Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[lyrikal]

There are no maps, no Tom, no Dick, no Harry, no Boston’s downtown and none of this is working for you. Please see above. This is so easily refuted. I find it hard to believe that you would even use this analogy. My analogy is more direct and it doesn’t ignore reality but relates to what the ECFs mean to Christianity more so than what your analogy does.

Do you think you know more about what the Apostles preached better than St. Ignatius of Antioch did?

See above. The only one fooling himself is you.

submitting to error for the sake of unity isn’t the solution….BTW what percentage of Catholics think that the teaching magisterium of the CC is infallible? Given that many reject supposedly infallible teachings, it sounds like it can’t be much greater than 50% if even that. Given that your own house is divided against itself on this issue, why should I want to join your confusion and subjectivity?

And do you really think that your version of Christianity with no bishops/priests is a historical one? Weren’t the Fathers unanimous that bishops and priests are required? And what were the Apostles? Why did Jesus tell people to baptize? Why not just baptize yourself? What’s the point of someone baptizing you? Why not just teach yourself? Why not just pray to God yourself? Why ask someone else to pray for you?

So you want us to follow your subjective and fallible truth? Nice.

Come on Radical, you’re smarter than that. Paul calls himself father and John’s letters, he’s addressing “Fathers” so obviously it wasn’t meant literally.

It’s either Apostolic or not. Can truth change? Can we omit altogether what Christ and the Apostles established?

If you think they were considerably removed from the matter, then I wonder what you think about yourself living in 2013.

I never said they didn’t. I’m telling you to prove that they did with regards to Mary being the new ark.

Oops!

Oops, this part was supposed to be your (Radical’s) part:

submitting to error for the sake of unity isn’t the solution….BTW what percentage of Catholics think that the teaching magisterium of the CC is infallible? Given that many reject supposedly infallible teachings, it sounds like it can’t be much greater than 50% if even that. Given that your own house is divided against itself on this issue, why should I want to join your confusion and subjectivity?

God gave Moses 10 commandments to give to the people. If half those people reject those commandments and want to accept only 3 of them, does that make the commandments in error? Or does that make the individual who rejects the other 7 in error?

The only way that you can have COMPLETE unity is if you FORCE people to accept your beliefs by pointing a gun to their head. If God Himself respects our freedom and gives us free will to choose between right and wrong, then why do you expect an organization to force people into belief for the sake of unity? Unity comes with freely accepting the truth.

For the sake of the argument, let’s say that the teachings of the Catholic Church are the true teachings. What does it matter whether 50% or less or more of Catholics believe it? Does it make her teachings any less true? No. It just makes those people more foolish not to accept them. And those who do accept them, are UNITED AS ONE IN THE TRUE CHURCH. And those who do not, are outside of the true Church even though they are called Catholic by means of their baptism. Numbers don’t matter. And with the people who are united in doctrine, THOSE are the ones that FULLY belong to the true Church and therefore you have ONE Church with a body of believers who agree on doctrine.

With your position, please point me to the official teachings of the protestant church. And if you have it, please tell me…am I required to believe these teachings or can I disagree with them if my scholars disagree with your set of beliefs?

 

[panevino]

Originally Posted by panevino
Sorry to jump in and apology for being off topic…
I am no expert, however I am not sure that it would be easy to deny that Ambrose in Milan taught a real substantial presence,…

you are right…after the Antiochene school in the east argued for it, Ambrose championed the idea in the west.

Given the way in which Ambrose became bishop it is clear that he was taught this view by those before him.

I don’t see how this follows.

Ambrose became a Bishop abruptly in his life, prior to theological training.
He was taught by Simplican (who was from Rome I think and ~10 years older)
Simplican taught both Ambrose and Augustine.
Simplican also succeeded as Bishop when Ambrose died(with Ambrose saying something along the lines of “old but good” - I doubt Ambrose would endorse Simplican if he held a different view of the Eucharist - I also doubt Simplican would of changed a pre-Ambrose view of the Eucharist based on his ‘student’ - for lack of a better word)
I recall that Augustine (in his book confessions) describes a clarity in the preaching of Ambrose which really helped him overcome his misunderstandings of Catholic doctrine.

that is probably the strongest argument left for Augustine actually holding to a real BODILY presence…but given the variety of views that existed within orthodoxy at the time, it simply wouldn’t follow that Augustine was taught by Ambrose that he must believe in a real bodily presence or that, if he was taught in that manner, that he would have felt compelled to follow Ambrose instead of an alternate view. As such, we are thrown back to what Augustine actually wrote…and he has Peter eating Christ’s flesh on the day of the bread of life discourse…before any Eucharist existed.

perhaps Omnipresence. Ambrose or Augustine aimed for unity of doctrine, with Augustine playing a role in later Council’s. This does not point to a skip in Eucharistic definition between immediate brothers in Christ.

While Augustine’s book confessions is not intended as a theological study of doctrine, it does provide a glimpse of his thoughts on various doctrines, including the Eucharist,
Confessions(r.s pine-coffin)
Book IX
“… For she knew that at your altar we receive the holy Victim, who cancelled the decree made to our prejudice…”

Book XIII
“…through the sacrament of the Eucharist, when the Fish which was raised from the depths is held out to us and is received as food by the faithful earth…”

 

[Good_Fella]

… the ECFs are merely a set of theologians who are not modern…so they merely form part of a body of theologians who are not unanimous on this issue….

