Earlier this evening (Friday evening, February 19, 2016) I witnessed a bizarre event in Centerline, Michigan near the Detroit city border. Near a heavy industrial and trucking center area is an obvious Unification Church (Moonie) colony. I went to the occasion for a supposed "international food dinner." What the event actually turned out to be was a "Blessing" of Unification Church couples -- a "Cosmic Blessing" from "True Mother." The Moonie "Trinity" is obviously "God, Rev. Moon, and Mrs. Moon." As Rev. Moon departed for whatever his reward/punishment in 2012, an obviously aging Mrs. Moon was conducting the ceremony, simulcast to true believers via internet on Friday, February 19, 2016. Seen on the screen was a very packed Korean stadium with thousands of couples handpicked for each other with little or no prior notice of who was chosen for whom. Six "lucky couples" were chosen to enter the stage and receive presents from Mrs. Moon.
I will have much to say about this on my internet radio program, TMEradio.com a very few and too short hours from now. Needless to say, I am agitated about what I saw tonight and learned about infiltration of major religious denominations on our local front "right here in River City" as sung in the Music Man movie of years ago. They are obviously working hard on a New World Religion and were very happy about steps they perceive Pope Francis to be taking in that direction. Imams and Rabbis were present. I learned that they had extremely slick "Catholics" who were pretending to be the best of loyal Catholics but really believed Rev. Moon to be the true purveyor of truth and wisdom. Their veneer was "family preservation." As I know of few groups more responsible for family separation, it strikes me as more than ironic, if not disingenuous.
Please join me in the morning. Last week my preceding program was to have been rebroadcast as I had a Memorial service to attend for a very dear and close friend for many years. I understand that at least the first hour did not happen as planned. Oh well. God willing, all will go well in the morning. I have a whole lot to say. Please join me.
Tune in and stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
464 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 464 Newer› Newest»Dan 1:18 AM and Anonymous 6:59 AM
My comments had absolutely nothing to do with anything Christine (or either of you) have said. They were exclusively addressed to Anonymous 8:09 AM and 5:56 PM who has subsequently identified himself to me privately so I won't confuse him with Anonymous 6:69 AM and his/her anonymous confreres. I am not involved in the Christine dialogue. Nor do I have any desire to be involved.
As for St. Augustine, before his conversion, Augustine may very well have considered this former relationship to be equivalent to marriage in terms of pagan Roman law at the time. This does not mean that such a relationship was on a par with Christian marriage given Augustine's mother St. Monica's tireless efforts to see him properly married......to the point that she even arranged one for him - albeit unsuvvessfully.
Re: < Latin venerātus, past participle of venerārī to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere, verbal derivative of vener-, stem of venus, presumably in its original sense “desire”; see Venus >
Please!
Try this one out for size: BIBLIOLATRY
http://www.gotquestions.org/bibliolatry.html
_________________________________________________
NEWSFLASH: THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SOLA SCRITURA! THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION! THE BIBLE IS NOT GOD!
Susanna,
ST Monica was a sort who instead of submitting culture to Christianity brought Christianity into culture, her level of culture easily transferring from pagan marriage ceremony designed to occutly bind a couple into a Christian ceremony.
That Roman pagan law if it was still in force, WAS NOT DENOUNCED BY ST. PAUL.
It was legitimate marriage or he would have detailed it as fornication and he didn't
but other things the pagan culture took for granted he had to detail as evil.
St. Monica was clearly driven by the world and the flesh, in that her interest in breaking St. Augustine up from his woman was to get him into a higher social level marriage.
That sin of intent may have slowed down her prayers being answered.
"Re: < Latin venerātus, past participle of venerārī to solicit the goodwill of (a god), worship, revere, verbal derivative of vener-, stem of venus, presumably in its original sense “desire”; see Venus >"
veneration is defined in an online dictionary as milder than adore, veneration is affection and honor. Ever salute the flag? you venerated it. ever kiss the picture of a loved one? you venerated that person's picture. Ever put flowers on someone's grave? you venerated them.
Adore is a lot stronger.
Someone said PROTESTANTS DO NOT WORSHIP GOD, THEY VENERATE HIM. If the best you can do is venerate then save it for God.
No, it is you who try to justify the unjustifiable regarding your domestic arrangements and the absurd regarding martians. More than one of us is not willing to see this stuff unchallenged.
My domestic arrangement are lifetime oriented. not temporary. 1800s Christians were not threatened by the idea of ET life on Mars, they said lets get ready to send missionaries to Mars. you people do not have the faith of your ancestors, "your [view of] God is too small."
Constance asks Christine to stop blog-hogging and not to post anything further promoting fornication, shacking and aliens. So what does Christine do? She posts 3 longwinded posts justifying her sinful position on exactly that and denying that's what it is, as well as backing up her alien nonsense with claims that that's what 19th Century Christians believed. She then again denies her accidentally advertising the res seer's "psychic talents " here and quickly removing that post.
Ray B and Dan Bryan, who caught her out on this are far more credible than she is!
Why do you not have any respect for the blog's owner and the posters here, Christine?
I suggest you do some serious soul-searching.
MARS' ATMOSPHERE IS A LOT DENSER THAN NASA CLAIMS. http://marscorrect.com/cgi/wp/?page_id=132 three radio interviews breaking down the
complexities on the rest of the site ignore the Torah codes of Barry Roffman's interest, his son David Roffman is the PhD student at CERN, Switzerland, a real smart kid (and an asshole from what I gather and an atheist).
LIQUID WATER IS ADMITTED BY NASA ELSEWHERE. TEMPERATURE ISSUES ARE ALSO AT THIS
MARSCORRECT SITE. David Roffman figures it is damage and dust clogging to the landers' sensors, and failure to set to be able to notice beyond a certain range.
I think its deliberate lying.
VIKING LANDERS FOUND LIFE INDICATIONS BUT EXPLAINED THEM AWAY. ALSO CHANGED THE COLOR ON PHOTOS FROM BLUE SKY TO RED SKY, despite the fact that Rayleigh's Law dictates any appreciable atmosphere will have a blue sky. http://gillevin.com/mars.htm
YOU CAN STILL HAVE NO INTELLIGENT OR MUCH ELSE LIFE CREATED EXCEPT ON EARTH, AND HAVE ALIENS, IF THE ONES REPORTED NOW DESCEND FROM HUMANS WHO WERE GENETICALLY MODIFIED AND OFFWORLD WHEN THE FLOOD HIT.
and this scenario really ruins the NEw Age usability of aliens, regardless of what aliens say (hint: I don't pay attention to channeled information).
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @12:20 PM ...
"My domestic arrangement are lifetime oriented (and sinful)not temporary."
"1800s Christians were not threatened by the idea of ET life on Mars, they said lets get ready to send missionaries to Mars. you people do not have the faith of your ancestors, "your [view of] God is too small."
"Missionaries" to Mars ... in the 1800s !!! LOL !
You see Christine?
I see Constance is yelling at you now and still you go on in another long-winded post to "explain". What a drama queen (or is that king?).....
Counting actual written words you far exceed in posting compared to all others put together.
You should have cussed (and "discussed") the bible's version of holy matrimony over at your own blog.
How obtuse of you.....and of course, rude......
And on she goes ... like some alien elephant sized rat, droppings galore, trampling them across this blog in an attempt to make it resemble her own blog: 'SpirituallyUnjustifiable.blogspot.com ' (or whatever it's called )!
"Missionaries" to Mars ... in the 1800s !!! LOL !
oh man!!!!!!!
Deep belly laughs are healthy for us, so here at What Chritine spews, we get some real good exercise.
;)
"her own blog: 'SpirituallyUnjustifiable.blogspot.com"
You're killin' me!!!!!
Christine ...
Just curious ... what language were those "Missionaries to Mars" going to use to evangelize those Martians? I think you would agree that would have been somewhat of an obstacle. Also, how exactly were they planning to get there ... by boat ... or horse and buggies? Or maybe they were going to use like a really, really big rubber band (on that one I'm only guessing ... I'm not sure rubber bands were invented back in the 1800s).
Dear Susanne,
I agree we do not worship a book, but AS I HAVE a choice between The Book and some deceased person, some image, some relic or bone? I would never diminish the Word of God to the likes of these or even less. Last I checked it is HIS word. The same was in the beginning with God, yes?
Latin venerātus please? Yes please. Let's lay aside the sin that would so easily beset.
You do not see Protestants (except those that have make their way from the Roman Faith like my mother) Kneel before 'The Book' (Bible), Bow down to 'The Book', Kiss 'The Book', Cross themselves at the very sight of 'The Book', Flog themselves should "The Book' hit the ground.
Protestants may be seen with 'The Book' with it's pages marked, it's cover tattered and torn, tucked under their stinky sweaty arm pit however! Of such I stand guilty.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07664a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15710a.htm
RayB1:50 PM
Christine ...
Just curious ... what language were those "Missionaries to Mars" going to use to evangelize those Martians? I think you would agree that would have been somewhat of an obstacle. Also, how exactly were they planning to get there ... by boat ... or horse and buggies? Or maybe they were going to use like a really, really big rubber band ..."
ROFL
Specially primed human cannons, perhaps?
Well, if there were such misguided people who believed in Martians then they would surely have used Christine's dialect of gobbledegook ...
If you think NASA lies about conditions on Mars then it's impossible to argue with you about the subject; you'll just say they are lying whenever you get pinned about the problems inherent in your viewpoint. But is Constance's blog the place for such a discussion?]
I think not, but I guess that you make it so because too few people post at your blog for your liking. Then those of us here who are not willing to tolerate nonsense respond.
Constance did a lot of hard work to get her regulars whom you have been driving away.
Even if simple life forms exist or have existed on Mars there remain many steps between that and Martians.
Do you still think that this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)#/media/File:Mars_face.png
is a representation of a face made by intelligent beings? (This is the so-called "face on Mars" at higher resolution and a different angle of solar illumination from the notorious pic.) Would it ever have occurred to you had you seen this picture first?
"Specially primed human cannons, perhaps?"
Interesting ... very, very interesting. Another very distinct possibility.
Just try to imagine the faith it would have taken to get loaded into one of those super cannons? No wonder Christine says we don't have the "faith" of our "ancestors." I'd like to think that I would have had that kind of bravery ... and faith ... but I just don't know.
"NEWSFLASH: THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SOLA SCRITURA! THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION! THE BIBLE IS NOT GOD!"
But this is not news to protestants! We never mistook God's word to man (for I'm sure God spoke different words, not revealed to us, to angels) as something divine; we are not pantheists.
Regarding "private interpretation", this is an simplistic phrase that covers over the real issues. Do you think that believers should not study the scriptures in solitude, but only in guided groups led by an ordained priest? The Bible certainly does teach that believers should read scripture for themselves; the point is that then they should discuss it amongst themselves, including with experienced Christians. What I disagree with is that one body of Christians has the right to say to another "you must be wrong because we have the apostolic succession and you don't". That this is a futile assertion is shown by the fact that Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic both set great store on having the apostolic succession and they disagree over several things.
The comment that sola scriptura is not found in the Bible is like saying that the Trinity isn’t. Scripture is God’s word for his people (Jews then Christians) at each time in history, and his word is as unique as he is.
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said... 8:46 AM
Let's see what Dan says, then I will post what I saved.
Dear Christina,
For someone that has blocked me from dialog on their blog page, you sure invoke my name allot.
Dan Says: Blessings!
RayB 2:44 PM
"Just try to imagine the faith it would have taken to get loaded into one of those super cannons? No wonder Christine says we don't have the "faith" of our "ancestors." I'd like to think that I would have had that kind of bravery ... and faith ... but I just don't know."
Lol, well, no doubt an extra strong dose of tincture of nonsense (extract of Erikson's Wolf-weed) would have tranquilised their reason enough to make such a trip... The problem is, it is bitter and nigh on impossible to swallow ... now, as to whether any of them got there, let alone made it back, is no doubt a closely guarded Erikson secret, and in typical Erikson fashion, the descendant, MCE is releasing no data at present as no doubt such will be revealed in her next Martian book - to be advertised here soon ($6.66 available on Tinge-all).
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
James 1:21 Wherefore putting away all filthiness and overflowing of wickedness, receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
Hi Sussana,
When the blogg was filled with comments from Christine trying to justify co habitation defacto relationships and you put up Augustines history of cohabitation what do you expect.
The problem with Christine and apparently yourself is that at times you both tend to give the appearance of holding personal experience, church traditions ,history and practises as equal to Gods Word.
We worship the speaker of the word "God" who is triune and is also known by His Word.
Just as people are also known a accouted for by the words they speak.
I take it that you are trying to suggust that people who constantly advocate Gods Word can be idoliseing it (Bibliolatry).
So are we to rebuked and considered idolators for holding the Bible in high esteem.
But advocates of living together unmarried or the practise of veneration of saints which predisposed people to the worship of saints is not adulterous and idolatory.
James 1:21 Matthew 24:12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
Well, Augustine's favorite concubine was already 11 when he dumped her...
So he was a pedophile then!
Hi Constance,
I think Christines 10:52 post says it all.
Wasn't this blog meant to be anti new age yet Christines posts are full of New Age thought.
I have now started to notice that her tone toward you is getting more aggressive as her New Age teachings become more evidenced.
Scripture tells us that if we go to a brother multiple times over their sinning and they do not turn from their sins they are to be put out from fellowship.
I believe it should apply to this blogg when the offending person maintains they are Christian.
If they repent of course we must restore them.
If the person does not hold out to be Christian that is of course a totally different matter.
From MC Erikson near end of last thread @ 6:12 AM:
"before I ever learned to hate her, reading the Prince Valiant comic strip set in Arthurian England, and having read a few stories, I was reading at age 2, I decided I wanted to be a female knight, kill my own dragons and have a male knight as my companion. Actually, this did happen sometimes in various places"
Speaking of hating her mother she then continues with this little nugget: "actually this did happen sometimes in various places". Being knighted? Killing dragons? Her own male knight (to boss around)? Is this her talking like she has lived a past life in other places as a knighted female? This sounds like she is the one who believes in reincarnation.
Is it just me or does she write this stuff here just to keep things stirred up or is she borderline certifiable?
Why this tripe is on Constance's blog is beyond me........
Anon 6:07 PM
"Speaking of hating her mother she then continues with this little nugget: "actually this did happen sometimes in various places". Being knighted? Killing dragons? Her own male knight (to boss around)? Is this her talking like she has lived a past life in other places as a knighted female? This sounds like she is the one who believes in reincarnation. "
"Is it just me or does she write this stuff here just to keep things stirred up or is she borderline certifiable?"
Both!
She is borderline (bpd)!
She is certifiable!
People will ultimately move away from the Word of God when trying to support sin.
One has to be careful and never under estimate the power of lust, infatuation and a host of other carnal feelings to lead people astray.
Hi all,
Could someone contact Constance and show her how she can block and ban someone from commenting.
Up until now I believe she has only used deleting as a course of action because of the percieved complexity of blockkng and banning.
Surely someone on the blog may know of an easy fix.
Thanks in advance.
anon 6:17
what happened in various places was female knights including a few on the Crusades,
usually German.
"Dear Christina,
For someone that has blocked me from dialog on their blog page, you sure invoke my name allot."
yeah. because you post a bunch of arguments for Jesus not being co eternal with The Father, and for reincarnation, and then delete them.
and you then claim to have seen an ad that never existed. not a spoof, never existed. Because there isn't room for two write and deletes only one, and that one was a normal subject I decided to wait to comment on.
http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2016/02/dan-bryan-httpdbreflections.html
here's the link to it. read for yourself. Bryan supports reincarnation.
Christine regardless of Bryans alleged comments.... since when do other peoples alledged wrongs excuse yours.
He can easily post here that he doesnt believe in reincarnation and we will listen.
On the other hand you post and defend belief in salvation for Aliens ( of the outer space kind), living with a man whilst unmarried as ok claiming you are both each other's concubine, plus a whole slew of new age gnostic based beliefs that are far to numerous to list easily here....And then you expect to be seen as credible... Really!
BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM
And please dont give a treatise on what fruit means in various languages, the old testament, the new testament and church history... its meaning is abundantly clear.
"Christine regardless of Bryans alleged comments.... since when do other peoples alledged wrongs excuse yours."
I have no wrongs here except letting myself get bulldogged into posting too often.
"He can easily post here that he doesnt believe in reincarnation and we will listen."
he will be lying. here's what he said and never backs down just tries to hide proof he's even been on my blog (but the deleted comments left his name in place)
"Dan BryanJanuary 7, 2016 at 10:00 AM
Dear Christine you wrote:
John the Baptist is described by Jesus as being Elijah, Matt. 11:13-14, but WAIT A
MINUTE: ELIJAH NEVER DIED. So he couldn't be reincarnated. This would be
about some kind of spiritual influence on John the Baptist. Some minor prophet was
considered by some rabbis as Jeremiah returned because of the similarity but again
this was like a redo not a return.
This is the verse that most articulates reincarnation in the bible, actually the only one.
Let us look at it closely and discuss what it means:
Mat 11:12-15
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to
He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.... Ok what is Jesus not saying here,
This is the one who came in the spirit of Elias?
So if in fact John was and is Elias then there are allot of questions.
1st Elias never tasted death and apparently he must do so as a human? It is Appointed? Is that why he came back?
So if in fact he did come back was he not reincarnated in Elizabeth's womb?
And assuming this is Elias, then what of his carcass as it must remain in heaven vacated?
And what of the spirit of John was it reinstated into the body/carcass of Elias after John's death?
So what of the final resurrection will there be two Elias' to stand before the judgment?
The second part, no wonder Jesus said, 'If you will receive it'
Is it in character for Jesus to speak then leave option for belief?"
"On the other hand you post and defend belief in salvation for Aliens ( of the outer space kind),"
those that are physical not demons and argue they descend from GMO humans and life originated here on earth.
" living with a man whilst unmarried as ok claiming you are both each other's concubine,"
Actually I claim we are morally married and Paul NEVER criticized usus marriage typical of the social level most converts came from, they would be usus married or in process of becoming usus married took a year and a day, I argue that a living together couple that break up and marry others or move in with others commit adultery.
" plus a whole slew of new age gnostic based beliefs that are far to numerous to list easily here...."
NOT A SINGLE ONE, AS MY LENGTHY LIST OF STUFF I REJECT SHOWS. you on the other hand pretend that paranormal issues like opening chakras are not a DANGEROUS REALITY TO NOT BE DONE but rather MERE IMAGINARY STUFF therefore of no concern except some superficial "repentance" but no heavy duty prayer to get them closed.
"I have no wrongs here except letting myself get bulldogged into posting too often."
I thought you were too amazon to get bulldogged into anything. That is what you promote about yourself so that is why I said this.
James 4:1-3 says people are enticed by the lusts that are within them. That is where all your warring and arguing comes from. Deal with it.
The more you post, the more boring you get.
Dear Christine,
I think I may have been wrong about your intentions.
Let me first state, I do not agree with much of what you write, I do believe much of it to be doctrines of devils and dangerous.
I don't, however, think you do it with the intention of deliberately deceiving and leading people astray. I do, however, believe that much of what you write is false and can sadly do just that (even if not your intention ) and therefore must be challenged here, though gentler where possible than has been the case here of late.
I have seen the thread in question on your blogspot, and to your great credit, Dan Bryan's posts appear to be genuinely his.
It is utter blasphemy to deny the eternal existence of Jesus Christ. Yes, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God! Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, Emmanuel, The Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, The Great Comforter, and the Government is on His shoulders. He is the Great I Am, Yahweh, the Lamb of God, The root of Jesse, The Lion of Judah, The King of Kings, Name above all names, The Lord and Saviour God.
In Proverbs 30:4 we read about the greatness of God the Father and God the Son . It is clearly not referring to David by the way it is written. Yes , Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word of God just as the Holy Spirit is the Eternal Breath of God. These three, Father , Spirit, Son are one! All things were made by Him, Elohim. God is three and is one. These three are one and are in total agreement and unison. He will come again to judge the living and the dead and His Kingdom will have no end.
You have argued well here and have defended the truth once delivered unto the saints in this matter. God bless you richly for that. With respect, I only hope you can learn to do so elsewhere in your doctrine and lean less on your own understanding.
May God guide you and open your eyes in other matters.
Regards,
Frank.
Proverbs 30:4
“Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?”
King James Version (KJV)
The Living God the Father has never been without the God the Living Word and God the Living Breath. God is Spirit and these three , Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one!
If any man deny the Son he has neither the Father nor the Son and the Truth is not in him. He who denies the son the same has not the Father. Such a man is of antichrist spirit. He who denies the Son, so shall the Son deny that man to the Father.
Whoever is angry with Christine on other matters , for the sake of the Faith (whether Roman Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox ) should defend her on this matter!
Unless they themselves want to be partakers in Denying the Eternal Divinity and the Nature of God the Son.
This is a very serious matter indeed!
"NEWSFLASH: THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH SOLA SCRITURA! THE BIBLE DOES NOT TEACH PRIVATE INTERPRETATION! THE BIBLE IS NOT GOD!"
Screamed in high negative emotion by a Jesuit. Unbelief is a terrible sin Susanna.
NEWSFLASH, The Roman 'Church' is the source of all the new age and communism, I am sure Susanna will defend it, unless she does not defend it then that is of course because Jesuits play both sides of Hegel's dialectic when ever they wish, do what thou wilt is the only law they seem to care for. Hagel was a professor of roman catholic cannon law and he did run the Bavarian Illuminati after Weisopt didn't he? Shame on you Constance, shame, shame shame.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html
{58. To each, therefore, must be given his own share of goods, and the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered property less, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice. }
Shame on you Constance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX4Go8a-eY0
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/luther/tabletalk.pdf
Dear Frank 2 9:02 PM,
"Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time? "
Even the devil and his demons can get theology right by their words, but what of the beliefs and actions that betray that knowledge in the one making that right statement? What about teachings and practices that end up denying the same declaration that Jesus is the Holy Son of God?
The devil knows scripture, but he never repents and by rebellion denies the truth of it.
To only say or write the right words has to be proven beyond what is said and if genuine will carry throughout a persons whole belief system and there will be actual obedience to the same.
nothing in the Bible refutes my supposed errors, I construct a likely picture within biblical limits and thereby ruin New Age usability of these things, if applied.
No, you run with the devil in much of your philosophy, be honest @ 9:44 PM.
Christine,
The comment by Dan to which you refer, appears to begin with a quotation by yourself, "John the Baptist is described by Jesus as being Elijah, Matt. 11:13-14"
After which it appears that Dan has made his comment. The punctuation is not clear at the start of Dan's post, hence my uncertainty. (Maybe Dan will see my query also and be able to comment here.)
You add your reply and include the statement, "Elijah apparently overshadowed John the Baptist in some way, from childhood, shaping him as his double mentally and spiritually. That is the only explanation."
- What do you mean when you say, "overshadowed"?
- Which blog post do these comments pertain to?
Thanks for your help,
~ K ~
I repeated Dan's post by select all copy paste. the first paragraph was quoting myself against reincarnation, on http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2016/01/reincarnation.html
then he starts his arguments that Elijah reincarnated in John the Baptist, the rest of his statements are repeated at that post site http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2016/02/dan-bryan-httpdbreflections.html
I didn't want to inset quotes or make any changes the post is left as he did it. I apologize for any resulting uncertainty o who said what.
what I mean by overshadowing is some of ongoing personal presence influence by a telepathic means or invisible presence perhaps visible to John the Baptist but affecting and shaping him.
The spirit and power of Elijah is a mysterious statement, but it can't refer to reincarnation because of the Hebrews cite against it and because of traducianism implicit in the Hebrews cite on Melchizedec receiving tithes from Levi through Abraham.
John the Baptist one way or another was a copy in effect of Elijah, had his kind of ministry, and like Elisha received some of his power and spirit when he left, John the Baptist did also.
Elijah's ministry closed when he was raptured away to the heavens in the chariot.
John the Baptist was a prophet in type to Elijah with similar characteristics and messages.
"what I mean by overshadowing is some of ongoing personal presence influence by a telepathic means or invisible presence perhaps visible to John the Baptist but affecting and shaping him."
John the Baptist did no miracles but he had the same spirit as Elijah---the Holy Spirit operating within those two men in their separate time frames--but it was not telepathy. There you go sounding new agey again. You really have next to zero understanding about the works and ways of the Holy Spirit so you should learn this before you speak to these things. The unpardonable sin is to deny the Holy Spirit so you better be real careful.
And you are often very unclear with so little punctuation and poor grammar, Christine.
At times downright confusing so you are not nearly so helpful like you swear up and down you are.
I didn't say anything about The Holy Spirit. But there is the spirit of a person, the Spirit of God Who is Himself God, there is "spirit of" in the sense of continuation or likeness there is "spirit" in the sense of attitude, Elisha prayed that when Elijah left some of his spirit would fall on Elisha and it did with Elijah's cloak. Elijah's spirit was imbued with the Holy Spirit.
as for telepathy that is speculation, could have been invisible to others visible to John the Baptist personal presence with him from infancy visible and audible to him. Could have been more like Elisha continuing Elijah's ministry.
Someone here argued we can't do telepathy because we are spirit and flesh. That only means we do it poorly it is however something so easily abused it should not be dealt in at all.
Your telepathy speculation is where you better be careful.
You should have given the Holy Spirit the credit for being God directing those men, not something else.
Have you no proper fear of God when you handle His word?
That is why I find much of what you say about the Bible questionable.
You should say a whole lot less than you do.
Susanna,
The Bible actually does say not to add or subtract both in Deuteronomy and Revelations.
Also we are given the Spirit of the Living God and so the Word of God is written on our hearts and minds. If it is written on our hearts, that means that God is able to speak to us personally through his word and indwelling spirit.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
We are going to give an account based on his instructions to us. The Pope, or the Priest or the Cardinal or the Bishop are not going to give an account for me, but when I stand before the throne, I will be judged through the finished work of Jesus, whose death and resurrection overcame sin and death and based on my faith in this work and being born of the Spirit I can inherit the Kingdom, not based on Sacraments or doctrines of men, but based on his work on the cross which is finished.
The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so the Word is not God, but it is a living breathing text meant to instruct us. We don't separate people from their word, because what we say is part of who we are. God created with his word, so his word is very important. He spoke and the universe came into being. If we want to know him, it is through his word, not through someone else's interpretation of his word. God is intimate, so if we seek him with all of our heart, he will reveal himself to us. He is not far off.
Jesus spoke to some of the religious leaders about annulling God's word with their traditions.
If your faith is Jesus's death and resurrection for the forgiveness of your sins, not on Hail Mary or Our Fathers or the sign of the cross or Sacraments then you have life. We don't have to confess to a priest. We can confess directly to our heavenly Father, our sins. Now if you want to confess to someone, the Bible says, confess your sins one to another and pray for each other so that you may be healed, but that can be any brother or sister who believes in Jesus, not necessarily some professional clergy.
In him we are all saints, not because we did a miracle but saint just means to be "set apart" and we are set apart in him not based on our own merits, but based on the finished work of Jesus on the cross, where he took on all of our violations of his word so that both sin and death could be overcome, which we are incapable of doing as humans.
We should not complicate the simple truth of the gospel or make it some kind of exclusive club that one must belong to some church and do certain traditions. This is exactly what Jesus got mad at the religious leaders for doing. Jesus yoke is light.
Religion never saved anyone. Jesus however, saved anyone who would call on his name. His death was necessary to defeat the forces of darkness and to restore us to the place that God intended, to be in relationship with him.
Thank You Christine.
You are right, no where in the Holy Bible are we taught to believe in reincarnation ... we are precious children, loved by our Father and resurrection is His promise to us.
John (the Baptist) was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was born. Gabriel was sent to explain to Zechariah (a priest) about the birth and life of his son John.
Gabriel said, "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine or other fermented drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even before he is born. He will bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord their God. And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." Luke 1:13-17.
My understanding is that both men, Elijah and John, were filled with the Holy Spirit, walked and talked with God and but certainly not telepathically with each other.
~ K ~
Attn Christine,
I am the person who wrote that some of your posts are
" a whole slew of new age gnostic based beliefs that are far to numerous to list easily here...."
You then write in what seems to be your usual fashion the following having absolutely no idea as to who I am.
"NOT A SINGLE ONE, AS MY LENGTHY LIST OF STUFF I REJECT SHOWS. you on the other hand pretend that paranormal issues like opening chakras are not a DANGEROUS REALITY TO NOT BE DONE but rather MERE IMAGINARY STUFF therefore of no concern except some superficial "repentance" but no heavy duty prayer to get them closed."
How wrong you are as I am totally against people accessing the demonic realm and delveing into the paranormal because its totally dangerous.
Your weird and wacky posts are indicative of someone who has ventured far to much into dangerous spiritual matters and that is of very serious concern.
I have chosen not to put my name on the blog so as to spare the countercult ministry network dealing with the likely endless barrage of emails (as seen in this blog) you would send.
Dont be foolish enough to think that your abberant writings and span of influence is as the saying goes " flying under the radar".
...opponents to Gods kingdom are as tares amongst the wheat.
Its good that there are people on the look out for deception as it rises.
Seriously,
Stories of 4 foot aliens, chakras, telepathy, weird graveyard stuff, the spirit of person falling on another to empower them, co habitation with the opposite sex.
Where do you draw the final straw on this stuff.... ITS NOT CHRISTIAN.
Christians are to decern what is of God and what is not as commanded by the scriptures.
The leading of the Holy Spirit will not be in conflict with Gods word and character.
Constance,
Can you spare us all the trouble and start a totally new blog that pople have to register to comment or at least go via a submission process for comments to be vetted.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/12/06/lane-moonie-times-launch-jesus-in-the-public-square-project/
"weird graveyard stuff" as I recall, the context of this was to argue against it being a good idea to hang out in or have picnics in graveyards as some used to do in the Midwest, or kiss the corpse goodbye, asking for trouble.
http://moonsanmyung.blogspot.com/2011/10/christian-pastors-and-religious-leaders.html miscl. church representatives incl. a baptist
http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1818.cfm big names you are used to hearing but may not have known were on Moon's payroll, Bill Bright was in charge of getting Moon into the US!
Christianity and...(politics, family values, whatever) seems to have taken its toll (priority switched, aided by bad eschatology and bad theology tendencies, from Christianity and... to whatever and Christianity.
Hi Anon 9:34 PM,
You have got a good point! Moreover, I rue having given her the benefit of the doubt now I see yet again the vain arrogance with which she says she has no error.
She sees herself as Pope Jean D'Arc and believes she's somewhat infallible with her doctrines of demons.
She believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God and in that she does well, yet even the demons believe so and they tremble knowing the fiery end that awaits them!
She is truculent, arrogant and well above her station! Full of New Age rot , shacked up out of wedlock with an unregenerate rebellious 'seer' who has dabbled in Satanism and refuses to repent!
Yet Dan Bryan has denied, by all intents and purposes, the One True Living God in His Eternal Fullness and Majesty.
What annoyed me, viewing her site once more, was how she accuses Ray B of being an alter-ego of Dan Bryan. She ridiculously suggests he is no more than Dan Bryan in ray ban sunglasses. How deluded can she get?
If Dan Bryan is in fact the one who has posted such , then he should repent of it quickly.
Evenso, Christine's fruits are occultism, fornication, false accusations , haughtiness, crude language, unforgiveness, dishonouring her mother, arrogance, and self-serving hard-heartedness, etc, etc. ..
You are a witch with a ruse, are you not, Christine? You are full of evil and stomach churning blasphemy, such as your claim of John the Baptist using telepathy.
You really are a lost soul. You have no doubt picked something spiritually nasty from the Satanist (ex?) co-fornicator with whom you're shacked up and shackled in sin!
I don't think it fair that others in California should play by the rules yet you have the arrogance to think they don't apply to you.
