bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: zander on May 04, 2006, 02:10:52 PM
-
Can anyone shed more light on this? I was shocked to read that there really is no scripture to state that Mary was a virgin, as Ray has just stipulated.
Is this true? I mean i have never read it in scripture, but have i missed something? Was Mary really NOT a virgin, at Christ's birth/conception?
-
Luke 1:34 (King James Version)
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
I'm confused too.
-
Of course Mary was a virgin at Christ's conception:
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 1:18 )
After that, her and Joseph had sex and birthed His brothers.
-
Luke 1:34 (King James Version)
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
I'm confused too.
The angel said she would be found with child and Mary simply replied, "How can this be since I haven't had sex?"
-
And I don't believe Ray was going against Mary being a virgin...but that Mary was not born sinless.
-
thanks
-
Can anyone shed more light on this? I was shocked to read that there really is no scripture to state that Mary was a virgin, as Ray has just stipulated.
Is this true? I mean i have never read it in scripture, but have i missed something? Was Mary really NOT a virgin, at Christ's birth/conception?
the"Immaculate conception"
is the catholic teaching that mary was born without sin, by grace, because christ could not have tainted blood going thru his body.
this to me is to deny Christ came in the flesh.
"""In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
peace
euty
-
I wasn't catholic and havn't research that at all. wow that's interesting!!!!
-
Catholics dont believe that Mary had any more children after Jesus was born. Try to show them all the scripture that says she had children after the birth of Jesus and they will deny it. They also think Mary was taken staight up to heaven that she didnt even die.
I was raised catholic and did all the abominations that comes along with that religion. I came out (dragged out) many,many, years ago.
I remember going to a catholic charismatic function and they had a speaker talking about Mary, They said that Mary was letting people in the back door to heaven :shock: Of course at the time I believed it.
I remember getting annointed with some supposedly tears from a statue of Mary.
All I can say now and do is thank my heavenly Father for having mercy upon me and opening my eyes and revealing His wonderful truth.
Of course when I left the catholic church it caused a war in my family.
-
Catholics dont believe that Mary had any more children after Jesus was born. Try to show them all the scripture that says she had children after the birth of Jesus and they will deny it. They also think Mary was taken staight up to heaven that she didnt even die.
I was raised catholic and did all the abominations that comes along with that religion. I came out (dragged out) many,many, years ago.
I remember going to a catholic charismatic function and they had a speaker talking about Mary, They said that Mary was letting people in the back door to heaven :shock: Of course at the time I believed it.
I remember getting annointed with some supposedly tears from a statue of Mary.
All I can say now and do is thank my heavenly Father for having mercy upon me and opening my eyes and revealing His wonderful truth.
Of course when I left the catholic church it caused a war in my family.
im with ya bro:
THE FACT OF THE ASSUMPTION
Regarding the day, year, and manner of Our Lady's death, nothing certain is known. The earliest known literary reference to the Assumption is found in the Greek work De Obitu S. Dominae. Catholic faith, however, has always derived our knowledge of the mystery from Apostolic Tradition. Epiphanius (d. 403) acknowledged that he knew nothing definite about it (Haer., lxxix, 11). The dates assigned for it vary between three and fifteen years after Christ's Ascension. Two cities claim to be the place of her departure: Jerusalem and Ephesus. Common consent favours Jerusalem, where her tomb is shown; but some argue in favour of Ephesus. The first six centuries did not know of the tomb of Mary at Jerusalem.
The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:
St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.
Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.
-
Luke1:46-47 And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, 47-And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Now if Mary was born without sin, why was she confessing that she needed a saviour.
If Mary could see how they worship her she would be astounded and sick.
Of course its not Mary that they are worshipping its the queen of heaven.
All of which is an abomination to our Lord. We need to thank God for those He led out of this religion and pray that He will continue to do so.
-
Luke1:46-47 And Mary said, my soul doth magnify the Lord, 47-And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
Now if Mary was born without sin, why was she confessing that she needed a saviour.
