/ Subject: Re: Mary was never a "perpetual virgin" / 5 Dec 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
> Etherman wrote: The Bible never says that she never had sex ever. It implies that she did.
.
  textman answers by LOL ... Oh yeah? And exactly which verses and/or passages are guilty of implying all this? It seems to me that Jesus' various brothers and sisters in the flesh (well known to all Nazareth and all about Galilee, and to the early Aramaic-Christians in Jerusalem) would pretty much *imply* that Mary did *know* her husband Joseph; perhaps even very well indeed! Only Cats could imagine that there is something evil or wrong in any of this.

/ Re: Mary was never a "perpetual virgin".....Biblical proof! / 6Dec98 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> Etherman wrote: The Bible never says that she never had sex ever. It implies that she did.
.
> Ayna answered: The Bible says she conceived Jesus without sexual relations. By affirming that Mary
> remained a virgin all her life, Catholics make no mistake that Jesus was conceived miraculously.
.
 textman say: A good point; and not to be taken lightly. The entire glorious edifice that is the revelation we call The Incarnation would not stand up at all if we could not accept a simple fact; to wit: that the presence of the Son of Man here on Earth is not a mere mundane affair, but is actually of cosmic import and meaning. I think that The Gospel According to John makes this point very well; especially the Prologue. Check it out.
.
> By affirming that Mary had sexual relations with St. Joseph, Protestants clear the way for liberal
> modernist mushy-headed thinking that holds that maybe Jesus came into the world in the usual way,
.
 Dear Ayna, as a point of historical fact, it should be noted that - Christmas fables aside - Jesus did enter the world in the usual way ... If we're talking about the gestation and birthing process itself. I don't think it could be said that Joshua's birthday was a painless and easy matter for Mary. That would be pushing things (ie. the Real World) just a tad too far into the unicorn realm of legend ... Yes? ... And yet, according to doctrine, Mary was sinless, and therefore could NOT have experienced the "pains of childbirth" because these are given as punishment for sin ... ?
.
> and was merely adopted the "son" of God.
.
 I do not hold that Jesus was simply adopted or honored to become the "Son of God" as if 'The Messiahship' could have gone to someone else by default. The Son of Man is - of necessity as it were - a divine being. That is what the Incarnation means really. The earliest Christian traditions - recorded by Paulos - is that the person who became known as Jesus Christ emptied himself of all divinity in order to 'dwell among us'. Thus the reality of the Incarnation is NOT a Catholic invention. One might say that it is a necessary theological truth that should be accepted with humility before the mystery of the divine will, and in good faith (as befits a True Believer).
.
>> Why wouldn't she have normal sexual relations with her husband after Jesus was conceived?
.
> Because Mary was holy, which means "Set aside for the purposes of God". Mary's purpose was to
> be the vessel by which God the Son assumed a human nature, not to be St. Joseph's little love pony.
.
 Oh my! ... Maybe part of her purpose in educating and raising "God the Son" was to provide him with a normal family life; including several brothers and sisters to be responsible for, and get annoyed at. btw: a normal family life might also mean that Mary loved her husband, and even enjoyed "life in the saddle" ...  :)
.
> Her life was centered on her son Jesus (as should ours be),
.
 You mean she worshiped him as she changed his soiled diapers? She prayed to him when he came home angry and confused by the taunting of the other kids in the town? Didst she sit in glorious rapture at every meal (while the children conducted yet another food fight), because she was hyper-aware of being in the presence of God. That every meal was a sacred banquet in the already realized Kingdom of Heaven? ... No, I think maybe not. I think that Mary was much more a normal and average woman of her day, and much less the great archetype of all Christians, the supreme Proto-Disciple, who thinks all day about Jesus. Sheesh! How can any one get anything done when you're "high on the Lord" all the time, and round the clock? Who's going to do the laundry, the cooking, the teaching, the wiping of leaking noses? Where is the concrete historical Mary in your wondrous "Co-Redeemtrix" and the glorious Theotokos?
.
> not sensuality.
.
 It's a sensual, material world we live in, babe. Haven't you heard Madonna's song entitled 'Material World'. Best thing she's ever done, I figure. ... Anyway, the point is that being a good wife is hardly incompatible with God's will. Neither is the love of man and wife ...  I would suggest to Ayna that she study very carefully the Song of Songs, but I wouldn't want to shatter her gnostic illusions about how "the spiritual realm" is just soooo much finer than the crude and sensual world of body and senses.
.
> God has made it up to her big time, making this humble servant of His the first
> recipient of all the fruits of redemption merited by Christ.
.
 Really? Wow! I'm, like, *so* impressed ... NOT!

