
do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
So even if the Church Jesus founded is rife with hypocrites (which I'm sure
you're always looking for) you are still required to obey the leaders.
Now shutup and start acting like a Christian.
BAM
havoc
desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Matthew 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye
say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red.
Matthew 16:3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for
the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face
of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?
Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;
and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet
Jonas. And he left them, and departed.
Matthew 16:5 And when his disciples were come to the other side, they
had forgotten to take bread.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Matthew 16:7 And they reasoned among themselves, saying, [It is]
because we have taken no bread.
Matthew 16:8 [Which] when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of
little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no
bread?
Matthew 16:9 Do ye not yet understand, neither remember the five
loaves of the five thousand, and how many baskets ye took up?
Matthew 16:10 Neither the seven loaves of the four thousand, and how
many baskets ye took up?
Matthew 16:11 How is it that ye do not understand that I spake [it]
not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Matthew 16:12 Then understood they how that he bade [them] not beware
of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the
Sadducees.
point - counter - checkmate. Beware - ie stay away from the doctrines
of the Pharisees and Saducees. You cite what seems to support you while
ignoring what rips the rug completely from beneath you. Listen to them
as judges but ignore their doctrines. They were judges over the law.
We are not under the law. If you're claiming their office, then you
have an argument with Judaism, not Christianity because not being under
the law, we've no need of judges of the law. We are under grace and are
a kingdom of priests with the authority to boldly go before the throne
of God ourselves. Priests? We don't need no stinking priests. We have
Christ Jesus.
bam
"havoc" <ha...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:b5X9f.532348$xm3.2748@attbi_s21...
Who wants any of your paraphrasing? It's worthless.
So Jesus didn't mean what He said. And your (self appointed) job is to
approach scripture like Algebra - cancel out the (-2) with a (+2) to arrive
at nothing.
You're a punk - get out of this NG and stay out.
BAM
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
>Now shutup and start acting like a Christian.
>
I've been behaving as a Christian for about 31+ years now, bammy.
But not like a heathen catholic.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Hugh Betcha
chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
Probably because she was alive at the time.
"Beneath your protection we fly, O Holy Mother of God. In our
necessities, despise not our petitions but always deliver us from all
dangers, oh glorious blessed Virgin."
-Traditional, mid to late 2nd century AD
H.
--
"Mary is the highest woman and the nobelist gem in Christianity after
Christ... She is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can
never honor her enough."
-Martin Luther
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>Christian, good to hear from you again! Still waiting for you to answer
>my questions.
>
>> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
>
>Very true, he talked to her instead.
Yep. While she was ALIVE, not after she had died and been buried.
>
>> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
>
>Very true, they talked to her instead.
Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
>
>> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>>
>
>Very true, they talked to her instead.
Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
>
>> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
>
>Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
invented by sinful men years later.
>>
>> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>
>Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
But they DID record the important ones. And for mary to be
"co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
>
>> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>
>True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
>
>> NONE of them claimed she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
>>
>
>Wrong. The Gospel of Luke makes very clear she remained a virgin after
>Jesus was born.
>
>> Why is that?
>
>Because Luke 1:26-35 makes it clear she remained a virgin.
Luke 1:26-35
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of
Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name
was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And
having come in, the angel said to her,"Rejoice, highly favored one,
the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!"
29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and
considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to
her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and
shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the
Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His
father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever,
and of His kingdom there will be no end."
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
a man?"
35 And the angel answered and said to her,"The Holy Spirit will come
upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore,
also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.
NKJV
Verse 34 says that AT THAT POINT IN TIME SHE WAS A VIRGIN. IT DOES
_NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
herself
2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
to her husband, not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
marriage
3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
which the Bible never claimse she did.
Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
pure nonsens. You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
anything of the sort!
>
>> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
>
>Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
>virgin.
It says no such thing. It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
Jesus was born.
>
>> That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
>> TRUE OF MARY!
>>
>
>Wrong. The Gospel of Luke 1:26-35 is very clear that Mary always
>remained a virgin.
You have convinced yourself of that. Apparently you have never READ
THE PASSAGE.
SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THAT PASSAGE that "Mary will always remain a
virgin." You cannot; it isn't there.
>
>> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
>>
>
>Wrong. First it is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
>Second, it did not make up anything about Mary, her virginity is
>clearly established in the Bible.
>
Her virginity AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH, _NOT_ _AFTER_ _THAT_. Your
apostate religion made the "after that" virginity up out of the air.
And if you look in the telephone book, it is the ROMAN catholic
church. Now it IS true that the "orthodox" churches consider you to
be part of them, but I don't think you do. THEY SAY you broke away
from them.
>> in Christ Jesus,
>> Christian
>
>So Christian, have you calmed down from your last temper tantrum? Are
>you ready to answer my questions now, as you promised?
No "temper tantrum." And no, I won't waste my time answering
irrelivant and stupid questions like, "do you like liver?" "do you
live in Jerusalem?" And junk like that.
Why should I bother wasting my time with your garbage?
in Christ Jesus,
Christian ( a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the
apostate "catholics")
chri...@fiberpipe.net
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
>> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
>> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>
>Probably because she was alive at the time.
>
>"Beneath your protection we fly, O Holy Mother of God. In our
>necessities, despise not our petitions but always deliver us from all
>dangers, oh glorious blessed Virgin."
>-Traditional, mid to late 2nd century AD
>
Figures!
Christian
David
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> >
> >Christian, good to hear from you again! Still waiting for you to answer
> >my questions.
> >
> >> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
> >
> >Very true, he talked to her instead.
>
> Yep. While she was ALIVE, not after she had died and been buried.
How do you know Jesus did not talk to her in heaven?
> >
> >> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
> >
> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
>
> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
How do you know the Apostles did not talk to her in heaven?
> >
> >> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
> >>
> >
> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
>
> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
How do you know the disciples did not talk to her in heaven?
> >
> >> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
> >
> >Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
>
> None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
> Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
> invented by sinful men years later.
It is not a sin to build a statue.
> >>
> >> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
> >
> >Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
>
> But they DID record the important ones.
Would you care to cite a Bilical passage that says they recorded all
the important ones?
> And for mary to be
> "co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
Which is?
> >
> >> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
> >
> >True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
>
> Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
Yes, but the question is whether or not that happened before or after
she died. There is no definitive case as to exactly when.
Wrong, it does not say "How can this be, since at this point I am a
virgin." That is you trying to add to the Biblical text.
> IT DOES
> _NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
>
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
> 1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
> herself
Wrong, your citation of St. Paul was refuted on this months ago, she is
not sinning, she is not defrauding her husband.
> 2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
> to her husband,
At the time Jesus had nor reinstituted marriage as a sacrament, your
citation is much later in the Gospel events.
> not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
> marriage
Wrong, she was married to Joseph, even though she did not know Joseph
before or after Jesus was born.
> 3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
Wrong, she had no other children.
> which the Bible never claimse she did.
>
Wrong, the Bible makes clear those are Jesus' cousins, not siblings.
> Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
> pure nonsens.
Wrong. The text of Luke 1:26-35 is not pure nonsense, it clearly
indicates she is a virgin.
> You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
> anything of the sort!
Wrong. Luke 1:26-35.
> >
> >> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
> >
> >Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
> >virgin.
>
> It says no such thing.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
True.
> It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
> Jesus was born.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >
> >> That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
> >> TRUE OF MARY!
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. The Gospel of Luke 1:26-35 is very clear that Mary always
> >remained a virgin.
>
> You have convinced yourself of that.
Wrong. The text clearly has no meaning other than Mary was always a
virgin.
> Apparently you have never READ
> THE PASSAGE.
>
Wrong. I cited the passage months ago when I refuted your claims that
Mary was not a virgin back then.
> SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THAT PASSAGE that "Mary will always remain a
> virgin."
It does not say it, but it clearly indicates it.
> You cannot; it isn't there.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >
> >> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. First it is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
> >Second, it did not make up anything about Mary, her virginity is
> >clearly established in the Bible.
> >
> Her virginity AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH, _NOT_ _AFTER_ _THAT_.
Wrong. It does not say at the time of Jesus' birth but not after.
> Your
> apostate religion made the "after that" virginity up out of the air.
>
Wrong. It is Luke 1:26-35 which clearly establishes her perpetual
virginity.
> And if you look in the telephone book, it is the ROMAN catholic
> church.
Wrong. It is the Roman/Coptic/Maronite/Greek, all the Catholic
Churches.
> Now it IS true that the "orthodox" churches consider you to
> be part of them,
Wrong, it is not just the orthodox, there are Greek Catholic as well as
Greek Orthodox. Russian Catholic as well as Russian Orthodox.
> but I don't think you do.
What you think I think is irrelevant.
> THEY SAY you broke away
> from them.
>
The Catholic Church did not.
> >> in Christ Jesus,
> >> Christian
> >
> >So Christian, have you calmed down from your last temper tantrum? Are
> >you ready to answer my questions now, as you promised?
>
> No "temper tantrum."
Really? What about all the accusations of lying and the typed
hysterical laughter?
> And no, I won't waste my time answering
> irrelivant and stupid questions like, "do you like liver?"
Wrong. I never asked if you liked liver.
> "do you
> live in Jerusalem?"
Wrong. You did answer that question, you told me you live in the USA.
> And junk like that.
>
Wrong. My questions are not junk.
> Why should I bother wasting my time with your garbage?
>
Wrong. My questions are not garbage.
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian ( a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the
> apostate "catholics")
Getting better, but we are not apostate.
David
chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> ><chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote
> >
> >> There is NONE of that garbage in the writings of the first century of
> >> Christ's church either.
> >
> >Jesus advised the following:
> >
> >Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
> >
> >Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of
> >Moses.
> >
> >Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and
> >do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
> >
> >So even if the Church Jesus founded is rife with hypocrites (which I'm sure
> >you're always looking for) you are still required to obey the leaders.
> >
> And I DO obey the leaders of Christ's church.
>
Wrong. You deny the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
> But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
>
Wrong. It is the Catholic Church(not just Roman), and it is not
apostate.
Paul Duca
Paul
Paul Duca
mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net wrote on 11/1/05 9:42 PM:
> Otherwise God won't pimp you any pussy in Catholic Heaven.
>
> BAM
>
>
>
--
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >
>> ><chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote
>> >
>> >> There is NONE of that garbage in the writings of the first century of
>> >> Christ's church either.
>> >
>> >Jesus advised the following:
>> >
>> >Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
>> >
>> >Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of
>> >Moses.
>> >
>> >Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and
>> >do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
>> >
>> >So even if the Church Jesus founded is rife with hypocrites (which I'm sure
>> >you're always looking for) you are still required to obey the leaders.
>> >
>> And I DO obey the leaders of Christ's church.
>>
>
>Wrong. You deny the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
So far not one single verse in the Bible has been produced to claim
Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN.
However, scripture DOES exist that shows that marriage is for the
purpose of "leaving" and "cleaving," leaving your parents and being
physically joined to your spouse.
Scripture DOES say that if a man or woman denies his/her spouse sex,
he/she is defrauding that spouse and is sinning.
So you have your choice:
1. Either Mary married Joseph and had sex with her husband as the
Bible prescribes, or
2. She defrauded him and continually sinned.
Which would you prefer.
>
>> But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
>>
>
>Wrong. It is the Catholic Church(not just Roman), and it is not
>apostate.
WHICH "catholic" church are you referring to? The rcc that says that
the orthodox "broke away?"
Or the orthodox that says the rcc "scismned" away?
And with all of their man-made doctrinal trash, how do you figure they
are not apostate?
in Christ Jesus,
Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
so-called "catholic" religion)
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> >
>> >Christian, good to hear from you again! Still waiting for you to answer
>> >my questions.
>> >
>> >> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
>> >
>> >Very true, he talked to her instead.
>>
>> Yep. While she was ALIVE, not after she had died and been buried.
>
>How do you know Jesus did not talk to her in heaven?
YOU KNOW I am referring to people on earth praying to people who have
died. Play your little word-games all you want, but the rcc heresy
still stands as heresy.
>
>> >
>> >> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
>> >
>> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
>>
>> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
>
>How do you know the Apostles did not talk to her in heaven?
There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
earth. Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
Jesus began His church.
>
>> >
>> >> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
>>
>> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
>
>How do you know the disciples did not talk to her in heaven?
There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
earth. Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
Jesus began His church. Your practice is a man-made heresy that gets
you to pray to mary instead of praying to God, the One you SHOULD BE
praying to.
>> >
>> >> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
>> >
>>
>Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
There STILL is no need to "represent" her. You could build a statue
to "represent" a cow, bow down before it, pray to it too. It would be
the same thing, with the same result.
>>
>> None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
>> Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
>> invented by sinful men years later.
>
>It is not a sin to build a statue.
Ex 34:12-14
12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the
inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in
your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred
pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14(for you shall worship no
other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
NKJV
>> >>
>> >> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>> >
>> >Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
>>
>> But they DID record the important ones.
>
>Would you care to cite a Bilical passage that says they recorded all
>the important ones?
Your "co-redemptrix" trash was invented MANY centuries after mary had
died and been buried. LOOOOOONG after Jesus began His church. Your
"co-redemptrix" trash is nothing more than manmade heresy that leads
your people to give mary "adoration" that belongs only to Jesus.
>
>> And for mary to be
>> "co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
>
>Which is?
That Jesus ALONE redeems us; NOBODY ELSE does.
>> >
>> >> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>> >
>> >True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
>>
>> Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
>
>Yes, but the question is whether or not that happened before or after
>she died. There is no definitive case as to exactly when.
Heb 9:26-28
27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the
judgment,
NKJV
Mary died and was buried, just like the rest of us. Again, your
religon's doctrine was invented so that you would "venerate" her where
your entire "veneration" should be Jesus.
SHE WAS SPEAKING _AT_ _THAT_ _POINT_ IN_ _TIME_; it does NOT say she
would REMAIN that way.
You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the most
simple logic.
>
>> IT DOES
>> _NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
>>
>
>Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
READ THE TEXT. It says I DO not know a man. It does NOT SAY, "I
WILL NOT know a man." Again, if you cannot READ and understand, it is
obviously going to be difficult for you to eat without drooling down
your chin!
>
>> IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
>> 1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
>> herself
>
>Wrong, your citation of St. Paul was refuted on this months ago, she is
>not sinning, she is not defrauding her husband.
Try again. It was spoken against months ago, but never refuted.
Scripture says:
Gen 2:24
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
his wife, and they shall become one flesh
NKJV
Did Mary and Joseph "become one flesh?"
Matt 19:5-6
5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So
then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
joined together, let not man separate."
NKJV
Mark 10:6-9
6 But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and
female.' 7'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so
then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has
joined together, let not man separate."
NKJV
Marriage is when a man and a woman "become ONE FLESH."
Are you going to claim mary remained "unmarried?"
>
>> 2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
>> to her husband,
>
>At the time Jesus had nor reinstituted marriage as a sacrament, your
>citation is much later in the Gospel events.
And EXACTLY WHERE does the scripture say any such thing? Your
religion made the whole thing up. Marriage was never "instituted as a
'sacrement' until YOUR RELIGION pretended it." Jesus didn't change
anything about marriage. God created woman and man and woman have
left their parents to "cleave" ever since. Jesus didn't change that.
Neither did anyone else.
>
>> not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
>> marriage
>
>Wrong, she was married to Joseph, even though she did not know Joseph
>before or after Jesus was born.
LOL! Since the PURPOSE of marriage is that they "become one flesh"
according to the Bible, your religion has lied to you.
>
>> 3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
>
>Wrong, she had no other children.
Mark 6:1-5
Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His
disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to
teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished,
saying,"Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this
which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His
hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of
James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
So they were offended at Him.
4 But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in
his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."
NKJV
Your corrupt religion pretends that they are not talking about literal
children, yet the "son of mary" is literal, "his own country" is
literal, "his own relatives" is literal, and "his own house" is
literal, so why pick just a small phrase and pretend that part is
"figurative, speaking of cousins" (which the text does NOT support)???
Your apostate religion has lied to you.
>
>> which the Bible never claimse she did.
>>
>Wrong, the Bible makes clear those are Jesus' cousins, not siblings.
No, it does not. NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I COULD FIND says they
are Jesus' cousins. ALL call them brothers and sisters.
Your religion lies to you in an effort to support their nonsensical
and heretical claims about mary.
>
>> Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
>> pure nonsens.
>
>Wrong. The text of Luke 1:26-35 is not pure nonsense, it clearly
>indicates she is a virgin.
But it ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE THEN,
NOT ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
>
>> You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
>> anything of the sort!
>
>Wrong. Luke 1:26-35.
Which ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE THEN, NOT
ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
>> >
>> >> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
>> >
>> >Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
>> >virgin.
>>
>> It says no such thing.
>
>Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
That is PRESENT TENSE, which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN. IT IS
_NOT_ FURTURE TENSE which would mean later on.
I am not dead. I just posted that. Does that mean I will remain
PERPETUALLY "NOT DEAD?"
NAAH. It just means I am not dead NOW. It does NOT speak to the
future.
>> It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
>
>True.
>
>> It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
>> Jesus was born.
>
>Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
READ THE TEXT. It says I DO not know a man. It does NOT SAY, "I
WILL NOT know a man." NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense. NOT ONE
WORD about later. JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
Logical discourse seems to elude you, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >> That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
>> >> TRUE OF MARY!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong. The Gospel of Luke 1:26-35 is very clear that Mary always
>> >remained a virgin.
>>
>> You have convinced yourself of that.
>
>Wrong. The text clearly has no meaning other than Mary was always a
>virgin.
READ THE TEXT. It says I DO not know a man. It does NOT SAY, "I
WILL NOT know a man." NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense. NOT ONE
WORD about later. JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
>
>> Apparently you have never READ
>> THE PASSAGE.
>>
>Wrong. I cited the passage months ago when I refuted your claims that
>Mary was not a virgin back then.
You mean when you DENIED my claims. Since you cannot produce ONE
VERSE in which Mary EVER says "I will NEVER know a man," you have NO
CASE at all, and have refuted NOTHING.
>
>> SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THAT PASSAGE that "Mary will always remain a
>> virgin."
>
>It does not say it, but it clearly indicates it.
ONLY if you are brainwashed by your heretical religion, the rcc.
>
>> You cannot; it isn't there.
>
>Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
READ THE TEXT. It says I DO not know a man. It does NOT SAY, "I
WILL NOT know a man." NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense. NOT ONE
WORD about later. JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
>> >
>> >> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong. First it is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
>> >Second, it did not make up anything about Mary, her virginity is
>> >clearly established in the Bible.
>> >
>> Her virginity AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH, _NOT_ _AFTER_ _THAT_.
>
>Wrong. It does not say at the time of Jesus' birth but not after.
It was spoken AT THAT POINT IN TIME, and the VERB is PRESENT TENSE,
NOT FUTURE TENSE. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, when she spoke, she was a
virgin. IT DOES _NOT_ say "I WILL NOT know a man" anywhere.
You have problems with English, possibly Greek, and certainly with
logical discourse.
>
>> Your
>> apostate religion made the "after that" virginity up out of the air.
>>
>
>Wrong. It is Luke 1:26-35 which clearly establishes her perpetual
>virginity.
You keep claiming that, but it was spoken AT THAT POINT IN TIME, and
the VERB is PRESENT TENSE, NOT FUTURE TENSE. AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
when she spoke, she was a virgin. IT DOES _NOT_ say "I WILL NOT know
a man" anywhere.
>
>> And if you look in the telephone book, it is the ROMAN catholic
>> church.
>
>Wrong. It is the Roman/Coptic/Maronite/Greek, all the Catholic
>Churches.
>
>> Now it IS true that the "orthodox" churches consider you to
>> be part of them,
>
>Wrong, it is not just the orthodox, there are Greek Catholic as well as
>Greek Orthodox. Russian Catholic as well as Russian Orthodox.
>
>> but I don't think you do.
>
>What you think I think is irrelevant.
>
>> THEY SAY you broke away
>> from them.
>>
>The Catholic Church did not.
According to the orthodox, the roman catholics did.
According to the roman catholics, the orthodox did.
And you are all heretical religions!
>
>> >> in Christ Jesus,
>> >> Christian
>> >
>> >So Christian, have you calmed down from your last temper tantrum? Are
>> >you ready to answer my questions now, as you promised?
>>
>> No "temper tantrum."
>
>Really? What about all the accusations of lying and the typed
>hysterical laughter?
When you lie, I point it out. And I DO consider some of your
positions very funny!
When you watch the "Red Green show" on TV, do YOU not smile sometimes?
If you do, is that a "temper tantrum?" LOL!
>
>> And no, I won't waste my time answering
>> irrelivant and stupid questions like, "do you like liver?"
>
>Wrong. I never asked if you liked liver.
>
>> "do you
>> live in Jerusalem?"
>
>Wrong. You did answer that question, you told me you live in the USA.
>
>> And junk like that.
>>
>
>Wrong. My questions are not junk.
That type of question IS garbage, and a waste of time.
>
>> Why should I bother wasting my time with your garbage?
>>
>
>Wrong. My questions are not garbage.
That type of questions are ALWAYS garbage.
>
in Christ Jesus,
Christian ( a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the
heathen and apostate "catholics" religion)
David
chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> >> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>, posted this little bit of
> >> stuff:
> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >> >
> >> ><chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote
> >> >
> >> >> There is NONE of that garbage in the writings of the first century of
> >> >> Christ's church either.
> >> >
> >> >Jesus advised the following:
> >> >
> >> >Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
> >> >
> >> >Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of
> >> >Moses.
> >> >
> >> >Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and
> >> >do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
> >> >
> >> >So even if the Church Jesus founded is rife with hypocrites (which I'm sure
> >> >you're always looking for) you are still required to obey the leaders.
> >> >
> >> And I DO obey the leaders of Christ's church.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. You deny the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
>
> So far not one single verse in the Bible has been produced to claim
> Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN.
>
Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
Until you attempt to deal with this verse, in a way other than
inserting additional words into the text so that it suits your fancy,
you will not address the point I make in this verse.
> However, scripture DOES exist that shows that marriage is for the
> purpose of "leaving" and "cleaving," leaving your parents and being
> physically joined to your spouse.
>
Yes, but not at the time you need it to be. Jesus re-establishes
marriage as you describe it later after Joseph has passed away.
> Scripture DOES say that if a man or woman denies his/her spouse sex,
> he/she is defrauding that spouse and is sinning.
>
Wrong again. Your citation of St. Paul specifically says that is not a
commandment, and Mary did not defraud her spouse and did not sin. Both
Joseph and Mary planned to remain celibate even before they were
married.
> So you have your choice:
Wrong. You have a choice. Accept the Biblical teaching that Mary was a
perpetual virgin, or reject the Bible.
> 1. Either Mary married Joseph and had sex with her husband as the
> Bible prescribes, or
Wrong, Mary married Joseph and did not have any relations with him
ever.
> 2. She defrauded him and continually sinned.
>
Wrong. She and Joseph agreed to celibacy before they were married.
There was no fraud and no sin.
> Which would you prefer.
I prefer that you stop rejecting Biblical teaching.
> >
> >> But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. It is the Catholic Church(not just Roman), and it is not
> >apostate.
>
> WHICH "catholic" church are you referring to?
The Catholic Church, the Roman/Maronite/Coptic/Greek/Malabar/etc
Catholic Church.
> The rcc that says that
> the orthodox "broke away?"
>
It is true the Orthodox churches are not in union with the Catholic
Church
> Or the orthodox that says the rcc "scismned" away?
>
They are entitled to their opinion.
> And with all of their man-made doctrinal trash,
Wrong. The doctrines are based on the Bible.
> how do you figure they
> are not apostate?
>
Because they teach what the Apostles handed down.
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
> so-called "catholic" religion)
The Catholic is without quotes.
David
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> >> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> >> stuff:
> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Christian, good to hear from you again! Still waiting for you to answer
> >> >my questions.
> >> >
> >> >> Jesus didn't pray to mary.
> >> >
> >> >Very true, he talked to her instead.
> >>
> >> Yep. While she was ALIVE, not after she had died and been buried.
> >
> >How do you know Jesus did not talk to her in heaven?
>
> YOU KNOW I am referring to people on earth praying to people who have
> died.
I can't know that, I don't read minds. You specifically replied to my
point that Jesus talked to her, not that he prayed to her.
> Play your little word-games all you want,
This is no game.
> but the rcc heresy
> still stands as heresy.
Wrong on two counts. There is no heresy, and it is not rcc, it is the
Catholic Church.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> The Apostles didn't pray to mary.
> >> >
> >> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
> >>
> >> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
> >
> >How do you know the Apostles did not talk to her in heaven?
>
> There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
> earth.
We can be pretty sure they talked to her while she was still on earth.
> Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
> Jesus began His church.
Wrong. The book of Apocalypse makes clear that the dead can intercede
on behalf of the living.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
> >>
> >> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
> >
> >How do you know the disciples did not talk to her in heaven?
>
> There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
> earth.
True, but don't you think people talk to each other in heaven?
> Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
> Jesus began His church.
Wrong. The book of Apocalypse makes clear that the dead can intercede
on behalf of the living.
You copied and pasted the typo.
>Your practice is a man-made heresy that gets
> you to pray to mary
Wrong. The Book of Apocalypse is in the Bible.
>instead of praying to God, the One you SHOULD BE
> praying to.
Who said we don't pray to God?
> >> >
> >> >> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
> >> >
> >>
> >Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
>
> There STILL is no need to "represent" her.
Why not?
> You could build a statue
> to "represent" a cow, bow down before it, pray to it too. It would be
> the same thing, with the same result.
Wrong. Mary is no cow.
> >>
> >> None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
> >> Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
> >> invented by sinful men years later.
> >
> >It is not a sin to build a statue.
>
> Ex 34:12-14
> 12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the
> inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in
> your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred
> pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14(for you shall worship no
> other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
> NKJV
Wrong again. This only applies to statues for false gods. It does not
apply for all statues.
Ex 25:16-22
In the ark you are to put the commandments which I will give you. "You
shall then make a propitiatory of pure gold, two cubits and a half
long, and one and a half cubits wide. Make two cherubim of beaten gold
for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one
cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their
wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall
be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the
propitiatory. This propitiatory you shall then place on top of the ark.
In the ark itself you are to put the commandments which I will give
you. There I will meet you and there, from above the propitiatory,
between the two cherubim on the ark of the commandments, I will tell
you all the commands that I wish you to give the Israelites.
> >> >>
> >> >> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
> >> >
> >> >Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
> >>
> >> But they DID record the important ones.
> >
> >Would you care to cite a Bilical passage that says they recorded all
> >the important ones?
>
> Your "co-redemptrix" trash was invented MANY centuries after mary had
> died and been buried.
Thank you for conceeding that you have no Biblical passage to cite,
confirming that this claim that they recorded all the important
considerations is trash invented by you many centuries after Mary had
died.
> LOOOOOONG after Jesus began His church.
You don't know what they considered shortly after Jesus begain His
universal Church.
> Your
> "co-redemptrix" trash is nothing more than manmade heresy that leads
> your people to give mary "adoration" that belongs only to Jesus.
Wrong. You have no support for your claim.
> >
> >> And for mary to be
> >> "co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
> >
> >Which is?
>
> That Jesus ALONE redeems us; NOBODY ELSE does.
True, bu co-redemptrix does not mean Mary redeemed anyone, only that
she participated in the redemption.
> >> >
> >> >> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
> >> >
> >> >True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
> >>
> >> Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
> >
> >Yes, but the question is whether or not that happened before or after
> >she died. There is no definitive case as to exactly when.
>
> Heb 9:26-28
> 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the
> judgment,
> NKJV
>
Very true, but I will point out to you Mary was a woman.
> Mary died and was buried, just like the rest of us.
Just to let you know, I agree with you. I believe Mary did die and was
buried.
> Again, your
> religon's doctrine was invented
What religious doctrine would that be? I agree with you that she did
die and was buried.
> so that you would "venerate" her where
> your entire "veneration" should be Jesus.
Wrong. We have no such doctrine in the first place.
Wrong, she does not say she is speaking at that point in time.
> it does NOT say she
> would REMAIN that way.
>
That is clearly what she means, or she would not have asked the
question.
> You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the most
> simple logic.
I am engaging in reasoned discourse, and pointing out the flaws in your
simple logic.
> >
> >> IT DOES
> >> _NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> READ THE TEXT.
I have.
> It says I DO not know a man.
Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
> It does NOT SAY, "I
> WILL NOT know a man."
"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
do not know man".
>Again, if you cannot READ and understand,
I can read it, and I do understand it. I am glad that you have finally
attempted to address my point, even if you have read the text
incorrectly. Your claim that Mary is not speaking in future tense is
wrong, but it does address my point, which is that she is speaking in
future as well as present tense.
>it is
> obviously going to be difficult for you to eat without drooling down
> your chin!
Rest assured, I have no difficulty eating and I do not drool.
> >
> >> IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
> >> 1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
> >> herself
> >
> >Wrong, your citation of St. Paul was refuted on this months ago, she is
> >not sinning, she is not defrauding her husband.
>
> Try again. It was spoken against months ago, but never refuted.
You are mistaken, you were continuously refuted.
> Scripture says:
>
> Gen 2:24
> 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
> his wife, and they shall become one flesh
> NKJV
Yes, at the time, until Adam and Eve sinned.
> Did Mary and Joseph "become one flesh?"
>
No. Did the patriarchs later in Genesis, who had multiple wives, all
become one flesh?
> Matt 19:5-6
> 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
> and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So
> then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
> joined together, let not man separate."
> NKJV
>
Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
was in Genesis.
> Mark 10:6-9
> 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and
> female.' 7'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
> and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so
> then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has
> joined together, let not man separate."
> NKJV
>
Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
was in Genesis.
> Marriage is when a man and a woman "become ONE FLESH."
>
Yes, early in Genesis before Adam and Eve sinned, and after Jesus
re-established marriage as a sacrament. Not while Joseph and Mary were
married.
> Are you going to claim mary remained "unmarried?"
No, Mary and Joseph were married, but they were not one flesh.
> >
> >> 2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
> >> to her husband,
> >
> >At the time Jesus had nor reinstituted marriage as a sacrament, your
> >citation is much later in the Gospel events.
>
> And EXACTLY WHERE does the scripture say any such thing?
Matt 19:5-6 and Mark 10:6-9
> Your
> religion made the whole thing up.
Wrong. We did not make up Mark 10:6-9.
> Marriage was never "instituted as a
> 'sacrement' until YOUR RELIGION pretended it."
We pretend nothing, the Biblical text supports our position.
>Jesus didn't change
> anything about marriage.
Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
> God created woman and man and woman have
> left their parents to "cleave" ever since.
Wrong. Not between Adam and Eve sinning and Jesus re-establishing
marriage.
>Jesus didn't change that.
Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
> Neither did anyone else.
Except Adam and Eve sinning.
> >
> >> not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
> >> marriage
> >
> >Wrong, she was married to Joseph, even though she did not know Joseph
> >before or after Jesus was born.
>
> LOL! Since the PURPOSE of marriage is that they "become one flesh"
> according to the Bible,
Wrong again! That was the original purpose of marriage, but it did not
apply during Joseph and Mary's marriage.
>your religion has lied to you.
Wrong again! The Bible tells no lie.
> >
> >> 3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
> >
> >Wrong, she had no other children.
>
> Mark 6:1-5
> Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His
> disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to
> teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished,
> saying,"Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this
> which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His
> hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of
> James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
> So they were offended at Him.
> 4 But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in
> his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."
> NKJV
>
> Your corrupt religion pretends that they are not talking about literal
> children,
What children? We are talkiing about Jesus' cousins.
> yet the "son of mary" is literal,
Of course.
>"his own country" is
> literal,
Of course.
> "his own relatives" is literal,
Yes.
> and "his own house" is
> literal,
Yes.
>so why pick just a small phrase and pretend that part is
> "figurative,
Wrong. It is not figurative. Jesus brothers and sisters were literally
cousins, that is what the Jews called their cousins, brothers and
sisters.
>speaking of cousins"
It does speak of cousins, cousins were spoken of as brothers and
sisters.
> (which the text does NOT support)???
Wrong. The text does support they are cousins.
>
> Your apostate religion has lied to you.
Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
> >
> >> which the Bible never claimse she did.
> >>
> >Wrong, the Bible makes clear those are Jesus' cousins, not siblings.
>
> No, it does not.
Yes it does.
> NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I COULD FIND says they
> are Jesus' cousins.
That is because the Jews did not have a word for cousin. They used
brother or sister to identify cousin.
> ALL call them brothers and sisters.
>
Right, because that is what Jews called cousins.
> Your religion lies to you
Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
> in an effort to support their nonsensical
> and heretical claims about mary.
There is nothing the Bible teaches about Mary which is nonsensical or
heretical.
> >
> >> Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
> >> pure nonsens.
> >
> >Wrong. The text of Luke 1:26-35 is not pure nonsense, it clearly
> >indicates she is a virgin.
>
> But it ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE
Wrong. It says no such thing.
> THEN,
> NOT ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >
> >> You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
> >> anything of the sort!
> >
> >Wrong. Luke 1:26-35.
>
> Which ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE THEN,
Wrong. It says no such thing.
>NOT
> ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >> >
> >> >> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
> >> >
> >> >Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
> >> >virgin.
> >>
> >> It says no such thing.
> >
> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> That is PRESENT TENSE,
Wrong. "I know not man" is not just present tense, it is future tense,
as the angel speaks in future tense.
> which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN.
Wrong. It applies after as well.
> IT IS
> _NOT_ FURTURE TENSE which would mean later on.
>
Yes it is, it is both present and future tense.
> I am not dead. I just posted that. Does that mean I will remain
> PERPETUALLY "NOT DEAD?"
>
Whether you remain perpetually not dead or not has no bearing on the
fact that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
> NAAH. It just means I am not dead NOW. It does NOT speak to the
> future.
>
Correct, but that has nothing to do with Mary.
> >> It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
> >> Jesus was born.
> >
> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> READ THE TEXT.
I have.
> It says I DO not know a man.
Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
> It does NOT SAY, "I
> WILL NOT know a man."
"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
do not know man".
>NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense.
Wrong. It is future as well as present tense.
> NOT ONE
> WORD about later.
It does not say one word about before only. It applies both before and
later.
> JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
>
Wrong again. It says no such thing.
> Logical discourse seems to elude you, doesn't it?
I am engaged in logical discourse.
> >> >
> >> >> That is because NONE OF THOSE THINGS WERE _EVER_
> >> >> TRUE OF MARY!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. The Gospel of Luke 1:26-35 is very clear that Mary always
> >> >remained a virgin.
> >>
> >> You have convinced yourself of that.
> >
> >Wrong. The text clearly has no meaning other than Mary was always a
> >virgin.
>
> READ THE TEXT.
I have.
> It says I DO not know a man.
Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
> It does NOT SAY, "I
> WILL NOT know a man."
"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
do not know man".
>NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense.
Wrong. It is future as well as present tense.
> NOT ONE
> WORD about later.
It does not say one word about before only. It applies both before and
later.
> JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
>
Wrong again. It says no such thing.
> >
> >> Apparently you have never READ
> >> THE PASSAGE.
> >>
> >Wrong. I cited the passage months ago when I refuted your claims that
> >Mary was not a virgin back then.
>
> You mean when you DENIED my claims.
No, I mean when I refuted your claims.
> Since you cannot produce ONE
> VERSE in which Mary EVER says "I will NEVER know a man,"
I did better than that, I produced a verse that Mary knows not man,
will not know man, and does not know man.
> you have NO
> CASE at all,
Yes I do.
>and have refuted NOTHING.
I have refuted you.
> >
> >> SHOW ME WHERE IT SAYS IN THAT PASSAGE that "Mary will always remain a
> >> virgin."
> >
> >It does not say it, but it clearly indicates it.
>
> ONLY if you are brainwashed by your heretical religion,
The biblical text is not heretical.
>the rcc.
It is the Catholic Church, not the rcc.
> >
> >> You cannot; it isn't there.
> >
> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> READ THE TEXT.
I have.
> It says I DO not know a man.
Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
> It does NOT SAY, "I
> WILL NOT know a man."
"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
do not know man".
>NOT ONE WORD in the FURTURE tense.
Wrong. It is future as well as present tense.
> NOT ONE
> WORD about later.
It does not say one word about before only. It applies both before and
later.
> JUST ABOUT THE TIME IN WHICH SHE WAS SPEAKING.
>
Wrong again. It says no such thing.
> >> >
> >> >> The rcc has made up the whole dunghill of mariology that it practices!
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. First it is the Catholic Church, not the Roman Catholic Church.
> >> >Second, it did not make up anything about Mary, her virginity is
> >> >clearly established in the Bible.
> >> >
> >> Her virginity AT THE TIME OF JESUS' BIRTH, _NOT_ _AFTER_ _THAT_.
> >
> >Wrong. It does not say at the time of Jesus' birth but not after.
>
> It was spoken AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
True.
>and the VERB is PRESENT TENSE,
Wrong. The angel and Mary do not use just present tense.
> NOT FUTURE TENSE.
Yes it is.
> AT THAT POINT IN TIME, when she spoke, she was a
> virgin.
True.
> IT DOES _NOT_ say "I WILL NOT know a man" anywhere.
It says "I know not man." which means both "I do not know man" and "I
will not know man".
>
> You have problems with English,
I have no problems with English.
>possibly Greek,
I have corrected you on the Greek.
> and certainly with
> logical discourse.
Only you have a problem with my logical discourse.
> >
> >> Your
> >> apostate religion made the "after that" virginity up out of the air.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. It is Luke 1:26-35 which clearly establishes her perpetual
> >virginity.
>
> You keep claiming that, but it was spoken AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
True.
>and
> the VERB is PRESENT TENSE,
Wrong, It is not just present tense.
> NOT FUTURE TENSE.
Wrong. It is future tense as well.
> AT THAT POINT IN TIME,
Wrong, not just at that point in time.
> when she spoke, she was a virgin.
True.
> IT DOES _NOT_ say "I WILL NOT know
> a man" anywhere.
It says "I know not man." which means both "I do not know man" and "I
will not know man".
> >
> >> And if you look in the telephone book, it is the ROMAN catholic
> >> church.
> >
> >Wrong. It is the Roman/Coptic/Maronite/Greek, all the Catholic
> >Churches.
> >
> >> Now it IS true that the "orthodox" churches consider you to
> >> be part of them,
> >
> >Wrong, it is not just the orthodox, there are Greek Catholic as well as
> >Greek Orthodox. Russian Catholic as well as Russian Orthodox.
> >
> >> but I don't think you do.
> >
> >What you think I think is irrelevant.
> >
> >> THEY SAY you broke away
> >> from them.
> >>
> >The Catholic Church did not.
>
> According to the orthodox, the roman catholics did.
>
They are entitled to their opinion.
> According to the roman catholics, the orthodox did.
>
It is true the Orthodox churches are not in union with the Catholic
Church.