If Mary could see how they worship her she would be astounded and sick.
Of course its not Mary that they are worshipping its the queen of heaven.
All of which is an abomination to our Lord. We need to thank God for those He led out of this religion and pray that He will continue to do so.
kevin,
i questioned t he teachings from the time i can remember, very young. i thank god for my rebelious spirit.
as for the others some of them no not what they do.
all in its time.
peace
chuckt
-
Anyone here ever heard of the book entitled "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop. I haven't read the whole thing, but what I have read is pretty interesting.
Ruth
-
you know.it doesn't really matter if mary was a virgin or not
-
Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
-
Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).
The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!
"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.
The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."
It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!
Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.
-
Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).
The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!
"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.
The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."
It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!
Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.
I've noticed Jewish anti-christs use this fact as proof against Jesus fulfilling the prophacies. It's, all in all, interesting.
I like your posts. Keep up the good work!
-
Call it a heart idol but I would like to think Isaiah 7:14 was prophesy:
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Isaiah 7:14 is probably the most controversial passage in the RSV. It reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some other translations read "virgin." The Hebrew word used here is "almah." It has been charged that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus. However, in Matthew 1:23, where the above passage from Isaiah is quoted, the RSV reads, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Immanuel." The Greek word used in the Matthew passage is "parthevos" which means "virgin; one who is chaste" (this is also the word the Septuagint uses in Isaiah 7:14).
The real problem centers around how to translate the Hebrew word "almah." It literally means "a young woman; a maiden," and may or may not refer to one who is in a virginal state. The idea inherent within the word is one's youthfulness, not one's virginity. The Hebrew word for "virgin" is "bethulah." In the writings outside of the Bible, the word "almah" was commonly used for any young woman (even those who were married). It was also a term used for young prostitutes (obviously with reference to their youth, rather than their virginity)!
"Almah" appears only seven times in the OT writings, and interestingly enough the KJV translates it "virgin" in only four of these occurrences! The KJV translates it "maiden" twice (Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19) and "damsel" once (Psalm 68:25). The four other occurrences are Genesis 24:43; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14.
The philosophy of translation of the RSV is that it will not read New Testament theology back into the Old Testament writings, but rather will let the OT say exactly what it says and leave the interpretation to others (a policy it should have followed more consistently, as was previously noted). Thus, by translating "almah" as "young woman" (which is exactly what this Hebrew word means) instead of "virgin" (which would have been a different Hebrew word) these translators have been severely attacked. It was their belief (though not always consistently followed) that translators did not have the right to read their theology (however correct) into a passage, but rather must let it stand exactly as written. Dr. Jack P. Lewis writes, "The RSV scholars decided not to read Christian theology into their translation of the OT passages that have been traditionally interpreted messianically, and they have been taken to task for it."
It's interesting to note that the Catholics also tried their hand at textual honesty in 1970 with the New American Bible. The translators desired to translate "almah" as "maiden" instead of the more traditional "virgin." The Catholic Church, however, refused them permission, as they felt it would violate one of their doctrines about Mary. Therefore, they demanded that the word "virgin" remain, even if that was not what the original Hebrew word actually meant!
Some people still maintain that the RSV denies the virgin birth of Jesus because of their translation of this passage. However, there are numerous passages in the RSV (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-31 ... just to name a couple) that quickly put this fear to rest. It's not the virgin birth the RSV is denying, it's the notion that the Hebrew word "almah" MUST be rendered "virgin" in order to sustain a particular doctrine. One can deny the second without denying the first.
could you please give reference to where you copied and pasted this?
thanks.
-
could you please give reference to where you copied and pasted this?
thanks.
sorry but i have a file full of hundreds of pages from many site and various amounts of information and sometimes i can't remember where to find the sites i got some of it from.