The Early Church Fathers were more than theologians, and apologists. Not only did they preach what was traditionally handed down to them, but they did unanimously (paradosis). And what they preached and taught was fundamentally that which was taught by the Magisterium of the Church. Their apologetic works were directed against heretics and dissenters from the one true Christian faith. The Patristic Church Fathers fall into three periods: Apostolic, ante-Nicene, and (Nicene) post-Nicene. The Apostolic Fathers were contemporaries of the apostles and were taught directly by them. They faithfully carried on the traditions they had received. The ante-Nicene Fathers are those who succeeded them up to the time of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, which defined much of what the ECFs bore witness to and defended against heretics and their heterodoxal doctrines, the Fathers having set the standard for what was regarded as sound biblical and traditional teaching. The post-Nicene Fathers are those who came after the general Council up to the turn of the new millennium. They notably include those figures of the 5th century. Individually the Fathers did speculate in theology and taught as pastors in a fallible capacity, but many of their insights were embraced by the Magisterium when it infallibly defined doctrines and clarified the basic tenets of the Church. The designation of theirs as being fathers of the Church implies that they were more than theologians. They were pastors and shepherds who vitally served to help lay and fortify the foundation of the Church for the sake of establishing the true teachings of the Church and preserving doctrinal unity once and for all. They existed at the time of the major heresies which not only caused division, but also threatened to destroy Church unity and thereby the Church itself as Jesus meant it should exist (Mt 12:30).

***On Apostolic Succession.

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit (ordination), to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”
St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 90)

“True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrines of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of the Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, lV.33.8 (A.D. 180)

“If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ For to Peter succeeded Linus, Clement … Damasus, Sircius, Anastasias. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is to be found.”
St. Augustine, To Generosus, Epistle 53:2 (A.D. 400)

On the Eucharist.

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer (worship), because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of Jesus Christ.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 7, 1 (c.A.D. 110)

“He acknowledged the cup as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood, and the bread he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our own bodies.”
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V.2.2 (c.A.D. 200)

“Perhaps you will say, ‘I see something else, how is it that you assert I receive the Body of Christ?’ And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing, nature itself is changed … Jesus himself proclaims: ‘This is my body.’”
St. Ambrose, On the Mysteries, 9:50 (A.D. 390-391)

On the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.

“And hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary*** and her child bearing (virgin birth) and likewise also the death of our Lord – three mysteries to be cried aloud – the which were wrought in the silence of God.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Ephesians, 19, 1 (c.A.D.110)

“…and those of them who proclaimed him as Emmanuel, born of the Virgin, exhibited the union of the Word of God with His own workmanship, declaring that the Word should become flesh and the Son of God the Son of Man (the pure One opening purely that pure womb, which regenerates man unto God, and which he himself made pure); and having become this which we also are.”
St. Ireneaus, Against Heresies, lV.33.15 (c.A.D.188)

“But as we do not deny what is written, so we do reject what is not wriiten. We believe that God was born of the Virgin because we read it. That Mary was married after she brought forth, we do not believe, because we do not read it.”
St. Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvidius, 21 (A.D. 383)

And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.
2 Timothy 2, 2

PAX

 

[Porknpie]

as I have pointed out…the earliest ECF (Tertullian) to address the matter rejected the PVofM. …

[SIGN]Announcing once again…Tertullian is not an ECF[/SIGN]

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Tertullian

 

[Good_Fella]

[SIGN]Announcing once again…Tertullian is not an ECF[/SIGN]

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Tertullian

Radical is mistaken if he thinks Tertullian is the first ecclesiastical writer or ECF to mention or even allude to Mary being ever-virgin. The Apostolic Father St. Ignatius of Antioch, very likely a former disciple of the apostle John, is.

PAX

 

[Radical]

It’s more like saying…I can tell you more about my 3 dead grandparents than my son can. The further away you are from the grandparents, the less reliable the truth becomes. Unless of course, I pass down the teachings about my grandparents to my future offspring and they do the same.

that is a big “unless”…especially since the NT and the Apostolic Fathers barley mention Mary and absolutely none of them make the Ark/Mary connection…the earliest ECF that you referenced was Hippolytus, but your claim that Hippolytus made a Mary/Ark connection is doubtful. Here is the bit that you posted with a bit more added:
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the “ark” made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world,** bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, **at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: “Now it was the sixth hour,” he says intimating by that, one-half of the day.( Dan.vi.)
The first sentence is sloppy with the meaning uncertain….but the third sentence makes it clear that Jesus is the Ark….and if you needed more, here is a further bit from Hippolytus:
And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank and were corrupt because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold. (ON PSALM XXII OR XXIII)
…so now, how far back can you really trace this Ark/Mary connection? Do you even get to within 250 miles of Boston? To suggest that the Mary/Ark connection came from any apostle is over-reaching to say the least.

