the Humanity of Jesus

[libby]

The answer is that Mary found favor by God, because she had a pure heart, was untouched by any man, and was God's chosen for giving birth to Yeshua.
The Bible is full of stories where God chose people to fulfill His prophecies, not because they were without sinful flesh but because they had a pure heart that was set on being obedient to God.

Mary was still of sinful flesh, but kept pure prior to the birth and up through the birth of Yeshua. There was no "sin-seed" to pass along from her womb since there was no human father involved at this point. The Bible states that afterwards she and Joseph consummated the marriage and had other children which would have been half/siblings to Yeshua.

The Bible does not state that she and Joseph consumated their marriage, you are adding to the text. I'm sure you've heard many times in your life as a Christian that there are many other relationships in the Bible referred to as brother, thus other possible relationships are being described when in reference to Jesus's "brothers".
Eusebius, who cites the writings of Hegesippus, who lived in the first quarter of the second century, "The same author [Hegesippus] also talks of the beginning of the heresies that arose about this time, in the following words: 'But after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as our Lord had for the same reason, Simeon, the son of Cleophas, our Lord's uncle, was appointed the second bishop [of Jerusalem] whom all proposed as the cousin of our Lord." (James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy, Notes, Chapter 6, Note 4, Schisms and Heresies in the Early Church)

Clopas had a wife named Mary and it is their children that are always cited as being the brothers and sisters of Jesus in keeping with the way cousins were often referred to. (Matthew 13:55-56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these things?)

Mary of Cleophas is mentioned in the King James Version, but more accurately should be Mary "of Clopas", i.e. the wife of Clopas - or Alphaeus. She is brought before us for the first time on the day of the crucifixion, standing by the cross. John 19:25. In the evening of the same day we find her sitting desolate at the tomb with Mary Magdalene, Matthew 27:61, Mark 15:47; and at the dawn of Easter morning she was again there with sweet species, which she had prepared on the Friday night, Mat. 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 23:56, and was one of those who had "a vision of angels which said that he was alive." Luke 24:23. She had four sons and at least three daughters. The names of the daughters are unknown to us; those of the sons are James, Joses, Jude and Simon, two of whom became enrolled among the twelve apostles (James), and a third (Simon) may have succeeded his brother in charge of the church of Jerusalem. By many she is thought to have been the sister to the Virgin Mary.

Kiddos calling...more later

 

[Starman3000m]

The Bible does not state that she and Joseph consumated their marriage, you are adding to the text.

While formally getting married (Mary already with child) Joseph and Mary did NOT have sexual relations at all until after the birth of Yeshua. Thus, the complete marriage relationship became consummated after Yeshua's birth:

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:22-25)

 

[Starman3000m]

Another Bible Version regarding Joseph & Mary's consummation of marriage after the birth of Yeshua:

Matthew 1:20-25 (New International Version)

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[a] because he will save his people from their sins."
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

source: BibleGateway.com - Passage#Lookup: Matthew 1:20-25

 

[libby]

While formally getting married (Mary already with child) Joseph and Mary did NOT have sexual relations at all until after the birth of Yeshua. Thus, the complete marriage relationship became consummated after Yeshua's birth:

"Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS." (Matthew 1:22-25)

I knew you'd make this point.
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[libby]

just curious

Why do you always say Yeshua and such, instead of just Jesus?

 

[Starman3000m]

Why do you always say Yeshua and such, instead of just Jesus?

Good and Fair Question:

Answer: That's His Real Name.

The Saviour was born Jewish; His Jewish/Aramaic name was not "Emmanuel" nor was it "Jesus" it was Yeshua.

Messianic Jews who believe Him to be the Divine Son of God and Saviour of mankind call Him: Yeshua HaMashiach (The Messiah)

 

[Starman3000m]

I knew you'd make this point.
Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her "not until ("heos", in Greek)" she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because "not until" does not mean "did not...until after." "Heos" references the past, never the future. Instead, "not until" she bore a son means "not up to the point that" she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove "not until" means "not up to the point that":

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you "until the end of the world." This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert "up to the point of his manifestation to Israel." Not John "was in the desert until after" his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow "up to the point that" she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, "take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool." Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - "up to the point that I come," attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing "until after" I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth "up to the point that" [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won't leave Jacob "up to the point that" he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but "up to the point of today" no one knows Moses' burial place. This does not mean that "they did not know place until today."

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul's daughter Micah was childless "up to the point" [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain "up to the point that" they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

libby, I am not arguing the point that Mary remained a complete virgin up until Yeshua was born. What the Bible text indicates is that Joseph did not have any sexual relationship with Mary at all during her pregnancy but did so afterward(AFTER Yeshua was born) and then Joseph and Mary had children together which were half-siblings of Yeshua. Thus, this union afterward (between the two) consummated the marriage.

