CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[foszoe]

You seem to want to chase rabies.

The point is you believe in works to gain favor to get to heaven, whereas I believe 1 John 5:13, the Romans Road (which you disparaged in a previous post) and Ephesians 2: 8-10.

that's the best answer I have for you

 

[foszoe]

If I were in the year 65 AD, I would be getting my information from the same place I am now.

Since that wouldn't be the Bible, what is your source?

 

[foszoe]

Circumcision was an identification, just as baptism is. It wasn't the outward circumcision that truly mattered, but the inward one. Just like baptism.

Was one considered Jewish in the OT without Circumcision?

 

[HoughMade]

...Was she married to Joseph or betrothed? Is there a difference? Were there dedicated virgins in service of the Jewish temple?

Marry would not have traveled with Joseph as his wife without being married, but 1st century marriage involved more than a short ceremony.

Anyhoo, John 2:12.

 

[JettaKnight]

I am going to ask a lot of questions They are meant to be rhetorical, thought questions. I don't expect answers.

I will answer what I can.

Would it matter if we asked believers? Would you rest your salvation on reasoning and logic?

Logic and reason do have their place in understanding God... it's not the only thing.

Was he disappointed in those who ignored scripture or those who misinterpreted scripture? Was this the scripture of the Saduccees, ie the Torah, or the scripture of the Pharisees, the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets? Which one was the Scripture? How do you know? I would guess it would be those books that Jesus quoted. What about the books he didn't quote? Why are they scripture?

Jesus said to them, "it is written..."

Are you leaving the door open that at some point the Holy Spirit left the Church? If so when? How is that scripturally defended using only the scriptures available to the average Christian at the time? What makes such a belief necessary?

It's late and I'm still at work so you'll have to research Cessationism on your own. The Holy Spirit did not leave, but the gifts ceased.

The earliest Church, began in 33 AD, at Pentecost. What scriptures were available then? How were they known to be scripture? The only scriptures available would be OT, would that be the LXX in use by most of the Jewish world in diaspora or only the Hebrew form? Or was it Aramaic? Why was the LXX allowed to be read as authoritative and could be read in the synagogues without any other reading while the Aramaic could only be read in addition to the Hebrew? Why should we consider that time period to be any more critical than now?

These all seem rhetorical.

When Paul wrote his letters were they Gospels or were they mostly corrective errors? Most were written prior to the Gospels so who taught these churches what to believe? Why could the Holy Spirit provide the insight and guidance then but not now? How is that backed up scripturally?

I assume "corrective errors" is a typo. As to the Holy Spirit, see above, but the Holy Spirit is alive and indwelling in all believers.

I found the answers of Protestantism to be lacking to several of these questions with several of them using eisegetical interpretations of the Bible, ie this is what we have been taught to believe and these are the scriptures which support that.

It seems we're at a different place.

Was she married to Joseph or betrothed? Is there a difference? Were there dedicated virgins in service of the Jewish temple?

Is the implication that she and Joseph broke off the engagement and just lived together? Maybe I don't know enough about 0 AD culture, but that doesn't seem possible. From all accounts I know of, they were husband and wife.

 

[HoughMade]

Matthew 1:20, 24-25.

 

[JettaKnight]

Matthew 1:20, 24-25.

You Protestants and your scripture.

 

[HoughMade]

You Protestants and your scripture.

We're strict constructionists that way.

 

[2A_Tom]

Was she married to Joseph or betrothed? Is there a difference? Were there dedicated virgins in service of the Jewish temple?

Married and they had other children together James, Joses, Jude and a couple of girls.

There were no vestal virgins in the Jewish temple, that was a pagan practice. It was a reproach to a Jewish girl to not bear children.

T Lex asked how you figure out whether something is literal or allegorical.


2 Timothy 2:15 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextStudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 timothy 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Woobie]

Since that wouldn't be the Bible, what is your source?

The OT and the people who walked with Jesus. Also the Holy Spirit.

 

[Woobie]

Was one considered Jewish in the OT without Circumcision?

He is not a Jew that is one outwardly....

A Jew may not have considered you Jewish, but that isn't the same thing as what God thinks.

 

[foszoe]

Marry would not have traveled with Joseph as his wife without being married, but 1st century marriage involved more than a short ceremony.

Anyhoo, John 2:12.