> And you are all heretical religions!
Wrong again.
> >
> >> >> in Christ Jesus,
> >> >> Christian
> >> >
> >> >So Christian, have you calmed down from your last temper tantrum? Are
> >> >you ready to answer my questions now, as you promised?
> >>
> >> No "temper tantrum."
> >
> >Really? What about all the accusations of lying and the typed
> >hysterical laughter?
>
> When you lie, I point it out.
Wrong. I do not lie. I point out your errors, and you accuse me of
lying.
> And I DO consider some of your
> positions very funny!
>
Thank you for conceeding that you do throw temper tantrums by accusing
me of lying and laughing hysterically.
> When you watch the "Red Green show" on TV, do YOU not smile sometimes?
What is the Red Green show?
> If you do, is that a "temper tantrum?" LOL!
When you accuse someone of lying, and laugh hysterically that is a
termper tantrum.
> >
> >> And no, I won't waste my time answering
> >> irrelivant and stupid questions like, "do you like liver?"
> >
> >Wrong. I never asked if you liked liver.
> >
> >> "do you
> >> live in Jerusalem?"
> >
> >Wrong. You did answer that question, you told me you live in the USA.
> >
> >> And junk like that.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. My questions are not junk.
>
> That type of question IS garbage,
Wrong. Asking someone if they live in Jerusalem, after they imply that
their church is in Jerusalem, is not garbage.
> and a waste of time.
Wrong, it is not a waste of time.
> >
> >> Why should I bother wasting my time with your garbage?
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. My questions are not garbage.
>
> That type of questions are ALWAYS garbage.
Wrong. Asking someone if they live in Jerusalem, after they imply that
their church is in Jerusalem, is not garbage.
> >
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian ( a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the
> heathen and apostate "catholics" religion)
Getting better, but the Catholic Church is not heathen or apostate, and
there are no quotation marks for catholic or catholics.
bam
<chri...@fiberpipe.net> wrote
> So far not one single verse in the Bible has been produced to claim
> Mary REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN.
Rome has spoken; the case is closed. Anything you say is 100.0000000%
worthless.
BAM
chri...@fiberpipe.net
How much more "dealing" do you wish? I have pointed out to you that
the verb tense is PRESENT (which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN), and
NOT FUTURE tense, so it does NOT TALK AT ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE of her
virginity.
No "inserting additional words" at all. Just pointing out what the
text REALLY SAYS, and that it DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE
FUTURE FROM THAT POINT IN TIME.
You seem to lack ANY skill in logical discourse, and even LESS in
English (and/or Greek) grammar!
>
>> However, scripture DOES exist that shows that marriage is for the
>> purpose of "leaving" and "cleaving," leaving your parents and being
>> physically joined to your spouse.
>>
>
>Yes, but not at the time you need it to be. Jesus re-establishes
>marriage as you describe it later after Joseph has passed away.
You have NEVER SHOWN ONCE that Jesus NEEDED TO "re-establish
marriage." It was WELL ESTABLISHED long before Mary was born, and you
have NO IDEA whether Jesus was crucified BEFORE OR AFTER JOSEPH DIED.
Your whole theory is based on nothing but AIR.
>
>> Scripture DOES say that if a man or woman denies his/her spouse sex,
>> he/she is defrauding that spouse and is sinning.
>>
>
>Wrong again. Your citation of St. Paul specifically says that is not a
>commandment, and Mary did not defraud her spouse and did not sin. Both
>Joseph and Mary planned to remain celibate even before they were
>married.
The Bible says no such thing. You cannot show me ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE
IN WHICH JOSEPH AND MARY PLANNED ANY SUCH THING. You have NOTHING BUT
SUPPOSITION, which is all you have about ANY OF THIS MATTER.
>
>> So you have your choice:
>
>Wrong. You have a choice. Accept the Biblical teaching that Mary was a
>perpetual virgin, or reject the Bible.
SO FAR you have NOT SHOWN any Biblical teaching that Mary was a
perpetural virgin. You have only shown one partial verse that has the
WRONG VERSE TENSE to make it say what you FALSELY CLAIM IT SAYS.
>
>> 1. Either Mary married Joseph and had sex with her husband as the
>> Bible prescribes, or
>
>Wrong, Mary married Joseph and did not have any relations with him
>ever.
ONLY according to your own PRESUPPOSITIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, not
according to ONE SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE.
You just don't know how to READ. Either that, or you don't care at
all what it says, you just want to beleive what you want to believe,
facts be darned!
>
>> 2. She defrauded him and continually sinned.
>>
>
>Wrong. She and Joseph agreed to celibacy before they were married.
>There was no fraud and no sin.
No, there was no such agreement anywhere in Scripture. Your heretical
religion MADE IT UP, or you did so yourself. IT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE
ANYWHERE.
>
>> Which would you prefer.
>
>I prefer that you stop rejecting Biblical teaching.
So far, you have not SHOWN ANY Biblical teaching. You have merely
shown that you don't know how to read, don't understand the concept of
verb tense, and don't want to be bothered by the fact that NO PLACE IN
THE BIBLE teaches that mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
>> >
>> >> But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
>> >>
>> >Wrong. It is the Catholic Church(not just Roman), and it is not
>> >apostate.
>>
>> WHICH "catholic" church are you referring to?
>
>The Catholic Church, the Roman/Maronite/Coptic/Greek/Malabar/etc
>Catholic Church.
>
>> The rcc that says that
>> the orthodox "broke away?"
>>
>It is true the Orthodox churches are not in union with the Catholic
>Church
>
>> Or the orthodox that says the rcc "scismned" away?
>>
>They are entitled to their opinion.
And you are entitled to YOUR WRONG OPINION TOO! :-)
>
>> And with all of their man-made doctrinal trash,
>
>Wrong. The doctrines are based on the Bible.
So far you have NOT SHOWN ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE IN THE BIBLE THAT BACKS
YOUR CLAIMS THAT
Mary remained virgin after Jesus was born (You seem to not care about
what the text really says at all)
That Joseph and mary made ANY "agreement to remain celibate" EVER.
That Mary didn't have other children, when the Bible NAMES some of
them.
>
>> how do you figure they
>> are not apostate?
>>
>
>Because they teach what the Apostles handed down.
Some of it, PLUS all the stuff they made up out of the air, stuff to
CHANGE their religion into something COMPLETELY FOREIGN to Christ's
church as HE MADE IT.
>
>> in Christ Jesus,
>> Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
>> so-called "catholic" religion)
>
>The Catholic is without quotes.
Naah, I put quotes there.
I'll do it again. . .
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
And THAT is ALL YOU HAVE TO OFFER?
LOL! Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You are pathetic.
_I_ have spoken; the case is closed. Anything YOU say is
100.0000000000000000% worthless!!!
Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Oooooooooooooooooooooh, YOU ARE FUNNY, BAMBO!
(Is "bambo" another form of the word, "bimbo?")
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Hugh Betcha
' huh?' is the perfect thing to say, because I have no idea what your
point is.
David
At last, you are dealing with it. Now we can address why you are wrong
about the tense.
> I have pointed out to you that
> the verb tense is PRESENT (which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN),
This is correct.
>and
> NOT FUTURE tense,
Wrong, it is both present and future tense.
>so it does NOT TALK AT ALL ABOUT THE FUTURE of her
> virginity.
>
Yes it does. "Know not man" is both present and future. The angel
addresses Mary in future tense.
> No "inserting additional words" at all.
Yes, at last you have stopped inserting additional words. Now we need
to work on the tense of the verb.
> Just pointing out what the
> text REALLY SAYS,
You have pointed out part of it.
> and that it DOES NOT SAY ANYTHING AT ALL ABOUT THE
> FUTURE FROM THAT POINT IN TIME.
>
Wrong, Mary is speaking in both present and future tense.
> You seem to lack ANY skill in logical discourse,
Things are not always what they seem.
> and even LESS in
> English (and/or Greek) grammar!
You are mistaken.
> >
> >> However, scripture DOES exist that shows that marriage is for the
> >> purpose of "leaving" and "cleaving," leaving your parents and being
> >> physically joined to your spouse.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, but not at the time you need it to be. Jesus re-establishes
> >marriage as you describe it later after Joseph has passed away.
>
> You have NEVER SHOWN ONCE that Jesus NEEDED TO "re-establish
> marriage."
I was not trying to show Jesus needed to re-establish marriage, I
showed that he did re-establish marriage.
> It was WELL ESTABLISHED long before Mary was born,
Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Do you really want to go
through the whole one flesh until two flesh until one flesh again?
>and you
> have NO IDEA whether Jesus was crucified BEFORE OR AFTER JOSEPH DIED.
>
Wrong. Joseph would have been at the cross if he had been alive.
> Your whole theory is based on nothing but AIR.
Wrong. It is based on the Biblical text.
> >
> >> Scripture DOES say that if a man or woman denies his/her spouse sex,
> >> he/she is defrauding that spouse and is sinning.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong again. Your citation of St. Paul specifically says that is not a
> >commandment, and Mary did not defraud her spouse and did not sin. Both
> >Joseph and Mary planned to remain celibate even before they were
> >married.
>
> The Bible says no such thing.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> You cannot show me ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE
> IN WHICH JOSEPH AND MARY PLANNED ANY SUCH THING.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> You have NOTHING BUT
> SUPPOSITION,
Wrong, I have the Biblical text.
>which is all you have about ANY OF THIS MATTER.
Wrong again.
> >
> >> So you have your choice:
> >
> >Wrong. You have a choice. Accept the Biblical teaching that Mary was a
> >perpetual virgin, or reject the Bible.
>
> SO FAR you have NOT SHOWN any Biblical teaching that Mary was a
> perpetural virgin.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> You have only shown one partial verse that has the
> WRONG VERSE TENSE
Fine. "How can this be, since I know not man."
Future and present tense, and closer to the actual Greek meaning than
"do not know man". Are you happy now?
> to make it say what you FALSELY CLAIM IT SAYS.
No false claims. Just the Biblical text.
> >
> >> 1. Either Mary married Joseph and had sex with her husband as the
> >> Bible prescribes, or
> >
> >Wrong, Mary married Joseph and did not have any relations with him
> >ever.
>
> ONLY according to your own PRESUPPOSITIONS and ASSUMPTIONS, not
> according to ONE SINGLE VERSE IN THE BIBLE.
>
Wrong. "How can this be, since I know not man."
> You just don't know how to READ.
Actually I am reading this passage in Luke better than you are, you
have failed to grasp its complete meaning.
> Either that, or you don't care at
> all what it says,
Wrong. I do care, it is you that just acts as if Mary is rehearsing her
lines so that the angel can finish his monologue.
> you just want to beleive what you want to believe,
> facts be darned!
What I want to believe is irrelevant, all that matters is the Biblical
text.
> >
> >> 2. She defrauded him and continually sinned.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong. She and Joseph agreed to celibacy before they were married.
> >There was no fraud and no sin.
>
> No, there was no such agreement anywhere in Scripture.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I know not man."
> Your heretical
> religion MADE IT UP, or you did so yourself. IT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE
> ANYWHERE.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I know not man."
> >
> >> Which would you prefer.
> >
> >I prefer that you stop rejecting Biblical teaching.
>
> So far, you have not SHOWN ANY Biblical teaching.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I know not man."
> You have merely
> shown that you don't know how to read,
Wrong, I have shown where your own reading error is.
> don't understand the concept of
> verb tense,
Yes I do, and pointed out that you are missing the future verb tense.
Luke 1:31 And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth
a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
The angel addresses Mary in future tense, Mary replies to the question
in both present and future tense.
>and don't want to be bothered by the fact that NO PLACE IN
> THE BIBLE teaches that mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
Wrong. "How can this be, since I know not man."
> >> >
> >> >> But NOT the leaders of the apostate rcc.
> >> >>
> >> >Wrong. It is the Catholic Church(not just Roman), and it is not
> >> >apostate.
> >>
> >> WHICH "catholic" church are you referring to?
> >
> >The Catholic Church, the Roman/Maronite/Coptic/Greek/Malabar/etc
> >Catholic Church.
> >
> >> The rcc that says that
> >> the orthodox "broke away?"
> >>
> >It is true the Orthodox churches are not in union with the Catholic
> >Church
> >
> >> Or the orthodox that says the rcc "scismned" away?
> >>
> >They are entitled to their opinion.
>
> And you are entitled to YOUR WRONG OPINION TOO! :-)
There is such a thing as a wrong opinion?
> >
> >> And with all of their man-made doctrinal trash,
> >
> >Wrong. The doctrines are based on the Bible.
>
> So far you have NOT SHOWN ONE SINGLE SCRIPTURE IN THE BIBLE THAT BACKS
> YOUR CLAIMS THAT
> Mary remained virgin after Jesus was born
Wrong.
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS."
"How can this be, since I know not man."
> (You seem to not care about
> what the text really says at all)
>
Wrong. I do care.
> That Joseph and mary made ANY "agreement to remain celibate" EVER.
>
Wrong.
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS."
"How can this be, since I know not man."
> That Mary didn't have other children, when the Bible NAMES some of
> them.
The Bible names Jesus' cousins, Mary did not have any other children,
but Jesus did have cousins which were always called brothers and
sisters.
> >
> >> how do you figure they
> >> are not apostate?
> >>
> >
> >Because they teach what the Apostles handed down.
>
> Some of it, PLUS all the stuff they made up out of the air,
Nothing was made up out of air.
> stuff to
> CHANGE their religion
Mary has always been a perpetual virgin, there was no change.
>into something COMPLETELY FOREIGN to Christ's
> church as HE MADE IT.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, you are as well.
> >
> >> in Christ Jesus,
> >> Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
> >> so-called "catholic" religion)
> >
> >The Catholic is without quotes.
>
>
> Naah, I put quotes there.
Then you are wrong.
> I'll do it again. . .
>
Then you will be wrong.
David
Christian, remember what I said about hysterical laughter. Keep it
down.
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian
Does Christ Jesus ever say
Hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?
chri...@fiberpipe.net
Talk about a nonsequitur! In Revelation (apocalypse to you
apostates), it says that those in heaven pray for US, but NOT ONE WORD
ANYWHER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE WHERE LIVE HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH ARE TO
PRAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED.
Do you REALLY BELIEVE that my Uncle Joe praying for me in heaven
means I should or could be heard BY him? NONSENSE. NO SCRIPTURE says
ANY SUCH THING.
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
>> >>
>> >> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
>> >
>> >How do you know the disciples did not talk to her in heaven?
>>
>> There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
>> earth.
>
>True, but don't you think people talk to each other in heaven?
They do when they get there, no doubt. But THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE THAT
EVER SAYS A LIVE HUMAN BEING HERE ON EARTH PRAYED TO A DEAD HUMAN
BEING IN HEAVEN except to Jesus (Who is God) Himself.
>
>> Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
>> Jesus began His church.
>
>Wrong. The book of Apocalypse makes clear that the dead can intercede
>on behalf of the living.
>
>You copied and pasted the typo.
>
>>Your practice is a man-made heresy that gets
>> you to pray to mary
>
>Wrong. The Book of Apocalypse is in the Bible.
Talk about a nonsequitur! In Revelation (apocalypse to you
apostates), it says that those in heaven pray for US, but NOT ONE WORD
ANYWHER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE WHERE LIVE HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH ARE TO
PRAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED.
They pray FOR us. We do NOT PRAY TO OR FOR THEM. They don't NEED our
prayers; they are just fine if they are in heaven.
>
>>instead of praying to God, the One you SHOULD BE
>> praying to.
>
>Who said we don't pray to God?
The time you spend praying to your goddess mary is time you should be
praying to God instead.
>> >> >
>> >> >> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
>>
>> There STILL is no need to "represent" her.
>
>Why not?
What for? You have NO CLUE what she looked like. She was probably
short, round, and quite dark-skinned (she was a Jew, you know).
And I don't feel a great need to build statues of Uncle Joe, Aunt
Matilda, or Cousin Sam, all of whom have died. Why build statues of
mary? Except to bow down before them and pray to your goddess?
>
>> You could build a statue
>> to "represent" a cow, bow down before it, pray to it too. It would be
>> the same thing, with the same result.
>
>Wrong. Mary is no cow.
She is no statue either. She undoubtedly doesn't even resemble any of
those statues. And her body is dead and buried and eaten by worms by
now.
>> >>
>> >> None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
>> >> Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
>> >> invented by sinful men years later.
>> >
>> >It is not a sin to build a statue.
>>
>> Ex 34:12-14
>> 12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the
>> inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in
>> your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred
>> pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14(for you shall worship no
>> other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
>> NKJV
>
>Wrong again. This only applies to statues for false gods. It does not
>apply for all statues.
Mary is not a "real" goddess, do you think?
>
>Ex 25:16-22
>
>In the ark you are to put the commandments which I will give you. "You
>shall then make a propitiatory of pure gold, two cubits and a half
>long, and one and a half cubits wide. Make two cherubim of beaten gold
>for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one
>cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their
>wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall
>be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the
>propitiatory. This propitiatory you shall then place on top of the ark.
>In the ark itself you are to put the commandments which I will give
>you. There I will meet you and there, from above the propitiatory,
>between the two cherubim on the ark of the commandments, I will tell
>you all the commands that I wish you to give the Israelites.
God can make specific exceptions. Man cannot. Not without violating
God's Word.
>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
>> >> >
>> >> >Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
>> >>
>> >> But they DID record the important ones.
>> >
>> >Would you care to cite a Bilical passage that says they recorded all
>> >the important ones?
>>
>> Your "co-redemptrix" trash was invented MANY centuries after mary had
>> died and been buried.
>
>Thank you for conceeding that you have no Biblical passage to cite,
>confirming that this claim that they recorded all the important
>considerations is trash invented by you many centuries after Mary had
>died.
Conceded WHAT? Not me! You are trying to twist it to PRETEND I did
so, but of course, that is how you operate, isn't it?
2 Tim 3:16-17
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
good works.
KJV
TRY AGAIN, BUBBA. Your made-up trash is worthless.
NOBODY gets to "make up stuff" and claim it is from God. Not even
YOUR heretical religion. NOT WITHOUT HAVING TO FACE GOD about it
later.
>
>> LOOOOOONG after Jesus began His church.
>
>You don't know what they considered shortly after Jesus begain His
>universal Church.
His church is FAR FROM "universal." It does NOT INCLUDE unbelievers,
members of foreign groups such as islam, mormons, moonies, and Sikkhs
(sp?).
And we have SCRIPTURE (The faith delivered once for all), and we can
easily examine first century writings as well.
>
>> Your
>> "co-redemptrix" trash is nothing more than manmade heresy that leads
>> your people to give mary "adoration" that belongs only to Jesus.
>
>Wrong. You have no support for your claim.
I don't make the "new stuff" up; YOUR RELIGION DID THAT. Because
THEY made it up, the onus is upon THEM to prove it is from God. They
cannot do that.
>> >
>> >> And for mary to be
>> >> "co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
>> >
>> >Which is?
>>
>> That Jesus ALONE redeems us; NOBODY ELSE does.
>
>True, bu co-redemptrix does not mean Mary redeemed anyone, only that
>she participated in the redemption.
She didn't die on the cross. She didn't bear our sins. She didn't
pay the price. She did NOTHING for our redemption.
>> >> >
>> >> >> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
>> >> >
>> >> >True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
>> >>
>> >> Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
>> >
>> >Yes, but the question is whether or not that happened before or after
>> >she died. There is no definitive case as to exactly when.
>>
>> Heb 9:26-28
>> 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the
>> judgment,
>> NKJV
>>
>Very true, but I will point out to you Mary was a woman.
"Men" is generic in its useage here, clearly. Or are you going to
claim that women don't die and get judged? LOL! What a FALLACIOUS
argument you try to make!
>
>> Mary died and was buried, just like the rest of us.
>
>Just to let you know, I agree with you. I believe Mary did die and was
>buried.
Ooooh, then you don't agree with the "catholic" religion?
>
>> Again, your
>> religon's doctrine was invented
>
>What religious doctrine would that be? I agree with you that she did
>die and was buried.
If I am not mistaken (and it IS POSSIBLE I could be), don't ALL of
your rcc, orthodox, marionite religions believe mary was taken up,
rather than that she died and was buried? Or is that just an rcc
thing?
>
>> so that you would "venerate" her where
>> your entire "veneration" should be Jesus.
>
>Wrong. We have no such doctrine in the first place.
Which "catholic" group do you belong to? I thought you were rcc, but
I seem to be in error here, so please set me straight.
And the rcc DOES "venerate" mary; they claim to venerate her rather
than to worship her.
You are a moron. You KNOW the angel and she were speaking AT THAT
POINT IN TIME. You may play stupid little word games, but you cannot
seem to READ WITH COMPREHENSION.
>
>> it does NOT say she
>> would REMAIN that way.
>>
>
>That is clearly what she means, or she would not have asked the
>question.
>
>> You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the most
>> simple logic.
>
>I am engaging in reasoned discourse, and pointing out the flaws in your
>simple logic.
So far, you are trying to claim that mary and the angel did not speak
at ONE POINT IN TIME (totally illogical), that she didn't SAY she was
speaking at that point in time (totally unreasonable to expect she
would say such a thing), and that despite her using the WRONG VERB
TENSES, that she is speaking of THE FUTURE (totally illogical and
contradictory to the language used).
Again, You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the
most simple logic.
How old are you? Twelve? Ten?
>> >
>> >> IT DOES
>> >> _NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>>
>> READ THE TEXT.
>
>I have.
>
>> It says I DO not know a man.
>
>Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
>And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
And
>
>> It does NOT SAY, "I
>> WILL NOT know a man."
>
>"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
>do not know man".
And AT THE POINT IN TIME SHE SAID THAT, IT WAS TRUE, _BUT_ it is
obvious that she is not referring to ANY OTHER POINT IN TIME. Not in
the English. Not in the Greek.
Again, if you cannot READ and understand,
>
>I can read it, and I do understand it. I am glad that you have finally
>attempted to address my point, even if you have read the text
>incorrectly. Your claim that Mary is not speaking in future tense is
>wrong, but it does address my point, which is that she is speaking in
>future as well as present tense.
Not in the Greek, and not in the English translation of it.
There is NO FUTURE TENSE VERB THERE.
THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT WHAT SHE WILL OR WILL NOT DO IN THE
FURTURE IN THAT PASSAGE. IF you can read, you know it, but are either
too stupid or too brainwashed to see it, or too stupid or brainwashed
to care.
>>it is
>> obviously going to be difficult for you to eat without drooling down
>> your chin!
>
>Rest assured, I have no difficulty eating and I do not drool.
Judging by your inability to REASON LOGICALLY, I don't believe you.
>> >
>> >> IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
>> >> 1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
>> >> herself
>> >
>> >Wrong, your citation of St. Paul was refuted on this months ago, she is
>> >not sinning, she is not defrauding her husband.
>>
>> Try again. It was spoken against months ago, but never refuted.
>
>You are mistaken, you were continuously refuted.
THEN SHOW US how you "refuted" me? SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE that makes
marriage NOT TO BE ABOUT LEAVING YOUR PARENTS AND CLEAVING (HAVING
SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) WITH YOUR SPOUSE.
>
>> Scripture says:
>>
>> Gen 2:24
>> 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
>> his wife, and they shall become one flesh
>> NKJV
>
>Yes, at the time, until Adam and Eve sinned.
Oh? THEN WHAT? Are you going to claim that after Adam and Eve
sinned, marriage ceased to be? NONSENSE? Are you going to claim that
Abraham, Sarah, and EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING MARY AND JOSEPH "lived in
sin" and were not married?
LOL! Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You are Sooooooooooooo Funny!
>
>> Did Mary and Joseph "become one flesh?"
>>
>No. Did the patriarchs later in Genesis, who had multiple wives, all
>become one flesh?
Does the Bible say ANYWHERE that man can become one flesh with only
ONE WOMAN?
Does the Bible say ANYWHERE that David, Solomon, and those guys SINNED
by having more than one wife?
Does it say ANYWHERE that ALL COUPLES WHO LIVED TOGETHER AND HAD
CHILDREN were sinning, committing adultery, or anything else bad
during that time?
Of COURSE NOT!
You must be making this stuff up as you go.
The Bible NEVER ONCE SAYS that marriage ceased to be, or was meant by
God to be anything different during that time. Your whole thesis is
a farce!
>
>> Matt 19:5-6
>> 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
>> and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So
>> then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
>> joined together, let not man separate."
>> NKJV
>>
>
>Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
>was in Genesis.
So mary and joseph lived together "in sin," huh?
LOL!
>> Mark 10:6-9
>> 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and
>> female.' 7'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
>> and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so
>> then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has
>> joined together, let not man separate."
>> NKJV
>>
>
>Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
>was in Genesis.
There is not one place in the WHOLE BIBLE where Jesus "re-established"
any such thing, NOR IS THERE ONE PLACE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE where it
says He ever needed to. All of that "garbage" is made up by either
you or your false religion.
I am constantly amazed at the imaginations of people like you and your
religion's followers, that they are so comfortable making up junk out
of thin air, then believing religiously that that junk is from God.
That is what the Baal worshippers did. They made up their own junk,
then believed it was something they should worship.
Just like your "catholic" religion does.
>> Marriage is when a man and a woman "become ONE FLESH."
>>
>
>Yes, early in Genesis before Adam and Eve sinned, and after Jesus
>re-established marriage as a sacrament. Not while Joseph and Mary were
>married.
SHOW ME SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO, or remain looking like an idiot.
>
>> Are you going to claim mary remained "unmarried?"
>
>No, Mary and Joseph were married, but they were not one flesh.
>
>> >
>> >> 2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
>> >> to her husband,
>> >
>> >At the time Jesus had nor reinstituted marriage as a sacrament, your
>> >citation is much later in the Gospel events.
>>
>> And EXACTLY WHERE does the scripture say any such thing?
>
>Matt 19:5-6 and Mark 10:6-9
Matt 19:3-6
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,
Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV
Hmm. NOT ONE WORD saying that what God had instituted was ever
changed. NOT ONE WORD saying "Gee, I have to FIX THAT."
Just answering the Pahrisees who were asking if a man should divorce
his wife for no reason. And HOW DOES HE ANSWER?
Why, He answers, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man
put asunder." GOD JOINED TOGETHER (JUST LIKE IN GENESIS).
Not "What you guys have changed marriage to be, let nobody mess with."
LOL! You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about! But you
rattle on anywhay.
>
>> Your
>> religion made the whole thing up.
>
>Wrong. We did not make up Mark 10:6-9.
Okay, let's look at that one:
Mark 10:3-9
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to
put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your
heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave
to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain,
but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
KJV
AGAIN, NOT ONE WORD saying that what God had instituted was ever
changed. NOT ONE WORD saying "Gee, I have to FIX THAT."
Just answering the Pahrisees who were asking if a man should divorce
his wife for no reason. And HOW DOES HE ANSWER?
Why, He answers, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man
put asunder." GOD JOINED TOGETHER (JUST LIKE IN GENESIS).
Not "What you guys have changed marriage to be, let nobody mess with."
You HAVE NOTHING TO STAND ON AT ALL HERE.
>> Marriage was never "instituted as a
>> 'sacrement' until YOUR RELIGION pretended it."
>
>We pretend nothing, the Biblical text supports our position.
NOT SO FAR, IT DOESN'T. You cannot seem to find verses that support
ANY of your garbage that marriage does not involve "cleaving" (sexual
intercourse) according to GOD, OR THAT IT EVER CHANGED.
>
>>Jesus didn't change
>> anything about marriage.
>
>Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
Try again.
Matt 19:8-9
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL
IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery ; and whoever
marries her who is divorced commits adultery ."
NKJV
Jesus DOES allow divorce for sexual immorality. Again, you cannot
read, or you don't know your Bible.
>
>> God created woman and man and woman have
>> left their parents to "cleave" ever since.
>
>Wrong. Not between Adam and Eve sinning and Jesus re-establishing
>marriage.
So people weren't married between Adam and Eve and Jesus'
resurrection?
LOL!!!!!!
Or people didn't cleave between Adam and Eve and Jesus' resurrection?
LOL!!!!!! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
You haven't a CHANCE!
>
>>Jesus didn't change that.
>
>Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
According to the Bible above, JESUS DID, if the partner were sexually
immoral.
TRY READING YOUR BIBLE. IT WILL HELP YOU A LOT!
>
>> Neither did anyone else.
>
>Except Adam and Eve sinning.
The Bible NEVER ONCE SAYS that Adam and Eve's sinning changed the
purpose of marriage IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
>> >
>> >> not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
>> >> marriage
>> >
>> >Wrong, she was married to Joseph, even though she did not know Joseph
>> >before or after Jesus was born.
>>
>> LOL! Since the PURPOSE of marriage is that they "become one flesh"
>> according to the Bible,
>
>Wrong again! That was the original purpose of marriage, but it did not
>apply during Joseph and Mary's marriage.
Oh, I see. Mary and Joseph were under DIFFERENT RULES? LOL!
Ooooooooooooooh, I don't know if I can stand all this laughing!
>
>>your religion has lied to you.
>
>Wrong again! The Bible tells no lie.
Your religion's claims don't seem to be found in the Bible ANYWHERE.
You try to "spin" a few verses, but the "spin" doesn't work. Hee hee
hee!
>> >
>> >> 3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
>> >
>> >Wrong, she had no other children.
>>
>> Mark 6:1-5
>> Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His
>> disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to
>> teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished,
>> saying,"Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this
>> which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His
>> hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of
>> James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
>> So they were offended at Him.
>> 4 But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in
>> his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."
>> NKJV
>>
>> Your corrupt religion pretends that they are not talking about literal
>> children,
>
>What children? We are talkiing about Jesus' cousins.
Not one single translation I can find anywhere calls them cousins.
The Greek does't call them cousins.
But you sure do want to "spin" it to look that way, don't you?
LOL!
>
>> yet the "son of mary" is literal,
>
>Of course.
>
>>"his own country" is
>> literal,
>
>Of course.
>
>> "his own relatives" is literal,
>
>Yes.
>
>> and "his own house" is
>> literal,
>
>Yes.
>
>>so why pick just a small phrase and pretend that part is
>> "figurative,
>
>Wrong. It is not figurative. Jesus brothers and sisters were literally
>cousins, that is what the Jews called their cousins, brothers and
>sisters.
I remember a song in the 60's called "I'm my own grandpa!" Like that?
Jews called their cousins brothers and sisters? And their uncles,
daddy? And their third cousins-twice-removed Mama?
LOL? No, they did no such thing. They didn't even call their pet
dogs, mama!
>
>>speaking of cousins"
>
>It does speak of cousins, cousins were spoken of as brothers and
>sisters.
Pure nonsense. What MORE "spin" will you come up with next? NO
SCRIPTURE supports your position. You have nothing but your
IMAGINATION to hang your hat on.
>
>> (which the text does NOT support)???
>
>Wrong. The text does support they are cousins.
Try again. NOT ONE BIBLE TRANSLATOR APPEARS TO AGREE WITH YOU.
>>
>> Your apostate religion has lied to you.
>
>Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
Your apostate religion is not the Bible.
>> >
>> >> which the Bible never claimse she did.
>> >>
>> >Wrong, the Bible makes clear those are Jesus' cousins, not siblings.
>>
>> No, it does not.
>
>Yes it does.
NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I CAN FIND AGREES WITH YOU. You have
nothing but EMPTY AIR to hang your hat on.
>
>> NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I COULD FIND says they
>> are Jesus' cousins.
>
>That is because the Jews did not have a word for cousin. They used
>brother or sister to identify cousin.
The New Testament was written in KOINE GREEK, NOT HEBREW. Greeks DID
AND DO have words for cousins.
>
>> ALL call them brothers and sisters.
>>
>
>Right, because that is what Jews called cousins.
NOT IN THE BIBLE. NOT IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE that the NEW TESTAMENT
PASSAGE WAS WRITTEN IN.
>
>> Your religion lies to you
>
>Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
Your apostate religion is NOT EVEN NEAR "the Bible." It merely gives
"lip-service" to the Bible.
>
>> in an effort to support their nonsensical
>> and heretical claims about mary.
>
>There is nothing the Bible teaches about Mary which is nonsensical or
>heretical.
No, there is not. But there IS your religion's claims and YOUR claims
that ARE INDEED NONSENSICAL AND HERETICAL. It IS nonsensical and
heretical for you to claim the Bible says she remained "perpetually a
virgin" when it clearly does NOT. You have not found ONE SINGLE
PASSAGE that says that after Jesus was born, she didn't have normal
sexual relations with her husband Joseph.
And to pray to dead people, statues, or jackasses is heretical.
>> >
>> >> Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
>> >> pure nonsens.
>> >
>> >Wrong. The text of Luke 1:26-35 is not pure nonsense, it clearly
>> >indicates she is a virgin.
>>
>> But it ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE
>
>Wrong. It says no such thing.
Your lack of logical reasoning is amazing. She spoke at one point in
time. She said something was true with NO REFERENCE TO THE FUTURE,
NOT ONE FUTURE-TENSE VERB IN THE WHOLE PASSAGE. It was true when she
said it. It does NOT say it would not change later.
And it GOD'S PLAN that people have sex when they get married,
according to the Bible. ALWAYS HAS BEEN, with NO EXCEPTIONS.
>
>> THEN,
>> NOT ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
>
>Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
PRESENT tense, NOT FUTURE tense, spoken AT THAT TIME.
>> >> You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
>> >> anything of the sort!
>> >
>> >Wrong. Luke 1:26-35.
>>
>> Which ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE THEN,
>
>Wrong. It says no such thing.
IT SAYS THAT SHE SAID SHE WAS A VIRGIN. IT SAYS NOTHING IN THE FUTURE
TENSE AT ALL.
>
>>NOT
>> ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
>
>Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
And WHERE is your future tense verb? GO AHEAD, SHOW US, moron!
>> >> >
>> >> >> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
>> >> >
>> >> >Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
>> >> >virgin.
>> >>
>> >> It says no such thing.
>> >
>> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>>
>> That is PRESENT TENSE,
>
>Wrong. "I know not man" is not just present tense, it is future tense,
>as the angel speaks in future tense.
WHERE IS YOUR FUTURE TENSE VERB. SHOW US!
LIAR.
>
>> which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN.
>
>Wrong. It applies after as well.
Are you in the third grade or in the fourth grade? Your lack of
education in grammar is showing.
>
>> IT IS
>> _NOT_ FURTURE TENSE which would mean later on.
>>
>
>Yes it is, it is both present and future tense.
SHOW US THE VERBS, bubba. It is obvious you.
>
>> I am not dead. I just posted that. Does that mean I will remain
>> PERPETUALLY "NOT DEAD?"
>>
>
>Whether you remain perpetually not dead or not has no bearing on the
>fact that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
>
>> NAAH. It just means I am not dead NOW. It does NOT speak to the
>> future.
>>
>
>Correct, but that has nothing to do with Mary.
It is the same logic. She said something on one fine day. Does that
mean (since there is NOT ONE FUTURE TENSE VERB IN THE PASSAGE) that
she will ALWAYS NOT PREGNANT YET, AND ALWAYS A VIRGIN?
Naah. Things spoken in the PRESENT TENSE may later change. With me.
With Mary.
You have no ability to think logically, it seems.
>
>> >> It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
>> >
>> >True.
>> >
>> >> It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
>> >> Jesus was born.
>> >
>> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>>
>> READ THE TEXT.
>
>I have.
NOW SHOW US YOUR "FUTURE TENSE VERBS."
Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! LOL! You are Sooooooooo funny! You
are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid!
I <snipped the rest> since it is mainly repetition of your moronic
"spin" in this matter.
UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME A FUTURE-TENSE VERB IN Luke 1:34, I have wasted
enough time with your moronic, brainwashed, and just plain stupid
claims.
Luke 1:34
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be , since I do not know
a man?"
NKJV
in Christ Jesus,
Christian (A member of Christ's church, but not the corrupt and
apostate "catholic" church)
chri...@fiberpipe.net
jumped rope than to have not jumped at all."
Now let's ponder that a bit.
Is it possible he said that?
Yep.
Is it likely?
Nope.
Is it more likely that I just "made-it-up-on-the-spot?"
Yep.
You carry it on out yourself.
Christian
Hugh Betcha
> >> >"Beneath your protection we fly, O Holy Mother of God. In our
> >> >necessities, despise not our petitions but always deliver us from all
> >> >dangers, oh glorious blessed Virgin."
> >> >-Traditional, mid to late 2nd century AD
> >> >
> >> But made-up-on-the-spot in 1989, huh?
> >
> >' huh?' is the perfect thing to say, because I have no idea what your
> >point is.
>
> My point is that in 128 BC Berniculuous said, "it is wiser to have
> jumped rope than to have not jumped at all."
>
> Now let's ponder that a bit.
>
> Is it possible he said that?
> Yep.
> Is it likely?
> Nope.
> Is it more likely that I just "made-it-up-on-the-spot?"
> Yep.
>
> You carry it on out yourself.
uh... the prayer is a snippet from the "Sub Tuum Praesidium" a very old
and traditional hymn originating in Egypt around the late second
century. It predates me by about 1800 years, so I didn't make it up.
There is a papyrus fragment with the prayer written on it dating from
the early third century; it is in the collection of the John Rylands
Library in Manchester, U.K.
havoc
you said, which is highlighted by the context of his other remarks.
Evidently you're too hung up on name calling to much care what Christ
Did say and only care about what you think you can convince people he
said. The shame...
havoc
> Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
One, you don't know the first thing about Greek, much less about
the context in which this statement is made, nor the legalistic
nuance. Ignorance is bliss when you're an indoctrinate, eh?
The tense of this is present, not future. And the context reinforces
the notion. She is speaking in protest as to her current condition.
She said "I have not known a man" Ie "I haven't broken the law and
committed adultery." This was a capital offense. Go look at Joseph's
words about putting her away - for her safety. The concern there was
with whether she'd sinned. She denied that she had. What you're trying
to work in there is a bunch of hooeey. It isn't supported by the tense,
by the grammer, by the context or by anything else for that matter.
The fact of the matter is that the guys that made this stuff up were
so ignorant of both Greek and of Hebrew that these are not the only
things they demonstrably fouled up. "Binding and loosing" is yet
another. They were ignorant of the actual meaning and redefined it in
their ignorance to support their own ends. Now they look like
intellectual morons and frauds for having it so wrong, yet, I'm sure you
think them brilliant cause you were duped by them. Good for you. Keep
up the bad work. You'll pay for it sooner or later. Or you can listen
to some of these people who actually know what they're talking about.
There's an idea for you - someone else might be right...
havoc
I have yet to see you actually engage a single person in conversation.
The Lord rebuke you.
havoc
they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
[thing] that is done under the sun.*
- Forever
- in Anything
All inclusive. Door slammed with prejudice.
Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
thenceforth. If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
would be adultery, not merely fornication. Adultery is a capital
offense under the law.
