Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Did I say that it was all fiction? Now you are using a black and white fallacy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Immaculate birth of Jesus?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
GardenLady
Active Member
To most Christians, Godly love is a VERB.
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Without DNA testing we won’t know. I believe Joseph is the daddy but it’s not impossible some Roman soldier did some extracurricular activities.
GardenLady
Active Member
lukethethird
unknown member
Mary got pregnant and nobody married her so she probably not only had sex with all the soldiers but she probably wasn't all that attractive either.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
GardenLady Right you are they are not in the scriptures they are Christians! Christians have always believed the Perpetual virginity of Mary! They also preached Jesus the Man God. They kept the faith handed on by the Apostles! The early Christians preached Baptism makes God' Children. They also performed Infant Baptism!
GardenLady They ate the living manna, the Flesh of God in the form of bread! They preached the authority of the Church Jesus established on Rock; they preached Forgiveness of sins in Church by the bishop!
The Christians also taught "Where the Catholic Church is there is Jesus"!
They taught the bishop has the authority to command men!
Christians are Christ Followers they believe the scriptures! they believe Jesus established a church with Authority of God to teach!
Origen
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354
GardenLady Origen & Hilary of Poitiers are Christians!
The Protoevangelium of James
“And behold, an angel of the Lord stood by [St. Anne], saying, ‘Anne! Anne! The Lord has heard your prayer, and you shall conceive and shall bring forth, and your seed shall be spoken of in all the world.’ And Anne said, ‘As the Lord my God lives, if I beget either male or female, I will bring it as a gift to the Lord my God, and it shall minister to him in the holy things all the days of its life.’ . . . And [from the time she was three] Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there” (Protoevangelium of James 4, 7 [A.D. 120]).
“And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of priests, saying, ‘Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, lest perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord?’ And they said to the high priest, ‘You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in and pray concerning her, and whatever the Lord shall manifest to you, that also will we do.’ . . . [A]nd he prayed concerning her, and behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him saying, ‘Zechariah! Zechariah! Go out and assemble the widowers of the people and let them bring each his rod, and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. . . . And Joseph [was chosen]. . . . And the priest said to Joseph, ‘You have been chosen by lot to take into your keeping the Virgin of the Lord.’ But Joseph refused, saying, ‘I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl’” (ibid., 8–9).
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Scholarly consensus is that the Protoevangelium of James was written in the mid-second century; thus, is could not have been written by Jesus’ half-brother (or step-brother, as this work would maintain). Since it is pseudepigraphal (written by someone claiming to be someone else) the Protoevangelium of James was rejected by the church. Origen speaks of it in the third century as of dubious origin. The work has been condemned by church councils and church officials through the years, and even by the Catholic Church, which teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary.
What is the Protoevangelium of James? | GotQuestions.org
Depends how you read it and what frame of references you use. The All-Knowing God is Love, all that is not of the All-Knowing God, is not Love.
So God gives us the commands and guidance we need to live by, 100% free will choice, no compulsion. God, being All-Knowing, also then records the results of our rebellion against those commands and guidance.
We are the cause of all rebellion, we are the cause of all that is not Love. We are Satan, we are the evil, if we do not choose Love, which contains all the virtues.
Regards Tony
They are not "the words of God"..
We do not even know for sure who wrote many texts in the NT.
It is purely your belief, that these authors did not write the words themselves.
For a Baha'i the Bible is sure guidance.
"INSCRIPTION IN THE OLD BIBLE
Written by Abdul Baha in Persian
THIS book is the Holy Book of God, of celestial Inspiration. It is the Bible of Salvation, the noble Gospel. It is the mystery of the Kingdom and its light. It is the Divine Bounty, the sign of the guidance of God, Abdul Baha Abbas."
Regards Tony
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
This also apparently turns up in a Greek pagan source, which is found in a book on Origen vs. Celsus, which is on my list to read fairly soon.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That may be your belief, but it is quite often not the case according to the holy books that people follow. Quite often people will say that their God is love and then use that claim to justify the hateful parts of their holy book.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
pearl The Protoevangelium of James is particularly reliable in affirming the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother. What we find in the Protoevangelium of James (in this case) is proven true because; the Church continued to proclaim... "Mary ever virgin!"
Origen
“The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first fruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first fruit of virginity” (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).
