Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Erich]

you and yours have deciphered some masterful code implanted by Luke

Did the Apostles teach different things to different people? Of course not. The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across.

In fact, Jesus and the Apostles demanded conformity to the doctrines they taught. Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, wrote that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.” Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

So… why is it that Catholics (and Orthodox, for that matter) teach that Mary is the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, Most Holy, Ever-Virgin, etc, and pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations teach different doctrines one from another? Why is it okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can anyone think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God?

In 1 Tim 4:1, Paul even states that there will be those who fall away from the faith by believing false doctrines. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It teaches the truth and nothing but the truth, unless one believes that the true Body of Christ can teach error. Also, Scripture tells us Satan is the father of all lies. So, if there is false doctrine, that doctrine is the spawn of Satan, and believing something that is of Satan would never meet with the approval of the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church.

 

[Radical]

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?

I am not interested in proving what isn’t true

Very, very small percentage? Does it matter to you what the percentage is?

Goodfella and you are the ones that are trying to present the PVofM as something that was taught by the Apostles and then faithfully handed down from one generation to the next. It is presented as a thing that was universally believed (within the Christian world) and with respect to the ECFs, not “only did they preach what was traditionally handed down to them, but they did unanimously (paradosis)”. That presentation needs to be corrected. As I have already pointed out, the PVof M was not taught/believed universally.

To repeat, what seems to be often missed by Catholics when considering the PVof M is that, as it is taught today it has three pieces to it:

1. Ante partum
2. In partu, and
3. post partum

Fail to have any one of those three and the PVofM is lost. Terullian denied 2 and 3. Origen likely denied 2. The Helvidians and the Antidicomarianites denied 3. ** Basil of Caesarea implied that the view that Mary had more children after Jesus “was widely held and, though not accepted by himself, was not incompatible with orthodoxy”** (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], p. 495). That is hardly the description of a thing handed down from the apostles…it is the description of something that is evolving.

According to Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004, St. ETUAL 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).

Well, let’s be very clear wrt what that work stated. It is:

a) Before the council of Ephesus there was no fully general consensus

b) Perpetual virginity was not taught by Origen, Tertullian or Jerome

c) The belief in a perpetual virginity grew from the conviction of her virginity

WRT (b) above the Encyclopedia available at google books actually has a mistake at that point…in that it first states that Jerome didn’t teach it and then says Jerome taught it…what (I believe) it means is that, in answering Helvidius, Jerome refused to deny a natural birth (which would have eliminated perpetual virginity as now defined by the CC), but he did endorse virginity post partum. Likewise, Origen likely believed in a natural birth (no virginity as now defined), but believed in a perpetual virginity as he defined it. Clement of Alexandria indicated that a belief in a natural childbirth was common in his day:
But, as appears, many even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin. Stromata VII.16
Moreover, in Mary in the New Testament it states that “the penetrating analyses of Hugo Koch have shown that it is problematical to read the concept (the PVofM) back into Irenaeus, Justin or Ignatius.” Although you want to present the concept as an Apostolic teaching passed down and embraced everywhere, that is not what the historical record shows. The ECFs were not all on the same page…Some thought that it was a natural childbirth and some thought that it was a miraculous childbirth. Some thought that a natural childbirth would eliminate the PVofM, some did not understand it that way. Some thought that Mary had more children after Jesus, some thought that she had only the one child and that the brethren of Jesus were children of Joseph from a previous marriage whilst still others thought that they were cousins. All of these various views fell within orthodoxy…it simply wasn’t that the church had received a teaching that was faithfully handed down…it was that the ECFs were making it up as they went along.

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?

what matters most is whether the thing can be traced back to the apostles…and it can’t. Pointing out that it was widely preached in the 5th century doesn’t do a thing for tracing it back to the apostles.

What is that one belief that some protestants hold to? Once Saved Always Saved? Do you adhere to that belief?

no, I do not

What would you say about someone like Tertullian? That he was never saved in the first place since he fell from the faith?

I don’t believe that he fell from faith…neither did the other Christians in Carthage in his day…and I expect that Cyprian and Augustine would agree

 

[Good_Fella]

If you don’t want to acknowledge the connection you will dismiss a phrase such as “that ark declared a type of the body of Christ”… notwithstanding your belief that you and yours have deciphered some masterful code implanted by Luke in the passage.

