Church of Christ teaches Jesus had siblings?

[Erich]

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

Actually… Scripture tells us that God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,” (1 Tim 2:4). So, God wants all men to know the truth.

Secondly, we see that Jesus Christ is the “way, the truth, and the life,” (John 14:6). So, God wants all men to know Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is the Truth and God wants all men to know the truth.

Thirdly, the church “is His body, the fullness of Him [Jesus Christ] Who fills all in all,” (Eph 1:23). So, God wants all men to be members of the church because the church is the fullness of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is the Truth, and God wants all men to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Finally, since the Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ, then God wants all men to be Catholic

 

[Erich]

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.

Actually, your 20,000 number is low. According to adherents.com/ there are 33,830 Christian denominations.

Do we even have a 1000 major divisions?

Yes. There are over 1,500 organizations and denominations in North America that consider themselves Christian. In this country alone, there are 4 major divisions just within Lutheranism: ELCA, LCMS, WELS, and LCMC. There are also multiple divisions of Anglicanism, Methodism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism, etc. If a division is enough to cause one branch to break altar and pulpit fellowship with another branch, I would consider it a “major division.” For example: Anglican Communion vs. Continuing Anglican; the Southern Baptist Convention withdrew from Baptist World Alliance whereas the American Baptist Churches USA are part of the Baptist World Alliance (and who knows how many Baptist congregations there are because they split from other Baptist congregations)?

 

[Erich]

it is also my opinion that scripture and history provides better evidence for my opinion than it does for yours

When did the Jehovah’s Witnesses get started? Was it 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Are there Jehovah’s Witnesses temples in the Promised Land dating back to the early centuries? No. In Rome? No. Anywhere in the Middle East? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have, in fact, no witnesses.

The Mormons? Again, no witnesses. Did they start 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Did anyone else see the angel Joseph Smith claims to have seen? No. What about those gold tablets? No. Any evidence of those two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed on this continent 2000 years ago that supposedly annihilated themselves in an epic battle somewhere in what is now the state of New York? No. Archeologists can find arrowheads and pottery from small 10,000-year old Indian villages, yet not a single shred of evidence for either of these two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed just 2000 years ago. History tells us that Joseph Smith’s claims were bogus in oh so many ways.

The same holds for all the other pretenders to the throne. For all of them, they have no witnesses to bear out their claims. But, what about the Catholic Church? What witnesses does she have? Plenty. The witness of the Early Church Fathers, most of whom were bishops in the Catholic Church. They were not bishops in the Baptist church, nor the Presbyterian Church of America, nor the Mormon church nor the Lutheran church, nor the Anglican church.

The witness of history. Historians of all creeds and of no creed will tell you that the papacy can be traced back 2000 years. That the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ around the year 30 A.D. That the line of the Bishops authority can be traced to the Apostles.

Was it the monks of the Methodist church that preserved and copied the Scriptures in their monasteries over the centuries? No. The monks of the Evangelical church? No. The monks of any of the “non-denominational” churches? No. It was the monks of the Catholic Church that did so. Which church is it whose witness we rely upon for the canon of Scripture - to know that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant Word of God? The Mormon church? No. The Evangelical church? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses? No.

The witness of miracles. No church, that I am aware of, claims the existence of ongoing miracles - miracles that have eluded scientific explanation even to this day - other than the Catholic Church. The miracles of bodies of saints that are incorrupt. Eucharistic miracles that date back centuries. The miracles of such things as the tilma of Juan Diego, which should have disintegrated into dust over 400 years ago and whose image still cannot be explained by science. The many historical witnesses that relate the miracles performed by the saints - the Catholic saints - throughout the centuries - healings, raising people from the dead, bilocation, and many many more. All of these witnesses, and more, point to one and only one Church as the authentic interpreter of Scripture - the Catholic Church.

 

[Erich]

the Church = those possessed of the Spirit and not some hierarchy

That is the typical Protestant conception of the Church – that it is invisible. Though individuals may group together for fellowship and Bible study, their churches are really like clubs in a city. The real church, say Protestants, is the broad and unseen group of the saved.

However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they go to doesn’t really matter. In fact, Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a* *visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches.

The Church of the first century established by Jesus Christ was not merely an invisible group of believers who possessed equal authority but a community with visible leaders exercising a divine authority over the People of God to lead them to the truth. Indeed, Scripture shows that Jesus Christ did in fact establish an infallible magisterium to which all Christians must submit out of obedience to Christ.