Hilary of Poitiers
“If they [the brethren of the Lord] had been Mary’s sons and not those taken from Joseph’s former marriage, she would never have been given over in the moment of the passion [crucifixion] to the apostle John as his mother, the Lord saying to each, ‘Woman, behold your son,’ and to John, ‘Behold your mother’ [John 19:26–27), as he bequeathed filial love to a disciple as a consolation to the one desolate” (Commentary on Matthew 1:4 [A.D. 354]).
Athanasius
“Let those, therefore, who deny that the Son is by nature from the Father and proper to his essence deny also that he took true human flesh from the ever-virgin Mary” (Discourses Against the Arians 2:70 [A.D. 360]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, both visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God . . . who for us men and for our salvation came down and took flesh, that is, was born perfectly of the holy ever-virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit” (The Man Well-Anchored 120 [A.D. 374]).
“And to holy Mary, [the title] ‘Virgin’ is invariably added, for that holy woman remains undefiled” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 78:6 [A.D. 375]).
Jerome
“[Helvidius] produces Tertullian as a witness [to his view] and quotes Victorinus, bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian, I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church. But as regards Victorinus, I assert what has already been proven from the gospel—that he [Victorinus] spoke of the brethren of the Lord not as being sons of Mary but brethren in the sense I have explained, that is to say, brethren in point of kinship, not by nature. [By discussing such things we] are . . . following the tiny streams of opinion. Might I not array against you the whole series of ancient writers? Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and many other apostolic and eloquent men, who against [the heretics] Ebion, Theodotus of Byzantium, and Valentinus, held these same views and wrote volumes replete with wisdom. If you had ever read what they wrote, you would be a wiser man” (Against Helvidius: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary 19 [A.D. 383]).
“We believe that God was born of a virgin, because we read it. We do not believe that Mary was married after she brought forth her Son, because we do not read it. . . . You [Helvidius] say that Mary did not remain a virgin. As for myself, I claim that Joseph himself was a virgin, through Mary, so that a virgin Son might be born of a virginal wedlock” (ibid., 21).
Didymus the Blind
“It helps us to understand the terms ‘first-born’ and ‘only-begotten’ when the Evangelist tells that Mary remained a virgin ‘until she brought forth her first-born son’ [Matt. 1:25]; for neither did Mary, who is to be honored and praised above all others, marry anyone else, nor did she ever become the Mother of anyone else, but even after childbirth she remained always and forever an immaculate virgin” (The Trinity 3:4 [A.D. 386]).
Ambrose of Milan
“Imitate her [Mary], holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of material virtue; for neither have you sweeter children [than Jesus], nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son” (Letters 63:111 [A.D. 388]).
Pope Siricius I
“You had good reason to be horrified at the thought that another birth might issue from the same virginal womb from which Christ was born according to the flesh. For the Lord Jesus would never have chosen to be born of a virgin if he had ever judged that she would be so incontinent as to contaminate with the seed of human intercourse the birthplace of the Lord’s body, that court of the eternal king” (Letter to Bishop Anysius [A.D. 392]).
Augustine
“In being born of a Virgin who chose to remain a Virgin even before she knew who was to be born of her, Christ wanted to approve virginity rather than to impose it. And he wanted virginity to be of free choice even in that woman in whom he took upon himself the form of a slave” (Holy Virginity 4:4 [A.D. 401]).
“It was not the visible sun, but its invisible Creator who consecrated this day for us, when the Virgin Mother, fertile of womb and integral in her virginity, brought him forth, made visible for us, by whom, when he was invisible, she too was created. A Virgin conceiving, a Virgin bearing, a Virgin pregnant, a Virgin bringing forth, a Virgin perpetual. Why do you wonder at this, O man?” (Sermons 186:1 [A.D. 411]).
“Heretics called Antidicomarites are those who contradict the perpetual virginity of Mary and affirm that after Christ was born she was joined as one with her husband” (Heresies 56 [A.D. 428]).
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Say what you like. Religion is not about hearsay..
Furthermore, people were forced to be celibate, in the middle ages by the church.
..as if there is something superior about a celibate priest.
It's not natural .. God has ordained love and mercy between man and wife. The church has no business to insist on celibacy IMO.
As I suggested, it is not God giving Hate, God has foretold of our rebellion in those scriptures. We thus have the bounty of looking at the God given virtues that can build communities, and compare them against how we actually lived our lives. Interestingly, the Holy books record the later prior to it happening and the result submission will acheive.