 

[libby]

libby, I am not arguing the point that Mary remained a complete virgin up until Yeshua was born. What the Bible text indicates is that Joseph did not have any sexual relationship with Mary at all during her pregnancy but did so afterward(AFTER Yeshua was born) and then Joseph and Mary had children together which were half-siblings of Yeshua. Thus, this union afterward (between the two) consummated the marriage.

Oh, I know that you're not arguing her virginity before the birth of Jesus, however, I am arguing her virginity after the birth of Christ. I do not expect people to accept her perpetual virginity based on what I have said here on the SoMD forum. My purpose is 1)to explain why I believe what I do, and 2) to help others understand why the Catholic Church teaches what she does. None of it is arbitrary bunk that was pulled out of thin air.

 

[Starman3000m]

Oh, I know that you're not arguing her virginity before the birth of Jesus, however, I am arguing her virginity after the birth of Christ. I do not expect people to accept her perpetual virginity based on what I have said here on the SoMD forum. My purpose is 1)to explain why I believe what I do, and 2) to help others understand why the Catholic Church teaches what she does. None of it is arbitrary bunk that was pulled out of thin air.

libby, it stands to reason that if one studies church doctrine of any denomination, he/she will be told what the leaders of that specific group have interpreted scripture to be - then they indoctrinate the congregants to believe the same thing. Those who debate the "established" interpretation are usually shunned and/or ex-communicated.

Yes, it is a known fact that the Vatican teaches the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and denies that she and Joseph had children together after the birth of Yeshua.

This has led to the near "deification" of Mary and to the point of calling her "the mother of God." Mary was not the mother of God since we can all agree that God existed long before Mary.

My belief is to the contrary of the Vatican's teaching that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" plus the fact that the Vatican's interpretation is not found in the Holy Bible at all but it is found in their doctrinal teaching.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Oh, I know that you're not arguing her virginity before the birth of Jesus, however, I am arguing her virginity after the birth of Christ. I do not expect people to accept her perpetual virginity based on what I have said here on the SoMD forum. My purpose is 1)to explain why I believe what I do, and 2) to help others understand why the Catholic Church teaches what she does. None of it is arbitrary bunk that was pulled out of thin air.

Libby, as much as we love you here, you are living dangerously when you put CC (or any other) doctrine above the Bible. I know Starman has the patience of a saint in this respect but I have to say that you are wrong here. The Bible is the standard no matter what ANY denomination teaches. I know we've been through this before but it is worth repeating for any new readers. Matthew 13 v 55, 56 tells of Jesus step family since Joseph was not His biological father. Mary was not sinless nor a perpetual virgin nor assumed into Heaven alive. This are CC "perpetual" lies. If you can't give me Bible verses for these, they are then speculation.

 

[libby]

libby, it stands to reason that if one studies church doctrine of any denomination, he/she will be told what the leaders of that specific group have interpreted scripture to be - then they indoctrinate the congregants to believe the same thing. Those who debate the "established" interpretation are usually shunned and/or ex-communicated.

Yes, it is a known fact that the Vatican teaches the "perpetual virginity" of Mary and denies that she and Joseph had children together after the birth of Yeshua.

This has led to the near "deification" of Mary and to the point of calling her "the mother of God." Mary was not the mother of God since we can all agree that God existed long before Mary.

My belief is to the contrary of the Vatican's teaching that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" plus the fact that the Vatican's interpretation is not found in the Holy Bible at all but it is found in their doctrinal teaching.

Trinity is not found in the Bible, and neither is a list of the books that are supposed to be in the Bible.
Some Jews would say we are deifying a man in Jesus Christ, calling Him One with the Father, ya' know?
Happy weekend.

 

[ItalianScallion]

The age of accountability is not scriptual, I believed this falshood for years.
No where in the bible does it even imply it. These are the verse they use to support it and they are so week its not funny.
David in his morning over his son stated he would see him again.
<DIR>2Sa 12:23 But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."

They use this one to

<DIR>Act 11:14 he will declare to you a message by which you will be saved, you and all your household.'
</DIR>
<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O>We are all born sinners, The reformed faith, or some in it, believe that the salvation of the Godly parents is imputed to the child. This is wrong too!</O>

(Psa 58:3-4 KJV) The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. {4} Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear;

“For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. – Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” Romans 9:11-13<O> </O>
<O></O>
<O>I personally think that if the child is of the elect than....
<DIR>Joh 10:29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.

