Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[lyrikal]

well hello and welcome to the party…long time no see

Thank you, Radical. Glad to be here. It’s a pleasure running into you again.

if that were truly the choice, you’d have a point, but that is a false dichotomy…I am hardly alone. Ambrose is one of the fathers that you quoted. Tell me, why should I accept Ambrose’s opinion over the opinion of a modern theologian/scholar when both are working off scripture?

He was closer to the Apostolic period. We are 2000 years removed from the Apostles. He was only a few hundred years removed. Some of the other Church Fathers were only a couple of hundred years removed from the Apostles. Do you think the scholars today are unanimous in this area? Or any area? You will find renowned and respected scholars disagreeing with each other on many issues. Here, we have presented to you a teaching that no Church Father has written against. It is unanimous. That speaks volumes.

I note that the modern scholar probably has better scripture to work from

And yet they disagree with each other on this very issue. You quote your scholar, I’ll quote mine. It’s really what you decide to be the truth and you cling on to the scholars that agree with you. It makes Christianity subjective and truth no longer becomes objective. Two + two can equal 5 for one scholar and 4 for another and we are left guessing what the truth is based on what convinces us. This is hardly what Jesus imagined His Church to operate as. If that was the case, then why hold a council in Acts 15? The Apostles could have just determined the truth on their own based on what they found convincing. What chaos that would have brought!

(I believe that I may have pointed out to you a couple Augustine’s poor ramblings based on a bad interpretation).

I thank you for that discussion on Augustine. It reaffirms what I always believed (That Augustine believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist). I’m better equipped to defend it now, thanks to our discussion.

I note that the modern scholar probably has better linguistic skills and his work is open to interaction with and criticism from other able scholars.

And I note that the scholars disagree on pretty much every issue. You’ve proven nothing and you’re left with nothing but confusion and subjectivity. Actually, you’ve proven that your method of coming to the truth only brings division and chaos. What convinces you does not convince me and what convinces me does not convince you. So what are we supposed to do? Remain divided? Do you really think Christianity was meant to be this individualistic in the way it operates? Everyone just becomes their own pope?

really it is the consensus found in the surviving works of the ECFs vs. the opinion of scholars favored by Radical

Argument from silence won’t be of much help for you here. But by all means, whatever makes you sleep better at night.

those that accept the “consensus” seem to believe that the ECFs possessed some grand spiritual charisma that prevented them from collectively straying into grave error and those that don’t recognize the ECFs as great spiritual leaders who unfortunately made mistakes and collectively fell into error occasionally…IMHO you and yours see the ECFs through very rose-coloured glasses

When all of the Church Fathers agree on a topic, then we accept that as a universal teaching and apostolic. How can we not? If one Church Father in one part of the world accepts it, and another in another part accepts the same teaching, and another and another and another…chances are, it came from the Apostles and was passed down.

Iron rod?

What’s the issue here?

or you could just note that scripture and the things in it point to Jesus…and have no need to try and force it to point to Mary too.

And you could just note that we are talking about the mother of Jesus here, not Lady Gaga. She is the most important creature ever lived. Her importance comes from the fact that she bore God. She is important to us because God chose to bring salvation for us through her (literally).

yes it is historical, but that hardly makes it apostolic.

When we had our Eucharist discussion, you seemed to give the impression that you don’t believe in the RP of Christ in the Eucharist because you believe that some Church Fathers believed it was symbolic. Now that there is a teaching that every Father agrees on, you use another argument by saying “it’s not apostolic.” Well, what makes a teaching apostolic in your opinion?

and you know about this lack of communication how?

and you can prove that every Church Father that I quoted communicated with each other about this very topic? Please show me such evidence. Until then, I will stand by what I said.

 

[lyrikal]

hmmm…that sure sounds like a natural childbirth to me…but for the PVof M to exist a supernatural birth process is required that leaves the hymen intact (virginity in partu)…so what is it? Is the woman Mary and did she endure a normal birth process…if so, great, the PVof M is eliminated…or is it that the woman isn’t Mary and you are just grasping at straws?

Or the woman could be more than just one thing. I personally believe it’s Mary, the Church and Jerusalem. All three come with problems and don’t fit perfectly. I’ll show you how your stance doesn’t work as great either…

again, the scholarly opinion in the book Mary in the New Testament has the primary meaning of the woman as being the people of God…

By people of God, I assume you mean the Church? If not, then what do you mean? If so, how can you say that the Church produced Christ? The passage suggests the woman brought forth the Messiah. Did not the Messiah start the Church? Here, you have something that doesn’t fit perfectly. Yet, I am willing to concede that you are right but your “scholarly stance” here is not the only stance that is right.

Also, you don’t think there are scholars out there that believe the woman to be Mary? Let’s not kid ourselves here.

and it was unclear as to whether a secondary reference to Mary could also be found.

