Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[jrtrent]

if brother/cousin/close relative is a translation debate, couldn’t the UNTIL also be a translation debate? And for those of us with various Bibles, some translations . . . omit the word “After.”

It’s interesting to read the many different translations of Matthew 1:25. The link below has a bunch of them, and I don’t see the word “after” in any of those translations. The point Boettner was making was not that the passage from Matthew 1:22-25 is proof that Mary had additional children or conjugal relations with Joseph after Jesus was born (though he did believe that such an inference is not without merit), only that we know for certain that Mary was a virgin at least “until after” Christ was born, and this was necessary to fulfill the prophecy quoted from Isaiah 7:14, that a virgin would conceive and bear God’s Son. What Joseph and Mary may or may not have done after that point does not affect the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. Here are excerpts from a couple commentaries:

Clarke’s Commentary: He knew her not - Had no matrimonial intercourse with her - Till she had brought forth that son of hers, of whom the evangelist had been just speaking, the first-born, the eldest of the family, to whom the birthright belonged, and who was miraculously born before she knew any man, being yet in a state of virginity. See on Matthew 13:55 (note). The virginity of Mary, previously to the birth of Christ, is an article of the utmost consequence to the Christian system; and therefore it is an article of faith: her perpetual virginity is of no consequence; and the learned labor spent to prove it has produced a mere castle in the air. The thing is possible; but it never has been, and never can be proved.

Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible: this conduct of his [Joseph’s not engaging in the conjugal act with Mary] was necessary, till she had brought forth her firstborn; that it might be manifest not only that she conceived, being a virgin, but also that she brought forth, being a virgin: for both are signified in the prophecy before related, “a virgin shall conceive and bring forth a son”; which is all one as if it had been said, a virgin shall conceive, and “a virgin” shall bring forth a son. The “firstborn” is that which first opens the womb of its mother, whether any follows after or not, Exodus 13:12. Christ is called Mary’s firstborn, because she had none before him, whether she had any after him or not; for her perpetual virginity seems to be no necessary article of faith: for when it is said, Joseph knew her not till she had brought forth, the meaning is certain that he knew her not before. But whether he afterwards did or not, is not so manifest, nor is it a matter of any great importance
bible.cc/matthew/1-25.htm

Edit: My goodness but I do think and type slowly. I didn’t see Randy Carson’s excellent reply when I started, or I might have skipped answering at all. The various commentaries at the link I provided are fun to look at though, and approach the possibility of Mary’s having had additional children somewhat differently.

 

[cheezey]

Scholars on the Meaning of “Until” in Matthew 1:25

Thank you for lesson # 1,001 for me…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for lesson # 1,001 for me…

:tiphat:

 

[cheezey]

I don’t see the word “after” in any of those translations.

You are correct. Mea culpa; I really thought I had seen that. Thank you. And that would not have made much difference, as you stated… Thank you

 

[Miriam1947]

Miriam, Miriam, Miriam…

You stole my post.

Great minds think alike.

Karl Keating turned the lights out on Boettner almost twenty five years ago. What is it about the state of Missouri? Some say it was the Garden of Eden and it was the birthplace and home of Boettner.

Stealing, does that mean confession?

 

[Miriam1947]

I don’t know how many men are answering this question about Jesus and his brothers?

But think about this just for a moment.

Your wife has just given birth to God and was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and was told about it by an angel.

You’re a Jew and you know all about the Ark of the Covenant and the Messiah.

Are you really going to have sex with her? Really?

 

[Radical]

I am not quite certain what you are saying: What I have bolded, are you saying that giving birth takes away virginity? If that is so, you and I have a different definition of virginity. Virginity is not having sex.

it seems that you need to familiarize yourself with what your church teaches:

“Ever-Virgin" means conception while remaining a virgin (Virgin Birth), virginity during childbirth, and perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus (no siblings of Jesus or sexual activity).