2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
consumation, the bride is only betrothed. In Mary's case, if there was
no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
marriage is consumated. This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
the marriage is proper. You can consult rabbinical authority and they
will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
no matter any agreement, she would be in sin. You don't, again, know
jewish law. You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
antithetical to Judaism.
In essence, you've put Mary in sin and denied Christ the rightful
inheritance to David's throne via your nonsense. This would be called
blasphemy.. but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
fullfillment of prophecy, denies him Kingship and thusly destroys
everything he came to do. If you don't understand this, you got bigger
problems.
havoc
whether it is scriptural or not. It isn't; so, there is your problem.
But then that's why you tend to go for the "traditional" and "really
old" sales pitches. You can't sell it otherwise. Just as Satan
couldn't sell scriptural, he had to contest what God said and make it
up as he went.
Hugh Betcha
Don't forget, the Scriptures were canonized in the early 4th century;
which works were included and which were not was a matter of
'Tradition' If if you believe the Scriptures, than you must (or should)
believe the Tradition.
H
David
> David wrote:
>
> > Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> One, you don't know the first thing about Greek,
Wrong.
> much less about
> the context in which this statement is made,
Yes I do.
> nor the legalistic
> nuance.
Wrong again.
> Ignorance is bliss when you're an indoctrinate, eh?
>
I wouldn't know.
> The tense of this is present, not future.
Wrong.
> And the context reinforces
> the notion.
Wrong again. This context reinforces that she is speaking with regards
to the future.
> She is speaking in protest as to her current condition.
I noticed that you have provided no support for your position, that
would be because you don't have any.
> She said "I have not known a man" Ie "I haven't broken the law and
> committed adultery."
Utter nonsense. You actually think she has to tell God that she hasn't
committed adultery? You actually think she has to tell the angel that
she hasn't committed adultery? What did the angel say to her before she
said anything?
Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast
found favour with God.
Please explain to me havoc, how God could find favor in a woman that
has or may have committed adultery? Or is your position that the Angel
Gabriel is an idiot? Or maybe Mary is an idiot, because right after
the angel tells her she has found favor with God, she still needs to
make clear she hasn't done anything wrong? Doesn't the verse above
suggest that God gave Angel Gabriel a briefing on Mary before he
arrived? Can we safely assume that since Mary has been explicitly told
that she 1) Has nothing to fear and 2) has found favor with God, that
she will not need to discuss anything regarding any doubts or concerns
about issues 1) and 2)?
> This was a capital offense. Go look at Joseph's
> words about putting her away - for her safety.
One problem havoc, Joseph hasn't been told anything by an angel. He had
trouble believeing and/or understanding what Mary was telling him.
> The concern there was
> with whether she'd sinned.
More nonsense. The angel did not ask her if she found favor with God,
he is TELLING her. There is no concern here, you have completely missed
the point of these verses. Your entire case is that she has concern
over issues 1) and 2), right after the angel said no to issues 1) and
2).
> She denied that she had.
To deny something you have to be accused. Please cite the verse where
the angel accuses her.
>What you're trying
> to work in there is a bunch of hooeey.
You are mistaken.
> It isn't supported by the tense,
Wrong.
> by the grammer,
Wrong.
>by the context
Wrong.
> or by anything else for that matter.
My position is supported by the tense, grammar and context. Read what
Angel Gabriel says carefully.
>
> The fact of the matter is that the guys that made this stuff up
The only one making something up is you claiming that Mary has to tell
an angel that she did not sin, right after the angel told her she found
favor with God. I need something more to come to such an illogical
conclusion.
>were
> so ignorant of both Greek and of Hebrew
Luke was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Mary spoke in Aramaic.
>that these are not the only
> things they demonstrably fouled up. "Binding and loosing" is yet
> another.
If you want me to correct you on that, I would be happy too.
> They were ignorant of the actual meaning and redefined it in
> their ignorance to support their own ends.
I noticed you did that with Luke chapter 1.
> Now they look like
> intellectual morons and frauds for having it so wrong,
Unsupported assertions.
> yet, I'm sure you
> think them brilliant cause you were duped by them.
I have no idea who you are talking about, I am reading the text.
> Good for you.
And if you are drinking HiC too, good for you.
> Keep
> up the bad work.
Before casting judgement, do you want me to explain how I came to my
conclusion?
> You'll pay for it sooner or later.
How much?
> Or you can listen
> to some of these people who actually know what they're talking about.
Sure, who would that be?
> There's an idea for you - someone else might be right...
I am more than open to being shown that I am wrong, but so far your
efforts have failed.
David
You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
> >
> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
>
Very true, under the Old Covenant.
> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
>
According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
person physically dies, their love is now perished.
Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
Many things Ecclesiastes mentions were true only under the Old
Covenant, under the New Covenant, they no longer apply.
> - Forever
> - in Anything
>
> All inclusive.
All Old Covenant.
> Door slammed with prejudice.
>
You really want to slam the door on Christian love in heaven?
> Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
>
> 1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
> thenceforth.
True.
> If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
> would be adultery, not merely fornication.
Any other man than the one she was betrothed, true.
> Adultery is a capital
> offense under the law.
>
True.
> 2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
Wrong. There was no Judaic marriage consumation enforcers, who made
sure every marriage was consumated.
> It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
> consumation, the bride is only betrothed.
You forgot to mention the part that betrothal IS the actual marriage
itself, without the consumation.
> In Mary's case, if there was
> no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
> Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
> marriage is consumated.
Then you definitely have a serious theological problem, Joseph is not
Jesus' father. I have no such theological problem, as I know the Jewish
history and law. Jews had no engagement back then like we have today,
Mary and Joseph's betrothal is the marriage, and fulfilled the
requirements for Jesus being the heir to the throne of David.
> This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
> the marriage is proper.
True, and it was proper, it just wasn't consumated.
> You can consult rabbinical authority and they
> will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
>
Rabbinical authority has nothing to say about a virgin birth. I am
afraid that the rabbis overlooked that possibility.
> 3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
> no matter any agreement, she would be in sin.
Wrong. There is no sin if Joseph and Mary had a prior agreement to not
consumate the marriage. Which Luke chapter 1 makes clear they did.
> You don't, again, know
> jewish law.
Wrong. I am very familiar with Jewish law. I have even corrected your
error.
> You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
> antithetical to Judaism.
>
I am not imposing anything upon Judaism. I am refuting notions that
Christian imposes on Joseph and Mary which are entirely antithetical to
the Bible.
> In essence, you've put Mary in sin
Such a task is beyond my abilities, I cannot do the impossible.
>and denied Christ the rightful
> inheritance to David's throne
Again, you assign me power that is beyond my means.
> via your nonsense.
The Bible is not nonsense.
>This would be called
> blasphemy..
The Bible is not blasphemy.
>but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
> fullfillment of prophecy,
Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
> denies him Kingship
Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
>and thusly destroys
> everything he came to do.
No one has that power.
>If you don't understand this, you got bigger
> problems.
Disagreeing with you is not a problem.
David
Wrong, it does follow logically, and you spell it non sequitur.
>In Revelation (apocalypse to you
> apostates),
You have utterly failed to show I am apostate.
>We are it says that those in heaven pray for US,
Glad to see we agree on something.
> but NOT ONE WORD
> ANYWHER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE WHERE LIVE HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH ARE TO
> PRAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED.
>
How else can you ask them to pray for us?
> Do you REALLY BELIEVE that my Uncle Joe praying for me in heaven
> means I should or could be heard BY him?
If God tells him, yes.
> NONSENSE.
God telling your Uncle Joe that you are praying to him is nonsense?
> NO SCRIPTURE says
> ANY SUCH THING.
It doesn't say it, but it clearly indicates we can do it.
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The disciples didn't pray to mary.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Very true, they talked to her instead.
> >> >>
> >> >> Until she died anyway. Then they didn't talk to her any more.
> >> >
> >> >How do you know the disciples did not talk to her in heaven?
> >>
> >> There is not one record that says they did while they were still on
> >> earth.
> >
> >True, but don't you think people talk to each other in heaven?
>
> They do when they get there, no doubt. But THERE IS NO SCRIPTURE THAT
> EVER SAYS A LIVE HUMAN BEING HERE ON EARTH PRAYED TO A DEAD HUMAN
> BEING IN HEAVEN except to Jesus (Who is God) Himself.
Again, it is not trouble for God to pass on messages.
> >
> >> Praying to dead peopple didn't begin for over 300 years after
> >> Jesus began His church.
> >
> >Wrong. The book of Apocalypse makes clear that the dead can intercede
> >on behalf of the living.
> >
> >You copied and pasted the typo.
> >
> >>Your practice is a man-made heresy that gets
> >> you to pray to mary
> >
> >Wrong. The Book of Apocalypse is in the Bible.
>
> Talk about a nonsequitur!
Wrong, it does follow logically, and you spell it non sequitur.
> In Revelation (apocalypse to you
> apostates),
You have utterly failed to show I am apostate.
> it says that those in heaven pray for US,
Glad to see we agree on something, that is twice in a row.
> but NOT ONE WORD
> ANYWHER IN THE WHOLE BIBLE WHERE LIVE HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH ARE TO
> PRAY TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE DIED.
>
How else can you ask them to pray for us?
> They pray FOR us. We do NOT PRAY TO OR FOR THEM.
Why not?
> They don't NEED our
> prayers; they are just fine if they are in heaven.
I didn't say they needed our prayers in heaven. Just that we can talk
to them in prayer.
> >
> >>instead of praying to God, the One you SHOULD BE
> >> praying to.
> >
> >Who said we don't pray to God?
>
> The time you spend praying to your goddess mary
Never heard of her.
> is time you should be
> praying to God instead.
Then I am fine, I have never prayed to a goddess mary. Who is that?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> NONE of them built any statues to "represent" mary.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >Very true, since she was there, there was no need to represent her.
> >>
> >> There STILL is no need to "represent" her.
> >
> >Why not?
>
> What for?
The same reason you have pictures of your family in your home.
> You have NO CLUE what she looked like.
I have some clue.
> She was probably
> short, round, and quite dark-skinned (she was a Jew, you know).
>
I thought you just said we had no clue what she looked like? Which is
it?
> And I don't feel a great need to build statues of Uncle Joe, Aunt
> Matilda, or Cousin Sam, all of whom have died.
I don't either.
> Why build statues of
> mary?
For the same reason the cherubim were built in Exodus.
> Except to bow down before them and pray to your goddess?
Wrong. Check Exodus again.
> >
> >> You could build a statue
> >> to "represent" a cow, bow down before it, pray to it too. It would be
> >> the same thing, with the same result.
> >
> >Wrong. Mary is no cow.
>
> She is no statue either.
I didn't say she was.
> She undoubtedly doesn't even resemble any of
> those statues.
How do you know if you have no clue.
> And her body is dead and buried and eaten by worms by
> now.
Not if her body was taken with her soul into heaven.
> >> >>
> >> >> None built statues in the first century of Christ's church either.
> >> >> Not one is ever talked about in the writings. The concept was
> >> >> invented by sinful men years later.
> >> >
> >> >It is not a sin to build a statue.
> >>
> >> Ex 34:12-14
> >> 12 Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the
> >> inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in
> >> your midst. 13 But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred
> >> pillars, and cut down their wooden images 14(for you shall worship no
> >> other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God),
> >> NKJV
> >
> >Wrong again. This only applies to statues for false gods. It does not
> >apply for all statues.
>
> Mary is not a "real" goddess, do you think?
I don't know any goddess Mary.
> >
> >Ex 25:16-22
> >
> >In the ark you are to put the commandments which I will give you. "You
> >shall then make a propitiatory of pure gold, two cubits and a half
> >long, and one and a half cubits wide. Make two cherubim of beaten gold
> >for the two ends of the propitiatory, fastening them so that one
> >cherub springs direct from each end. The cherubim shall have their
> >wings spread out above, covering the propitiatory with them; they shall
> >be turned toward each other, but with their faces looking toward the
> >propitiatory. This propitiatory you shall then place on top of the ark.
> >In the ark itself you are to put the commandments which I will give
> >you. There I will meet you and there, from above the propitiatory,
> >between the two cherubim on the ark of the commandments, I will tell
> >you all the commands that I wish you to give the Israelites.
>
> God can make specific exceptions.
Is that your excuse? That this was a specific exception? Do you know
how easily I can demolish that weak excuse?
> Man cannot.
God does not make specific exceptions to His commandments either.
> Not without violating
> God's Word.
Right, which is why the cherubim are not a specific exception. The
commandment only applies to false gods.
> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> NONE of them is ever recorded to consider her to be "co-redemtrix."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Very true, of course, they didn't record their every consideration.
> >> >>
> >> >> But they DID record the important ones.
> >> >
> >> >Would you care to cite a Bilical passage that says they recorded all
> >> >the important ones?
> >>
> >> Your "co-redemptrix" trash was invented MANY centuries after mary had
> >> died and been buried.
> >
> >Thank you for conceeding that you have no Biblical passage to cite,
> >confirming that this claim that they recorded all the important
> >considerations is trash invented by you many centuries after Mary had
> >died.
>
> Conceded WHAT? Not me!
Then please show the verse which says they recorded all their important
considerations.
>You are trying to twist it to PRETEND I did
> so, but of course, that is how you operate, isn't it?
>
Still waiting for that Bible passage.
> 2 Tim 3:16-17
>
> 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
> doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
> righteousness:
> 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all
> good works.
> KJV
>
Still waiting for that Bible passage. I don't see the text saying they
recorded all their important considerations.
> TRY AGAIN, BUBBA.
Who is bubba?
>Your made-up trash is worthless.
The only made up trash here is your Timothy quote above. Do you even
realize that St. Paul is speaking of the Old Testament Scriptures here?
He was not declaring his own letters to be Scripture!
> NOBODY gets to "make up stuff" and claim it is from God.
Not even you.
>Not even
> YOUR heretical religion.
We don't.
> NOT WITHOUT HAVING TO FACE GOD about it
> later.
You are not going to like that day.
> >
> >> LOOOOOONG after Jesus began His church.
> >
> >You don't know what they considered shortly after Jesus begain His
> >universal Church.
>
> His church is FAR FROM "universal."
It is open to everyone.
> It does NOT INCLUDE unbelievers,
> members of foreign groups such as islam, mormons, moonies, and Sikkhs
> (sp?).
They are all welcome to join if they wish to convert.
>
> And we have SCRIPTURE (The faith delivered once for all), and we can
> easily examine first century writings as well.
Which confirm the Catholic Church.
> >
> >> Your
> >> "co-redemptrix" trash is nothing more than manmade heresy that leads
> >> your people to give mary "adoration" that belongs only to Jesus.
> >
> >Wrong. You have no support for your claim.
>
> I don't make the "new stuff" up; YOUR RELIGION DID THAT.
No we didn't.
> Because
> THEY made it up, the onus is upon THEM to prove it is from God.
We didn't make it up.
>They
> cannot do that.
On the contrary, we can show Mary participated in the actions that
Jesus performed to bring about redemption.
> >> >
> >> >> And for mary to be
> >> >> "co-redemptrix" would have contradicted what they DID write.
> >> >
> >> >Which is?
> >>
> >> That Jesus ALONE redeems us; NOBODY ELSE does.
> >
> >True, bu co-redemptrix does not mean Mary redeemed anyone, only that
> >she participated in the redemption.
>
> She didn't die on the cross. She didn't bear our sins. She didn't
> pay the price.
True.
> She did NOTHING for our redemption.
False.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> NONE of them ever claimed she didn't die.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >True, the Catholic Church makes no such definitive claim either.
> >> >>
> >> >> Don't they claim she was "taken up?"
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but the question is whether or not that happened before or after
> >> >she died. There is no definitive case as to exactly when.
> >>
> >> Heb 9:26-28
> >> 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the
> >> judgment,
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >Very true, but I will point out to you Mary was a woman.
>
> "Men" is generic in its useage here, clearly. Or are you going to
> claim that women don't die and get judged? LOL! What a FALLACIOUS
> argument you try to make!
I wasn't trying to make it. I agreed with you, Mary did die.
> >
> >> Mary died and was buried, just like the rest of us.
> >
> >Just to let you know, I agree with you. I believe Mary did die and was
> >buried.
>
> Ooooh, then you don't agree with the "catholic" religion?
I do agree with the Catholic religion, it makes no clear statement as
to whether she died first before going to heaven.
> >
> >> Again, your
> >> religon's doctrine was invented
> >
> >What religious doctrine would that be? I agree with you that she did
> >die and was buried.
>
> If I am not mistaken (and it IS POSSIBLE I could be), don't ALL of
> your rcc, orthodox, marionite religions believe mary was taken up,
> rather than that she died and was buried? Or is that just an rcc
> thing?
It makes no definitive statement either way. There is even a site for
the tomb of Mary. Obviously you can't have a tomb without a body.
> >
> >> so that you would "venerate" her where
> >> your entire "veneration" should be Jesus.
> >
> >Wrong. We have no such doctrine in the first place.
>
> Which "catholic" group do you belong to? I thought you were rcc, but
> I seem to be in error here, so please set me straight.
>
All the Catholic Churches have no definite doctrine on her death.
Although we do honor her.
> And the rcc DOES "venerate" mary; they claim to venerate her rather
> than to worship her.
True.
Wrong.
> You KNOW the angel and she were speaking AT THAT
> POINT IN TIME.
No, the angel is specifically speaking in the future tense. Mary is
answering him in present and future tense.
> You may play stupid little word games, but you cannot
> seem to READ WITH COMPREHENSION.
>
Read it again, where does the angel say he is speaking as to right now?
> >
> >> it does NOT say she
> >> would REMAIN that way.
> >>
> >
> >That is clearly what she means, or she would not have asked the
> >question.
> >
> >> You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the most
> >> simple logic.
> >
> >I am engaging in reasoned discourse, and pointing out the flaws in your
> >simple logic.
>
> So far, you are trying to claim that mary and the angel did not speak
> at ONE POINT IN TIME (totally illogical),
If I am not clear, they were speaking at one point in time, but not
about just one point in time.
>that she didn't SAY she was
> speaking at that point in time (totally unreasonable to expect she
> would say such a thing),
She was speaking about the present and future.
>and that despite her using the WRONG VERB
> TENSES, that she is speaking of THE FUTURE (totally illogical and
> contradictory to the language used).
>
She is not using the wrong verb tenses. Some translations use verb
tenses which are too specific.
> Again, You OBVIOUSLY have a problem with reasoned discourse and the
> most simple logic.
>
I am using reasoned discourse and logic.
> How old are you? Twelve? Ten?
Older.
> >> >
> >> >> IT DOES
> >> >> _NOT_ say she would remain that way after Jesus was born.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >>
> >> READ THE TEXT.
> >
> >I have.
> >
> >> It says I DO not know a man.
> >
> >Right, although a more literal translation would be "I know not man."
> >And I would dispute the "a man", a better translation is just "man".
>
> And
> >
> >> It does NOT SAY, "I
> >> WILL NOT know a man."
> >
> >"I know not man" means "I will not know man" as easily as it means "I
> >do not know man".
>
> And AT THE POINT IN TIME SHE SAID THAT, IT WAS TRUE,
Yes.
>_BUT_ it is
> obvious that she is not referring to ANY OTHER POINT IN TIME.
Wrong, it is obvious she is talking about the future as well, because
the angel told her she would get pregnant at some unspecified time in
the future!
> Not in
> the English. Not in the Greek.
>
Wrong, in the English, and the Greek, and the Latin.
> Again, if you cannot READ and understand,
I can.
> >
> >I can read it, and I do understand it. I am glad that you have finally
> >attempted to address my point, even if you have read the text
> >incorrectly. Your claim that Mary is not speaking in future tense is
> >wrong, but it does address my point, which is that she is speaking in
> >future as well as present tense.
>
> Not in the Greek, and not in the English translation of it.
> There is NO FUTURE TENSE VERB THERE.
>
Wrong. Shall we consult the King James?
King James (future tense)
(present/future tense)
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a
man?
> THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT WHAT SHE WILL OR WILL NOT DO IN THE
> FURTURE IN THAT PASSAGE.
Wrong. "How shall this be"
> IF you can read, you know it, but are either
> too stupid or too brainwashed to see it, or too stupid or brainwashed
> to care.
>
You have failed to cover the actual possibility, I read carefully,
consider all the possibilities, and arrive at the only conclusion that
fits logically, without prior assumptions.
> >>it is
> >> obviously going to be difficult for you to eat without drooling down
> >> your chin!
> >
> >Rest assured, I have no difficulty eating and I do not drool.
>
> Judging by your inability to REASON LOGICALLY, I don't believe you.
If you want to verify, we can meet for lunch sometime.
> >> >
> >> >> IF SHE HAD REMAINED A VIRGIN AFTER JESUS WAS BORN,
> >> >> 1. She would have been SINNING by defrauding her husband, withholding
> >> >> herself
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, your citation of St. Paul was refuted on this months ago, she is
> >> >not sinning, she is not defrauding her husband.
> >>
> >> Try again. It was spoken against months ago, but never refuted.
> >
> >You are mistaken, you were continuously refuted.
>
> THEN SHOW US how you "refuted" me? SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE that makes
> marriage NOT TO BE ABOUT LEAVING YOUR PARENTS AND CLEAVING (HAVING
> SEXUAL INTERCOURSE) WITH YOUR SPOUSE.
Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not
so.
> >
> >> Scripture says:
> >>
> >> Gen 2:24
> >> 24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to
> >> his wife, and they shall become one flesh
> >> NKJV
> >
> >Yes, at the time, until Adam and Eve sinned.
>
> Oh? THEN WHAT? Are you going to claim that after Adam and Eve
> sinned, marriage ceased to be?
No, marriage continued, but the two did not become one flesh.
> NONSENSE? Are you going to claim that
> Abraham, Sarah, and EVERYONE ELSE INCLUDING MARY AND JOSEPH "lived in
> sin" and were not married?
>
No, they were married, there was no sin, but they were not also one
flesh.
> LOL! Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! You are Sooooooooooooo Funny!
Remember Christian, no hysterical laughter.
Although I do appreciate that you have refrained from calling me a
liar.
> >
> >> Did Mary and Joseph "become one flesh?"
> >>
> >No. Did the patriarchs later in Genesis, who had multiple wives, all
> >become one flesh?
>
> Does the Bible say ANYWHERE that man can become one flesh with only
> ONE WOMAN?
>
Genesis 2:24 clearly indicates this.
> Does the Bible say ANYWHERE that David, Solomon, and those guys SINNED
> by having more than one wife?
>
I did not say they sinned, I only said they did not become one flesh.
> Does it say ANYWHERE that ALL COUPLES WHO LIVED TOGETHER AND HAD
> CHILDREN were sinning, committing adultery, or anything else bad
> during that time?
>
No, and neither did I.
> Of COURSE NOT!
>
We agree.
> You must be making this stuff up as you go.
>
You lost me, what did I make up?
> The Bible NEVER ONCE SAYS that marriage ceased to be, or was meant by
> God to be anything different during that time.
Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
> Your whole thesis is
> a farce!
Matthew 19:8 is no farce.
> >
> >> Matt 19:5-6
> >> 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
> >> and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So
> >> then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has
> >> joined together, let not man separate."
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >
> >Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
> >was in Genesis.
>
> So mary and joseph lived together "in sin," huh?
>
No.
> LOL!
>
They were not one flesh.
> >> Mark 10:6-9
> >> 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and
> >> female.' 7'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother
> >> and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh'; so
> >> then they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has
> >> joined together, let not man separate."
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >
> >Again, this is after Mary and Joseph, when Jesus re-established what
> >was in Genesis.
>
> There is not one place in the WHOLE BIBLE where Jesus "re-established"
> any such thing,
Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
> NOR IS THERE ONE PLACE IN THE WHOLE BIBLE where it
> says He ever needed to.
Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
> All of that "garbage" is made up by either
> you or your false religion.
>
Wrong. Matthew 19:8 was not made up by me or the Catholic Church.
> I am constantly amazed at the imaginations of people like you and your
> religion's followers,
Reading the text and imagination are two different things, you confuse
them.
> that they are so comfortable making up junk out
> of thin air,
Reading the Bible text is not making junk out of thin air.
>then believing religiously that that junk is from God.
Is the Bible inspired by God or not?
>
> That is what the Baal worshippers did. They made up their own junk,
> then believed it was something they should worship.
>
They didn't follow the Bible like I do.
> Just like your "catholic" religion does.
>
The Catholic Church follows the Bible.
> >> Marriage is when a man and a woman "become ONE FLESH."
> >>
> >
> >Yes, early in Genesis before Adam and Eve sinned, and after Jesus
> >re-established marriage as a sacrament. Not while Joseph and Mary were
> >married.
>
> SHOW ME SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO,
Matthew 19:8
> or remain looking like an idiot.
What never was cannot remain.
> >
> >> Are you going to claim mary remained "unmarried?"
> >
> >No, Mary and Joseph were married, but they were not one flesh.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> 2. She would have NOT BEEN MARRIED since she would not have "cleaved"
> >> >> to her husband,
> >> >
> >> >At the time Jesus had nor reinstituted marriage as a sacrament, your
> >> >citation is much later in the Gospel events.
> >>
> >> And EXACTLY WHERE does the scripture say any such thing?
> >
> >Matt 19:5-6 and Mark 10:6-9
>
> Matt 19:3-6
> 3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,
> Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
> 4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which
> made them at the beginning made them male and female,
> 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and
> shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
> 6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God
> hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
> KJV
> Hmm. NOT ONE WORD saying that what God had instituted was ever
> changed.
Wrong. Matthew 19:5-6 shows Jesus reinstituting marriage, which was the
verse in response to the question you were asking, which is exactly
where in Scripture does Jesus reinstitute marriage.
To see that marriage which God instituted had been changed, see Matthew
19:8.
> NOT ONE WORD saying "Gee, I have to FIX THAT."
>
Matthew 19:8.
> Just answering the Pahrisees who were asking if a man should divorce
> his wife for no reason. And HOW DOES HE ANSWER?
>
> Why, He answers, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man
> put asunder." GOD JOINED TOGETHER (JUST LIKE IN GENESIS).
>
I can see how if you fail to read the verses in context, you can come
to the wrong conclusion, which you have done.
> Not "What you guys have changed marriage to be, let nobody mess with."
>
See Matthew 19:8.
> LOL! You don't have a CLUE what you are talking about!
Matthew 19:8 shows that I do know what I am talking about.
>But you
> rattle on anywhay.
Yes, correcting your errors.
> >
> >> Your
> >> religion made the whole thing up.
> >
> >Wrong. We did not make up Mark 10:6-9.
>
> Okay, let's look at that one:
> Mark 10:3-9
>
> 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
> 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to
> put her away.
> 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your
> heart he wrote you this precept.
> 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and
> female.
> 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave
> to his wife;
> 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain,
> but one flesh.
> 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder
> KJV
>
> AGAIN, NOT ONE WORD saying that what God had instituted was ever
> changed.
Read Mark 10:3-5 again, you missed it.
> NOT ONE WORD saying "Gee, I have to FIX THAT."
>
Read Mark 10:3-5 again, you missed it.
> Just answering the Pahrisees who were asking if a man should divorce
> his wife for no reason. And HOW DOES HE ANSWER?
>
"For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."
> Why, He answers, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man
> put asunder." GOD JOINED TOGETHER (JUST LIKE IN GENESIS).
>
You missed the first part of his answer.
> Not "What you guys have changed marriage to be, let nobody mess with."
>
You really missed the first part of his answer.
> You HAVE NOTHING TO STAND ON AT ALL HERE.
>
Your attempts to topple my argument fails, I am still standing.
> >> Marriage was never "instituted as a
> >> 'sacrement' until YOUR RELIGION pretended it."
> >
> >We pretend nothing, the Biblical text supports our position.
>
> NOT SO FAR, IT DOESN'T.
yes it does.
> You cannot seem to find verses that support
> ANY of your garbage that marriage does not involve "cleaving" (sexual
> intercourse) according to GOD, OR THAT IT EVER CHANGED.
Read Matthew and Mark again, you missed it.
> >
> >>Jesus didn't change
> >> anything about marriage.
> >
> >Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
>
> Try again.
>
> Matt 19:8-9
>
> 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
> permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
> so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL
> IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery ; and whoever
> marries her who is divorced commits adultery ."
> NKJV
>
> Jesus DOES allow divorce for sexual immorality.
True.
> Again, you cannot
> read,
Wrong, it is you that cannot read. I said divorce and REMARRIAGE.
>or you don't know your Bible.
Jesus does not allow divorce and remarriage, even if your spouse was at
fault in adultery, and you were innocent.
> >
> >> God created woman and man and woman have
> >> left their parents to "cleave" ever since.
> >
> >Wrong. Not between Adam and Eve sinning and Jesus re-establishing
> >marriage.
>
> So people weren't married between Adam and Eve and Jesus'
> resurrection?
Read more carefully, they were married, they were not one flesh.
> LOL!!!!!!
>
> Or people didn't cleave between Adam and Eve and Jesus' resurrection?
Exactly, that is exactly right! They divorced and remarried.
> LOL!!!!!! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>
Now Christian, remember what I said about hysterical laughter.
> You haven't a CHANCE!
My chances are good, yours are nil.
> >
> >>Jesus didn't change that.
> >
> >Wrong. Moses allowed divorce and remarriage. Jesus did not.
>
> According to the Bible above, JESUS DID, if the partner were sexually
> immoral.
>
Wrong. Jesus never allowed divorce and remarriage.
> TRY READING YOUR BIBLE. IT WILL HELP YOU A LOT!
I have, which is why I know Jesus never allowed divorce and remarriage.
Why don't you know this?
> >
> >> Neither did anyone else.
> >
> >Except Adam and Eve sinning.
>
> The Bible NEVER ONCE SAYS that Adam and Eve's sinning changed the
> purpose of marriage IN ANY WAY AT ALL.
Adam and Eve sinning changed everything on earth, not just marriage.
> >> >
> >> >> not "been joined" to her husband, the defining act of
> >> >> marriage
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, she was married to Joseph, even though she did not know Joseph
> >> >before or after Jesus was born.
> >>
> >> LOL! Since the PURPOSE of marriage is that they "become one flesh"
> >> according to the Bible,
> >
> >Wrong again! That was the original purpose of marriage, but it did not
> >apply during Joseph and Mary's marriage.
>
> Oh, I see. Mary and Joseph were under DIFFERENT RULES? LOL!
I did not say rules, the purpose of marriage had been changed, divorce
and remarriage were allowed.
> Ooooooooooooooh, I don't know if I can stand all this laughing!
You better try, I have refuted your arguments.
> >
> >>your religion has lied to you.
> >
> >Wrong again! The Bible tells no lie.
>
> Your religion's claims don't seem to be found in the Bible ANYWHERE.
They are there.
> You try to "spin" a few verses, but the "spin" doesn't work. Hee hee
> hee!
Reading the text and drawing the logical conclusion is not spin.
> >> >
> >> >> 3. She would have had to had her other children by virgin birth also,
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, she had no other children.
> >>
> >> Mark 6:1-5
> >> Then He went out from there and came to His own country, and His
> >> disciples followed Him. 2 And when the Sabbath had come, He began to
> >> teach in the synagogue. And many hearing Him were astonished,
> >> saying,"Where did this Man get these things? And what wisdom is this
> >> which is given to Him, that such mighty works are performed by His
> >> hands! 3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of
> >> James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?"
> >> So they were offended at Him.
> >> 4 But Jesus said to them, "A prophet is not without honor except in
> >> his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house."
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >> Your corrupt religion pretends that they are not talking about literal
> >> children,
> >
> >What children? We are talkiing about Jesus' cousins.
>
> Not one single translation I can find anywhere calls them cousins.
Cousins were called brothers and sisters.
> The Greek does't call them cousins.
>
Because the Jews did not have a word for cousin.
> But you sure do want to "spin" it to look that way, don't you?
>
The only spin is your weak attempts to deny that they were cousins.
> LOL!
Much better.
> >
> >> yet the "son of mary" is literal,
> >
> >Of course.
> >
> >>"his own country" is
> >> literal,
> >
> >Of course.
> >
> >> "his own relatives" is literal,
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >> and "his own house" is
> >> literal,
> >
> >Yes.
> >
> >>so why pick just a small phrase and pretend that part is
> >> "figurative,
> >
> >Wrong. It is not figurative. Jesus brothers and sisters were literally
> >cousins, that is what the Jews called their cousins, brothers and
> >sisters.
>
> I remember a song in the 60's called "I'm my own grandpa!" Like that?
Not like that.
> Jews called their cousins brothers and sisters?
Yes.
> And their uncles,
> daddy?
No, they called uncles brothers as well. Check out Abraham and Lot in
Gensis. That is how I demolished your argument months ago.
> And their third cousins-twice-removed Mama?
>
Twice removed? Either sister or no acknowledged family relation.
> LOL? No, they did no such thing.
Yes they did.
> They didn't even call their pet
> dogs, mama!
No they did not do that.
> >
> >>speaking of cousins"
> >
> >It does speak of cousins, cousins were spoken of as brothers and
> >sisters.
>
> Pure nonsense.
Historical truth is not nonsense.
> What MORE "spin" will you come up with next?
Historical truth is not spin.
> NO
> SCRIPTURE supports your position.
All the Scripture supports my postion, it is you who have no support in
Scripture.
> You have nothing but your
> IMAGINATION to hang your hat on.
I have the Bible.
> >
> >> (which the text does NOT support)???
> >
> >Wrong. The text does support they are cousins.
>
> Try again. NOT ONE BIBLE TRANSLATOR APPEARS TO AGREE WITH YOU.
Cousins were called brothers and sisters.
> >>
> >> Your apostate religion has lied to you.
> >
> >Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
>
> Your apostate religion is not the Bible.
The Bible supports my argument, it does not lie.
> >> >
> >> >> which the Bible never claimse she did.
> >> >>
> >> >Wrong, the Bible makes clear those are Jesus' cousins, not siblings.
> >>
> >> No, it does not.
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I CAN FIND AGREES WITH YOU.
Cousins were called brothers and sisters.
> You have
> nothing but EMPTY AIR to hang your hat on.
I have the bible.
> >
> >> NOT ONE SINGLE TRANSLATION I COULD FIND says they
> >> are Jesus' cousins.
> >
> >That is because the Jews did not have a word for cousin. They used
> >brother or sister to identify cousin.
>
> The New Testament was written in KOINE GREEK, NOT HEBREW.
Which doesn't change the fact that Jews did not have a word for cousin,
so they called their cousins brothers and sisters.
> Greeks DID
> AND DO have words for cousins.
Which doesn't change the fact that when Scripture was translated into
Greek, they continued to use the word brother, even when the text made
clear it was a cousin being referred to.
> >
> >> ALL call them brothers and sisters.
> >>
> >
> >Right, because that is what Jews called cousins.
>
> NOT IN THE BIBLE.
Yes in the Bible.
> NOT IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE that the NEW TESTAMENT
> PASSAGE WAS WRITTEN IN.
Yes in the Greek, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Cousins were referred to as brothers, even in the Greek, even though
Greek had a word for cousin.
> >
> >> Your religion lies to you
> >
> >Wrong. The Bible does not lie.
>
> Your apostate religion is NOT EVEN NEAR "the Bible."
Yes it is.
> It merely gives
> "lip-service" to the Bible.
It gives far more than lip service.
> >
> >> in an effort to support their nonsensical
> >> and heretical claims about mary.
> >
> >There is nothing the Bible teaches about Mary which is nonsensical or
> >heretical.
>
> No, there is not.
Glad to see we agree.
> But there IS your religion's claims and YOUR claims
> that ARE INDEED NONSENSICAL AND HERETICAL.
The Bible teaches Mary is a perpetual virgin, either the Bible is
nonsensical and heretical or it is not.
> It IS nonsensical and
> heretical for you to claim the Bible says she remained "perpetually a
> virgin" when it clearly does NOT.
It clearly does teach she remained a perpetual virgin.
> You have not found ONE SINGLE
> PASSAGE that says that after Jesus was born, she didn't have normal
> sexual relations with her husband Joseph.
>
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> And to pray to dead people,
Where does it say that praying to dead people is heretical?
>statues, or jackasses is heretical.
We don't do that.
> >> >
> >> >> Your FALSE CLAIM that these verses indicate she remained a virgin is
> >> >> pure nonsens.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. The text of Luke 1:26-35 is not pure nonsense, it clearly
> >> >indicates she is a virgin.
> >>
> >> But it ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE
> >
> >Wrong. It says no such thing.
>
> Your lack of logical reasoning is amazing.
Pointing out the flaws in your reading of the text is not a lack of
logical reasoning.
> She spoke at one point in
> time.
True.
> She said something was true with NO REFERENCE TO THE FUTURE,
Wrong. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know
not a man?
> NOT ONE FUTURE-TENSE VERB IN THE WHOLE PASSAGE.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> It was true when she
> said it.
Yes.
> It does NOT say it would not change later.
It clearly indicates Mary was always planning on keeping her virginity
forever.
>
> And it GOD'S PLAN that people have sex when they get married,
> according to the Bible.
True for the general case.
> ALWAYS HAS BEEN, with NO EXCEPTIONS.
Wrong. Luke chapter 1 has a big exception.
> >
> >> THEN,
> >> NOT ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
> >
> >Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> PRESENT tense, NOT FUTURE tense, spoken AT THAT TIME.
>
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >> >> You cannot point to ONE SINGLE PLACE where it says
> >> >> anything of the sort!
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. Luke 1:26-35.
> >>
> >> Which ONLY says she was a virgin AT THE TIME THAT MARY SPOKE THEN,
> >
> >Wrong. It says no such thing.
>
> IT SAYS THAT SHE SAID SHE WAS A VIRGIN. IT SAYS NOTHING IN THE FUTURE
> TENSE AT ALL.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >>NOT
> >> ONE WORD REFERRING TO ANY LATER TIME.
> >
> >Wrong again! "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>
> And WHERE is your future tense verb? GO AHEAD, SHOW US, moron!
Even though you are not talking to me here, I will show you.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Why, it is OBVIOUS!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Correct, the nativity in Luke does make it obvious Mary was always a
> >> >> >virgin.
> >> >>
> >> >> It says no such thing.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >>
> >> That is PRESENT TENSE,
> >
> >Wrong. "I know not man" is not just present tense, it is future tense,
> >as the angel speaks in future tense.
>
> WHERE IS YOUR FUTURE TENSE VERB. SHOW US!
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> LIAR.
Now Christian, remember, no temper tantrums.
> >
> >> which means AT THE TIME IT WAS SPOKEN.
> >
> >Wrong. It applies after as well.
>
> Are you in the third grade or in the fourth grade?
Higher.
>Your lack of
> education in grammar is showing.
Pointing out the errors in your reading of the text is not a lack of
education in grammar.
> >
> >> IT IS
> >> _NOT_ FURTURE TENSE which would mean later on.