Well good for that scholar. Unfortunately for you, he’s not the only scholar alive today.

That is why I quite like modern scholarship…

Or you like the ones that agree with you.

when a position has to be defended against qualified peers…then the over-reaching and subjective claims tend to get shelved (so as to avoid unnecessary embarrassment)…alas that safeguard wasn’t in place with the ECFs.

Again, scholars are divided on pretty much every issue. That proves nothing and I’m not sure why you put your faith on scholars so much. You quote one and I quote one and we end up with a “my scholar can beat your scholar” debate. But if you want to go on thinking that scholars all agree with each other and are more at peace with each other than hippies then that’s on you.

God bless.

 

[lyrikal]

to be precise, fallible men, who are part of the CC, have declared their belief that certain decisions (accepted by the CC) of other men (who are otherwise quite fallible) were made infallibly (let’s call this the CC Belief)

and to be precise, fallible men, who are part of the protestant church, have declared their belief that Scripture (accepted by the protestant church) was written by men (who are otherwise quite fallible) and yet were inerrant and inspired by God when writing.

What exactly is the problem here?

 

[PRmerger]

and to be precise, fallible men, who are part of the protestant church, have declared their belief that Scripture (accepted by the protestant church) was written by men (who are otherwise quite fallible) and yet were inerrant and inspired by God when writing.

What exactly is the problem here?

This is a trenchant point and one that cannot be dismissed.

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

 

[Radical]

This is a trenchant point and one that cannot be dismissed.

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

I don’t suppose you’ve been to a Catholic Mass lately?

It is nothing but Jewish*. We have never smashed the images of Judaism, but rather have embraced them.

*Please note hyperbole here.

 

[cheezey]

This is a trenchant point and one that cannot be dismissed.

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Do you think all Protestants are that vehemently opposed to the CC? Opposed, obviously, but with an angry pointed finger? Just wondering.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Regarding the "burn the vestments:

Perhaps you haven’t seen a Catholic priest’s liturgical garments lately, Radical?

Compare the Jewish tradition:



with the Catholic one:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Burn the vestments? Not so much. :nope:

What does your pastor wear during your worship services?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you think all Protestants are that vehemently opposed to the CC? Opposed, obviously, but with an angry pointed finger? Just wondering.

No, not at all.

But the point is that they deny men can be infallible, yet inexplicably take a book written by men they believe to be infallible, and codified by men they believe to be fallible, and claim to know, infallibly, that it is God’s Word.

Protestants have no apologia for this.

 

[PRmerger]

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Declare the altar no longer needed?

That is a very puzzling statement, Radical. I am certain that you have seen one of these before in a Catholic church, if not in person, but in pictures.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[joe370]

No, not at all.

But the point is that they deny men can be infallible, yet inexplicably take a book written by men they believe to be infallible, and codified by men they believe to be fallible, and claim to know, infallibly, that it is God’s Word.

Protestants have no apologia for this.

Which means, logically speaking, that folks like Radical must believe that fallible men can teach infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit. At least the authors of scripture. That’s a good question: how can he know infallibly that the bible is in fact God’s infallible word?

 

[cheezey]

This is a trenchant point and one that cannot be dismissed.

Yes. It calls to mind a quote from apologist Mark Shea regarding Protestants who are recusant to the authority of the CC:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

No, not at all.

But the point is that they deny men can be infallible, yet inexplicably take a book written by men they believe to be infallible, and codified by men they believe to be fallible, and claim to know, infallibly, that it is God’s Word.

Protestants have no apologia for this.

Oh, understood!! I figured you were speaking, for lack of a better word, symbolicallly:
after all, I have never seen a Protestant knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar. Doubt I ever will, either.

 

[cheezey]

Which means, logically speaking, that folks like Radical must believe that fallible men can teach infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit. At least the authors of scripture. That’s a good question: how can he know infallibly that the bible is in fact God’s infallible word?

good point…

who amongst us is perfect?

 

[PRmerger]

Which means, logically speaking, that folks like Radical must believe that fallible men can teach infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit.

Indeed. I suspect, thanks to the CAFs, some Protestants with integrity will never ever again say, “Men cannot be infallible! Only God can be infallible!”

That’s a good question: how can he know infallibly that the bible is in fact God’s infallible word?

There is no other way, except through submission to the authority of the Catholic Church, which infallibly discerned this canon of Scripture for him.

 

[Good_Fella]

Which means, logically speaking, that folks like Radical must believe that fallible men can teach infallibly via the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit. At least the authors of scripture. That’s a good question: how can he know infallibly that the bible is in fact God’s infallible word?

Could it be wishful thinking?

