Rejecting Catholicism???

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
WinePusher

Rejecting Catholicism???

Post #1

Post by WinePusher »

I notice there is a pretty large amount of people who belong to the "Rejected Catholicism" usergroup?

1) Would you please list your reasons as to why you rejected catholicism? If you don't want to, that's fine.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #41

Post by Slopeshoulder »

S-word wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):
  • Veneration of idols (relics)
  • Mary died sinless
  • Mary died a virgin
  • Prayer to Mary
  • Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
  • Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
  • Papacy
  • Papal succession
  • Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
  • Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
  • Transubstantiation
  • Purgatory
  • Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
  • Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
  • Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
  • Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
  • Sacred Tradition is authoritative even when it contradicts Scripture, thus elevating it above Scripture
According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.
And to your 17 reasons for rejecting Catholicism and it's Spirit/words/teachings, I would add, her refusal to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and her unbiblical teaching of some woman who remaind a virgin after the act by which the child was conceived in her womb.
While I wouldn't defend any of the items on your lists, and reject most of gthem too ont the face of it, I'd ask you consider that it is not these things which drive your rejection of RCism, but rather summary and rather jejune point. To wit, catholics are not protestant. After all, catholics would argue and have argued that all of this stuff can be read out of scripture in the context of sacred tradition, guided by the holy spirit. So what you are rejecting is 1. anything other than sola scriptura, and 2. any reading of scripture beyond either plain sense or in terms of itself. That is a perfeclty honorable thing to do, defining the protestant tradition, and several of the sillier things on the list commend it as a good choice. However, I would argue that the "sola scriptura in terms of itself and pretty much literal often" has led to even greater silliness. So it comes down to one's biblical theology and theological anthropology. Problem is, we address these after, or at least under the influence of, prior commitments. So it becomes a function of taste, identity, and inherited opinions and beliefs. Luther was the first and last to do this in a vacuum.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #42

Post by S-word »

postroad wrote:My biggest problem with the whole concept is that institutionalized teaching still exists at all.

The concept of divine revelation to select individuals only was something that was to be eliminated in the new covenant.
I am not trying to be facetious here, but you must learn to punctuate your sentences. ie: (Woman without her man is nothing) so what am I saying here? "Woman without her man, is nothing." Or am I saying, "Woman, without her, man is nothing?"

My biggest problem with the whole concept, is that (Which one?) that institutionalized teaching, sill exists at all.

So which of the millions of institutionalized teachings are you referring to?

Although, taken in context with what you have said, the reader should realise that you are referring to the institutionalised teaching of the church. For in accordance to the new covenant, each individual should be guided by the spirit that dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of the "tent/tabernacle" of our Lord, which are the bodies of we, the godheads to the tabernacle of our Lord.

We should rely on the spirit of Christ that dwells within us, to guide us through his word, which was written by the hands of his earthly scribes, and not be guided by the interpretations of, in most cases, men who had lived over a thousand years ago, the so-called saints of the church of Constantine.

Those institutionalised teachings of the church, which were formulated in the 4th to 5th century are a completed work in a closed and sealed book, which they refuse to reopen and edit according the new data that is coming into their world.

Whereas we, "the minds/spirits," which are potential Sons of God, are in the process of evolution and can be seen as books that are in the process of being written.

For the word of God can be likened to a star that's being ever brightened
By the mind of man reaching ever higher, but those who deviate, they're liars.
In God's word, man's mind can grow, but those outside are like the snow
That settles on the desert sand, and will melt away, before "I AM."....By S-word.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #43

Post by S-word »