 

[adrift]

The Church of the first century established by Jesus Christ was not merely an invisible group of believers who possessed equal authority but a community with visible leaders exercising a divine authority over the People of God to lead them to the truth. Indeed, Scripture shows that Jesus Christ did in fact establish an infallible magisterium to which all Christians must submit out of obedience to Christ.

Jesus said that he came to fulfill. The priesthood was established with Aaron and fulfilled in the Apostles.

 

[SteveVH]

When did the Jehovah’s Witnesses get started? Was it 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Are there Jehovah’s Witnesses temples in the Promised Land dating back to the early centuries? No. In Rome? No. Anywhere in the Middle East? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses have, in fact, no witnesses.

The Mormons? Again, no witnesses. Did they start 2000 years ago in Israel? No. Did anyone else see the angel Joseph Smith claims to have seen? No. What about those gold tablets? No. Any evidence of those two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed on this continent 2000 years ago that supposedly annihilated themselves in an epic battle somewhere in what is now the state of New York? No. Archeologists can find arrowheads and pottery from small 10,000-year old Indian villages, yet not a single shred of evidence for either of these two great civilizations that Mormons claim existed just 2000 years ago. History tells us that Joseph Smith’s claims were bogus in oh so many ways.

The same holds for all the other pretenders to the throne. For all of them, they have no witnesses to bear out their claims. But, what about the Catholic Church? What witnesses does she have? Plenty. The witness of the Early Church Fathers, most of whom were bishops in the Catholic Church. They were not bishops in the Baptist church, nor the Presbyterian Church of America, nor the Mormon church nor the Lutheran church, nor the Anglican church.

The witness of history. Historians of all creeds and of no creed will tell you that the papacy can be traced back 2000 years. That the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ around the year 30 A.D. That the line of the Bishops authority can be traced to the Apostles.

Was it the monks of the Methodist church that preserved and copied the Scriptures in their monasteries over the centuries? No. The monks of the Evangelical church? No. The monks of any of the “non-denominational” churches? No. It was the monks of the Catholic Church that did so. Which church is it whose witness we rely upon for the canon of Scripture - to know that the Bible is indeed the inspired, inerrant Word of God? The Mormon church? No. The Evangelical church? No. The Jehovah’s Witnesses? No.

The witness of miracles. No church, that I am aware of, claims the existence of ongoing miracles - miracles that have eluded scientific explanation even to this day - other than the Catholic Church. The miracles of bodies of saints that are incorrupt. Eucharistic miracles that date back centuries. The miracles of such things as the tilma of Juan Diego, which should have disintegrated into dust over 400 years ago and whose image still cannot be explained by science. The many historical witnesses that relate the miracles performed by the saints - the Catholic saints - throughout the centuries - healings, raising people from the dead, bilocation, and many many more. All of these witnesses, and more, point to one and only one Church as the authentic interpreter of Scripture - the Catholic Church.

Excellent!

 

[Good_Fella]

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.

Since when does a private interpretation become objective? I mean, how does the Protestant know with certainty when gleaning the Scriptures that he has actually apprehended the divine truth on a given occasion? Because he thinks he has? Still sounds subjective to me. Of course, the Protestant will rationalize he has been guided by the Holy Spirit in the formulation and definition of his doctrine - or rather that which appeals to his sensibilities. Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Zwingli, & Co. all believed that they had stumbled upon something new, which had eluded the rest of Christendom all that time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Hence, Protestantism was doomed to crumble into countless denominations ad finitum from the start at variance with Christ’s reason for sending the Paraclete. All Protestant religious leaders have presumed to believe that they have been sealed with the Holy Spirit when proposing their novel doctrines or variants and rejecting those of their peers. So how does any of them know with certainty that he or she is right? What right does any of them have to claim that he or she is guided by the Holy Spirit and not the others? By whose authority? Scripture? Seems more like the authority one places on his or her own reasoning in the interpretation of Scripture, which is subjective.

“He who does not gather with me scatters.”
Matthew 12, 30

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.

The Judaizers whom the apostles had to reckon with in the Church must have felt the same way as you do. But the authentic apostolic teaching authority dismissed their private agenda in its infallible declaration: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (Acts 15:28). The nascent church in the NT acknowledged and promoted the need for an infallible central teaching authority which was established by Christ himself (Mt 16:18-19). And none of the truly faithful dared question the apostolic teaching authority of the Church (Acts 5:13), which would include those men who were appointed by the apostles to succeed them in the divine teaching office (1 Cor 2:13; 2 Cor 2:17). And the Arians, who believed and taught that Jesus was merely a man, would have felt the same way as you do in their rejection of the Council of Nicea’s decrees against their sectarian teachings.