The Church has interpreted Mary’s virginity during the birth (in partu) as an inviolability of the hymen; in other words, it was a physically miraculous birth rather than a natural one. This, too, is a dogma of the Catholic Church.

from here

The ECFs had some really bizarre notions in this regard…like Jesus being born through Mary’s ear so that her hymen remained intact…gotta love those traditions

If you were honest, you would have to admit that in Scripture brother has a multitude of meanings.

it does, just like our modern use of “brother”….but its natural meaning is blood brother and that is the meaning that you must struggle to avoid.

Can you point to a person in the New Testament that is known to be a cousin?

I have already done this, but here it is again:
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas… (Col 4:10)
…and as I have pointed out before, Paul identified James as the brother of the Lord….and in those instances, had Paul meant “cousin” , then he would have used the word for “cousin”…as he did in Colossians 4:10

Post 16 and 52 point out well where “brother” is used to describe someone who is known to be a cousin

no, they point out a really confused effort so show that the 12 disciples didn’t include a blood brother of Jesus…brilliant.

 

[Radical]

In a civil trial, a preponderance of evidence is all that is needed.

here we call it a balance of probabilities

That is it is more likely than not. The evidence is on the side of not.

I call fudge, but I at least like your summary…it will be a good thing to work off of

1. Mary’s question to the Angel. I have yet to hear a reasonable response.

as I pointed out, the scholars who contributed to Mary in the New Testament see the question as a literary device which echoes the “how’ question in a handful of biblical annunciations…that is a nice thing about scholarly efforts….when scholars talk to scholars, the Mary Venerators can’t get away with the sorts of “proofs” that Venerators try to put forward on these threads. In any event, now that you know that the dogma of the CC includes virginity in partu, you can see that, even if we assume that the exceedingly unlikely vow was in fact made, it doesn’t do a thing to achieve virginity in partu….and of course, there is nothing to say that she stuck with the (unlikely) vow after her “plan” to remain childless changed.

1. No mention of other children when Mary and Joseph returned to Jerusalem to look for Jesus.

No purpose is served in mentioning them, so why would that be an expectation?…but since we are noting what wasn’t mentioned in the gospels, why wasn’t the miraculous birth (through Mary’s ear or otherwise) mentioned? As you now know, a miraculous birth is needed to maintain Catholic dogma and the two gospels writers who tell about the birth mention a number of miracles, but neither one bothers to mention the miraculous birth. Further, if such a thing happened, then Luke, who refers to Jesus as the one who opened the womb (at 2:23…look for a word for word translation) must not have meant it….yet another instance where you are required to avoid the plain meaning of scripture.

1. The way that His “brothers” treat Him. They treat Him as younger person not an older brother.

or, as the gospels actually indicate, they treat him as an elder brother who isn’t quite right in the head

1. The Identification of His being The son not a son of Mary.

are you kidding me? I would be more than a little embarrassed to present something like this as a “proof”.

Here is Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.

And John 1:42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said , Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation , A stone.

…Andrew is designated as Peter’s brother….do you think “the son of Jona” means that Jona had only the one son? If so, you should advise the publisher of the Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition of the Bible….cause look what they did with Luke 3:
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph,[e] the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jan′na-i, the son of Joseph, 25 … 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eli′akim, 31 the son of Me′le-a, the son of Menna, the son of Mat′tatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse,…

…you really need to tell them that they should be using “a son of” and not “the son of” b/c the latter (according to you) means that there was only one son!

1. The Giving of Mary to John which would go against the culture.

this is probably your best “proof”, but it falls far short of a actual proof.

There would be no reason, if Mary had other children, that they would have to be at the cross.

why would they have to be in attendance?

. Nor would it make a difference if they were a believer in Jesus. They would have been a believer in the Jewish obligation to take care of their mother.

the indication is that they were non-believers at that time….and it is not what they understood as their obligation that mattered, it is what Christ willed to do (and as demonstrated by him, he gave a higher value to the spiritual family than to the physical family and he wasn’t afraid to overturn traditions).