Slopeshoulder wrote:
S-word wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):
  • Veneration of idols (relics)
  • Mary died sinless
  • Mary died a virgin
  • Prayer to Mary
  • Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
  • Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
  • Papacy
  • Papal succession
  • Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
  • Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
  • Transubstantiation
  • Purgatory
  • Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
  • Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
  • Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
  • Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
  • Sacred Tradition is authoritative even when it contradicts Scripture, thus elevating it above Scripture
According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.
And to your 17 reasons for rejecting Catholicism and it's Spirit/words/teachings, I would add, her refusal to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and her unbiblical teaching of some woman who remaind a virgin after the act by which the child was conceived in her womb.
While I wouldn't defend any of the items on your lists, and reject most of gthem too ont the face of it, I'd ask you consider that it is not these things which drive your rejection of RCism, but rather summary and rather jejune point. To wit, catholics are not protestant. After all, catholics would argue and have argued that all of this stuff can be read out of scripture in the context of sacred tradition, guided by the holy spirit. So what you are rejecting is 1. anything other than sola scriptura, and 2. any reading of scripture beyond either plain sense or in terms of itself. That is a perfeclty honorable thing to do, defining the protestant tradition, and several of the sillier things on the list commend it as a good choice. However, I would argue that the "sola scriptura in terms of itself and pretty much literal often" has led to even greater silliness. So it comes down to one's biblical theology and theological anthropology. Problem is, we address these after, or at least under the influence of, prior commitments. So it becomes a function of taste, identity, and inherited opinions and beliefs. Luther was the first and last to do this in a vacuum.
Protestants are in the main, daughter bodies that were spawned by the spirit/words of the Anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam.

Having being conceived in the mother church body, by the spirit of the Lord and husband to the universal church, they, (The daughter protestant bodies) broke away from the mother body to build separate houses in which to bear their childen, in which children, the spirit of the anti-christ conitnues to spread his evil influence all over the earth.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #44

Post by Slopeshoulder »

S-word wrote:
Slopeshoulder wrote:
S-word wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):
  • Veneration of idols (relics)
  • Mary died sinless
  • Mary died a virgin
  • Prayer to Mary
  • Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
  • Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
  • Papacy
  • Papal succession
  • Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
  • Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
  • Transubstantiation
  • Purgatory
  • Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
  • Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
  • Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
  • Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
  • Sacred Tradition is authoritative even when it contradicts Scripture, thus elevating it above Scripture
According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.
And to your 17 reasons for rejecting Catholicism and it's Spirit/words/teachings, I would add, her refusal to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and her unbiblical teaching of some woman who remaind a virgin after the act by which the child was conceived in her womb.
While I wouldn't defend any of the items on your lists, and reject most of gthem too ont the face of it, I'd ask you consider that it is not these things which drive your rejection of RCism, but rather summary and rather jejune point. To wit, catholics are not protestant. After all, catholics would argue and have argued that all of this stuff can be read out of scripture in the context of sacred tradition, guided by the holy spirit. So what you are rejecting is 1. anything other than sola scriptura, and 2. any reading of scripture beyond either plain sense or in terms of itself. That is a perfeclty honorable thing to do, defining the protestant tradition, and several of the sillier things on the list commend it as a good choice. However, I would argue that the "sola scriptura in terms of itself and pretty much literal often" has led to even greater silliness. So it comes down to one's biblical theology and theological anthropology. Problem is, we address these after, or at least under the influence of, prior commitments. So it becomes a function of taste, identity, and inherited opinions and beliefs. Luther was the first and last to do this in a vacuum.
Protestants are in the main, daughter bodies that were spawned by the spirit/words of the Anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam.

Having being conceived in the mother church body, by the spirit of the Lord and husband to the universal church, they, (The daughter protestant bodies) broke away from the mother body to build separate houses in which to bear their childen, in which children, the spirit of the anti-christ conitnues to spread his evil influence all over the earth.
Is this meant to be discussion, or debate? Honestly, it reads like something between a bigoted rant, an extended metaphorical riff, or a science fiction book outline. I've known countless catholics, clergy, scholars, leaders. Never came across this kind of rhetoric before. Nto sure how or if to take it seriously.
The whole anti-christ spawn womb mother daighter evil spread bodies theme was sort of a tip off.

postroad
Prodigy
Posts: 2882
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:58 am

Post #45

Post by postroad »

S-word wrote:
postroad wrote:My biggest problem with the whole concept is that institutionalized teaching still exists at all.