Shame on you!
Christine, you said, "Elisha prayed that when Elijah left some of his spirit would fall on Elisha and it did with Elijah's cloak."
---
God is in control and He never makes mistakes. It is God's decision to give the Holy Spirit to whom He chooses. The Holy Spirit was not Elijah's to give, and Elijah knew this.
Elijah tells him, "You have asked a hard thing. Nevertheless, if you see me when I am taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if not, it shall not be so."
The decision remains with God.
Elisha did witness the taking of Elijah and picks up the cloak, however there was no power/spirit in the cloak. Knowing this, Elisha calls on the Lord, "Where is the LORD, the God of Elijah?"
He strikes the waters of the river Jordan with the cloak just as Elijah had done earlier. In His graciousness, our Father, the living God, once again parts the waters and Elisha crosses back to the other side of the Jordan. Elisha (and others) now know that the very same, one true God is with him.
What an awesome witness Elijah is. Elisha could clearly see God in Elijah's life and it made him desire a closer walk with God too. Is this not what we all desire ... a closer walk with Him?
To Him who is able to keep us from stumbling, and to make us stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
~ K ~
any inaudible invisible mental influence qualifies as telepathy, but it is a speculation.
A distinction is made between being filled with The Holy Spirit and going in the power and spirit of Elijah, these are stated separately.
The cloak had something to do with it. Sure it was The Holy Spirit Who gave double of Elijah's spirit and power to Elisha, that would be my second example of a relic. the first is Elisha's bones bringing a dead man back to life.
some distinction is made between The Holy Spirit a non directable person, and the spirit of Elijah. Yes, God made the decision.
you all hear some word like telepathy and think demons and witchcraft. you are really pathetic. Probably do it now and then without realizing it, when you somehow know what the general look of a person is you have so far only met on the phone, or get some gut instinct that something is wrong in someone you are dealing with personally. (that can be a matter of subtle visual cues but without a lot of experience to spot patterns, how would one do that? trained interrogators and street wise yes, average person? not likely.) It can also be The Holy Spirit warning you but how, by direct speech to you? or by heightening some capability you have? or perhaps HE stirs that odd gut feeling. But people who have neither occult connections nor Holy Spirit have the same experiences. If you don't have an occultic background, and you had these experiences before you were saved, before you were even interested in Jesus Christ, this is some natural capability.
Ever been walking or jogging at night or twilight on a regular basis and after a while you notice things out of the corner of your eye but if you look straight there they aren't there? That is the peripheral vision sight father into UV and IR than the rest of the retinal cells, in some people ramped up genetically in others weak.
Elijah was John the Baptist's handler in CIA covert ops terms, that put him effectively back in action in Israel though invisibly and through an agent.
Something of this nature, or "overshadowing" a sort of directive haunting by one living or overshadowing by the Holy Spirit to create a psychological and spiritual similar kind of clone has to be in play but NOT reincarnation, for John the Baptist to "BE" Elijah.
Now show Constance some respect and don't tie her blog up with your spewing.
and I never said He makes mistakes. Sounds like Elisha couldn't sense God with him, so by a divine prompting perhaps or by remembering how Elijah did things, he struck the water with the cloak. That cloak DID have some special blessing in it.
A miracle working second class relic. (first class is body part.)
Anonymous said @ 12:06 AM ...
"The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, so the Word is not God, but it is a living breathing text meant to instruct us."
Anonymous,
I feel compelled to correct the above statement, because it is important in its significance in defining who Jesus Christ actually is. In John 1:1, Jesus is declared to be the Word of God: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Those that reject God's Word are in fact rejecting Jesus Christ Himself, because HE IS the WORD OF GOD. That is why religious systems (such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.) that put their "traditions" and "teachings" above the absolute authority of God's Word are actually rejecting the true Christ. When anyone puts their teachings above God's Word, they displace the authority of Jesus Christ (the Word) and replace Him with their own. All religious beliefs, systems (including our own "opinions") must be examined against "thus saith the Lord." Anything that is in conflict with God's Word must be faithfully rejected by all that name His Name.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 10:36 AM ...
"Now show Constance some respect and don't tie her blog up with your spewing."
Does this woman have Chutzpah or what?
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 10:38 ...
"A miracle working second class relic. (first class is body part.)"
Notice how she just throws out any unfounded assertion and states it as if it is fact? Of course, this is her pro-Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) belief in relic nonsense coming out that somehow "body part" "relics" have some "miracle working" power. In virtually every Catholic country you will find in many of their churches the "tooth" of a "saint" or a "fragment" of the "true cross" etc. The "faithful" actually bow down and worship these relics. Very appealing to those that worship a false Christ and have zero faith in the true Christ of the Scriptures, but silly and absurd to those that really know Him.
Ray B at 11:53 AM, God bless you richly, brother, for contending earnestly and boldly for the faith here and throughout your posts!
RayB12:02 PM
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 10:36 AM ...
"Now show Constance some respect and don't tie her blog up with your spewing."
"Does this woman have Chutzpah or what?"
Just old fashioned amoral arrogance combined with a propensity to project her vomit onto others is what I'd call it: it's high time she turned that mirror back towards herself and took a good hard remorseful look at her piteous condition!
anon 6:17
"...what happened in various places was female knights including a few on the Crusades,
usually German."
Ich finde es ganz unglaublich daß so viel quatch aus deine einige schrekliche maul tropfen kann!
You really are full of it, aren't you Frau Erikson!
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 10:36 AM ...
"Now show Constance some respect and don't tie her blog up with your spewing."
---
Christine, I do sincerely hope that I have misunderstood and you weren't addressing the above comment to me, ~ K ~.
I am not a frequent poster here. As I type this will be the fifth post I have published on this thread.
The editor's decision is always final. If five posts are considered excessive and Constance chooses to delete my comments, then so be it.
~ K ~
To Frank @ 12:53 PM ...
Thank you Frank. As one that was once in the "bondage of iniquity" and having been set free by God's grace, the least we can do as believers is to "contend for the faith."
To God be the Glory whenever and wherever His truth is declared.
I was addressing it to whoever was inclined to spew invective in multiples posts about me as has been typical for a few years.
female knights
http://genreauthor.blogspot.com/2011/05/medieval-mondays-female-knights-in.html
"Spain's Order of the Hatchet
When the city of Tortosa in Spain came under siege in the 12th century during the Second Crusade, the Earl of the town was about to surrender. But the women of the town refused to give up their homes. Instead of going along with the Earl's decision to surrender, the women donned men's clothing and fought until the siege was lifted.The women of Tortosa who lifted the siege were honored with the creation of the Order of the Hatchet. The knighted women of the Order of the Hatchet were given many special privileges, including exemption from paying taxes, and precedence over the men of the town at any meeting." http://www.answers.com/article/1229082/female-knights-of-the-middle-ages
http://www.answers.com/Q/Famous_women_knights
Dan Bryan,
I was here minding my own business answering a SPECIFIC question when you decided to take your unprovoked little pot shots at Catholic beliefs. ( I don't do that to you, by the way.)
Therefore, I am applying the same standards to you that you apply to Catholics.
Re: I would never diminish the Word of God to the likes of these or even less.
Sure you would - You and your confreres weasel-word the Bible all the time in order to make it APPEAR to justify your false accusations and your fascist agenda. You diminish the Word of God every time you use it to justify throwing stones at fellow Christians.
And yes, in your little "halfway house to atheism" you do worship a Book. And not only do you worship a book, but you do so blasphemously by making that book say things that it doesn't say ( i.e. things like "sola Scriptura" and "private interpretation") again in order to justify your own fascist, "this-worldly" millenarian/false messianic (antichrist?) agenda which Catholics refer to as the "immanentization of the Eschaton."
Not only that, but you also use it for purposes of divination, a.k.a. "bibliomancy" ( i.e. foretelling the future).....not in terms of simply believing in Christ's actual promises, but by things like illicitly engaging in unbiblical games of "spot the antichrist."
The fact that you reject history, the fact that there are several thousand often contradictory interpretations of "the Book" each claiming to be "Holy Spirit-approved", the writings of the Church Fathers and even the Old Testament Canon most often quoted by Christ indicates the irrationalism of your beliefs in "the Book."
You cannot defend such beliefs rationally. They contradict themselves. But nevertheless, you continue to gloss over these contradictions as well as many other things and seek to shift the focus of attention away from them by ignorantly bashing Catholics with your false accusations of "Mary worship" in spite of the fact that most Christian people with any brains KNOW that Catholics do not worship Mary, but honor her as Mother of the Word Incarnate.
Because of your irrational beliefs (a.k.a.fideism), you are apparently incapable of understanding that what Catholics believe about Mary is not primarily about, but about Jesus. Just by being what God made her, Mary is our living defense against the Antichrist....her humanity bearing witness to Christ's humanity, her virginity bearing witness to Christ's divinity and her perpetual virginity a guarantee that there will be no rivals to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.. Oh and by the way, Mary is not "dead" according to Catholic beliefs. Our God is not a God of the dead but of the living. Luke 20:38
Re: You do not see Protestants (except those that have make their way from the Roman Faith like my mother) Kneel before 'The Book' (Bible), Bow down to 'The Book', Kiss 'The Book', Cross themselves at the very sight of 'The Book', Flog themselves should "The Book' hit the ground.
I haven't seen Catholics do things like that. But BIBLIOLATRY is EXACTLY what is implied by how you use "the Book"....in ways that Christ never intended for it to be used.
So in closing, I will say that if you don't want your version of Christianity to be criticized, then don't criticize that of other Christians......especially when it has not been provoked.
And that goes for everyone else who just couldn't wait "to get into the act."
Anonymous 5:25 P.M.
Re:When the blogg was filled with comments from Christine trying to justify co habitation defacto relationships and you put up Augustines history of cohabitation what do you expect.
What do I expect? I expect you to take the time to carefully read the blog before making false accusations. You were bound and determined to drag me into this discussion. Well I have two words for you. YOU LOSE!
I made the Augustine comments in direct response to a QUESTION asked by another Anonymous who asked whether or not Augustine's mistress AND their son were CONVERTED. My reply was not directed to you or to Christine or to anyone else but the aforementioned Anonymous who I know personally. What you did was to assume something that you had no right to assume and then use it to justify trashing
the Catholic faith. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Re: The problem with Christine and apparently yourself is that at times you both tend to give the appearance of holding personal experience, church traditions ,history and practises as equal to Gods Word.
God's Word? According to whose interpretation? Yours? If anyone is trying to peddle personal opinions as "God's Word," it is people like you. That is the consequence of so-called "private interpretation."
Re: I take it that you are trying to suggust that people who constantly advocate Gods Word can be idoliseing it (Bibliolatry).
But that is not what you do. You use and abuse the Bible in order to lord it over others, to trash other Christians and throw stones ( "rebuke" ) at those deemed by you to be "sinners." According to the Bible, not even St. Michael the Archangel would dare to rebuke the Devil when they were disputing over the body of Moses, so who are you to dare to "rebuke" anyone even if they did happen to be "sinners?" If you want to "rebuke" anyone go stand in front of a mirror and begin "rebuking" the person you see there!!!
bravo Susanna,
these people don't really do sola scriptura they do sola what Calvin taught so and so major preacher of some time past (or worse yet Scripture twisting experience oriented modern charismatic preacher) says scriptura says/means even if opposite to what it says.
they take verses here and there out of context instead of reading through the Bible or through entire segments like they would any other book (and know those other books better than the Bible).
Meanwhile, TWO blatant new agers/pagans posted here, and those trying to purge this holy blog of the unholy (those who don't fit their views exactly) said NOTHING TO THEM. I WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO CALLED THEM OUT. So much for these crusaders of holy truth.
Latest subject, relics. While not all relics are miraculous, all that are legitimate (sure there have been frauds) are a physical link back to a person devoted to Jesus Christ, in some cases died for Him. Do these people keep family memorabilia? probably. so do we liturgical Christians.
As for kissing and bowing to the Bible the Orthodox who are closer to Jewish origins in practices DO do this, we venerate the Gospels in the Matins/Orthos and the Holy Liturgy, sometimes the people are blessed with the Bible being used to make the Sign of the Cross. This is borrowed from the Jewish parading of and kissing the Torah Scroll.
But A BIBLICAL VALIDATION FOR RELICS IS ELISHA'S BONES BRINGING A DEAD MAN BACK TO LIFE and maybe that cloak of Elijah's are a case in point. And cloths from Peter sent to heal people.
Sure the initial transmission of The Faith was oral, by preaching by the Apostles and then by their hearers, but they then wrote it all down which insures against errors creeping in too much. The Creed appeals not to tradition but to the Scriptures "and rose on the third day, according to The Scriptures."
If you bibliolators would actually READ IT WITHOUT PRESUPPOSITIONS you would find your bogomil gnostic heretical world rocked.
And while you are concerned about someone going to hell because they say there are creepy miasmas in graveyards so these places should not be frequented, be concerned you might get some flogging at least (Matthew CHAPTER 25) for the unrepented of sin of blaspheming the Holy Eucharist.
Sure, Jesus' one time sacrifice paid for your sins.....assuming you recognize them, quit them, apologize to Jesus and work on not doing them again.
Why would St. Paul warn against eating the Eucharist without perceiving The Body of the Lord Jesus Christ? if It isn't there? Why would a man whose lifetime overlapped that of the Apostle John so the claim John trained him is credible, and was bishop in Antioch so also recipient of the Apostolic tradition from Peter in Antioch, affirm the real presence of Jesus' Body and Blood in the Eucharist if this wasn't the opinion of the early Church that such people as deny the Eucharistic reality claim to represent?
Oh, but that is impossible to be what is meant because your favorite preachers and writers inveighed against this. Try sola scriptura for once in your life that means WITHOUT HOLDING IN YOUR MIND ANYTHING YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT just let Scripture speak for itself.
Granted, you won't get papal supremacy or Immaculate Conception and you will get a nagging suspicion that scholasticism's assumption that the finite mind can comprehend everything (ancestor to atheistic rationalism) is wrong.
But then you can't afford to do this, because if you don't have Scripture interpreted for your by the magisterium of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and their downline, you might get some ideas held by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Happy birthday leap year baby - Constance, may you excel and be like Ruth and Naomi in the measure that you've been given by the ruach hakodesh to advise us all!
happy birthday, Constance!
RayB said at 11:53 AM
Those that reject God's Word are in fact rejecting Jesus Christ Himself, because HE IS the WORD OF GOD. That is why religious systems (such as Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, etc.) that put their "traditions" and "teachings" above the absolute authority of God's Word are actually rejecting the true Christ. When anyone puts their teachings above God's Word, they displace the authority of Jesus Christ (the Word) and replace Him with their own. All religious beliefs, systems (including our own "opinions") must be examined against "thus saith the Lord." Anything that is in conflict with God's Word must be faithfully rejected by all that name His Name.
It is false fascist sociopolitical religious systems such as Messianic Judaism, Sacred Namers, Dominionists of every stripe Identity groups and white supremacist "churches" that falsify God's Word and replace His Word with their own.
They figure that the more vicious they get with their denunciations of Roman Catholicism the more people will ignore the contradictions in their system such as "Sola Scriptura," "Private Interpretation" which has given us thousands of "Holy Spirit" approved interpretations of Holy Writ -many of which contradict one another.
But not content with that they insist on adding hypocrisy to their heresies by accusing the Roman Catholics of the VERY THING that they are trying to pull off themselves.....a one world religion.
Make no mistake. They are not against a "one world religion" or "new world order." They are merely against a "one world religion" and "new world order" that is not THEIR "one world religion" or "new world order" according to their own false interpretation of Holy Writ which makes God's kingdom appear to be in and of this world when Jesus Christ Himself said that HIS KINGDOMN IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.
cont.
cont.
Earlier, I mentioned something called "immanentization of the Eschaton" which means trying to make that which belongs to the afterlife happen here and now (on Earth) or trying to create heaven here on Earth. It means trying to bring about the end of this world and its transfiguration into an idealized one for the Christian elite with emphasis on "Christian elite" - a new species of the kind of Pharisee Our Lord condemned
Theologically, the belief is akin to Postmillennialism as reflected in the Social Gospel of the 1880-1930 era, as well as Protestant reform movements during the Second Great Awakening in the 1830s and 1840s such as abolitionism.