But Irenaeus does not designate the person of Jesus as “the ark” as Hippolytus and Gregory Thaumaturgus do with regard to Mary. In his person, Jesus was the divine Word in the flesh, and his body was a type of incorruptible ark which held the fullness of his divine presence in the world just as the Divine Presence filled the ark in the sanctuary. Meanwhile the two 3rd century Fathers bear testimony to a sacred tradition that Luke acknowledged, but you wish to deny. Since you tend to ignore what people present to you just for the sake of arguing, allow me to quote them again.

“At that time, 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.”
Hippolytus, In Dan. 6 [Robets-Donaldson English Translation]

"The ark is verily the holy Virgin, gilded within and without, who received the treasure of universal sanctification."
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Orat. in Deip Annunciate

And an ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle (of His body), which engendered no corruption of sin. For the man who has sinned also has this confession to make: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” But the Lord was without sin, being of imperishable wood in respect of His humanity, – that is to say, being of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, covered, as it were,** within and without with the purest gold of the Word of God.** ( FRAGMENTS OF DISCOURSES OR HOMILIES VI)

Hippolytus associates Jesus with the ark insofar his own sacred body served as a tabernacle for his divine presence on earth. Jesus was not the tabernacle - his body was: “the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of his body.” In sacred Tradition, it is Mary herself (body and soul) who is personally designated as the sacred tabernacle of the Lord. We must interpret what Hippolytus means in light of what his contemporaries traditionally bear witness to.

"Not in a servant did He dwell, but in His holy tabernacle not made with hands, which is Mary the Mother of God."
Dionysius, Respons. ad Quoest 7 (c.A.D. 250)

Note it is Christ’s that is the Ark…his body/humanity is like the imperishable wood and he is covered within and without by the Word … [On Psalm XXll or XXlll] Hippolytus has it that the imperishable wood represents Christ’s humanity. The flesh comes from both Mary and the Spirit. The gold of the Ark represents the Word of God that covers the wood within and without. Mary does not contribute to the gold, only to the wood.

Our Lord’s body and humanity are attributes of his that resemble the physical attributes of the ark. This is what Hippolytus is telling us, not that He himself in his single divine Person was that tabernacle as Mary was in her human person. Meanwhile, the Father believed that Mary did contribute to the gold, since, according to him, she herself, as quoted above, 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.” Jesus did not only take his flesh from Mary, but rather he took his “holy” flesh from his holy mother. Again!

"For whereas the Word of God was without flesh, He took upon Himself the holy flesh by the holy Virgin, and prepared a robe which He wove for Himself."
Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ, 4 [Robets-Donaldson English Translation]

Now let’s turn to your passage with the questionable interpretation (I’ll use the form that Lyrikal provided and not your extremely questionable version)…
Understanding that the “who” (in red) refers to Mary (as opposed to back to Christ), puts the passage at odds with the previous four passages.

I suppose you find any interpretation that doesn’t square with what you wish to believe as questionable. But I’ve also provided the Robets-Donaldson translation.

“At that time, the Saviour appeared and showed his own body to the world, born of the Virgin who was the ark overlaid with pure gold;”

If the pronoun “who” was meant to refer to Christ and not Mary, then we would have to add a comma: “… ,born of the Virgin, who was the ark…” to parenthetically qualify our Lord as the ark. Meanwhile the syntax would be awkward.

… the passage talks about the ark being made manifest and about Christ’s birth…it is Christ that was made manifest at his birth.

The ark is the " tabernacle of his own body" manifested by the Incarnation.

 

[Radical]

“At that time, the Saviour appeared and showed his own body to the world, born of the Virgin who was the ark overlaid with pure gold;”

If the pronoun “who” was meant to refer to Christ and not Mary, then we would have to add a comma: “… ,born of the Virgin, who was the ark…” to parenthetically qualify our Lord as the ark. Meanwhile the syntax would be awkward.