“But the word of the Lord, which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.”
*St. Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa, 2 (A.D. 372) *

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

The true Church is infallible, hierarchical, and visibly one ( a physical body and a single corporate entity). Our definition of the Church must conform with how the NT church perceived herself.

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

And God has appointed in the church first apostles (bishops, presbyters, deacons), second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.
1 Corinthians 12, 28 (cf. Eph 4, 11)

There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism.
Ephesians 4, 4-5

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

… 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.

When Jesus told his apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide them in all truth, he had his disciples and their valid successors in mind with respect to essential doctrines which all the faithful must accept. The role of the Paraclete is to prevent the Church’s Magisterium from teaching false doctrines (i.e., salvation by faith alone) and promulgating false dogmas. Individual clergy, such as Arius and Nestorius, theologians, and all the laity do not possess this guaranty of the Holy Spirit, and so they are in no position to determine what article of belief belongs to the deposit of faith. Nor do they have the ability and authority to question and challenge the doctrines which have been established. Until the 15th century, many theologians, including St. Thomas Aquinas, questioned the veracity of the belief in the Immaculate Conception. But once Pope Sixtus lV established its feast day on 8 December 1475, and had it incorporated into the sacred liturgy - a monument of sacred Tradition - all theological speculation and questioning was ordered to stop by the Extra-ordinary Magisterium: from the Chair of Peter. As you may know, what was now a non-infallible (not untrue) doctrine of the Church embraced by the Magisterium became a dogma of the Church on 8 December 1854 with the infallible (safe-guarded from error) ex-cathedra pronouncement of Pope Pius lX in his Apostolic Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. Likewise, nobody like Helvidius would have dared to question the Church’s teaching on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary once Pope Martin l threatned to anathematize anyone who should be so presumptuous as to challenge this doctrine by his decree at the 1st Lateran Synod in A.D. 649, unless he were a reprobate. True, this was not an ecumenical council, but only because it was directed against the majority of Eastern Bishops who were absent on account of the Monothelite heresy they had embraced. The next general Council of Constantinople (Vl, 680-681) ratified all the decisions reached by the Lateran Council at Rome under Martin l and eradicated this false teaching once and for all in the entire Church.

*It is God who has established us with you in Christ and has anointed us, by putting his seal on us and giving us his Spirit in our hearts as a first installment.
2 Corinthians 1, 21-22 *

For we are not peddlers of God’s word like so many; but in Christ we speak as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God and standing in his presence.
2 Corinthians 2, 17

So we are ambassadors for Christ, since God is making his appeal through us; we entreat you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
2 Corinthians 5, 20

And what you have heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will be able to teach others as well.
2 Timothy 2, 2

We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and whoever is not from God does not listen to us. From this we know the spirit of truth from the spirit of error.
1 John 4, 6

“And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit (the Sacrament of Ordination), to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.”
St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98)

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).

Like I said, the apostles were the ones who had reached an infallible (free from error) decision by the guaranty of the Holy Spirit, once Peter had been granted a vision while in prayer before meeting Cornelius (Acts 10). And all Christians, Jew and Gentile, were expected to accept the council’s decree to remain in communion with the Church. The men whom the apostles appointed to succeed them in their “divine office” (Col 1:25) and those after them (2 Cor 3:6) taught and ruled with the same divine authority invested in them by Christ, who in turn received his authority and power to invest from the Father (Jn 8:28; 12:49; 14:10; 16:14-15).

So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints, and also members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
Ephesians 2, 19-20

Declare these things; exhort and approve with all authority. Let no one look down on you.
Titus 2, 15

But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labor among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.
1 Thessalonians 5, 12-13

PAX

 

[Erich]

But the authentic apostolic teaching authority dismissed their private agenda in its infallible declaration: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements” (Acts 15:28).

This alone should be sufficient Scriptural proof that – from the beginning – the earliest Christians believed that authority for deciding doctrinal matters rested with the leaders of the early Church, not with each individual reading the Bible on his/her own.