What issue exactly? Mary being the New Ark? How are they not unanimous? Every Church Father who wrote about it, agrees that Mary is the new Ark.

wrote about what? The NT person who is the Ark? Hippolytus had Christ as the Ark. Mary being the Ark or the tabernacle? Don’t three of the fathers that you listed designate her as the tabernacle (no mention of Ark) and doesn’t one make her the temple? In any event, I don’t place the ECFs in a category by themselves on this issue (unless you can bridge that 250 year gap of silence and justify crediting them with some special information in this regard). They are just a group of theologians (inclined to aggrandize) and only a very, very small percentage of them actually declared the Mary/Ark connection. I drop them in with all other theologians.

Or are you talking about the PV of M? And how are they not unanimous on this? Just because Tertullian didn’t believe it? So one heretic…

please demonstrate that Tertullian was viewed as a heretic in his day…and not a long time after the fact…after novelties (that he didn’t endorse) had been added to the faith

So then truth is subjective to you.

I thought it was that I had the honesty to acknowledge that it was a matter of faith and not objective knowledge.

You completely dismissed that question.

which one?

Alright Radical. If God wanted to set up a papacy office with the gift of infalliblility, then you tell us how it would work?

I would expect most or all of the following:

a) God to mention the gift of infallibility

b) God to mention an office that would possess that gift

c) God to mention that there would be successors to that office

d) God to say how and where those successors would be determined/found.

Would you expect for God to give each and every person the same gift so to discern the infallibilty of the papacy?

no…just something from the Apostles that would expressly indicate that your Church’s claim to an infallible teaching office is valid…

 

[Radical]

And to address your concern more directly, you are forgetting that the Holy Spirit leads people to the truth. So, I’m not relying on myself but on the Holy Spirit. So, yes, in a way, I am subjective, but the Holy Spirit leads me to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is in the Magesterium of the Catholic Church.

hmmm….let’s see how this theory plays out in real life. First, you believe that the Holy Spirit leads you to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in the Magisterium of the CC. An orthodox fellow, on the other hand, believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in a different body. So now we have two conflicting “Objective truths”. A cult member believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in the cult leader(s). hmmm….we now have three competing and conflicting “Objective Truths”….that is the type of result one gets when they subjectively determine that they have an infallible teaching authority.

Now you may ask, “How is that any different than what Protestants say and do?”

too late…I just answered it

. Your version of subjectivity leads to confusion and division while our version leads to unity for all those who accept it. We at least have official teachings of the Church that people can believe in.

well in the past, your version of ”objectivity” led to a lot of oppression, violence and corruption….which contributes to the conclusion that you have unity around error and official teaching that is not free from error whilst you only claim to have unity and objective truth…

Your beliefs are subjective since you cannot claim infalibility for yourself. You cannot claim to have any teaching authority.

claiming infallibility does not result in infallibility or in the elimination of subjectivity….it just gets you “objective truths” that conflict with other “objective truths”. …and claiming a teaching authority doesn’t validate that claimed authority

You assume that we come to the belief of the Church’s teachings by study and nothing else. Haven’t you ever heard of the Holy Spirit leading people to truth? Wouldn’t it make more sense that He would lead people to one truth rather than leave it up to the individual to decide for him/herself what the truth is?

wouldn’t it make sense that if he was going to establish an infallible teaching authority, the it would be clear to all those who cared to pick up a bible…w/o clarity it looks all too self-serving.

There are no maps,…

yes, it is called the NT…contains stuff actually written by those who saw the downtown core….not just words from men that you want to assume received a good description of it and that then, faithfully passed that description on w/o adding a novelty or two.

Do you think you know more about what the Apostles preached better than St. Ignatius of Antioch did?

I have no idea what he knew…but (contrary to what Goodfella thinks) he said no more about Mary than that she was a virgin,…no ever-virgin bit and no Mary/Ark connection.

And do you really think that your version of Christianity with no bishops/priests is a historical one?

the term priest wasn’t used for a Church office for a long, long time.

Weren’t the Fathers unanimous that bishops and priests are required?

Christ was very clear that “lord it over them “ leaders weren’t to be part of the church…Ignatius seems to have somehow missed that.

And what were the Apostles? Why did Jesus tell people to baptize? Why not just baptize yourself? What’s the point of someone baptizing you? Why not just teach yourself? Why not just pray to God yourself? Why ask someone else to pray for you?

what’s the relevance of any of this?

Come on Radical, you’re smarter than that. Paul calls himself father and John’s letters, he’s addressing “Fathers” so obviously it wasn’t meant literally.

there is a clear principle involved which is nicely side-stepped.

It’s either Apostolic or not. Can truth change? Can we omit altogether what Christ and the Apostles established?

can we add to it with self-serving novelties?

 

[Radical]

Without David, you don’t have Mary. Agreed. But Christ coming from Mary isn’t the only thing Mary did. Or do you believe that Jesus raised Himself as an infant? She bore God AND raised Him. She was His mother for crying out loud.

and Jesus indicated that anybody who did the will of his Father, was his mother, brother and sister….Christ placed a greater value on the spiritual family than on the genetic family….for crying out loud.