In other words, this was something new that has been fairly recently "added to" the Gospels in contradiction to the Scriptures. Moreover, this is not something that is merely rejected and condemned by Catholics.
The Lutheran Confessions, for example, directly reject the idea of an "immanentized eschaton," condemning the belief "that before the resurrection of the dead the godly shall take possession of the kingdom of the world, the ungodly being everywhere suppressed." ( Augsberg Confession Article XVII)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church makes an oblique reference to the desire to "Immanentize the Eschaton" in article 676:
The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgment. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism, especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.
If anyone is interested in a fictionalized scenario of an "immanentized eschaton" resulting from such perversion of the Scriptures, the perfect film to watch is THE HANDMAID'S TALE which depicts the consequences that result when an elite clique of "Christian Reconstructionists" replace constitutional democracy with Christian theocracy in the U.S..
The DVD is rather pricey, but the book and Spark Notes will give a good description of the story.
THE HANDMAID'S TALE
http://www.amazon.com/The-Handmaids-Tale-Classic-Collection/dp/1480560103
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/handmaid/
______________________________________
Indeed, as RayB himself said:
All religious beliefs, systems (including our own "opinions") must be examined against "thus saith the Lord." Anything that is in conflict with God's Word must be faithfully rejected by all that name His Name.
That includes bogus "Christian" theocracies!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY CONSTANCE!!!!!!
From Susanna
social improvement efforts denounced as "social gospel" and abolitionism might or might not have had an immanentization of the eschaton bad eschatology motive, but should have been done anyway as part of duty of Christians to make things a bit better, knowing these improvements will not be worldwide, nor even reliably remain forever in any one place.
Happy Birthday Constance.
God bless you with His joy and gladness in Christ Jesus and His peace that passes all understanding.
"Elijah was John the Baptist's handler in CIA covert ops terms, that put him effectively back in action in Israel though invisibly and through an agent. "
You should write Hollywood scripts and for the National Inquirer magazine.
But since your comment is pertaining to the Bible as an exhortation, it is a statement that is deeply irreverent, a denial of the Holy Spirit's work in these men and circumstances they were part of.
In fact, you are very often irreverent about the Lord and His reputation.
You have no proper fear of God.
May God have mercy on you.
Hi Susanna,
You write...
Mary is our living defense against the Antichrist....her humanity bearing witness to Christ's humanity, her virginity bearing witness to Christ's divinity and her perpetual virginity a guarantee that there will be no rivals to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords".
Ummm "perpetual virginity" can I highlightlight that Mark 6:6 and Matt 13:55-56 state James, Joses, Judas, and Simon were brothers of Jesus and also mentions unnamed sisters.
She gave birth to children after Jesus that were not concieved of the Holy Spirit but by her husband.
Matthew 12:46-50
46 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him
47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”
48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?”
49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers!
50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
Here Jesus shows no exhalting of Mother or family and rather that those who do His Father in Heavens will are His family.
Scripture says Mary will be remembered .... Catholic tradition appears to go way beyond scriptual bounderies.
Your perpetual virginity comment is an example.
Do you not see that in your judge not style posting you make against those trying to warn against sin.... that your same postings premise is in fact established on your judgement of others.
There is a right place and time for judgeing, conviction etc that this PC world hates...condemnation however is a different matter.
Most of the problems that arise are due to lack of or indeed the willingness to use correct judgement.
I would like to see more references to Gods Word (the Gospel) to back up the opinions expressed and not religious rites and traditions touted as being the Gospel.
If you are in agreement with Christine then thats your choice but I would respectfully suggest you re think the matter in light of Gods Word.
So is there a push for this to become a Christian website where you are not allowed to talk about sin... yes I used the S word?.
In all honesty the subject should come up constantly given the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins .... Jesus died for our sins the problem is we wont admit our sins and (the "R" word) repent of them to recieve His forgiveness and redemption.
Carnality and unholy spirits will of course encourage sin.
You dont have to be a rocket scientist to work that one out.
(Oopps Jack Parsons was a rocket scientist)
Vatican silence leads to back room deal
www.endtime.com/prophecy-news/rorate-caeli-grazie-santo-padre-vatican-silence-leads-to-backroom--deal/
"But since your comment is pertaining to the Bible as an exhortation,"
as a exhortation? what is that some fancy word you throw in to look holy? that was not exhortation (do you even know what that means that was exegesis)
" it is a statement that is deeply irreverent,"
no, it is making it understandindable
" a denial of the Holy Spirit's work in these men and circumstances they were part of."
nothing of the sort. But Zechariah is told that John will be filled with The Holy
Spirit AND will go in the spirit and power of Elijah.
these are it looks like distinct things. because mentioned separately in the same sentence.
"In fact, you are very often irreverent about the Lord and His reputation."
sorry you view it that way. maybe we got some kind of culture clash going on.
I was going to tell you a story (factual) that would show otherwise than you say, but on second thought I'm not going to do so. In your malice and hate and pride you would just turn it upside down and fling it in my teeth.
I recall you said something about "irreverent" before which puzzled me. So this is an example of what you are talking about? I am speechless. you are absolutely unbelieveable.
anon 9:46
I don't think Mary's perpetual virginity guarantees there would be no other Jesus because He alone would be God Incarnate but someone could try to claim that.
The perpetual virginity thing is not clear in Scripture. NEITHER IS HER NOT STAYING VIRGIN. the term "brother" is used in some cultures to refer to half brothers (even among us often) and first cousins. One guy online commented how confusing this was to him, in dealing with some friend whose family was central European culture in origin and preserved the ways of talking even if not the language.
Scripture is ambiguous on it. There are only two things that support it: Joseph disappears early on, you don't see him after the Jesus in the Temple taking with elders incident. This supports the tradition/legend/whatever that he was a very old
man, and the marriage one in name only.
Secondly, her response to Gabriel. Not "oh, goody, my future married life will bear fruit, and it will be a famous and great man who is to be my son!" no. Instead she asks how can this be since she knows not a man? Sounds she though betrothed, expected to NEVER know a man.....back to the aged man and marriage in name only scenario.
You are repeating your point to try to pressure the point. (nothing new for you to push your ideas that are conjecture displaying much ignorance of the subject) And it is not one bit biblical.
No, maybe you need to figure out why you must frustrate (more like grieve) the Spirit of God by adding your confusion to what God has said in your ridiculous adlibs.
Well, not maybe------you should get your high and mighty "know it all when you absolutely don't" self before the Lord and be humbled to understand how badly you misrepresent Him.
Your posts are sickening.
Glad you are speechless.
This blog is up to it's eyebrows with your nonsense talk, talk, talk.
"that was exegesis"
I'm going to say this so you know what I mean to make it understandable to you.
Your bible "knowledge and teaching" and "speculations based in facts" is much more like excrement.
And another "e" word for you to describe your posts: egregious (outstandingly bad).
RayB,
Hard to get through all these comments to see exactly what you said again, but yes absolutely, Jesus is the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. I was responding to Susanna's comment that the Bible is not God in a literal sense. I am not sure, but I think she thinks some worship the book and that we are not able to interpret Scripture with the help of the Spirit of the living God. I would say that traditions are not God. They are man-made.
I absolutely 100% agree with you. Thank you for clarifying and correcting.
If we reject the Word and put our traditions in front of what the text of Scripture says we are rejecting God himself. There are so many comments I can't even find my original comment to read what it says.
As for tradition, we all have our traditions of how we live out our faith, but if our traditions contradict or supersede what Scripture says then we have a problem. This was the problem Jesus had with the religious leaders of his day. when they criticized his disciples for not washing their hand which was only a tradition and not mandated by the Scriptures and told them they observe their traditions but neglect to honor their parents and in doing so invalidate the word of God.
In Isaiah it also talks about the traditions that are practiced while men's hearts are far from God.
The physical actual book of the Bible is not a god, but the word absolutely did become flesh and dwell among us, and the word was with God and was God. If we prefer our traditions, and I don't care which church Father or Pope or Pastor or Rabbi adds them over what the text of Scripture says, we are doing what Jesus said not to do. Through the Word the world was created, and we can't separate God from His Word.
The Catholic church teaches that their tradition outweighs the Scripture and that Jesus made Peter the first Pope. This is a misreading of the text. Paul told us in Corinthians that the rock was Jesus who brought forth spiritual water in the desert. Upon this one verse, the Catholic Church makes their legitimacy and goes on to add and subtract many things from the Word of God.
Literally, the verse says "on this rock I will build my called out assembly and the gates and against it the gates of hell will not prevail. He started that process in the desert when he took Israel from Egypt. The problem is that many in the church don't realize that Jesus revealed himself to the Patriarchs and to Moses, and Joshua and so on. He was there at the creation. He is the creator. He just came incarnate to identify with fallen man and conquer what we could not conquer which is Satan, who caused us to be exiled from God's presence.
The only one who can conquer the gates of hell is Jesus himself, God incarnate who died on the cross to defeat sin and death. No human organization could defeat sin and death. The rock is Jesus himself, and no other. Not only can we not reject the word, but we must read it accurately. Scripture proves scripture, and scripture is very clear about who the rock is. Our faith must be built on the correct foundation, Jesus, the word who became flesh and dwelt among us, who defeated Satan and is coming back to reign and Satan will go o the lake of fire.
So, is the Pope a servant of the God of the Bible, or, the Prince of this world?
I think the answer is clear.
Moreover, is Susanna or Christine a servant of the God of the Bible, or, the Prince of this world?
I think the answer for the pair of them is clear too!
I could ask the same about you. The fact is, that the MAJORITY of RC traditions are directly derived from The Bible or have a precedent followed by a history of development.
relics miraculous or otherwise is validated by Elisha's bones, just for starters. incense, lights and imagery were part of what God said was to be in the Tabernacle service. But you close your eyes to these things, and denounce all of it and cling to Calvin who went farther than Luther and somewhat dragged him with him. And who is Calvin most compatible with?
predestination in extreme sense - manichaeans and probably related bogomils.
anticlericalism - bogomils
anti liturgicalism - bogomils
rejection of Christ's real presence being in the Eucharist - bogomils
who were the bogomils? Deniers that God made the physical universe. Deniers of Christ's full divinity and/or full humanity. other issues that would get them in trouble with protestants who think anything opposed by Rome or Byzantium has to be good.
Hi everyone,
I posted a reply at 9:46 to Sussanna's remark at 9:09 on Mary's perpetual virginity.
Now Christine comes in at 11:32 suggesting that Mary and Joseph could have had a marriage in name only see below..
"Joseph disappears early on, you don't see him after the Jesus in the Temple taking with elders incident. This supports the tradition/legend/whatever that he was a very old man, and the marriage one in name only.
Secondly, her response to Gabriel. Not "oh, goody, my future married life will bear fruit, and it will be a famous and great man who is to be my son!" no. Instead she asks how can this be since she knows not a man? Sounds she though betrothed, expected to NEVER know a man.....back to the aged man and marriage in name only scenario."
Christine you need to stop the warped and depraved commentry regarding marriage.
"Christine you need to stop the warped and depraved commentry regarding marriage."
what does a celibate marriage have to do with our arguments?
This blog is for ever getting bogged down with unbiblical Catholic fallacies and Gnostic nonsense ... Cardinal sins and Carnal sins.
Shocking !!!
Can see why people leave the blog.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1271&topic=77
admits brothers can be used to refer to half brothers but argues against this term
being used for cousins.
Since Joseph was Jesus' putative father and the lineage by adoption giving Him title to the throne of Judah, children from a prior wife now dead would fit even this effort to get around this.
There is a legend that James the half brother of Jesus was a dead ringer for Jesus, but if Mary and Joseph shared a lot of female side of pedigree ancestry this could happen anyway. Without Mary being James' mother.
"However Jesus and his disciples' native language was Aramaic (as in Matthew 27:46; Mark 5:41),[25] which could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin.[26] Aramaic, like Biblical Hebrew, does not contain a word for "cousin".[27]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brothers_of_Jesus
sources cited Jump up ^ Allen C. Myers, ed. (1987). "Aramaic". The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans. p. 72. ISBN 0-8028-2402-1.
[Eerdmans is protestant.]
26.Jump up ^ Robert Schihl, "The Perpetual Virginity of Mary", A Biblical Apologetic of the Catholic Faith, retrieved from EWTN
27.Jump up ^ John Saward (2002), Cradle of Redeeming Love: the Theology of the Christmas Mystery, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, p. 18, ISBN 0-89870-886-9
The situation is ambiguous, the most telling thing is Mary's reaction to the angel's message, WHICH IS NOT THAT OF A NORMAL GIRL EXPECTING TO HAVE SEX IN HER MARRIAGE.
The arguments the EO gives for her perpetual virginity all depend on her and Joseph understanding that Jesus is God Incarnate, which does not hold water, Scripture shows it took time for her to realize this. That He would be holy is one thing, and the priests were celibate during their two week cycles of service in the Temple, but not outside of that. holiness did link to celibacy but not permanently so. But it was Peter not Mary who FIRST recognized just Who and What Jesus Christ is. More likely she was someone who had taken a vow of perpetual celibacy for some reason. This was not impossible in those days. Bear in mind she was 12 or 14 at the most.
DO THE MATH CHRISTINE ZERO MARITAL INTERCOURSE = ZERO OFFSPRING .
MARY HAD CHILDREN.
Stop the old wives tales and fables rubbish.
" The premise of the argument--that the New Testament says Elizabeth is Mary's cousin--is wrong. The translation being quoted does not accurately reflect the Greek. The New Testament does not say that Elizabeth is Mary's cousin, the Greek word for which is anepsios. The word used in Luke 1:36 to describe Elizabeth is suggenes (pronounced su-gen-ace), which simply means kinswoman or relative. It tells us nothing about her exact relation within the extended family. All we can tell from the word suggenes is that Elizabeth was some kind of female relative of Mary's. But whether she was an aunt, a cousin, or a more distant relation cannot be determined from the word." http://www.stninianskuilsriver.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Why-does-the-Bible-refer-to-Elizabeth-as-Mary-cousin-but-not-with-Jesus-brothers1.pdf
anon 5:31
" Anonymous said...
DO THE MATH CHRISTINE ZERO MARITAL INTERCOURSE = ZERO OFFSPRING .
MARY HAD CHILDREN.
Stop the old wives tales and fables rubbish."
In other words, you deny the virgin conception of Jesus and virgin birth of Jesus.
what are you doing on a Christian blog?
The usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term.
By far the most prominent use of the term is the sense—a blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of one’s mother or father. With reference to the physical brothers of Jesus (i.e., the sons of Joseph and Mary conceived the birth of Christ), the literal sense is clearly in view in the following passages: Matthew 12:46-48 (the parallel in Mark 3:31-32); Matthew 13:55-56 (the parallel in Mark 6:3; in both passages, “sister” also is used in the literal sense); John 2:12; John 7:3,5,10; Acts 1:14; and Galatians 1:19. Even a casual reading of these verses demonstrates that . The only reason the face-value import of these verses would be questioned is to lend credence to the post facto Catholic Church doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
At least two assertions have been advanced by those who wish to discount the existence of Jesus’ brothers, and thereby defend the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. One attempt seeks to broaden the meaning of the Greek word for “brother” to mean “.” According to this view, the “brothers” of Jesus were actually His cousins—the children of Mary’s sister. The assertion that “brother” has this enlarged meaning is made largely on the basis of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). The Septuagint translators sometimes used the Greek word for brother (adelphos) in Old Testament passages in which a near relative or kinsman, who was not technically a physical brother, was under consideration. This claim is true. The Hebrew term for brother (‘ach) occasionally was used to refer to a more remote descendant from a common father who was not technically a brother (Gesenius, 1979, p. 27; Harris, et al., 1980, 1:31; Botterweck, 1974, 1:190). For example, Laban, Jacob’s uncle, was referred to as Jacob’s “brother” (Genesis 29:12,15). Likewise, Abram’s nephew Lot was said to be Abram’s “brother” (Genesis 14:14,16).