1. That brother had the following meanings:

this is just an excuse and isn’t a proof
You should also note that of your proofs:

1. none do anything to negate a natural birth and a natural birth eliminates virginity in partu.
2. none do anything to suggest that she wouldn’t have done the expected thing for a Jewish wife and have had sex with Joseph…lack of kids does not equal lack of sex

Where as on the other side you have

1. Scripture that has some being called the brothers and sisters of Christ of those mentioned by name prove to be children of other parents.

that is merely your fantasy

1. The word until (very week argument that has to go against the meaning of the word to force another meaning.)

it isn’t the word “until” by itself…it is the grammar involved so that the phrase is best translated: Joseph was not having sex with Mary until… See Ben Witherington III in New Testament History

The scale does not tip to Mary having other children.

actually it does…but that isn’t the actual issue. Mary doesn’t need to have had other children in order to have lost her virginity….sex or a natural childbirth would also have that result (as the dogma is defined)….and given that, the scale tips dramatically against her perpetual virginity.

 

[Radical]

I have read each of these scriptures and I do not see any names mentioned.

and you could read the gospel of John and note that Jesus’ mother is not given the name of Mary…but, by using other scriptures we can figure it out and don’t need to believe that the author of that gospel was speaking a another mother of our Lord who had a different name than Mary

 

[joe370]

and you could read the gospel of John and note that Jesus’ mother is not given the name of Mary…but, by using other scriptures we can figure it out and don’t need to believe that the author of that gospel was speaking a another mother of our Lord who had a different name than Mary

Would you agree that it cannot be known with certainty, one way or the other, based on scripture alone?

 

[adrift]

and you could read the gospel of John and note that Jesus’ mother is not given the name of Mary…but, by using other scriptures we can figure it out and don’t need to believe that the author of that gospel was speaking a another mother of our Lord who had a different name than Mary

I am not sure what your point is. John only refers to Mary as being the mother of Jesus. We know from Luke what her name was. It is a big leap to say that the family mentioned is the same as those who were named as brothers. Whereas a person will have only one mother, it is not necessarily true that they will only have one brother or sister.

Originally Posted by Good Fella
I find it hard to believe that Jesus had siblings who had not only the same names as these sons of Alphaeus, but also ranked from eldest to youngest in the same order as they had. It’s more likely the brothers of Jesus referred to by the Jews in the crowd are no other than his apostles and cousins.

 

[joe370]

I don’t know how many men are answering this question about Jesus and his brothers?

But think about this just for a moment.

Your wife has just given birth to God and was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and was told about it by an angel.

You’re a Jew and you know all about the Ark of the Covenant and the Messiah.

Are you really going to have sex with her? Really?

Miriam1947, good point. No man in his right man would have intimate relations with his wife knowing full well that she had given birth to God! Moreover, God would not choose a man in his wrong mind in my humble opinion! Of course everyone knows that scripture can not be used to definitively say one way or the other. Every protestant must draw from their respective church traditions, and protestants reject tradition, in favor of sola scriptura which makes me wonder why any protestant would act like they know with any degree of certainty.

 

[jrtrent]

makes me wonder why any protestant would act like they know with any degree of certainty.

I’ll repeat the quote from an article that Randy Carson cited:

“OBJECTOR: It seems to me like you’re using a lot of complicated reasoning to ignore the obvious statements in Scripture that show that Jesus had brothers and that Mary therefore could not have remained a virgin. You’re going to the passages with the idea that Mary was a virgin, and you’re reading that idea into the passages instead of drawing it from them. Even if the passages in question could be interpreted the way you see them, I don’t see any evidence in Scripture that they should be interpreted that way.” archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512sbs.asp

I believe Mary and Joseph had other children because that’s the obvious meaning of several statements in scripture, but I acknowledge that it can’t be proven. I think most people believing this would say the same thing. We should also remember, as has been pointed out in this thread, that many Protestants also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Adam Clarke’s commentary had this to say regarding Matthew 13:55:

“It is possible that brethren and sisters may mean here near relations, as the words are used among the Hebrews in this latitude of meaning; but I confess it does not appear to me likely. Why should the children of another family be brought in here to share a reproach which it is evident was designed for Joseph the carpenter, Mary his wife, Jesus their son, and their other children? Prejudice apart, would not any person of plain common sense suppose, from this account, that these were the children of Joseph and Mary, and the brothers and sisters of our Lord, according to the flesh? It seems odd that this should be doubted; but, through an unaccountable prejudice, Papists and Protestants are determined to maintain as a doctrine, that on which the Scriptures are totally silent, viz. the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord.”