Cool. I’m glad to know that, to you, John the Baptist is greater than Christ. Since, you know…Christ was also born of a woman.

on many occasions Christ said something about himself that would make him to exception to the rule, but nothing like that was ever said in the NT about Mary (including by Jesus). As such, I am not inclined to merely brush off Christ’s words as inaccurate.

Do you always believe what the earliest said? You do realize that he is alone in this, right?

no I don’t….you realize that perpetual virginity requires ante partum, in partu and post partum? As such, any ECF that talks about the birth opening the womb, or talks about nothing but a natural birth, or talks about Jesus being the firstborn that opened the womb, is pretty well denying virginity in partu. I note Goodfella posted something from Ireneaus regarding opening the womb.

And think about this. Why would Tertullian even bring up the topic if it were not something being discussed during his time?

why not read the bits from Tertullian and find out yourself? …but it wasn’t b/c the addressees were claiming that Mary was an ever-virgin

And if it was being discussed, then we can safely assume that people during his time believed she was a virgin. He was just the first one to pen his opinion. That doesn’t make his opinion the first one and apostolic.

Tertullian thought she was a virgin and referred to her as such…but you should note that virgin does not equal ever-virgin.

I’ll let Jerome do the talking on this.

we covered this long ago on this thread

People like you want to strip Mary of anything positive and your hatred towards Catholicism has blinded your vision and I’m afraid that your opinion suffers greatly from the simple fact that it’s biased. … your hatred towards Catholicism has blinded you from seeing how this could possibly be Mary.

are you having a bad day?..”people like me”? Why do you declare that I hate Catholicism?..b/c I say it is wrong wrt certain matters?..am I to understand that you hate me b/c you tell me I am wrong a lot? …and it seems from the “biased” claim that you have joined the others on the porch of the glass house.

I find it to be a huge coincidence that the last verse of chapter 11 talks about an Ark and the first verse of chapter 12 talks about a woman giving birth to the Messiah. What are the chances?

well, when we consider that the entire NT was searched for any connection whatsoever and this is the best that was found…it is hardly a huge coincidence. What’s more, the author does nothing to equate the Ark with the woman. On the contrary the Ark is mentioned with one set of things and the woman is mentioned with a different set of things…that is how one would distinguish between two things, not connect them.

So then you come up with your beliefs and you go digging for scholars who agree with your beliefs? Or do you believe that your beliefs about Christianity are shared by a “consensus of scholars”?

I don’t go digging for scholars who agree with me…they are very easy to find…all one has to do is avoid those who will interpret history with a need to validate a certain faith position as opposed to allowing the evidence to lead where it will.

Mary giving birth to Christ and the woman giving birth to the Messiah in Revelations 12 is now over-reaching?

the declaration of a definite connection between the two sure is…but when it is the best that you got….

Peace.

and back at you

 

[Radical]

God gave Moses 10 commandments to give to the people. If half those people reject those commandments and want to accept only 3 of them, does that make the commandments in error? Or does that make the individual who rejects the other 7 in error?

the “God gave” bit should give you your answer…surely you know that the issue is whether “God gave” your church the teaching of perpetual virginity.

The only way that you can have COMPLETE unity is if you FORCE people to accept your beliefs by pointing a gun to their head.

thankfully, gone are the days where that was allowed by Catholic and Protestant princes (by the sword vs gun)…and the odd inquisitor

With your position, please point me to the official teachings of the protestant church.

see the scriptures…everything else is of a less reliable class.

And if you have it, please tell me…am I required to believe these teachings or can I disagree with them if my scholars disagree with your set of beliefs?

since I am not the one claiming an infallible teaching authority that says some things must be believed…I’ll grant you a little more leeway

 

[Radical]

This does not point to a skip in Eucharistic definition between immediate brothers in Christ.

it isn’t about skipping…it is about “real presence” (a term that wasn’t used)…so let’s make it the phrase “is Christ’s body” being used in a considerable variety of ways throughout the empire so that a monolithic view didn’t exist and wasn’t required.

 

[PRmerger]

since I am not the one claiming an infallible teaching authority that says some things must be believed…I’ll grant you a little more leeway

Er, yes you are, Radical.

Unless you want to tell us what other authority you are using to declare that the NT is the inspired word of God.

You know that Hebrews is inspired, how?

And that the Shepherd of Hermas is not, how?

 

[panevino]

it isn’t about skipping…it is about “real presence” (a term that wasn’t used)…so let’s make it the phrase “is Christ’s body” being used in a considerable variety of ways throughout the empire so that a monolithic view didn’t exist and wasn’t required.

I used the word skipping in reference to a claimed difference in view of the eucharist (ie: is Christs body) between the intimately connected Ambrose - Augustine - Simplican.
Particularly given thier passionate search and defence of Catholic doctrine, which is evident in thier writtings (Ambrose and Augustine)

 

[Good_Fella]

I have no idea what he knew…but (contrary to what Goodfella thinks) he said no more about Mary than that she was a virgin,…no ever-virgin bit and no Mary/Ark connection.
the term priest wasn’t used for a Church office for a long, long time.