PAX

 

[Porknpie]

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin: You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

I googled the quote and get a Mark Shea article…excerpt below

crisismagazine.com/2009/on-finding-christ-in-the-church

 

[Porknpie]

Hmmm…that calls to mind a quote (that I seem to recall) from a first century Sadducee regarding Christians who are recusant to the authority of the Sanhedrin:

You have the mysterious conviction that you can attack a procession of Jewish worshippers, overturn the tables of the money changers, tear the temple veil in two, burn the vestments, smash the images, and declare the altar to be needed no longer – yet inexplicably seize our Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.

Here’s an excerpt from the article

If I were asked to summarize the typical cultural narrative of Christianity to which the average Westerner holds, it would be something like this:

“Jesus was a good man who taught us to love each other, but tragically he was killed (nobody really knows why, but it probably had something to do with “religious conservatives” who were as bigoted then as they are now). His disciples totally misunderstood almost everything he said and built up this gigantic legend around him, full of miracles and other fictional rubbish in order to construct a vast and complicated church that encrusted the simple ideals of his philosophy like barnacles on the hull of a boat. He never in his life dreamt of, much less intended, a gigantic world-spanning Church to worship him. Anything in the New Testament that says otherwise was just pasted in after his tragic death. Our task today is to peel away the crust of Churchianity and get back to appreciating the simply homely wisdom of a great teacher by understanding who he really was and what he really meant.”

Of course, one can find varieties of this meme that don’t accept every point asserted above. The various Protestantisms will (usually) accept that Jesus did, in fact, claim to be God and credit at least the apostolic generation (and maybe even a few later generations) with fidelity to His message. The New Age will admit some hazy testimony to the paranormal about Him, but only to reinforce the central message that “His teachings have been distorted and His essential message has been lost.”

Secular culture might occasionally stray in the opposite direction a bit by attributing to Jesus some malign motive his sheep were too stupid to grasp. But, as a general rule, the meme “Jesus meant well, but the Church has totally and completely obscured Him and His message” is a hardy perennial in modern Western thought. Against the “simple primitive gospel of Jesus” is habitually pitted the “Christ of faith” and the dead theologizing of creeds and councils.

Now, the remarkable thing about this meme is that it is, in almost every detail, an article of faith – and, what is more, faith in a purely legendary accounting of history. There is not a syllable of actual support for it in anything that the contemporary documents tracing the development of the Christian faith actually show us. It is simply a content-free assertion that the majority of our culture accepts because they have heard it asserted many times from their TVs, radios, and co-workers around water coolers.

All this present-day conviction that the sure road to the Real Jesus is to take a massive detour around the Church is, I think, largely the Protestant Creation Myth in the last throes of decay into complete imbecility. For, of course, the great boast of the Protestant revolt against the Church was precisely that it proposed to “free” Jesus from the false ideas the Church had imposed on Him and get us back to the pure and original Jesus whose gospel had been so corrupted. Give that notion a head of steam and turn it loose through Western history and you wind up, well, where we are.

The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle. The heirs of these revolutionaries were astounded when later generations did to their Holy Book what they had done to the rest of the Tradition – and in their turn went off to find various Jesuses who said exactly what they themselves thought, based on the shred of “authentic sayings” they cherry-picked from Q or proto-Mark or their favorite bits of the Gospel of Thomas. They proceeded happily, Questing for a Historical Jesus, until (to their astonishment) still another generation arose to dissolve that New Jesus in the acid bath of skepticism and erect a still newer one in his place.

And so we arrive at the present hour, when the notion that we have to avoid the Church to find Jesus has become our normative cultural narrative, now spouted with less reflection than a child parroting his prayers. For the child, at least, never fails to ask thoughtful questions, like: “If God made everything, who made God?” while the modern mind never thinks to ask how we know the Church corrupted the simple gospel of Christ, nor how we know what that simple gospel was if we reflexively reject the only possible source of knowledge about Him: namely, the Church that carefully preserved the testimony of “those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Lk 1:2), those who paid with their blood for bearing witness to “that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands” (1 Jn 1:1).

This is no small reason why one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church is absolutely necessary. For the exact opposite of the meme I recounted at the beginning of this essay is true: The earliest Christians had no concept of the Church as the Obscurer of All That Is Truly Christian and emphatically no notion that the surest way to know the Head of the Church was to ignore His body.

 

[Candescent]

Awesome post my friend.

I just want to say that I have learned so much from reading this thread! Thank you to all of you

 

[panevino]

Oh, understood!! I figured you were speaking, for lack of a better word, symbolicallly:
after all, I have never seen a Protestant knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar. Doubt I ever will, either.

youtu.be/PrPrbdonJ68

 

[cheezey]

Indeed. I suspect, thanks to the CAFs, some Protestants with integrity will never ever again say, “Men cannot be infallible! Only God can be infallible!”

I suspect that many Protestants with integrity would never say that anyway…