What do we see in Acts 15:28 and the preceding verses? We see that a doctrinal dispute arose in the early Church over whether or not the Gentile converts should be circumcised. Well, what did they do? How did they decide the matter? Did they consult Scripture as they should do if they believed in Sola Scriptura? No. They called a council. The leaders of the Church, in a council, decided the first doctrinal dispute in the early Church. The teaching of Sola Scriptura obviously did not exist in the early Church because if it had, and they had indeed gone solely by Scripture to decide this dispute, what would have happened? Well, they would have seen in Genesis how God required circumcision and they would have come to a completely different conclusion than the one they came to.

And so it is with the question of whether or not Jesus had siblings. On the one hand we have a fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that you think Scripture is, but cannot be infallibly sure about. On the other hand we have a Church founded by Jesus Christ and by Him given the authority to teach in His name.

 

[Good_Fella]

This alone should be sufficient Scriptural proof that – from the beginning – the earliest Christians believed that authority for deciding doctrinal matters rested with the leaders of the early Church, not with each individual reading the Bible on his/her own.

What do we see in Acts 15:28 and the preceding verses? We see that a doctrinal dispute arose in the early Church over whether or not the Gentile converts should be circumcised. Well, what did they do? How did they decide the matter? Did they consult Scripture as they should do if they believed in Sola Scriptura? No. They called a council. The leaders of the Church, in a council, decided the first doctrinal dispute in the early Church. The teaching of Sola Scriptura obviously did not exist in the early Church because if it had, and they had indeed gone solely by Scripture to decide this dispute, what would have happened? Well, they would have seen in Genesis how God required circumcision and they would have come to a completely different conclusion than the one they came to.

And so it is with the question of whether or not Jesus had siblings. On the one hand we have a fallible, non-authoritative, non-binding, private interpretation of a particular verse or verses of something that you think Scripture is, but cannot be infallibly sure about. On the other hand we have a Church founded by Jesus Christ and by Him given the authority to teach in His name.

Yes, Church doctrine has never originated from examining the Scriptures and written word of God. From the beginning the Church has relied on two initial sources: the words Jesus spoke to his apostles, and the unwritten word of God declared by the Holy Spirit to the Church, which Jesus never spoke anything about before he ascended into heaven, but promised to through his Advocate when the time would be ripe. Scripture is the objective rule of faith, but it has always served to confirm the traditional beliefs and teachings of the Church and aid her to better understand them as she matures in understanding the word of God through discernment. What was revealed to the twelve apostles and understood by them was foundational. The Christian theology of original sin, for example, systematically originated with St. Paul, not with any of the Twelve. And although original sin is a dogma of the Church, how she chooses to explain it has not yet finally been determined once and for all. It remains somewhat dim, but clearer than it was before as we gain more knowledge and understanding. Anyway, if the first Christians were people of the Holy Book, they would also have set Saturday aside for the Sabbath and worship. But according to tradition, Christ rose from the dead on Sunday.

Although I am the least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ, and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.
Ephesians 3, 8-10

*PAX *

 

[Radical]

There is no other way for unity to be obtained other than having a living and breathing authoritative Church today.

God can only get the job done if he does it the way that you figured out that it must be done?..or is it, that unity of the sort that you want can only be obtained that one way?

Giving everyone a book and telling them to determine what is truth on their own is a recipe for disaster and is chaotic as we see within your protestant denominationS.

how much do you actually know about the Protestant world? Here is a page listing the 40 denominations currently affiliated with and the 5 observers of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada …please note the breadth. To a large degree the differences among Protestant denominations have been put aside and ignored. I doubt that there is even a small fraction of the chaos that you would like to attribute to Protestantism.

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

not necessarily…they made mistakes in what they did (see Peter for example) and quite possibly orally justified their error until corrected.

The fact that you don’t believe these men received a good description of the oral teaching only further shows how much an authoritative church is necessary.

to be precise, it shows how much an authoritative church is necessary for those like you who cannot live with anything less than being provided with a definite answer on every issue…your need does not determine God’s course of action, nor does your limited perception of how God could get a job done actually determine what God did/does.

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

‘tis interesting how Catholics seem to jump over verses 1-13 to get to verse 15…if you want to identify the Church that the author of 1 Tim contemplated, then look for the one that has tried to always appoint overseers that have met the qualifications of the overseers set out in the first verses…if the church doesn’t fulfill that condition, then IMHO it shouldn’t claim the attribute that follows in verse 15.