> >>
> >
> >Yes it is, it is both present and future tense.
>
> SHOW US THE VERBS,
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> bubba. It is obvious you.
Who is bubba?
> >
> >> I am not dead. I just posted that. Does that mean I will remain
> >> PERPETUALLY "NOT DEAD?"
> >>
> >
> >Whether you remain perpetually not dead or not has no bearing on the
> >fact that Mary remained a perpetual virgin.
> >
> >> NAAH. It just means I am not dead NOW. It does NOT speak to the
> >> future.
> >>
> >
> >Correct, but that has nothing to do with Mary.
>
> It is the same logic.
No it isn't.
>She said something on one fine day.
As long as you read the verse in isolation, you will continue to draw
the same erroneous conclusion.
>Does that
> mean (since there is NOT ONE FUTURE TENSE VERB IN THE PASSAGE)
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>that
> she will ALWAYS NOT PREGNANT YET, AND ALWAYS A VIRGIN?
>
It does if she says that was her plan.
> Naah. Things spoken in the PRESENT TENSE may later change. With me.
> With Mary.
>
Mary spoke in future tense.
> You have no ability to think logically, it seems.
Things are not what they seem.
> >
> >> >> It says she was a virgin when she conceived.
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >> >
> >> >> It does NOT SAY ONE WORD that indicates she would REMAIN one after
> >> >> Jesus was born.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >>
> >> READ THE TEXT.
> >
> >I have.
>
> NOW SHOW US YOUR "FUTURE TENSE VERBS."
>
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! LOL! You are Sooooooooo funny! You
> are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO stupid!
>
Come on Christian, stay with me. Don't lose it now, you are so close to
understanding the passage!
>
> I <snipped the rest> since it is mainly repetition
In reply to your repetition of the same erroneous argument.
>of your moronic
> "spin" in this matter.
>
Pointing out the meaning of the text is not moronic spin.
> UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME A FUTURE-TENSE VERB IN Luke 1:34,
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
Check the King James.
> I have wasted
> enough time with your moronic, brainwashed, and just plain stupid
> claims.
>
The only truth in your statement is that you are wasting your time.
> Luke 1:34
> 34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be , since I do not know
> a man?"
> NKJV
>
Poor translation, try a better one.
> in Christ Jesus,
Remember Christian, no temper tantrums if you want to say in Christ
Jesus.
> Christian (A member of Christ's church, but not the corrupt and
> apostate "catholic" church)
The Catholic is not in quotes, and it is not apostate.
jsm542
> chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
Just think fiberpipe, you may just learn yourself into the Catholic
Church. To be deep in history is to know that God Himself
established the Catholic Church, the church which you are
against. Keep studying, you may make it.
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
>
>> >
>> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
>> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
>>
>
>Very true, under the Old Covenant.
Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
true.
>
>> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
>> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
>> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
>>
>
>According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
>person physically dies, their love is now perished.
>
>Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
From the Earth it does. They are no longer here.
>
>Many things Ecclesiastes mentions were true only under the Old
>Covenant, under the New Covenant, they no longer apply.
>
ONLY if they are changed by Jesus. NOT if they are changed by carnal
man.
>> - Forever
>> - in Anything
>>
>> All inclusive.
>
>All Old Covenant.
And this matter is NOT CHANGED in the New Covenant.
>
>> Door slammed with prejudice.
>>
>
>You really want to slam the door on Christian love in heaven?
No, just on Christians who are in heaven continuing to live and love
here. They are no longer here. They no longer have any contact with
here. There is a GAP.
>
>> Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
>>
>> 1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
>> thenceforth.
>
>True.
>
>> If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
>> would be adultery, not merely fornication.
>
>Any other man than the one she was betrothed, true.
>
>> Adultery is a capital offense under the law.
>>
>
>True.
>
>> 2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
>
>Wrong. There was no Judaic marriage consumation enforcers, who made
>sure every marriage was consumated.
Gen 2:23-24
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
KJV
You may PRETEND anything you wish. You can CHANGE NOTHING. THAT IS
THE CONSUMATION OF MARRIAGE. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
>> It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
>> consumation, the bride is only betrothed.
>
>You forgot to mention the part that betrothal IS the actual marriage
>itself, without the consumation.
No, Marriage was the actual marriage. "Betrothal" was a "binding
engagement" in which the couple lived together for a year, but did not
have sex. THEN there was the marriage ceremony.
Jesus didn't make wine at a "betrothal." He made it at a WEDDING.
>
>> In Mary's case, if there was
>> no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
>> Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
>> marriage is consumated.
>
>Then you definitely have a serious theological problem, Joseph is not
>Jesus' father. I have no such theological problem, as I know the Jewish
>history and law. Jews had no engagement back then like we have today,
>Mary and Joseph's betrothal is the marriage, and fulfilled the
>requirements for Jesus being the heir to the throne of David.
>
>> This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
>> the marriage is proper.
>
>True, and it was proper, it just wasn't consumated.
And YOUR STORY IS CONCOCTED OUT OF THIN AIR BY IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW
THE BIBLE.
>
>> You can consult rabbinical authority and they
>> will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
>>
>
>Rabbinical authority has nothing to say about a virgin birth. I am
>afraid that the rabbis overlooked that possibility.
PURE CONJECTURE on your part. PURE NONSENSE on your part as well.
MAJOR parts of your religion are based on nothing but CONJECTURE.
>
>> 3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
>> no matter any agreement, she would be in sin.
>
>Wrong. There is no sin if Joseph and Mary had a prior agreement to not
>consumate the marriage. Which Luke chapter 1 makes clear they did.
So far you have shown NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN CONJECTURE that they had
such an agreement. You have NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ONE PLACE in Luke
chapter 1 where they made any such "agreement."
>
>> You don't, again, know jewish law.
>
>Wrong. I am very familiar with Jewish law. I have even corrected your
>error.
Not today, you haven't. You have shown nothing but pure conjecture
and fabrication.
>
>> You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
>> antithetical to Judaism.
>>
>
>I am not imposing anything upon Judaism. I am refuting notions that
>Christian imposes on Joseph and Mary which are entirely antithetical to
>the Bible.
So far you have NOT SHOWN EVEN ONE VERSE to support your position that
they had any such "prior ageement" or that mary remained a virgin.
You have shown NOTHING from the Bible, but your own CONJECTURE that
they "must have had a prior agreement."
Major parts of your heretical religion is based on pure conjecture.
>
>> In essence, you've put Mary in sin
>
>Such a task is beyond my abilities, I cannot do the impossible.
No, you can't. But you CAN LIE and claim she did things that would be
sinful, like withhold herself from her husband. And PRETEND THEY
"MUST HAVE" had an agreement to do that when the Bible NEVER SAYS THEY
DID.
As I have said, major parts of your heretical religion is based on
pure conjecture.
>
>
>>and denied Christ the rightful
>> inheritance to David's throne
>
>Again, you assign me power that is beyond my means.
>
>> via your nonsense.
>
> The Bible is not nonsense.
No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS.
>
>>This would be called
>> blasphemy..
>
>The Bible is not blasphemy.
No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS BLASPHEMY.
>
>>but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
>> fullfillment of prophecy,
>
>Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
>
>> denies him Kingship
>
>Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
And mary had other children, by Joseph.
>
>>and thusly destroys
>> everything he came to do.
>
>No one has that power.
>
>>If you don't understand this, you got bigger
>> problems.
>
>Disagreeing with you is not a problem.
But reasoning IS a real problem you have.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT the so-called
"catholic" religion)
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> David wrote:
>>
>> > Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
>>
>> One, you don't know the first thing about Greek,
>
>Wrong.
>
>> much less about
>> the context in which this statement is made,
>
>Yes I do.
>
>> nor the legalistic
>> nuance.
>
>Wrong again.
>
>> Ignorance is bliss when you're an indoctrinate, eh?
>>
>
>I wouldn't know.
So far in this post, he has NAILED you on every point. Your sheer
IGNORANCE of BASIC GRAMMAR in English and/or Greek is underwhelming!
>
>> The tense of this is present, not future.
>
>Wrong.
He is only wrong if you have no understanding of Grammar at all. YOU
clearly have nothing but your PRESUMPTIONS and INDOCTRINATION to
support you; the LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT DROPS YOU LIKE A ROCK!
>
>> And the context reinforces
>> the notion.
>
>Wrong again. This context reinforces that she is speaking with regards
>to the future.
Not in any language known to man.
>
>> She is speaking in protest as to her current condition.
>
>I noticed that you have provided no support for your position, that
>would be because you don't have any.
The Greek Language used, and the English language it is translated by
all translators INTO supports him. YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE apparently,
of basic grammar.
What grade in school are you? Fifth? Fourth? Naah, even my
fourth-graders knew the difference between present tense and future
tense verbs!
WHAT A MORON you are!
>
>> She said "I have not known a man" Ie "I haven't broken the law and
>> committed adultery."
>
>Utter nonsense. You actually think she has to tell God that she hasn't
>committed adultery? You actually think she has to tell the angel that
>she hasn't committed adultery? What did the angel say to her before she
>said anything?
She wasn't speaking to God. She was speaking to His Angel in that
passage. Are you now going to pretend (PRESUME) that she was speaking
to YHWH?
>
>Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast
>found favour with God.
>
>Please explain to me havoc, how God could find favor in a woman that
>has or may have committed adultery? Or is your position that the Angel
>Gabriel is an idiot? Or maybe Mary is an idiot, because right after
>the angel tells her she has found favor with God, she still needs to
>make clear she hasn't done anything wrong? Doesn't the verse above
>suggest that God gave Angel Gabriel a briefing on Mary before he
>arrived? Can we safely assume that since Mary has been explicitly told
>that she 1) Has nothing to fear and 2) has found favor with God, that
>she will not need to discuss anything regarding any doubts or concerns
>about issues 1) and 2)?
Your whole paragraph is stupid, bubba. Havoc never said mary had or
may have committed adultery. He said she was protesting because the
angel had told her she was going to have a baby. What would YOUR
thirteen-year-old daughter (if you had one) say if some stranger told
her SHE was going to have a baby? She would probably say something
like, "I can't be pregnant! I'm a virgin! I've never had sex with
ANY boy!" THAT is the kind of response the angel got from mary.
Does that mean that your daughter would NEVER have children by a
husband? NO! It means that AT THE TIME SHE SAID IT, she had never
had sexual intercourse.
I know I have used some "big words" here, but perhaps if you REALLY
CONCENTRATE, you might understand how the language works!
>
>> This was a capital offense. Go look at Joseph's
>> words about putting her away - for her safety.
>
>One problem havoc, Joseph hasn't been told anything by an angel. He had
>trouble believeing and/or understanding what Mary was telling him.
He did indeed, until he had a dream.
Matt 1:19-21
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make
her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But
while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be
afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you
shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their
sins.
NKJV
Of course, you cannot read the BIG words in the passage, but you might
be able to understand SOME of it.
>
>> The concern there was
>> with whether she'd sinned.
>
>More nonsense. The angel did not ask her if she found favor with God,
>he is TELLING her. There is no concern here, you have completely missed
>the point of these verses. Your entire case is that she has concern
>over issues 1) and 2), right after the angel said no to issues 1) and
>2).
Joseph wondered if she had sinned, and he planned to put her away
secretly.
>
>> She denied that she had.
>
>To deny something you have to be accused. Please cite the verse where
>the angel accuses her.
Havoc never said the angel did that. YOU did. And as usual, you
didn't "Track" accurately, and you lost your way.
>
>>What you're trying
>> to work in there is a bunch of hooeey.
>
>You are mistaken.
No he is not.
>
>> It isn't supported by the tense,
>
>Wrong.
>
>> by the grammer,
>
>Wrong.
>
>>by the context
>
>Wrong.
>
>> or by anything else for that matter.
>
>My position is supported by the tense, grammar and context. Read what
>Angel Gabriel says carefully.
Okay. Let's play a game with the grammar of the passage that says,
Luke 1:34
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
a man?"
NKJV
YOU TELL US which of the words in her quote (between the " and the
other ") is the verb?
THEN YOU TELL US what the tense of that word is IN GREEK AND ENGLISH.
THEN YOU TELL US what the voice of that word is in GREEK.
THEN YOU TELL US hat the mood of that word is in Greek.
THEN YOU TELL US what the adverb is in the GREEK.
Personally, I think you are a fraud and cannot do that at all.
THEN show us the tense of that verb in English, and tell us what the
adverb in English is.
You are a FRAUD, bubba, a brainwashed, indoctrinated FRAUD, nothing
more. And you are too stupid to know better than to argue things you
don't understand.
>>
>> The fact of the matter is that the guys that made this stuff up
>
>The only one making something up is you claiming that Mary has to tell
>an angel that she did not sin, right after the angel told her she found
>favor with God. I need something more to come to such an illogical
>conclusion.
He didn't say that; YOU did. HE said she said she hadn't had sex with
anyone, a normal response when someone tells a young virgin she is
going to have a baby.
>
>>were
>> so ignorant of both Greek and of Hebrew
>
>Luke was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Mary spoke in Aramaic.
Aramaic, Greek, and probably real Hebrew as well. Most folks in that
area have always been polylingual. She couldn't have shopped in the
market without knowing the Koine Greek that the Bible was written in.
>
>>that these are not the only
>> things they demonstrably fouled up. "Binding and loosing" is yet
>> another.
>
>If you want me to correct you on that, I would be happy too.
Yah, yah, we know you have some "spin" and CONJECTURE about that too.
And we know that you would have NO scripture to support you, any more
than you have any here that genuinely does.
>
>> They were ignorant of the actual meaning and redefined it in
>> their ignorance to support their own ends.
>
>I noticed you did that with Luke chapter 1.
No, he recognized the tense of the verbs and CORRECTED YOUR ERROR
there.
>
>> Now they look like
>> intellectual morons and frauds for having it so wrong,
>
>Unsupported assertions.
Based upon the FACT that you have been claiming that the verb is "both
present and future tense" in Luke 1, something that just plain is not
so and CANNOT BE so.
>
>> yet, I'm sure you
>> think them brilliant cause you were duped by them.
>
>I have no idea who you are talking about, I am reading the text.
Through the brainwashed filter of your brainwashed mind.
>
>> Good for you.
>
>And if you are drinking HiC too, good for you.
And if you will stop playing with yourself, good for you too!
>
>> Keep
>> up the bad work.
>
>Before casting judgement, do you want me to explain how I came to my
>conclusion?
ONLY if you can demonstrate the verb tense in "How can this be, since
I know no man" is both present perfect and future tense.
LOL!
>
>> You'll pay for it sooner or later.
>
>How much?
Whatever God meets out for praying to the wrong goddess. (No bubba,
there IS NO "right" goddess, so you don't have to begin looking!).
>
>> Or you can listen
>> to some of these people who actually know what they're talking about.
>
>Sure, who would that be?
>
>> There's an idea for you - someone else might be right...
>
>I am more than open to being shown that I am wrong, but so far your
>efforts have failed.
So far both he and I have shown you to be an absolute idiot and an
uneducated fool when it comes to grammar and reasoned (logical)
discourse!
And you are too STUPID TO NOTICE!!!!!
Lol!
Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
WHAT A LAUGH!
in Christ Jesus,
Christian (a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the heathen
"catholic" religion)
chri...@fiberpipe.net
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>David wrote:
>
Hey havoc,
I am almost ready to stop posting to this idiot, David. He is so
brainwashed and so uneducated in grammar and reasoned discourse. . .I
get tired of repeating myself with him.
He sure is FUNNY though, in his efforts to show us that the verb tense
is BOTH present AND future!
And the way he squirms in his "explanations," coming up with such
far-fetched theories!
Aaah well. Back to work. Can't have any more fun tonight!
in Christ Jesus,
Christian
Joshua Calvert
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Thanks, I was depressed before I read that joke.
--
----
Paraphrasing Bill Maher, Bush has lost, under his five year watch, two
skyscrapers,part of the Pentagon, four airliners, thousands of American
lives, a huge economic surplus, the trust of the American people, a Space
Shuttle, and now an ENTIRE MAJOR CITY.
But Republicans say, "Bush can not be blamed" or "It's Clinton's fault."
What will be the next disaster for which Bush can't be blamed?
David
chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >havoc wrote:
> >
> >You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
> >
> >> >
> >> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
> >> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
> >>
> >
> >Very true, under the Old Covenant.
>
> Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
> true.
Wrong. No one could get into heaven until the New Covenant. That is a
big change.
> >
> >> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
> >> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
> >> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
> >>
> >
> >According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
> >person physically dies, their love is now perished.
> >
> >Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
>
> From the Earth it does.
Ecclesiastes does not support you here, it says perish, not perish only
on Earth.
> They are no longer here.
This is true, but has no bearing on the new Covenant.
> >
> >Many things Ecclesiastes mentions were true only under the Old
> >Covenant, under the New Covenant, they no longer apply.
> >
> ONLY if they are changed by Jesus. NOT if they are changed by carnal
> man.
Then we are fine, Jesus did change it.
>
> >> - Forever
> >> - in Anything
> >>
> >> All inclusive.
> >
> >All Old Covenant.
>
> And this matter is NOT CHANGED in the New Covenant.
Yes it is.
> >
> >> Door slammed with prejudice.
> >>
> >
> >You really want to slam the door on Christian love in heaven?
>
> No,
Good, then we agree this changed with the new Covenant.
>just on Christians who are in heaven continuing to live and love
> here.
Again, Ecclesiastes makes no such distinction, because it is only
talking about the old Covenant.
> They are no longer here. They no longer have any contact with
> here. There is a GAP.
Wrong, as you pointed out, those in heaven can pray for us, not true
under the old Covenant of which Ecclesiastes speaks.
> >
> >> Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
> >>
> >> 1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
> >> thenceforth.
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
> >> would be adultery, not merely fornication.
> >
> >Any other man than the one she was betrothed, true.
> >
> >> Adultery is a capital offense under the law.
> >>
> >
> >True.
> >
> >> 2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
> >
> >Wrong. There was no Judaic marriage consumation enforcers, who made
> >sure every marriage was consumated.
>
> Gen 2:23-24
> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
> she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
> cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
> KJV
>
First, not only have I already refuted you on this because you cannot
have one flesh with divorce and remarriage, but two, you have not cited
a Judaic marriage consumation enforcer in the verses above.
> You may PRETEND anything you wish.
Citing the Biblical text to refute your errors is not pretending.
> You can CHANGE NOTHING.
I have changed nothing.
> THAT IS
> THE CONSUMATION OF MARRIAGE. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
>
> >> It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
> >> consumation, the bride is only betrothed.
> >
> >You forgot to mention the part that betrothal IS the actual marriage
> >itself, without the consumation.
>
> No,
Yes.
> Marriage was the actual marriage.
Which begins with the betrothal.
> "Betrothal" was a "binding
> engagement"
Wrong, it was the beginning of the marriage. To back out of a
betrothal, you had to divorce. You cannot divorce unless you are
married in the first place.
> in which the couple lived together for a year, but did not
> have sex.
Right, betrothal was the part of the marriage during which there was no
consumation. Although there were differing rabbinical schools of
thought on this.
>THEN there was the marriage ceremony.
>
You mean the wedding. Which occurs after the betrothal, one year into
the marriage.
> Jesus didn't make wine at a "betrothal." He made it at a WEDDING.
True, that couple had been married for about a year.
> >
> >> In Mary's case, if there was
> >> no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
> >> Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
> >> marriage is consumated.
> >
> >Then you definitely have a serious theological problem, Joseph is not
> >Jesus' father. I have no such theological problem, as I know the Jewish
> >history and law. Jews had no engagement back then like we have today,
> >Mary and Joseph's betrothal is the marriage, and fulfilled the
> >requirements for Jesus being the heir to the throne of David.
> >
> >> This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
> >> the marriage is proper.
> >
> >True, and it was proper, it just wasn't consumated.
>
> And YOUR STORY IS CONCOCTED OUT OF THIN AIR
Wrong, the Biblical text supports my position.
>BY IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW
> THE BIBLE.
Unsupported assertion.
> >
> >> You can consult rabbinical authority and they
> >> will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
> >>
> >
> >Rabbinical authority has nothing to say about a virgin birth. I am
> >afraid that the rabbis overlooked that possibility.
>
> PURE CONJECTURE on your part.
Really? Then please cite where the rabbis discussed virgin birth, and
what happens with regards to inheritance when that happens.
> PURE NONSENSE on your part as well.
>
Still waiting for that citation.
> MAJOR parts of your religion are based on nothing but CONJECTURE.
Wrong, it is based on the Biblical text.
> >
> >> 3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
> >> no matter any agreement, she would be in sin.
> >
> >Wrong. There is no sin if Joseph and Mary had a prior agreement to not
> >consumate the marriage. Which Luke chapter 1 makes clear they did.
>
> So far you have shown NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN CONJECTURE that they had
> such an agreement.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>You have NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ONE PLACE in Luke
> chapter 1 where they made any such "agreement."
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >> You don't, again, know jewish law.
> >
> >Wrong. I am very familiar with Jewish law. I have even corrected your
> >error.
>
> Not today, you haven't.
Yes I have. I have corrected your errors as well.
> You have shown nothing but pure conjecture
> and fabrication.
The Biblical text and the historical record support my position, they
are not conjecture or fabrication.
> >
> >> You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
> >> antithetical to Judaism.
> >>
> >
> >I am not imposing anything upon Judaism. I am refuting notions that
> >Christian imposes on Joseph and Mary which are entirely antithetical to
> >the Bible.
>
> So far you have NOT SHOWN EVEN ONE VERSE to support your position that
> they had any such "prior ageement"
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>or that mary remained a virgin.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> You have shown NOTHING from the Bible,
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>but your own CONJECTURE that
> they "must have had a prior agreement."
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>
> Major parts of your heretical religion is based on pure conjecture.
The Biblical text is not conjecture.
> >
> >> In essence, you've put Mary in sin
> >
> >Such a task is beyond my abilities, I cannot do the impossible.
>
> No, you can't.
Thank you, I don't know why havoc would accuse me of that.
>But you CAN LIE
I am not lying.
>and claim she did things that would be
> sinful, like withhold herself from her husband.
Wrong, I have already refuted you on this, they agreed before the
marriage to abstain, there was no sin.
>And PRETEND THEY
> "MUST HAVE" had an agreement to do that when the Bible NEVER SAYS THEY
> DID.
>
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> As I have said, major parts of your heretical religion is based on
> pure conjecture.
The Biblical text is not conjecture.
> >
> >
> >>and denied Christ the rightful
> >> inheritance to David's throne
> >
> >Again, you assign me power that is beyond my means.
> >
> >> via your nonsense.
> >
> > The Bible is not nonsense.
>
> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS.
I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
my position.
> >
> >>This would be called
> >> blasphemy..
> >
> >The Bible is not blasphemy.
>
> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS BLASPHEMY.
I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
my position.
> >
> >>but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
> >> fullfillment of prophecy,
> >
> >Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
> >
> >> denies him Kingship
> >
> >Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
>
> And mary had other children, by Joseph.
Wrong. The Bible makes clear she had no other children, and remained a
perpetual virgin.
> >
> >>and thusly destroys
> >> everything he came to do.
> >
> >No one has that power.
> >
> >>If you don't understand this, you got bigger
> >> problems.
> >
> >Disagreeing with you is not a problem.
>
> But reasoning IS a real problem you have.
Pointing out the flaws in your conclusions and reading of the text is
not a problem.
>
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT the so-called
> "catholic" religion)
The Catholic is not in quotes.
David
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >havoc wrote:
> >> David wrote:
> >>
> >> > Wrong. "How can this be, since I do not know man."
> >>
> >> One, you don't know the first thing about Greek,
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >> much less about
> >> the context in which this statement is made,
> >
> >Yes I do.
> >
> >> nor the legalistic
> >> nuance.
> >
> >Wrong again.
> >
> >> Ignorance is bliss when you're an indoctrinate, eh?
> >>
> >
> >I wouldn't know.
>
> So far in this post, he has NAILED you on every point.
If by nailed you mean havoc flailing around helplessly as I shred his
arguments and establish my case, then I guess you could say nailed.
> Your sheer
> IGNORANCE of BASIC GRAMMAR in English and/or Greek is underwhelming!
Correcting your flawed reading of the text is not ignorance of basic
grammar.
> >
> >> The tense of this is present, not future.
> >
> >Wrong.
>
> He is only wrong if you have no understanding of Grammar at all.
Wrong. He is wrong because the angel is speaking in future tense, and
Mary is answering in present and future tense.
> YOU
> clearly have nothing but your PRESUMPTIONS and INDOCTRINATION to
> support you;
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>the LANGUAGE OF THE TEXT DROPS YOU LIKE A ROCK!
Wrong, it is the rock which supports my position. The rock has landed
on havoc.
> >
> >> And the context reinforces
> >> the notion.
> >
> >Wrong again. This context reinforces that she is speaking with regards
> >to the future.
>
> Not in any language known to man.
Wrong. English, Greek and Latin are all known to man, and all agree on
Mary using present and future tense.
> >
> >> She is speaking in protest as to her current condition.
> >
> >I noticed that you have provided no support for your position, that
> >would be because you don't have any.
>
> The Greek Language used, and the English language it is translated by
> all translators INTO supports him.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE apparently,
> of basic grammar.
>
You are mistaken.
> What grade in school are you? 'Fifth? Fourth?
Who said I am in school?
>Naah, even my
> fourth-graders knew the difference between present tense and future
> tense verbs!
>
Good, maybe they can help you on Luke chapter 1. You have yet to grasp
its meaning.
> WHAT A MORON you are!
Unsupported assertion.
> >
> >> She said "I have not known a man" Ie "I haven't broken the law and
> >> committed adultery."
> >
> >Utter nonsense. You actually think she has to tell God that she hasn't
> >committed adultery? You actually think she has to tell the angel that
> >she hasn't committed adultery? What did the angel say to her before she
> >said anything?
>
> She wasn't speaking to God. She was speaking to His Angel in that
> passage.
Who is God's messenger.
>Are you now going to pretend (PRESUME) that she was speaking
> to YHWH?
Are you going to pretend(PRESUME) that she has to tell the angel that
she hasn't committed adultery?
> >
> >Luke 1:30 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast
> >found favour with God.
> >
> >Please explain to me havoc, how God could find favor in a woman that
> >has or may have committed adultery? Or is your position that the Angel
> >Gabriel is an idiot? Or maybe Mary is an idiot, because right after
> >the angel tells her she has found favor with God, she still needs to
> >make clear she hasn't done anything wrong? Doesn't the verse above
> >suggest that God gave Angel Gabriel a briefing on Mary before he
> >arrived? Can we safely assume that since Mary has been explicitly told
> >that she 1) Has nothing to fear and 2) has found favor with God, that
> >she will not need to discuss anything regarding any doubts or concerns
> >about issues 1) and 2)?
>
> Your whole paragraph is stupid,
Unsupported assertion.
>bubba.
Who is bubba?
> Havoc never said mary had or
> may have committed adultery.
And I did not say he did say that. Try and keep up.
> He said she was protesting because the
> angel had told her she was going to have a baby.
More or less what havoc said, but he is wrong. Mary is not protesting
at all. If she was protesting, the angel would have dealt with her
harshly. Instead, she asks a question because she does not see a
possible answer, seeking clarification, not protesting.
> What would YOUR
> thirteen-year-old daughter (if you had one)
You have set yourself up for a very bad fall Christian, brace yourself,
you aren't going to recover from this answer.
> say if some stranger told
> her SHE was going to have a baby?
Well, gee Christian, let's think about that?
What would she say? Hmmm....well, it would probably depend on...IF SHE
WAS ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED, AND PLANNING TO HAVE CHILDREN!
> She would probably say something
> like, "I can't be pregnant! I'm a virgin! I've never had sex with
> ANY boy!"
IF the angel said she was pregnant or immediately about to become
pregnant, then yes, this would be a possible answer. Is that true with
Mary?
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS
No, not true for Mary, the angel said sometime in the future, when is
unspecified.
So if my daughter was engaged to be married, and was planning to have
children, and was told by an angel she would conceive and bear a son,
then guess what? Her reaction would not be one of protest or
questioning how it would be possible, but gratitude. Her question
would be when, not how.
And she would not ask "How can this be?" Since she was planning on the
how once she was married.
>THAT is the kind of response the angel got from mary.
>
Wrong. That is exactly the response the angel did not get from Mary.
She is betrothed, and yet, she did not respond with your supposed
scenario, or my probable scenario.
> Does that mean that your daughter would NEVER have children by a
> husband? NO! It means that AT THE TIME SHE SAID IT, she had never
> had sexual intercourse.
>
Wrong. That is not Mary speaking about just the immediate point in
time. The angel did not say now. Mary does not ask the question a woman
engaged to be married would ask. She asks how.
> I know I have used some "big words" here,
You call those big words? You flatter yourself.
>but perhaps if you REALLY
> CONCENTRATE, you might understand how the language works!
I have, and this is what you have missed.
Mary asked how, despite the fact that she was married to Joseph,
because her marriage was already pre-planned to abstain from sex. She
and Joseph were not planning to have children, even though they were
betrothed. That question tells us everything, it shows why you are
wrong about the supposed 13 year old girl scenario. She was not having
relations with Joseph anytime in the future. That is why she asked the
angel, "How shall this be?"
> >
> >> This was a capital offense. Go look at Joseph's
> >> words about putting her away - for her safety.
> >
> >One problem havoc, Joseph hasn't been told anything by an angel. He had
> >trouble believeing and/or understanding what Mary was telling him.
>
> He did indeed, until he had a dream.
>
Right.
> Matt 1:19-21
> 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make
> her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly. 20 But
> while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord
> appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be
> afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in
> her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will bring forth a Son, and you
> shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their
> sins.
> NKJV
>
> Of course, you cannot read the BIG words in the passage,
You are mistaken.
>but you might
> be able to understand SOME of it.
I did more than that.
> >
> >> The concern there was
> >> with whether she'd sinned.
> >
> >More nonsense. The angel did not ask her if she found favor with God,
> >he is TELLING her. There is no concern here, you have completely missed
> >the point of these verses. Your entire case is that she has concern
> >over issues 1) and 2), right after the angel said no to issues 1) and
> >2).
>
> Joseph wondered if she had sinned, and he planned to put her away
> secretly.
Right.
> >
> >> She denied that she had.
> >
> >To deny something you have to be accused. Please cite the verse where
> >the angel accuses her.
>
> Havoc never said the angel did that.
No, havoc did not think through his absurd claim. He can feel free to
cite the verse for his unsupported unspoken premise, or retract. That
unsupported, unspoken premise is Mary has to deny she had committed
adultery.
> YOU did.
I pointed out havoc's unsupported unspoken premise, this is true.
> And as usual, you
> didn't "Track" accurately, and you lost your way.
Requiring havoc to support his unsupported unspoken premises is
tracking accurately.
> >
> >>What you're trying
> >> to work in there is a bunch of hooeey.
> >
> >You are mistaken.
>
> No he is not.
Yes he is.
> >
> >> It isn't supported by the tense,
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >> by the grammer,
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >>by the context
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >> or by anything else for that matter.
> >
> >My position is supported by the tense, grammar and context. Read what
> >Angel Gabriel says carefully.
>
> Okay. Let's play a game with the grammar of the passage that says,
> Luke 1:34
> 34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
> a man?"
> NKJV
>
Poor translation. Try the older King James
"How shall this be, since I know not man."
> YOU TELL US which of the words in her quote (between the " and the
> other ") is the verb?
>
Shall and know.
> THEN YOU TELL US what the tense of that word is IN GREEK AND ENGLISH.
Future tense.
> THEN YOU TELL US what the voice of that word is in GREEK.
Ok, I will do this, but first, you have to fulfill your promise to
answer my questions, the promise you made months ago.
> THEN YOU TELL US hat the mood of that word is in Greek.
> THEN YOU TELL US what the adverb is in the GREEK.
>
Agreed, once you answer my questions.
> Personally, I think you are a fraud and cannot do that at all.
>
You think wrong.
> THEN show us the tense of that verb in English, and tell us what the
> adverb in English is.
>
Agreed, but first, you keep your promise. Fair is fair.
> You are a FRAUD,
Unsupported assertion.
>bubba,
Who is bubba?
>a brainwashed, indoctrinated FRAUD,
Correcting your errors in reading the Biblical text is not fraud.
> nothing
> more. And you are too stupid
Unsupported assertion.
>to know better than to argue things you
> don't understand.
I do understand.
> >>
> >> The fact of the matter is that the guys that made this stuff up
> >
> >The only one making something up is you claiming that Mary has to tell
> >an angel that she did not sin, right after the angel told her she found
> >favor with God. I need something more to come to such an illogical
> >conclusion.
>
> He didn't say that;
Yes he did. He said she is telling the angel she did not commit
adultery.
>YOU did.
No he did.
> HE said she said she hadn't had sex with
> anyone,
Are you unaware adultery is a sin?
>a normal response when someone tells a young virgin she is
> going to have a baby.
Wrong. A woman engaged to be married and planning to have children is
not going to give that as a response. The only way to draw that
conclusion is to begin from your own erroneous unspoken assumptions.
> >
> >>were
> >> so ignorant of both Greek and of Hebrew
> >
> >Luke was written in Greek, not Hebrew. Mary spoke in Aramaic.
>
> Aramaic, Greek, and probably real Hebrew as well.
Probably?
> Most folks in that
> area have always been polylingual. She couldn't have shopped in the
> market without knowing the Koine Greek that the Bible was written in.
Wrong. Shopping in the local markets would only require the local
language.
> >
> >>that these are not the only
> >> things they demonstrably fouled up. "Binding and loosing" is yet
> >> another.
> >
> >If you want me to correct you on that, I would be happy too.
>
> Yah, yah, we know you have some "spin" and CONJECTURE about that too.
The Biblical text is not spin or conjecture.
> And we know that you would have NO scripture to support you,
Wrong.
>any more
> than you have any here that genuinely does.
I have Luke Chapter 1.
> >
> >> They were ignorant of the actual meaning and redefined it in
> >> their ignorance to support their own ends.
> >
> >I noticed you did that with Luke chapter 1.
>
> No, he recognized the tense of the verbs and CORRECTED YOUR ERROR
> there.
Wrong. He made an error while trying to make a case that contradicts my
own.
> >
> >> Now they look like
> >> intellectual morons and frauds for having it so wrong,
> >
> >Unsupported assertions.
>
> Based upon the FACT
Wrong. Based on unsupported assertions.
>that you have been claiming that the verb is "both
> present and future tense" in Luke 1,
Wrong. I did not say "the verb" is both present and future tense, but
that Mary is replying in present and future tense.
> something that just plain is not
> so and CANNOT BE so.
Ok, if that is the cause for the confusion, then let me correct. Mary
is replying in both present and future tense. The verb is future tense.
> >
> >> yet, I'm sure you
> >> think them brilliant cause you were duped by them.
> >
> >I have no idea who you are talking about, I am reading the text.
>
> Through the brainwashed filter of your brainwashed mind.
Unsupported assertions.
> >
> >> Good for you.
> >
> >And if you are drinking HiC too, good for you.
>
> And if you will stop playing with yourself, good for you too!
Are you serious? Is that the best you can do to refute me?
> >
> >> Keep
> >> up the bad work.
> >
> >Before casting judgement, do you want me to explain how I came to my
> >conclusion?
>
> ONLY if you can demonstrate the verb tense in "How can this be, since
> I know no man" is both present perfect and future tense.
>
You mean "How shall this be, since I know not man?"
Do you see the future tense?
> LOL!
Very good, keep the hysterics out of the laughter.
> >
> >> You'll pay for it sooner or later.
> >
> >How much?
>
> Whatever God meets out for praying to the wrong goddess.
Wrong goddess?
>(No bubba,
Who is bubba?
> there IS NO "right" goddess, so you don't have to begin looking!).
I agree, there is no goddess that we Catholics pray to.
> >
> >> Or you can listen
> >> to some of these people who actually know what they're talking about.
> >
> >Sure, who would that be?
> >
> >> There's an idea for you - someone else might be right...
> >
> >I am more than open to being shown that I am wrong, but so far your
> >efforts have failed.
>
>
> So far both he and I have shown you to be an absolute idiot
You guys do an extremely poor job of showing that. I just keep
correcting your errors.
> and an
> uneducated fool when it comes to grammar
I have corrected you on the verb tense.
>and reasoned (logical)
> discourse!
>
I have engaged in reasoned, logical discourse. I only see you whining
and name-calling.
> And you are too STUPID TO NOTICE!!!!!
>
Case in point.
> Lol!
> Hahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
>
> WHAT A LAUGH!
>
Aww, and you were so close to finishing the post. Remember Christian,
no hysterical laughter.
> in Christ Jesus,
Wow, you accuse those who disagree with you of playing with themselves,
and then you have the gall to sign in Chirst Jesus? You might want to
rethink whether Jesus would want to have his name placed with you.
> Christian (a member of Jesus' church, but NOT a member of the heathen
> "catholic" religion)
The Catholic is not in quotes, and it is not heathen.
David
> havoc <ha...@insightbb.com>, posted this little bit of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >David wrote:
> >
> Hey havoc,
>
> I am almost ready to stop posting to this idiot, David.
More whining and name-calling. Are you going to post anything
substance?
>He is so
> brainwashed and so uneducated in grammar and reasoned discourse
More unsupported assertions and whining.
>. . .I
> get tired of repeating myself with him.
>
I see, Christian thinks that if he just repeats the same error over and
over again, it will finally be correct.
> He sure is FUNNY though,
I am glad I could provide you with some amusement while I correct your
errors with the citation of the Biblical text.
>in his efforts to show us that the verb tense
> is BOTH present AND future!
>
Sorry for the confusion, Mary was replying in present and future tense,
not that a particular verb itself is both present and future tense.
> And the way he squirms in his "explanations,"
When Christian writes squirms, he means my reading the Biblical text,
and correcting his errors.
> coming up with such
> far-fetched theories!
>
Here Christian means the logical conclusion drawn from the reading of
the Biblical text.
> Aaah well. Back to work. Can't have any more fun tonight!
>
Adios. See you tomorrow!
> in Christ Jesus,
> Christian
chri...@fiberpipe.net
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >havoc wrote:
>> >
>> >You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
>> >> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Very true, under the Old Covenant.
>>
>> Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
>> true.
>
>Wrong. No one could get into heaven until the New Covenant. That is a
>big change.
While that was changed, the fact that once people died they no longer
had any contact with those of us on this earth except through witches
and mediums (which are considered evil by God), THAT DID NOT CHANGE.
NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE says that people in heaven hear people on earth
speaking at all.
>> >
>> >> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
>> >> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
>> >> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
>> >>
>> >
>> >According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
>> >person physically dies, their love is now perished.
>> >
>> >Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
>>
>> From the Earth it does.
>
>Ecclesiastes does not support you here, it says perish, not perish only
>on Earth.