That Ignatius of Antioch understood Mary to be ever-virgin is implied in his Letter to the Ephesians, 19, 1. He mentions three mysteries: Mary’s virginity (a state), the virgin birth of Jesus (an event), and the death of our Lord. He does not speak of only two mysteries: the virgin birth and death of Jesus. So if Mary did have children by Joseph after the birth of Jesus, her virginity could no longer have been hidden from the devil. For he presumed Jesus was the son of the carpenter. If Ignatius had meant the supernatural virginal conception of Jesus (an event), he would have wriiten “the conception of her offspring” just as he had written “the birth of her offspring”. But rather he writes “the virginity of Mary”. In the same century, both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus refer to Mary as “the Virgin” or “the Virgin Mary” as later Church Fathers do more explicitly in their extant writings… The definite article and capitalized letter denote a personal designation which could not suit Mary if indeed her virginity came to an end and she had other children by Joseph. For this reason Protestants have tampered with the wording of the original Nicene Creed: “And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made man.” For instance, here is the LC-MS version of the Nicene Creed: " and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man." An evangelical Lutheran I had a discussion with told me that the capitalized form of the letter V was changed to the small case because the word virgin correctly applied to Mary’s state at the time she conceived Jesus and not to her person. But the Fathers at the Council of Nicea intended that it should be applied to Mary herself before, during, and after the birth of Jesus.

Christ was very clear that “lord it over them “ leaders weren’t to be part of the church…Ignatius seems to have somehow missed that.

Christ was very clear that we obey the apostolic teaching authority of his Church. And so were the apostles themselves. When Paul told the Judaizers that the Gentiles didn’t have to be circumcised and follow the dietary prescriptions of the Mosaic law, was he lording the decision of the Council of Jerusalem over them? Or when the apostle charged the members of the Church to honour and obey their appointed elders, was he lording them over the members? No, he acknowledged the apostolic authority of the elders over the people just as much as he acknowledged his own apostolic authority over them. I suggest you reread the NT and focus on the structure of the Church in its nascent stage.

PAX

 

[lyrikal]

that is a big “unless”…especially since the NT and the Apostolic Fathers barley mention Mary and absolutely none of them make the Ark/Mary connection…

They allude to her being the New Eve. Would you give Mary that title since they do mention her as the New Eve? Do they mention a 27 book New Testament canon? Do they mention that Christ has Two Wills? There is a lot that they don’t mention but just because they didn’t write it down, doesn’t mean it wasn’t an apostolic teaching. They didn’t just sit in a room and produce dogmatic works in books. They also taught orally. So, since they didn’t mention Christ having two wills and a 27 book NT Canon, does that mean that those are not Apostolic teachings?

the earliest ECF that you referenced was Hippolytus, but your claim that Hippolytus made a Mary/Ark connection is doubtful.

Oh, really? Alright, I’ll play along…

Here is the bit that you posted with a bit more added:
At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated and the “ark” made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world,** bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, **at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: “Now it was the sixth hour,” he says intimating by that, one-half of the day.( Dan.vi.)

The first sentence is sloppy with the meaning uncertain….but the third sentence makes it clear that Jesus is the Ark….

I love how you dismissed the first sentence as “sloppy with the meaning uncertain…” That’s convenient. Instead of conveniently dismissing it, why don’t you take a closer look at what Hippolytus is actually saying? Where did you get your source from that it’s sloppy? James White? Anyway, take a closer look…

Hippolytus seems to associate Christ with the IMPERISHABLE WOOD of the Ark. Whenever he speaks about the imperishable wood or imperishable ark, he connects it with Christ. What you seem to forget is that the Ark was covered with pure gold. And when he talks about the pure gold that covers the ark, he associates it with Mary. So to Hippolytus, he breaks the ark into two categories and gives one title to Christ and another to Mary. Unless you want to tell me what else he means by:

At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the "ark overlaid with pure gold,"

Which goes well with our Catholic understanding that Mary’s title of being the New Ark gives evidence to her sinlessness.

and if you needed more, here is a further bit from Hippolytus:

Thanks. I do need more…Here is more proof that he associated the pure gold that covered the wooden part with Mary.

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank and were corrupt because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold. (ON PSALM XXII OR XXIII)

Again, we have two themes of the ark. We have the wooden part and the pure gold that covers the wooden part. This makes clear the “sloppiness” of the first quote which I don’t see as sloppy at all. Perhaps you can tell me what else he means by that first sentence from the first quote? Why is it that every time he writes about the wood, he relates it to Christ and every time he writes about the pure gold, he relates it to Mary/Holy Spirit.

…so now, how far back can you really trace this Ark/Mary connection?

Pretty much the same.

Do you even get to within 250 miles of Boston?

Not sure how to measure your mile idea with actual reality…

To suggest that the Mary/Ark connection came from any apostle is over-reaching to say the least.

Oh? Where would you say the doctrine of Christ having two wills came from? It was made a doctrine in 680 AD by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Can you point anywhere in the first 250 years (or 250 miles?) where any Father wrote about it? Can you show me any where in Scripture that says that Christ had two wills (one divine and one human)? It’s obviously a development in doctrine that came from a previous doctrine that says that Christ has two natures. Christ having two natures is easy to prove from the Scriptures and therefore, we can see it coming from the Apostles. But Christ having two wills was never addressed by anyone for over 600 years of Christianity. It is a development of doctrine. Unless you can provide some Scripture/Church Fathers to prove otherwise.

wrote about what? The NT person who is the Ark? Hippolytus had Christ as the Ark.