OK, we’ll give this one last go…your extremely questionable translation is from a Fragment of Hippolytus’ commentary on Daniel. Fortunately, we now have the whole of that Commentary available online here . Here are the two passages back to back (first yours in full and then from the full Commentary) …surely you can now see where your questionable interpretation came from….and how it started out before error was 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. But a day with the Lord is 1000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life. ( Dan.vi.)
For he says to him, “And you shall make an ark of incorruptible wood and you will gild it with pure gold inside and outside and you shall make its height two cubits and a half and its breadth a cubit and a half and its height a cubit and a half.” The measure of which added together makes five and a half cubits, so that the five thousand five hundred years may be demonstrated,** in which time the Savior comes from the Virgin, and then he offered the Ark, his own body, into the world, gilded in pure gold, inside with the Word, outside with the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be shown and the Ark may be manifested.**
24.4. And so from the generation of Christ it is necessary to count the remaining five hundred years to the consummation of the six thousand years, and in this way the end will be. 24.5. But because in the fifth and a half time the Savior arrived in the world bearing the incorruptible ark, that is his own body, John says, “and it was the sixth hour,” so that half of the day may be demonstrated, a day of the Lord is like thousand years. And so the half of these is five hundred years . 24.6. For he does not admit him to be soon at hand. For the law was still burdensome, nor again had the sixth day been fulfilled. For he celebrated the washing, in the fifth and-a-half day, so in that remaining half time the Gospel may be preached to all the world and when the sixth day is fulfilled, the present life may cease…
Note how the passage from the full Commentary doesn’t designate Mary as the Ark at all…it is Christ that is the Ark. Note how the passage from the full Commentary (in contrast to your questionable interpretation) is so very consistent with the other passages from Hippolytus…bottom line: for Hippolytus the Ark is Christ and NOT Mary. Forget about being questionable or extremely questionable, your passage that “designates” Mary as the Ark is just plain wrong and demonstrably so.

 

[Good_Fella]

"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. But a day with the Lord is 1000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years.

"… in which time the Savior comes from the Virgin, and then he offered the Ark, his own body, into the world, gilded in pure gold, inside with the Word, outside with the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be shown and the Ark may be manifested.

24.4. “And so from the generation of Christ it is necessary to count the remaining five hundred years to the consummation of the six thousand years, and in this way the end will be. But because in the fifth and a half time the Savior arrived in the world bearing the incorruptible ark, that is his own body, …”

Note how the passage from the full Commentary doesn’t designate Mary as the Ark at all…it is Christ that is the Ark.

All commentaries are basically individual interpretations of a text, and so they can be shaped according to one’s religious persuasion. The translation Migne provides is one provided by a Catholic who interpreted the meaning of what another Catholic wrote in light of sacred Tradition. If we critically examine the text for ourselves, it is clear that Hippolytus designates the person of Mary as the ark and Christ’s body, which he acquired from her, as the ark made manifest in his person. By looking at the first fragment at the top, we should notice that Hippolytus is speaking of our Saviour’s body as the ark, so the relative pronoun “who” cannot refer back to him. Our Lord’s body was not a person. The pronoun correctly refers back to Mary - a person - the " ‘ark overlaid with pure gold’, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without." The excerpts that follow confirm that Hippolytus is referring to Jesus’ body - not him - as the ark. If the writer never intended to designate Mary as the ark overlaid with pure gold, he would have written: “At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed his own body to the world, born of the Virgin, which was the ark overlaid with gold, with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without.” Relative pronouns introduce relative clauses, which are a type of independent clause. They modify a word, phrase, or idea contained in the main clause. The word, phrase, or idea is called the antecedent. For example: “The professor, whom I respect, arrived for the lecture.” The type of clause determines what relative pronoun to use. In this example the relative pronoun is a possessive personal pronoun, since the antecedent is the professor. Thus our Lord’s body cannot be the antecedent for the relative clause, since it is introduced by the personal pronoun “who”. Mary is the antecedent here.

"At that time, the Saviour appeared and showed his own body to the world, born of the Virgin (antecedent), who was overlaid with pure gold (relative clause), with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without…And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body … in which time the Saviour comes from the Virgin, and then he offered the ark, his own body, into the world gilded with pure gold, inside with the Word, outside with the Holy Spirit, so that the truth may be shown and made manifest … in the fifth and a half time the Saviour arrived in the world bearing the incorruptible ark, that is his own body."