However, it must be noted that the decision of the Septuagint translators to adjust to the nuances of the Hebrew term does not prove that the Greek term adelphos had the meaning of “cousin” in the passages referring to Jesus’ kinsmen. After listing a few Old Testament verses where a broader meaning than strictly “brother” is in view, Bauer noted that such passages “do not establish the meaning ‘cousin’ for adelphos; they only show that in rendering the Hebrew ‘ach, adelphos is used loosely to designate masculine relatives of various degrees” (Arndt and Gingrich, 1957, p. 15, emp. added). In other words, no linguistic justification exists to support the notion thatadelphoi could refer to the “cousins” of Jesus. The Septuagint translators employed adelphos for‘ach in those passages where additional contextual evidence clarified the intended meaning. No such contextual evidence exists in the allusions to Jesus’ brothers in the New Testament, and is therefore an irrelevant comparison.
When we come to the , where the reference to the brothers of Jesus occurs, Von Soden correctly listed only two possible meanings for adelphos, namely, “either ‘physical brotherhood’ in the strict sense or more generally the ‘spiritual brotherhood’ of Israelites or Christians” (Kittel, 1964, 1:144). A broadened meaning for adelphos (to refer to a cousin) does not exist in the New Testament. As Walther Gunther clarified: “In no case in the New Testament canadelphos be interpreted with certainty in this sense” (Brown, 1975, 1:256). That’s putting it mildly. McClintock and Strong explained: “[W]hen the word is used in any but its proper sense, the context prevents the possibility of confusion…. If, then, the word ‘brethren’…really means ‘cousins’ or ‘kinsmen,’ it will be the instance of such an application in which no data are given to correct the laxity of meaning” (1968, 895, emp. in orig.). Lewis stated even more decisively: “ ‘Brothers’ (adelphoi) in New Testament Greek” (1976, 1:181, emp. added). Indeed, the Greek language had a and distinct word for “cousins”—anepsioi (e.g., Colossians 4:10). When a was meant, the relationship was clearly specified (e.g., Acts 23:16). To summarize: “There is therefore no adequate warrant in the language alone to take ‘brethren’ as meaning ‘relatives,’ and therefore the a priori presumption is in favor of a literal acceptation of the term” (McClintock and Strong, 1:895).
Further, when referring to Jesus’ brothers, the expression “” occurs nine times in the Gospel accounts and once in Acts. In every instance (except in John 7:3,5,10), the brothers are mentioned in with His mother, Mary. No linguistic indication whatsoever is present in the text for inferring that “His brothers” is to be understood in any than “His mother” (see Alford, 1980, pp. 152-154). Likewise, the contemporaneous Jews would have construed the terms “brothers” and “sisters” in their ordinary sense—like our English words—unless some extenuating circumstance indicated otherwise. No such circumstantial indication is present.
Additionally, if the phrase “brothers and sisters” means “cousins” in Matthew 13:55-56 and Mark 6:3, then these “cousins” were the nephews and nieces of . But why would the townspeople of Nazareth connect nephews and nieces of Mary ? Why would the townspeople mention nephews and nieces while omitting extended family relatives? The setting assumes that the townspeople were alluding to the family of Jesus. Barnes noted that to recognize these brothers and sisters as the sons and daughters of Joseph and Mary is the “fair interpretation,” and added, “the people in the neighbourhood [sic] thought so, and spoke of them as such” (1977, 1:150). As Matthews commented, “Joseph, Mary, and their children were recognized as a typical family of Nazareth, and when Jesus began his unusual career, they merely asked if He was not a member of this family mentioning their names. If these children were nephews and nieces of Mary,?” (1952, pp. 112-113, emp. added).
A second assertion maintains that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a previous marriage. Of course, this alleged prior marriage is without any biblical support whatsoever. The New Testament is completely silent on the matter. To postulate its occurrence, at best, is to introduce a question regarding Joseph’s own marital eligibility in his relationship with Mary.
In addition to the verses that allude to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, a corroborative verse is seen in Matthew 1:25. When Joseph awoke from a dream, wherein an angel of the Lord explained the circumstances of his wife’s pregnant condition, Matthew wrote that Joseph “knew her not until she had borne a son.” Use of the word “knew,” a common euphemism for sexual intercourse, means that Joseph and Mary abstained from sexual relations prior to the birth of Jesus. While it is true that the Greek construction heos hou (until) does not necessarily imply that they engaged in sexual relations the birth of Jesus, the rest of the New Testament bears out the fact that where this phrase followed by a negative occurs, it “ implies that the negated action did take place later” (Lewis, 1976, 1:42, emp. added). Bruce observed: “Subsequent intercourse was the natural, if not the necessary, course of things. If the evangelist had felt as the Catholics do, he would have taken pains to prevent misunderstanding” (Nicoll, n.d., 1:69). Alford agreed: “On the whole it seems to me, that no one would ever have thought of interpreting the verse any otherwise than in its prima facie meaning, except to force it into accordance with a preconceived notion of the perpetual virginity of Mary” (1980, 1:9).
The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing. In both the Old and New Testaments, the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4). Mary’s marriage to Joseph, and their subsequent production of offspring after the birth of Jesus, had the approval and blessing of heaven. To engage in hermeneutical gymnastics in an effort to protect a doctrine conceived from a misassessment of the sacred and divine nature of marriage and family is the epitome of misplaced religious ardor.
M’Clintock and Strong well summarized the evidence which supports the conclusion that Jesus had literal, uterine brothers: “[S]uch a supposition is more in agreement with the spirit and letter of the context than any other, and as the force of the allusion to the brothers and sisters of Jesus would be much weakened if more distant relatives are to be understood” (1968, 1:895). It is reassuring to know that Jesus experienced familial and fraternal ties. He had four brothers and at least two sisters (Matthew 13:55-56; Mark 6:3). He experienced what it was like to have His own brothers reject God’s truth (Matthew 12:46-50; John 7:5). Fortunately, those brothers, especially James, later embraced the truth and became active members of the church of Christ (Acts 1:14; 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; 1 Corinthians 9:5). “We do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses” (Hebrews 4:15). “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same” (Hebrews 2:14).
Alford, Henry (1980 reprint), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Arndt, William F. and F. Wilbur Gingrich (1957), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1977 reprint), Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1974), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Brown, Colin, ed. (1975), The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gesenius, William (1979 reprint), Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Harris, R. Laird, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke, eds. (1980), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Kittel, Gerhard, ed. (1964), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976), The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet Publishing Co.).
Matthews, Paul (1952), Basic Errors of Catholicism (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1968 reprint), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Nicoll, W. Robertson (n.d.), The Expositor’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
888
the family of Jesus in this "brothers" referred to men (and a couple of women since "sisters" are mentioned) who grew up under the same roof with Jesus, answerable to Mary as wife of their father.
anon. 5:41 "By far the most prominent use of the term is the sense—a blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of one’s mother or father"
OR HALF-BROTHER, the physical son of one's mother OR father."
bingo.
Anon posted Dave Millars work at 5:48
"the Bible speaks of marriage as an honorable institution that was intended by God to be the norm for humanity from the very beginning of the Creation (Genesis 2:24; Proverbs 5:18-19; Matthew 19:4-6; 1 Corinthians 7:2; Hebrews 13:4"
Man that Dave Millar sure does preach it well..
" the norm for humanity"
Sweet music to the ears....Amen and Amen to that brother.
which is entered into in various ways in different cultures and religions some considering each other's standards such as to invalidate the marriages and make them scandalous.
For instance, in one culture a married woman for who no bride price was paid is considered a whore, and the American custom appalling.\
The problem is define marriage (no it is not uniform except for heterosexuality and permanence or tendency to permanence.
"The insistence that Mary remained a virgin her entire life is undoubtedly rooted in the unscriptural conception that celibacy is spiritually superior to marriage and child bearing.
while this is unscriptural, the sex act (because of loss of semen) rendering the couple unclean until at least sundown after is NOT unscriptural and is the basis for the priests being celibate during their cycle of service at the Temple. It is the usual argument for Mary's perpetual virginity, which presupposes they knew God Himself had resided in that womb so would not defile it.
this doesn't hold water. But her reaction to the angel's message is pretty telling that intentional permanent celibacy was already in play.
Christine you punching well under your weight.
Anon posted Dave Millars artical who really knows what he is talking about with a M.Div. and M.A.R. from the Harding School of Theology and a graduate of Southern Illinois University, where he earned a Ph.D.
Want to make a mockery of yourself and look even more incredulous ... go for it!
anon 6:15
degree mean nothing and aren't the issue but IN THAT POST IT IS ADMITTED THAT ADELPHOS CAN MEAN HALF BROTHER and that ruins the whole argument against Mary's perpetual virginity. It doesn't refute her perpetual virginity, but it explains the other siblings and leaves her perpetual virginity possible.
anon 5:31
Christine says,
" Anonymous said...
DO THE MATH CHRISTINE ZERO MARITAL INTERCOURSE = ZERO OFFSPRING .
MARY HAD CHILDREN.
Stop the old wives tales and fables rubbish."
In other words, you deny the virgin conception of Jesus and virgin birth of Jesus.
what are you doing on a Christian blog?"
Christine you know exactly the context of Anons comment and that he was speaking of Mary having a sexual relationship with her husband and bearing children post the Virgin birth of Jesus.
Your showing you typical deceptive and dishonest reporting a per usual.
Stop trying to justify your non marital relationship by takeing pot shots at Mary and Josephs Marriage.
no, I show no dishonest or deception and NEVER DO. I catch the implication just when I shot down the adelphos argument and on another occasions USING THE INFORMATION IN THE ARTICLES POSTED. but overlooked by the poster and even writer.
now what do YOU make of someone who says
"ZERO MARITAL INTERCOURSE = ZERO OFFSPRING MARY HAD CHILDREN." there was no qualifier and whoever that was has not answered. zero offspring is ZERO offspring and we all agree she had at least one offspring, JEsus Christ, which is NOT ZERO OFFSPRING.
someone slipped up and showed their true colors.
Happy Birthday, Constance!
Christine,
Anyone would start to think that english is a second langauge to you.
Read what it people say in context and not what you want it to say.
Do you use the same approach to the Bible?
"Stop trying to justify your non marital relationship by takeing pot shots at Mary and Josephs Marriage."
you are really twisted. a non consummated marriage entered into with the social and legal proprieties of the time and place is NOT the same as defacto marriage in our time and place with the heterosexual and permanency elements of biblical marriage but illegal by a mere technicality. There is no resemblance.
and how am I taking pot shots at Mary and Joseph's marriage? I am concurring with the view of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, I think of Luther himself also, and of most members of these.
"Anyone would start to think that english is a second langauge to you.
Read what it people say in context and not what you want it to say.
Do you use the same approach to the Bible"
sure you want me to read the post for its purpose, and ignore the information in it that DESTROYS ITS PURPOSE. I am doing nothing any debater would not do.
Some writers were so pompous and self assured they left the time bomb in their articles, this one and another some time ago.
that bomb just exploded.
that article admitted adelphos can mean half brother, AND AT THAT POINT THE WRITER SHOULD HAVE CANCELLED THE EFFORT INSTEAD OF MAKING A FOOL OF HIMSELF. of course there are always those hypnotized by things of the flesh like status and degrees and just soak up slack jawed whatever and miss the admission that makes the rest after that point worthless.
anon 5:41
"The usual word in the Greek language for “brother” is adelphos. It possesses the same latitude of application that the English word possesses. Hence, it can refer to a person who shares the same religion (a spiritual brother). It can refer to a person who shares the same citizenship—a fellow countryman. It can refer to an intimate friend or neighbor. All of these uses are self-evident, and do not encroach upon the literal use of the term.
By far the most prominent use of the term is the sense—a blood brother or half-brother, the physical son of one’s mother or father"
now, at that point I didn't bother to read much farther, because he'd just handed me the ammunition to shoot him down with if he is arguing against Mary's perpetual virginity.
"BY FAR THE MOST PROMINENT USE OF THE TERM IS THE SENSE--A BLOOD BROTHER
OR
HALF-BROTHER, THE PHYSICAL SON OF ONE'S MOTHER OR FATHER."
THAT MEANS THESE COULD ALL HAVE BEEN JOSEPH'S CHILDREN OF HIS YOUTH FROM ANOTHER WIFE NOW DEAD.
I REPEAT THAT POST:
"By far the most prominent use of the term is the sense—a blood brother
OR HALF-BROTHER,
the physical son of one’s mother OR FATHER."
PUTATIVE FATHERHOOD COUNTED AS GOOD AS BLOOD FATHERHOOD, AND EVERYONE WOULD ASSUME
JOSEPH WAS JESUS' FATHER. LOOK AT THE LEVIRATE MARRIAGE PRACTICE. the result would be raised to the name not of his actual father but of the widow's deceased husband.
Christine,
When talking about true colors didnt you post
Stories of 4 foot aliens, chakras, telepathy, graveyard stuff, the spirit of person falling on another to empower them, and co habitation with the opposite sex is justified as a mordern day concubine.
irrelevant.
you want to demand biblical marriage? concubinage in included in it. end of subject.
Well Christine I think your articles would keep any bomb squad busy
Let's put it this way. None of the things you complain about are relevant to Jesus Christ's virgin conception, virgin birth, and Him being God the Second Person of God the All Holy Trinity, died for our sins rose physically and permanently from the dead.
aliens might deny this, but their contrary opinion means nothing any more than a regular human's contrary opinion means. Arguing for their existence is not an attack on Christian core doctrine. Neither are disputes about what constitutes biblical marriage relevant to Christian core doctrine. They might be relevant to Christian morality, but it is not a matter of "showing your true colors" in the sense I was talking about,
that to say no marital sex = no children and no caveat that JEsus is an exception.
Oh no where back to King Solomans times again and concubines!
The teaching of JESUS and the New Testament please Christine...not the old... time machines don't exist.
I agree, multiple mates is not the original way. And The Torah showed this and put a sharp economic limit on a man's harem. the bias was monogamy.
Actually the doctrine of sin and repentance is a Christian Core Doctrine.
Acts 17:30
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
That us why it is perilous to call that which is sin as righteous.
The fringe subjects are not sin except for prohibited magick in which case you might do well to understand the indicators of it in action, not always evident, so it can be countered .
permanent lifetime intended heterosexual alliance monogamous is not sin or Paul would have addressed it. It was not considered fornication in that society either or Paul would have addressed it as pagan baggage.
I have never seen protestants kiss the Bible but I have seen Catholics kiss a statue of Mary.
We Orthodox don't have statues. We kiss the Bible or a least the Gospels in the four Gospels book in gold binding in Church, and we kiss icons.
you also use it [the Bible] for purposes of divination, a.k.a. "bibliomancy" ( i.e. foretelling the future).....not in terms of simply believing in Christ's actual promises, but by things like illicitly engaging in unbiblical games of "spot the antichrist."
Susanna, that is the point of giving prophecy ahead of time. The (ethnic Jewish) Christians in Jerusalem recognised the imminent fulfilment of Christ's terrible words about the city when it was being surrounded by Roman armies in AD70, and they managed to get out and avoid the slaughter. Believers today who check rising world leaders against 666 are no more doing divination than those Christians back then.
The only 'thing ' irrelevant round here is you, Chritine!
Your poor mother must've had the patience of a saint with you, Chritine! You must have driven the poor sweet old dear out of her gentle senses.
You'd drive a saint to murder if you could, Mary C Erikson!
Yes, that poor woman who did her best to raise a clearly disturbed daughter, reading her her favorite bed-time stories of knights and dragons, making sure she could find a school to accept her unruly loveless daughter, feeding and clothing her ... yes that lady was a real hero in the neighborhood.
Only for wayward once little MCE to inevitably stray into the occult , strutting her "stuff" round the local satanists till Mike the seer chose her!