Protestants act like they know with a reasonable degree of certainty many things that cannot be “proven” from scripture, at least not to the satisfaction of a Protestant from a different tradition. That’s partly why there’s not just one Protestant church. Southern Baptists will state with conviction that infants should not be baptized and that the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic act; Lutherans, with equal conviction, baptize infants and proclaim that Christ’s true body and blood are given in a sacrament that is one of the means of grace.

As I grow older, I wonder how many of these things really matter. When I was younger, the search for the “one, true, church” occupied my attention, but lately I’m of the conviction that what matters is the gospel. It has been phrased in many different ways, but here’s a definition I saw this morning that seems apt: “. . . somehow and in some way the earliest Christians always seem to get at these four issues: We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus.” whatisthegospel.org.uk/gospelbasics.html

Again going to Loraine Boettner’s Roman Catholicism, “all who accept Christ as their personal Saviour, all who obey and worship Him as Lord and Master, will be saved, regardless of what church they belong to.” Church membership is important because it is commanded (not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, Heb. 10:25) and because we need to hear sound preaching, put ourselves under church discipline, and have an avenue for active service in the body of Christ. Each needs to find a church which he, in good conscience, believes "demonstrates a devotion to the apostles’ teaching, a God-centered focus, and a loving concern for the needs of people (from an interesting book called Life in the Father’s House), but if there are differences among us in what we believe about issues that cannot be proven one way or another from scripture, then let us be charitable towards one another in those differences. Commenting on Romans 14:1-6, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary notes:

“We are all apt to make our own views the standard of truth, to deem things certain which to others appear doubtful. Thus Christians often despise or condemn each other, about doubtful matters of no moment.”

“Who art thou, to pass judgement on the servant of another? Whether he keeps his feet or falls, concerns none but his master. And keep his feet he will; God is well able to give him a sure footing. One man makes a distinction between this day and that; another regards all days alike; let either rest fully content in his own opinion. He who observes the day, observes it in the Lord’s honour. Just so, he who eats does so in the Lord’s honour; he gives thanks to God for it; and he who abstains from eating abstains in the Lord’s honour, and he too thanks God.” (Romans 14:4-6, Knox Bible).

 

[Randy_Carson]

The ECFs had some really bizarre notions in this regard…like Jesus being born through Mary’s ear so that her hymen remained intact…gotta love those traditions

True. However, “tradition” is not the same as Sacred Tradition, so you won’t get much mileage out of that.

it does, just like our modern use of “brother”….but its natural meaning is blood brother and that is the meaning that you must struggle to avoid.

It’s no struggle at all. What appears to be the struggle is your inability to accept that the NT teaches NOTHING against the PPV of Mary, and this fact has been shown to you again and again.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have already done this, but here it is again:
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas… (Col 4:10)
…and as I have pointed out before, Paul identified James as the brother of the Lord….and in those instances, had Paul meant “cousin” , then he would have used the word for “cousin”…as he did in Colossians 4:10
no, they point out a really confused effort so show that the 12 disciples didn’t include a blood brother of Jesus…brilliant.

Excepted from:

MARY THE VIRGIN;
AS COMMEMORATED IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST.
BY THE REV. SAMUEL SEABURY, D. D.,
anglicanhistory.org/usa/mahan/james.html

There is the passage (Mark vi. 3) in which our Lord is called “The Carpenter,” the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Jude and Simon."