I want to assure you and everyone else, I am not playing gotcha

How do we know Mary would not have traveled with Joseph without being married? John 2:12 doesn't mention they were married. It does mention travelling though.

Let's play another tradition game that I think points to an eisegetical reading of the text.

Protestants often point to such a passage as "proof" that Mary and Joseph had relations. Sometimes they cite Matthew 1:24 (or 25?) and the scriptural use of the word "till" as support of such a belief.

Orthodox believe a tradition that Joseph was a much older man who had children from a previous marriage. As "proof" they cite the disappearance of Joseph from the narrative.

Catholics say that the term brothers and sisters had a much broader meaning in the time of the NT and that those referred to as brothers and sisters are actually cousins.

None of these 3 positions are entirely provable from scripture. What one chooses to believe is entirely based on the tradition they choose to follow.

As for the use of the word till

As St Jerome said, Jacob steals father-in-law's idols and buried under a tree and never found until this very day. Moses dies and his body has not been found until this very day. Does that mean on this very day they were found? No.

The greek word translated in Matt. as "till" is also used by Paul and the sense of the word has no connotation that something ceases BECAUSE of a certain occurrence time has come to pass.

All 3 traditions can be equally supported from the text and the underlying language.

 

[Woobie]

I want to assure you and everyone else, I am not playing gotcha

How do we know Mary would not have traveled with Joseph without being married? John 2:12 doesn't mention they were married. It does mention travelling though.

Let's play another tradition game that I think points to an eisegetical reading of the text.

Protestants often point to such a passage as "proof" that Mary and Joseph had relations. Sometimes they cite Matthew 1:24 (or 25?) and the scriptural use of the word "till" as support of such a belief.

Orthodox believe a tradition that Joseph was a much older man who had children from a previous marriage. As "proof" they cite the disappearance of Joseph from the narrative.

Catholics say that the term brothers and sisters had a much broader meaning in the time of the NT and that those referred to as brothers and sisters are actually cousins.

None of these 3 positions are entirely provable from scripture. What one chooses to believe is entirely based on the tradition they choose to follow.

As for the use of the word till

As St Jerome said, Jacob steals father-in-law's idols and buried under a tree and never found until this very day. Moses dies and his body has not been found until this very day. Does that mean on this very day they were found? No.

The greek word translated in Matt. as "till" is also used by Paul and the sense of the word has no connotation that something ceases BECAUSE of a certain occurrence time has come to pass.

All 3 traditions can be equally supported from the text and the underlying language.

Sure, if you want to pull the word "till" completely out of context. But the "till" is supported by the follow-on language.

Furthermore, Joseph was instructed to continue with the marriage. Are we to believe he disobeyed this? Or that Mary and Joseph dishonored their marital commitment?

Occam's Razor cuts pretty deeply on this one.

 

[foszoe]

I will answer what I can.

Logic and reason do have their place in understanding God... it's not the only thing.

Jesus said to them, "it is written..."

It's late and I'm still at work so you'll have to research Cessationism on your own. The Holy Spirit did not leave, but the gifts ceased.

These all seem rhetorical.

I assume "corrective errors" is a typo. As to the Holy Spirit, see above, but the Holy Spirit is alive and indwelling in all believers.

It seems we're at a different place.

Is the implication that she and Joseph broke off the engagement and just lived together? Maybe I don't know enough about 0 AD culture, but that doesn't seem possible. From all accounts I know of, they were husband and wife.

Right, but if you don't understand a passage of scripture, do you ever ask someone else what it means?

I realize I am painting with a broad brush, but one problem with Protestant theology is it likes to reinvent the wheel. Its focus on the Bible and me runs into the danger of misinterpretation. That is why Protestant Christendom is so divided. The emphasis on the I. What I decide the text to mean is revealed to ME by the Holy Spirit. Another who makes the same claim but doesn't agree with ME is simply wrong. This difference is often whitewashed with the phrase in all essentials unity in all non essentials, freedom or some such statment, but the Bible is very clear about the unity of believers and anyone who uses the Bible to support having my church on one corner and yours on the opposite corner are stretching the text at best and misinterpreting it at worst.

Jesus did say it is written, but I have yet to hear a convincing answer as to what constituted scripture at the time Jesus was walking the earth. I offered a few options to choose from, but have yet to hear a well thought out answer.

I am not saying they were or were not married. I was just asking the question. I really am not playing gotcha.