And it is speaking from here on earth about us here on earth.
Your "theology" involves a lot of presumption on your part.
>
>> They are no longer here.
>
>This is true, but has no bearing on the new Covenant.
The New Covenant does NOT SAY that people who have died and gone to
heaven can hear you, David. For your religion to PRESUME that they
can is nothing more than PRESUMPTION.
>> >
>> >Many things Ecclesiastes mentions were true only under the Old
>> >Covenant, under the New Covenant, they no longer apply.
>> >
>> ONLY if they are changed by Jesus. NOT if they are changed by carnal
>> man.
>
>Then we are fine, Jesus did change it.
SHOW US SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS that people who have died can hear us.
God can hear us, and Jesus is God. But the Bible NEVER SAYS THAT EVEN
ONE OTHER PERSON CAN HEAR US FROM HEAVEN. When we die, as it says in
Ecclesiastes, earth has nothing to do with us any more.
>> >> - Forever
>> >> - in Anything
>> >>
>> >> All inclusive.
>> >
>> >All Old Covenant.
>>
>> And this matter is NOT CHANGED in the New Covenant.
>
>Yes it is.
SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE where it says in the NEW COVENANT that the dead
who are in heaven can hear you, or are listenin to you.
>> >
>> >> Door slammed with prejudice.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You really want to slam the door on Christian love in heaven?
>>
>> No,
>
>Good, then we agree this changed with the new Covenant.
No, we don't agree with your PRESUMPTION. You cannot read, obviously,
either in the Greek or in the English.
>
>>just on Christians who are in heaven continuing to live and love
>> here.
>
>Again, Ecclesiastes makes no such distinction, because it is only
>talking about the old Covenant.
It doesn't need to. It is talking about communication between the
living and the dead, WITH NO DISTINCTION between the old and new
covenants.
>
>> They are no longer here. They no longer have any contact with
>> here. There is a GAP.
>
>Wrong, as you pointed out, those in heaven can pray for us, not true
>under the old Covenant of which Ecclesiastes speaks.
Those people could pray for us in Paridise, before they went to
heaven. But in BOTH CASES, there is no contact between them and us.
You may talk to yourself all you want, convincing yourself you are
talking to them, but you are only talking to yourself. NOT ONE
SCRIPTURE SAYS YOU CAN BE HEARD BY THEM.
>> >
>> >> Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
>> >>
>> >> 1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
>> >> thenceforth.
>> >
>> >True.
>> >
>> >> If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
>> >> would be adultery, not merely fornication.
>> >
>> >Any other man than the one she was betrothed, true.
>> >
>> >> Adultery is a capital offense under the law.
>> >>
>> >
>> >True.
>> >
>> >> 2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
>> >
>> >Wrong. There was no Judaic marriage consumation enforcers, who made
>> >sure every marriage was consumated.
>>
>> Gen 2:23-24
>> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
>> she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
>> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
>> cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
>> KJV
>>
>
>First, not only have I already refuted you on this because you cannot
>have one flesh with divorce and remarriage, but two, you have not cited
>a Judaic marriage consumation enforcer in the verses above.
First, you have NEVER refuted this since you have NEVER demonstrated
that a man can "cleave unto his wife and they become one flesh"
without sexual intercourse. Secondly, you have NEVER demonstrated
that you cannot then "become one" with a harlot, which blows your
theory into the pit where you made it up from.
>
>> You may PRETEND anything you wish.
>
>Citing the Biblical text to refute your errors is not pretending.
So far the only Biblical texts you have "cited" do not say what you
claim they do. Your bogus claim that
Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
is somehow in the "present-future" tense is sheer linguistic nonsense.
Such a verb form does not exist.
>
>> You can CHANGE NOTHING.
>
>I have changed nothing.
No, you have sure TRIED to though, by putting your "spin" and "special
verb-tenses" on things.
>
>> THAT IS
>> THE CONSUMATION OF MARRIAGE. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
>
>Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
Matt 19:8-9
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries
her who is divorced commits adultery
NKJV
Jesus is telling him that God does NOT approve of divorce.
It does NOT SAY ANYWHERE that marriage is NOT about leaving your
parents and CLEAVING (HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, and BECOMING ONE
FLESH WITH your spouse, just as Genesis says it it.
So far your "special spin" doesn't work.
>>
>> >> It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
>> >> consumation, the bride is only betrothed.
>> >
>> >You forgot to mention the part that betrothal IS the actual marriage
>> >itself, without the consumation.
>>
>> No,
>
>Yes.
Lie to yourself if you wish. It doesn't change the fact that marriage
came AFTER the betrothal.
>
>> Marriage was the actual marriage.
>
>Which begins with the betrothal.
>
>> "Betrothal" was a "binding
>> engagement"
>
>Wrong, it was the beginning of the marriage. To back out of a
>betrothal, you had to divorce. You cannot divorce unless you are
>married in the first place.
Nonsense! Because the betrothal was considered much more serious than
"engagement" today is, it did indeed get a document of divorce, but
that does not make it marriage.
>
>> in which the couple lived together for a year, but did not
>> have sex.
>
>Right, betrothal was the part of the marriage during which there was no
>consumation. Although there were differing rabbinical schools of
>thought on this.
Oh, NOW you WANT to accept the rabbis, whereas in a previous post you
pooh-poohed the idea! How convenient.
And since you AGREE BELOW that they had the marriage ceremony A YEAR
AFTER the beginning of the engagement (betrothal), you now admit, they
were NOT YET WED!
>
>>THEN there was the marriage ceremony.
>>
>
>You mean the wedding. Which occurs after the betrothal, one year into
>the marriage.
>
>> Jesus didn't make wine at a "betrothal." He made it at a WEDDING.
>
>True, that couple had been married for about a year.
SHOW US SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO, or admit it is just more of your
SUPPOSITION.
Your heretical religion depends A LOT on Supposition, doesn't it?
>> >
>> >> In Mary's case, if there was
>> >> no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
>> >> Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
>> >> marriage is consumated.
>> >
>> >Then you definitely have a serious theological problem, Joseph is not
>> >Jesus' father. I have no such theological problem, as I know the Jewish
>> >history and law. Jews had no engagement back then like we have today,
>> >Mary and Joseph's betrothal is the marriage, and fulfilled the
>> >requirements for Jesus being the heir to the throne of David.
>> >
>> >> This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
>> >> the marriage is proper.
>> >
>> >True, and it was proper, it just wasn't consumated.
>>
>> And YOUR STORY IS CONCOCTED OUT OF THIN AIR
>
>Wrong, the Biblical text supports my position.
So far it does not. So far you have NOT SHOWN ONE PLACE IN THE BIBLE
where it says mary would remain a virgin after Jesus was born. All
you have done is that you have INVENTED a "present-future verb tense"
for the verb in mary's words (which you cannot identify) in Luke 1:34.
>
>>BY IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW
>> THE BIBLE.
>
>Unsupported assertion.
DEMONSTRATED FACT, but you are too stupid to even notice!
>
>> >
>> >> You can consult rabbinical authority and they
>> >> will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Rabbinical authority has nothing to say about a virgin birth. I am
>> >afraid that the rabbis overlooked that possibility.
>>
>> PURE CONJECTURE on your part.
>
>Really? Then please cite where the rabbis discussed virgin birth, and
>what happens with regards to inheritance when that happens.
LOL. I never said they had anything to say about inheritance in the
case of virgin birth. YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that they "overlooked"
anything. That is PURE CONJECTURE on your part.
>
>> PURE NONSENSE on your part as well.
>>
>
>Still waiting for that citation.
I don't cite YOUR false claims, bubba.
>
>> MAJOR parts of your religion are based on nothing but CONJECTURE.
>
>Wrong, it is based on the Biblical text.
NOT in any you have given us "spins" on so far. NOT IN ANY SCRIPTURE
you have produced. There IS NO "present-future" verb tense in Greek
OR English.
>> >
>> >> 3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
>> >> no matter any agreement, she would be in sin.
>> >
>> >Wrong. There is no sin if Joseph and Mary had a prior agreement to not
>> >consumate the marriage. Which Luke chapter 1 makes clear they did.
>>
>> So far you have shown NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN CONJECTURE that they had
>> such an agreement.
>
>Wrong.
SHOW US IN SCRIPTURE THAT MARY AND JOSEPH HAD A "PRIOR AGREEMENT TO
NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN!
You CANNOT, of course.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
>
>>You have NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ONE PLACE in Luke
>> chapter 1 where they made any such "agreement."
>
>Wrong.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
Okay, now WHERE IS THIS AGREEMENT THAT SHE WILL _NEVER_ KNOW A MAN?
SHOW US THE TEXT, bubba.
>> >
>> >> You don't, again, know jewish law.
>> >
>> >Wrong. I am very familiar with Jewish law. I have even corrected your
>> >error.
>>
>> Not today, you haven't.
>
>Yes I have. I have corrected your errors as well.
Again, you have not. When you simply say "Wrong," you are not
"correcting" anything at all. When your scriptures don't match your
claims about them, you are not "correcting" anything at all.
So far, you have corrected nobody and nothing.
>
>> You have shown nothing but pure conjecture
>> and fabrication.
>
>The Biblical text and the historical record support my position, they
>are not conjecture or fabrication.
So far you have not shown ANY PLACE wher eBiblical text OR historical
record support your record, and you have fabricated a brand new
"present-future" verb tense.
>> >
>> >> You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
>> >> antithetical to Judaism.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I am not imposing anything upon Judaism. I am refuting notions that
>> >Christian imposes on Joseph and Mary which are entirely antithetical to
>> >the Bible.
>>
>> So far you have NOT SHOWN EVEN ONE VERSE to support your position that
>> they had any such "prior ageement"
>
>Wrong.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US!
>
>>or that mary remained a virgin.
>
>Wrong.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>> You have shown NOTHING from the Bible,
>
>Wrong.
Sayhing "Wrong" doesn't prove anything, bubba.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>>but your own CONJECTURE that
>> they "must have had a prior agreement."
>
>Wrong.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>>
>> Major parts of your heretical religion is based on pure conjecture.
>
>The Biblical text is not conjecture.
Your misuse of it is. That text has NOTHING IN IT about any "prior
agreement to never consumate their marriage."
The Bible doesn't lie, but YOU DO.
>> >
>> >> In essence, you've put Mary in sin
>> >
>> >Such a task is beyond my abilities, I cannot do the impossible.
>>
>> No, you can't.
>
>Thank you, I don't know why havoc would accuse me of that.
>
>>But you CAN LIE
>
>I am not lying.
You have, in this post, many times.
>
>>and claim she did things that would be
>> sinful, like withhold herself from her husband.
>
>Wrong, I have already refuted you on this, they agreed before the
>marriage to abstain, there was no sin.
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "refuting" anything. It is only a
way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>>And PRETEND THEY
>> "MUST HAVE" had an agreement to do that when the Bible NEVER SAYS THEY
>> DID.
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
>And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
>and shalt call his name JESUS
>
>Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
>man?
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>> As I have said, major parts of your heretical religion is based on
>> pure conjecture.
>
>The Biblical text is not conjecture.
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>> >
>> >>and denied Christ the rightful
>> >> inheritance to David's throne
>> >
>> >Again, you assign me power that is beyond my means.
>> >
>> >> via your nonsense.
>> >
>> > The Bible is not nonsense.
>>
>> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS.
>
>I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
>my position.
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "supporting" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
>
>> >
>> >>This would be called
>> >> blasphemy..
>> >
>> >The Bible is not blasphemy.
>>
>> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS BLASPHEMY.
>
>I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
>my position.
Repeating your non-sequiturs is NOT "showing us" anything. It is only
a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
Go ahead, SHOW US
Your "arguments" are on the level of a ten-year-old. Is that how old
you are? I honestly believe you must be a child, your attempts at
rational discourse are so poorly done.
in Christ Jesus,
Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
apostate "catholic" religion of David's)
David
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> >> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> >> stuff:
> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >> >havoc wrote:
> >> >
> >> >You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
> >> >> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Very true, under the Old Covenant.
> >>
> >> Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
> >> true.
> >
> >Wrong. No one could get into heaven until the New Covenant. That is a
> >big change.
>
> While that was changed,
Thank you for conceding that I am correct.
> the fact that once people died they no longer
> had any contact with those of us on this earth except through witches
> and mediums (which are considered evil by God), THAT DID NOT CHANGE.
Wrong. Now those in heaven can pray for us.
> NO PLACE IN THE BIBLE says that people in heaven hear people on earth
> speaking at all.
True. Although you have yet to show me in the Bible where it says God
cannot let those people in heaven hear those people on earth if He
wishes.
> >> >
> >> >> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is
> >> >> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
> >> >> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
> >> >person physically dies, their love is now perished.
> >> >
> >> >Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
> >>
> >> From the Earth it does.
> >
> >Ecclesiastes does not support you here, it says perish, not perish only
> >on Earth.
>
> And it is speaking from here on earth about us here on earth.
Only for the old convenant.
>
> Your "theology" involves a lot of presumption on your part.
No presumptions, just the Biblical text.
> >
> >> They are no longer here.
> >
> >This is true, but has no bearing on the new Covenant.
>
> The New Covenant does NOT SAY that people who have died and gone to
> heaven can hear you, David.
The New Covenant does NOT SAY that people who have died and gone to
heaven cannot hear you, Christian.
> For your religion to PRESUME that they
> can is nothing more than PRESUMPTION.
The prayers of the saints is no presumption.
> >> >
> >> >Many things Ecclesiastes mentions were true only under the Old
> >> >Covenant, under the New Covenant, they no longer apply.
> >> >
> >> ONLY if they are changed by Jesus. NOT if they are changed by carnal
> >> man.
> >
> >Then we are fine, Jesus did change it.
>
> SHOW US SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS that people who have died can hear us.
I did not say Scripture says that, but the prayers of the saints are
clearly detailed in Scripture.
> God can hear us, and Jesus is God. But the Bible NEVER SAYS THAT EVEN
> ONE OTHER PERSON CAN HEAR US FROM HEAVEN.
If God can hear, and He wishes to let others hear, they will hear.
>When we die, as it says in
> Ecclesiastes, earth has nothing to do with us any more.
Only for the old Covenant, as I have made clear.
>
> >> >> - Forever
> >> >> - in Anything
> >> >>
> >> >> All inclusive.
> >> >
> >> >All Old Covenant.
> >>
> >> And this matter is NOT CHANGED in the New Covenant.
> >
> >Yes it is.
>
> SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE where it says in the NEW COVENANT that the dead
> who are in heaven can hear you, or are listenin to you.
I did not say Scripture says that, but the prayers of the saints are
clearly detailed in Scripture.
> >> >
> >> >> Door slammed with prejudice.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You really want to slam the door on Christian love in heaven?
> >>
> >> No,
> >
> >Good, then we agree this changed with the new Covenant.
>
> No, we don't agree with your PRESUMPTION.
Slamming the door on Christian love in heaven is my presumption? You
just agreed with me.
> You cannot read, obviously,
> either in the Greek or in the English.
You are mistaken.
> >
> >>just on Christians who are in heaven continuing to live and love
> >> here.
> >
> >Again, Ecclesiastes makes no such distinction, because it is only
> >talking about the old Covenant.
>
> It doesn't need to. It is talking about communication between the
> living and the dead,
Please cite the verse where it talks about communication between the
living and the dead.
>WITH NO DISTINCTION between the old and new
> covenants.
Wrong. It is clearly talking about the old Covenant.
> >
> >> They are no longer here. They no longer have any contact with
> >> here. There is a GAP.
> >
> >Wrong, as you pointed out, those in heaven can pray for us, not true
> >under the old Covenant of which Ecclesiastes speaks.
>
> Those people could pray for us in Paridise, before they went to
> heaven.
Really? Do you have a Bible verse? I would like to check that.
> But in BOTH CASES, there is no contact between them and us.
So prayer is not contact now?
>
> You may talk to yourself all you want,
I am talking to you.
>convincing yourself you are
> talking to them, but you are only talking to yourself. NOT ONE
> SCRIPTURE SAYS YOU CAN BE HEARD BY THEM.
Not one Scripture says God cannot let them hear, if He wishes.
> >> >
> >> >> Further, as an historical matter regarding Jewish marriage rites:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. When a woman was betrothed to a man, she was considered his
> >> >> thenceforth.
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >> >
> >> >> If she lay with a man prior to actual marriage, it
> >> >> would be adultery, not merely fornication.
> >> >
> >> >Any other man than the one she was betrothed, true.
> >> >
> >> >> Adultery is a capital offense under the law.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >True.
> >> >
> >> >> 2. Marriage under Judaic law required consumation. No ifs ands or buts.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. There was no Judaic marriage consumation enforcers, who made
> >> >sure every marriage was consumated.
> >>
> >> Gen 2:23-24
> >> 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh:
> >> she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
> >> 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
> >> cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
> >> KJV
> >>
> >
> >First, not only have I already refuted you on this because you cannot
> >have one flesh with divorce and remarriage, but two, you have not cited
> >a Judaic marriage consumation enforcer in the verses above.
>
> First, you have NEVER refuted this
Yes I have.
>since you have NEVER demonstrated
> that a man can "cleave unto his wife and they become one flesh"
> without sexual intercourse.
I have never demonstrated that because that is not how I refuted your
argument. It is divorce and remmariage which prevents one flesh. Your
inability to comprehend my point is irrelevant.
> Secondly, you have NEVER demonstrated
> that you cannot then "become one" with a harlot,
Heh, please explain how you become one with a harlot. Are you speaking
from experience?
> which blows your
> theory into the pit where you made it up from.
Really? Please demonstrate to us how you become one with a harlot.
> >
> >> You may PRETEND anything you wish.
> >
> >Citing the Biblical text to refute your errors is not pretending.
>
> So far the only Biblical texts you have "cited" do not say what you
> claim they do.
Yes they do.
>Your bogus claim that
> Luke 1:34 "How can this be, since I do not know a man?"
> is somehow in the "present-future" tense is sheer linguistic nonsense.
Wrong. A better translation is
"How shall this be, since I know not man?"
> Such a verb form does not exist.
Once again you fail to comprehend my point. Mary is replying with both
present and future tense. What is the tense of shall?
> >
> >> You can CHANGE NOTHING.
> >
> >I have changed nothing.
>
> No,
Thank you for conceding that I have change nothing.
>you have sure TRIED to though,
Wrong. I have not changed anything.
> by putting your "spin" and "special
> verb-tenses" on things.
No spin, no special verb-tenses, just "How shall this be, since I know
not man?"
> >
> >> THAT IS
> >> THE CONSUMATION OF MARRIAGE. ALWAYS HAS BEEN.
> >
> >Wrong. Matthew 19:8.
>
> Matt 19:8-9
> 8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts,
> permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not
> so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual
> immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries
> her who is divorced commits adultery
> NKJV
>
> Jesus is telling him that God does NOT approve of divorce.
True, but he is also telling them why God allowed Moses to permit
divorce and remarriage.
>
> It does NOT SAY ANYWHERE that marriage is NOT about leaving your
> parents and CLEAVING (HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE,
Again you fail to comprehend my point, becoming one flesh is not just
about sexual intercourse. The Bible describes intercourse as "knowing",
not becoming one flesh.
> and BECOMING ONE
> FLESH WITH your spouse, just as Genesis says it it.
Until divorce and remarriage, and multiple wives made becoming one
flesh with your spouse imposible.
>
> So far your "special spin" doesn't work.
Refuting your errors is not special spin.
> >>
> >> >> It is the signiture on the contract sealing the deal. Until
> >> >> consumation, the bride is only betrothed.
> >> >
> >> >You forgot to mention the part that betrothal IS the actual marriage
> >> >itself, without the consumation.
> >>
> >> No,
> >
> >Yes.
>
> Lie to yourself if you wish.
Correcting your errors is not lying.
> It doesn't change the fact that marriage
> came AFTER the betrothal.
Wrong. There was no engagement period for Jews back then, the betrothal
was the marriage.
> >
> >> Marriage was the actual marriage.
> >
> >Which begins with the betrothal.
> >
> >> "Betrothal" was a "binding
> >> engagement"
> >
> >Wrong, it was the beginning of the marriage. To back out of a
> >betrothal, you had to divorce. You cannot divorce unless you are
> >married in the first place.
>
> Nonsense!
Jewish law is not nonsense.
> Because the betrothal was considered much more serious than
> "engagement" today is,
Very serious indeed, it was the marriage.
>it did indeed get a document of divorce,
Thank you for conceding my point is true.
>but
> that does not make it marriage.
Please explain how you get a divorce without a marriage in the first
place.
> >
> >> in which the couple lived together for a year, but did not
> >> have sex.
> >
> >Right, betrothal was the part of the marriage during which there was no
> >consumation. Although there were differing rabbinical schools of
> >thought on this.
>
> Oh, NOW you WANT to accept the rabbis,
Sorry, when did I say I do not want to accept the rabbis?
> whereas in a previous post you
> pooh-poohed the idea!
Only in your imagination. Unless you found someplace I pointed out the
Bible indicates the rabbis are wrong?
>How convenient.
>
If you can cite something other than your imagination, I would like to
see it.
> And since you AGREE BELOW that they had the marriage ceremony
Wrong, it is the wedding ceremony.
>A YEAR
> AFTER the beginning of the engagement (betrothal),
You mean the marriage (betrothal).
> you now admit, they
> were NOT YET WED!
Agreed, but they were married.
> >
> >>THEN there was the marriage ceremony.
> >>
> >
> >You mean the wedding. Which occurs after the betrothal, one year into
> >the marriage.
> >
> >> Jesus didn't make wine at a "betrothal." He made it at a WEDDING.
> >
> >True, that couple had been married for about a year.
>
> SHOW US SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO, or admit it is just more of your
> SUPPOSITION.
We know that couples had their betrothal, which began their marriage,
and then their wedding about a year later. It could have been more or
less.
>
> Your heretical religion depends A LOT on Supposition, doesn't it?
It just depends on the Biblical text and history.
> >> >
> >> >> In Mary's case, if there was
> >> >> no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
> >> >> Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
> >> >> marriage is consumated.
> >> >
> >> >Then you definitely have a serious theological problem, Joseph is not
> >> >Jesus' father. I have no such theological problem, as I know the Jewish
> >> >history and law. Jews had no engagement back then like we have today,
> >> >Mary and Joseph's betrothal is the marriage, and fulfilled the
> >> >requirements for Jesus being the heir to the throne of David.
> >> >
> >> >> This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
> >> >> the marriage is proper.
> >> >
> >> >True, and it was proper, it just wasn't consumated.
> >>
> >> And YOUR STORY IS CONCOCTED OUT OF THIN AIR
> >
> >Wrong, the Biblical text supports my position.
>
> So far it does not.
Yes it does.
So far you have NOT SHOWN ONE PLACE IN THE BIBLE
> where it says mary would remain a virgin after Jesus was born.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> All
> you have done is that you have INVENTED a "present-future verb tense"
I have not invented anything. You fail to comprehend my point. How are
Mary and the angel speaking?
>
> for the verb in mary's words (which you cannot identify) in Luke 1:34.
Wrong. I have identified them. Are you having trouble with the shall or
the know?
> >
> >>BY IDIOTS WHO DON'T KNOW
> >> THE BIBLE.
> >
> >Unsupported assertion.
>
> DEMONSTRATED FACT,
Wrong.
>but you are too stupid to even notice!
Unsupported assertion.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> You can consult rabbinical authority and they
> >> >> will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Rabbinical authority has nothing to say about a virgin birth. I am
> >> >afraid that the rabbis overlooked that possibility.
> >>
> >> PURE CONJECTURE on your part.
> >
> >Really? Then please cite where the rabbis discussed virgin birth, and
> >what happens with regards to inheritance when that happens.
>
> LOL.
Very good.
>I never said they had anything to say about inheritance in the
> case of virgin birth.
You posted a reply to my point that they do not say anything about
virgin birth, by yelling "PURE CONJECTURE on your part."
> YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN that they "overlooked"
> anything.
They did overlook it, unless you have found something?
>That is PURE CONJECTURE on your part.
Then please show me where they discuss it.
> >
> >> PURE NONSENSE on your part as well.
> >>
> >
> >Still waiting for that citation.
>
> I don't cite
Thank you for conceding that my point is true then.
>YOUR false claims,
Unsupported assertion until you provide a citation.
>bubba.
Who is bubba?
> >
> >> MAJOR parts of your religion are based on nothing but CONJECTURE.
> >
> >Wrong, it is based on the Biblical text.
>
> NOT in any you have given us "spins" on so far.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> NOT IN ANY SCRIPTURE
> you have produced.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>There IS NO "present-future" verb tense in Greek
> OR English.
Again you fail to comprehend my point. I did not say present-future
verb tense. I said Mary is replying in present and future tense.
> >> >
> >> >> 3. As your debate adversary has noted, if Mary had witheld from Joseph,
> >> >> no matter any agreement, she would be in sin.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. There is no sin if Joseph and Mary had a prior agreement to not
> >> >consumate the marriage. Which Luke chapter 1 makes clear they did.
> >>
> >> So far you have shown NOTHING BUT YOUR OWN CONJECTURE that they had
> >> such an agreement.
> >
> >Wrong.
>
> SHOW US IN SCRIPTURE THAT MARY AND JOSEPH HAD A "PRIOR AGREEMENT TO
> NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN!
>
> You CANNOT, of course.
Wrong.
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
> >
> >>You have NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW ONE PLACE in Luke
> >> chapter 1 where they made any such "agreement."
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> Okay, now WHERE IS THIS AGREEMENT THAT SHE WILL _NEVER_ KNOW A MAN?
>
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> SHOW US THE TEXT, bubba.
Who is bubba?
> >> >
> >> >> You don't, again, know jewish law.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. I am very familiar with Jewish law. I have even corrected your
> >> >error.
> >>
> >> Not today, you haven't.
> >
> >Yes I have. I have corrected your errors as well.
>
> Again, you have not.
Yes I have.
> When you simply say "Wrong," you are not
> "correcting" anything at all.
Yes I am. Although I do follow up with an explanation as to why you are
wrong, if you are making a new point instead of recycling one of your
discredited claims.
> When your scriptures don't match your
> claims about them,
Yes they do.
>you are not "correcting" anything at all.
Yes I am.
>
> So far, you have corrected nobody and nothing.
I have corrected you on at least a dozen misconceptions you have about
the Bible, including your absurd claim that God bans statues, except
for certain exceptions.
> >
> >> You have shown nothing but pure conjecture
> >> and fabrication.
> >
> >The Biblical text and the historical record support my position, they
> >are not conjecture or fabrication.
>
> So far you have not shown ANY PLACE wher eBiblical text OR historical
> record support your record,
Wrong. I have shown you every time.
> and you have fabricated a brand new
> "present-future" verb tense.
Again you fail to comprehend my point. I do not fabricate anything, I
am pointing out how Mary responded.
> >> >
> >> >> You are trying to impose upon Judaism notions entirely
> >> >> antithetical to Judaism.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >I am not imposing anything upon Judaism. I am refuting notions that
> >> >Christian imposes on Joseph and Mary which are entirely antithetical to
> >> >the Bible.
> >>
> >> So far you have NOT SHOWN EVEN ONE VERSE to support your position that
> >> they had any such "prior ageement"
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US!
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >>or that mary remained a virgin.
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
> It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >> You have shown NOTHING from the Bible,
> >
> >Wrong.
>
> Sayhing "Wrong" doesn't prove anything,
Whining, name-calling and making unsupported assertions doesn't prove
anything Christian.
> bubba.
Who is bubba?
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
> It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >>but your own CONJECTURE that
> >> they "must have had a prior agreement."
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
>It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >>
> >> Major parts of your heretical religion is based on pure conjecture.
> >
> >The Biblical text is not conjecture.
>
> Your misuse of it is.
Reading the text and drawing the logical conclusion is not misuse.
> That text has NOTHING IN IT about any "prior
> agreement to never consumate their marriage."
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>
> The Bible doesn't lie, but YOU DO.
Wrong. I tell no lies. I read the Biblical text.
> >> >
> >> >> In essence, you've put Mary in sin
> >> >
> >> >Such a task is beyond my abilities, I cannot do the impossible.
> >>
> >> No, you can't.
> >
> >Thank you, I don't know why havoc would accuse me of that.
> >
> >>But you CAN LIE
> >
> >I am not lying.
>
> You have, in this post, many times.
Wrong.
> >
> >>and claim she did things that would be
> >> sinful, like withhold herself from her husband.
> >
> >Wrong, I have already refuted you on this, they agreed before the
> >marriage to abstain, there was no sin.
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
> It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >>And PRETEND THEY
> >> "MUST HAVE" had an agreement to do that when the Bible NEVER SAYS THEY
> >> DID.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong.
> >
> >And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
> >and shalt call his name JESUS
> >
> >Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
> >man?
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
> It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >> As I have said, major parts of your heretical religion is based on
> >> pure conjecture.
> >
> >The Biblical text is not conjecture.
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
>It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >> >
> >> >>and denied Christ the rightful
> >> >> inheritance to David's throne
> >> >
> >> >Again, you assign me power that is beyond my means.
> >> >
> >> >> via your nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > The Bible is not nonsense.
> >>
> >> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS.
> >
> >I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
> >my position.
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
>It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
> >
> >> >
> >> >>This would be called
> >> >> blasphemy..
> >> >
> >> >The Bible is not blasphemy.
> >>
> >> No, but YOUR CONJECTURE ABOUT THE BIBLE IS BLASPHEMY.
> >
> >I don't provide conjecture, I provide the Biblical text which supports
> >my position.
>
> Repeating your non-sequiturs
Again I must correct you, it is non sequitur.
>is NOT "showing us" anything.
I am showing you the text you asked for, the one that makes my case and
destroys yours.
> It is only
> a way to show that you have no answers that are valid.
>
Actually, it shows you have no coherent response to my explanation for
these verses.
>
> So SHOW US A VERSE that says they had a prior agreement that THEY
> WOULD NOT CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE AFTER JESUS WAS BORN, _OR_ THAT MARY
> WOULD REMAIN A VIRGIN FOREVER.
>
> Go ahead, SHOW US
And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
man?
>
> Your "arguments" are on the level of a ten-year-old.
Wrong.
> Is that how old
> you are?
No.
> I honestly believe you must be a child,
You honestly believe many things which are not true.
> your attempts at
> rational discourse are so poorly done.
It is not surprising you take a dim view on my performance, correcting
your errors would bias you against me.
>
> in Christ Jesus,
Good, you kept your conversation more civil, other than the accusations
of lying, Jesus would find your behavior more acceptable.
> Christian (a member of Christ's church, but NOT a member of the
> apostate "catholic" religion of David's)
The Catholic is not in quotes, and it is not apostate.
Stephen Korsman
"David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1131410771.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
> > fullfillment of prophecy,
>
> Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
>
> > denies him Kingship
>
> Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
Very odd that Mary having sex is so important to this mission, but the Bible
is silent on the issue. Surely if it were such an important requirement, it
would be focussed on.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
add an s before .co.za
Stephen Korsman
>
> chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
> > "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> > stuff:
> > you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> > >havoc wrote:
> > >
> > >You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
> > >> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin
here.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Very true, under the Old Covenant.
> >
> > Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
> > true.
>
> Wrong. No one could get into heaven until the New Covenant. That is a
> big change.
>
> > >
> > >> Ecclesiastes 9:6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy,
is
> > >> now perished; *neither have they any more a portion for ever in any
> > >> [thing] that is done under the sun.*
> > >>
> > >
> > >According to your logic Ecclesiastes 9 expressly states that once a
> > >person physically dies, their love is now perished.
> > >
> > >Are you telling me a Christian's love perishes in heaven?
> >
> > From the Earth it does.
>
> Ecclesiastes does not support you here, it says perish, not perish only
> on Earth.
He has a point there, but it does harm to his theory. If Ecclesiastes says
they lose their love, but it's on earth, then it's reference to death also
applies to on the earth, and not in heaven. That means they are alive in
heaven, which deflates his argument using this text.
God bless,
Stepehn
David
Stephen Korsman wrote:
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:1131410771.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > >but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
> > > fullfillment of prophecy,
> >
> > Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
> >
> > > denies him Kingship
> >
> > Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
>
> is silent on the issue. Surely if it were such an important requirement, it
> would be focussed on.
>
> God bless,
> Stephen
>
Tell me about it. I have no idea why havoc takes this position. I
understand(even though I don't agree with) the position that if Jesus
was not Joseph's actual son, he is not an heir of David.
But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
And to claim that rabbinical laws covered this possibility? Where?
Stephen Korsman
>
> Stephen Korsman wrote:
> > "David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:1131410771.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > >but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
> > > > fullfillment of prophecy,
> > >
> > > Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
> > >
> > > > denies him Kingship
> > >
> > > Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
> >
> > Very odd that Mary having sex is so important to this mission,but the
Bible
> > is silent on the issue. Surely if it were such an important
requirement, it
> > would be focussed on.
> >
> > God bless,
> > Stephen
> >
>
> Tell me about it. I have no idea why havoc takes this position. I
> understand(even though I don't agree with) the position that if Jesus
> was not Joseph's actual son, he is not an heir of David.
>
> But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
> he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
> marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
>
> And to claim that rabbinical laws covered this possibility? Where?
Perhaps this is a question for Freud?
God bless,
Stephen
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >
>> >chri...@fiberpipe.net wrote:
>> >> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
>> >> stuff:
>> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >> >havoc wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >You don't mind if I snip everything else right?
>> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Ecclessiastes 9 expressly states that once a person physically dies,
>> >> >> they have no further interaction with those of us that yet reamin here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Very true, under the Old Covenant.
>> >>
>> >> Since Jesus never changed it under the NEW Covenant, it still remains
>> >> true.
>> >
>> >Wrong. No one could get into heaven until the New Covenant. That is a
>> >big change.
>>
>> While that was changed,
>
>Thank you for conceding that I am correct.
>
you followed here.
A charge is made against you or your religion.
Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
Then with nothing to merit it, you "thank" the person for "conceding
that [you] are correct," when the person has obviously never done
that.
Your discourse is far from reasoned or logical, and is largely
dishonest.
Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
remained a virgin after Jesus was born, never says Joseph made any
"agreements" with Mary that it would be that way, and the Bible
_does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
consumated in the sex act.
Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise. (Now I
_know_ you will say, "No he hasn't," but indeed he has done so very
clearly.)
I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
ten-year-old. How old are you anyway?
parakaleo
David
And what "method" would that be?
>
> A charge is made against you or your religion.
>
You forgot to include the word "unsupported" before the word "charge".
> Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
>
You overlooked that I throw in "unsupported assertion" every now and
then, just to shake things up.
That is all it takes to counter an unsupported charge.
> Then with nothing to merit it,
Wrong. You just made an unsupported assertion.
>you "thank" the person for
There is no quotation marks around thank. I was thanking him.
> "conceding
> that [you] are correct,"
He did concede that I was correct about people getting into heaven
being a big change that the New Covenant brought about. That is all I
was thanking him for, since we disagree on so much, it helps to
highlight what we have in common.
>when the person has obviously never done
> that.
>
Wrong. And just to add to my reply, since one word responses seem to
annoy you, you are wrong because you mistakenly assumed that I was
thanking him for agreeing with me on everything about the New Covenant.
It should have been obvious from the context that that was not true,
and that is why I split up his text and replied to each point
seperately. The first point being our agreement, the second point being
our disagreement.
> Your discourse is far from reasoned or logical,
Wrong. Again, based on mistaken assumptions.
> and is largely
> dishonest.
>
Wrong again. Just to offer some advice, assuming that anyone who
disagrees with you does so only because they perversely refuse to admit
that you are right is foolish.
> Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
Ah, is this why you are annoyed? Does it really have anything to do
with how I argue, since Christian used similar methods in his argument?
Or does it have more to do with what I am arguing?
> remained a virgin after Jesus was born,
Wrong. The Bible clearly indicates Mary remained a vrigin after Jesus
was born, would you like to see the passage?
>never says Joseph made any
> "agreements" with Mary that it would be that way,
Wrong again. The Bible clearly indicates Joseph and Mary had a prior
agreement to abstain from sex during their entire marriage, it is made
clear in Mary's response to Angel Gabriel.
>and the Bible
> _does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
> consumated in the sex act.
>
For the general case this is true, but not for all, as the Bible makes
clear for Mary and Joseph.
> Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise.
Wrong. He has utterly failed to show that Mary had any sexual relations
whatsoever. Again, you are making unsupported assertions.
> (Now I
> _know_ you will say, "No he hasn't,"
Indeed, you are correct.
> but indeed he has done so very
> clearly.)
>
Another unsupported assertion. If you wish to support your assertions,
you may do so. I am more than open to a calm debate.
> I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
> ten-year-old.
You are mistaken. Things are not what they seem.
> How old are you anyway?
>
Older than that.
> parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
The charges are nearly always supported by scripture.
>
>> Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
>>
>
>You overlooked that I throw in "unsupported assertion" every now and
>then, just to shake things up.
Doing so doesn't change the lack of any support your position.
Yes, what you do _is_ foolish, and often simply downright stupid.
>
>> Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
>
>Ah, is this why you are annoyed?
Unsubstantiated and baseless assumption by you again. I am not
annoyed.
>Does it really have anything to do
>with how I argue, since Christian used similar methods in his argument?
>Or does it have more to do with what I am arguing?
I merely pointed out that you have not demonstrated that Christian is
in any way incorrect in his argument. He has produced scripture that
shows that Mary had other children, that in order to be married to
Joseph she would have consumated it with sexual intercourse as the
Bible requires, and that the scriptures that you claimed "showed" that
Mary and Joseph had some kind of "agreement" not to ever have sex
simply did not say that.
You have said, things along the order of "Yes it does." Then you have
produced non-sequitur scriptures that do not say what you claim they
mean.
>
>> remained a virgin after Jesus was born,
>
>Wrong. The Bible clearly indicates Mary remained a vrigin after Jesus
>was born, would you like to see the passage?
So far you have not shown one single text that says _anything_ about
Mary's sex life or lack of it _after_ Jesus was born. When He was
conceived, yes, but later, not one word. So yes, please show us
something that really says what you claim it does.
>
>>never says Joseph made any
>> "agreements" with Mary that it would be that way,
>
>Wrong again. The Bible clearly indicates Joseph and Mary had a prior
>agreement to abstain from sex during their entire marriage, it is made
>clear in Mary's response to Angel Gabriel.
So _show_ _us_ that agreement. Show us where Joseph agreed to any
such thing. Show us where Mary said she would not have sex _after_
Jesus was born.
So far you have quoted Luke 1:34 as a parrot would repeat something,
without understanding the passage at all, claiming that because she
didn't _currently_ know any man, that she _never_ _would_ know any
man. The "never would" is not in the passage anywhere.
>
>>and the Bible
>> _does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
>> consumated in the sex act.
>>
>
>For the general case this is true, but not for all, as the Bible makes
>clear for Mary and Joseph.
