tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post7631145745848408806..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The marriage bed is defiledJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24510788015959069312009-06-10T14:17:21.260-04:002009-06-10T14:17:21.260-04:00I know I'm kinda late to the party (Yeah, abou...I know I'm kinda late to the party (Yeah, about 4 months late), but I've got a couple extra pennies in my pocket I figured I'd throw into the pot. If you don't mind, Mr. Swan :)<br /><br />EBW said, <i>While Moses spoke to God, his face brightened so that the Isrealites could not look closely. Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, <b>could not be seen (known) by Joseph, until she gave birth</b>. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.</i><br /><br />OK. Nobody could see her while she was pregnant. So......how did her cousin Elizabeth talk with her? In all 3 months Mary stayed with Elizabeth (<b>Luke 1:56</b>--And Mary remained with her about three months, and returned to her house), did Elizabeth and Zacharias go around bumping into Mary because they couldn't see her? Did Joseph make her wear a bell so he could know where she was? In fact, how did ANYBODY, in all the 9 months she was pregnant, <i><b>not</b></i> see her?<br /><br />EBW's comment seems to include quite a bit of mysticism, especially the last part, about how after she gave birth, <i>Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.</i><br /><br />Yeah, about that--Uh.......<i>what</i>?<br /><br />On a side note, I remember watching a debate btw Dr. White and either Gerry matatics or Robert Sungensis (I forget which), where the RCC apologist made the correlation btw Solomon giving his mother a throne, and the time when Jesus says of Himself, "One greater than Solomon is here," saying that since Solomon gave HIS mother a throne, and "One greater than Solomon is here," that this was somehow a parallel.<br /><br />That got me thinking (dangerous territory for me, yeah). Since Solomon had 1000 wives and concubines, doesn't this give weight to the Mormon argument that Mary and Martha were Jesus' wives? I mean, since Solomon had all those women, and "One greater than Solomon is here"......well, do the math.<br /><br />The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.<br /><br />Amen.Four Pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08709119227948492967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64639854466478441872009-02-11T13:00:00.000-05:002009-02-11T13:00:00.000-05:00That's called "free association", not serious exeg...That's called "free association", not serious exegesis.<BR/><BR/>Also, if "knew" is not "carnal" (I pause to wonder aloud at how strange must be your view of marital sex), what is it? He didn't get to know her, as in they didn't talk? He knew her name and that's about it? What else could it mean?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-81834742483736944782009-02-10T17:38:00.000-05:002009-02-10T17:38:00.000-05:00Rhology,My intention was not to make God's glory e...Rhology,<BR/>My intention was not to make God's glory equal w/anytng created. The cause is always greater than the effect. <BR/>The use of Moses was more directed towards Joseph. By highlighting a biblical example of God's glory coming through brightness, it became easy to contrast w/ Isreal's lack of vision. I think Joseph's "lack of knowing" is akin to "lack of vision". Joseph did not "know her" until "she brought forth her firstborn son". Once the son was brought forth, Joseph knew her (that is he gained a knowledge of her through the light of Christ coming into the world) <BR/>Matthew 1:20-25<BR/>These verses include a parallel<BR/>between the Angel's words and Joseph's response. Look closely.<BR/>Angel:<BR/>1. Take Mary as your wife<BR/>2. that..conceived in HER is <BR/> of the HOLY GHOST<BR/>3. she shall bring forth a son<BR/>4. you shall call his name JESUS<BR/>Joseph:<BR/>1. took unto him his wife<BR/>2. and he knew HER not until<BR/>3. she brought..her..son<BR/>4. he called..Jesus<BR/><BR/>I think each #2 should be interpreted together. In summary, Joseph lacked spiritual knowledge regarding Mary's virginity, the son conceived and the Holy Ghost. Taken together they manifest the surpassing glory of the New Covenant. All of these were "veiled" to him before the birth but "unveiled" at the birth.<BR/>Understanding "knew" as carnal seems to be forced but I do see it implied in v.18<BR/>That's my take on it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-11393221590542697102009-02-09T08:52:00.000-05:002009-02-09T08:52:00.000-05:00Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness o...