/ Subject > Re: More Sh*t on Mary ... Oh No! / 6 Dec 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman previously wrote: MORE SH*T ON MARY ... OH NO!     <snippit>
.
> Jerry Patterson replies: Dear Textman: Please read "Eve, Mary, and the Incarnation" before you post
> more criticisms of the Catholic view of Mary. I invite you to criticize this writing to be found at :
> http://www.flash.net/~jerry53. Thank you. Blessings, Jerry
.
 textman answers:  Dear Jerry, huh? I fear you have me at a serious disadvantage, sir. The document you refer to is written by yourself and is entitled 'Eve, Mary, and the Incarnation: A Christian Perspective'. Are you perchance a bishop then? Do you claim Magisterial authority and approval for your little essay? ... No? Then on what basis do you expect Cats to accept your interpretations as the definitive one for us all?
.
 hmmmm ... All that aside, it should be noted that the url above leads to a webpage entitled 'The Biblical Church'. The first link thereon leads to the essay in question, which begins thusly:
.
> Purpose: The purpose for this writing is to promote an understanding of certain biblical texts
> with the aim of encouraging meditation on the mystical realities they reveal.
.
 Well, Jerry, this sounds to me very much like biblical commentary with a nice pious flavor. It's not the way I myself read the scriptures (usually), and it's certainly not the way I preach on the sacred text. In any case, there is nothing here to indicate any necessary connection to any "official" Catholic position. Technically, this is as far as I need go, but wut da heck, let's onward wit it anywho ...
.
> As we approach any biblical texts we do well to plead for an indwelling of the
> Holy Spirit to escort our rational faculties.
.
 Oh, I couldn't agree more.
.
> Reason is certainly important when seeking understanding,
.
 Yes?
.
> but it pales to insignificance compared to a mystical experience of God's infinite generosity.
.
 Why, Jerry, I do believe that St Thomas Aquinas wouldst heartily agree with thee!
.
> Such mystical experiences support and do not conflict with truth.
.
 Hmmmm ... yes and no on that, I think. What the mystics of all races and ages (including Thomas) agree on is that the encounter with the Absolute is simply too rich to be reduced to mere words. This is why he thereafter refused to complete his work, and even referred to his various scribblings as just so much "straw". btw: I know *that* feeling.
.
> You will notice no emphasis is placed on the narrow, but important, discipline of linguistics. This honored
> science dispenses important supportive insights. They are supportive insights because they must be
> consistent with the immanent character of the overall path marked by the inspired texts.
.
 "overall path"? huh? You mean the unfolding history of the recording of divine revelation within the context of God's People? Or do you mean the dramatic plot itself? Or do you mean the canonical order of the books which determines the manner in which the story is apprehended?  In any case, I can agree that the necessary scholarly 'dirty-work' *can* be dispensed with in order to focus on other matters, but it can never be simply swept under the rug and forgotten ... At least not by the author. Not if you wish to be taken seriously by educated Christians. As for myself, I'm afraid that your mystical bent has already got the better of you, and we just started the essay!
.
. . . Oh, stop already U