Here our Lord unquestionably is called “the brother” of James, Joses and the others. But, before we can determine in what sense He is their brother, we must endeavor to ascertain who was the mother and the father of these four. The same evangelist who records their names gives us information on that head. The same Mary, whom we have found St. Luke to designate as simply “the mother of James,” St. Mark (xv. 40) more fully describes as “the mother of James and Joses”—that is, of the two, whose names are first mentioned on the above list of brethren of our Lord. Furthermore, Jude, as we have seen, was a “brother of James.” If so, he was a son (whether own son or not, is unimportant) of that same Mary. Accordingly, we find his name the third on that same list. There remains only Simon, or Simeon, (for the identity of which names, see Acts xv. 14,) of whom nothing is told us in the New Testament. We find, however, in Eusebius, that one Simeon, “the son of Cleophas,” (the husband of that same Mary, John xix. 25,) and “the cousin of our Saviour,” succeeded James in the See of Jerusalem. Thus, the list is completed, and the four brethren of our Lord are identified in name with the four sons of Mary and Cleophas.

But why is our Lord described as “the brother of James” and of the others? We answer, by the same familiar idiom by which (Gen. xxix. 12) Jacob is called “Laban’s brother.” Or, we might answer, that it was in the same way as when our Lord was commonly reputed “The Carpenter’s Son;” the terms “son” or “brother,” in fact, being applied so liberally by the Jews, that a reader of the Scriptures has to be constantly on his guard. Timothy was not Paul’s son, though Paul so entitles him. Neither was Mark Peter’s son, in the strict sense of the word. To determine relation in Scripture, we have to follow facts, rather than mere words.

Now, in the present instance, the fact is simply this: There was a certain Mary, “the mother of James,” according to St. Luke; the “mother of James and Joses,” according to St. Mark; the mother of James, Joses, Jude and Simon, according to inference from St. Luke and the testimony of Eusebius; in short, the mother of those who are called the brethren of our Lord. This Mary (John xix. 25) was the wife of Cleophas or Alphous, and the sister of Mary, the Lord’s mother. It is probable, on the authority of Eusebius, that her husband, Cleophas, was Joseph’s brother. Thus, the four sons of Mary were cousins, and probably double cousins, of our Lord. This is amply sufficient to establish their claim to be called His brethren: whether the object in so calling them was to depreciate Him, as was the case with the unbelieving Jews, or to exalt and honor them, as was the case with Christians in later times.

In addition to this, it is natural and reasonable to suppose, that Joseph having died before the commencement of our Lord’s ministry, Mary, thus left a widow resided henceforward with her sister; and the two families, so closely united before, were drawn together into bonds of still nearer brotherhood and friendship. On this supposition, we are not surprised to find the two Mary’s together, as in John xix. 25, or to find Mary, the mother of our Lord, accompanied by her sister’s sons, as in Mark iii. 21. Nor are we surprised to find our Lord committing His mother, as one widowed both of husband and child, to the care of the beloved Disciple. To have made such a disposal of a mother, blest with four sons and several daughters, would have been, indeed, surprising, and one may say unnatural. But supposing Mary to have been childless and a widow—poor, moreover, and dependent upon her sister, who had a large family of children of her own—the transferring of her from dependence upon them, to the care of a man like John, was precisely such an arrangement as, under the peculiar circumstances, one might naturally expect.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Who Are These Guys?

James the Great (d. AD 44)

James, son of Zebedee (died 44 AD) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was a son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of John the Apostle. He is also called James the Greater to distinguish him from James, son of Alphaeus, who is also known as James the Less.

James the Just (d. AD 62)

“Brother of the Lord” – Matthew 13:55
Son of Alphaeus (Clopas) and Mary of Clopas
Author of the Book of James

Saint James the Just (Hebrew: יעקב)Yaakov (Greek Iάκωβος)Iakobos, (died AD 62), also known as James the Righteous, James of Jerusalem, James Adelphotheos, or James, the Brother of the Lord, was an important figure in Early Christianity. The Catholic Encyclopedia concludes that, based on Hegesippus’s account, it is “probable” that James the Just is also James the Less, and in line with “most Catholic interpreters”, that he is therefore James, son of Alphaeus as well as James the son of Mary Cleophas. He is not, however, identified with James the Great.