<I>Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, could not be seen (known) by Joseph,until she gave birth. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.</I><BR/><BR/>Since the text never says anything of the kind, where do you get all that? <BR/>Where is "Virginity" made equivalent to God's glory, as Moses saw?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31123577854967233042009-02-08T07:28:00.000-05:002009-02-08T07:28:00.000-05:00"knew" "knew" "knew"As long as "knew" means carnal..."knew" "knew" "knew"<BR/>As long as "knew" means carnal relations the PV deniers have a strong case (a case that Jerome helped strengthen).Knowledge of Vision is a good canidid for this word.<BR/>While Moses spoke to God, his face<BR/>brightened so that the Isrealites could not look closely. Mary, while being overshadowed by the brightness of God's power, could not be seen (known) by Joseph,until she gave birth. Then Mary with a sort of unveiled Virginity could be seen in the light of the fullness of times.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-40059671412618197302009-02-08T06:09:00.000-05:002009-02-08T06:09:00.000-05:00They resumed normal marital relations after. That'...<I>They resumed normal marital relations after</I>. <BR/><BR/>That's hardly what Matt 1:25 says.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-15470567728243932292009-02-07T19:04:00.000-05:002009-02-07T19:04:00.000-05:00Rhology, I only mentioned it "couldn't" occur base...Rhology, I only mentioned it "couldn't" occur based on the verse itself, since it explicitly said they didn't until after Christ's birth.<BR/>Was the possibility there? Sure, but according the Gospel of Matthew, it didn't - therefore it couldn't have a possibility in EBW's scenario.Discipled by Himhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166951083543729038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73344150909912481452009-02-07T18:20:00.000-05:002009-02-07T18:20:00.000-05:00EBW,I always find it more than bizarre that RCs, e...EBW,<BR/><BR/>I always find it more than bizarre that RCs, even pros like Gerry Matatics, think it's some kind of good argument to focus this discussion on points like whether the BVM remained a virgin (that is, her virginal hymen/tissues remained intact) WHILE giving birth to Christ (who cares?) and you here asking whether J & M had sex while she was pregnant.<BR/>No, see Matt 1:25. Jesus was born. They resumed normal marital relations after. <BR/>Discipled By Him said they "couldn't". It's not that they COULDN'T, it's that they DIDN'T, not until sometime AFTER Jesus' birth. Just a quick clarification.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41199918406360089282009-02-06T20:33:00.000-05:002009-02-06T20:33:00.000-05:00Discipled by Him,I just wanted to gauge the limita...Discipled by Him,<BR/>I just wanted to gauge the limitations of PV deniers. For them to refute this theory seems necessary, b/c they hold unwaveringly to the carnal meaning of Joseph "knowing" his wife. The text you quoted serves as a proof-text for them. If this meaning of "knew" is denied them, then the only recourse is to the prophecy/promise of a "virgin conceiving AND bearing a son".<BR/>But if one grants this recourse, then PV believers have a stronger case. We have an example other than "being deprived by agreement for prayer" 1Cor. where deprivation is expected and highly praised. Besides, why should deniers PRESUME that Joseph/Mary were so willing to remove this Virgin-Mother status. If anything there seems to be a strong case to preserve it. Thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-44673353315781007502009-02-06T19:06:00.000-05:002009-02-06T19:06:00.000-05:00EBW said:"Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virg...EBW said:<BR/>"Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virgin must be willing, in theory, to imagine conjugal relations existed during fetal development. Any deniers who hold this opinion?"<BR/><BR/>This is just about as bizarre a statement as I've read in a while. Matthew 1:25 reads, "but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus."<BR/><BR/>Seems common sense to me but, in theory, conjugal relations didn't and couldn't occur until after she gave birth to a son. <BR/><BR/>Unless you were insinuating something else, and it is way over my head, your post makes no sense whatsoever.Discipled by Himhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06166951083543729038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39329144370477308232009-02-06T18:38:00.000-05:002009-02-06T18:38:00.000-05:00Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virgin must be...Anyone who denies that Mary is ever-virgin must be willing, in theory, to imagine conjugal relations existed during fetal development. Any deniers who hold this opinion?