Finally, we should note that Hippolytus’ quote from the Psalm XXll or XXlll inverts his descrption of Mary: "But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is of Mary and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the Word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold." In his person, Jesus is “inwardly” of Mary and the Holy Spirit while “outwardly” the Word of God in the flesh. But In. Dan 6 refers to the person of Mary as the one overlaid with gold, "with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without." So Hippolytus is not saying that the person of Jesus is the ark, but rather his body is. And thus Mary is the antecedent of the relative clause that begins with the relative pronoun “who”, making her the ark in her person. Jesus is “outwardly” and not “inwardly” the Word made flesh in his divine person. I haven’t read the commentary you mention, but if the author does say that Hippolytus is referring to the person of Jesus as the ark, then I would suggest that he first learn his English grammar before attempting to interpret and translate ancient texts. He should also make cross-references, including Treatise on Christ and anti-Christ 4. I rest my case.

PAX

 

[Radical]

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

nope, I am well aware of those verses and am also well aware of how Catholics understand those verses.

How do those verses go with your subjective truth?

very nicely, but, the better term is a “subjective understanding” ….God speaks the truth….any interpretation of the verses that record those truths becomes subjective when those verses have a variety of possible meanings and becomes very subjective when one begins to read between the lines and draw inferences. It seems that you want to get away from that subjectivity by “substituting” the Magisterium for God and claiming that, with God’s help the Magisterium teaches truth and if everybody follows along, then you have one and only one answer (where the Magisterium has provided an answer that does not require further interpretation)…Is that “one and only one answer” bit what you call objective truth? If so, then that is one odd definition for as I have already pointed out, by that approach all sorts of cults would possess objective truth.

And if your truth is subjective, then why should I follow it?

why not follow Christ’s words instead and if you need help in understanding, then seek that help from someone who displays the fruits of the Spirit and place you trust in God that he will guide you as promised. One does not need infallibility to direct someone else to Christ’s words.

Do you really want to lead people into subjective truth?

again, I wouldn’t call it subjective truth….w/o a infallible means of determining an infallible teacher (if such has even been established), we are left with our fallible abilities….you just try to abandon your fallible abilities once you have used them to subjectively identify what you have subjectively determined to be an infallible teacher (assuming such even exists). I would prefer to lead people to the words of Jesus….from there they can exercise their fallible abilities in cooperation with the Holy Spirit if they so choose

Where did Christ ever tell us that the truth is subjective? He said ALL truth which is objective truth.

we don’t have a record of Christ labelling truth as either subjective or objective…nor do we have a record of Jesus establishing an infallible teaching Magisterium.

John 8:32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

the truth in question is the identity and role of Jesus…and the remark is addressed to all

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.

as we see from the rest of the NT the Counselor comes to all believers…not just members of a certain hierarchy.

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

b/c my approach directs one to Christ’s own words…secular relativism does not.

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?

well, for one it wouldn’t have to be centered at any particular bishopric so that Christendom would be faced with considerable periods of time where the supposed voice of God on earth is an embarrassingly despicable fellow. Second, like the prophets of the OT and the Apostles of the NT their ministry as the voice of God on earth could be validated with miracles of biblical quality and frequency. Third, together with the above, the Spirit of God would then indwell a particularly righteous man or woman enabling him/her to speak for God…and that person would not need to be someone from the clergy and would not need to be elected by the hierarchy….and there would be no problem in having two or three Popes at once (just as there wasn’t a problem having more than one prophet or more than one apostle at a time).

 

[Radical]

The translation Migne provides is one provided by a Catholic who interpreted the meaning of what another Catholic wrote in light of sacred Tradition.

are you kidding me?..after all this, you are telling me that you think that your extremely questionable interpretation came from the hand of Migne?..am I to understand that Patrologia Graeca-Latina isn’t Greek and Latin as its title would suggest, but that Migne produced an English work? Please clarify…as I would have never guessed it.

 

[anika001]

I would say it is probably true of most protestant communions. Personally, I see the claim that since scripture refers to “brothers and sisters” is a misunderstanding of the language. Even Luther assumed they were cousins.

 

[Good_Fella]

are you kidding me?..after all this, you are telling me that you think that your extremely questionable interpretation came from the hand of Migne?..am I to understand that Patrologia Graeca-Latina isn’t Greek and Latin as its title would suggest, but that Migne produced an English work? Please clarify…as I would have never guessed it.

I already told you that Migne compiled and edited translations made in pre-Renaissance time. He was a French Catholic priest who originally published his work in French. Also, from what I explained to you in my last post, by referring to the translation you provided, I fail to see how you can honestly still regard the translation in the Patro Graeca questionable. It’s practically the same in meaning. But I guess a square is a circle if that’s what you want it to be.