Were all born sinners, as enemies of God, its only by his grace and his gift of salvation that we can be saved
</DIR></O>
</DIR>

We'll definitely disagree on this one Marie but I never used ANY of the verses that you quote here. I used Deuteronomy 1 v 39 & Isaiah 7 v 15. You have seriously missed the fact that each of these people spoken about in these verses, lived to get old enough to do evil. Except David & Bathsheba's baby which God took home to Heaven. Did David go to Hell? No. He was "a man after God's own heart" and he said "I will go to him". Where was he going? To Heaven of course. What happens to a baby if it dies in it's Mom or within the first few years of it's life Marie? I'm going out for the night, I'll answer your response tomorrow.

 

[Starman3000m]

Trinity is not found in the Bible, and neither is a list of the books that are supposed to be in the Bible.
Some Jews would say we are deifying a man in Jesus Christ, calling Him One with the Father, ya' know?
Happy weekend.

Yes, libby, you are right; the word "Trinity" is not found in the Bible, however, the inference that God is represented unto mankind in the Divine Quality of Three sources is found in Scripture where Yeshua proclaimed the following:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
(1 John 5:7-9) (King James Version)

Now, let's explain "Trinity"

Hopefully, you are comprised of:

1.) A Body
2.) A Soul
3.) A Spirit

Are you three persons, or, one?
Three libbys or the three qualities mentioned revealed in one individual libby?

 

[PsyOps]

Good and Fair Question:

Answer: That's His Real Name.

The Saviour was born Jewish; His Jewish/Aramaic name was not "Emmanuel" nor was it "Jesus" it was Yeshua.

Messianic Jews who believe Him to be the Divine Son of God and Saviour of mankind call Him: Yeshua HaMashiach (The Messiah)

I think it's fair to call Him Jesus since, through translations from the Greek and Latin - due to these languages not containing certain sounds like "y" - the Greeks attempted to find the closest approximation of the pronunciation. The result was Jesu or Jesus. In any form we are still talking about the same Lord and Savior.

 

[Starman3000m]

I think it's fair to call Him Jesus since, through translations from the Greek and Latin - due to these languages not containing certain sounds like "y" - the Greeks attempted to find the closest approximation of the pronunciation. The result was Jesu or Jesus. In any form we are still talking about the same Lord and Savior.

Sounds Greek to me! lol
Yep, PsyOps, you are right; It's fair to call Him Jesus (as even noted in my testimony) and yes we are speaking of the same Lord and Saviour as long as He fits the description of the New Testament Lord. I say that only because there are other religions who claim "Jesus" is part of their faith but in reality their idea and interpretation of Jesus is a totally different individual than the New Testament account.

For example: Jesus of the Mormons is not the same; Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses is not the same; Jesus (Isa') of Islam is not the same as taught by their bible versions and supplemental teachings.

Thus, when you say you believe in Jesus and members of the above mentioned faiths agree that they also believe in Jesus we find that there are distinct differences in whom "Jesus" is. The CC doctrinal teaching of "Jesus" is also different in that the Vatican places the "world's" source of receiving Salvation on having to be a "member" of that organization and not on faith in Yeshua alone by a non-member.

As you know, we are even warned that "another Jesus" would be preached which people would be deceived into following:

For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11:4)

And Yeshua even gave this warning:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matthew 7:21-23)

I am sure you are aware of all this, PsyOps, but I write it so that others can realize that there are "counterfeit Jesus'" being preached today who cannot save them as only Yeshua HaMashiach (New Testament Jesus) can and as stated in (John 14:6)

 

[libby]

"Thus, when you say you believe in Jesus and members of the above mentioned faiths agree that they also believe in Jesus we find that there are distinct differences in whom "Jesus" is. The CC doctrinal teaching of "Jesus" is also different in that the Vatican places the "world's" source of receiving Salvation on having to be a "member" of that organization and not on faith in Yeshua alone by a non-member."

Here we go...
The Catholic Church makes no declaration anywhere that people who are not "members" of the "organization" are not saved. Just as I am sure that you would not assume a person who has never heard of Jesus Christ is condemned to hell, so too the CC teaches.
Please find the quote in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that teaches something other than that Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word made Flesh. Do not bear false witness and make statements on the " CC doctrinal teaching of Jesus", which you clearly do not know and/or understand.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. The CC was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". We can go back and forth a million times with our interpretations of that passage along with the other verses that appear to support my version as well as passages that appear to support yours. So it all comes down to authority, doesn't it? You claim the Bible is the authority, I claim the Church is the authority. Jesus never said to write a book, He instructed the building of a church, a visible church not to be hidden under a basket. The prophetic keys in Isaiah 22:22 were passed on to Peter in Mt 16:19, and so it goes.
The Catholic Church's position is that salvation is through the Church, which is not the same as having to belong to the Church. And for those of us who believe that the Church is the body with Christ as the head, there is nothing heretical in that doctrine.