I also note that Catholic doctrine keeps developing with more and more being added. As such, the catholic/universal Church of the 3rd century would have held less truth than the Catholic Church of the 19th century…yet you would insist that both held the fullness of truth and were thus both were the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold less truth than another and both are still considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth.
Perhaps you would suggest that the difference is that the Catholic church of any century would never have taught error, but when I look at the Catholic Church of history it taught some very harsh stuff about the Orthodox and about Protestants of various stripes…stuff that is at odds with the more friendly stuff of Vatican II. Those at the top of the Catholic Church of centuries ago taught that the Greek Orthodox and Protestants were damned, whereas now, according to the leadership of the CC, the Greeks are a true Church and Protestants are separated brethren. If I follow Catholic practice correctly, they deal with the harsh stuff by dramatically redefining its meaning and/or by classifying it as unofficial teaching that can be disregarded. The thing is, the earlier CC didn’t know that what it was teaching needed redefining or was unofficial. They believed what they taught …plain and simple….yet you would insist that the earlier CC was the pillar and foundation of truth….so I guess a Church can hold to teachings that are at odds with the teachings of the modern CC (regarding a matter as important as salvation) and still be considered to be the pillar and foundation of truth….the respective teachings are at odds, but both have the fullness of truth. So why again is some variety amongst protestants such a troubling thing?

Don’t equate impeccability with infallibility.

yes, impeccability and infallibility are two different things, but they absolutely require the same source: the Holy Spirit.
Here is what I said on another thread (regarding bad Popes):

1. Infallibility wrt doctrine would absolutely require God’s presence
2. scriptures clearly teach that righteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is with that person and that unrighteousness in a person is a sign that the Holy Spirit is not with that person
3. a number of Popes, were very unrighteous
4. given 1-3, one would not expect the Holy Spirit to be with those corrupt Popes,
5. since the Holy Spirit was not with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were righteous) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was with the bad Popes during their time in office (so as to ensure that they were infallible)
6. since the Holy Spirit was not attached to the office to ensure infallibility (during the time of the bad Popes) it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit was ever attached to the office of the Pope so as to ensure the occupants’ infallibility

 

[Radical]

You’re only fooling yourself. St. Peter had authority and he messed up…

hmmmm…so you think that Peter could mess up, but it is arrogant to say that Ignatius messed up with elevating the position of bishops….and that would be b/c Ignatius might have talked to an Apostle, whereas Peter was an Apostle and definitely talked to Christ. Fine bit of logic that.

St. Peter had authority and he messed up during his time as a leader of the Church. Does that mean that we’re going to throw all of Christianity away because of such unfortunate events?

all of Christianity? Who’s suggesting that? …let us just throw away the novelties that were added to the original deposit.

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

does Ignatius ever say that the monarchical bishop style that he advocated was ever taught by an Apostle? Paul wanted the congregations that he established to obey his teaching over the teachings of others…where is his, “I am a bishop and I must be obeyed” claim to be found exactly?

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

why?

 

[Radical]

What do you think Christ thinks of your little unappreciative attitude towards His mother?

I don’t think he views it as being unappreciative….what do you think Christ thinks about the act of attributing qualities to her that she did not possess?..as if she wasn’t good enough the way she really was?

And on many occasions, Christ uses extreme words to emphasize a point rather than to make an accurate statement.

like eating his flesh for salvation

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

no, I am saying that “opening the womb” would negate virginity in partu (as the CC teaches it) and Irenaeus speaks of Jesus opening Mary’s womb

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

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

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

applying that verse to the PVofM is best explained as an effort to find support (any support) in scripture for a questionable belief.

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

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

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

I strongly doubt that the vows contemplated by Numbers 30 were limited to those instances where the vow involved avoiding sex

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

bitter? Compared to the vitriol thrown at me on these threads, I kinda thought that I was a little ray of sunshine.

 

[panevino]

…
no, I am saying that “opening the womb” would negate virginity in partu (as the CC teaches it) and Irenaeus speaks of Jesus opening Mary’s womb…

Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, **and shall bring forth **a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

It does not switch to a non virgin mid verse.

Hippolytus - "…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)

Hippolytus
"…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)

 

[Good_Fella]

God can only get the job done if he does it the way that you figured out that it must be done?..or is it, that unity of the sort that you want can only be obtained that one way?

That unity our Lord desires can be obtained only in one way: a central teaching authority. When the apostles and their appointed ministers preached the gospel, they were of “the same mind” and the “the same judgment” on matters of faith and morals, which cannot be said for the minsters and pastors of the different Protestant denominations. Consequently, there can be nothing but dissension and division among the faithful in Christendom without an apostolic central teaching authority and our humble submission to it (cf. 1 Cor 1:10).