Your poor mother, that sweet old lady no doubt suffered so much having had you (childbirth was the least of the pain she was to suffer thereafter )Chritine :
She must have died a broken-hearted woman!
What a bane you are, MCE, even for your own sweet mother!
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @ 11:32 ...
Christine aka Justina's method of arriving at theological "truth" ...
"This supports the tradition/legend/whatever ..."
She uses "tradition/legend/whatever" to rattle things around in her brain and then comes in here to spew her garbage all over this blog. Then she (along with her twin Susanna) has the audacity to come in here and mock those that hold to the Bible as their authority for all matters regarding faith and practice.
Why Constance puts up with Christine is a mystery.
Christine ...
You are in way over your head. You need to stick to issues that you seem to be an expert on, such as:
Co-habitation with an "ex" Satanist and why it is Scriptural (wink, wink)
Alien Abductions
UFOs
Cities on Mars
Missionaries to Mars in the 1800's to "evangelize" those Martians
All other Extra Terrestrials that "need to be saved"
"Chakras" and "inner wheels"
Churnings and Bubblings in the gut due to someone throwing a curse on you.
Being against the New Age Movement while supporting the NAM on this blog in a variety of ways.
etc., etc., etc.
"We Orthodox... kiss icons."
Doesn't do much for the paint job after a decade or two?
Ray B,
I bet Chritine's mother would have been delighted to have assisted in the launch of Chritine from one of those super-cannons for her mission to Mars!
....6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1: fire!
We have lift off!!
Hooraah!
One small step for a loving mother at her wit's end...
One giant leap for a lunar -tic!!
Anonymous9:12 AM
(Citing Cretine ) "We Orthodox... kiss icons."
"Doesn't do much for the paint job after a decade or two?"
I bet the paint strips right off with that acrid vomit dripping from those fornicating lips of hers onto the icons...
Disgusting that such graven images are venerated (worshipped): it's utter blasphemy!
ROFL !!!
Precisely why I don't want to see Constance ban Christine aka Justina. Imagine the laughs that we would be losing with her being "lifted" off this site? But then again ... those Martians are in desperate need to hear her message.
...6,5,4,3,2,1 ignition .... uh, Roger ... Houston we have a lift off!
"That's one small step for Justina ... and one giant leap for Martian-kind."
Earth's loss is Mars' gain. Bub Bye ... don't forget to write.
It's awful to see Ms. Erikson tear into the Bible in her heretical fashion and still insist she is a christian. Her exegesis on Joseph and Mary, and in previous topics and persons of the Bible, are at the very least bordering on blasphemous--or worse--perhaps she has crossed the line? That is God's call.
But is easy to see that she is not a defender of the faith of Jesus Christ. She preaches another jesus, not the Lord Jesus of the Bible, making her the one who is operating in name only because her bible "knowledge", lifestyles and life "answers" (supposedly from the Bible) are godless. She spew is showing us all that she is still under the influence of the demonic thinking of her past.
Thank you to those who refute her madness and new age error.
@10:09 AM correction of last sentence:
Her spew
Just those 2 words pretty much say it all..............
"It's awful to see Ms. Erikson tear into the Bible in her heretical fashion and still insist she is a Christian"
typical false accusation. kindly give me an example of what you are spewing about?
"Her exegesis on Joseph and Mary, and in previous topics and persons of the Bible, are at the very least bordering on blasphemous"
how so? Luther himself believed she was ever virgin so did Calvin that means the founders of your movement believed she had a marriage in name only.
"It's awful to see Ms. Erikson [etc. etc.].."
you people are beginning to remind me of the pepper pots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhnJru5HZlU
I don't care what Luther and Calvin may or may not have believed. If Luther and Calvin did believe that, that just goes to show they were still marred by the errors of Rome (that fornicator of old)
We Bible believing Christians (unlike you, MCE, you blaspheming old floozy) here care about what the Holy Bible shows, and what the true Jewish marriage customs were as has been strenuously pointed out to you already. I refer you back to those earlier points!
I concur completely with the sentiments expressed by Anon 10:09 AM.
Now take your spew and do one!
Oh your poor long-suffering mother deserved to be awarded the Purple Heart for having had to battle through life with you as a thankless and loveless daughter : you shameless harlot!
gnostic bogomil freaks.
Anonymous 9:46 P.M.
Re:"Do you not see that in your judge not style posting you make against those trying to warn against sin.... that your same postings premise is in fact established on your judgement of others.
There is a right place and time for judgeing, conviction etc that this PC world hates...condemnation however is a different matter.
Most of the problems that arise are due to lack of or indeed the willingness to use correct judgement.
I would like to see more references to Gods Word (the Gospel) to back up the opinions expressed and not religious rites and traditions touted as being the Gospel.
If you are in agreement with Christine then thats your choice but I would respectfully suggest you re think the matter in light of Gods Word."
*****************
"right place and time for judgeing?????" As decided by who??? You??? Who died and made YOU pope??? I thought "bible only" was your schtick!
You have a lot of rotten gall talking about Susanna "judging" anyone when it has hypocritical Pharisaical clowns like you all along who have been doing the judging (bearing false witness) around here and trying to pass it off as biblical "rebuking." Makes me want to puke. That and the word "respectfully" coming from people like you is a joke. Apparently you have glossed over the words of Jesus who said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And "Judge not lest you be judged likewise." Looks like you have been "judged likewise." lol Susanna is just applying your own hypocritical unbiblical standards to you. How do you like it?
So instead of blasphemously larding your un-Christian and un-Biblical hate- speak/"bushwa" with Bible passages "privately mis-interpreted" just for such an un-special occasion why don't you and your like-minded buds put a sock in it?
Oh, and while you are at it , you might want to learn how to SPELL judging before accusing anyone of actually doing it!
Anonymous 8:01 AM
Bibliomancy:
bib·li·o·man·cy1
/ˈbiblēəˌmansē/
noun
1.foretelling the future by interpreting a randomly chosen passage from a book, especially the Bible.
So far, most Protestant "prognostications" have proven to be false. Especially the ones resulting form the games of "spot the antichrist."
There are a number of patches in this field that are quite sparse for actual wheat.
The tares have overgrown it, in those places.
...let God be true, and every man a liar... Romans 3:4 ...continuing it says: as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
The majority of her sayings can't be justified before God, whose word is final,
and I hope it isn't true, I hope she turns back, but it may be that Mary C Erikson is a tare gone to seed.
Yet when Protestants stop being duped by the Jesuits who have infiltrated their churches under the guise of Protestant ministers and return to the traditional view that the Papacy is indeed the Antichrist spoken of in Holy Writ , they will be back on the right track of spiritual discernment!
Anonymous 5:41, 5:42 et al, and 9:46 PM
Actually, you have missed the whole point made by
Susanna. Believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary is not the same thing as "worshipping" Mary. And believing or disbelieving in Mary's perpetual virginity does not necessarily alter a person's belief in Jesus Christ as the Word Incarnate.
But now that you have given everyone the Protestant argument against believing in Mary's perpetual virginity, here is the Catholic one defending belief Mary's perpetual virginity.
************************
"Infidels who deny the supernatural conception and birth of Christ also reject the perpetual virginity of Mary. They refuse to Mary the title of "Ever Blessed Virgin" on two grounds; first, the terms "until" and "first-born" in St. Matthew's formula, "He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son" (Matthew 1:25); second, the various passages in the Gospels and New Testament writing where there is mention of the "brethren" of our Lord.
1. The conjunction "until" in Scriptural usage expresses what has occurred up to a certain point, and leaves the future aside. Thus God says in the book of Isaias: "I am till you grow old" (Isaias 46:4). Are we to infer that God would then cease to be? Again, God says to His Divine Son: "Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thy enemies Thy foot-stool" (Psalm 109:1). Will the Messias, once His enemies are subdued, relinquish His place of honor? St. Matthew's principal aim was to tell his readers that Christ's birth was miraculous and that Joseph had no part in the conception of Mary's child. His statement is confined to this point.
In itself the statement, "He knew her not till she brought forth her first-born Son," neither proves Mary's subsequent virginity nor contains an argument against it. Speaking as he does, the Evangelist in no wise affirms that the abstention mentioned by him ceased after the expiration of the time indicated.
To say that the exclusion of an event up to a certain point implies that it occurred afterward, is pure caevil. In fact, one would find it difficult to believe that the sacred writer, after insisting so strongly on Mary's anterior virginity in the opening verses of the chapter, could suddenly imply that it ceased later on. If Joseph abstained from the use of the union preceding the angel's message, who could think that after Mary had brought forth the Son of God, he should feel less reverence for the temple of the Trinity?
2. It is also argued that the word "first-born" (Luke 2:7) cannot be reconciled with Mary's perpetual virginity. The word "first-born," however, is a legal term and does not imply that Mary had other children besides Christ. As St. Jerome points out, the Scriptures employ the word "first-born" to denote a mother's first child, no matter whether it is followed by other children or remains the only one; the child is called "first-born" from the fact of its opening the womb and not to contra-distinguish it from subsequent issue; in itself the term leaves indefinite whether other children were born after him.
Among the Jews even an only son was called "first-born" because he was the object of special legislation. According to the Mosaic Law the first-born male was consecrated to God by the very fact of his birth and had to be redeemed at a price (Exodus 13:2; 34:19); Christ is called "first-born" because He "was made under the law" (Galatians 4:4) as the Apostle tells us, and because Mary and Joseph fulfilled the Mosaic prescriptions concerning a first-born child.
cont.
cont.
3. The "brethren of the Lord" (I Corinthians 9:5) are mentioned in various passages of the Gospels and other New Testament writings. The first two Gospels mention the names of some of these "brethren," and also make reference to Christ's sisters. Here are some of the passages: "As He was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold His mother and His brethren stood without seeking to speak to Him" (Matthew 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8 :19); "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? Are not also his sisters here with us" (Mark 6:3; Matthew 13:55); After this He went down to Capharnaum, He and His mother, and His brethren, and His disciples" (John 2:12, 7:3; Acts 1:14); "But other of the Apostles I saw none, save James the brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1:19). What meaning, then, are we to attribute to the terms "brethren" and "sisters" of the Lord? How interpret them consistently with Mary's vow of virginity, contained implicitly in her own words, "How shall this be done because I know not man" (Luke 1:34), and moreover affirmed explicitly in Patristic teaching on the subject?
According to the apocryphal Gospels of James, Matthew and Peter, and according to some Greek Fathers, the "brethren" were the children of Joseph from a previous marriage. This opinion, however, is now antiquated. Although it safeguards the virginity of Mary, it is opposed to the common and traditional belief in the Church concerning Joseph's perpetual virginity. As a matter of fact, there is absolutely no trace in the Scriptures of any former marriage of St. Joseph, nor is Joseph at any time designated as the father of the "brethren" of the Lord. The Gospel story concerning the Nativity, the flight to Egypt and the finding in the Temple, clearly shows that apart from the Divine Child no other children were the object of Joseph's solicitude. Again, if St. Joseph had older sons, how could our Lord be the heir to David's throne?
cont.
cont.
The "brethren" were not real brothers of our Lord. Nowhere in the New Testament is it said that Mary bore other children besides our Lord. That Christ had no real brothers and sisters is evident from the following incidents: the flight into Egypt, the annual journey to Jerusalem, and Mary's being unaccompanied on Calvary. In all these instances there is no mention of any other children of Mary. The words of our Lord on the Cross (John 19:26) making John, a stranger, the protector of His mother, show that St. Joseph was dead and that there were no other children in the family. Christian tradition of both the East and the West is unanimous in its affirmation of Marys' perpetual virginity. The Fathers applied to Mary the words of the prophet Ezechiel, 44:2: "This gate shall be closed. It shall not be opened and no men shall pass through it because the Lord God of Israel entered in by it and it shall be closed for the prince." The early Christians were acquainted with the "brethren" several of whom - as James, the celebrated Bishop of Jerusalem - occupied important positions in the Church. If Mary had given birth to several children, how could this universal tradition arise? To ascribe the origin of this belief to the rise of monasticism is beside the point, since the belief was prevalent long before the beginning of this movement.
The Blessed Virgin frequently appears in the company of the "brethren of the Lord," but at no time is she called their mother - not even in circumstances where such an expression would be expected (e.g. Acts 1:14). St. Mark represents the men of Nazareth speaking of our Lord as the "son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude and Simon" (Mark 6:3); the Evangelist implies thereby that our Lord was the only Son of the Blessed Mother. Again, from the fact that the "brethren" occasionally assume an attitude of superiority toward our Lord, it is clear that they were older than He. Hence they were not the children of Mary, since she was a virgin when she conceived our Lord. Finally, the New Testament explicitly designates Mary of Cleophas as the real mother of James, Joseph, Jude and Simon (John 19:25; Mark 15:40; Matthew 13:55; Jude 1).
The accepted teaching of Catholic theologians is that the "brethren of the Lord" were cousins or kinsmen of our Lord. But why, then, did the sacred writers use the terms "brothers" and "sisters" - terms which give rise to such grave misunderstandings? - Philology furnishes the solution. The Hebrew language is not rich in expressions and is especially poor when it tries to express degrees of relationship. It has no special word for "cousins" and hence is obligated to designate them as "brothers." According to the celebrated lexicographer, Gesenius, the Hebrew word 'ahh is applicable not only to a brother in the strict sense but to a nephew (Genesis 14:16), cousin (Numbers 16:10), husband (Cant. 4:9; Esther 16:12), members of the same race (Numbers 20:14), ally (Amos 1:9), friend (Job 6:15), and to those performing some duty (III Kings 9:13). Although the New Testament authors wrote in Greek and not in Hebrew, their language is merely Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic in Greek dress; their style abounds in Hebraisms and their sentences are replete with Oriental expressions.
cont.
cont.
Our Lord and His kinsmen undoubtedly lived for some time under the same roof. Possibly after the death of Cleophas, his wife and children came to live in the house of Joseph and Mary. Or it may be that after Joseph's death, the Blessed Virgin and her Divine Son retired to the home of Mary's "sister." In these circumstances there would be additional reason for calling Christ's kinsmen His brothers. A still simpler supposition might be that after Jesus left her and began His public ministry, Mary sought the hospitality of Cleophas' home. This would explain why she appeared in the company of the "brethren," especially when she sought her Son.
A final point of interest is the precise relation of Mary, (wife of) Cleophas, to the Blessed Virgin. Enumerating the women who stood beneath the Cross, St. John writes: "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, His mother, and His mother's sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene" (John 19:25). If taken literally, the passage teaches that Mary of Cleophas was the natural sister of the Blessed Virgin; the text was understood in this sense by St. Jerome and St. Thomas Aquinas. This explanation, however, is opposed to the ancient tradition accepted by St. John Damascene, St. Germanus and the great Jesuit theologian Suarez, according to which the Blessed Virgin was an only child, conceived miraculously from a sterile mother. In addition, the first theory fails to explain how two sisters would bear the same name. Hence the more probable explanation is that the term "sister" is used by John in a broad sense and that Mary of Cleophas was the "sister-in-law" of the Blessed Virgin, Cleophas being the natural brother of Joseph. In this case, the "brethren" would be only putative cousins of our Lord."
http://www.cathtruth.com/catholicbible/evervirg.htm
************************************
Oh MCE is a tare gone to seed, alright! She diseminates her gnostic nonsense and fornication with demons all over the place here! Let alone her stomach churning accounts back in the house of ill-repute with her "ex" Satanist practiser of the occult ( and tantric sex magick?)!
....Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary’s virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
The Protoevangelium of James
"And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there" (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
...............
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/mary-ever-virgin
Anonymous 12:12 PM said...
"Yet when Protestants stop being duped by the Jesuits who have infiltrated their churches under the guise of Protestant ministers and return to the traditional view that the Papacy is indeed the Antichrist spoken of in Holy Writ , they will be back on the right track of spiritual discernment!"
***********************
Name one Jesuit who has done this!