The concept of divine revelation to select individuals only was something that was to be eliminated in the new covenant.
I am not trying to be facetious here, but you must learn to punctuate your sentences. ie: (Woman without her man is nothing) so what am I saying here? "Woman without her man, is nothing." Or am I saying, "Woman, without her, man is nothing?"

My biggest problem with the whole concept, is that (Which one?) that institutionalized teaching, sill exists at all.

So which of the millions of institutionalized teachings are you referring to?

Although, taken in context with what you have said, the reader should realise that you are referring to the institutionalised teaching of the church. For in accordance to the new covenant, each individual should be guided by the spirit that dwells behind the veil to the inner most sanctuary of the "tent/tabernacle" of our Lord, which are the bodies of we, the godheads to the tabernacle of our Lord.

We should rely on the spirit of Christ that dwells within us, to guide us through his word, which was written by the hands of his earthly scribes, and not be guided by the interpretations of, in most cases, men who had lived over a thousand years ago, the so-called saints of the church of Constantine.

Those institutionalised teachings of the church, which were formulated in the 4th to 5th century are a completed work in a closed and sealed book, which they refuse to reopen and edit according the new data that is coming into their world.

Whereas we, "the minds/spirits," which are potential Sons of God, are in the process of evolution and can be seen as books that are in the process of being written.

For the word of God can be likened to a star that's being ever brightened
By the mind of man reaching ever higher, but those who deviate, they're liars.
In God's word, man's mind can grow, but those outside are like the snow
That settles on the desert sand, and will melt away, before "I AM."....By S-word.
I certainly should have clarified my point. In the old covenant, divine revelation was done through a select few prophets who then instructed the larger audience.

There were some drawbacks to this system. Identifying a genuine prophet and also the receptive nature of the audience caused problems and confusion.

Now these points are only valid if one believes that God literally revealed himself to select individuals for the purpose of instructing a wider audience.

In the new covenant, God would personally instruct his elect equally as well as transform them spiritually to ensure obedience to his will.

Jeremiah 31:31-34

New International Version (NIV)



31 “The days are coming,� declares the LORD,
“when I will make a new covenant
with the people of Israel
and with the people of Judah.
32 It will not be like the covenant
I made with their ancestors
when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of Egypt,
because they broke my covenant,
though I was a husband to[a] them,�
declares the LORD.
33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
after that time,� declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,�
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.�



Ezekiel 36:26-28

New International Version (NIV)


26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws. 28 Then you will live in the land I gave your ancestors; you will be my people, and I will be your God.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #46

Post by S-word »

Slopeshoulder wrote:
S-word wrote:
Slopeshoulder wrote:
S-word wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:I belonged to the group at first, but decided to remove it because I want to be defined by what I am for rather than what I am against.

My reasons for rejecting Catholicism (there are probably some that I am forgetting):
  • Veneration of idols (relics)
  • Mary died sinless
  • Mary died a virgin
  • Prayer to Mary
  • Mary as co-mediatrix (mediator) with Christ
  • Prayer to other dead people (invoking saints)
  • Papacy
  • Papal succession
  • Pope taking the title, "Vicar of Christ"
  • Papal infallibility while speaking ex cathedra
  • Transubstantiation
  • Purgatory
  • Penance (we cannot atone for our own sins in any manner)
  • Church has authority to pass judgment on and interpret Scripture for members
  • Mass/Eucharist is an actual real propitiatory sacrifice offered on behalf of living and dead people
  • Salvation is only found within the Catholic Church
  • Sacred Tradition is authoritative even when it contradicts Scripture, thus elevating it above Scripture
According to the Council of Trent, the above must be believed to be a Catholic. These teachings cannot be found explicitly in the 66 books of the Bible, and in some cases are explicitly contrary to the Bible, therefore I reject Catholicism and its dogma.