He actually had both.

Mary being the Ark or the tabernacle? Don’t three of the fathers that you listed designate her as the tabernacle (no mention of Ark) and doesn’t one make her the temple?

Would you be willing to admit that Mary is the tabernacle and a temple?

 

[lyrikal]

In any event, I don’t place the ECFs in a category by themselves on this issue (unless you can bridge that 250 year gap of silence and justify crediting them with some special information in this regard).

What about the gap of over 600 years with regards to the two wills doctrine? What about the gap of a few hundred years before we even have a Church Father who penned down a canon? How do you prove those two to be Apostolic teachings that were directly handed down from the Apostles? Especially the first one (two wills). That’s an obvious development of doctrine.

They are just a group of theologians (inclined to aggrandize) and only a very, very small percentage of them actually declared the Mary/Ark connection. I drop them in with all other theologians.

Very, very small percentage? Does it matter to you what the percentage is? What do you think the percentage is of the Fathers saying that Mary was a perpetual virgin throughout her life? Pretty high, isn’t it? Does that matter to you? No. So why is it of any significance to you that the percentage is either high or low? You’re going to use another argument even if the percentage was high.

please demonstrate that Tertullian was viewed as a heretic in his day…and not a long time after the fact…

What is that one belief that some protestants hold to? Once Saved Always Saved? Do you adhere to that belief? What would you say about someone like Tertullian? That he was never saved in the first place since he fell from the faith? And if so, then where does that leave him in your book?

Again, providing Tertullian as a source for an apostolic doctrine is over-reaching at its best.

I thought it was that I had the honesty to acknowledge that it was a matter of faith and not objective knowledge.

Oh ok. I guess you may have missed these verses from the New Testament:

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.
John 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
John 15:26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;
John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

How do those verses go with your subjective truth? And if your truth is subjective, then why should I follow it? Do you really want to lead people into subjective truth? Where did Christ ever tell us that the truth is subjective? He said ALL truth which is objective truth.

which one?

The question of “Well how is your way of coming to truth any different than secular relativism?” They’re both subjective truths.

I would expect most or all of the following:

a) God to mention the gift of infallibility

b) God to mention an office that would possess that gift

c) God to mention that there would be successors to that office

d) God to say how and where those successors would be determined/found.

a.) This is already assumed with the question
b.) Also assumed
c.) Assumed…
d.) Assumed…

All of those are assumed already in the question. The purpose of the question was to focus on…IF God set up Papal Infallibility, IF it was a true doctrine, then how else would it be possible unless it was set up the way it is today? What do I mean by that? You say that we are subjective in determining that the PI doctrine is objective truth. You fail to realize that there is no other way where God could have set it up other than the way it is today (assuming that He did set it up). I’m not trying to focus on whether or not He set it up. I’m trying to focus on: IF He did indeed set it up, how do you expect it to be any other way than it is today other than the Holy Spirit leading subjective people to objective truth?

no…just something from the Apostles that would expressly indicate that your Church’s claim to an infallible teaching office is valid…

How about you give us something from the Apostles that says that Christ has two wills?

See above.

 

[lyrikal]

hmmm….let’s see how this theory plays out in real life. First, you believe that the Holy Spirit leads you to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in the Magisterium of the CC. An orthodox fellow, on the other hand, believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in a different body. So now we have two conflicting “Objective truths”. A cult member believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in the cult leader(s). hmmm….we now have three competing and conflicting “Objective Truths”….

You conveniently left out protestantism. Let’s include them and see how it compares…

A protestant believes that the Holy Spirit has led him to OBJECTIVE truth and that truth is found in the Bible. Another Protestant believes the same and comes up with a different doctrine. Another believes the same and comes up with yet more contradicting doctrines. And another…And another…And another…

Compare that to the Catholics…The Holy Spirit is leading them all to ONE truth and not different truths (again…real Catholics). What are you left with protestantism? Subjective truths being lead to subjective truth that conflict other subjective truths. And Catholicism? The Holy Spirit leads subjective truths to ONE OBJECTIVE TRUTH. Why? Because we have a magesterium today that has official teachings of what the Church teaches. The question is, which Church today has the fullness of the truth? And if your church can’t even CLAIM to have the fullness of truth then it is automatically disqualified from having the fullness of truth since Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would lead us into ALL truth.

that is the type of result one gets when they subjectively determine that they have an infallible teaching authority.

Didn’t really work out the way you hoped, did it?

too late…I just answered it

You really didn’t. You conveniently left out your protestant churchES.

well in the past, your version of ”objectivity” led to a lot of oppression, violence and corruption….which contributes to the conclusion that you have unity around error and official teaching that is not free from error whilst you only claim to have unity and objective truth…

We’re talking about the official teachings of the Church. For you to think that it’s not free from error is your opinion.

claiming infallibility does not result in infallibility or in the elimination of subjectivity….it just gets you “objective truths” that conflict with other “objective truths”. …and claiming a teaching authority doesn’t validate that claimed authority

Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Tell me Radical, did Christ intend that we subjectively determine what the truth of the Apostles is? You are ridiculing what Christ told us to do. In Matthew 18, Christ tells us to go to the Church if there are disputes. What do you think? Did He not expect to let the Holy Spirit lead us to the truth? How would one expect to have unity in doctrine and unity in the Church without a living and breathing authority? If every man is to determine what is true and what is not by himself, then you will end up at different paths. At least with Catholicism, EVERYONE who is lead by the Holy Spirit will be lead to ONE truth. How do you not see the huge difference in this?