You mentioned Cessationism way back in the Reformation thread and I did look it up and educate myself somewhat. I think the scriptural proof is for Cessationism is found more by needing the answer to a problem then finding the answer in scripture. The problem being, we don't see miracles anymore or as much, why? For the Orthodox, we believe miracles are still happening. I have witnessed them personally so I don't need the doctrine of cessationism.

 

[foszoe]

Matthew 1:20, 24-25.

Both of these references are before the Birth of Jesus.

From my studies, when is a Jewish couple married? When the marriage is consummated. Do we have a consummation passage for Mary and Joseph? That is the role of the friend of the Bridegroom. Its a technical title used by John the Baptist. When the bridegroom crys out in his moment of ectasy, the Friend of the Bridegroom hears this cry and reports back the consummation of the marriage to all those in attendance at the wedding.

 

[foszoe]

I never said a thing about vestal virgins.

You can not prove they had these children together biblically unless you rely on your own tradition. Even the early reformers did not interpret the scripture as you do.

Married and they had other children together James, Joses, Jude and a couple of girls.

There were no vestal virgins in the Jewish temple, that was a pagan practice. It was a reproach to a Jewish girl to not bear children.

T Lex asked how you figure out whether something is literal or allegorical.


2 Timothy 2:15 | View whole chapter | See verse in contextStudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2 timothy 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Woobie]

Not sure why Liberty is a sticking point. It's a Bible doctrine.

If the wheel gets broken, perhaps it needs to be remade, not reinvented. Your church thought so at one point. Perhaps it will happen again. For that matter, the first fracturing of a disobedient church is recorded for us in the book of Acts.

 

[foszoe]

The OT and the people who walked with Jesus. Also the Holy Spirit.

What books are in your OT? How do you know they are the right ones? People who walked with Jesus=Founders of the early Church at Pentecost so that encapsulates your last two points. How do you differentiate the People who walked with Jesus as guided from the Holy Spirit from the Church? Using the texts you have available in 33 AD?

 

[Woobie]

Both of these references are before the Birth of Jesus.

From my studies, when is a Jewish couple married? When the marriage is consummated. Do we have a consummation passage for Mary and Joseph? That is the role of the friend of the Bridegroom. Its a technical title used by John the Baptist. When the bridegroom crys out in his moment of ectasy, the Friend of the Bridegroom hears this cry and reports back the consummation of the marriage to all those in attendance at the wedding.

Perhaps we should quote scripture here.

Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

 

[JettaKnight]

Allow me to inquire, if I may, why do Orthodox and RC hold to a belief of perpetual virginity? In the grand scheme of things what is dependent on this? How does it change your view of Mary, Jesus, and God?*

As a protestant, if Jesus told me, "Boy, you guys sure got that wrong..." I'd think to myself, "Gosh, Foszoe and T.Lex were right." That's about the extent of it. Theologically speaking, for me it's a dead end - there's nothing else that hinges on this.

Given the myth (is there a better word? I don't want to insult anyone) that the RC Church has created around Mary - the titles, intercessor functions, etc., I think finding out that they are in error would cause a serious crumbling in a lot of Dogma, especially given the emphasis place on chastity.

For Orthodox would it be the same? Are you arguing this point with as much fervor as a RC?

My argument is based on logic and scripture (which is clear to me, I say humbly), whereas yours is based on a tradition that I don't accept (again, no insult meant), so I doubt we can reconcile this in any constructive way and can only hope to better understand the alternate doctrine to our own.



* I'll go first.

Mary is a fallible, sinful human. Joseph is a fallible, sinful human. Given the doctrine of federal headship, sin has been based down, through males, from Adam to all men (and women). Therefore, in order for Jesus to be born sinless, Joseph must not be involved in conception. (Alternate theory: The Holy Spirit prevented Mary from passing on her sin). Mary, by her linage, serves to fulfill prophecy and give birth to He that bruises the head of the serpent. Without Mary, Jesus would not have been able to be fully human.

Mary was faithful, but faithful in a way can any sinful man can be as well. In her life after the birth she remained faithful (again, as humanly possible), died, and will be resurrected with the rest of Christianity (the saints).

And now, I'm going out on a limb, but I think it's strong enough...
What is important: Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born.
What is irrelevant: Mary was sinless. Mary remained a virgin.