I am answering because the nature of the OP seems to be merely asking "why" and didn't seem like it was intended for debate. I've debated this recently and am a bit burned out on it for the time being. It seems like debating it is futile anyhow, as neither side, since the Reformation, has shown any intention of budging an inch. It is what it is, and certain people are attracted to one or the other and almost seem predisposed to it.
And to your 17 reasons for rejecting Catholicism and it's Spirit/words/teachings, I would add, her refusal to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, and her unbiblical teaching of some woman who remaind a virgin after the act by which the child was conceived in her womb.
While I wouldn't defend any of the items on your lists, and reject most of gthem too ont the face of it, I'd ask you consider that it is not these things which drive your rejection of RCism, but rather summary and rather jejune point. To wit, catholics are not protestant. After all, catholics would argue and have argued that all of this stuff can be read out of scripture in the context of sacred tradition, guided by the holy spirit. So what you are rejecting is 1. anything other than sola scriptura, and 2. any reading of scripture beyond either plain sense or in terms of itself. That is a perfeclty honorable thing to do, defining the protestant tradition, and several of the sillier things on the list commend it as a good choice. However, I would argue that the "sola scriptura in terms of itself and pretty much literal often" has led to even greater silliness. So it comes down to one's biblical theology and theological anthropology. Problem is, we address these after, or at least under the influence of, prior commitments. So it becomes a function of taste, identity, and inherited opinions and beliefs. Luther was the first and last to do this in a vacuum.
Protestants are in the main, daughter bodies that were spawned by the spirit/words of the Anti-christ, which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam.

Having being conceived in the mother church body, by the spirit of the Lord and husband to the universal church, they, (The daughter protestant bodies) broke away from the mother body to build separate houses in which to bear their childen, in which children, the spirit of the anti-christ conitnues to spread his evil influence all over the earth.
Is this meant to be discussion, or debate? Honestly, it reads like something between a bigoted rant, an extended metaphorical riff, or a science fiction book outline. I've known countless catholics, clergy, scholars, leaders. Never came across this kind of rhetoric before. Nto sure how or if to take it seriously.
The whole anti-christ spawn womb mother daighter evil spread bodies theme was sort of a tip off.
Slopeshoulder wrote....I've known countless catholics, clergy, scholars, leaders. Never came across this kind of rhetoric before. Not sure how or if to take it seriously.

The countless catholics, clergy, scholars, and leaders that have deceived you, are all born of the spirit within the universal church, that was established by Constantine in 325 AD, some 300 years after the apostolic church of Jesus Christ was established.

And that church which was founde by Constantine, is the Mother Body to all her daughters, who were born of her spirit/word/teaching.

And the spirit from which they were all born is the spirit/teaching of the Anti-christ which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being born of the seed of Adam, the origin of the human race and the ancestral Father of every human being who has ever, or who will ever walk this earth.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.�

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.�

They try to justify their rejection of the truth of God's word by inventing the unbiblic yarn of some supposed god who enteredd the womb of some woman who remained a virgin after the act by which she had conceived the child in her womb. But you wil find no biblical evidence to support their false invention.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He, who was sent "IN THE NAME OF THE LORD", with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father, or this day I have begotten thee,� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23; before it was changed by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and refuse to acknowledge that he was born the physical birth as all men are.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�

Matthew merely translates the words of Isaiah 7: 14, “A young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc:" and Luke simply reveals that the young 14 year old Mary, was still a virgin three months before she was found to be with child, which was born according to the working of the Holy Spirit.

User avatar
Slopeshoulder
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3367
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 1:46 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post #47

Post by Slopeshoulder »

well, that's one theory.
i think it's a heresy and has a name, i just forget which one.
did you make it up all on your lonesome, or do you stand with certain theologians of ancient or modern renown?

can one be christian (RC, orthodox, or preotestant) and deny the divinity of jesus christ?
nope.
not that I believe in a virgin birth. a penis was definitely involved. possibly a roman penis.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #48

Post by S-word »

Slopeshoulder wrote:well, that's one theory.
i think it's a heresy and has a name, i just forget which one.
did you make it up all on your lonesome, or do you stand with certain theologians of ancient or modern renown?

can one be christian (RC, orthodox, or preotestant) and deny the divinity of jesus christ?
nope.
not that I believe in a virgin birth. a penis was definitely involved. possibly a roman penis.
Jesus was the first fruits to be harvested from the body of Man. The first to be raised from the dead past of the "Son of Man", who is the spirit in man who ascends to the ends of this cycle of universal activity, who was crowned with glory, and carried up to sit in the throne of Godhead to the body of the Most High in the creation and is now incontestably divine.