One side leads to conflicting doctrines and the other side leads to one truth. Don’t fool yourself and pretend like they’re the same thing just because both sides have subjective people. The end result is completely different. And if humanity is wise enough to understand that leadership is necessary for unity, do you think that God is dumb enough to leave it up to the individual? Of course he’s going to set up an authoritative church. This is something that the Orthodox Church agrees with as well. The question is, how is this authority supposed to operate? We know that it’s not supposed to operate in an individualistic way. Why else would the Church hold a council in Acts 15? Why not just determine the truth individually based on the evidence?

Continued…

 

[lyrikal]

Ephesians 4:11-16

[11] **And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, **
[12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ,
[13] until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
[14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.
[15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ,
[16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

This is in the same context as Ephesians 4:1-6

[1]I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called,
[2] with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love,
[3] **eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. **
[4] There is **one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call,
[5] one Lord, one faith, one baptism, **
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

There is no other way for unity to be obtained other than having a living and breathing authoritative Church today. Giving everyone a book and telling them to determine what is truth on their own is a recipe for disaster and is chaotic as we see within your protestant denominationS.

wouldn’t it make sense that if he was going to establish an infallible teaching authority, the it would be clear to all those who cared to pick up a bible…w/o clarity it looks all too self-serving.

It’s pretty clear to me. Even if infallibility isn’t clear to you, you have to admit that an authoritative Church is clear for even the Orthodox will tell you this. The Church Fathers will ALL attest to it starting with the Apostolic Father, St. Ignatius of Antioch. Did any of the Fathers believe that they are free to determine what the truth is on their own outside of what the Church teaches?

yes, it is called the NT…

That’s only part of the “map”…

contains stuff actually written by those who saw the downtown core….

They didn’t just write, they preached orally as well. What they preached was equivalent in authority with what they wrote.

not just words from men that you want to assume received a good description of it and that then, faithfully passed that description on w/o adding a novelty or two.

The fact that you don’t believe these men received a good description of the oral teaching only further shows how much an authoritative church is necessary. If the Fathers are at odds with each other with regards to a doctrine, Councils are held and truth is proclaimed by the help of the Holy Spirit. Or do you think that you can hold a council with the Holy Spirit on your own and determine your own truth based on a consensus of the scholars?

Christ was very clear that “lord it over them “ leaders weren’t to be part of the church…

[16] “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

And

1 Timothy 3:15
[15] if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

I’m not here trying to promote a “lord it over them” type of leadership. Have we had some bad popes in the past with that type of attitude? Absolutely. Did those popes ever teach anything dogmatically? Absolutely not. Don’t equate impeccability with infallibility. You’re only fooling yourself. St. Peter had authority and he messed up during his time as a leader of the Church. Does that mean that we’re going to throw all of Christianity away because of such unfortunate events? Let’s not kid ourselves.

Ignatius seems to have somehow missed that.

So now you’re claiming that you know more about an important topic like this than an apostolic father who possibly knew the apostles and learned from them? What arrogance!

what’s the relevance of any of this?

Those are all mediators…

there is a clear principle involved which is nicely side-stepped.

See above.

can we add to it with self-serving novelties?

Self-serving novelties? Please tell me a verse or a church father who told us that Christ had two wills in the first 400 years of Christianity…You won’t find any until the late 6th-7th century.

 

[lyrikal]

and Jesus indicated that anybody who did the will of his Father, was his mother, brother and sister….

Luke 1:38

And Mary said, “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

Christ placed a greater value on the spiritual family than on the genetic family….for crying out loud.

Mary was both spiritual AND genetic family. She was both a spiritual AND a genetic mother of God. Who else can claim such a title? What do you think Christ thinks of your little unappreciative attitude towards His mother?

on many occasions Christ said something about himself that would make him to exception to the rule, but nothing like that was ever said in the NT about Mary (including by Jesus). As such, I am not inclined to merely brush off Christ’s words as inaccurate.

And on many occasions, Christ uses extreme words to emphasize a point rather than to make an accurate statement. Do you think the mustard seed is really the smallest seed in the world? Was He trying to be accurate there or was He trying to make a point? I’m from Iraq and I am around middle easterners all the time. I know how they talk. They ALWAYS use extreme examples to emphasize a point (I just did it right now by saying ALWAYS). My dad will literally say things like…“I’m going to take you to a bridge which is the biggest bridge in the world!” He doesn’t literally believe that it is the biggest bridge in the world. He is using extreme words to emphasize a point. Last time I checked, Jesus came from the Middle East. The Jewish culture that I see in the Bible is very similar to my own culture in so many ways.

