Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[jrtrent]

Heh. That’s a pretty obfuscatory statement.

In other words, you are saying that some people can interpret the Scriptures the way they wish (Presbyterians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, General and Particular Baptists, etc.*)

but others (Westboro Baptist Church, etc*) cannot??

Based on…what, exactly, do you discern who gets to “mangle” and who doesn’t?

I used the word “mangle” and put it in quotes because it’s not my word; it was yours from post 241. I don’t believe any of the systematic theologies I’ve read, despite their different teachings on various issues, to be a mangling of the text but rather an honest attempt to “formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.” (from the Wikipedia definition)

*I like the “etc”. It leaves lots of room for more obfuscation.

The “etc.” is to not leave out others who are similar that I didn’t list. As to obfuscatory, in no way did I attempt to hide my meaning; I even gave examples that I thought would make my point more clear. And I don’t see why you need to stick your tongue out at me to make your point.

What if they proffer their own Bible verses to support their view (and I am certain that they do!)?

I’ll take your word for it, just as I took your word for it that they claim God laughs when a f*g dies. If they actually make that claim, I find it a difficult position to defend Biblically, but I’m willing to read any of their material that you’ve seen and can point me to.

Ditto for the Westboro Baptist Church.

Are we to judge that their claim to love the Lord is any less than the love that the “systematic theology” advocates proclaim?

Again, I’ll leave that question alone til I’ve had a chance to explore their theology more closely. On the face of it, they seem to have a single agenda that warps their understanding of scripture and daily events (e.g., God sent the Sandy Hook killer because He is punishing America for its acceptance of homosexuality). To me, that is somewhat different from a theologian formulating an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs, but I accept your admonishment that I’m doing them a disservice.

To my comment that there are differences among Christians about issues that cannot be proven one way or another from scripture, you responded:

'zactly!!! That is exactly why a final authority, a pillar and foundation of truth, is required!!!

Unfortunately, such an entity does not exist. An alternative to that is the acceptance and tolerance of different beliefs Paul wrote about in Romans 14.

So who decides whether a differing opinion is permissible or whether a differing opinion is forbidden?

Ultimately, that is up to God. Here on earth, it will be up to each individual believer to study and pray to find the truth. Personally, I find churches that ordain women and sanction homosexual behavior to be operating on principles other than adherence to Biblical authority. Of course, the Catholic Church also operates on a principle other than adherence to Biblical authority. Catholics believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary at least in part because that is what their church teaches. For them, the “brothers” and “sisters” of Christ have to be something other than children of Joseph and Mary. For most Protestants, a statement similar to the following from the 39 Articles can be found in their confessions of faith:

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

That Mary was a virgin when she conceived and bore Christ can be read and proved in scripture; that she continued a virgin ever after that cannot be read or proved from scripture (rather, the opposite is indicated, though not provable), and thus is not an article of the Faith nor requisite or necessary for salvation.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe any of the systematic theologies I’ve read, despite their different teachings on various issues, to be a mangling of the text but rather an honest attempt to “formulate an orderly, rational, and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs.” (from the Wikipedia definition)

Right.

But why do you get to decide that certain “systematic theologies” are permissible, and certain ones are not?

All will quote Scripture to support their views.

 

[Randy_Carson]

blah, blah, blah

I truncated your epic posts to save space.

Radical, I disagree with your analysis, and despite your lengthy blustering (which I suspect was a cut and paste from some anti-Catholic website), nothing you posted proves that Mary had children besides Jesus. If I have time and interest, I may take it apart in more detail, but the holidays are upon us, and I have more important matters to attend to. Over the river and through the woods…that sort of thing.

To sum up briefly as has been stated previously, NOTHING in the New Testament proves that Mary was not ever-virgin. Protestant scholars who are honest will admit this. To be fair, I’ll reiterate that the NT does not prove that she was, either. Catholics need to be honest about this, too.

Thus, IMO, the debate comes down to the wishful thinking of modern non-Catholics eager to prove that the Catholic Church is not infallible (and desperately grasping at any straw they believe provides some point of attack) versus the steadfast, infallible teaching of the Church established by Jesus upon Peter, the rock, and the historical evidence of countless authors through the centuries attesting to the fact that Mary remained a virgin all of her life.