The man Jesus, was the first born Son of our Lord God and saviour, who is the "Son of God=Son of Man," who is heir to the throne of Godhead and born of the body of mankind the most high in creation, Lord of creatures and the prototype of the Lord of Spirit who is the "Son of Man."

Jesus the first fruits, the first of many brothers who are to be harvested from the body of mankind, who are now in the image of the first Adam , and will also bear the image of the second Adam, the resurrected body of Jesus the first born Son, who appeared to Saul/Paul on the road to Damascus in his new glorious body of blinding light. Thos Son's of God, will receive a share of the glorious Body of Light that is torn asunder and poured out as fire on those who will be seen as his resurrected glorious body of light, in which he will dwell on earth among mankind, where, through his resurrected body, He will judge the whole world with Justice.

Jesus was born as a Son of God, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the spirit of our Lord God and saviour, which descende on him in the form of a dove as the heavenly voice was heard to say, "You are my beloved in whom I am pleased. This Day I have begotten thee." See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23; before it was changed by those deceivers who refuse to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being and refuse to acknowledge that he was born the physical birth as all men are.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�

You have said, (not that I believe in a virgin birth. a penis was definitely involved. possibly a roman penis.)

You are correct in believing that Jesus had a human biological father, but incorrect in your belief that his father may have been a Roman. He was in fact, Joseph the son of Alexander Helios (Heli) of the tribe of Levi.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #49

Post by S-word »

ThatGirlAgain wrote:
TomD wrote:* Mary died sinless
Scripture would support that idea in the angelic salutation in Luke. Mary was human, and subject, as are we all, to the 'human condition' that is generally termed 'original sin'. So we're not saying Mary was without sin, nor that she could not sin, but like us all, was redeemed by her Son. It's not that she could not sin, but rather, because of her faith, she did not.

The Church Fathers, for example, were divided on the matter, but the Latin Church has believed from time immoral that Our Lady was assumed into heaven, and the Orthodox Patriarchates believe in the Dormition, which is essentially the same thing. (Even Martin Luther believed it.)

It's quite possible that many people, given the chance to profess their faith and who hold a true and heart-felt contrition for the sins they have committed, die sinless?
Although no longer a Catholic, my religious education is recent and comprehensive and I believe I know the religion very well. The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine that Mary had no original sin, being already redeemed at the moment of conception, is in fact an Article of Faith.
The Immaculate Conception
490 To become the mother of the Savior, Mary "was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role." The angel Gabriel at the moment of the annunciation salutes her as "full of grace". In fact, in order for Mary to be able to give the free assent of her faith to the announcement of her vocation, it was necessary that she be wholly borne by God's grace.
491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
492 The "splendor of an entirely unique holiness" by which Mary is "enriched from the first instant of her conception" comes wholly from Christ: she is "redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son". The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person "in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" and chose her "in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love".
493 The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God "the All-Holy" (Panagia), and celebrate her as "free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature". By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p122a3p2.htm
Although not part of the formal definition of the Article of Faith the 1854 Papal Bull that declares Mary free from original sin, repeatedly refers to her as free from all taint of sin.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
TomD wrote:* Mary died a virgin
OK. I happen to believe it. Again, this was a tradition of the Church before Scripture, so we can only assume the information came from the mouth of Our Lady herself … who else would know?
Again an Article of Faith. Mary is held to have remained a virgin even while giving birth. Since she was free of original sin and the pain of childbirth was part of the heritage of that sin, the birth was miraculous.
Mary - "ever-virgin"
499 The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".
500 Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus", are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary". They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
501 Jesus is Mary's only son, but her spiritual motherhood extends to all men whom indeed he came to save: "The Son whom she brought forth is he whom God placed as the first-born among many brethren, that is, the faithful in whose generation and formation she co-operates with a mother's love."
http://www.scborromeo.org/mobileccc/p122a3p2.htm
This doctrine is of great antiquity, going back to at least the 5th century.
http://www.agapebiblestudy.com/document ... Dogmas.htm