<BR/>Maybe Joseph was excited to celebrate this mighty work of God through an honourable,necessary,pleasurable God-given right. Divine providence ordered this event to lead to that conjugal act, which is sadly denied to RCC priests.<BR/><BR/>Rhology,<BR/>Now should the use of "disgusting" be reconsidered ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-4780857682747159692009-02-06T17:46:00.000-05:002009-02-06T17:46:00.000-05:00See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUSWill do...And so it is t...<B>See MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS</B><BR/><BR/>Will do...<BR/><BR/><I>And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul</I>.<BR/><BR/>Except for the relics... (Oops!)<BR/><BR/><I>5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule</I><BR/><BR/>Her... and the relics... which did not need be assumed into heaven in order for them to not taste decay. <BR/><BR/><I>She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave</I><BR/><BR/>Neither were the relics... <BR/><BR/>The entire document is the same, going on and on about her not seeing corruption, but the relics don't see corruption either, and they're neither assumed up into the heavens, nor were the Saints to whom they belonged free from original sin. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://mystificator.blogspot.com/2009/02/amateur-apologetics-of-dogmatic.html" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> something to think about...The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24558753061622726872009-02-06T15:42:00.000-05:002009-02-06T15:42:00.000-05:00Wintrowski has a different definition of "sneer" t...Wintrowski has a different definition of "sneer" than most people, it would seem. He also doesn't seem to realise when he's doing it (which is most of the time).<BR/><BR/>Ken,<BR/><BR/>See <A HREF="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM" REL="nofollow">MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS</A>.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-73508310893181527432009-02-06T14:49:00.000-05:002009-02-06T14:49:00.000-05:00Ken,"The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC)...Ken,<BR/><BR/>"<I>The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.</I>"<BR/><BR/>It would only be wrong and "disgusting" if it were untrue and contrary to other revealed truths. Would you like to get involved with that discussion, or would you rather just hurl sneers from the sidelines?Chris Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02145275812997850893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68051610386593061272009-02-06T13:51:00.000-05:002009-02-06T13:51:00.000-05:00The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is t...The main problem (not for an EO, but for RCC) is that RCC has dogmatically proclaimed that belief in the PV of the BVM is a dogma that MUST NOT BE DISBELIEVED on pain of loss of salvation. Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.<BR/><BR/><I> Where exactly is that in the RCC official documents and when did it become that?<BR/><BR/>2 Nicea ?<BR/><BR/>2 Constantinople?<BR/><BR/>That was an excellent clip of Jerry Matatics on the Dividing Line. Seems that the idea of Pepetural Virginity comes from Gnosticism and apocryphal works - Odes of solomon, Ascension of Isaiah, and Proto-evangelium of James.<BR/><BR/>Excellent work against this bad doctrine. </I>Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-10340032746002795162009-02-06T10:01:00.000-05:002009-02-06T10:01:00.000-05:00Rhology,"Maybe you don't use that kind of pathetic...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>"<I>Maybe you don't use that kind of pathetic argumentation; so much the better for you. It is certainly not my strategy;</I>"<BR/><BR/>The manner in which you conduct yourself around the blogosphere speaks very much to the contrary. Your petty and contemptuous quips, retorts, and brush-offs are a never ending example of a poor intellect. I don't believe I've ever seen a respectful and well-reasoned argument from you, however, you certainly do sneer a lot.Chris Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02145275812997850893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-71019550846563434332009-02-06T00:07:00.000-05:002009-02-06T00:07:00.000-05:00Wintrowski said:As Chesterton aptly said, "it is g...Wintrowski said:<BR/><I>As Chesterton aptly said, "it is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer."<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>You must not be up on the common practice of numerous RC epologists, whose very common retort to almost any biblical psg one may cite is "Well, that's just your private interpretation." Maybe you don't use that kind of pathetic argumentation; so much the better for you. It is certainly not my strategy; I was turning your brethren back on you, but the slight subtlety was apparently lost on you.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85266582954061415272009-02-05T22:21:00.000-05:002009-02-05T22:21:00.000-05:00re:This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened...re:<BR/><I>This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut</I><BR/><BR/>I can see the referent of this is Jesus in that once he entered the Temple (holy of holies whose covering got rented in two). But the Temple as we know is no longer there and so it is in that sense shut, you cannot go there anymore - it is gone.<BR/><BR/>But to say that this referent is the womb of Mary in that her virginity is perpetual is a stretch. The jumping to allegorical hermeneutic without control by exegesis gives us a license to make it mean what we want it to mean.<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37615634893834244572009-02-05T22:05:00.000-05:002009-02-05T22:05:00.000-05:00What room is there for my wife, for example, to be...<I>What room is there for my wife, for example, to be encouraged by Mary's example, since she has apparently abased herself before my requests to conjugal relations (to use this priest's words) and therefore is an article that is less useful to God. How exactly is this supposed to be the grand inspiration to anyone</I>?<BR/><BR/>First of all, marriage is more than intimate relations: Mary bore her Son into the world, and women are redeemed through child-birth (1 Timothy 2:15), her primary role being that of a mother (and You can tell this to Mr. Obama also). Secondly, married women are not the only ones to whom she might be an inspiration: there are also virgins, remember? (Nazarites, Elijah, Jesus, John the Baptist; Matthew 19:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 7 entire).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22200204562761883382009-02-05T19:47:00.000-05:002009-02-05T19:47:00.000-05:00We all know what happened to Nebuchadnezzar when h...We all know what happened to Nebuchadnezzar when he tried to use the holy vessels of the Temple for worldly purposes. Or to Uzzah when he as much as touched the Ark of the Covenant. Or Ezekiel's prophecy (44:1-3). <BR/><BR/><I>Rome has made it part of the Gospel, and that is disgusting.</I><BR/><BR/>That's precisely the word that a certain "pro-choice" atheist used to describe the views of those that 'dared' argue to the contrary.<BR/><BR/><I>The Temple was also profaned and destroyed by foreign invaders, and later rebuilt. It was profaned by Judan kings who set up false idols inside. </I><BR/><BR/>...and these are the examples You want to follow? :-\ Do You want to share in the same fate as the above-mentioned king?<BR/><BR/><I>The high priest could enter once a year. How are these things paralleled in Mary's life? </I><BR/><BR/>The High-Priest is Christ. The year is the greatest natural cycle and represents eternity. <BR/><BR/><I>And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary? </I><BR/><BR/>On the basis that God's Glory or Shekinah, which is Christ before the Incarnation, entered it and indwelt its Sanctuary (Altar). <BR/><BR/><I>- Why not believe in her ever-virginity?<BR/><BR/>- B/c the preponderance of the biblical testimony is against it</I><BR/><BR/>As to Your insistance on the meaning of the word "brother" signifying nothing else but brother, contrary to constant biblical testimony which clearly shows otherwise, I am affraid You're fighting here against Rheality, and it's rheally hard to kick against the pricks. <BR/><BR/>Are Abraham and Lot brothers? <BR/>Are David and Jonathan brothers? <BR/>Are all Christians brothers? <BR/><BR/>Are Lot and Abraham *at least* cousins? Are David and Jonathan even *remotely* related to each-other? Do You and Your wife form an incestuous couple? <BR/><BR/><I>the marriage bed is UN-defiled and is honorable.</I><BR/><BR/>And so is drinking from golden cups and vessels, or preventing a wooden goldplated box from falling off a chariot, or drinking water (2 Samuel 23:16; 1 Chronicles 11:18).<BR/><BR/><I>So the analogy is way off.</I><BR/><BR/>Is it? <BR/><BR/><I>B/c "even His brothers (oops, I mean distant cousins) were not believing in Him". He devotes her to the motherhood of a believing disciple.