A Proposition

[Guest]

Over the past month or two there have been various discussions regarding various Roman Catholic doctrines. In some of these discussions I have participate and some I have only read - however, lately it seems that the same arguements are being stated over and over and over and over again.

I can appreciate one's convictions and personal beliefs that their doctrine or dogma is true. Now, I will readily admit that I disagree with a most of the recent Roman Catholic dogmas being discussed.

Rather than seeing thread after thread after thread deal with the same verses and ideas over and over and over again - I have a proposition to any Roman Catholic that is willing to take me up.

Pick the Dogma: Perpetual Viriginity, Sinlessness of Mary, Authority of "Holy Tradition" or any other Catholic dogma that has been discussed recently.

Post your best arguements for belief of the dogma, in the debate forum. I will then post a response to it. And then any can read it and decide for themselves.

This will be a TWO POST DEBATE. The Initial Claim and a Reponse. That is it. No further debate.

Forgive me, but I am getting tired of reading the same things over and over and seemingly no conclusion coming out of it.

Some guidelines that I would ask:

• One dogma at a time.
  Support for dogma would come from the Scriptures (yes, you can use the Apocrypha).
  Once the post is made, no editing unless for clarification or typos.

 

[Rick W]

You could take it to the debate forum.
A debate in that forum is to be 1 vs 1.

If the idea is to put to rest some of the more common topics, whether in the debate forum or not, I'm not so sure that can happen. Some of your views may not align with one who stands on your side of the fence and will want to add to the topic or just voice their opinions they feel needs covered. Same will happen on the other side. Each person will have something else to add, not right away perhaps and open the topic again under another thread later down the road. There will never be any viable and/or acceptable conclusion and the same topics will eventually be rehashed, over and over until both sides get tired of talking about it. It's just the way of forums. It happens.

However, I don't mean to be a wet blanket of sorts and you have my blessings in your endeavor to end the repetition.

 

[Guest]

You could take it to the debate forum.
A debate in that forum is to be 1 vs 1.

If the idea is to put to rest some of the more common topics, whether in the debate forum or not, I'm not so sure that can happen. Some of your views may not align with one who stands on your side of the fence and will want to add to the topic or just voice their opinions they feel needs covered. Same will happen on the other side. Each person will have something else to add, not right away perhaps and open the topic again under another thread later down the road. There will never be any viable and/or acceptable conclusion and the same topics will eventually be rehashed, over and over until both sides get tired of talking about it. It's just the way of forums. It happens.

However, I don't mean to be a wet blanket of sorts and you have my blessings in your endeavor to end the repetition.

You are correct PotLuck, and I do not mean to sound like I would be the authority for the "other side". Lately it seems I have been reading the same arguements over and over and over through multiple threads.

Even when certain verses and passages are addressed, they appear in another thread and need to be explained all over again.

Obvisiously this "debate" between the RCC and Protestants has been going on for some time - and only God can and will reveal His thruths to His people.

Also, I do not want to come across as saying that I know or understand everything. Just getting tired of the repeativeness that seems to be here lately.

:smt021 :crazyeyes:

 

[Heidi]

Over the past month or two there have been various discussions regarding various Roman Catholic doctrines. In some of these discussions I have participate and some I have only read - however, lately it seems that the same arguements are being stated over and over and over and over again.

I can appreciate one's convictions and personal beliefs that their doctrine or dogma is true. Now, I will readily admit that I disagree with a most of the recent Roman Catholic dogmas being discussed.

Rather than seeing thread after thread after thread deal with the same verses and ideas over and over and over again - I have a proposition to any Roman Catholic that is willing to take me up.

Pick the Dogma: Perpetual Viriginity, Sinlessness of Mary, Authority of "Holy Tradition" or any other Catholic dogma that has been discussed recently.

Post your best arguements for belief of the dogma, in the debate forum. I will then post a response to it. And then any can read it and decide for themselves.

This will be a TWO POST DEBATE. The Initial Claim and a Reponse. That is it. No further debate.

Forgive me, but I am getting tired of reading the same things over and over and seemingly no conclusion coming out of it.

Some guidelines that I would ask:

• One dogma at a time.
  Support for dogma would come from the Scriptures (yes, you can use the Apocrypha).
  Once the post is made, no editing unless for clarification or typos.

And i'm getting tired of giving the catholics a platform to keep contradicting scripture then passing along more lies to try to justify it.

The bible says that Mary was not a virgin all of her life in Matthew 1:25.
The bible says not to make images in the form of anything above heaven or below heaven, not like a man or a woman or any living thing.
Jesus tells us not to nullify the word of God for the sake of tradition.
Nowhere does the bible say that Mary was sinless. That's another made-up story. And Peter condmens made-up stories.

So either the catholics have too little intelligence to understand the simple words above, or they ask Satan to redefine the words, twist, and distort them, or they simpy flat out don't believe the bible is the Word of God. It's one of the above.