James the Just was the leader of the Christian movement in Jerusalem in the decades after Jesus’ death, but information about his life is scarce and ambiguous. Apart from a handful of references in the Gospels, the main sources for his life are the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Saint Paul, the historian Josephus, and St. Jerome, who also quotes the early Christian author Hegesippus. The Epistle of James in the New Testament is signed by him, and he is the author of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. He is sometimes said to be the first of the Seventy Apostles. In the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul of Tarsus describes his first visit to Jerusalem where he met James and stayed with Cephas (Simon Peter). Hegesippus describes him as a vegetarian.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Bible Family Connections

Mary
Daughter of Joachim and Anne
Wife of Joseph
Mother of Jesus
Aunt of Apostle James the Greater and Apostle John

Salome of Zebedee
“Sister” of Mary, mother of Jesus
Wife of Zebedee
Mother of Apostles James the Greater and John
Aunt of Jesus

Mary of Clopas
Wife of Clopas/Alpheus
Mother of James the Lesser/Younger, Joses/Joseph, Simon and Jude

Mary Magdalene
Sister of Lazarus and Martha

James the Greater
Son of Zebedee and Salome
Brother of Apostle John
A “son of thunder”
Martyred in 42 AD by Herod (Acts 12)

James the Lesser/Younger
Son of Alpheus/Clopas and Mary
Brother of Joseph, Jude, Simon
“Brother of the Lord” (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3, Gal. 2:19)
Bishop of Jerusalem

James
Author of the Book of James

 

[joe370]

jrtrent - I believe Mary and Joseph had other children because that’s the obvious meaning of several statements in scripture, but I acknowledge that it can’t be proven.

:thumbsupo you personally feel that Joseph would have felt OK with having intimate relations with his wife, the blessed Mary mother of God, after realizing that she gave birth to God? Just your gut feeling…?

I think most people believing this would say the same thing. We should also remember, as has been pointed out in this thread, that many Protestants also believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Adam Clarke’s commentary had this to say regarding Matthew 13:55:

Protestants act like they know with a reasonable degree of certainty many things that cannot be “proven” from scripture, at least not to the satisfaction of a Protestant from a different tradition. That’s partly why there’s not just one Protestant church. Southern Baptists will state with conviction that infants should not be baptized and that the Lord’s Supper is a purely symbolic act; Lutherans, with equal conviction, baptize infants and proclaim that Christ’s true body and blood are given in a sacrament that is one of the means of grace.

Doctrinally speaking, as a former protestant, I felt so unsure about doctrinal truth, (rightfully so considering the fact that no one claimed to know with certainty regarding many things, by your own admission) and to me doctrinal truth was just as important as the gospel itself. I mean, why have holy scripture if I possess no sure way to unlock the truths that lie therein. This was the very reason why I wanted to (as a former protestant) locate Jesus’ one church, forever guided by the holy spirit into all truth, in terms of revealed doctrinal truth passed on to the apostles, who in turn did the same…a process that continued, in my humble opinion, throughout every generation (in spite of the chaff mixed in with the wheat) and will continue to until Jesus’ second coming. It occurred to me long ago that Jesus would want every generation to have access to same revealed truths that the 1st century Christian audience were privy to…seems reasonable…

As I grow older, I wonder how many of these things really matter.

Such as baptism and the Eucharist…? If Jesus said it (whatever it is) then it seems reasonable to conclude that it matters, in terms of Him wanting the world to know, definitively, the truth. It seems rather logical to conclude that Jesus would continue to preserve truth in His church, but that’s just me.

When I was younger, the search for the “one, true, church” occupied my attention, but lately I’m of the conviction that what matters is the gospel.

As a younger man I was just the opposite. LOL…I agree that the gospel is so vitally important! However, long ago it occured to me (my pastor often overlooked them) that the holy Bible reminds us that Jesus’ one church is the pillar and foundation of truth, which is why we can trust the truths found in the holy bible. This seems to indicate that Jesus’ church plays a vital role…Perhaps this is why scripture tells us to take it to the church…in terms of resolving disputes: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”

It has been phrased in many different ways, but here’s a definition I saw this morning that seems apt: “. . . somehow and in some way the earliest Christians always seem to get at these four issues: We are accountable to the God who created us. We have sinned against that God and will be judged. But God has acted in Jesus Christ to save us, and we take hold of that salvation by repentance from sin and faith in Jesus.”