Of course, you’ll object to my characterization above, but the Catholic position is the ancient one; the idea that Mary was not ever-virgin is the theological novelty. The evidence that you array against the doctrine is simply insufficient to prove your case. If it were stronger, we would have heard by now.

Consequently, my choice has been made. And so has yours.

Just a few closing questions: If it is soooo obvious in scripture that Mary had other children besides Jesus, why is it that no one prior to the modern era (that is, post-Wesley) seriously questioned the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Were all the scripture scholars of previous centuries (Catholic and Protestant alike) simply idiots who could not see the obvious? I mean, if YOU could figure this out, how did the intellectual giants of the past miss it?

Those are rhetorical questions…no need to answer.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Radical suffers deeply from denial. It is hard to overcome.

The idea that the Catholic Church may be right is troubling to some, isn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

IAnd I don’t see why you need to stick your tongue out at me to make your point.

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

I’ll take your word for it, just as I took your word for it that they claim God laughs when a f*g dies. If they actually make that claim, I find it a difficult position to defend Biblically, but I’m willing to read any of their material that you’ve seen and can point me to.

Warning: offensive content that is contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching.

youtube.com/watch?v=Y1EMYGz1nM0

youtube.com/watch?v=7gAnwTWFuyI

nndb.com/people/908/000025833/

 

[PRmerger]

Again, I’ll leave that question alone til I’ve had a chance to explore their theology more closely.

And this is what I find so peculiar. You get to “explore their theology” to decide whether what they espouse is legitimate?

How is that different than what you object to the Church doing?

It does appear to me that you are reserving for yourself the right to do that which you object to in Catholicism.

And you don’t even claim to have the charism of infallibility!

Curious, this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Was this addressed re: ‘sisters’???

Let’s not forget the women folk…
There were ‘sisters’, too, though I don’t think named. Does the translation of words theory apply here as well?

Matthew 13
55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James, and Joseph, and Simon, and Jude:
56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

Having demonstrated that the “brothers” are not necessarily uterine brothers, the whole siblings argument is undermined. That includes the “sisters”.

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately, such an entity does not exist.

Really? Jesus’ Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, does not exist?

Can you tell us when it vanished?

An alternative to that is the acceptance and tolerance of different beliefs Paul wrote about in Romans 14.

Fair enough. So if you espouse this paradigm then you will invite the “Reverend” Fred Phelps to preach sometime soon at your place of worship?

 

[PRmerger]

“**Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: **so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”

The bolded, ironically, is a man-made tradition. It is adding to Scripture.

Scripture is profitable for teaching and reproof. But it never claims to “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

If it did, it would have come with the table of contents attached to the manuscripts.

It did not.

You required a Church to tell you what books are inspired, and which ones are not.

 

[Radical]

The bolded, ironically, is a man-made tradition. It is adding to Scripture.

Scripture is profitable for teaching and reproof. But it never claims to “containeth all things necessary to salvation.”

consider John 20:

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

the author affirms that he didn’t write down everything…but his purpose is to tell what is necessary for a saving belief…it would seem to me that according to that author, that one gospel, by itself, “containeth all things necessary to salvation”

 

[PRmerger]

consider John 20:

30 And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.

the author affirms that he didn’t write down everything…but his purpose is to tell what is necessary for a saving belief…it would seem to me that according to that author, that one gospel, by itself “containeth all things necessary to salvation”

Fair enough.

Is that your assertion? That everything we need to be saved is only in the Gospel of John?

 

[cheezey]

Having demonstrated that the “brothers” are not necessarily uterine brothers, the whole siblings argument is undermined. That includes the “sisters”.

Makes sense, of course, but I was referring to a previous post I believe of yours: (NOT the debate of uterine siblings)

The writers of the New Testament were brought up using the Aramaic equivalent of “brothers” to mean both cousins and sons of the same father—plus other relatives and even non-relatives.

Is there an Aramaic equivalent of “sisters” to mean both cousins and daughters of the same parent?and how is it different from the Aramaic word for brothers?