PAX

 

[Porknpie]

I already told you that Migne compiled and edited translations made in pre-Renaissance time. He was a French Catholic priest who originally published his work in French. Also, from what I explained to you in my last post, by referring to the translation you provided, I fail to see how you can honestly still regard the translation in the Patro Graeca questionable. It’s practically the same in meaning. But I guess a square is a circle if that’s what you want it to be.

PAX

The text as written says…

“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. .”

If Jesus was the Ark, the author would have written…

“At that time then, the Saviour appeared, (born) of the Virgin, and ** showed His own body to the world, 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. .”

OR

“At that time then, (born) of the Virgin, the Saviour appeared, and **showed His own body to the world, 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. .”

Likewise, Hippolytus wrote…

“At that time, the Saviour coming from the Virgin, the Ark brought forth his own body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested … and the Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

If Jesus was the Ark, would have written…

“At that time, coming from the Virgin, the Saviour, the Ark, brought forth his own body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested … and the Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

My high school French was a long time ago…it would be fun to look at the text in French and do the same.

Merci beaucoup.

 

[Porknpie]

Since Migne was being discussed, I thought it would be good to read a bit about him. Here’s an article on Migne written by a Jesuit (how wonderful they are). Migne was impressive to say the least. A priest who, literary accomplishments aside, walked for 10 years to Versailles to say Mass every day.

ts.mu.edu/readers/content/pdf/7/7.1/7.1.2.pdf

The first paragraph…

CHRISTIANITY is essentially based on divine revelation, of which - Catholics acknowledge two sources—Scripture and Tradition. By Scripture, Catholics mean the books enumerated as sacred and canonical by the Council of Trent. But what is Tradition? While authors are not quite agreed on the basic definition, it seems best all around to say that Catholic Tradition is the preaching of the magisterium of the Catholic Church. For we learn from the Synoptic Gospels that the magisterium received from Jesus Christ both the command to preach the whole of Christian revelation and the promise of perpetual divine assistance in the carrying out of this command. History tells us that the magisterium has exercised this function through the centuries. Therefore, for us today, for theologians more especially, one source of revelation is the documents which contain the preaching of the magisterium during the past nineteen centuries.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"In mentioning the “other,” moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Saviour was born in the year 5500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For He says to him,

“And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood, and shalt overlay it with pure gold within and without; and thou shalt make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height;” which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5500 years might be signified thereby.

1. 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."

[HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME-Daniel 5-6 [Early Christian Writings]

The Migne [is out of date] is superseded by Bonwetsch, preparation of a complete critical edition has been undertaken by the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Haven’t seen it.

 

[Good_Fella]

The text as written says…

“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. .”

En ce temps-la, alors, le Savueur a apparu et a montre son propre corps au monde, ne de la Vierge, qui etait l’arche surposse avec l’or pur, avec le mot dans et Saint-Esprit sans.

If Jesus was the Ark, the author would have written…

“At that time then, the Saviour appeared, (born) of the Virgin, and ** showed His own body to the world, 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. .”

OR

“At that time then, (born) of the Virgin, the Saviour appeared, and **showed His own body to the world, 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. .”

Likewise, Hippolytus wrote…

“At that time, the Saviour coming from the Virgin, the Ark brought forth his own body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested … and the Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

En ce temps-la, le Saveur venant de la Vierge, l’arche, a suscite son propre corps dan le monde de cette arche, qui a ete doree avec l’or pur dans par le Mot et sans par le Saint-Esprit.

If Jesus was the Ark, would have written…

“At that time, coming from the Virgin, the Saviour, the Ark, brought forth his own body into the world from that Ark, which was gilded with pure gold within by the Word, and without by the Holy Ghost; so that the truth was shown forth, and the Ark was manifested … and the Saviour came into the world bearing the incorruptible Ark, that is too say his own body.”

Good analysis!

My high school French was a long time ago…it would be fun to look at the text in French and do the same.
Merci beaucoup.

Notre plaisir!

Paix

 

[Good_Fella]

"In mentioning the “other,” moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Saviour was born in the year 5500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For He says to him,

“And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood, and shalt overlay it with pure gold within and without; and thou shalt make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height;” which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5500 years might be signified thereby.