 

[PsyOps]

"Thus, when you say you believe in Jesus and members of the above mentioned faiths agree that they also believe in Jesus we find that there are distinct differences in whom "Jesus" is. The CC doctrinal teaching of "Jesus" is also different in that the Vatican places the "world's" source of receiving Salvation on having to be a "member" of that organization and not on faith in Yeshua alone by a non-member."

Here we go...
The Catholic Church makes no declaration anywhere that people who are not "members" of the "organization" are not saved.

Can you explain why many Catholic Churches excommunicate members for marrying non-Catholics? Why do they demand that if you are not a member of the Catholic church you are not saved?

Does the Catholic Church still follow these doctrine?

"Whoever is separated from this Catholic Church, by this single sin of being separated from the unity of Christ, no matter how estimable a life he may imagine he is living, shall not have life, but the wrath of God rests upon him"... Augustine

"Anyone who receives the sacrament of baptism, whether in the Catholic Church or in a heretical or schismatic one, receives the whole sacrament; but salvation, which is the strength of the sacrament, he will not have, if he has had the sacrament outside the Catholic Church [and remains in deliberate schism]. He must therefore return to the Church, not so that he might receive again the sacrament of baptism, which no one dare repeat in any baptized person, but so that he may receive eternal life in Catholic society, for the obtaining of which no one is suited who, even with the sacrament of baptism, remains estranged from the Catholic Church"... Fulgentius of Ruspe

I have talked to many Catholics that believe this. I have talked to many Catholics that believe if you are not reading the King James version of the bible your are reading a false word of God. Can you clarify this?

 

[PsyOps]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The CC was established by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church". We can go back and forth a million times with our interpretations of that passage along with the other verses that appear to support my version as well as passages that appear to support yours.

Really?! This is the Catholic Church? The book of Acts refers to this... shall I call it Christian establishment... as "The Way".

Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains... Acts 9:1-2

He had been instructed in the Way of the Lord... Acts 18:25

But when some in their obstinacy and disbelief disparaged the Way before the assembly, he withdrew and took his disciples with him and began to hold daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus... Acts 19:9

Then he sent to Macedonia two of his assistants, Timothy and Erastus, while he himself stayed for a while in the province of Asia. About that time a serious disturbance broke out concerning the Way... Acts 19:22-23

I persecuted this Way to death, binding both men and women and delivering them to prison... Acts 22:4

But this I do admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors and I believe everything that is in accordance with the law and written in the prophets... Then Felix, who was accurately informed about the Way, postponed the trial...24:14 and 22

 

[libby]

Can you explain why many Catholic Churches excommunicate members for marrying non-Catholics? Why do they demand that if you are not a member of the Catholic church you are not saved?

Does the Catholic Church still follow these doctrine?





I have talked to many Catholics that believe this. I have talked to many Catholics that believe if you are not reading the King James version of the bible your are reading a false word of God. Can you clarify this?

Oh yeah, I can explain this...although I will point out that the burden of proof is on you to cite the source of your claims in the case of the former accusation, and in the latter, you need to be sure you are citing accurate sources of information.
To the question of "Mixed Marriage", from the Catechism of the Catholic Church
A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a nonbaptized person) requires even greater circumspection.
:


1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors.1634 Difference of confession between the spouses does not constitute an insurmountable obstacle for marriage,
So, in spite of what you've been told by others, you have the actual teaching of the CC before you.

To the 2nd question
The necessity of faith

161 Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation.42 "Since "without faith it is impossible to please [God]" and to attain to the fellowship of his sons, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will anyone obtain eternal life 'But he who endures to the end.'"43

And to the two quotes, Augustine, while a saint, and Fulgentius, who I've never heard of, does not speak or write infallibly on the doctrines of the Catholic church. So, while those quotes are a great source of fanning the flames of division, they are not to be taken as Church doctrine.
The Bible? Please identify the source of your information. I'm pretty certain I posted an answer to this question on this forum (or maybe it was another forum) before. The CC does not dictate which Bibles we are to use, although a Catholic would want to make sure that the Bible they are using is complete. I'll see if I can find my earlier citation.
So now I have a question for you. Are you going to continue to believe those erroneous ideas that you asked about, or do you have the clarification you need to correct any more anti-Catholic statements that others may make?

 

[libby]

Really?! This is the Catholic Church? The book of Acts refers to this... shall I call it Christian establishment... as "The Way".

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.