If you want an example of this in scripture, Matthew 3: 4-6

[4] Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey.
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan,
[6] and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Obviously, Matthew doesn’t mean that literally EVERY single person went out there. If you believe that he meant it literally then you don’t understand how to read the Scriptures outside of your 21st century glasses. Middle Eastern people do this all the time when trying to emphasize a point. Oops…I did it again…I said “ALL the time”… I’m not even doing it on purpose.

Also, you have no proof in the passage that Christ was not including Himself. I believe He was and so do you. But we have no proof that says “Christ was not talking about Himself in this passage…” John the Baptist was great and all but tell me…Did he preach before Christ’s Resurrection or after? How could he be greater than the apostles if the apostles went around preaching to people the salvation of Christ?

no I don’t….you realize that perpetual virginity requires ante partum, in partu and post partum? As such, any ECF that talks about the birth opening the womb, or talks about nothing but a natural birth, or talks about Jesus being the firstborn that opened the womb, is pretty well denying virginity in partu. I note Goodfella posted something from Ireneaus regarding opening the womb.

Are you saying that Ireneaus didn’t believe in the virgin birth of Christ? I’m a little lost as to what you’re trying to say here.

why not read the bits from Tertullian and find out yourself? …but it wasn’t b/c the addressees were claiming that Mary was an ever-virgin

Fair enough. According to Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004, St. Irenaeus believed in the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary. So that proves that around the same time as Tertullian wrote, another father believed that Mary was ever virgin. Whether you believe that St. Irenaeus believed this or not is not the issue. A scholar believes it so that outweighs your opinion…(at least that seems to be how you think).

Anyway, I’d like to know your thoughts on the following verse: Ezekiel 44:2

[2] And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.

Some of the Fathers interpreted this to be about Mary’s womb to give evidence to her perpetual virginity. Even Martin Luther used this verse to show such evidence.

I’d also like to know your thoughts on the following link.

thesacredpage.com/2008/03/biblical-basis-for-marys-perpetual.html

He focuses on this verse: And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I know not man?”

we covered this long ago on this thread

Bravo.

are you having a bad day?..

No, I’m having a wonderful day actually. Thank you for asking.

”people like me”? Why do you declare that I hate Catholicism?..

Because you’re always so bitter when engaging in discussion with Catholics…

 

[lyrikal]

b/c I say it is wrong wrt certain matters?..

WRT certain matters? Oh please! Tell me Radical, do you really believe that every belief that you hold to is held by a consensus of scholars today? And do you really believe that every protestant doctrine that you adhere to that goes against the Catholic Church is believed by a consensus of scholars today? And do you really believe that every Catholic doctrine today that is against protestant teachings have no consensus from scholars? Stop fooling yourself.

am I to understand that you hate me b/c you tell me I am wrong a lot? …

Are you a religion or a person?

well, when we consider that the entire NT was searched for any connection whatsoever and this is the best that was found…it is hardly a huge coincidence. What’s more, the author does nothing to equate the Ark with the woman. On the contrary the Ark is mentioned with one set of things and the woman is mentioned with a different set of things…that is how one would distinguish between two things, not connect them.

Well then…I guess there are coincidences in the Bible…I bet our atheist and Muslim friends would be happy to agree with you here.

I don’t go digging for scholars who agree with me…they are very easy to find…

So every belief you have is held by a consensus of scholars?

all one has to do is avoid those who will interpret history with a need to validate a certain faith position as opposed to allowing the evidence to lead where it will.

Show me Scripture that tells us that we are to determine truth on our own without an authoritative Church…Show me evidence from Scripture that tells me that your way of coming to the truth is biblical.

the declaration of a definite connection between the two sure is…but when it is the best that you got….

The best that I got? You’ve been shown many connections between the Ark and Mary and you sat there and tried to dismiss them like an atheist would. You tell us that Christ is the new Ark. Do you have any scripture verses that teach this or did your scholars tell you this?

the “God gave” bit should give you your answer…surely you know that the issue is whether “God gave” your church the teaching of perpetual virginity

Most Fathers believed it and there is nothing in the Scriptures that says that Mary had other children. Did God give you the teaching that she did have other children? Anyway, you completely missed the point.

see the scriptures…everything else is of a less reliable class.

Oh what a convenient answer! See the Scriptures? PLEASE Radical stop fooling yourself! Over 20,000 protestant denominations saw the Scriptures and most are divided with regards to all of the doctrines. Tell me, where can I go in the Scriptures to see a list of doctrines that EVERY protestant church teaches? Tell me, what is the official teaching of the protestant church? There is no such thing because you have no living and breathing authoritative church. The Scriptures are not going to give us many explicit doctrines. If they did, we wouldn’t have divisions today among Christianity.

since I am not the one claiming an infallible teaching authority that says some things must be believed…I’ll grant you a little more leeway

So, I am allowed to believe that a piece of host is Almighty God and I have leeway to worship it? Thanks!

You fail to realize that when you give someone leeway on doctrine, you lead people into confusion and division.

God bless.

 

[joe370]

Radical - b/c I say it is wrong wrt certain matters?..

You insist that you are absolutely right wrt certain matters, and yet you complain about the CC making the exact definitive claims, regarding certain matters. Puzzling…