My question is more an inquiry of language, not of the whole siblings argument.

thanks

 

[Porknpie]

Fair enough.

Is that your assertion? That everything we need to be saved is only in the Gospel of John?

History his missed this for 2000 years, after not finding scripture for “bible alone” we’ve now found salvation based on “John alone”.

If salvation is based on John alone then one must really take to heart and listen to St. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of St. John (one should listen to St. Ignatius in any event)

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. ** Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist**, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

 

[jrtrent]

But why do you get to decide that certain “systematic theologies” are permissible, and certain ones are not?

I never said any systematic theologies were not permissable. In fact, the quote you gave from my earlier post indicates that I found all the systematic theologies I’ve read to be permissable. Not that I’ve read very many, but I have great respect for those by Louis Berkhof, James P. Boyce, John Gill, Charles Hodge, and Francis Pieper.

Warning: offensive content that is contrary to the Catholic Church’s teaching.

I don’t see a systematic theology written by Fred Phelps or a Biblical defense of their position that God laughs when a f*g dies. You were the one who said he loves the Lord and has Biblical support for his positions, but I just don’t see the kind of scholarship here that those writing the systematic theologies I mentioned above brought to bear.

And this is what I find so peculiar. You get to “explore their theology” to decide whether what they espouse is legitimate?

How is that different than what you object to the Church doing?

I’ve missed something here. What am I objecting to the Church doing? Some churches teach the perpetual virginity of Mary and some don’t. I think I’ve said more than once that I don’t see absolute Biblical proof for either argument, so I don’t call anyone a heretic for holding one view or the other. To me, this is an example of audioaphora, an area where we should show a tolerance for differing beliefs because neither position is specifically forbidden in the Scriptures.

Really? Jesus’ Church, the pillar and foundation of truth, does not exist?

Can you tell us when it vanished?

I’ll have to refer you to the thread on the Great Apostasy for that. I think every church has a mixture of truth and error, and no, I don’t think I’m qualified to sort out what is true and what isn’t. It’s enough for me to belong to a church that is not teaching doctrine that is clearly opposed by scripture. Here’s a quote from that other thread that states my position:

"If by the word “apostasy” one means that it has become an abomination to the Lord or, in Boettner’s words, a religious monstrosity, then no, I do not believe there was a great apostasy in the early church. However, I do believe that the early church often fell into error, which was the reason for some parts of the new testament to be written. I also believe, along with Smith’s “Dictionary of the Bible” that Talmage quoted, that, “. . . as God permits men to mar the perfection of His designs in their behalf, and as men have both corrupted the doctrines and broken the unity of the Church, we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments; though it is possible that one of those fragments more than another may approach the scriptural and apostolic ideal, which existed only until sin, heresy, and schism had time sufficiently to develop themselves to do their work.”

Fair enough. So if you espouse this paradigm then you will invite the “Reverend” Fred Phelps to preach sometime soon at your place of worship?

Again, you’re the one maintaining that he loves the Lord and has Biblical warrant for his positions. Invite him to your church.

The bolded, ironically, is a man-made tradition. It is adding to Scripture.

Scripture is profitable for teaching and reproof. But it never claims to “containeth all things necessary to salvation.” . . .

You required a Church to tell you what books are inspired, and which ones are not.

These are good points. I’m sure you know the standard Protestant replies, but here’s one excerpt and link:

“The Roman Catholic Church says that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Materially sufficient means that everything the Christian needs to believe is found in Scripture. Formally sufficient means that in order to understand the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church has to interpret it. The problem here is that this position subjects the Bible to Roman Catholic interpretations and essentially makes Catholic sacred tradition superior to scripture1 – since it declares that the Bible can’t be understood except through the Catholic Church’s Magisterium. Since we don’t see doctrines such as worship of Mary, prayer to Mary, her immaculate conception, purgatory, penance, etc., found in Scripture (material sufficiency), we must naturally ask if the Roman Catholic view of formal sufficiency is correct. It isn’t.” carm.org/are-scriptures-sufficient

 

[PRmerger]

I never said any systematic theologies were not permissable. In fact, the quote you gave from my earlier post indicates that I found all the systematic theologies I’ve read to be permissable. Not that I’ve read very many, but I have great respect for those by Louis Berkhof, James P. Boyce, John Gill, Charles Hodge, and Francis Pieper.