No, since the Bible never makes Mary and Joseph an exception, you are
wrong. You have not shown one single scripture that it is "different"
for Mary and Joseph. You have merely shown a scripture that says of
that particular time, Mary had not _currently_ _known_ any man. If
you are honest about the language of the text, you know that is true.
>
>> Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise.
>
>Wrong. He has utterly failed to show that Mary had any sexual relations
>whatsoever. Again, you are making unsupported assertions.
He has shown tha marriage must be consumated by the sexual act, that
Mary had other children, and that it is sinful to withhold yourself
sexually from your spouse.
That is _solid_ evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
All _you_ have done is said, "No, Mary remained a virgin, the Bible
says so" without producing _one_ _single_ _verse_ that agrees with
you.
>
>> (Now I
>> _know_ you will say, "No he hasn't,"
>
>Indeed, you are correct.
>
>> but indeed he has done so very
>> clearly.)
>>
>
>Another unsupported assertion. If you wish to support your assertions,
>you may do so. I am more than open to a calm debate.
Calm debate requires evidence that what one says is true. So far you
have not produced any evidence of any "agreement" between Mary and
Joseph, nor any evidence at all that Mary remained virgin after Jesus'
birth. You have only given unsupported assertions.
>
>> I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
>> ten-year-old.
>
>You are mistaken. Things are not what they seem.
So demonstrate what they "really" are.
>
>> How old are you anyway?
>>
>
>Older than that.
Eleven?
>
parakaleo
David
Christian often failed to cite passages in the Bible, and when he did,
I pointed out what he overlooked in the text which contradicted his
conclusion.
You, of course, may cite passages if you wish.
> >
> >> Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
> >>
> >
> >You overlooked that I throw in "unsupported assertion" every now and
> >then, just to shake things up.
>
> Doing so doesn't change the lack of any support your position.
I support my points when I need to. You will find them in the previous
posts.
On the contrary, I accept that you and Christian honestly believe what
you say, you will notice that I never accused Christian of being a
liar, or a moron. That neither you nor Christian extend me the same
courtesy only weakens your position.
>and often simply downright stupid.
Unsupported assertion.
> >
> >> Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
> >
> >Ah, is this why you are annoyed?
>
> Unsubstantiated and baseless assumption by you again.
It is an assumption, but not unsubstantiated or baseless. Do you always
go up to people you have never met or interacted with before and accuse
them of being dishonest, or of arguing like a ten year old? If not,
what exactly motivates you to do so with me?
> I am not
> annoyed.
>
You aren't pleased with me either.
> >Does it really have anything to do
> >with how I argue, since Christian used similar methods in his argument?
> >Or does it have more to do with what I am arguing?
>
> I merely pointed out that you have not demonstrated that Christian is
> in any way incorrect in his argument.
And I am pointing out that you are mistaken.
> He has produced scripture that
> shows that Mary had other children,
Incorrect. The Scripture he produced showed that Jesus had brothers and
sisters, not that Mary had other children. We know from Scripture and
history that Jews called their male cousins and uncles brothers, and
female cousins and aunts sisters. The text he cited only proved that
Jesus had cousins.
I noticed that you used the word "shows" here, and this will become
important later on. I assume that is because you know that the Bible
does not say "Mary had other children."
>that in order to be married to
> Joseph she would have consumated it with sexual intercourse as the
> Bible requires,
Incorrect. The verses he cited only point out the purpose of marriage
before Adam and Eve's sin, and after Jesus re-established marriage as a
sacrament. During the period in between, the purpose of marriage was
not the same, as Jesus himself points out. Christian confused sexual
intercourse with "becoming one flesh". The Bible is clear that
"becoming one flesh" is more than just sexual intercourse, it is a
permanent bond which cannot be broken and made anew as long as both
husband and wife are alive.
> and that the scriptures that you claimed "showed" that
> Mary and Joseph had some kind of "agreement"
>not to ever have sex
It does indeed show this, and I am ready to support my position(again)
with points of fact and explanation, if you wish to move beyond
assertions.
> simply did not say that.
>
I notice here you point out that the Bible does not "say" that. I hope
you are not engaged in sleight of hand here. You are correct that the
Bible does not say, "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to ever have
sex.", but that does not counter my argument which, as I have pointed
out to Christian several times, is that the Bible clearly indicates
this.
So yes, the Bible does not say "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to
ever have sex" anymore than it says "Mary had other children." We need
to move beyond that to what the Bible shows or clearly indicates.
> You have said, things along the order of "Yes it does."
I have done far more than this.
>Then you have
> produced non-sequitur scriptures
Again, this is an unsupported assertion. You will have to do more than
that to counter my arguments. Havoc did attempt this, but his
explanation contradicted the Biblical text.
> that do not say what you claim they
> mean.
Again, it does not say it, but it does clearly mean that Mary was a
perpetual virgin.
> >
> >> remained a virgin after Jesus was born,
> >
> >Wrong. The Bible clearly indicates Mary remained a vrigin after Jesus
> >was born, would you like to see the passage?
>
> So far you have not shown one single text that says _anything_ about
> Mary's sex life or lack of it _after_ Jesus was born.
Another unsupported assertion. I only need to say, "Yes I have." to
counter it.
> When He was
> conceived, yes, but later, not one word.
The text I have cited, in the first chapter of Luke, speaks about far
more than just the immediate present. Shall we carefully parse the text
and discern the full meaning of what Mary says?
> So yes, please show us
> something that really says what you claim it does.
You mean really does what I have told Christian it does, right? Not
"really says."
> >
> >>never says Joseph made any
> >> "agreements" with Mary that it would be that way,
> >
> >Wrong again. The Bible clearly indicates Joseph and Mary had a prior
> >agreement to abstain from sex during their entire marriage, it is made
> >clear in Mary's response to Angel Gabriel.
>
> So _show_ _us_ that agreement. Show us where Joseph agreed to any
> such thing.
The Bible is not clear on when or where Joseph agreed to this, except
that it happened before the angel appeared.
> Show us where Mary said she would not have sex _after_
> Jesus was born.
>
Mary, of course, did not say this in so many words, but it is clear
that this is what she means in her response to the angel.
> So far you have quoted Luke 1:34 as a parrot would repeat something,
You mean I have provided the verses to support my position each and
every time that Christian, as a parrot, would repeat his demand that I
show something.
And more precisely, it is verses 31 and 34 that show the agreement that
Joseph and Mary had, while keeping in mind what we know from verse 27.
> without understanding the passage at all,
You are mistaken, although you did attempt to support this assertion
below.
> claiming that because she
> didn't _currently_ know any man,
You are mistaken, she did not say "I currently do not know any man."
Nor is her reply the equivalent of what you say it means.
>that she _never_ _would_ know any
> man.
That is precisely the meaning of her response.
> The "never would" is not in the passage anywhere.
Because she declared it in different words. Read 31 and 34 carefully.
> >
> >>and the Bible
> >> _does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
> >> consumated in the sex act.
> >>
> >
> >For the general case this is true, but not for all, as the Bible makes
> >clear for Mary and Joseph.
>
> No, since the Bible never makes Mary and Joseph an exception,
Yes it does.
>you are
> wrong.
I am right. Now we shall move beyond mere assertions and discuss the
heart of the matter.
>You have not shown one single scripture that it is "different"
> for Mary and Joseph.
Yes I have. Luke 1:31 and 1:34.
> You have merely shown a scripture that says of
> that particular time, Mary had not _currently_ _known_ any man.
This is the crux of the matter, let us discuss the precise meaning of
those verses, and avoid endless repetition as Christian insisted upon.
In short, you have failed to understand the full meaning of those
verses.
> If
> you are honest about the language of the text, you know that is true.
You repeat what I have warned you not to do. Rest assured, I am being
just as honest about the language of the text as you are. Now shall we
move beyond meaningless and baseless accusations and discuss the
language of the text?
> >
> >> Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise.
> >
> >Wrong. He has utterly failed to show that Mary had any sexual relations
> >whatsoever. Again, you are making unsupported assertions.
>
> He has shown tha marriage must be consumated by the sexual act,
He has not shown that, in fact, I have shown that at that time, the
marriage began before the sexual act.
> that
> Mary had other children,
He failed to show this.
>and that it is sinful to withhold yourself
> sexually from your spouse.
>
He was refuted on this months ago. If both husband and wife agree, they
may abstain, and that is what Joseph and Mary did.
> That is _solid_ evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
>
There is no evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, I have
refuted each of those pieces every time they have been brought up.
Christian had mistaken assumptions about the evidence he provided,
which is why his evidence did not support his conclusion that Mary had
sexual relations with Joseph.
> All _you_ have done is said, "No, Mary remained a virgin, the Bible
> says so"
I have done far more than that. I have countered Christian's evidence
with the facts and reasons(including Scripture citation) as to why he
has drawn the wrong conclusions and provided the Scripture which
supports my position.
>without producing _one_ _single_ _verse_ that agrees with
> you.
Luke 1:31 and 34 agree with my position. Now how about we discuss why
or, in your case, why not?
> >
> >> (Now I
> >> _know_ you will say, "No he hasn't,"
> >
> >Indeed, you are correct.
> >
> >> but indeed he has done so very
> >> clearly.)
> >>
> >
> >Another unsupported assertion. If you wish to support your assertions,
> >you may do so. I am more than open to a calm debate.
>
> Calm debate requires evidence that what one says is true.
I thought calm debate only required calm participants, but in any case,
I have the evidence you require.
> So far you
> have not produced any evidence of any "agreement" between Mary and
> Joseph,
I have provided it, you have not provided any counter to my evidence.
> nor any evidence at all that Mary remained virgin after Jesus'
> birth.
Again, I have provided it, it is up to you to counter it. You have
failed to so far.
> You have only given unsupported assertions.
On the contrary, I have supported this position. It is beyond mere
assertion now.
> >
> >> I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
> >> ten-year-old.
> >
> >You are mistaken. Things are not what they seem.
>
> So demonstrate what they "really" are.
I have done so.
> >
> >> How old are you anyway?
> >>
> >
> >Older than that.
>
> Eleven?
Older.
> >
> parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
When I wish to make a doctrinal point, be assured that I will.
>
>> >
>> >> Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You overlooked that I throw in "unsupported assertion" every now and
>> >then, just to shake things up.
>>
>> Doing so doesn't change the lack of any support your position.
>
>I support my points when I need to. You will find them in the previous
>posts.
So far, you have posted scriptures that do not way what you claim.
Things like "agreements" between Mary and Joseph to not have sex after
Jesus was born (_NO_ scripture says that, and you have _NO_ support
for that anywhere).
I don't believe I have ever accused you of being a liar. I have
pointed out your lack of ability to track logically, and I have to
stand by that position. You take a verse that speaks in the present
perfect tense "I do not know a man" and say it says she will _never_
know any man. That does not logically follow at all, yet you continue
to rant that it does.
>
>>and often simply downright stupid.
>
>Unsupported assertion.
Adequately shown to be _true_, above.
>> >
>> >> Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
>> >
>> >Ah, is this why you are annoyed?
>>
>> Unsubstantiated and baseless assumption by you again.
>
>It is an assumption, but not unsubstantiated or baseless. Do you always
>go up to people you have never met or interacted with before and accuse
>them of being dishonest, or of arguing like a ten year old? If not,
>what exactly motivates you to do so with me?
Only when I read several posts they have made before that demonstrate
they are either being dishonest or are arguing like a ten-year-old
child. What motivates me to do so with you is that you have written
the exact argument I demonstrated from you above, and it is not a
valid argument given the facts from the text, and most people older
than ten years old would have noticed that fact.
>
>> I am not annoyed.
>>
>You aren't pleased with me either.
I am not wishing you a happy birthday either. Or wishing you a happy
Golfer-buddy Day either. I am not purple or olive. I am not a duck.
There are many things I am not; so what?
You claimed I was annoyed. I corrected you. I am not annoyed. In
fact, I am chuckling at your lack of ability to reason accurately
while you claim that you are doing so.
>
>> >Does it really have anything to do
>> >with how I argue, since Christian used similar methods in his argument?
>> >Or does it have more to do with what I am arguing?
>>
>> I merely pointed out that you have not demonstrated that Christian is
>> in any way incorrect in his argument.
>
>And I am pointing out that you are mistaken.
No, you are merely _claiming_ so. You have not produced one shred of
_evidence_ that he is mistaken yet.
>
>> He has produced scripture that
>> shows that Mary had other children,
>
>Incorrect. The Scripture he produced showed that Jesus had brothers and
>sisters, not that Mary had other children.
Brothers and sisters. Children by Mary and Joseph. Unless you want
to try claiming that Mary had other children by virgin births!
>We know from Scripture and
>history that Jews called their male cousins and uncles brothers, and
>female cousins and aunts sisters. The text he cited only proved that
>Jesus had cousins.
Not by Scripture, and only because your religion claims it is so. The
Greeks had _different_ words for cousins, uncles, brothers and female
cousins and anunts sisters. This passage which originated in Greek
does _NOT_ use those "different" words, but instead uses the words
that mean biological brothers and sisters only.
You have _no_ scripture that ever calls them cousins, uncles, or
aunts. You have _no_ translators that translate _that_ passage as
"other relatives" either.
You have only the "spin" (as Christian would say) your religion puts
on the passage, _nothing_ in the passage itself.
>
>I noticed that you used the word "shows" here, and this will become
>important later on. I assume that is because you know that the Bible
>does not say "Mary had other children."
It also does _not_ say "Mary remained forever virgin" either. Your
religion made that up. You have _never_ demonstrated from scripture
otherwise!
>
>>that in order to be married to
>> Joseph she would have consumated it with sexual intercourse as the
>> Bible requires,
>
>Incorrect. The verses he cited only point out the purpose of marriage
>before Adam and Eve's sin, and after Jesus re-established marriage as a
>sacrament. During the period in between, the purpose of marriage was
>not the same, as Jesus himself points out.
You have not shown one single scripture where Jesus pointed out any
such thing. He acknowledged that Moses allowed for a few exceptions,
but _not_one_scripture_ says it ceased to have the same purpose or
consumation. You have provided _NO_ Biblical backing for that claim.
>Christian confused sexual
>intercourse with "becoming one flesh". The Bible is clear that
>"becoming one flesh" is more than just sexual intercourse, it is a
>permanent bond which cannot be broken and made anew as long as both
>husband and wife are alive.
>
SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO.
1 Cor 6:15-17
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?
Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot
is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one
flesh."
NKJV
No confusion there. The truth is that joining a harlot (having sex
with her) is to become one with her, just as joining to your wife
(having sexual intercourse with her) is "joining" to her, becoming one
flesh.
It would appear that it is _you_ who are confused.
>> and that the scriptures that you claimed "showed" that
>> Mary and Joseph had some kind of "agreement"
>>not to ever have sex
>
>It does indeed show this, and I am ready to support my position(again)
>with points of fact and explanation, if you wish to move beyond
>assertions.
_Go_ _ahead,_ and show us the scripture that says they had this
"agreement."
>
>> simply did not say that.
>>
>
>I notice here you point out that the Bible does not "say" that. I hope
>you are not engaged in sleight of hand here. You are correct that the
>Bible does not say, "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to ever have
>sex.", but that does not counter my argument which, as I have pointed
>out to Christian several times, is that the Bible clearly indicates
>this.
Your "indication" is only in your mind. Her _present_ tense verb
"Luke 1:34
I do not know a man." cannot become _future_ tense just because you
claim so. It does _not_ say even one word about the future, no matter
how much you claim otherwise.
>
>So yes, the Bible does not say "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to
>ever have sex" anymore than it says "Mary had other children." We need
>to move beyond that to what the Bible shows or clearly indicates.
It says:
Mark 6:2-3
3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of James,
Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So
they were offended at Him
NKJV
He is the literal son of Mary. His sisters and brothers are also the
son of Mary unless you can produce a _different_ mother of Jesus'
literal brothers and sisters.
Otherwise you have to admit that Mary had other children, which is
clearly the case according to this passage.
>
>> You have said, things along the order of "Yes it does."
>
>I have done far more than this.
Yep, then you have produced non-sequitur scriptures.
>
>>Then you have
>> produced non-sequitur scriptures
>
>Again, this is an unsupported assertion. You will have to do more than
>that to counter my arguments. Havoc did attempt this, but his
>explanation contradicted the Biblical text.
>
>> that do not say what you claim they
>> mean.
>
>Again, it does not say it, but it does clearly mean that Mary was a
>perpetual virgin.
So far all you have is YOUR unsupported assertion that "it does
clearly mean" what it _does_not_say_at_all.
Just as I have pointed out, your whole argument is based upon the part
of the passage in Luke 1:34 that says:
"I do not know a man," and your claim that the verb is both present
_and_ future tense which is completely false linguistically.
>> >
>> >> remained a virgin after Jesus was born,
>> >
>> >Wrong. The Bible clearly indicates Mary remained a vrigin after Jesus
>> >was born, would you like to see the passage?
>>
>> So far you have not shown one single text that says _anything_ about
>> Mary's sex life or lack of it _after_ Jesus was born.
>
>Another unsupported assertion. I only need to say, "Yes I have." to
>counter it.
Your whole claim is on the "I do not know a man," and that does not
say what you claim it "means."
Your claim is a totally unsupported assertion. You have no text to
support your claim at all. You even admit it _does_not_say_it_, but
you _assert_ (claim, and without supoort) that it must "mean" it.
>
>> When He was
>> conceived, yes, but later, not one word.
>
>The text I have cited, in the first chapter of Luke, speaks about far
>more than just the immediate present. Shall we carefully parse the text
>and discern the full meaning of what Mary says?
>
>> So yes, please show us
>> something that really says what you claim it does.
>
>You mean really does what I have told Christian it does, right? Not
>"really says."
No, lets see what the verb, correctly parsed, says. Not what you want
it to say. Not what I want it to say, but the TRUTH.
So go ahead, parse the verb for us.
>> >
>> >>never says Joseph made any
>> >> "agreements" with Mary that it would be that way,
>> >
>> >Wrong again. The Bible clearly indicates Joseph and Mary had a prior
>> >agreement to abstain from sex during their entire marriage, it is made
>> >clear in Mary's response to Angel Gabriel.
>>
>> So _show_ _us_ that agreement. Show us where Joseph agreed to any
>> such thing.
>
>The Bible is not clear on when or where Joseph agreed to this, except
>that it happened before the angel appeared.
No it doesn't. Joseph wasn't even aware that Mary was going to get
pregnant before the Angel appeared to Mary. Neither was she.
>
>> Show us where Mary said she would not have sex _after_
>> Jesus was born.
>>
>
>Mary, of course, did not say this in so many words, but it is clear
>that this is what she means in her response to the angel.
So you admit, the Bible doesn't say any such thing. It is only your
unsupported assertion that she meant this thing?
>
>> So far you have quoted Luke 1:34 as a parrot would repeat something,
>
>You mean I have provided the verses to support my position each and
>every time that Christian, as a parrot, would repeat his demand that I
>show something.
So far you have not shown one single future tense in
"I do not know a man." That is her _only_ reference to her
virginity, and it is in the _present_ tense, not the future tense.
All of your pretense that it somehow says she "will never know a man"
does not make it say that in the text. You have even _admitted_ it is
not there, but that you think it "must mean" blah blah blah.
By claiming something it does _not_ say as fact, you show your
inability to discourse logically.
>
>And more precisely, it is verses 31 and 34 that show the agreement that
>Joseph and Mary had, while keeping in mind what we know from verse 27.
Luke 1:31
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
and shall call His name JESUS.
Luke 1:34
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
a man?"
Luke 1:26-27
27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house
of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
These verses tell us that the angel came to Mary, a woman who had not
had intercourse yet with Joseph or any other man, and told her she
would in the future (from that time) bear a child. She asked how that
could be since she had never had sexual intercourse with a man.
_There_is-not_one_word_ about anything that would or would not happen
after Baby Jesus was born.
NOTHING about "perpetual virginity," becoming an icon for all women,
or anything else about the future beyond the birth of the baby.
Not a hint about any such "agreement." Not one word to imply that
anything would be other than normal after Jesus was born.f Nothing at
all.
Just your unsupported assertions that somehow they "must have made an
agreement" of some kind that simply isn't there.
So far Christian is right. You have nothing to support your claim at
all; certainly not the scriptures you have claimed. They don't say
anything resembling yyour assertions.
>
>> without understanding the passage at all,
>
>You are mistaken, although you did attempt to support this assertion
>below.
I have supported it above.
>
>> claiming that because she
>> didn't _currently_ know any man,
>
>You are mistaken, she did not say "I currently do not know any man."
>Nor is her reply the equivalent of what you say it means.
Present tense. _NOT_ future tense.
>
>>that she _never_ _would_ know any
>> man.
>
>That is precisely the meaning of her response.
It has nothing to do with what she _said._
She spoke in the _PRESENT_TENSE_ (which _means_ "at this moment in
time").
You have either not studied basic grammar in English OR Greek, or you
simply like to play baby-games, or the third choice is that you are
merely incredibly stupid. When you claim "I currently do not know any
man" is not the equivalent of what I said it means, you show complete
linguistic ignorance. Present tense, not future tense.
>
>> The "never would" is not in the passage anywhere.
>
>Because she declared it in different words. Read 31 and 34 carefully.
I have.
Luke 1:31
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
and shall call His name JESUS.
Luke 1:34
34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
a man?
Verse 31 says she will (future tense) conceive Jesus, but makes _no_
_reference_ to her sex life after Jesus is born, pro or con.
Verse 34 says she is a virgin AT THAT TIME, in the present time when
it was spoken.
Your lack of linguistic skills is underwhelming!
>> >
>> >>and the Bible
>> >> _does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
>> >> consumated in the sex act.
>> >>
>> >
>> >For the general case this is true, but not for all, as the Bible makes
>> >clear for Mary and Joseph.
>>
>> No, since the Bible never makes Mary and Joseph an exception,
>
>Yes it does.
Your unsupported assertion that it does does not make it sol
>
>>you are wrong.
>
>I am right. Now we shall move beyond mere assertions and discuss the
>heart of the matter.
I have shown the scriptures, and you have shown nothing. You have
claimed that because Moses allowed divorce that sexual intercourse
must not mean "cleaving" or "joining to" your husband.
I showed you scripture that when you have sex with a harlot, you are
"joined to" her, refuting your claim clearly.
Your claim that because divorce was allowed, the whole purpose of
marriage was changed is simply wrong.
>
>>You have not shown one single scripture that it is "different"
>> for Mary and Joseph.
>
>Yes I have. Luke 1:31 and 1:34.
I have shown multiple times that neither verse speaks to her sex life
or lack of it after Jesus was born at all, and that your claim is
completely false. So far you have not shown one shred of evidence
that even one verse says she will remain a virgin after Jesus is born.
All we have is your unsubstantiated claim that it must "clearly mean"
that she will remain forever virgin even though you admit it never
says it.
>
>> You have merely shown a scripture that says of
>> that particular time, Mary had not _currently_ _known_ any man.
>
>This is the crux of the matter, let us discuss the precise meaning of
>those verses, and avoid endless repetition as Christian insisted upon.
>In short, you have failed to understand the full meaning of those
>verses.
>
>> If
>> you are honest about the language of the text, you know that is true.
>
>You repeat what I have warned you not to do. Rest assured, I am being
>just as honest about the language of the text as you are. Now shall we
>move beyond meaningless and baseless accusations and discuss the
>language of the text?
When you claim a text "clearly means" what you admit it does not say
in any way, that is dishonest, and not a meaningless or baseless
accusation. I have clearly demonstrated, and you have admitted that
the text does not say it. You have merely made the unsupported claim
that it is so. Doing so and claiming that's not what you are doing is
dishonest.
>> >
>> >> Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise.
>> >
>> >Wrong. He has utterly failed to show that Mary had any sexual relations
>> >whatsoever. Again, you are making unsupported assertions.
He has shown clearly in scripture that Jesus had literal brothers and
sisters, and you have failed to show that it was from a different
mother. I have repeated the demonstration.
He has clearly shown that the purpose of marriage is to be "joined to"
or to "cleave to" your spouse which is by every definition (Jewish AND
catholic AND everyone else's understanding) sexual intercourse.
You deny that, claim a totally unsubstantiated claim that Mary and
Joseph had made some kind of "prior agreement" to never have sexual
intercourse, but of course you admit the text never says any such
thing. You merely make the totally unsubstantiated claim that it
"clearly means" what it does not say or imply anywhere.
>>
>> He has shown tha marriage must be consumated by the sexual act,
>
>He has not shown that, in fact, I have shown that at that time, the
>marriage began before the sexual act.
No, you have only made the unsubstantiated claim that that was so.
>
>> that
>> Mary had other children,
>
>He failed to show this.
He showed you the scripture.
>
>>and that it is sinful to withhold yourself
>> sexually from your spouse.
>>
>
>He was refuted on this months ago. If both husband and wife agree, they
>may abstain, and that is what Joseph and Mary did.
Only for a "season" for prayer and fasting, and you have only made a
totally unsubstantiated claim that Joseph and Mary ever made any such
"agreement," admitting that the Bible never says they did, but saying
that must be "clearly" what it meant.
>
>> That is _solid_ evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
>>
>
>There is no evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, I have
>refuted each of those pieces every time they have been brought up.
Scriptures that say he had literal brothers and sisters isn't
evidence? Scriptures that say that the purpose of marriage is to be
joined to your wife's body isn't evidence that the purpose of _their_
marriage included sexual intercourse?
And when there is not _ONE_ word in scripture that says otherwise?
>Christian had mistaken assumptions about the evidence he provided,
>which is why his evidence did not support his conclusion that Mary had
>sexual relations with Joseph.
He clearly showed what the text says. Not mistaken assumptions, but
what the text says.
All _you_ have to stand on is what _you_claim_ it "must clearly mean"
even though you _admit_ it never says it.
>
>> All _you_ have done is said, "No, Mary remained a virgin, the Bible
>> says so"
>
>I have done far more than that. I have countered Christian's evidence
>with the facts and reasons(including Scripture citation) as to why he
>has drawn the wrong conclusions and provided the Scripture which
>supports my position.
Not one time, you have ot.
>
>>without producing _one_ _single_ _verse_ that agrees with
>> you.
>
>Luke 1:31 and 34 agree with my position. Now how about we discuss why
>or, in your case, why not?
Already done, above. Not one place where it talks about what will
happen with Mary sexually after Jesus is born, remaining a virgin,
having normal sexual activity with her husband as scripture requires.
NOT ONE WORD.
Just your unsubstantiated claim that it must "clearly mean" she will
remain a virgin, even though you admit it does NOT SAY IT AT ALL.
>> >
>> >> (Now I
>> >> _know_ you will say, "No he hasn't,"
>> >
>> >Indeed, you are correct.
>> >
>> >> but indeed he has done so very
>> >> clearly.)
>> >>
>> >
>> >Another unsupported assertion. If you wish to support your assertions,
>> >you may do so. I am more than open to a calm debate.
>> Calm debate requires evidence that what one says is true.
>
>I thought calm debate only required calm participants, but in any case,
>I have the evidence you require.
Genuine debate involves evidence of Truth. Merely mumbling
meaningless nothings is not debate.
>
>> So far you
>> have not produced any evidence of any "agreement" between Mary and
>> Joseph,
>
>I have provided it, you have not provided any counter to my evidence.
It is difficult to provide evidence when your claim is as you yourself
admitted without Biblical support. Not one verse says they had any
such "agreement," and I showed that the verses you claimed supported
your position, do not.
There is not one word in any of those verses about what will happen
sexually with Mary after Jesus is born. You have not shown one word
that says anything about her sex life or lack of it after Jesus is
born at all.
I have demonstrated that and all you have is you think it must
"clearly mean" that she remained a virgin forever even though not one
word says so.
>
>> nor any evidence at all that Mary remained virgin after Jesus'
>> birth.
>
>Again, I have provided it, it is up to you to counter it. You have
>failed to so far.
You have admitted the text does not say it. Are you now trying to
recant your admission?
>
>> You have only given unsupported assertions.
>
>On the contrary, I have supported this position. It is beyond mere
>assertion now.
So far you have provided only verses that refer to the time the angel
spoke to Mary up until the time Jesus is born. Not one word about
after that.
Nothing more than your claim that it must "clearly mean" what you
admitted the text never says.
>> >
>> >> I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
>> >> ten-year-old.
>> >
>> >You are mistaken. Things are not what they seem.
>>
>> So demonstrate what they "really" are.
>
>I have done so.
Not yet, you haven't.
>> >
>> >> How old are you anyway?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Older than that.
>>
>> Eleven?
>
>Older.
>
Not much, I'll bet.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>news:1131410771.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
>> > fullfillment of prophecy,
>>
>> Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
>>
>> > denies him Kingship
>>
>> Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
>
>Very odd that Mary having sex is so important to this mission, but the Bible
>is silent on the issue. Surely if it were such an important requirement, it
>would be focussed on.
>
>God bless,
>Stephen
The odd part Stephen, is that a religion has made a sub-religion out
of "perpetual virgin Mary," and it needs to be addressed.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>news:1131566263.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Stephen Korsman wrote:
>> > "David" <davec...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> > news:1131410771.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > > >but, more to the point, it denies Christ the matter of
>> > > > fullfillment of prophecy,
>> > >
>> > > Wrong. Christ fulfilled the prophecy.
>> > >
>> > > > denies him Kingship
>> > >
>> > > Wrong. Christ has his Kingship.
>> >
>> > Very odd that Mary having sex is so important to this mission,but the
>Bible
>> > is silent on the issue. Surely if it were such an important
>requirement, it
>> > would be focussed on.
>> >
>> > God bless,
>> > Stephen
>> >
>>
>> Tell me about it. I have no idea why havoc takes this position. I
>> understand(even though I don't agree with) the position that if Jesus
>> was not Joseph's actual son, he is not an heir of David.
I don't think that is havoc's position. He would be an heir of David
through Mary in any event. I don't think havoc or anyone else is
trying to claim that Joseph was the physical father of Jesus!
>>
>> But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
>> he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
>> marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
>>
I have never seen havoc make any such claim. Havoc, is he
misrepresenting you here?
>> And to claim that rabbinical laws covered this possibility? Where?
>
>Perhaps this is a question for Freud?
>
>God bless,
>Stephen
parakaleo
David
Great.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Then you say, "no" or "wrong" and you claim the statement is not true.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You overlooked that I throw in "unsupported assertion" every now and
> >> >then, just to shake things up.
> >>
> >> Doing so doesn't change the lack of any support your position.
> >
> >I support my points when I need to. You will find them in the previous
> >posts.
>
> So far, you have posted scriptures that do not way what you claim.
They do show what I claim.
> Things like "agreements" between Mary and Joseph to not have sex after
> Jesus was born (_NO_ scripture says that,
Scripture does not explicitly say that, but it does show that.
> and you have _NO_ support
> for that anywhere).
Yes I do, Luke 1:31 and Luke 1:34.
I inferred that from this line in your first post:
"Your discourse is far from reasoned or logical, and is largely
dishonest."
And this line from your second post:
"If you are honest about the language of the text, you know that is
true. "
> I have
> pointed out your lack of ability to track logically, and I have to
> stand by that position.
You have to support that position, so far you have simply asserted it.
>You take a verse that speaks in the present
> perfect tense "I do not know a man"
Now here is where we need to focus our efforts, analyze the key verbs
in verses 31 and 34, and let the chips fall where they may.
Minor correction above, "I do not know a man" is simple present tense
in English. For Mary to speak in present perfect tense here, she would
have to say, "I have not known a man."
> and say it says she will _never_
> know any man. That does not logically follow at all,
Because you have only quoted part of verse 34. Check the verb tense of
both the angel in verse 31, and the verb tense of Mary in the first
part of verse 34. What are those?
>yet you continue
> to rant that it does.
Correcting errors from both you and Christian is not a rant.
> >
> >>and often simply downright stupid.
> >
> >Unsupported assertion.
>
> Adequately shown to be _true_, above.
Another unsupported assertion.
> >> >
> >> >> Despite your attempts to justify yourself, the Bible never says Mary
> >> >
> >> >Ah, is this why you are annoyed?
> >>
> >> Unsubstantiated and baseless assumption by you again.
> >
> >It is an assumption, but not unsubstantiated or baseless. Do you always
> >go up to people you have never met or interacted with before and accuse
> >them of being dishonest, or of arguing like a ten year old? If not,
> >what exactly motivates you to do so with me?
>
> Only when I read several posts they have made before that demonstrate
> they are either being dishonest or are arguing like a ten-year-old
> child.
Have you been able to narrow it down further?
>What motivates me to do so with you is that you have written
> the exact argument I demonstrated from you above,
Incorrect, you left out one entire verse and part of another verse.
> and it is not a
> valid argument given the facts from the text,
You left out key parts of the text, place those in, and the argument is
valid.
>and most people older
> than ten years old would have noticed that fact.
Even a ten year old would notice that you only addressed part of one
verse, ignoring the rest.
Ok, that did answer my question, in what action motivated your
response. So out of curiousity, what emotion did my action inspire in
you before you responded? I only know it was not annoyance.
> >
> >> I am not annoyed.
> >>
> >You aren't pleased with me either.
>
> I am not wishing you a happy birthday either.
True.
> Or wishing you a happy
> Golfer-buddy Day either.
I don't golf.
> I am not purple or olive.
I didn't think you were purple.
> I am not a duck.
>
I knew that.
> There are many things I am not; so what?
>
Like I said, I assumed you were annoyed, just curious what it was.
> You claimed I was annoyed.
I did assume that yes.
> I corrected you. I am not annoyed.
Yes you did, so what was it instead?
> In
> fact, I am chuckling at your lack of ability to reason accurately
> while you claim that you are doing so.
I see, so it is a desire to extend your humorous mood? In other words,
you were amused?
> >
> >> >Does it really have anything to do
> >> >with how I argue, since Christian used similar methods in his argument?
> >> >Or does it have more to do with what I am arguing?
> >>
> >> I merely pointed out that you have not demonstrated that Christian is
> >> in any way incorrect in his argument.
> >
> >And I am pointing out that you are mistaken.
>
> No, you are merely _claiming_ so.
Which is equal to your own claim.
> You have not produced one shred of
> _evidence_ that he is mistaken yet.
Yes I have, the verses in Luke.
> >
> >> He has produced scripture that
> >> shows that Mary had other children,
> >
> >Incorrect. The Scripture he produced showed that Jesus had brothers and
> >sisters, not that Mary had other children.
>
> Brothers and sisters. Children by Mary and Joseph.
Again, you make an unsupported assertion, cousins are not Jesus' actual
siblings.
> Unless you want
> to try claiming that Mary had other children by virgin births!
>
Of course not, I am proving that Mary did not have other children.
> >We know from Scripture and
> >history that Jews called their male cousins and uncles brothers, and
> >female cousins and aunts sisters. The text he cited only proved that
> >Jesus had cousins.
>
> Not by Scripture,
Yes, by Scripture we do know that.
>and only because your religion claims it is so.
Wrong, we know it by Scripture.
> The
> Greeks had _different_ words for cousins, uncles, brothers and female
> cousins and anunts sisters.
The Greeks did not write Scripture, Jews did. Did Jews have different
words for cousins, uncles, brothers, aunts, and sisters?
>This passage which originated in Greek
Wrong. This passage did not originate in Greek, the Jews spoke Aramaic.
> does _NOT_ use those "different" words,
Standard practice in Scripture.
>but instead uses the words
> that mean biological brothers and sisters only.
>
The Scripture in Greek would use the word brother and sister even if it
was obvious from the text that it was not a biological brother or
sister.
> You have _no_ scripture that ever calls them cousins, uncles, or
> aunts.
Because the Jews never called cousins cousins, uncles uncles, or aunts
aunts.
> You have _no_ translators that translate _that_ passage as
> "other relatives" either.
>
Following the practice of those who wrote and/or translated Scripture
into Greek.
> You have only the "spin" (as Christian would say) your religion puts
> on the passage, _nothing_ in the passage itself.
Wrong, I have Scripture, history and the Jewish language on my side. It
is you who are spinning the passage to mean something it does not say.
> >
> >I noticed that you used the word "shows" here, and this will become
> >important later on. I assume that is because you know that the Bible
> >does not say "Mary had other children."
>
> It also does _not_ say "Mary remained forever virgin" either.
Just like it does not say, "Mary had other children."
>Your
> religion made that up.
We did not make up Luke 1:31 and 1:34.
> You have _never_ demonstrated from scripture
> otherwise!
Yes I have, and I shall do so again. How does the angel address Mary
exactly?
> >
> >>that in order to be married to
> >> Joseph she would have consumated it with sexual intercourse as the
> >> Bible requires,
> >
> >Incorrect. The verses he cited only point out the purpose of marriage
> >before Adam and Eve's sin, and after Jesus re-established marriage as a
> >sacrament. During the period in between, the purpose of marriage was
> >not the same, as Jesus himself points out.
>
> You have not shown one single scripture where Jesus pointed out any
> such thing.
Jesus does point out that the purpose of marriage was changed.
> He acknowledged that Moses allowed for a few exceptions,
Divorce and remarriage is a bit beyond a "few exceptions".
> but _not_one_scripture_ says it ceased to have the same purpose or
> consumation.
Ok, here let me distinguish between purpose("become one flesh") and
consumation(sexual intercourse). These are not one and the same. Sexual
intercourse is only a part of becoming one flesh.
> You have provided _NO_ Biblical backing for that claim.
Jesus does bar divorce followed by remarriage, as long as husband and
wife are still alive.
>
> >Christian confused sexual
> >intercourse with "becoming one flesh". The Bible is clear that
> >"becoming one flesh" is more than just sexual intercourse, it is a
> >permanent bond which cannot be broken and made anew as long as both
> >husband and wife are alive.
> >
> SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS SO.
>
> 1 Cor 6:15-17
> 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I
> then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot?
> Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot
> is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one
> flesh."
> NKJV
>
> No confusion there.
We shall see.
> The truth is that joining a harlot (having sex
> with her) is to become one with her, just as joining to your wife
> (having sexual intercourse with her) is "joining" to her, becoming one
> flesh.
>
St. Paul says otherwise.
Ephesians 5:29-32
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth
it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of
his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his
father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two
shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning
Christ and the church.
Here St. Paul points out that a husband and wife becoming one flesh is
a mystery, and is a union that represents the union of Christ and his
Church. But as St. Paul points out in your verses, making the members
of Christ members of a harlot is, well, undesired. So no, there is no
mystery of joining with a harlot, and St. Paul specifically excludes
the idea of members of a harlot with the idea of members of Christ.
> It would appear that it is _you_ who are confused.
>
The confusion is only on your part. Having sex with a harlot is not
enough to become one flesh as Genesis and Christ make clear. It does
not represent the union of Christ and his Church.