] someone say: <snip> Thank the Lord for his good grace and merciful providence!
.
 Everywhere in Satan's Great & Shiny Kingdom, small seeds of the Heavenly Father's silent and humble kingdom poke through the dirt seeking light and life in the strange new realm of cyber-space . . . Small seeds nurtured only on the gentle mists of the Holy Spirit as She wafts first this way, then that; raining Her soft graces upon whomsoever She wills ... Seeking out Her heroes and heroines to feed the starving sheep of the Lord's forgotten flock.
.
 Sayeth the Lord:  "Let the harvest be abundant. Let the Law-of-Love be burned into every human heart!"

/ Topic > Re: Nich-OB/Replyto4Responders / 25 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] textman previously wrote: Padraic42 - You have more than a touch of the extreme yourself.
] Your 1500 years of one big happy and unmove-able Church is absurd.
.
> Padraic42 responds: The Church hasn't 'moved' in over 1500 years. At least in it's teaching, it has constantly
> taught what Christ taught. Now, since Luther seems intent on himself as some sort of self proclaimed
> prophet; "Inasmuch as I know that I am right, I will judge above you and the angels, as St. Paul says, that
> whoever does not accept my doctrine cannot be saved." (Martin Luther; July 1522). Everyone (faithful that is)
> in the Church before that saw the Church as the 'pillar and bulwark' of truth. But we see Luther saying that
> HE is the pillar and bulwark of truth. So, if you think 'I'm' extreme because I trust God who said that His
> Church would remain and would be this pillar and bulwark of truth, Luther is even more so.
> (And a little eaten up with himself as well)
.
 textman answers: Dear Padraic42, that's what I like most about you. Your arguments are wonderfully one-sided, illogical, and almost unintelligible. If you had any respect for the dynamics of church history and theological development, you would never dare to claim that the church "has constantly taught what Christ taught." Did Christ teach papal infallibility and the Marian dogmas? ... Certainly NOT!
.
 As to your obvious hatred of Martin Luther; this too demonstrates a profound disrespect for the dynamics and necessities of church history. The church has always moved in cycles: from times of faith to times of unfaith. And in these latter times it pleases God to send forth one brave soul to risk everything for the Truth. But rather than respect the mystery of Divine Providence, most 'loyal Catholics' would much rather piss all over a man who is unable to defend himself (being - as it were - dead). Nevertheless, I'm quite sure that you consider your views on Luther to be supremely 'objective and dispassionate'. As for myself, I do not care to to judge 'the great ones' of the past according to the hypocritical and self-serving standards of today's 'enlightened and progressive' Christians.