-
I went to a Catholic high school where I had to swallow all kinds of dogma, and we always had to go to mass on December 8 for the immaculate conception (which I never really believed in). There is absolutely NO scriptural support for Mary being conceived without original sin, or remaining a virgin after Christ's birth, or being taken up to heaven, or most other things that they believe. But they have two sources for their beliefs: scripture and tradition. Actually most of their beliefs come from tradition, and they just twist the scriptures to support it.
you know it's quite funny,i've heard of the cathlic doctrine of mary and her being conceived without original sin and of coarse it has to much contridiction in it to be inspiried by god,but did you know that in the new testament if they didn't want to get right to jesus THAT DOCTRINE WOULD BE IN ALL OF ARE BIBLES!the reason it's not in there becuase they wanted the bible to go like a story,like from genesis to revelation, and they wanted to get to jesus and after that there really wasn't a place for mary's story wich is a false doctrine.and this is why i've been examining some text and criticizing some of them i've even made a post about it"SOMETHING INTERESTING"and there are even more false text that were almost added to are bibles as well.
-
Damnable heresies must come into the fold, so the ones who are approved among us will be made manifest. Follow Lord Christ not christianity. Shalom to all the brethren.
-
Hey Alucard, your name spelled backwards is DRACULA :twisted:
Ha! Ha! #-o
-
This is something that I have been thinking about.....but does anyone here think that maybe there is some sort of "Spiritual" significance between the mother of God being a virgin and the wife of God being a whore?
I don't know....maybe I'm reading too much into it....but, something keeps telling me there is something important that we are missing.
-
This is something that I have been thinking about.....but does anyone here think that maybe there is some sort of "Spiritual" significance between the mother of God being a virgin and the wife of God being a whore?
I don't know....maybe I'm reading too much into it....but, something keeps telling me there is something important that we are missing.
Mickyd what do you mean "THE WIFE OF GOD BEING A WHORE" :roll:
Don't tell me you believe in the "Davinci Codes" (It is a fictional work)
The author states this right on the cover [Novel
-
Maaaaaaaaaaany, many, many years ago I had it explained to me.
The details are a bit fuzzy with time, but basically, I received a detailed run down of Mary and Josephs family tree.
Mary was from Davids line, (on the servant side of the household), but Joseph was not of Davids line. To fulfill the prophecy, Jesus had to come from Davids line.
Again, if memory serves, this was also a sticky point of the Jews as to whether He could be the messiah, because joseph was certainly not of David's line, and Mary being of the servant lineage was probably viewed as a weak link.
If I've messed this up, i'm happy to be corrected.
That she WAS a virgin at Jesus birth has been shown beyond refute scripturally in this thread. Also that she didn't remain a virgin after His birth is scripturally without question. Not to mention what would common sense tell you?
What the Catholics have done to the poor woman is reprehensible. She was God's vessel, used to achieve His ends. At the end of the day, aren't we all?
I must hunt down the family tree again, as i did find it really interesting at the time.
-
Sorry Mickyd! I've got a lot to learn :oops: As you know I just came to the site, so I'll try to refrain from what I think I know and remain humble :wink:
Feed The Sheep! Baaaaaaa!!!!!
-
Sorry Mickyd! I've got a lot to learn :oops: As you know I just came to the site, so I'll try to refrain from what I think I know and remain humble :wink:
Feed The Sheep! Baaaaaaa!!!!!
Tis ok Bob. Sorry to come off as being so rough. I just did'nt know how to explain any differant.
-
Hey Alucard, your name spelled backwards is DRACULA :twisted:
Ha! Ha! #-o
Yeah I knew that. It's from a video game titled; Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Alucard is the Son of Dracula, who's mother is human thus making him half human half vampire. and you have to eventually defeat Dracula at the end. :lol:
-
Hey Alucard, your name spelled backwards is DRACULA :twisted:
Ha! Ha! #-o
Yeah I knew that. It's from a video game titled; Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Alucard is the Son of Dracula, who's mother is human thus making him half human half vampire. and you have to eventually defeat Dracula at the end. :lol:
actually it's from something just a little bit different try searching HELLSING with two L's and you'll see who the alucard i chose is.