Other Articles of Faith concerning Mary are that she is the Mother of God – no surprise! – and that she was assumed into heaven bodily at her death. See the above link.
You are correct in stateing that the doctrine of the virgin conception and virgin birth are of great antiquity, going back to at least the 5th century. Because it was in 405 AD, that Jerome, who was of the body of the church of Constantine that was established in 325 AD, some three hundred years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been established, completed, with other translators who remain unknown, the translation of the bible into latin, "The Vulgat."

It was then that the Greek word "parthenos" for the very first time (in any bible,) was interpreted to mean "Virgin." Although "parthenos" carries the basic meaning of young girl or unmarried youth, it only denotes 'Virgin' by implication, and because the Greek, (unlike the Hebrew) does not have a specific term for "Virgin," Matthew, while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning, was forced to use the word 'parthenos, but was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin in his translation of Isaiah's famous passage in 7; 14; "A young woman who is pregnant will give birth to a son, etc."

We all now that a good translation must carry the true meaning of the original from which it is translated, and the true meaning of Isaiah 7: 14; is that a young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say; 1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.�

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.� We all know where to find the teaching of the anti-christ that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

And of course we all know where to find a teaching that has been spread world wide, that refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, who are all of the seed of Adam or Eve, who is of the body of Adam and through the seed of their descendants Jesus was born.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, due to the lies of such men, as one of the saints of the church of Constantine, "Saint Clement of Alexandria," who, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement also had this to say concerning their false Jesus, “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.� Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread, who is not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere human beings, apparently, 'as was taught by one of the great teachers that catholics love to refer to,' had no need for food or such.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

S-word
Scholar
Posts: 374
Joined: Thu May 06, 2010 6:04 am

Post #50

Post by S-word »

Because the Hebrew have a specific term for virgin, which term is “bethulah,� the word that is used in every instance in the Old Testament, where the sexual status of a woman who has never had intercourse with a man, is being referred to, and knowing that some poor deceived soul, in their attempt to defend and support the Lie, which lie states that the word “Almah� can correctly be translated as “Virgin,� will quote some catholic authority, who claims that Genesis 24: 43, is referring to the virgin Rebecca, where the Hebrew “Almah,� is translated “virgin.�

To save that poor deceived soul the embarrassment of being proven to be wrong, I will now add the following.

From the KJV Genesis 24: 13; Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughter’s of the men of the city come out to draw water. (14) And let it come to pass that the “DAMSEL� to whom I shall say etc.

The Hebrew word here translated in verse 13 as “DAUGHTERS,� is ‘banoth’ which means, “daughters, or female descendants,� and the Hebrew word here translated “Damsel,� in verse 14, is ‘yaldah,’ which means, “Lass or girl.�

How many of those daughters of the men of city, were virgins? We don’t know, because the sexual status of those girls is not being referred to.

Now let us skip from Genesis 24: verse 13and 14; to verse 16; In reference to Rebecca we read, “And the ‘DAMSEL=yaldah=girl’ was very fair to look upon, and was a virgin=bethulah= having never known a man sexually. Here the sexual status of Rebecca is being referred to, and the Hebrew term for virgin "bethulah" is used.

Now we will go to verse 43, here, the servant of Abraham is relating to Laban, the father of Rebecca, the mission that Abraham had given him, and is speaking of the time that he was waiting for the young women at the well, he says, “When I came to the well today, I prayed, ‘Lord, God of my master Abraham, please give me success in what I am doing. Here I am at the well. When an “Almah,� comes out to get water, etc�

The KJV here, as it does in Isaiah 7: 14; erroneously translates the Hebrew word “Almah� as “virgin.� But if you would care to read Genesis 24: 43; as translated in the Good News Bible, Catholic Study Edition, with Imprimatur by Archbishop John Whealon, you will see that the Hebrew word “Almah,� is here correctly translated as, “Young woman,� as indeed it is translated also in Isaiah 7: 14.