/ Re: Nich-OB/Reply to 4Responders / 28 May 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
 Dear Dooley, As to 'truth', it might be helpful to make a distinction between absolute truth (eg. JC is the Way, the Truth, and the Life) and historical (or factual) truths (eg. Martin Luther began the Reformation in 1517 by posting his 39 Theses on the church door). So absolute truth remains constant through the generations, but the way we think about it, and express it in words, does change. This Truth is essential to the Faith, but the accidental truths of history are not (although often it is difficult to say which is which). As Paul suggests: in this world we see through a glass darkly.
.
 Now it is not my intention to shatter the truths upon which people base their faith, but I think it important that we should be able to question anything and everything; especially our most cherished illusions (which are often confused with absolute truth). Let me give you one example: you said "Jesus is God ... that has not and will not change." But the early Greek churches only gradually formed the 'strange notion' of the Trinity. Indeed, for the earliest churches, the question of Jesus' divinity did not even arise. Jesus was known as the Messiah, or the Christ, which is to say 'The Anointed One'. But there was no confusion here with God. God was the Heavenly Father (ie. the God of Jesus), and Jesus was his agent sent to judge and redeem the world. Even as late as the third century, there were still some few Christians who did not believe that Jesus is God.
.
 In the same way, Arius and his followers proposed the idea that Jesus was the first-born of all creation. Not quite God as such, but certainly higher than all the angels. A Savior yes, but also still a creature. Now the interesting thing about all this is that this theology proved to be very popular, and was accepted by many bishops and churches; and they did not consider themselves heretical in any way, shape, or form. So the Church faced many difficulties and challenges in those first few centuries, but this one could have gone either way. Indeed, if circumstances had been but slightly different, it would have been the Arians who got to define what is orthodox and what is not. So if you can appreciate the significance of all this, then you can begin to understand just how fragile and vulnerable the Faith really is.
.
 Thus when people think of the Church of Canada (if ever they do) they simply assume that she's 'fine, just fine', because, after all, the Church has survived 2000 years of turmoil and obviously cannot be damaged. What an incredibly dangerous assumption this is! For a long time I shared in these comforting illusions myself. Then came the rude-awakening, and I was made to realize that the Canadian Church is corrupt and rotten to the core; all the way through from the twisted teachers and apathetic leaders, to the over-pious parish priests, to the heartless and self-involved pew-dweller. Then I started asking some hard questions, and that's when the shit hit the fan (as they say). You see, the last thing the Church wants is a zealous Seeker After Truth!
.
 So basically what I discovered is that everything that is wrong with the Canadian Church can be traced to one simple cause: the Church has lost her faith, her direction, her moral and spiritual discernment, because she has lost all contact with the Scriptures. Oh yes, the Book is still there, in the classrooms and in the liturgy; still 'in the air' (so to speak), but the Word of Truth never gets past the ears, never goes through the mind down into the heart (which is its only true resting place). Simply put, it is the colossal loss of respect and gratitude that has emptied The Book of all its truth, and made of it a meaningless and impotent liturgical tool. So let me ask you this: Can the Church even claim to know the Truth when she closes her heart to the very Voice of our Lord?
.
 As to your suggestion that we "can't throw the baby out with the bath water" ... well, perhaps you haven't heard, but it's a historical fact/truth that the Church kept the baby, but threw out the bath water! HA! [ie. just an offhanded reference to the corrupt practice of infant baptism.]

P.S. They did not give up on me, Dooley; they Willfully & Sadistically expelled me!

/ Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy, alt.bible /
/ Forum > tol > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Religion / Date > 4 Feb 2012 / Topic >