But I know one thing; they never have a problem understanding the pope's words. Neither in translation (because the pope speaks Italian, Polish or usually a foreign language that most people don't understand), or in definition. So their claims that the translations of the bible all have different meanings is claptrap and just another one of satan's tools that the catholics use to keep people from believing the bible. :x

 

[Drew]

And i'm getting tired of giving the catholics a platform to keep contradicting scripture then passing along more lies to try to justify it.

The bible says that Mary was not a virgin all of her life in Matthew 1:25.

And I suspect that I am not the only one who tires of your empty hurtful rhetoric.

And by the way, it has been shown in another recent thread that Matthew 1:25 does not demonstrate that Mary lost her virginity sometime in her life. She may well have lost it, but Matthew 1:25 does not make that case.

 

[Guest]

And by the way, it has been shown in another recent thread that Matthew 1:25 does not demonstrate that Mary lost her virginity sometime in her life. She may well have lost it, but Matthew 1:25 does not make that case.

Drew - This is a tad off topic, but since I started the thread I believe that gives me a little leeway - what do YOU, Drew, believe Matthew 1:25 states?

 

[Rick W]

too little intelligence ...

Because they don't believe exactly the same as you do? The secular use that same thing against believers.
Are you slipping to the dark side?

 

[francisdesales]

You are correct PotLuck, and I do not mean to sound like I would be the authority for the "other side". Lately it seems I have been reading the same arguements over and over and over through multiple threads.

Even when certain verses and passages are addressed, they appear in another thread and need to be explained all over again.

Obvisiously this "debate" between the RCC and Protestants has been going on for some time - and only God can and will reveal His thruths to His people.

Also, I do not want to come across as saying that I know or understand everything. Just getting tired of the repeativeness that seems to be here lately.

:smt021 :crazyeyes:

Do you think I enjoy defending my faith and answering the same questions, sometimes to the SAME PEOPLE over and over? Don't you think I get frustrated seeing the never-ending threads that attack Mary or other beliefs of my faith, beliefs that I find in coherence with the Bible, even if people here do not agree? Do you think I like hearing how I am going to hell, or how the Church leads people to hell, or I am not saved, or I don't follow the Bible, etc....?

It is not a matter of convincing some people. I have no misperceptions that I will "convert" anyone. My purpose is to explain our faith. Accept it or not. But is it necessary for CHRISTIANS to bring out the stick? If you can't convince me with their logic, why do you think calling me names might work to think that the Spirit of God has alighted upon these people???

Unfortunately, some people take my defense of Catholicism as some sort of personal attack on their own faith. They find my arguments as an indirect attack on them and their beliefs. Trust me, I tire of it, as well. But I cannot let someone here post fake stuff about what we believe, call it Catholicism, and then beat the strawman, for the sake of assuaging their own wounded consciences and lack of desire to do the REAL work involved in searching for the truth. Some are content in their own little ideas without having to explore other's ideas.

By the way, this is not directed at you personally, as I have found you to be a charitable person in these discussions. But others have not, so I use the word "you" towards them, not you personally.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

So either the catholics have too little intelligence to understand the simple words above, or they ask Satan to redefine the words, twist, and distort them, or they simpy flat out don't believe the bible is the Word of God. It's one of the above.

You write that, and then you sign "yours in Christ"?

I see to you, this is all a big game or something. HOW could a person be "IN CHRIST" and yet spew such hateful stuff?

 

[Heidi]

And I suspect that I am not the only one who tires of your empty hurtful rhetoric.

And by the way, it has been shown in another recent thread that Matthew 1:25 does not demonstrate that Mary lost her virginity sometime in her life. She may well have lost it, but Matthew 1:25 does not make that case.

So what part of "until she gave birth to a son" do you not udnerstand? Where does that verse says; "But he had no union with her forever"? :o So the catholics are blatantly lying when they claim that Matthew 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph had no union forever. Do they care that they lie about scripture? Not in the least. :x

 

[Drew]

So what part of "until she gave birth to a son" do you not udnerstand? Where does that verse says; "But he had no union with her forever"? :o So the catholics are blatantly lying when they claim that Matthew 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph had no union forever. Do they care that they lie about scripture? Not in the least. :x

The following thread provides clear and detailed arguments as to why Matthew 1:25 does not justify any conclusion either way about Mary's viriginity:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28616

And the word "liar" is on your lips far too frequently.

 

[Guest]

The following thread provides clear and detailed arguments as to why Matthew 1:25 does not justify any conclusion either way about Mary's viriginity:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28616

Thank you Drew, this is the first time that I read you say that Matthew 1:25 "doest not justify any conclusion either way about Mary's virginity." While I do disagree with you - I believe it does show that after the birth of Jesus Mary did have sexual relations. It has been a while since I have studied the marriage ceremony in the Jewish culture of the time - but if memory serves - a couple that was bethrothed was looked upon as being 'wed'. The marriage was not official until it was consumated. So, if Catholics are saying that Mary did not have sexual relations, doesn't that mean she was never completely married to Joseph?

So, I will ask again - what do you, drew, believe Matthe 1:25 to say?