When Catholics AND Protestants stop being duped by white supremacist, fascist, neo-Nazi, "Sacred Namer," "Messianic Jewish" and "Identity" cultists who have infiltrated all Christian denominations and prey on human weakness and stupidity in order to win converts, then they will see where Antichrist really lives.......and why his aforementioned fascist minions are so obsessed with taking over Israel under the guise of "church planting." It is certainly NOT about winning Jews to Christ.
Get lost Dorothy!
Billy Graham, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Shubat, Rick Warren, Hagee, and the list goes on and on! Want proof? Look it up yourself!
Dear 11.43am,
This is Anon@8.01am to whom you replied. You defined bibliomancy as "foretelling the future by interpreting a randomly chosen passage from a book, especially the Bible". I do not know if you regard testing politician's names against 666 as qualifying, or the heeding by the Christians in Jerusalem of Christ's prophecy as qualifying (they got out and avoided the massacre), but the two are procedurally identical so if you accuse people today doing that as bibliomancers then you must accuse those early Christians of it too. Consistency please!
Personally I think that bibliomancy involves sticking a pin in the bible at random and trying to apply the resulting verses to the situation at hand. The definition you use says as much, and I (a protestant) am in full agreement with Pope Nicholas I who condemned the practice in AD866 in his Responses To the Questions Of The Bulgars. I do not condemn those early Christians who fled Jerusalem, and I think you should not mock those who ponder 666 today. At the right time it will become obvious to all who genuinely trust Christ, whether in Catholic or protestant churches, that the man who fits that prophecy is here.
Mary’s perpetual virginity is nowhere deducible from scripture and is against the normal inference from it, in particular Matthew’s words about Mary in verses 1:18 and 1:25, that Joseph “had no [carnal] knowledge of her until she bore him a son” – which although stating nothing about what happened afterwards is not likely to be how Matthew would have written if the couple had remained celibate. If you hear that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you think they did next? Did Mary and Joseph have separate beds? Separate bedrooms? The Magisterium appears to regard it as scandalous that a married couple had sex, whereas Paul takes the view that it is mistaken for them not to (1 Cor 7:5). Abundant children are viewed throughout the Old Testament as a blessing, and Mary was blessed (Luke 1:48).
Seven of the ten references to Jesus' ‘brothers’ in the gospels and Acts are in immediate connection to Mary, who would be the mother of any brothers he had from her. The other three references are all in the passage John 7:2-10, which cannot refer to spiritual brothers because they refer to people who don't believe in him. That is as strong as the evidence can be that Mary had other children, given that there is no explicit statement which would have prevented the Catholic view in the first place.
The dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity was pronounced in the 7th century. By that time the church took the depressing view that sex was for procreation only, and even then it should not be enjoyed; see, for example, the Pastoral Rule (bk. 3 ch. 27) of Pope Gregory ‘the Great,’ 14 centuries ago, the first monk to be pope. By then the Augustine view had become mainstream, but Augustine’s negative view of sexuality stemmed more from horror at his own lust than from scripture. Rome came to regard see marital sex as a regrettable procreative necessity rather than a gift from God (although animals obviously experience a desire to have sex, not a desire to have offspring). But the effect has been to promote the virgin-or-whore view of woman, and as Mary was not a whore they had to say that she died a virgin. I for one don't believe it.
anon 2:00
pronunciation Mary's ever virginity as dogma in the 7th century is the sort of thing RC does, and like the East the idea was around for a few hundred years before that.
In the Eastern Orthodox Church it was never pronounced formally unless there is an anathema somewhere against those who deny it, but it like the Assumption is generally believe.
The reference to Mary of Cleophas as being Mary the Virgin's sister is pretty weird, who names two daughters the same name? more likely a first cousin.
of course they will have immediate connection to Mary if their father is dead and she is the stepmother.
of curse, if according to the legend they had given up the first Mary to the Temple, they might have named the second daughter Mary.
Anonymous 2:00 P.M. said
"Mary’s perpetual virginity is nowhere deducible from scripture....."
***************************
Sola Scriptura is not the Catholic rule of faith. It is the Protestant Rule of Faith. And if you are content with it, fine. But if you think you are going to be able to succeed in defending your position to an informed Catholic according to a Rule of Faith Catholics regard as self-contradictory and flawed, you are seriously mistaken.
Not only that but the Perpetual Virginity of Mary was believed by the Church long before it was formally defined as dogma. Ordinarily, such formal definitions have usually been replies replies to heresies.
The "until" issue was addressed earlier by me at 12:12 PM.
************************
The Protoevangelium of James 4,7 - 120 A.D.
********************************
Origen - who mentions the Protoevangelium of James in Commentary on Matthew 2:17 - 248 A.D.
********************************
Hilary of Poitiers ( Commentary on Matthew 1:4 -354 A.D. )
********************************
Athanasius (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 - 360 A.D.
*********************************
Epiphanius of Salamis (The Man Well-Anchored 120 - 374 A.D. and Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 - 375 A.D.
***********************************
Against Helvidius (St. Jerome 383 A.D.)
This tract appeared about a.d. 383. The question which gave occasion to it was whether the Mother of our Lord remained a Virgin after His birth. Helvidius maintained that the mention in the Gospels of the “sisters” and “brethren” of our Lord was proof that the Blessed Virgin had subsequent issue, and he supported his opinion by the writings of Tertullian and Victorinus. The outcome of his views was that virginity was ranked below matrimony. Jerome vigorously takes the other side, and tries to prove that the “sisters” and “brethren” spoken of, were either children of Joseph by a former marriage, or first cousins, children of the sister of the Virgin. A detailed account of the controversy will be found in Farrar's “Early Days of Christianity,” pp. 124 sq. When Jerome wrote this treatise both he and Helvidius were at Rome, and Damasus was Pope. The only contemporary notice preserved of Helvidius is that by Jerome in the following pages.....cont.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
cont.
CHRISTINE,
Having not looked at the site for the balance of the weekend, I had no idea you had stretched my admonition to you about "ALIENS" (your sometimes references to inter-planetary beings) to say "Mexicans," "Irish," "Cubans," "New Zealanders," etc., etc.
I think you knew fully well what my frame of reference was. As for the "permanent monogamy" in an unvowed state, my generation had this "old fashioned custom" -- WE GOT MARRIED.
Constance
cont.
*************************
Didymus the Blind ( The Trinity 3:4 - 386 A.D. )
***************************
Ambrose of Milan ( Letters 63:111 - 388 A.D. )
****************************
Pope Siricius I ( Letter to Bishop Anysius - 392 A.D. )
******************************
Augustine (Holy Virginity 4:4 - 401 A.D.)
(Sermons 186:1 - 411 A.D.)
(Heresies 56 - 428 A.D.)
******************************
Leporius ( Document of Amendment 3 - 426 A.D.)
******************************
Cyril of Alexandria ( Against Those Who Do Not Wish to Confess That the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God 4 430 A.D.)
******************************
Pope Leo I (Sermons 22:2 450 A.D.)
******************************
By the fourth century, the doctrine was widely supported by the Church Fathers, and by the seventh century it had been affirmed in a number of ecumenical councils. The doctrine is part of the teaching of Catholicism and Anglo-Catholics, as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, as expressed in their liturgies, in which they repeatedly refer to Mary as "ever virgin". The Assyrian Church of the East, which is derived from Church of the East, also accept the perpetual virginity of Mary by titling her the "Ever Virgin", after the "Second Heaven".
Some early Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther supported the doctrine, and founding figures of Anglicanism such as Hugh Latimer and Thomas Cranmer "followed the tradition that they had inherited by accepting Mary as 'ever virgin'". The doctrine of perpetual virginity is currently maintained by some Anglican and Lutheran theologians. In addition, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, affirmed the perpetual virginity of Mary
Add to that the fact that John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli also honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants. Ergo DISBELIEF in the perpetual virginity of Mary is the "new dogma" that even the original Reformers did not sanction.
So if you choose not to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, fine. But know that your opinion is not universally held - even among Protstants.
constance et. al
fringe research are not new age in and of themselves even if exploited by new agers
"alien" I am concerned abut are not channeled. People have been grabbed by them physically and used to breed hybrids. a man got raped by one of two women who appeared in his bedroom who pass for human a hair was left by one, and though blonde the DNA tracked as a rare variety of Mongolian descent.
a demonic component is definitely involved but so is something physical and all this is what you'd expect of some demon infested society when a missionary first goes there.
two skulls have been found that are no way human or monkey. the skull sutures are wrong. the eye sockets are shallow and wrong. the head is wrong shape for cradle boarding or anything else the "scientists" write it off as. mitochondrial DNA is 100% human (female line only) but the rest of the genome, well, the FoxP2 gene is such that either this thing is not human or is a human alien hybrid, or else it should not have lived long enough to grow a skull this size.
Trey Smith credits all this to the nephilim stuff, so you can get plenty of information from his youtube material, he relies a lot on enoch but ignore that and you will have a quick shot at skull info. `
head binding does not change skull suture placement or skull plate count. neither does it increase the brain case capacity. "coneheads" the most extreme ones are
noway normal humans everything when looked at closely is wrong.
mtDNA in this case is squirrely instead of normal human, the rest also squirrely.
this damn stuff is real. and dangerous.
UFO crash retrievals with dead bodies have happened all over the world, not just Roswell, including one before Roswell in Missouri, a Baptist minister was called out to pray over them. demons may be involved, but demons don't leave bodies. The infamous alien looking thing Crowley had is wrong - the eyes are tiny not huge. it may be their Satanists have been partying with earth Satanists. as I pointed out, on my blog, there is some kind of connection that Rene Noorbergen documented statistically and Randall Baer noted but was too creeped out by to discuss in his book beyond noting it.
Dear 4.00pm,
In your reply to mine of 2.00pm you pick up a single sentence, that Mary's perpetual virginity is not deducible from scripture, and point out that there may be more to faith than scripture, also listing the early(ish) churchmen who adhered to it.
The problem is the gap between the earliest churchman to refer to it and the life of Mary - a gap of several generations and across a culture (Hebraic to Greek). If someone tells me about an oral tradition about one couple who lived in Africa several generations ago, I would not regard that as unquestionable information; would you?
There are the other points I made about the phrasing of Matthew 1. If you hear that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed, what do you think they did next? St Paul,moreover, takes the view that it is mistaken for married couples not to have sex (1 Cor 7:5). Abundant children are viewed throughout the Old Testament as a blessing, and Mary was blessed (Luke 1:48).
Seven of the ten references to Jesus' ‘brothers’ in the gospels and Acts are in immediate connection to Mary, who would be the mother of any brothers he had from her. The other three references are all in the passage John 7:2-10, which cannot refer to spiritual brothers because they refer to people who don't believe in him. That is as strong as the evidence can be that Mary had other children, given that there is no explicit statement which would have prevented the Catholic view arising in the first place.
I recognise that you navigate by more than scripture. What I am saying is this: If you want to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity then you are free to, but it is against the obvious inference from scripture and there is no reliable contemporary evidence for it; in other words, there is no evidence for it other than somebody saying so generations later.
" As for the "permanent monogamy" in an unvowed state, "
vows are not part of marriage ceremonies civil or religious that do not derive from pagan Roman western empire legal concepts of marriage as a terminatable business contract.
"to have and to hold" as I think you know, is a property clause present in real estate deeds. it has nothing to do with affection or cuddling or relationship.
" my generation had this "old fashioned custom" -- WE GOT MARRIED."
And as your generation was growing up the number of states that allowed common law marriage to be created in them was decreasing, though many require some notification after the time frame is met and presenting as man and wife during that time.
with the development of no fault divorce, and the lack of criminal penalties for adultery (all developments after the 1800s) it looks like "marriage" almost doesn't exist. key elements were undercut long before gay marriage and the institution's power was strictly social, not legal, there being no enforcement or penalties only measures to sort out property and child custody issues if they decide they are bored with each other and want to break up. I suppose some states retain the requirement of fault of some sort.
No. Your stuff is unreal and dangerous.
Because the devil is not going to go by your playbook. You and the internet don't have this figured out.
So just go back and contemplate your own navel or this 'stuff' you love so much, at your own blog.
God will give His needed discernment, wisdom, and enablement for these dangerous, deceptive times in which we live and your "noise" needs to cease.
I'll rephrase this: God will give His needed discernment, wisdom, and enablement to those humble ones who trust His Spirit to guide them with His written word which has all of this at the ready.
You'll, no doubt, be otherwise occupied.
anon 4:33
adelphos as demonstrated in an article cited earlier, can mean full brother or half brother.
putative fatherhood was as valid as genetic fatherhood, note levirate marriage resulting in the child being counted as the son of the deceased "brother" who could be full, half or first cousin by Hebrew and Aramaic ambiguity. (so long as they were living together when the man died, a clause that was breached by the time of Ruth.)
Scripture does not proclaim Mary's ever virginity.
neither does it unambiguously proclaim she wasn't ever virgin.
a legend sprang up, early, and when one goes to Scripture to check on it, one finds THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER.
however, her response to the angel is telling. It is not the normal response of an engaged girl. It sounds more like she expects to never have sex.
as for sex being desirable and children a blessing (a lot of them are only a blessing to their father being useful, but not the mother, an increase of fertility being part of the curse on Eve), all that is about average people. Mary wasn't average.
You are a serial stalker of this blog, MCE.
It is as though you haunt it. Having to force your points of view upon it to bludgeon and torture every topic. No good topic goes unmolested by you.
You are extremely creepy.
Roswell? That was a USAF balloon carrying equipment to sniff the upper atmosphere for radioactivity characteristic of Soviet nuclear testing, and the USAF was less than frank about what it was - a fact which caused confusion at the time, but no further interest until UFO conspiratorialists of the 1970s recognised that Uncle Sam had been telling tales, put two and two together, and made five.
Roswell is a sort of filter: Anybody who believes the nonsense about aliens at Roswell can and should be ignored about other supposed alien events.
Although this is not the blog for such stuff, Christine, where are those skulls? Some references would be helpful.
"vows are not part of marriage ceremonies civil or religious that do not derive from pagan Roman western empire legal concepts of marriage as a terminatable business contract."
Christine, read Instone-Brewer's book which I have you specific page references to, and distinguished between vows and contracts, to see that that is nonsense. Ignoring evidence to which you have been pointed is dishonest.
Re:"I recognise that you navigate by more than scripture. What I am saying is this: If you want to believe in Mary's perpetual virginity then you are free to, but it is against the obvious inference from scripture and there is no reliable contemporary evidence for it; in other words, there is no evidence for it other than somebody saying so generations later."
**************************************
What you regard as "reliable contemporary evidence" and what I regard as "reliable contemporary evidence" are obviously two different things. I regard the tradition of the early Church Fathers as very reliable - especially since many of them died for the faith they professed.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary’s earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole Protoevangelium of James is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
Passages seem to contradict the claim that Mary and Joseph had children together; instead supporting the notion of Mary as “ever-virgin.” Very telling is the conversation in the Gospel of St. Luke between the Angel Gabriel and Mary. Gabriel tells Mary, who is betrothed to Joseph, that, “you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call His name Jesus” (Luke 1:31). The inference from Scripture here is based on Mary's response, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34) This conversation only makes sense if Mary intended to remain a virgin following her marriage to Joseph. Otherwise, she would have simply assumed, at least at first, that Gabriel meant Mary and Joseph would conceive the child about whom Gabriel spoke in the way married couples usually conceive children.
Actually, we are both free to believe or not believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity according to our respective Rules of Faith.....just as long as you are aware that not all Protestants agree with your view.
But when a certain species of "Protestant" keeps on stubbornly, stupidly and falsely accusing Catholics of "worshipping" Mary, then they have gone beyond the pale of what is acceptably Christian and have entered into the Alexander Hislop-style lunatic fringe where cranks prevail.
That was the original point here and I am not going to allow it to be swept under the rug by attempts to change the subject.
The above comment is addressed to Anonymous 4:33 P.M. Sorry.
5:17 PM
Why didn't you ask her that over at her blog?
Why perpetuate her nonsense here?
Haven't we seen enough abuse of the blog already? and Constance just told her again not to talk about that here.