 The last and most famous tale of two New Testament prophets is that masterpiece of early christian literature, that hybrid of history and fiction and theology which is the two-part heroic-opera which was later torn apart into two books entitled 'the Gospel According to Luke' (the story of the divine messiah) and 'the Acts of the Apostles' (the story of the uber-prophet Paulos). The multi-talented author of Lk-Acts (an early 2nd-century Roman theologian) doubtless got the 'tale of two-prophets' idea from John's Gospel, where we see the theme displayed by contrasting and/or partnering Moses (the primal uber-prophet) and Jesus (the Messiah as the divine-Logos incarnate). And also from the classic examples in the Old Testament (eg. Elijah and Elisha).
.
 Luke saw all this and thought, 'This is a good christian theme, to be sure. Perhaps I can do something with Jesus and Paulos?' And then he simply ran with it. Hey, it's a tough act to follow, no doubt. Which is why his two-fold book dwarf's the other NT documents in sheer textual bulk. Fortunately, when it comes to important documents, size doesn't really matter as much as quality. Ergo, it is a good time for the cyber-saints to finally snag another 'tale of two NT prophets'. It is a short story that most believers have probably never heard, even though it has the dubious advantage of going heavy on the history and very lightly on the theology ...
.
 If we can say that the origins of Christianity date from the beginning of Jesus' prophetic ministry (round about 30CE), then the still emergent religion was only twenty years young when three greek-speaking jewish messiah-believers landed hard in Greece. Two of these were apostles (which are prophets of the Christos), and it was there in Athens (c.49CE) that Paulos of Damascus, and his fellow intrepid-spirit Silvanus, began their short-lived collaboration involving the creation of the "epistle" as a vehicle for the good-news (of salvation through Jesus Christ). The product of this unique prophetic-partnership was the four letters (later to become 1&2Thes) sent to the newly born assembly of Christ-believers in the northward city of Thessalonica; which place they had left only several weeks earlier. Paulos was in rather poor shape at the time; being angry, frightened, and desperate after a decade of more or less non-stop traveling.
.
 Being expelled from the holy-city of Jerusalem, along with the other too-bold and radical greek-speaking jewish-believers, he had traveled with some of these to Alexandria where he learned the details of the Faith from the others, even as they were establishing the first church in Egypt there. After learning all he could from these other early believers, and reflecting on all these strange theological ideas that were so intimately bound up with this small jewish-cult of messiah-worshipers, Paulos promptly began thinking for himself. And, of course, that's when the trouble started. For Paulos was relentless in his determination to adjust the Faith to a world where the Holy City was denied to them (but not to the members of the original aramaic-speaking mother-church still in Jerusalem).
.
 It seemed quite obvious to Paulos that since they were all living in the Roman Empire anyway they might as well bring the good-news to all the gentiles everywhere around them. And if this meant adapting the message and forms (and theology) of the Faith so as to make them intelligible to these alien gentiles, well, by golly, he was just the man to do it. But the collective wisdom of the assembly was more interested in establishing a peaceful relationship with the city than in these troublesome new notions from this bothersome upstart. Eventually Paulos left the great city for visits to the churches in the cities of Palestine, then Syria, then continuing on around the eastern shores of the Great Sea, to Asia Minor, and from there to Greece. Along the way he found friends and allies (such as Timothy and Silvanus), but a rather cool reception from the "pillars" of the still newly established churches in and around Antioch. Authority in the early churches revolved around the leaders of the churches in the three major cities: James in Jerusalem, John in Alexandria, and Peter in Antioch.
.
 So we see that even before Paulos and Silvanus broke away from the older jewish-christian traditions to become the true founders of the christian religion within the Roman Empire, there already existed a variety of customs and practices, along with different theologies. There is no one right way of doing and thinking a new and growing religion. So it should come as no surprise that the first four documents (that would later become a part of the early collections of Paul's letters) show two similar but slightly different theologies; for this is the natural result of a collaboration of apostles. Alas, Paulos was not the sort of man who is built for collaboration, and so Silvanus soon found himself heading north-west into untrampled fields well away from the influence of the three pillars, as well as the churches in Greece and Asia Minor under Paul's aggressive leadership.
.
 So Paulos went on to write many more letters in the decade ahead (c.50-60CE); always pondering, changing, and developing his theology through the busy months and years. And then came his unexpected and mysterious disappearance while on the way to Jerusalem, carrying with him a bag of cash (being a gift for the poor believers from the almost as poor greek-believers). 'Beware Greeks bearing gifts'? With Paulos it is always a valid caution; but in this case it's more a matter of 'Beware those who rob and kill Greeks bearing gifts'.
.
 And while Paulos abruptly vanishes out of the meager sight of early church-history, the forgotten apostle Silvanus remained in relative seclusion among his few churches over the horizon to the NW of Asia Minor. There he spent the years quietly writing and gathering his little homilies, wherein he poured forth his maturing theology, and over time these were collected into a document that later became known as "the First Epistle of Peter" (but which should rightly be called 'the Teachings of the Apostle Silvanus'). So here is a sad tale of the two mighty prophets who founded christianity (and began the christian literary traditions), wherein one made a big splash full of noise and authority and influence, while the other was quietly shoved aside in favor of a greater apostolic authority, in the vain political game of creating the great "heroes of christian authority"! :(

P.S. For more information on the first twenty years of church-history see 'The
Church that Persecution Built: the Thessalonian Epistles in Context' by textman.

textman
*