WARNING 17 or older no nudity just language and gore
-
I am not trying to be crass here but. isn't " being overshadowed by The Holy Spirit" a euphamisim for having sex? Mary didn't KNOW any MAN. But she was KOWN by God. Right? Kind of like the sons of God knew the daughters of man in Gen. chapter 6. My understanding is that the greeks did not have a word for the hebrew word in Isaiah that the Greeks translated Virgin. Like a heifer is not a bovine that did not have sex. It is one that did not yet have a calf. Again Mary knew not a man. But God "knew "Mary
-
No Thoughts?
-
OhioRob,
I haven't questioned this after the way you have, I try to see the Spiritual truths in the gospel and pretty much avoid mans reasonings after it. Paul shared the gospel not with human wisdom and when he spake like a man he would say.
I see the birth in scripture as an allegory Paul refers. Made of a woman under the law is as a spiritual truth in relation to Christ, not having anything to do with carnal sex or anything like that.
She is as an allegory.
Gal 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Thats how I see it, and I can only see what I see by the will of God.
Daniel
-
Daniel, I have NO idea what you just said??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
NO OFFENSE!!!! :shock: :D
OhioBob,
When you refer to the daughter of men and the sons of God are you referring to 'human' woman intermingling (or having sex with) 'spiritual' (or angelic) 'BEINGS'? I know that that is something that is taught or how those verses are sometime 'understood' by some.
But BOTH are referring to 'humans'....
one can be a son/daughter 'of God' or one can be a son/daughter 'of men'.
Sort of like those IN the church (sons of God) intermingling (or being "unequally yoked" if you will) with those OUTSIDE of the church (daughters of men).
Just as one can have Satan as a "father".
See what I mean? I can explain it better later and give references, but I have to 'run' for awhile....
... or you might try doing a search on the *not-allowed* website. I am sure that Mike has something there that explains this. (not sure if there is a search function at the BT's website, but if so you could try there, too). Otherwise I will post more later or reference the link for you.
Blessings,
Chrissie
-
Chrissie, I follow your reasoning. But unions between humans and humans result in humans. not Nephillium right? I read somewhere that these unions in Gen 6 have a direct bearing on explaining Pauls teaching in Corinthians 11 about women wearing head coverings "because of the Angels". I know that Sons of God can refer to man, but in Job it is referring to Angels isn't it? When Jesus says that in the kingdom we wont be givin in marriage but will be as the Angels, does he mean we will be sexless, or all SONS of God.
Daniel, thanks for your response. How do you discern between what is allaory and what is literal?
-
Daniel, I have NO idea what you just said??? :lol: :lol: :lol:
NO OFFENSE!!!! :shock: :D
None taken :lol: I'll pray for you Chrissie :lol:
Daniel
-
Daniel, thanks for your response. How do you discern between what is allaory and what is literal?
I wouldn't know if the Spirit doesn't teach me Rob. Paul had the light of the gospel. Notice he didn't say as theologians say, "Born of a virgin" although in scripture it says this. He says in regard to Mary, who I see as an allegory, "made of a woman under the law" and shows the spiritual truth after the law in regards to her along with the "many" concerning the child.
Luke 2:34 And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child[/u] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;[/u]
Luke 2:35 (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy OWN SOUL also,) THAT the thoughts of MANY hearts may be revealed.
Its just how I see it. What comes to light that is hidden in darkness (our hearts) is by "the sign" (Him) who is spoken against. No man can tame the tongue, and what proceeds out of the mouth defiles a man. Paul speaks about speaking evil of no man, to put that off as its part of the old man, casting off the deeds of darkness etc. I can see the being "spoken against" here as well.
1Peter 4:14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.[/u]
He has interesting ways in how He is glorified, seems a not so contrary part and a contrary part, working it out for his own purpose. Thats only how I see it as I have been taught this far.
Daniel