</I><BR/><BR/>But they eventually became believers only days later. (Acts 12:17; 1 Corinthians 15:7; Galatians 1:19). So what would've been the point? <BR/><BR/><I>Here he is attempting to cast doubt on the transparent meaning of "firstborn". </I><BR/><BR/>Laying aside the very important legal significance of the first-born in the Old Covenant, and the rights that come along with it, does the use of that word in Romans 8:29 mean that we are all born of God's divine substance in the same manner as Jesus? If not, then why implying otherwise about Mary's own human substance? [BTW, if the name of Romania's (former) king is Michael I, does that mean that there also exists a Michael II ?]The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52561533669099855722009-02-05T19:13:00.000-05:002009-02-05T19:13:00.000-05:00'Consider that the poetically parallel incident of...'Consider that the poetically parallel incident of the Lord's entry through the east gate of the Temple (in Ezekiel 43-44) prompts the call: "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (44:2).'<BR/><BR/>"And on what basis does he make the connection between the Temple and Mary?"<BR/><BR/>Do you really not see the basis? It's because both were passed through by the Lord God of Israel. In the cited verse, the reason no one should ever enter by the gate is simply that the Lord has entered by it. If the Lord enters by a gate, that gates remains closed forever. No further explanation or argument is offered. <BR/><BR/>I'm not saying this is dispositive. But it seems a tad disingenuous to claim not to see any parallel between the two.<BR/><BR/>If you want to add up all the evidence and say, this side has more points than that side, fine. But what you appear to be doing is refusing to see any of the other side's points whatsoever, as though they must be disagreed with as a matter of principle, regardless of merit.Agelliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305597900813126268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52543821168270058702009-02-05T19:08:00.000-05:002009-02-05T19:08:00.000-05:00Jugulum,"Suppose I say, "I know the Catholic Churc...Jugulum,<BR/><BR/>"<I>Suppose I say, "I know the Catholic Church got X wrong, because I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar." Aren't you going to respond that that's just my private interpretation?</I>"<BR/><BR/>Well, I would hopefully try to give you a more respectful and reasonable answer than just some childish, obtuse retort like that. As Chesterton aptly said, "it is generally the man who is not ready to argue, who is ready to sneer."<BR/><BR/>"<I>What's your criteria for distinguishing between "private interpretation" and "letting the test speak for itself"?</I>"<BR/><BR/>I don't distinguish between the two, but I do distinguish between mangling a text to suit my own whims and not going beyond what is written.Chris Winterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02145275812997850893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-91752594386036766802009-02-05T19:00:00.000-05:002009-02-05T19:00:00.000-05:00Wintrowski,Uh... I'm puzzled by something that you...Wintrowski,<BR/><BR/>Uh... I'm puzzled by something that you said.<BR/><BR/>"<I>'2) Is that just your private interpretation?'</I><BR/>[...]<BR/>2) Not at all. I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar."<BR/><BR/>Suppose I say, "I know the Catholic Church got X wrong, because I'm letting the text speak for itself, and paying attention to the basic rules of English syntax and grammar." Aren't you going to respond that that's just my private interpretation?<BR/><BR/>What's your criteria for distinguishing between "private interpretation" and "letting the test speak for itself"?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14842460976296617602009-02-05T18:35:00.000-05:002009-02-05T18:35:00.000-05:00Easy, LP. She took a vow of virginity shortly aft...Easy, LP. She took a vow of virginity shortly after we got married, so as to be holier and set apart as an Ark. Sucks to be me.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-86324879853703564262009-02-05T18:33:00.000-05:002009-02-05T18:33:00.000-05:00Rhology,Good points.The belief in the PV is called...Rhology,<BR/><BR/>Good points.<BR/><BR/>The belief in the PV is called pious opinion and should not be dogma.<BR/><BR/>You are quite right about your wife. How can she be a Christian wife if she is violating St. Paul's injunction not to deprive each other of marital relations?<BR/><BR/>LPCLPChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11352627830833515548noreply@blogger.com