> >> and that the scriptures that you claimed "showed" that
> >> Mary and Joseph had some kind of "agreement"
> >>not to ever have sex
> >
> >It does indeed show this, and I am ready to support my position(again)
> >with points of fact and explanation, if you wish to move beyond
> >assertions.
>
> _Go_ _ahead,_ and show us the scripture that says they had this
> "agreement."
Again, it is in Luke chapter 1.
> >
> >> simply did not say that.
> >>
> >
> >I notice here you point out that the Bible does not "say" that. I hope
> >you are not engaged in sleight of hand here. You are correct that the
> >Bible does not say, "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to ever have
> >sex.", but that does not counter my argument which, as I have pointed
> >out to Christian several times, is that the Bible clearly indicates
> >this.
>
> Your "indication" is only in your mind.
Wrong, it is in the Biblical text.
> Her _present_ tense verb
> "Luke 1:34
> I do not know a man." cannot become _future_ tense just because you
> claim so.
I am not claiming that a present tense verb becomes a future tense
verb. I am pointing out that Mary is replying in future tense.
> It does _not_ say even one word about the future,
Wrong. It does say much about the future, look at the rest of the
verse.
>no matter
> how much you claim otherwise.
I only point out what is in the text.
> >
> >So yes, the Bible does not say "Mary and Joseph had an agreement not to
> >ever have sex" anymore than it says "Mary had other children." We need
> >to move beyond that to what the Bible shows or clearly indicates.
>
> It says:
> Mark 6:2-3
> 3 Is this not the carpenter , the Son of Mary, and brother of James,
> Joses, Judas, and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?" So
> they were offended at Him
> NKJV
>
> He is the literal son of Mary.
Jesus is yes.
> His sisters and brothers are also the
> son of Mary
Note that the text does not support you here. It says only that Jesus
is the son of Mary, it does not say that James, Joses, Judas and Simon
are the sons of Mary. That is because they are not. Likewise with his
sisters, they are not the daughters of Mary.
>unless you can produce a _different_ mother of Jesus'
> literal brothers and sisters.
>
I don't need to, because those four are not his biological brothers.
They are his cousins, which is why the Jews here refer to them as his
brothers. That is what they call cousins. They call them brothers. And
female cousins are called sisters.
> Otherwise you have to admit that Mary had other children,
You have failed to put me in this position, because the text does not
support your claim.
> which is
> clearly the case according to this passage.
You are mistaken.
> >
> >> You have said, things along the order of "Yes it does."
> >
> >I have done far more than this.
>
> Yep, then you have produced non-sequitur scriptures.
Incorrect.
> >
> >>Then you have
> >> produced non-sequitur scriptures
> >
> >Again, this is an unsupported assertion. You will have to do more than
> >that to counter my arguments. Havoc did attempt this, but his
> >explanation contradicted the Biblical text.
> >
> >> that do not say what you claim they
> >> mean.
> >
> >Again, it does not say it, but it does clearly mean that Mary was a
> >perpetual virgin.
>
> So far all you have is YOUR unsupported assertion that "it does
> clearly mean" what it _does_not_say_at_all.
>
I have supported this claim.
> Just as I have pointed out, your whole argument is based upon the part
> of the passage in Luke 1:34 that says:
Wrong. As I have pointed out, the whole argument is based on the entire
text of verse 31 and 34, and let's add 27 as well.
> "I do not know a man," and your claim that the verb is both present
> _and_ future tense which is completely false linguistically.
I do not claim that the verb is both present and future tense. I have
pointed out that Mary is replying in both present and future tense.
Let me clarify further, what is the tense of the verb in the first part
of verse 34, and for the angel in verse 31?
> >> >
> >> >> remained a virgin after Jesus was born,
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. The Bible clearly indicates Mary remained a vrigin after Jesus
> >> >was born, would you like to see the passage?
> >>
> >> So far you have not shown one single text that says _anything_ about
> >> Mary's sex life or lack of it _after_ Jesus was born.
> >
> >Another unsupported assertion. I only need to say, "Yes I have." to
> >counter it.
>
> Your whole claim is on the "I do not know a man," and that does not
> say what you claim it "means."
>
Wrong again. It is based on the entirety of verse 31 and 34(and 27).
Let's examine the passage fully.
> Your claim is a totally unsupported assertion.
Wrong. It is supported by the Biblical text, the entirety of verses 31
and 34(and 27).
> You have no text to
> support your claim at all.
Unsupported assertion.
> You even admit it _does_not_say_it_,
Just as you admit the Bible does not say "Mary had other children."
>but
> you _assert_ (claim, and without supoort)
I do support this claim.
>that it must "mean" it.
Just as you claim that brother of Jesus must mean Mary's other son, but
in this case, I have provided the reasons why your claim is wrong.
> >
> >> When He was
> >> conceived, yes, but later, not one word.
> >
> >The text I have cited, in the first chapter of Luke, speaks about far
> >more than just the immediate present. Shall we carefully parse the text
> >and discern the full meaning of what Mary says?
> >
> >> So yes, please show us
> >> something that really says what you claim it does.
> >
> >You mean really does what I have told Christian it does, right? Not
> >"really says."
>
> No, lets see what the verb, correctly parsed, says.
Sure, let's do that.
> Not what you want
> it to say.
What I want is irrelevant.
> Not what I want it to say, but the TRUTH.
>
Agreed.
> So go ahead, parse the verb for us.
You mean parse all the verbs in verses 31 and 34, correct?
> >> >
> >> >>never says Joseph made any
> >> >> "agreements" with Mary that it would be that way,
> >> >
> >> >Wrong again. The Bible clearly indicates Joseph and Mary had a prior
> >> >agreement to abstain from sex during their entire marriage, it is made
> >> >clear in Mary's response to Angel Gabriel.
> >>
> >> So _show_ _us_ that agreement. Show us where Joseph agreed to any
> >> such thing.
> >
> >The Bible is not clear on when or where Joseph agreed to this, except
> >that it happened before the angel appeared.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
> Joseph wasn't even aware that Mary was going to get
> pregnant before the Angel appeared to Mary.
I am not sure how you think this is relevant.
> Neither was she.
Again, I am not sure what you mean here.
> >
> >> Show us where Mary said she would not have sex _after_
> >> Jesus was born.
> >>
> >
> >Mary, of course, did not say this in so many words, but it is clear
> >that this is what she means in her response to the angel.
>
> So you admit, the Bible doesn't say any such thing.
Wrong, I admit that Mary does allude to the fact that she would always
be a virgin by her words. She just does not explicitly say it.
> It is only your
> unsupported assertion that she meant this thing?
No, it is Mary's response which tells us what she means.
> >
> >> So far you have quoted Luke 1:34 as a parrot would repeat something,
> >
> >You mean I have provided the verses to support my position each and
> >every time that Christian, as a parrot, would repeat his demand that I
> >show something.
>
> So far you have not shown one single future tense in
> "I do not know a man."
Again, we have to address the entire verse.
> That is her _only_ reference to her
> virginity, and it is in the _present_ tense, not the future tense.
Wrong, the entire verse references her virginity, what is the tense of
the first part of her reply in the verse?
> All of your pretense that it somehow says she "will never know a man"
> does not make it say that in the text.
There is no pretense, that is clearly what she means here.
> You have even _admitted_ it is
> not there,
Wrong, I have admitted it does not say, "will never know a man", but
her reply does tell us that is what she means.
>but that you think it "must mean" blah blah blah.
>
Not what I think. The logical meaning of the text.
> By claiming something it does _not_ say as fact, you show your
> inability to discourse logically.
Then you highlight your own inability, for that is precisely what you
have done in claiming brothers of Jesus are children of Mary.
> >
> >And more precisely, it is verses 31 and 34 that show the agreement that
> >Joseph and Mary had, while keeping in mind what we know from verse 27.
>
> Luke 1:31
> 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
> and shall call His name JESUS.
>
> Luke 1:34
> 34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
> a man?"
>
Just a note, a more correct translation is "How shall this be, seeing I
know not man."
> Luke 1:26-27
> 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house
> of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
>
> These verses tell us that the angel came to Mary, a woman who had not
> had intercourse yet with Joseph or any other man, and told her she
> would in the future
Excellent so far.
> (from that time) bear a child.
>From that time? Interesting, the angel gives no indication as to
exactly when Mary is to bear the child, how did you come up with your
insertion of "(from that time)"? Because "(from that time)" is just
your own invention, an addition to the text.
> She asked how that
> could be
Incorrect, she asks "how shall this be?" She is replying in the future
tense, because the angel addressed the event as happening in the
future.
>since she had never had sexual intercourse with a man.
>
Incomplete. She also just told us she had no intention of having sexual
intercourse with Joseph.
> _There_is-not_one_word_ about anything that would or would not happen
> after Baby Jesus was born.
>
Wrong. Mary has just told us that she had already planned to abstain
from sex
> NOTHING about "perpetual virginity,"
Again, check how she replied to the angel, it is future tense.
>becoming an icon for all women,
Well no, that is outlined later in Luke.
> or anything else about the future beyond the birth of the baby.
Again, incorrect, Mary replied in future tense.
>
> Not a hint about any such "agreement."
Her reply not only hints at the agreement, it tells us everything we
need to know about the agreement.
> Not one word to imply that
> anything would be other than normal after Jesus was born.f Nothing at
> all.
>
Her entire reply does not make any sense at all unless her marriage to
Joseph was not a normal marriage.
> Just your unsupported assertions
Wrong, I have supported my claims with the text.
>that somehow they "must have made an
> agreement" of some kind
No other way to explain her response.
>that simply isn't there.
It is there, you missed it, because you added the words "(from that
time)". Take them out, and read the passage again.
>
> So far Christian is right.
He made the same error as you. He inserted his own words into the text
to change the meaning.
> You have nothing to support your claim at
> all;
Wrong, the only way you could claim that was by adding to the text of
the passage. An edit or interpolation.
>certainly not the scriptures you have claimed.
They are in the Scriptures I cited.
> They don't say
> anything resembling yyour assertions.
It is true that after you edited the Scripture, it did not resemble
what I claimed it did originally.
> >
> >> without understanding the passage at all,
> >
> >You are mistaken, although you did attempt to support this assertion
> >below.
>
> I have supported it above.
By adding to the text. Now try doing it without changing Scripture.
> >
> >> claiming that because she
> >> didn't _currently_ know any man,
> >
> >You are mistaken, she did not say "I currently do not know any man."
> >Nor is her reply the equivalent of what you say it means.
>
> Present tense. _NOT_ future tense.
Again, let us address the angel and Mary and what tense verbs they use.
This time with a better translation.
> >
> >>that she _never_ _would_ know any
> >> man.
> >
> >That is precisely the meaning of her response.
>
> It has nothing to do with what she _said._
Yes it does.
>
> She spoke in the _PRESENT_TENSE_ (which _means_ "at this moment in
> time").
>
Wrong, she replied with present continuous and future tense, as the two
parts of her reply made clear.
> You have either not studied basic grammar in English OR Greek,
Incorrect.
> or you
> simply like to play baby-games,
This is no game.
>or the third choice is that you are
> merely incredibly stupid.
Would someone incredibly stupid be able to recognize a False Dilemma
Fallacy when he sees one?
> When you claim "I currently do not know any
> man" is not the equivalent of what I said it means, you show complete
> linguistic ignorance.
Let's take a look at what I did say
> >You are mistaken, she did not say "I currently do not know any man."
> >Nor is her reply the equivalent of what you say it means.
I said her reply is not the equivalent of what you say it means. She
did not reply, "I currently do not know any man."
> Present tense, not future tense.
Wrong. "How shall this be, seeing I know not man."
> >
> >> The "never would" is not in the passage anywhere.
> >
> >Because she declared it in different words. Read 31 and 34 carefully.
>
> I have.
> Luke 1:31
> 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son,
> and shall call His name JESUS.
> Luke 1:34
> 34 Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know
> a man?
>
A better translation again, "How shall this be, seeing I know not man."
> Verse 31 says she will (future tense) conceive Jesus,
Exactly.
> but makes _no_
> _reference_ to her sex life after Jesus is born, pro or con.
Then why did she ask the question in the first place?
> Verse 34 says she is a virgin AT THAT TIME, in the present time when
> it was spoken.
The angel did not say she would bear the child at that time, and Mary's
reply is not just about that specific time either.
>
> Your lack of linguistic skills is underwhelming!
Let's try it with a better translation.
> >> >
> >> >>and the Bible
> >> >> _does_say_ that marriage is a union between husband and wife
> >> >> consumated in the sex act.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >For the general case this is true, but not for all, as the Bible makes
> >> >clear for Mary and Joseph.
> >>
> >> No, since the Bible never makes Mary and Joseph an exception,
> >
> >Yes it does.
>
> Your unsupported assertion that it does does not make it sol
This is, in itself, an unsupported assertion.
> >
> >>you are wrong.
> >
> >I am right. Now we shall move beyond mere assertions and discuss the
> >heart of the matter.
>
> I have shown the scriptures,
And I have corrected you on those Scriptures.
> and you have shown nothing.
I provided Scripture as well.
> You have
> claimed that because Moses allowed divorce that sexual intercourse
> must not mean "cleaving" or "joining to" your husband.
>
Wrong, I have claimed that Moses allowing divorce and remarriage meant
that couple could not become one flesh.
> I showed you scripture that when you have sex with a harlot, you are
> "joined to" her, refuting your claim clearly.
>
You failed to show it was the same as a husband becoming one flesh with
his wife.
> Your claim that because divorce
And remarriage.
>was allowed, the whole purpose of
> marriage was changed is simply wrong.
That is not my claim, Jesus specifically pointed this out.
> >
> >>You have not shown one single scripture that it is "different"
> >> for Mary and Joseph.
> >
> >Yes I have. Luke 1:31 and 1:34.
>
> I have shown multiple times that neither verse speaks to her sex life
> or lack of it after Jesus was born at all, and that your claim is
> completely false.
Only by editing verse 31, and using a poor translation of verse 34.
> So far you have not shown one shred of evidence
> that even one verse says she will remain a virgin after Jesus is born.
>
Let's look at verse 31 and 34, with a better translation, and no
editing this time.
> All we have is your unsubstantiated claim that it must "clearly mean"
> that she will remain forever virgin
No, we also have the Biblical text, as long as you don't change it.
> even though you admit it never
> says it.
Just as you admit it never says "Mary had other children."
> >
> >> You have merely shown a scripture that says of
> >> that particular time, Mary had not _currently_ _known_ any man.
> >
> >This is the crux of the matter, let us discuss the precise meaning of
> >those verses, and avoid endless repetition as Christian insisted upon.
> >In short, you have failed to understand the full meaning of those
> >verses.
> >
> >> If
> >> you are honest about the language of the text, you know that is true.
> >
> >You repeat what I have warned you not to do. Rest assured, I am being
> >just as honest about the language of the text as you are. Now shall we
> >move beyond meaningless and baseless accusations and discuss the
> >language of the text?
>
> When you claim a text "clearly means" what you admit it does not say
This I admitted to.
> in any way,
This I did not.
> that is dishonest, and not a meaningless or baseless
> accusation.
Good, so then accusing me of being dishonest is meaningless and
baseless, because I did say the text clearly indicates this, so yes,
the text does say that in a particular way. It just does not literally
use those words.
> I have clearly demonstrated, and you have admitted that
> the text does not say it.
Right, but we have to rise to the level of "in any way".
> You have merely made the unsupported claim
> that it is so.
I have provided Scripture to back my claim, which you have not refuted,
without editing that is.
>Doing so and claiming that's not what you are doing is
> dishonest.
Rest assured, I am being honest.
> >> >
> >> >> Christian has refuted your every attempt to show otherwise.
> >> >
> >> >Wrong. He has utterly failed to show that Mary had any sexual relations
> >> >whatsoever. Again, you are making unsupported assertions.
>
> He has shown clearly in scripture that Jesus had literal brothers and
> sisters,
Yes, his cousins.
>and you have failed to show that it was from a different
> mother.
Wrong, he has failed to show they were from Mary.
> I have repeated the demonstration.
>
And made the same error.
> He has clearly shown that the purpose of marriage is to be "joined to"
> or to "cleave to" your spouse which is by every definition (Jewish AND
> catholic AND everyone else's understanding) sexual intercourse.
>
The Catholic understanding of "to become one flesh" is more than just
sexual intercourse.
> You deny that,
I pointed out it is more than just sexual intercourse.
> claim a totally unsubstantiated claim that Mary and
> Joseph had made some kind of "prior agreement" to never have sexual
> intercourse,
It is substantiated in Luke 1:31 and 34.
>but of course you admit the text never says any such
> thing.
Just as you admit that the text never says, "Mary had other children."
>You merely make the totally unsubstantiated claim that it
> "clearly means"
That is what 1:31 and 34 mean, you had to edit the text to change the
meaning.
>what it does not say or imply anywhere.
Let's try reading 31 and 34 again, without changes this time.
> >>
> >> He has shown tha marriage must be consumated by the sexual act,
> >
> >He has not shown that, in fact, I have shown that at that time, the
> >marriage began before the sexual act.
>
> No, you have only made the unsubstantiated claim that that was so.
That is what Jewish culture did at the time.
> >
> >> that
> >> Mary had other children,
> >
> >He failed to show this.
>
> He showed you the scripture.
No verse says "Mary had other children."
> >
> >>and that it is sinful to withhold yourself
> >> sexually from your spouse.
> >>
> >
> >He was refuted on this months ago. If both husband and wife agree, they
> >may abstain, and that is what Joseph and Mary did.
>
> Only for a "season" for prayer and fasting,
Longer if they wish.
>and you have only made a
> totally unsubstantiated claim that Joseph and Mary ever made any such
> "agreement,"
I did substantiate it in verse 31 and 34.
>admitting that the Bible never says they did,
Just like the Bible never says, "Mary had other children."
> but saying
> that must be "clearly" what it meant.
That is what I am saying yes.
> >
> >> That is _solid_ evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph.
> >>
> >
> >There is no evidence that Mary had sexual relations with Joseph, I have
> >refuted each of those pieces every time they have been brought up.
>
> Scriptures that say he had literal brothers and sisters isn't
> evidence?
Because cousins were literally brothers and sisters as well as actual
siblings.
> Scriptures that say that the purpose of marriage is to be
> joined to your wife's body isn't evidence that the purpose of _their_
> marriage included sexual intercourse?
>
Here we agree that the purpose of marriage does include sexual
intercourse, but that is only part of it.
But the one flesh is something Jesus re-established from Genesis, and
that was after the marriage of Mary and Joseph.
> And when there is not _ONE_ word in scripture that says otherwise?
>
Matthew and Mark make clear what Jesus did.
> >Christian had mistaken assumptions about the evidence he provided,
> >which is why his evidence did not support his conclusion that Mary had
> >sexual relations with Joseph.
>
> He clearly showed what the text says.
Yes he did.
> Not mistaken assumptions, but
> what the text says.
>
His mistaken assumption is that brother of Jesus means son of Mary. It
does not, it means cousin of Jesus.
> All _you_ have to stand on is what _you_claim_ it "must clearly mean"
> even though you _admit_ it never says it.
That is what you tried to stand on as well with "Mary had other
children."
> >
> >> All _you_ have done is said, "No, Mary remained a virgin, the Bible
> >> says so"
> >
> >I have done far more than that. I have countered Christian's evidence
> >with the facts and reasons(including Scripture citation) as to why he
> >has drawn the wrong conclusions and provided the Scripture which
> >supports my position.
>
> Not one time, you have ot.
Yes I have.
> >
> >>without producing _one_ _single_ _verse_ that agrees with
> >> you.
> >
> >Luke 1:31 and 34 agree with my position. Now how about we discuss why
> >or, in your case, why not?
>
> Already done, above.
Let's try again, without you editing the text this time.
> Not one place where it talks about what will
> happen with Mary sexually after Jesus is born, remaining a virgin,
> having normal sexual activity with her husband as scripture requires.
> NOT ONE WORD.
>
Wrong, it is all there in 31 and 34.
> Just your unsubstantiated claim that it must "clearly mean" she will
> remain a virgin, even though you admit it does NOT SAY IT AT ALL.
It does not say it literally, but it does say it.
> >> >
> >> >> (Now I
> >> >> _know_ you will say, "No he hasn't,"
> >> >
> >> >Indeed, you are correct.
> >> >
> >> >> but indeed he has done so very
> >> >> clearly.)
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Another unsupported assertion. If you wish to support your assertions,
> >> >you may do so. I am more than open to a calm debate.
>
> >> Calm debate requires evidence that what one says is true.
> >
> >I thought calm debate only required calm participants, but in any case,
> >I have the evidence you require.
>
> Genuine debate involves evidence of Truth.
I thought we were talking about calm debate?
> Merely mumbling
> meaningless nothings is not debate.
How do you mumble while typing?
> >
> >> So far you
> >> have not produced any evidence of any "agreement" between Mary and
> >> Joseph,
> >
> >I have provided it, you have not provided any counter to my evidence.
>
> It is difficult to provide evidence when your claim is as you yourself
> admitted without Biblical support.
I admitted no such thing, I do have Biblical support.
> Not one verse says they had any
> such "agreement,"
Verses 31 and 34 of Luke 1 indicate it.
>and I showed that the verses you claimed supported
> your position, do not.
>
Only by editing and poor translation. Let's try again.
> There is not one word in any of those verses about what will happen
> sexually with Mary after Jesus is born.
Wrong. "How shall this be, seeing I know not man."
> You have not shown one word
> that says anything about her sex life or lack of it after Jesus is
> born at all.
>
Wrong again. Mary speaks in future tense.
> I have demonstrated that
Only by editing and poor translation, can you do it without editing at
least?
>and all you have is you think it must
> "clearly mean" that she remained a virgin forever even though not one
> word says so.
The Biblical text has no other meaning.
> >
> >> nor any evidence at all that Mary remained virgin after Jesus'
> >> birth.
> >
> >Again, I have provided it, it is up to you to counter it. You have
> >failed to so far.
>
> You have admitted the text does not say it. Are you now trying to
> recant your admission?
Are you ready to recant your claim that Mary had other children?
> >
> >> You have only given unsupported assertions.
> >
> >On the contrary, I have supported this position. It is beyond mere
> >assertion now.
>
> So far you have provided only verses that refer to the time the angel
> spoke to Mary up until the time Jesus is born. Not one word about
> after that.
>
Wrong. The verses in question do not just refer to the time until Jesus
is born.
> Nothing more than your claim that it must "clearly mean" what you
> admitted the text never says.
Just like you admit the Bible never says, "Mary had other children."
> >> >
> >> >> I must agree with Christian that you seem to argue on the level of a
> >> >> ten-year-old.
> >> >
> >> >You are mistaken. Things are not what they seem.
> >>
> >> So demonstrate what they "really" are.
> >
> >I have done so.
>
> Not yet, you haven't.
Yes I have.
> >> >
> >> >> How old are you anyway?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Older than that.
> >>
> >> Eleven?
> >
> >Older.
> >
> Not much, I'll bet.
>
How much do you want to bet?
> parakaleo
David
No, havoc did not have this position, I was just using it for
comparison.
> >>
> >> But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
> >> he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
> >> marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
> >>
> I have never seen havoc make any such claim. Havoc, is he
> misrepresenting you here?
>
Right here:
>In Mary's case, if there was
>no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
>Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
>marriage is consumated. This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
>the marriage is proper. You can consult rabbinical authority and they
>will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
What this boils down to is that Jesus was not heir to David, until Mary
consumated her marriage with Joseph. I don't see how else you can read
it. And I would still like to see where rabbinical authority covers
something like virgin births.
David
What religion would that be?
> parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
I <snipped> it all.
It is clear that you are not worth wasting time on, David.
You cannot track logically and you are dishonest.
You claim you have demonstrated things that you have never
demonstrated, you use scriptures that do not say what you claim they
say, then you pretend that they have demonstrated your point when they
have not.
I do not have time to waste on 1415 line posts.
You have never so far demonstrated even one of the following:
1. That Mary ever made any "agreement" with Joseph to never have
sexual intercourse with him after Jesus was born.
2. That Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
3. That the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not Mary's biological
children.
4. That the purpose of marriage ever "changed" then was "changed
back" after it was instituted in Genesis.
5. That failure by Mary to be joined (cleave) to her husband would
not be a sin, as scripture says it would be.
You have _claimed_ that you have demonstrated these things (although
you have also admitted that they are not in the text, but somehow we
must believe they are "clearly indicated" there without being there).
Continuing this thread with you would amount to nothing more than
rehashing the same stuff over and over again without any intelligent
reasoning from you at all.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
You claim havoc takes a position he doesn't take, then you admit he
didn't take that position, that you were merely claiming he took it
for "comparison?" What kind of "logical discourse" or "reasoned
discourse" is that? That is just plain dishonesty.
>> >>
>> >> But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
>> >> he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
>> >> marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
>> >>
>> I have never seen havoc make any such claim. Havoc, is he
>> misrepresenting you here?
>>
>
>Right here:
>
>>In Mary's case, if there was
>>no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
>>Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
>>marriage is consumated. This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
>>the marriage is proper. You can consult rabbinical authority and they
>>will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
>
>What this boils down to is that Jesus was not heir to David, until Mary
>consumated her marriage with Joseph. I don't see how else you can read
>it. And I would still like to see where rabbinical authority covers
>something like virgin births.
If it is havoc who is making that claim, he is wrong. Jesus is of the
lineage of David through Mary, not Joseph.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
If I am wrong, what religion ARE you?
The "sub-religion" is that of making Mary someone to be prayed to,
"adored" or anything else that takes away from the Glory of God.
parakaleo
Stephen Korsman
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:jeihn1l4m5en8asqn...@4ax.com...
Then each doctrine can be called a sub-religion. The "Bible alone" idea is
a sub-religion. "No-infant-baptism" is a sub-religion.
Mary is not adored ... and praying to her doesn't take away from the glory
of God any more than asking a person who is still alive physically to pray
for us.
David
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
> I <snipped> it all.
>
You aren't even going to try to refute me?
> It is clear that you are not worth wasting time on, David.
Without even attempting to refute my points, you are wasting your time.
> You cannot track logically
You have failed to support this assertion.
>and you are dishonest.
I have provided clear explanations as for why I disagree with you.
Correcting your errors is not dishonest.
> You claim you have demonstrated things that you have never
> demonstrated,
Wrong, I have clearly demonstrated that verses 31 and 34 indicate Mary
is a perpetual virgin.
>you use scriptures that do not say what you claim they
> say,
Wrong, they do say what I pointed out they say, and you implicitly
conceded this when you decided you needed to insert the text "(from
that time)" into the angel's words with Mary, in order to change the
meaning of Scripture.
>then you pretend that they have demonstrated your point when they
> have not.
>
I am not pretending. They do demonstrate my point.
> I do not have time to waste on 1415 line posts.
>
You can always feel free to condense, I am replying to your posts, it
is not my fault you decided to repeat yourself multiple times.
> You have never so far demonstrated even one of the following:
>
Yes I have, and I shall do so again.
> 1. That Mary ever made any "agreement" with Joseph to never have
> sexual intercourse with him after Jesus was born.
>
This is demonstrated in her reply to the angel, when she uses future
tense, not present tense.
> 2. That Mary remained a virgin after Jesus was born.
>
Again, Mary made clear in her reply to the angel that she was not ever
having relations with Joseph, otherwise she would not have asked, "How
shall this be, seeing I know not man."
> 3. That the brothers and sisters of Jesus were not Mary's biological
> children.
This is because we know the Jews called cousins brothers and sisters,
and as you yourself admitted, nowhere in the Biblical text does it say
Mary had other children.
>
> 4. That the purpose of marriage ever "changed" then was "changed
> back" after it was instituted in Genesis.
>
This is made clear in both Matthew and Mark, when Jesus replies to the
point that Moses allowed divorce and remarriage, Jesus agreed that
Moses allowed it, but then said, "In the beginning, it was not so." If
it was not so in the beginning, but is now, then it definitely changed.
> 5. That failure by Mary to be joined (cleave) to her husband would
> not be a sin, as scripture says it would be.
>
Scripture does not say it would be a sin if both spouses agree to not
have relations, and Mary makes clear that Joseph has already agreed to
this when the angel addresses her. Indeed, Mary could not guarantee her
perpetual virginity unless Joseph promised in advance, and she knew he
was sincere in her promise.
> You have _claimed_ that you have demonstrated these things
Which I have, repeatedly, and you have failed to refute these points.
>(although
> you have also admitted that they are not in the text,
I did not admit they are not in the text, I do admit that they are not
explicitly declared in the text, instead they are clearly meant in
Mary's words. There is no other meaning which makes sense in the text.
> but somehow we
> must believe they are "clearly indicated" there without being there).
I do not require belief, I ask only that you read the text carefully,
without edits or prior assumptions.
>
> Continuing this thread with you would amount to nothing more than
> rehashing the same stuff over and over again
Barbossa: So what now, Jack Sparrow? Are we to be two immortals locked
in an epic battle until Judgment Day and trumpets sound?
Jack Sparrow: Or you could surrender.
>without any intelligent
> reasoning from you at all.
>
You mistake unintelligent reasoning with what I am actually doing,
which is disagreeing with you via intelligent reasoning.
> parakaleo
David
Oh, I am Catholic.
> The "sub-religion" is that of making Mary someone to be prayed to,
> "adored" or anything else that takes away from the Glory of God.
>
I just want to point out that adoring Mary is not exclusive to Orthodox
and Catholic groups, Protestants used to do it, until they forgot
Christianity's honoring of Mary back even to the time of the Apostles.
Martin Luther, "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."
Luther also acknowledged that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
> parakaleo
David
I never claimed he did take that position.
> then you admit he
> didn't take that position,
I always acknowledged he did not take it.
> that you were merely claiming he took it
> for "comparison?"
I never said he took it, I provided an example of what a more rational
position would be, to contrast against havoc's rather bizzare position.
>What kind of "logical discourse" or "reasoned
> discourse" is that?
Providing another example to contrast with a position taken is
perfectly reasonable.
>That is just plain dishonesty.
Rest assured, I was not saying havoc had that position, so I am honest.
> >> >>
> >> >> But to take the position that Jesus is the heir of David, even though
> >> >> he is not Joseph's actual son, as long as Joseph consummated his
> >> >> marriage with Mary AFTER Jesus was born is just bizzare.
> >> >>
> >> I have never seen havoc make any such claim. Havoc, is he
> >> misrepresenting you here?
> >>
> >
> >Right here:
> >
> >>In Mary's case, if there was
> >>no consumation, you have a serious theological problem - Quite serious.
> >>Jesus is Heir to the throne of David; but, can only be so if the
> >>marriage is consumated. This is law. Jesus is only a proper heir if
> >>the marriage is proper. You can consult rabbinical authority and they
> >>will not only confirm this, they'll add to it substantially.
> >
> >What this boils down to is that Jesus was not heir to David, until Mary
> >consumated her marriage with Joseph. I don't see how else you can read
> >it. And I would still like to see where rabbinical authority covers
> >something like virgin births.
>
> If it is havoc who is making that claim, he is wrong.
If havoc wants to explain that he meant something else, I am willing to
listen.
> Jesus is of the
> lineage of David through Mary, not Joseph.
>
I think one gospel traces the lineage through to Mary, the other
through to Joseph(Matthew?)
> parakaleo
David
Sorry parakaleo, in my previous reply, I forgot to put adoring in
quotation marks as you did. It should say:
I just want to point out that "adoring" Mary is not exclusive to
Orthodox
and Catholic groups, Protestants used to do it, until they forgot
Christianity's honoring of Mary back even to the time of the Apostles.
> parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
>> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
>> stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>>
>> I <snipped> it all.
>>
>
>You aren't even going to try to refute me?
I have already done so at least a dozen times.
>
>> It is clear that you are not worth wasting time on, David.
>
>Without even attempting to refute my points, you are wasting your time.
Been there, done that.
>
>> You cannot track logically
>
>You have failed to support this assertion.
Did it many times. You are just too stupid to notice.
>
>>and you are dishonest.
>
>I have provided clear explanations as for why I disagree with you.
>Correcting your errors is not dishonest.
So far you have offered nothing by way of honest correction. You have
made false claims, added Scriptures that do not say what you claim,
then have claimed you "proved" your point.
>
>> You claim you have demonstrated things that you have never
>> demonstrated,
>
>Wrong, I have clearly demonstrated that verses 31 and 34 indicate Mary
>is a perpetual virgin.
No, you just claimed so with no support. You also admitted that the
verses do _NOT_SAY_ it, but you then give us the unsupported assertion
that we should believe "that is clearly what it means" because you say
so.
No, making the unsupported assertion that these verses say something
that you yourself admit they do not say is _NOT_ "clearly
demonstrating" anything.
I <snipped the rest> of the tripe you are peddling.
No, I don't need to refute what you have offered only as unsupported
assertions.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
Bible.
Matt 4:10
10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
serve.'"
NKJV
Why don't you pray to a dog? After all, according to your own logic,
it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary or of God, now would
it?
I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
don't you?
Parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
The only "protestant" groups I know of that have ever done so are the
Anglicans. I don't think they do it any more.
But nobody else does, or as far as I can find ever did.
>
>Martin Luther, "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."
>
>Luther also acknowledged that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
>
Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest. He didn't shed all of the
RCC garbage when he left, and nobody considers his beliefs to be
sacrosanct.
parakaleo
Tyrone Robinson
"Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za> wrote in message
news:Yt-dnf1QvcGnduXe...@is.co.za...
You can pray to Mary until you turn blue and it won't do you a bit of good.
There is only One Mediator. 1Ti 2:5
Praying TO Mary is not the same as asking a living person to pray for you TO
Jesus.
David
para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> >para...@technicianheaven.com wrote:
> >> "David" <davec...@earthlink.net>, posted this little bit of
> >> stuff:
> >> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >>
> >> I <snipped> it all.
> >>
> >
> >You aren't even going to try to refute me?
>
> I have already done so at least a dozen times.
Maybe you can point it out? I can't seem to find it, your posts talk
about me so much-my character, my intelligence, my age-it didn't seem
like you had time to actually focus on Mary.
> >
> >> It is clear that you are not worth wasting time on, David.
> >
> >Without even attempting to refute my points, you are wasting your time.
>
> Been there, done that.
You have wasted your time before?
> >
> >> You cannot track logically
> >
> >You have failed to support this assertion.
>
> Did it many times.
Unsupported assertion.
> You are just too stupid to notice.
Unsupported assertion.
> >
> >>and you are dishonest.
> >
> >I have provided clear explanations as for why I disagree with you.
> >Correcting your errors is not dishonest.
>
> So far you have offered nothing by way of honest correction.
Wrong. I have corrected your errors, including mistaking Jesus cousins
for Mary's sons, your editing of the angel's words, and your unwitting
comparison of the union of Christ and His Church with having sex with
harlots.
> You have
> made false claims,
I have made no false claims, I have merely cited the Biblical text.
> added Scriptures that do not say what you claim,
They do clearly indicate what I claim.
> then have claimed you "proved" your point.
I never said I proved my point, I did say I was proving my point.
> >
> >> You claim you have demonstrated things that you have never
> >> demonstrated,
> >
> >Wrong, I have clearly demonstrated that verses 31 and 34 indicate Mary
> >is a perpetual virgin.
>
> No, you just claimed so with no support.
Wrong, I provided evidence that Mary spoke in future tense, and noted
where you attempted to change the verse so that it no longer fit with
my claim.
> You also admitted that the
> verses do _NOT_SAY_ it,
Just like you admitted that the Bible does not say "Mary had other
children."
>but you then give us the unsupported assertion
Wrong, I did support my assertions.
> that we should believe "that is clearly what it means" because you say
> so.
I did not ask you to believe me because I say so, I told you to read
the text and understand its full meaning. If you want to try and
explain what it means, without editing the text this time, be my guest.
>
> No, making the unsupported assertion
Wrong, I did support this assertion.
>that these verses say something
> that you yourself admit they do not say
Just like you admitted that the Bible does not say "Mary had other
children."
> is _NOT_ "clearly
> demonstrating" anything.
It is when I point out that Mary and the angel's use of future tense
only makes sense if Mary had already decided to be a perpetual virgin.
> I <snipped the rest> of the tripe you are peddling.
>
Correcting your errors and refuting your unsupported assertions is not
tripe, and I am not peddling, it is you who responded to me.
> No, I don't need to refute what you have offered
Yes you do need to refute me, or concede defeat..
> only as unsupported
> assertions.
>
because I have supported my assertions.
> parakaleo
David
I am not sure either, perhaps the high Anglicans.
> But nobody else does, or as far as I can find ever did.
Wrong, almost all of the major Protestant groups in the past honored
Mary and respected the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual
virgin.
> >
> >Martin Luther, "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."
> >
> >Luther also acknowledged that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
> >
> Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest.
Ok, let's try John Calvin. What do you think John?
"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other
relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity"
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must
have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes
mentioned."
>He didn't shed all of the
> RCC garbage when he left,
First of all, it is the Catholic Church, not the RCC, and second, do
you want to try and give me a song and dance about how John Calvin was
a Roman Catholic priest?
>and nobody considers his beliefs to be
> sacrosanct.
>
I wasn't pointing out what Martin Luther believed because I thought
anyone considered his beliefs sacrosanct, I pointed it out to show you
that you don't know your history.
> parakaleo
David
Here you fail to distinguish between worship of God as taught by
Scripture, and honor of the angels and saints, as taught by Scripture.
> praying to her is forbidden by the
> Bible.
>
Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
> Matt 4:10
> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
> serve.'"
> NKJV
>
So you admit that the Bible does not say, "Do not honor Mary."
> Why don't you pray to a dog?
Dogs cannot intercede on our behalf, while Scripture teaches that Mary
can successfully intercede with Jesus on our behalf.
> After all, according to your own logic,
> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary
Catholics do not worship Mary.
> or of God, now would
> it?
>
Scripture does not teach praying to dogs.
> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
> don't you?
>
A ten year old can both see and point out the flaws in your logic.
> Parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
_Not_one_scripture says you should pray to mary, angels, or people who
have dies. Not one single verse.
>
>> praying to her is forbidden by the
>> Bible.
>>
>
>Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
Worshipping _anyone_ but God is forbidden. See the verses below that
I posted last time.
>
>> Matt 4:10
>> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
>> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
>> serve.'"
>> NKJV
>>
>
>So you admit that the Bible does not say, "Do not honor Mary."
Praying to Mary is an act of worship. You are told to worship _only_
_GOD_, not mary, not your dog, not a dung beetle.
>
>> Why don't you pray to a dog?
>
>Dogs cannot intercede on our behalf, while Scripture teaches that Mary
>can successfully intercede with Jesus on our behalf.
Oh, but you can _pretend_ just as you do with Mary. No Scripture ever
says that Mary (who has died) can intercede for anyone.
Jesus Christ is our only intercessor, and HE is more than sufficient.