Isaiah 7: 14; Jewish Translation, in the present tense “IS�: “Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman IS with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.�

Isaiah 7: 14; Erroneous Christian Translation, in the future tense, “Shall:� “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin SHALL conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.�

The Greek word parthenos (πα�θένος) used in Matthew 1:23 ; is ambiguous, but the Hebrew term “Almah� that is erroneously translated in some Christian bibles as “virgin� is ABSOLUTE, and according to Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible, the Hebrew term “Almah,� carries the meaning, (Concealment---unmarried female.)

The word “Virgin� in reference to the mother of Jesus was not introduced into the bible until the 5th century, in the Latin Bible ‘The Vulgate.’

In translating the Hebrew words of the prophet Isaiah, that an “Almah� an “unmarried female� IS with child and shall bear a son,� into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for ‘virgin,’ the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew correctly used the Greek word ‘Parthenos,’ which carries a basic meaning of ‘girl,’ or unmarried youth, and denotes ‘virgin’ only by implication.

We all know that a good translation must carry the true meaning of the original from which it is translated, and the true meaning of Isaiah 7: 14; is that a young woman who is pregnant will bear a son, etc.

‘Parthenos,’ was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it in reference to unmarried girls who were no longer virgins, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who translated Isaiah’s words, that (A young woman who IS pregnant will bear a son, etc), while being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning; was in no way implying that Mary was a virgin. For the Hebrew has a specific term for ‘virgin,’ “Bethulah� which word is used in every instance in the Old Testament where the sexual status of a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man is referred to.

In Pergamos, as one of the final stages in the quest for enlightenment, the initiated adept would participate in sex with the Temple Virgin/Parthenos.

"Parthenos" did not mean possessing an intact hymen. A parthenos was simply an unmarried woman, a woman who claimed ownership of herself.

If Jesus was not born of the flesh as all human beings are, but was born of a virgin without the male semen having been introduced into her uterus, then this would have been the greatest of all miracles, and would have been shouted from the roof tops by all four gospel writers and yet we see that Mark and John ignore the physical birth of Jesus as being totally irrelevant to the story of salvation and begin their account of He who was sent in the name of the Lord, with the Baptism of the man Jesus, when he was born of the spirit and the heavenly voice was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am well pleased, Today I have become your father.� See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 22; before they was changed by the church of Constantine.

In Luke 3: 22; (In place of “Thou art my beloved son in who I am well pleased.�) The following authorities of the second, third, and fourth centuries read, “This day I have begotten thee,� vouched for by Codex D, and the most ancient copies of the old latin (a, b. c. ff.I), by Justin Martyr (AD 140), Clemens Alex, (AD. 190), Methodius (AD. 290), among the Greeks. And among the Latins, Lactaitius (AD 300), Hilary (AD) Juvencus (AD. 330), Faustus (AD. 400) and Augustine.
All these oldest manuscripts were changed completely. They now read, “This is my son in whom I am well pleased.� Whereas the original variant was, “Thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee.�

Matthew merely translates the Hebrew, Isaiah 7: 14; “A young unmarried woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him ‘Immanuel.’�

While Luke simply reveals that the"parthenos," the young unmarried 14 year old Mary, who implies that she was a virgin when speaking to the angel, by saying that she had known no man, was still a virgin 3 MONTHS BEFORE she was found to be pregnant.

Due to her obedience to our indwelling ancestral Father spirit, she conceived in her womb the child of the biological father, who was Joseph the Levite, son of Heli from the tribe of Levi, who was chosen by the Holy Spirit, which act of obedience by the handmaid of the Lord, was hidden in the shadows beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.

Post Reply