Cretine,
You really are a bane upon women-kind! You're what is known in old fashioned terms as a loose woman!
Cheap and nasty, that's your forte you fornicating hussie!
Anonymous 5:47 and 5:49 P.M.
Luther: “It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a virgin…Christ, we believe, came forth from a womb left perfectly intact.”
Calvin: “There have been certain folk who have wished to suggest from this passage [Matthew 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!”
Zwingli: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the Gospel, as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.”
All as quoted in: Chacon, Frank and Jim Burnham. Beginning Apologetics 6: How to Explain and Defend Mary. Farmington, NM: San Juan Catholic Seminars,2001.
Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said @4:23 PM ...
"UFO crash retrievals with dead bodies have happened all over the world, not just Roswell, including one before Roswell in Missouri, a Baptist minister was called out to pray over them. demons may be involved, but demons don't leave bodies. The infamous alien looking thing Crowley had is wrong - the eyes are tiny not huge. it may be their Satanists have been partying with earth Satanists. as I pointed out, on my blog ..."
Christine ...
"UFO crash retrievals with dead bodies have happened all over the world ..." Please provide your sources (no comic books please). Also, what was the name of the "Baptist minister" that "prayed" over "them." What was the date, and where did this happen? LOL
Man, now I have seen in all.
At 4:36 Christine is giving Constance a lecture on the Law.
And not just any law but on a matter on Family law (marriage) and to a highly respected member of the Bar who practises Family Law.
Christine actually the foundations of " the Law " in European countries for centuries has been the Bible.
That is now being erroded by workers of Sin who lobby against it... much the same as you do on this blog but that will not change the Eternal consequences.
As for the recent Courts of the United States ruleings pertaining to marriage... everyone should be more concerned about the final judgement of the Lord Who Judges all according to their deeds.
Saw this from Anon 8:29 AM and thought it worth reposting, in case it got lost in the shuffle :
Your poor mother must've had the patience of a saint with you, Chritine! You must have driven the poor sweet old dear out of her gentle senses.
You'd drive a saint to murder if you could, Mary C Erikson!
Yes, that poor woman who did her best to raise a clearly disturbed daughter, reading her her favorite bed-time stories of knights and dragons, making sure she could find a school to accept her unruly loveless daughter, feeding and clothing her ... yes that lady was a real hero in the neighborhood.
Only for wayward once little MCE to inevitably stray into the occult , strutting her "stuff" round the local satanists till Mike the seer chose her!
Your poor mother, that sweet old lady no doubt suffered so much having had you (childbirth was the least of the pain she was to suffer thereafter )Chritine :
She must have died a broken-hearted woman!
What a bane you are, MCE, even for your own sweet mother!
Ray B said to Cretine :
"...Please provide your sources (no comic books please). "
ROFL LMAO. .. my sides are aching ... She's a real scream ain't she?
"Christine, read Instone-Brewer's book which I have you specific page references to, and distinguished between vows and contracts, to see that that is nonsense. Ignoring evidence to which you have been pointed is dishonest."
I already refuted that, and gave a source for Orthodox Judaism that vows are NOT part of the ceremony.
Orthodox Christianity does not use vows either, but inquires first if either of them have promised themselves to another.
http://starchildproject.com/#
http://www.sunnyskyz.com/good-news/545/DNA-Analysis-Of-Paracas-Elongated-Skulls-Released-The-Results-Prove-They-Were-Not-Human
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseSubarticle.asp?ID=859
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_H._Stringfield
short list.
No, you didn't refute 'that ' at all, Chritine! I am not the same anon who pointed you towards that source but I know you have refuted nothing of it. You are a liar and a fantasist and you should be committed to a high security asylum.
How do we know when you're about to lie Chritine? Answer: your fingers start typing!
http://www.ufoabduction.com/
http://www.skeptiko.com/231-dr-david-jacobs-dismisses-spiritual-alien-abduction-stories/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWrAnGfsGCs Derrel Sims physical evidence cases.
"There is no actual exchange of vows in a traditional Jewish ceremony; the covenant is said to be implicit in the ritual. Ceremony structure varies within the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform synagogues, and also among individual rabbis. The marriage vow is customarily sealed when the groom places a ring on his bride's finger and says:
"Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel.""
https://www.theknot.com/content/jewish-wedding-vows
that however is not a vow a promise but a statement.
"The Sacrament or, more properly, Sacred Mystery of Marriage does not unite a man and a woman. Rather, it is the Church's recognition of a union that God has already begun to work in their lives.[1] As long as the union remains within the reality of this world, it will be subject to sin, pain, and death. But, through the Sacred Mystery, the union enters at the same time into a new reality: that of God's Kingdom. In Christ, marriage is restored to its initial perfection and in the sacrament, this union is made open to the possibility of what God intended marriage to be from the beginning: an eternal life of joy in union with Him.
Thus, marriage goes beyond a legal contract. There is no exchange of vows - the two have freely and coequally committed to one another and consented to God's presence in their union."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_Eastern_Orthodox_Church
the idea that marriage is eternal however is one of those little notions not part of formal dogma, not held by all jurisdictions or probably by any on a formal basis but which does exist thanks to some weaseling by a saint to avoid a second marriage she didn't want.
(Just in case it didn't go through: saw this from Anon 8:29 AM and thought it worth reposting, in case it got lost in the shuffle :
Your poor mother must've had the patience of a saint with you, Chritine! You must have driven the poor sweet old dear out of her gentle senses.
You'd drive a saint to murder if you could, Mary C Erikson!
Yes, that poor woman who did her best to raise a clearly disturbed daughter, reading her her favorite bed-time stories of knights and dragons, making sure she could find a school to accept her unruly loveless daughter, feeding and clothing her ... yes that lady was a real hero in the neighborhood.
Only for wayward once little MCE to inevitably stray into the occult , strutting her "stuff" round the local satanists till Mike the seer chose her!
Your poor mother, that sweet old lady no doubt suffered so much having had you (childbirth was the least of the pain she was to suffer thereafter )Chritine :
She must have died a broken-hearted woman!
What a bane you are, MCE, even for your own sweet mother!
that woman was doing some kind of witchcraft, invasive telepathy adultery and probably at least one murder and couldn't tell the truth on anything to save her life. Both my parents were messing with occult.
Dear 5.47pm,
This is 4.33pm. I am no defender of Alexander Hislop. I acknowledge that Catholic doctrine does not advocate the worship of Mary. I do worry about the steady attribution to her by Rome, over the centuries, of more and more attributes of Christ that in the gospels are unique to him. I don't intend to be first to raise those various attributes here (and I've not mentioned Mary before on this thread), but her perpetual virginity has already been raised and, just like you when you felt you had to respond to something here, so do I about this subject - courteously, I hope.
The first generation of Reformers were highly knowledgeable about scripture but had not yet understood the insight of more modern scholars of history, that historical reliability depends on a critical analysis of the earliest sources, ideally contemporary with the events they describe. That is why I am unconcerned with the views of Luther and others on the subject. It also means that it is futile to discuss the "reliability of the church fathers" as a general subject. Claims have to be examined individually.
Regarding scripture, you say: The inference [of her perpetual virginity] from Scripture here is based on Mary's response, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34) This conversation only makes sense if Mary intended to remain a virgin following her marriage to Joseph. But it makes no sense to suppose that Mary was always planning to marry with the full intention of remaining a virgin. Surely those who believe in her perpetual virginity believe that she and Joseph changed their intentions AFTER being chosen to be Messiah's parents? If she had planned to be a perpetual virgin before that event, her obvious path was to stay single.
And what of the other issues in scripture? Regarding the wording of Matthew 1, if you hear that a woman broke her leg days before her wedding, and that she and her husband had no union until the plaster cast was removed (paralleling Matthew's wording), what do you think they did next? It is mistaken for married couples not to have sex (1 Cor 7:5). Abundant children are viewed throughout the Old Testament - Mary and Joseph's scriptures - as a blessing. Seven of the ten scripture references to Jesus' ‘brothers’ while he was on earth are in immediate connection to Mary. The other three are all in John 7:2-10, which cannot refer to spiritual brothers because they refer to people who don't believe in him. That is as strong as the scriptural evidence can be that Mary had other children, given that there is no explicit statement which would have prevented the Catholic view arising in the first place.
The Protoevangelium of James is not believed to have been written by James according to its style. In the wider Greek world it was normal for a writer to put words into the mouth of somebody respected, but starting off with a lie doesn't promise much for the accuracy about the rest of this document about the Holy Family. Moreover the first mention of it is by Origen early in the 3rd century, and he says that it was of dubious and recent appearance. (See its Wikipedia page.) So the problem remains of a gap of many generations and across a culture divide between Mary herself and any document asserting her perpetual virginity. I would not take as unquestioned truth an oral tradition about one couple who lived in Africa several generations ago; would you?
"Regarding scripture, you say: The inference [of her perpetual virginity] from Scripture here is based on Mary's response, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” (Luke 1:34) This conversation only makes sense if Mary intended to remain a virgin following her marriage to Joseph. But it makes no sense to suppose that Mary was always planning to marry with the full intention of remaining a virgin. Surely those who believe in her perpetual virginity believe that she and Joseph changed their intentions AFTER being chosen to be Messiah's parents? If she had planned to be a perpetual virgin before that event, her obvious path was to stay single."
a preexisting pledge of permanent celibacy would do this. For whatever reason it was decided she would need to be with someone who would give her some respectability and freedom from pursuit to marry. It is possible she was one of the children kept by the Temple to draw water for the holy water or water of cleansing made from the ashes of a red heifer.
Messiah was not generally thought at that time to be divine. Holiness being connected with a need for celibacy was temporary. No one knew what was up exactly until Peter understood first. Later other Apostles then everyone understood.
Christine, among the vows that Instone-Brewer lists are one in which a man says to the woman, "Be my wife" and she assents. I've seen no refutation of that in what you've written here. Please do so, repeating something from above if necessary. As for Orthodox Judaism, there was no such thing in Christ's time. I welcome any source you can provide that is genuinely about Judaism 2000 years ago and that backs up your claims.
"a preexisting pledge of permanent celibacy would do this. For whatever reason it was decided she would need to be with someone who would give her some respectability and freedom from pursuit to marry. It is possible she was one of the children kept by the Temple to draw water for the holy water or water of cleansing made from the ashes of a red heifer."
The correct description of these words is speculation. The outstandingly obvious way to remain celibate, if that what you intend, is to not get married.
Orthodox Judaism and Eastern Orthodoxy preserve features of Second Temple Judaism. I draw on Orthodox Judaism because it is the closest to the Judaism of Christ's time.
accepting an offer is not a vow. a vow is a promise or series of promises, usually reciprocal, on which the contract hangs.
your whole problem is you are trying to read what you are used to in USA back in time and across the globe.
What makes the marriage valid are not vows but claiming each other, or one claiming the other who assents and usually a blessing thrown in.
The thing about vows is that they are verbal contract. Break any one of them and the contract is broken and you can divorce if marriage were treated like any other contract, but for centuries it hasn't been. two conflicted concepts of marriage Latin jurisprudence and Christian concepts are running together. The vows themselves have changed over the centuries even decades and from place to place.
England includes a flat out blasphemous element of the bride worshipping the husband with her body, which is sex cult idolatry. I wonder who thought that one up.
"The correct description of these words is speculation. The outstandingly obvious way to remain celibate, if that what you intend, is to not get married."
unless you and your advisors responsible for you (remember, she was 12 or 14 at most) figure you are better off being with an aged man who is impotent, not interested, and not that attractive, which keeps you from breaking your vow with him, and keeps you from being pursued by real attractive types, and you won't have to get a job just keep house and help raise the widower's kids.
MCE @ 7:21 wrote:
"that woman was doing some kind of witchcraft,... adultery ...", according to your logic, so are you Mary, as Mike has already become one flesh carnally with Amy's mother!, "and ... couldn't tell the truth on anything to save her life. Both my parents were messing with occult."
I see you take after her in these ways , Mary. Uncannily so , in fact. Maybe the aliens abducted you, and after a little "psychic vampire feed" left you bewildered as to who you really are... and little do you know (with your "chakras being out of sorts" but you could be really her!
At 6:44am Christine wrote .. quote "no, I show no dishonest or deception and NEVER DO"
Lets go over just a few of your comments topic again...
Stories of 4 foot aliens being prayed for, chakras, telepathy, graveyard stuff, the spirit of person falling on another to empower them, co habitation with the opposite sex is justified as a mordern day concubine.
And now the latest...
Joseph and Mary had a marriage in form only because Mary is a perpetual virgin.
Female Hybrid Aliens commit rape on man and leave behind a single part mongolian hair ( I dont know if Christine means the cromosone disorder or the ghangis khan kind, not that it matters)
oh and the unsolicited offering of para legal and paranormal advice to Constance.
MCE @ 7:21 wrote:
"that woman was doing some kind of witchcraft,... adultery ...", according to your logic, so are you Mary, as Mike has already become one flesh carnally with Amy's mother!, "and ... couldn't tell the truth on anything to save her life. Both my parents were messing with occult."
I see you take after her in these ways , Mary. Uncannily so , in fact. Maybe the aliens abducted you, and after a little "psychic vampire feed" left you bewildered as to who you really are... and little do you know (with your "chakras being out of sorts" but you could be really her!
Justine @ 7:39 PM (your "spiritual" name or something like that right?)
I am amazed.
The Bible says in proverbs: rebuke a wise man and he will be yet the wiser.
Many refute and rebuke you very soundly (including Constance the consumate professional) and you get stupider. You are a reprobate, it seems to me, since you cannot wise up.
Nor shut up.
That is another clear cut sign of the foolish, found in Proverbs.
""that woman was doing some kind of witchcraft,... adultery ...", according to your logic, so are you Mary, as Mike has already become one flesh carnally with Amy's mother!, "
you are forgetting that adultery makes remarriage not adultery. he and his wife have had lovers since their divorce, the last he had would have remated again, there is no adultery in us being together.
anon 7:52
you may call what you don't believe dishonesty. But I believe these things happened, so my referring to them is not dishonesty or deception. The Joseph and Mary thing is the standard opinion of all Christians except a few radicals who gained control of the protestant line of thought in the 19th century at least in USA.
part mongolian hair - I refer to the Genghis Khan relative type of Mongolia, that was the hair DNA, though the hair physically was not Mongolian but thin and blonde.
If all is so right in your world, Mary Erikson, you should have the satisfaction of knowing things do not need to be explained and constantly re-explained by you. How many threads have you used up over the years to defend yourself (on someone else's blog no less)? How self-absorbed you are to make such an exhibition of you.
So you would have the peace that goes with the knowing that it is right.
You don't have that, though.
If you were a person at peace-at peace in your forgiveness from God and living a God-honoring life of obeying him, you would not need to continually argue to defend it. It would just be. Case closed.
But all is wrong in your world, and why you must keep up the fight on the outside with others, because the fight created by it's wrongness is in the inside you.
Your war is with yourself, and since you can't contain it, the battle ground is out here on this public blog. Turning yourself inside out.
The naked nasty of your insides should not be displayed outside. That is why we should go to the cross and be healed of our naked shame. You are proud of yours, however.
That's sick.
If all is so right in your world, Mary Erikson, you should have the satisfaction of knowing things do not need to be explained and constantly re-explained by you. How many threads have you used up over the years to defend yourself (on someone else's blog no less)? How self-absorbed you are to make such an exhibition of you.
So you would have the peace that goes with the knowing that it is right.
You don't have that, though.
If you were a person at peace-at peace in your forgiveness from God and living a God-honoring life of obeying him, you would not need to continually argue to defend it. It would just be. Case closed.
But all is wrong in your world, and why you must keep up the fight on the outside with others, because the fight created by it's wrongness is in the inside you.
Your war is with yourself, and since you can't contain it, the battle ground is out here on this public blog. Turning yourself inside out.
The naked nasty of your insides should not be displayed outside. That is why we should go to the cross and be healed of our naked shame. You are proud of yours, however.
That's sick.
11:04 PM
Post a Comment