>> After all, according to your own logic,
>> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary
>
>Catholics do not worship Mary.
They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
>
>> or of God, now would
>> it?
>>
>
>Scripture does not teach praying to dogs.
It doesn't teach praying to Mary either.
>
>> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
>> don't you?
>>
>
>A ten year old can both see and point out the flaws in your logic.
>
At least _you_ claim you can.
parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
Which ones are they? The ones who smoke pot? LOL!
>
>> But nobody else does, or as far as I can find ever did.
>
>Wrong, almost all of the major Protestant groups in the past honored
>Mary and respected the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual
>virgin.
Show us _citations_ that demonstrate that Methodists, Presbyterians,
Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelical Free, and Pentecostals _ever_
considered Mary to be a "perpetual virgin."
You cannot. Martin Luther did keep to that belief as far as I can
tell; he didn't address _every_ heresy of the RCC. But aside from
Luther himself, it would be _very_ interesting to see your so-called
_citations_.
>> >
>> >Martin Luther, "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."
>> >
>> >Luther also acknowledged that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
>> >
>> Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest.
>
>Ok, let's try John Calvin. What do you think John?
>
>"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other
>relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity"
_CITATION?_ Or did you make that up on your own? Any _genuine_
citation includes the author, publication, publication dates, etc.
whenever they exist.
And as you do with other things, it is only one sentence, not showing
what is being talked about. He could be talking about a verse in
Leviticus for all we know.
And of course there is the fact that Matthew came to us in GREEK,
_not_ Hebrew, and the Greeks DO have separate words for cousins and
other relations, but they didn't use those words, they used "brothers"
and "sisters" and "mother" and "son."
So your claim falls flat on its face.
>
>"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must
>have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes
>mentioned."
>
>>He didn't shed all of the
>> RCC garbage when he left,
>
>First of all, it is the Catholic Church, not the RCC, and second, do
>you want to try and give me a song and dance about how John Calvin was
>a Roman Catholic priest?
Luther left the ROMAN Catholic Church (abbreviated properly, RCC).
Try again.
And so far you have not cited John Calvin. You have only put down
some words you _claim_ he said, with _no_ citations to be checked.
>
>>and nobody considers his beliefs to be
>> sacrosanct.
>>
>
>I wasn't pointing out what Martin Luther believed because I thought
>anyone considered his beliefs sacrosanct, I pointed it out to show you
>that you don't know your history.
>
>> parakaleo
I never said Martin Luther didn't believe in many of the RCC doctrines
after he left. You _claimed_ :
>> >I just want to point out that adoring Mary is not exclusive to Orthodox
>> >and Catholic groups, Protestants used to do it, until they forgot
>> >Christianity's honoring of Mary back even to the time of the Apostles.
>>
And I pointed out that you were wrong with the only possible exception
being the Anglicans.. So far you have not demonstrated ONE SINGLE
other group who has ever believed Mary was a "perpetual virgin." at
all.
So which? Baptists? Methodists? Lutherans? Pentecostals?
Go ahead, _cite_ something that says that _any_ of these non RCC
groups ever subscribed to Mary being a "perpetual virgin."
And remember, honest _citation_ requires identifying your source in
such a way that it may be _checked_.
The fact that you apparently didn't know that makes me think you are a
child, not an adult.
Parakaleo
Stephen Korsman
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:gt6in1lldgvhbdev7...@4ax.com...
You define prayer as an act of worship. That's not the original meaning of
the word.
> Matt 4:10
> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
> serve.'"
> NKJV
>
> Why don't you pray to a dog? After all, according to your own logic,
> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary or of God, now would
> it?
It would be pointless, because the dog would not understand to pray for us.
But it would not be worship of the dog.
> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
> don't you?
I see faulty logic.
Stephen Korsman
"Tyrone Robinson" <tyr...@tyrone.com> wrote in message
news:UZudnXkYs_Z...@rcn.net...
We agree that there is only one mediator. But Mary can intercede for us.
We can all intercede for each other.
> Praying TO Mary is not the same as asking a living person to pray for you
TO
> Jesus.
Asking Mary to pray for us is the same as asking a living person to pray for
us, because she is alive in heaven.
Stephen Korsman
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:ui3kn1518ejek5qbv...@4ax.com...
>
> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
By ONE definition. Not by the complete definition, which gives plenty of
other meanings.
Tyrone Robinson
You have been duped.
David
Your historical ignorance is... how did you put it? Oh yes,
underwhelming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Church
> >
> >> But nobody else does, or as far as I can find ever did.
> >
> >Wrong, almost all of the major Protestant groups in the past honored
> >Mary and respected the Biblical teaching that Mary was a perpetual
> >virgin.
>
> Show us _citations_ that demonstrate that Methodists,
John Wesley, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley
"I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as
well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted
virgin."
>Presbyterians,
John Calvin, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyterian
On Matthew 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"
> Lutherans,
Martin Luther, "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."
>Baptists,
It depends on which Baptists you are talking about, are you talking
about Anabaptists like the Mennonites or the Amish, are you talking
about the seperatists from the Netherlands who followed Arminianism, or
the Puritans from England who traced their roots back to John Calvin?
Since Baptists have such wide differences in origin, and variances in
theology from church to church, a citation only applies to a narrow
group, but that still doesn't help you.
> Evangelical Free,
I am talking about the past here, the evangelicals are very recent, and
Protestants had forgotten most of Christian tradition by the time
evangelicals appeared, as I already mentioned.
> and Pentecostals _ever_
Again, far too recent.
> considered Mary to be a "perpetual virgin."
>
"Calvin, like Luther and Zwingli, taught the perpetual virginity of
Mary. The early Reformers even applied, though with some reticence, the
title Theotokos to Mary . . . Calvin called on his followers to
venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's
commands."
JA Ross MacKenzie
Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue, edited by Alberic Stacpoole, 1982
page 35-36
> You cannot.
Wrong again.
> Martin Luther did keep to that belief as far as I can
> tell;
Rest assured, he kept the belief until the end of his days.
> he didn't address _every_ heresy of the RCC.
Mary's perpetual viriginity is not a heresy, it is a Biblical teaching.
> But aside from
> Luther himself, it would be _very_ interesting to see your so-called
> _citations_.
Good, so you find this post interesting.
> >> >
> >> >Martin Luther, "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."
> >> >
> >> >Luther also acknowledged that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
> >> >
> >> Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Priest.
> >
> >Ok, let's try John Calvin. What do you think John?
> >
> >"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other
> >relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity"
>
> _CITATION?_ Or did you make that up on your own?
Guess again. If you had been careful, you would have checked the
dialogue between me and Christian that occured months ago, he foolishly
made the same claim you did, and then I brought out quotes of the
Protestant founders, and then he whined that I did not provide
references, and so I did, and then he questioned their authenticity,
vowed to check them and determine if I was wrong, and then, of course,
dropped the subject.
>Any _genuine_
> citation includes the author, publication, publication dates, etc.
> whenever they exist.
>
Ask, and you shall receive.
"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must
have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes
mentioned."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32.ii.xxxix.html#ii.xxxix-p1.1
"Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other
relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xiii.i.html
> And as you do with other things, it is only one sentence, not showing
> what is being talked about. He could be talking about a verse in
> Leviticus for all we know.
>
Go ahead and check the links, let me know if you find he is talking
about Leviticus.
> And of course there is the fact that Matthew came to us in GREEK,
Cute, "came to us in Greek." You told the truth, while obscuring the
fact that Matthew was first written in Aramaic.
> _not_ Hebrew,
Correct, not Hebrew, Matthew was first written in Aramaic.
>and the Greeks DO have separate words for cousins and
> other relations,
Again, the Greeks did not write Scripture, Jews did.
>but they didn't use those words, they used "brothers"
> and "sisters" and "mother" and "son."
>
What do you think John?
"...displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had
many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned."
"No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme
fondness for disputation."
What do you think Luther?
"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."
And Huldreich Zwingli, could you weigh in, even though parakaleo
probably has no clue who you are?
"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."
> So your claim falls flat on its face.
Would you like some help off the floor parakaleo?
Word of advice, if you think you can save face by demanding I provide
references for the rest of my citations, guess again. I have them all
ready to go, just ask for them.
If you want to know why I have not provided all of them, it is because
you have once already ignored my arguments when you could not surmount
them, instead snipping them and announcing that you had already refuted
me while whining that you don't have time to read my long posts.
> >
> >"Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must
> >have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes
> >mentioned."
> >
> >>He didn't shed all of the
> >> RCC garbage when he left,
> >
> >First of all, it is the Catholic Church, not the RCC, and second, do
> >you want to try and give me a song and dance about how John Calvin was
> >a Roman Catholic priest?
>
> Luther left the ROMAN Catholic Church (abbreviated properly, RCC).
> Try again.
The Catholic Church teaches consistently between the Roman, Maronite,
Coptic, Malabar, and every other Catholic Church. If you want to call
what the Roman Catholic church teaches garbage, you call all the CCs
garbage.
>
> And so far you have not cited John Calvin.
Yes I have.
> You have only put down
> some words you _claim_ he said, with _no_ citations to be checked.
Go ahead, check it. Will you acknowledge I am correct after you do so?
> >
> >>and nobody considers his beliefs to be
> >> sacrosanct.
> >>
> >
> >I wasn't pointing out what Martin Luther believed because I thought
> >anyone considered his beliefs sacrosanct, I pointed it out to show you
> >that you don't know your history.
> >
> >> parakaleo
>
> I never said Martin Luther didn't believe in many of the RCC doctrines
> after he left.
I never said you said Martin Luther didn't believe in many of the RCC
doctrines, I was pointing out you were wrong when you claimed this was
"my religion."
> You _claimed_ :
> >> >I just want to point out that adoring Mary is not exclusive to Orthodox
> >> >and Catholic groups, Protestants used to do it, until they forgot
> >> >Christianity's honoring of Mary back even to the time of the Apostles.
> >>
> And I pointed out that you were wrong with the only possible exception
> being the Anglicans..
You are mistaken.
>So far you have not demonstrated ONE SINGLE
> other group who has ever believed Mary was a "perpetual virgin." at
> all.
>
Wrong again.
> So which? Baptists?
Too vague, they are all over the map in their origins.
> Methodists?
John Wesley
"I believe... he [Jesus Christ] was born of the blessed Virgin, who, as
well after as she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted
virgin."
>Lutherans?
Martin Luther, "Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost
her virginity"
> Pentecostals?
>
Far too recent.
> Go ahead, _cite_ something that says that _any_ of these non RCC
> groups ever subscribed to Mary being a "perpetual virgin."
>
Ask, and you shall receive.
> And remember, honest _citation_ requires identifying your source in
> such a way that it may be _checked_.
>
Seek, and ye shall find.
Go to www.google.com. Just copy and paste the quotes, you should find
them.
But if you don't want to check it, instead prefering to whine again
about how you are not getting sources, I shall provide them for each
citation above.
> The fact that you apparently didn't know
Appearances have deceived you again, you should have done your homework
and read all the posts which Christian and I have posted. Or better
yet, Christian could have warned you what I was doing, talk about
ungrateful...you would think he could have given you a heads up, since
you tried to step in and help him, and instead found yourself in way
over your head.
>that makes me think you are a
> child, not an adult.
>
You honestly think many things which are wrong, that is why I am
correcting you.
> Parakaleo
David
Wrong. Psalm 103:20
Bless the LORD, all you angels, mighty in strength and attentive,
obedient to every command.
> >
> >> praying to her is forbidden by the
> >> Bible.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
>
> Worshipping _anyone_ but God is forbidden.
Once again you fail to distinguish between worship of God as taught by
Scripture, and honor of the angels and saints, as taught by Scripture.
>See the verses below that
> I posted last time.
These verses have nothing to say on honoring angels and saints.
> >
> >> Matt 4:10
> >> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
> >> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
> >> serve.'"
> >> NKJV
> >>
> >
> >So you admit that the Bible does not say, "Do not honor Mary."
>
> Praying to Mary is an act of worship.
Wrong, it is honor, not worship.
> You are told to worship _only_
> _GOD_, not mary, not your dog, not a dung beetle.
True.
> >
> >> Why don't you pray to a dog?
> >
> >Dogs cannot intercede on our behalf, while Scripture teaches that Mary
> >can successfully intercede with Jesus on our behalf.
>
> Oh, but you can _pretend_
I never pretend with Scripture, I never add words like "(from that
time)"
> just as you do with Mary. No Scripture ever
> says that Mary (who has died) can intercede for anyone.
Wrong, all saints can pray for us.
Revelations 5:8-10
And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they
sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open
the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And
hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the
earth.
>
> Jesus Christ is our only intercessor,
Wrong, St. Paul makes clear all men can intercede on behalf of others.
1 Timothy 2:1-3
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings,
and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and
acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
>and HE is more than sufficient.
Jesus Christ is, of course, THE Intercessor, but He does not preclude
others from also interceding to Him on behalf of others.
>
> >> After all, according to your own logic,
> >> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary
> >
> >Catholics do not worship Mary.
>
> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
Wrong again. Scripture makes clear you can pray to worship, or pray to
honor.
> >
> >> or of God, now would
> >> it?
> >>
> >
> >Scripture does not teach praying to dogs.
>
> It doesn't teach praying to Mary either.
Wrong, it doesn't teach not praying to Mary.
> >
> >> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
> >> don't you?
> >>
> >
> >A ten year old can both see and point out the flaws in your logic.
> >
> At least _you_ claim you can.
>
I have done so, it was child's play.
> parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
of stuff:
you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>
>news:ui3kn1518ejek5qbv...@4ax.com...
>>
>> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
>
>By ONE definition. Not by the complete definition, which gives plenty of
>other meanings.
>
praying to her is an act of worship. That would remain valid even if
praying meant to throw rocks. You don't throw rocks; you pray to Mary
(I would assume).
Parakaleo
para...@technicianheaven.com
Hmm. ANGELS are to Bless the Lord. NOT HUMANS. So how do you
pretend that YOU are to pray TO ANGELS from this verse?
Here the ANGELS ARE DOING THE PRAYING, not men.
Your verse doesn't support you at all.
>
>> >
>> >> praying to her is forbidden by the
>> >> Bible.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
>>
>> Worshipping _anyone_ but God is forbidden.
>
>Once again you fail to distinguish between worship of God as taught by
>Scripture, and honor of the angels and saints, as taught by Scripture.
SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE. The one above does NOT say that MEN are to
pray to angels. It says that ANGELS ARE TO BLESS THE LORD.
Not the same thing.
>
>>See the verses below that
>> I posted last time.
>
>These verses have nothing to say on honoring angels and saints.
Prayer is an act of worship. These verses say you are to worship
NOBODY BUT GOD. You are not to pray to ANYONE or ANYTHING else! Not
goats. Not the sun. Not even a hair on your head!
NOBODY but God.
Mary is a LOOOOOOONG way from being God.
Prayer to her is wrong.
>
>> >
>> >> Matt 4:10
>> >> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
>> >> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
>> >> serve.'"
>> >> NKJV
>> >>
>> >
>> >So you admit that the Bible does not say, "Do not honor Mary."
>>
>> Praying to Mary is an act of worship.
>
>Wrong, it is honor, not worship.
Prayer is an act of worship.
You may want to redefine the term if you wish, but people bow their
heads, close their eyes, clasp their hands, an often kneel when
praying to Mary. THAT _IS_ WORSHIP.
>
>> You are told to worship _only_
>> _GOD_, not mary, not your dog, not a dung beetle.
>
>True.
Not Mary. Not Joseph. Not a jackass.
>> >
>> >> Why don't you pray to a dog?
>> >
>> >Dogs cannot intercede on our behalf, while Scripture teaches that Mary
>> >can successfully intercede with Jesus on our behalf.
>>
>> Oh, but you can _pretend_
>
>I never pretend with Scripture, I never add words like "(from that
>time)"
No, you just PRETEND that when she says "I know (that is PRESENT
TENSE, which MEANS "AT THAT TIME" in the language) no man" that she is
talking about later.
You just PRETEND she and Joseph made some kind of "arrangement" that
is not in the Bible anywhere.
Yep, you DO pretend a lot with scripture, claiming it says things it
never says.
>
>> just as you do with Mary. No Scripture ever
>> says that Mary (who has died) can intercede for anyone.
>
>Wrong, all saints can pray for us.
>
>Revelations 5:8-10
>
>And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
>elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
>golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they
>sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open
>the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
>thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And
>hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the
>earth.
Angels and people who have died and are in heaven can pray for us.
There is not one scripture anywhere however that says that Mary can
hear your blabbings (hail mary 51 times per hour! sheesh!) at all!
>>
>> Jesus Christ is our only intercessor,
>
>Wrong, St. Paul makes clear all men can intercede on behalf of others.
>
>1 Timothy 2:1-3
>
>I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
>intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings,
>and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
>peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and
>acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
We do pray for each other, but there is no mediator between God and
man except Jesus Himself.
1 Tim 2:5-6
5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
due time,
NKJV
A mediator is by definition a person who links between two parties.
Mary is not that. Mary has died. She is not here. When you do your
51 hail marys in an hour, you are bleating into the air, nothing more.
>
>>and HE is more than sufficient.
>
>Jesus Christ is, of course, THE Intercessor, but He does not preclude
>others from also interceding to Him on behalf of others.
Except you are not to pray to anyone who has died, not to pray or bow
before a statue, or try to talk to the dead (witchcraft).
And bleating the same words 51 times or so in an hour? Not one
instance of _that_ occurs in any Bible!
>>
>> >> After all, according to your own logic,
>> >> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary
>> >
>> >Catholics do not worship Mary.
>>
>> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
>
>Wrong again. Scripture makes clear you can pray to worship, or pray to
>honor.
You keep making that baseless assertion, but you cannot seem to find
scriptures that say so.
>> >
>> >> or of God, now would
>> >> it?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Scripture does not teach praying to dogs.
>>
>> It doesn't teach praying to Mary either.
>
>Wrong, it doesn't teach not praying to Mary.
According to the pamphelets I read in the RCC, the RCC does. Their
written literature says they do. According to what I read about the
Orthodox, they do too.
>> >
>> >> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
>> >> don't you?
>> >>
>> >
>> >A ten year old can both see and point out the flaws in your logic.
>> >
>> At least _you_ claim you can.
>>
>I have done so, it was child's play.
>
Yep, you have indeed demonstrated the flaws in your logic.
parakaleo
Stephen Korsman
Tyrone Robinson
>> >
>>
>> You have been duped.
>
> Thanks.
>
You're welcome.
Stephen Korsman
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:jnfln1peqa16ig89h...@4ax.com...
> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za>, posted this little bit
> of stuff:
> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
> >
> ><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
> >news:ui3kn1518ejek5qbv...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
> >
> >By ONE definition. Not by the complete definition, which gives plenty of
> >other meanings.
> >
> But just because there are other meanings does _not_ negate that
> praying to her is an act of worship.
So, the definition does not show that prayer is an act of worship. Nor does
the Bible. What are you left with?
How is asking someone to pray for you an act of worship?
Stephen Korsman
<para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
news:gmgmn1h7ob0hp2nei...@4ax.com...
Unless an angel wrote that psalm, it was a human addressing angels.
> >> >> praying to her is forbidden by the
> >> >> Bible.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
> >>
> >> Worshipping _anyone_ but God is forbidden.
> >
> >Once again you fail to distinguish between worship of God as taught by
> >Scripture, and honor of the angels and saints, as taught by Scripture.
>
> SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE. The one above does NOT say that MEN are to
> pray to angels. It says that ANGELS ARE TO BLESS THE LORD.
>
> Not the same thing.
It gives an example of humans doing just that.
> Prayer is an act of worship.
> You may want to redefine the term if you wish,
We're not redefining it. We're using an older meaning of the word. Your
tradition has limited its use.
> but people bow their
> heads, close their eyes, clasp their hands, an often kneel when
> praying to Mary. THAT _IS_ WORSHIP.
Why? In your experience, that is worship. But that's just your experience.
Don't discount the experience of others, and don't claim to know what goes
on in the heart of those whose experience is different to yours - which is
what you're doing, if you claim we worship her, because worship is an act of
the spirit, not of body posture.
> We do pray for each other, but there is no mediator between God and
> man except Jesus Himself.
>
> 1 Tim 2:5-6
> 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
> Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
> due time,
> NKJV
>
> A mediator is by definition a person who links between two parties.
>
> Mary is not that.
Then you agree with the Catholic Church on that. However, that does not
mean she doesn't pray, as you admit the saints do.
Tyrone Robinson
>
> <para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
> news:jnfln1peqa16ig89h...@4ax.com...
>> "Stephen Korsman" <skor...@theotoko.co.za>, posted this little bit
>> of stuff:
>> you posted in alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic :
>> >
>> ><para...@technicianheaven.com> wrote in message
>> >news:ui3kn1518ejek5qbv...@4ax.com...
>> >>
>> >> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
>> >
>> >By ONE definition. Not by the complete definition, which gives plenty of
>> >other meanings.
>> >
>> But just because there are other meanings does _not_ negate that
>> praying to her is an act of worship.
>
> So, the definition does not show that prayer is an act of worship. Nor does
> the Bible. What are you left with?
>
> How is asking someone to pray for you an act of worship?
>
It's not worship. Praying TO a dead person IS worship. Mary is dead.
Stephen Korsman
In your opinion. But then believing in Sola Scriptura is worship too.
> Mary is dead.
To you, but not to God.
David
Indeed.
> NOT HUMANS.
> So how do you
> pretend that YOU are to pray TO ANGELS from this verse?
>
I am not pretending. Angels did not write Psalms 103:20. Jews did. The
Psalms are prayers. Psalm 103:20 was a prayer to angels asking them to
pray for the Jews who recite the prayer.
> Here the ANGELS ARE DOING THE PRAYING, not men.
>
Yes, because the Psalm(which is what we pray) asks the angels to pray
for us. The Psalm wasn't written by Jews in order to teach angels to
pray.
> Your verse doesn't support you at all.
Wrong, by conceding that the prayer asks the angles to pray, you have
not only demonstrated that the verse supports me, but also by the
simple act of reading the verse you have already prayed to angels,
instead of to God. Or, if you are hung up on "pray to angels" you just
asked the angels to pray to God for you. In essence, when a Catholic
"prays to angels" or "prays to Mary" or "prays to saints", he or she is
just asking the subject(angel, Mary, saints) to pray to God on our
behalf.
See, it wasn't that hard, and you did it the way Scripture taught.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> praying to her is forbidden by the
> >> >> Bible.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Wrong, the Bible does not forbid prayer to Mary.
> >>
> >> Worshipping _anyone_ but God is forbidden.
> >
> >Once again you fail to distinguish between worship of God as taught by
> >Scripture, and honor of the angels and saints, as taught by Scripture.
>
> SHOW US THE SCRIPTURE.
I have shown Pslam 103, would you like to see Psalm 148?
>The one above does NOT say that MEN are to
> pray to angels.
It does not say to do that, instead, it actually does it!! The Pslam
was written for men and women to read and by reciting the Psalm men and
women actually ask the angels to...well, I couldn't have put it better
than you...
> It says that ANGELS ARE TO BLESS THE LORD.
...except to add that the angels are to do so on our behalf.
>
> Not the same thing.
You are mistaken.
> >
> >>See the verses below that
> >> I posted last time.
> >
> >These verses have nothing to say on honoring angels and saints.
> Prayer is an act of worship.
According to Scripture, it can be either an act of honor or worship.
> These verses say you are to worship
> NOBODY BUT GOD.
True.
>You are not to pray to ANYONE or ANYTHING else!
Wrong, you have already agreed Psalm 103:20 addresses the angels.
> Not
> goats. Not the sun. Not even a hair on your head!
>
True, true and true.
> NOBODY but God.
>
Wrong, we can also honor(but not worship) angels and saints through
prayer. Like Psalm 103:20.
> Mary is a LOOOOOOONG way from being God.
>
Agreed, Mary is not God.
> Prayer to her is wrong.
Incorrect.
> >
> >> >
> >> >> Matt 4:10
> >> >> 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written,
> >> >> 'You shall worship the LORD your God , and Him only you shall
> >> >> serve.'"
> >> >> NKJV
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >So you admit that the Bible does not say, "Do not honor Mary."
> >>
> >> Praying to Mary is an act of worship.
> >
> >Wrong, it is honor, not worship.
>
> Prayer is an act of worship.
Wrong, it can be an act of worship or honor.
> You may want to redefine the term if you wish,
Correction, I wish to preserve the term as it is taught in Scripture.
> but people bow their
> heads, close their eyes, clasp their hands, an often kneel when
> praying to Mary. THAT _IS_ WORSHIP.
Not according to the Bible.
> >
> >> You are told to worship _only_
> >> _GOD_, not mary, not your dog, not a dung beetle.
> >
> >True.
>
> Not Mary. Not Joseph. Not a jackass.
Agreed, worship is only for God.
> >> >
> >> >> Why don't you pray to a dog?
> >> >
> >> >Dogs cannot intercede on our behalf, while Scripture teaches that Mary
> >> >can successfully intercede with Jesus on our behalf.
> >>
> >> Oh, but you can _pretend_
> >
> >I never pretend with Scripture, I never add words like "(from that
> >time)"
>
> No, you just PRETEND that when she says "I know (that is PRESENT
> TENSE, which MEANS "AT THAT TIME"
Correction, you did not add the words "at that time" to Mary's
statement. You added the words "(from that time)" to the angel's
statement! As in:
"And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son,
and shalt call his name JESUS."
Your exact statement was:
>These verses tell us that the angel came to Mary, a woman who had not
>had intercourse yet with Joseph or any other man, and told her she
>would in the future (from that time) bear a child. She asked...
You did not address what Mary is saying in the first sentence, you were
addressing what the angel was saying, and you added the words "(from
that time)" which has no support in Luke 1:31.
>in the language) no man" that she is
> talking about later.
>
Correction, she said "How shall(future tense) this be, seeing I know
not(present continuous tense) man."
The Mary is responding to the angel, the angel did not tell her WHEN
she would conceive and bear a son, he only told her it would be in the
future.
> You just PRETEND she and Joseph made some kind of "arrangement" that
> is not in the Bible anywhere.
>
I am not pretending at all, Mary's response only makes sense if she and
Joseph had a prior arrangement for her to remain a perpetual virgin
throughout their entire marriage. This is something known for most of
Christian history, not once in 2000 years has anyone provided an
alternate explanation as to Mary's meaning in her reply to the angel
that makes ANY SENSE whatsoever.
Go ahead and try to explain her words a different way, havoc and
Christian tried, but I tore their feeble efforts to pieces.
> Yep, you DO pretend a lot with scripture, claiming it says things it
> never says.
Wrong, I never pretend, and I never make any claims that extend beyond
what Scripture itself teaches. I never try and add words to change the
meaning of the text.
> >
> >> just as you do with Mary. No Scripture ever
> >> says that Mary (who has died) can intercede for anyone.
> >
> >Wrong, all saints can pray for us.
> >
> >Revelations 5:8-10
> >
> >And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty
> >elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and
> >golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. And they
> >sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open
> >the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by
> >thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And
> >hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the
> >earth.
>
> Angels and people who have died and are in heaven can pray for us.
Agreed, that includes Mary.
> There is not one scripture anywhere however that says that Mary can
> hear your blabbings
I don't blab, I pray.
> (hail mary 51 times per hour! sheesh!) at all!
If God wants her to hear, she will hear.
> >>
> >> Jesus Christ is our only intercessor,
> >
> >Wrong, St. Paul makes clear all men can intercede on behalf of others.
> >
> >1 Timothy 2:1-3
> >
> >I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers,
> >intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings,
> >and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
> >peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and
> >acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
>
> We do pray for each other, but there is no mediator between God and
> man except Jesus Himself.
>
Jesus is the one Mediator.
> 1 Tim 2:5-6
> 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man
> Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in
> due time,
> NKJV
>
> A mediator is by definition a person who links between two parties.
>
Yes, but as 1 Timothy 2:1-4 makes clear, all men can offer prayers and
intercede on behalf of others.
> Mary is not that. Mary has died. She is not here.
She is in heaven, and she prays as Revelations makes clear, she prays
for us.
> When you do your
> 51 hail marys in an hour,
Where did you get the number 51?
>you are bleating into the air, nothing more.
If God wants saints to hear, they will hear.
> >
> >>and HE is more than sufficient.
> >
> >Jesus Christ is, of course, THE Intercessor, but He does not preclude
> >others from also interceding to Him on behalf of others.
>
> Except you are not to pray to anyone who has died,
Unsupported in Scripture.
> not to pray or bow
> before a statue,
Only if the statue is a false god. Mary is no god.
>or try to talk to the dead (witchcraft).
Of course no witchcraft, but Scripture does show talking to the dead is
not always witchcraft.
>
> And bleating
We don't bleat, we pray.
>the same words 51 times or so in an hour?
51 times or so?
> Not one
> instance of _that_ occurs in any Bible!
Most of the Hail Mary prayer itself comes from the Bible.
> >>
> >> >> After all, according to your own logic,
> >> >> it wouldn't take away from your worship of Mary
> >> >
> >> >Catholics do not worship Mary.
> >>
> >> They pray to her. Prayer is an act of worship, by definition.
> >
> >Wrong again. Scripture makes clear you can pray to worship, or pray to
> >honor.
>
> You keep making that baseless assertion,
You mean supported assertion.
>but you cannot seem to find
> scriptures that say so.
Psalm 103:20.
> >> >
> >> >> or of God, now would
> >> >> it?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Scripture does not teach praying to dogs.
> >>
> >> It doesn't teach praying to Mary either.
> >
> >Wrong, it doesn't teach not praying to Mary.
>
> According to the pamphelets I read in the RCC, the RCC does. Their
> written literature says they do. According to what I read about the
> Orthodox, they do too.
And Scripture doesn't teach not to pray to Mary.
> >> >
> >> >> I know, it sounds pretty bad, but you do see the same logic there,
> >> >> don't you?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >A ten year old can both see and point out the flaws in your logic.
> >> >
> >> At least _you_ claim you can.
> >>
> >I have done so, it was child's play.
> >
> Yep, you have indeed demonstrated the flaws in your logic.
If there were any, I would acknowledge them when they are pointed out.
How is it going on your research of my citations of John Calvin and the
others?
>
> parakaleo
David
This is true, Mary praying for you to Jesus is far better than a living
person praying for you to Jesus. Scripture teaches the prayers of the
saints carry more weight.
Eraser
news:gmgmn1h7ob0hp2nei...@4ax.com...
>
> No, you just PRETEND that when she says "I know (that is PRESENT
> TENSE, which MEANS "AT THAT TIME" in the language) no man" that she is
> talking about later.
>
> You just PRETEND she and Joseph made some kind of "arrangement" that
> is not in the Bible anywhere.
What we have here is a bethothed woman. Assuredly she knows how babies are
made. The angel came to her and said she *will* bear a son (future tense).
Yet she asks "...how can this be for I do not know man". Now Gabriel did
not say you are *presently* pregnant, but simply that she would bear a son.
It makes no sense for her to ask "how can this be for I do not know man",
because she would just assume that she was to make a baby the normal way.
Gabriel did not say you are *now* pregnant. Her question only makes sense
if there is a conflict (in Mary's mind) between her vow of chastity and
becoming pregnant. By way of analogy, it would be as if the angel came to
me and said, "You will contract AIDS and die". And my answer was along the
lines of, "How can this be, for I do not put myself at risk." Now
obviously, I haven't put myself at risk in the past, nor do I plan to do so
in the future. Just as Mary hadn't put herself at risk of pregnancy in the
past, nor had plans to do so in the future.
Tyrone Robinson
"Eraser" <Erase...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ZKCdnaic5cQ...@adelphia.com...
Where in the Bible can I read about Mary's "vow of chastity"?
If she took a "vow of chastity" she broke her vow.
Matthew 1:25
Mr 6:3
David
More precisely, she took a vow of perpetual virginity. What we know of
it is found in Chapter 1 of Luke.
> If she took a "vow of chastity" she broke her vow.
> Matthew 1:25
> Mr 6:3
Hmm...just checked those verses, they confirm Mary was a virgin. Where
do you read that she was no longer a virgin?
Eraser
Let's take a look at these verses individually. First Mt. 1:25: "But he had
no union with her til she brought forth her firstborn son..." The clear
intent of this language is that no sexual activity took place during a
certain period of time - ie, prior to the birth of the Lord.
What does "till" mean according to the Bible? Let's see:
"Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death"
(2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
Or how about the raven that Noah released from the ark? The bird "went
to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth" (Gen. 8:7). In
fact, as the story progresses, we see that the raven never returned at
all.
There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no
one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut.
34:6). But we know that no one has known since that day either.
Matt 28:20 --"...behold I am with you always, until the end of the age"
Question: After the end of the age, will He no longer be with us? YES
2 Sam 6:23 -- Michal "had no children TILL the day of her death." Did
she have children after she died? NO!
1 Macc 5:54 -- "...not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in
peace." Was Judas and his troops killed when they returned? NO!
Luke 1:80 -- John the Baptist "was in the deserts TILL the day of his
manifestation to Israel." Did John stay in the desert? YES! (Matt 3:1;
Mark 1:3-4; Luke 3:2-4)
John 4:49 -- "Sir, come down BEFORE my child dies!" Did he die? NO!
Rom 8:22 -- "...the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs
together UNTIL now." Is it still groaning? YES! <groan> :)
1 Cor 15:25 -- "For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His
feet." After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning? YES!
Eph 4:12-13 -- "...for the equipping...for the work of ministry.... for
the edifying....TILL we all come to the unity of the faith...." Once we
become unified, will equipping, ministry, and edification still be
necessary? YES!
1 Tim 4:13 -- "TILL I come, give attention to reading, to exhortation,
to doctrine." When Paul arrives, no more reading, no more exhorting, no
more doctrine? NO!
1 Tim 6:14 -- "....that you keep this commandment without spot,
blameless UNTIL our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing..." When Jesus comes
back, we should disobey these commandments? NO!
Rev 2:25-26 -- "But hold fast what you have TILL I come. And he who
overcomes and keeps My works UNTIL the end, to him I will give power..."
Should we stop holding fast and stop obeying when Jesus returns? NO!
Thus saith JOHN CALVIN --
"There have been certain STRANGE folk who have wished to suggest from
this passage [Matt 1:25] that the Virgin Mary had other children than
the Son of God, and that Joseph had then dwelt with her later; BUT WHAT
FOLLY THIS IS!
"For the gospel writer did not wish to record what happened afterwards;
he simply wished to make clear Joseph's obedience and to show also that
Joseph had been well and truly assured that it was God who had sent his
angel to Mary. He had therefore NEVER dwelt with her nor had he shared
her company....
"And besides this, our Lord Jesus Christ is called the first-born. This
is NOT because there was a second or a third, but because the gospel
writer is paying regard to the precedence. Scripture speaks thus of
naming the first-born whether or no there was any question of the
second. Thus we see the intention of the Holy Spirit. This is why to
lend ourselves to FOOLISH SUBTLETIES WOULD BE TO ABUSE HOLY
SCRIPTURE...." (Sermon on Matthew 1:22-25, published 1562)
"We have already said in another place that according to the custom of
the Hebrews all relatives were called 'brethren.' Still Helvidius [a 4th
century heretic] has shown himself to be IGNORANT of this by stating
that Mary had many children just because in several places they are
spoken of as 'brethren' of Christ." (Commentary on Matthew 13:55)
"Concerning what has happened since this birth the writer of the gospel
SAYS NOTHING...certainly it is a matter about which NO ONE will cause
dispute unless he is somewhat curious; on the contrary there never was a
man who would contradict this in obstinacy unless he were a PIG-HEADED
and FATUOUS [i.e. foolish and stupid] person." (Commentary on Matthew 1:25)
I'd be glad to discuss the use of the word "firstborn" as well, since this
word does not indicate what happened afterward either. But, for now, that
is enough about this passage. Let us go on to the next, Mark 6:3. ""Is not
this carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of James, Joseph and Jude, and
Simon? Are not also His sisters here with us?" Now, if you are claiming
that this verse indicates that they were literally full-blooded brothers,
then you are saying that they had the same Father. So you don't really mean
"literal brethren" then, you
must have meant "half-brethren". But wait if they aren't "literal
brethren", then they could just as easily be "step-brethren" (children of
Joseph) as "half-brethren" (children of Mary). Well now that the can of
worms is opened, and we know for a fact that they were not "literal"
brothers (unless of course Mary had more virginal conceptions...naah). Even
though the bible literally says "brothers", you are inclined to beliieve
that it means "half brothers". Why is that the case? I believe that
although the bible says "brothers", it is much more likely that they were
cousins or step brothers, rather than half brothers. Now, you may ask,
"what leads you to that conclusion"? Well, let's see what the Scriptures
say concerning His "brothers" James, Joseph, et al.
MATT 27:56 "Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and
Joseph and the mother of the sons of Zebedees James the Greater and John."
James the Greater and John are the sons of Zebedee.
MARK 15:40-41 "And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was
Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph and Salome
(Zebedee's wife)." Here we have Mary the mother of James the Less and
Joseph. Nowhere does it imply they are the children of Mary the Mother of
Jesus.
LUKE 6:15 "...James the son of Alphaeus."
This person James, is not the apostle James, son of Zebedee and Salome, but
James the son of Alphaeus and not the son of Mary.
Jude 1:1 "Jude the servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James."
Notice the Inspired Word of GOD states that Jude is the servant and not the
brother of Jesus Christ as also with his brother James, who were mentioned
(Mark 6:3) as the brothers of Jesus.
ACTS 1:13 "...James of Alphaeus and Simon Zelotes and Jude the brother of
James."
Simon Zelotes was a follower of Jesus Christ and not the brother of Jesus as
mentioned in Mark 6:3.
The above mentioned names (Mark 6:3) show clearly that they are not the
blood brothers of Jesus, the children of Mary. The Tradition in the Catholic
Church on Mary being 'Ever-Virgin' could hardly have arisen if she had
children who occupied important positions in that Church.
Many religions and sects outside the Catholic Faith base their
interpretation that 'Brethren' means immediate brothers and sisters (Mark
6:3). Brethren in the Bible at that time was to describe a group of
relatives, or the Apostles gathering together were regarded as brethrens,
for we are all brothers and sisters in Christ.
ACTS 1:15-16 "In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the BRETHREN
said (Now the number of persons was about one hundred and twenty): 'Men,
BRETHREN, the scriptures must needs be fulfilled...'."
Notice how the word brethren is used, not symbolizing immediate brothers and
sisters.
Hope this helps
Tyrone Robinson
You haven't answered the question:
David
Tyrone Robinson wrote:
>
> You haven't answered the question:
> "Where in the Bible can I read about Mary's "vow of chastity"?
More correctly, her vow of perpetual virginity.
Luke Chapter 1.