1. 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."

[HIPPOLYTUS OF ROME-Daniel 5-6 [Early Christian Writings]

The Migne [is out of date] is superseded by Bonwetsch, preparation of a complete critical edition has been undertaken by the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Haven’t seen it.

Yes, so I analyzed the Robets-Donaldson translation which appears to be the one Radical referred to. It’s also used by New Advent. But Migne’s version conveys the same message, only it’s worded differently. Gotta go and find Bonwetsch’s version.

PAX

 

[Erich]

God speaks the truth….any interpretation of the verses that record those truths becomes subjective when those verses have a variety of possible meanings and becomes very subjective when one begins to read between the lines and draw inferences.

I noticed you did not answer my questions in post #630. I’ll repeat them here for your convenience:

Did the Apostles teach different things to different people? Of course not. The Apostles all taught the same doctrines…ALL the same doctrines. After all, Jesus tells us that the Holy Spirit was to guide them into all truth. If they are guided into all truth, then they cannot help but teach identical doctrines…they cannot help but teach the same truths…to all the different peoples they came across.

In fact, Jesus and the Apostles demanded conformity to the doctrines they taught. Paul to Titus, speaking of those who are bishops, wrote that they should “Give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it,” (Titus 1:9). “Teach what befits sound doctrine,” (Titus 2:1). “Guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit,” (2 Tim 1:14). “That you may charge certain persons not to teach ANY different doctrine,” (1 Tim 1:3) - no mention here that it’s okay to teach different doctrine, as long as it is “non-essential.” Conformity to doctrine is commanded in all of these instances by Paul. And we know that Paul is inspired by the Holy Spirit Who was sent by Jesus, so Jesus, as did the Apostles, does indeed demand conformity to the doctrines He taught.

So… why is it that Catholics (and Orthodox, for that matter) teach that Mary is the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Queen of Heaven, the New Eve, Most Holy, Ever-Virgin, etc, and **pastors of today’s thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations teach different doctrines one from another? Why is it okay to not have doctrinal conformity amongst the various denominations? How can anyone think that the lack of doctrinal conformity could in any way be of God? **

In 1 Tim 4:1, Paul even states that there will be those who fall away from the faith by believing false doctrines. The Church was founded by Jesus Christ. It teaches the truth and nothing but the truth, unless one believes that the true Body of Christ can teach error. Also, Scripture tells us Satan is the father of all lies. So, if there is false doctrine, that doctrine is the spawn of Satan, and believing something that is of Satan would never meet with the approval of the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church.

 

[Adamski]

Lutherans and Anglicans teach that Jesus was an only child

 

[JonNC]

Lutherans and Anglicans teach that Jesus was an only child

Hostorically Lutherans do. And the Lutheran reformers saw fit to include the perpetual virginity in the confessions, because they believed it, as do I.

On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother’s womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.

However, unlike the Holy Theotokos, *simpre virgo *is not consider *de fide *within Lutheranism, but adiaphoron. You will find Lutherans who do not believe it, who believe, for whatever reason, that the “brothers and sisters” in scripture are children of Mary. Considering the historic teaching of the Church, and the beliefs of the reformers, I see no reason to deny her perpetual virginity as they do, but there you go.

Jon

 

[cheezey]

You may be right. What I think is a good use of time, and may even be profitable, is for people to share what their faith teaches. And that, if I understand it correctly, is the purpose of this forum, “Non-Catholic Religions - explore the history and beliefs of non-Catholic and non-Christian faiths, dialogue with their adherents.”

The OP had asked, “I don’t remember ever being taught that Jesus had siblings in the Disciple of Christ church. But my research after this conversation seems to reveal that many or most Protestant churches believe this. Is this true? Are Protestant churches teaching this as fact?”

As even the beginning page of this thread shows, the answer is that some do and some don’t. There can be some nice discussion on the reasons for believing one way or the other. For me, the discussion degenerates into something less helpful and far less pleasant when, instead of sharing information, it becomes a “this is why you’re wrong” debate.