Totally agree. :thumbsup:After reading the early church fathers I came to realize (in addition to what you mentioned) that the earliest Christians always seem to focus on the central importance of the Eucharist as well. To them it was critical to salvation, and what they believed seems to agree with scripture:

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

Paul said: "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, 'Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me…So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgement on themselves.

Your thoughts brother…?

 

[joe370]

Bible Family Connections

Mary
Daughter of Joachim and Anne
Wife of Joseph
Mother of Jesus
Aunt of Apostle James the Greater and Apostle John

Salome of Zebedee
“Sister” of Mary, mother of Jesus
Wife of Zebedee
Mother of Apostles James the Greater and John
Aunt of Jesus

Mary of Clopas
Wife of Clopas/Alpheus
Mother of James the Lesser/Younger, Joses/Joseph, Simon and Jude

Mary Magdalene
Sister of Lazarus and Martha

James the Greater
Son of Zebedee and Salome
Brother of Apostle John
A “son of thunder”
Martyred in 42 AD by Herod (Acts 12)

James the Lesser/Younger
Son of Alpheus/Clopas and Mary
Brother of Joseph, Jude, Simon
“Brother of the Lord” (Mt 13:55, Mk 6:3, Gal. 2:19)
Bishop of Jerusalem

James
Author of the Book of James

Seems reasonable…

 

[jrtrent]

Do you personally feel that Joseph would have felt OK with having intimate relations with his wife, the blessed Mary mother of God, after realizing that she gave birth to God? Just your gut feeling…?

My gut feeling is yes, Joseph would have felt fine fulfilling all his duties as a husband, including the conjugal act. It has been mentioned a couple of times that there is something somehow unclean or defiling about the natural way of conceiving and bearing children, but I don’t see how that’s possible in the context of the marriage relationship, which is blessed by God.

Doctrinally speaking, as a former protestant, I felt so unsure about doctrinal truth, (rightfully so considering the fact that no one claimed to know with certainty regarding many things, by your own admission) and to me doctrinal truth was just as important as the gospel itself. I mean, why have holy scripture if I possess no sure way to unlock the truths that lie therein.

Yep, I can sure relate to that! I thought I had found the one, true church in Mormonism back in my teens, but as the years passed, too many things just didn’t hold together.

Such as baptism and the Eucharist…? If Jesus said it (whatever it is) then it seems reasonable to conclude that it matters, in terms of Him wanting the world to know, definitively, the truth. It seems rather logical to conclude that Jesus would continue to preserve truth in His church, but that’s just me.

I agree that that would make sense, but at this point, I just don’t see a one, true church anywhere. The Bible makes some things very clear, but others (yes, even baptism and the eucharist) are not so well defined. The logical conclusion I find now is that if it was God’s desire that everyone now worship in exactly the same way, the Bible would provide more explicit detail on how to do that.

I had referenced Romans 14 in a previous post as one example of how different expressions of Christian practice were not condemned by God. Paul could certainly have simply told everyone what the correct attitude and actions were concerning the eating of meats and the observance of days, but he did not. Instead, what we seem to learn is, to paraphrase Barnes’ Notes, that whatever different beliefs and courses of action were taken regarding these issues, those involved did it conscientiously and with a desire to glorify God; instead of providing correction, Paul indicates that what is needed is kindness and charity and acceptance of different ways of doing things.

Commenting on the words “for God hath received him” in verse 3, Barnes Notes says, “Other denominations, though they may differ from us on some subjects, may give evidence that they are recognised by God as his, and where there is this evidence, we should neither despise nor judge them.” When I read Calvin or Pieper or John Gill or J. C. Ryle, or any of a number of others, I am struck by their scholarship, their honesty, and their love of God. Yes, they each come to different conclusions about many things after reading the same scriptures, but I’m convinced each is doing his best to honour God, and whatever “tradition” a person decides to follow, let us respect each person’s attempt to live for God the best way they know how.