Really? Even those that deny the Trinity?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

I don’t see a systematic theology written by Fred Phelps or a Biblical defense of their position that God laughs when a f*g dies.

Ah, so it’s the “systematic theology” that you find to be critical.

What do you mean by that, and why would it exclude any Christian church that claims the Bible to be their authority?

You were the one who said he loves the Lord and has Biblical support for his positions, but I just don’t see the kind of scholarship here that those writing the systematic theologies I mentioned above brought to bear.

Scholarship, then, is required to be a true church?

Can you support this with some verses from Scripture, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you’re the one maintaining that he loves the Lord and has Biblical warrant for his positions.

He says he does.

By your paradigm you must tolerate and accept that his positions, which he claims to have obtained from the Bible, are acceptable.

Are you really going to judge him here, on a rather public forum, and say that a man who claims to be a Christian is not?

Now, by the Catholic paradigm we are certainly free to say, “You have divorced yourself from the faith, given once for all, to the Church. There is a catechism of beliefs that we have acquired from the Apostles, and your beliefs have departed from them. In fact, they are odious.”

But in your paradigm, you can only say, “I must tolerate your beliefs because you say that you have found them in the Bible.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve missed something here. What am I objecting to the Church doing?

Very good, then. It is good to see that you do not oppose the Catholic Church saying, “It is dogma that Mary remained a perpetual virgin” and to claim otherwise is to have departed from the faith given to us from the Apostles.

To me, this is an example of audioaphora, an area where we should show a tolerance for differing beliefs because neither position is specifically forbidden in the Scriptures.

Fair enough.

So you are of the opinion that if it is not forbidden in the Scriptures then it is permissible?

Where is homosexual marriage forbidden in Scripture?
What about the ordination of women?
What about abortion?

 

[PRmerger]

“The Roman Catholic Church says that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Materially sufficient means that everything the Christian needs to believe is found in Scripture. Formally sufficient means that in order to understand the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church has to interpret it. The problem here is that this position subjects the Bible to Roman Catholic interpretations and essentially makes Catholic sacred tradition superior to scripture1 – since it declares that the Bible can’t be understood except through the Catholic Church’s Magisterium. Since we don’t see doctrines such as worship of Mary, prayer to Mary, her immaculate conception, purgatory, penance, etc., found in Scripture (material sufficiency), we must naturally ask if the Roman Catholic view of formal sufficiency is correct. It isn’t.” carm.org/are-scriptures-sufficient

The author of this quote clearly is quite ignorant about the Catholic Church.

Firstly, the Catholic Church is not Roman. When I read that in the first sentence, that makes everything else the author writes suspect, as if he were someone who got his education from the internet.

Also, any quote that mentions worshiping Mary in this context warrants a dismissal.

That quote elicits this response:

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2010/02/double-facepalm.jpg

 

[jrtrent]

Really? Even those that deny the Trinity?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Though I wouldn’t necessarily reject one that did, none of the systematic theologies I listed deny the Trinity, and why do you provide a link to something that isn’t a systematic theology and is about a group that doesn’t claim to be a Christian religion? This, along with the rest of your questions and comments, leads me to believe, due to your obvious intelligence and experience, that you are being purposefully and feignedly obtuse. Have a nice day.

 

[PRmerger]

Though I wouldn’t necessarily reject one that did, none of the systematic theologies I listed deny the Trinity, and why do you provide a link to something that isn’t a systematic theology and is about a group that doesn’t claim to be a Christian religion? This, along with the rest of your questions and comments, leads me to believe, due to your obvious intelligence and experience, that you are being purposefully and feignedly obtuse. Have a nice day.

Well, I think that you have realized that you cannot now hold the position you’ve been espousing.

Either you continue to proclaim your position, and allow the “Reverend” Fred Phelps to be invited to preach at your church, or you acknowledge that the Catholic Church has it right.

Incidentally, are Unitarians not included in the “etc” you conveniently kept in your list?