 

[panevino]

Thought I’d throw this in, which appears to show a consistency with regard to virginity (name removed by moderator)artu between Hippolytus and irenaeus

God, the word Incarnate, passed in honour through the Virgins womb…(fragments and commentaries – on proverbs (near the end))

hippolytus learned from Irenaeus who stated "…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)

Below Also by Hippolytus, but a bit difficult to analyze
Here he seems to contrast ideas repeatedly (not God/God) and makes an interesting point re the birth of Christ that I think is consistent with above

I am a man and not God, By my birth I loosed the barrenness of my mother; I did not make virginity barren. I was brought up from beneath; I did not come down from above. …(the discourse on the holy theophany – 3) pg 235

 

[Radical]

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…

I think that you should have said that the Protestant believes that scripture contains truth. He realizes that his efforts to interpret that truth are fallible and will (at least occasionally) produce a subjective interpretation

Compare that to the Catholics…The Holy Spirit is leading them all to ONE truth and not different truths (again…real Catholics).

I think that you should have said that the Catholic believes that the Magisterium teaches truth. The Catholic hopefully realizes that his belief is based on a subjective determination that an infallible teaching authority exists and a second subjective determination as to the identity of it

What are you left with protestantism?

a situation similar to what existed in Palestine just before the first coming, when scripture was available w/o an infallible teaching authority to interpret it. There were divisions…Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes, Samaritans…were major ones and who knows how many minor ones existed. What is that, a major division for every million or so? At that rate we should have about 2,000 major divisions within Christendom…I know you like the 20,000 Protestant denomination figure and even if it was remotely close to being correct, that number hardly represents major divisions. Do we even have a 1000 major divisions?

The question is, which Church today has the fullness of the truth?

first you should ask, WHAT is the Church….then look for all those who have the Spirit and you’ll find it

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.

Well, that approach just might be punishing honesty and rewarding self-deception. In any event, any denomination that claims fullness after Paul said that we see but dimly seems to have over-reached. Third, you should note that God’s promise is to lead to all truth….not to restrict free will so that the overly zealous would be prevented from adding and/or embracing novelties. God leads as promised, whether or not man actually follows

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

agreed…we each have our own opinion….and it is also my opinion that scripture and history provides better evidence for my opinion than it does for yours

Tell me Radical, did Christ intend that we subjectively determine what the truth of the Apostles is?

do you mean should you/must you decide for yourself if Jesus is Lord?..if so, I guess then, yes

How would one expect to have unity in doctrine and unity in the Church without a living and breathing authority?

unity in doctrine?..by not adding , by not claiming to know absolutely (ie claiming objective knowledge, b/c when it can’t be validated it only leads to division)….basic unity?..by acknowledging that the Spirit is hardly limited to a single denomination…or to a mere 1000 denominations……if you want one word, then go with “love”. Two words? … then add “humility”…and of course, avoid pride

If every man is to determine what is true and what is not by himself, then you will end up at different paths.

a reason we should seek out and submit to other

At least with Catholicism, EVERYONE who is lead by the Holy Spirit will be lead to ONE truth

or is it that with Catholicism, EVERYONE who signs on (to the idea that the hierarchy has got it absolutely right) will be led to ONE understanding.

How do you not see the huge difference in this?

well, EVERYONE who signs on (to the idea that the hierarchy OF PROTESTANT CHURCH “X” has got it absolutely right) will be led to ONE understanding too…nothing miraculous there, just submission to a fallible hierarchy.

One side leads to conflicting doctrines and the other side leads to one truth.

or unity around error, whilst claiming that the error is objective 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.

yep…different approaches by fallible people lead to different imperfect results.

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?

could it be that God might not want his people led by a monarchical leader? …even though a monarch is best positioned to require his subjects to conform?..could God desire unity through all submitting to each other in brotherly love and not through submission to a “lord it over” style leadership?

Of course he’s going to set up an authoritative church.

agreed…but the Church = those possessed of the Spirit and not some hierarchy

The question is, how is this authority supposed to operate? We know that it’s not supposed to operate in an individualistic way.

agreed

Why else would the Church hold a council in Acts 15? Why not just determine the truth individually based on the evidence?

b/c we are a body and the hand should not act w/o the foot….nor should the eye say to the hand, I can act w/o you. The council in Jerusalem had the benefit of miraculously validated Apostles in attendance. The most important evidence at Acts 15 seemed to be a consideration of who received the Spirit showing that God had made no distinction (I note that it doesn’t indicate that the Gentiles believers were labelled separated brethren…lacking the fullness of truth).