Look how large these religions grow when they work together, yet we still have the bounty to know we need to remove more errors of understanding that also unfold in the warnings.
Regards Tony
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
But now you are just cherry picking. I guess that we can ignore all that your leader said about homosexuality. In fact we could probably ignore most of what he says about heterosexuality if you want to play that game.
No. The source of the doctrine is the fact that Mary was perpetually a virgin and the whole Church remembered this fact, beginning with the apostles. The Protoevangelium of James reflects the existence of this tradition and incorporates it into a legend about Mary, but it does not originate the tradition. You might as well say that “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is the source of our belief that Abraham Lincoln existed and was President. No. “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is, like the Protoevangelium, a fictional tale which refers to a tradition which precedes it. One can distinguish between the fiction and the real traditions that fiction exploits to tell a story. That’s why the Church rejects the fictional book, but retains the real tradition about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, just as we are not forced to conclude that, because “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” is fictional, therefore Abe never existed and never was President.
Clear Thinking about the Protoevangelium of James | Mark Shea (patheos.com)
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
1 Corinthians 7:8
Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.
9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
1 Corinthians 7:28
But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.
1 Corinthians 7:37
But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.
Dogknox20
Well-Known Member
pearl I hope all is well...
The Protoevangelium of James is dated why back when. It is old text! It is saying Mary was virgin forever!
Does not matter if it is not accepted, what I am saying is, back then many years ago; there was a teaching and a belief that said... "Mary was Virgin"! It reflects the existence of this tradition.
I am not giving the text endorsement! If there was a 1900-year-old writing that said “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter” it would tell me: Back 1900 years ago there was someone that believe/taught “Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter”.
Tis all
Merry Christmas to you and yours
The Spirit of Truth
The Spirit of Truth
The authors of the New Testament artificially fulfilled some 300 prophecies, that had little or no relevance to Jesus, to confirm what God wanted Paul to go to the Gentiles of Japheth with, after He had inspired Paul to believe that he had seen Jesus alive on the road to Damascus; this was to deceive satan that the Christians from Japheth were not also God’s people, along with the Jews from Shem. Then, to confirm what Paul was teaching, i.e., that Jesus must be God, or the son of God or both, the Roman Christians, or most likely Constantine, plagiarised Isaiah 7:14, which was never a prophecy relating to Jesus, a virgin shall conceive and bare a son and he shall be called Emanual, which the Jews insist never meant God with us anyway.
So, if Mary was raped by a Roman soldier, why would the Roman Catholics invent such a load of baloney as is the virgin birth when it is obvious that God had already inspired Isaiah below, of what He was going to do, and who He was going to choose to call the Gentiles, and to forgive our past sins.
Isaiah 42:1 tells us that He would choose His “servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.” Isaiah 11:1a tells us from whom God would choose the Way “And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse.” Isaiah 11:10 confirms that Jesus was to, and certainly did, call the Gentiles; the Gentiles, are exclusively from Japheth Gen 10:5 By these were the (Greek) isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.”
It is abundantly clear to thinking Christians and Jews, that God chose Joseph and Mary, the most perfect couple to have descended from Shem, as the parents of the Sacrificial lamb (a good tree cannot bare bad fruit) and He continuously inspired Jesus of what His destiny was from conception. You will notice that I said descended from Shem, not Mrs No Name Noah. As females are barely mentioned in the Torah, I do not know why the Jews believe that Judaism follows the mother. Furthermore, when a Jewess was captured are you telling me that the child that she produces in captivity is a Jew. Not bloody likely, the child would have no choice but to accept the religion and beliefs of the captors. On the other hand, if a female descendant of Ham, the illegitimate son of Noah, is taken captive, do you mean to tell me that her descendants will never become Jews even though her descendants from that day on will be fathered by Jews. The reverse does not apply if a Jew is captured by the Arab nations from Ham, he would either be killed or enslaved, and, in the unlikely event that a Hamite was captured by the Jews, he would either have been killed or enslaved. No, it is time for the Truth, Joseph was Jesus’ father, otherwise Jesus was not even a Jew.
The Spirit of Truth
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What makes you think that your Isaiah passage was about Jesus? And you pretty much shoot yourself in the foot when you include clearly fictitious characters in your argument. You might as well have said that Bigfoot had a hand in it too.