 

[Drew]

It has been a while since I have studied the marriage ceremony in the Jewish culture of the time - but if memory serves - a couple that was bethrothed was looked upon as being 'wed'. The marriage was not official until it was consumated. So, if Catholics are saying that Mary did not have sexual relations, doesn't that mean she was never completely married to Joseph?

This all gets a little complex. To me, what matters is what the Scriptures say about what constitutes a marriage. I believe that they are silent on the matter of consummation. Perhaps I am wrong - does the Bible say anywhere that a marriage is not "real" if it is not consumated?

Nevertheless, you could be right, though, even if the Scriptures make no such statement. This is because the writers of Scripture may have legitimately expected the reader to know that the very word marriage entails the notion that consummation must take place for it to be "real".

So I do not have a proposed answer to your question.

So, I will ask again - what do you, drew, believe Matthe 1:25 to say?

I believe that Matthew 1:25 says that Mary and Joseph did not have intercourse during the time period during which, had intercourse actually occurred, Joseph could have been deemed to be the father of Jesus. I believe that the writer's intent was to emphasize that God had to be Jesus' father, not that Mary and Joseph abstained from intercourse until Jesus was born and then engaged in intercourse after Jesus was born.

Now obviously the latter view (your position I assume) is also consistent with the assertion that God has to be Jesus' father. But I think my take on this text is more consonant an intent to emphasize the divinity of Jesus' father. By saying that there was no intercourse "until time T" the specific absence of intercourse during the key time interval is driven home.

Suppose Mary never had intercourse with Joseph (as I understand the Catholics to believe) and the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write Matt 1:25 as "And Mary never had relations with Joseph". Such a statement seems to divert attention from the specific issue of who Jesus' father is to the nature of Mary and / or her relationship to Joseph. After all, the reader would be distracted from the question of who Jesus' father was by the unusualness of a woman remaining a virgin throughout a marriage.

So I think that the word "until" refers to end of a time interval and not to a "state transition" as it would in "I slept until 8 AM".

 

[Guest]

Drew - now you are getting somewhere, but let me direct you in a slightly different area.

Yes - Matthew 1:25 speaks of the nature of Jesus's birth and who the father was.

However, it also speaks to the character of Joseph.

Here is a man, who rightfully and morally could have sexual relations with his wife - yet he abstains. He [Jospeh] keeps her pure - a virgin.

Joseph doesn't say much - in fact, without reading over it, I don't think any words of Joseph are recorded - yet his actions speaks volumes.

Joseph is a prime example of a Godly man.

 

[Drew]

Drew - now you are getting somewhere, but let me direct you in a slightly different area.

Yes - Matthew 1:25 speaks of the nature of Jesus's birth and who the father was.

However, it also speaks to the character of Joseph.

Here is a man, who rightfully and morally could have sexual relations with his wife - yet he abstains. He [Jospeh] keeps her pure - a virgin.

Joseph doesn't say much - in fact, without reading over it, I don't think any words of Joseph are recorded - yet his actions speaks volumes.

Joseph is a prime example of a Godly man.

I agree with all you write, but how does this support an argument that Matthew 1:25 suggests that intercourse took place after Jesus' birth?

 

[jgredline]

:roll:

 

[stranger]

Hi aLoneVoice,

If folks focused on the issues rather than sliding into personal attacks OR perceived personal attacks - which appears to be an even bigger problem, then the repetition of argument you mentioned would be alleviated.


edit comment - some no doubt feel threatened and lash out for that reason.

Also if the forum rules were actually followed things would improve.

 

[Guest]

I agree with all you write, but how does this support an argument that Matthew 1:25 suggests that intercourse took place after Jesus' birth?

Drew don't you believe it unusual that a woman would remain a virgin throughout her marriage?

Especially when there are references to brothers and sisters of Jesus?

 

[francisdesales]

Drew don't you believe it unusual that a woman would remain a virgin throughout her marriage?

Especially when there are references to brothers and sisters of Jesus?

aLoneVoice,

Don't you believe it is unusual that God would become man?
Don't you believe it is unusual that God would die on a cross?
Don't you believe it is unusual that someone would give birth WITHOUT a father providing his sperm?

And so forth.

We have a unique event in the Incarnation. The first Christians recognized that. Even if we discount the Incarnation, there would be nothing unusual in this situation in ancient Judaism. The Protoevengelium of James provides the explanation. Apparently, young girls were committed to the Temple as virgins. In time, these ladies could continue remaining a virgin by marrying an elderly man. She would be provided for financially AND would be protected.

If Jesus remained unmarried and chaste (even though it was common for Rabbis to marry), then why would it be so difficult for Mary to ALSO do the same? Perhaps that is where Jesus first experienced this "greater way" of serving God.

Regards

 

[Guest]

aLoneVoice,

Don't you believe it is unusual that God would become man?
Don't you believe it is unusual that God would die on a cross?
Don't you believe it is unusual that someone would give birth WITHOUT a father providing his sperm?

No Fran - I do not believe it to be unusual. The Scriptures CLEARLY say that those events happened. That God did those things. While it might sound foolish to the unbeliever - it does not sound foolish to me.

I hope and pray that it doesn't sound foolish to you.