Here is a page listing the 40 denominations currently affiliated with and the 5 observers of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada …please note the breadth. To a large degree the differences among Protestant denominations have been put aside and ignored. I doubt that there is even a small fraction of the chaos that you would like to attribute to Protestantism.

Evangelicalism is just one autonomous branch or movement among a dozen others in Protestantism. No such movements characterized the church in the NT or the early church for that matter. There was no such thing as one set of believers being orthodox and another set being neo-orthodox, or one group being reformed and another group being evangelical independently existing in their own right under separate joint leadership. Christ never intended that a heterogeneous church exist. From the beginning, the Church which Christ founded was acknowledged to necessarily be homogeneous and visibly one under a single leadership for the sake of preserving doctrinal unity and teaching the truth on matters of faith and morals. There should be nothing but chaos unless the Church was one in faith under a central teaching and ruling authority, since no baptized Christian could be sure what to believe other than Christ died for his sins and rose from the dead. He would have to perpetually question whether Christ was really present in the Eucharist, or whether he should have his baby baptized, or whether it was all right to divorce his wife, or be able to acquire a personal righteousness by the grace of God that belonged to him, or if once he was saved he would always be saved, etc… Sounds pretty chaotic to me, as it would have to the early Christians in all the confusion. Protestants are still doing just that: wondering among themselves what actually is true - hence the need for ecumenical organizations, which never existed in the early Church or pre-Reformation era.

… it shows how much an authoritative church is necessary for those like you who cannot live with anything less than being provided with a definite answer on every issue.

So, I take it, you are content to live as a Christian without being provided with definite answers on matters of faith and morals. Shouldn’t it concern any Christian who values the salvation of his soul, for instance, whether he would in fact be living in the sinful state of adultery by divorcing his wife and marrying another woman (exceptional circumstances notwithstanding)? Jesus said: “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me” (Jn 18:37). And he added: “The one who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Lk 10:16). It seems to me that you aren’t on the side of truth by having no proper regard for it, unlike the enuch from Ethiopia who desired to know the true meaning of the words of the prophet Isaiah and satisfy his content (Acts 8:26-40). St. Paul commended the Corinthians for remembering everything he had preached to them before he wrote his letter and for mantaining not only some of the traditions (1 Cor 11:2). In fact, he expressed a wish to visit the Thessalonians to fill up anything that may have been lacking in his letter to them and address other important issues. (1 Thess 3:10). Obviously the apostle didn’t believe that there were issues that didn’t have to be dealt with for the benefit of the community.

…your need does not determine God’s course of action, nor does your limited perception of how God could get a job done actually determine what God did/does.

The Church has always correctly perceived that God’s course of action satisfies our need to understand the fullness of the Gospel.

*Of this you have heard before in the word of the truth, the gospel, which has come to you, as indeed in the whole world it is bearing fruit and growing - so among yourselves, from the day you heard and understood the grace of God in truth, as you learned it from Ep’ aphras, our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on our behalf and has made known to us your love in the Spirit. And so, from the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all *wisdom and understanding, to lead a life worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God.
Colossians 1, 5-10

PAX

 

[Good_Fella]

‘tis interesting how Catholics seem to jump over verses 1-13 to get to verse 15…if you want to identify the Church 1 Tim contemplates, then look for the one that has tried to always appoint overseers that have met the qualifications set out in the first verses…if the church doesn’t fulfill that condition, then it shouldn’t claim the attribute that follows in verse 15.

St. Paul explains to the Corinthians (1 2:13) that the ministers and overseers teach “not by human wisdom” but “by the Holy Spirit” who is the ultimate teaching authority of the Church. It makes no difference if any individual minister is an unholy person and corrupt, since what he teaches in a true official capacity in accord with the Church doesn’t originate from him and is trustworthy. The Church is comprised of individual members - clergy and laity - but she is essentially a single corporate entity. And it is this entity as a whole which the Holy Spirit safeguards from teaching false doctrines. No individual, no matter how unfaithful he is, can thwart our Lord’s plan to guide his Church in all truth. Clerics such as Paul of Somasota, Arius, and Nestorius failed in their attempts to abandon traditional teachings and persuade the Church to embrace their individual views based on their personal interpretations of Scripture. As it stands, the Ecumenical Councils refuted and condemned their teachings and proposals. You are mistaken if you think that the unfaithfulness of some individuals can undermine God’s faithfulness to his own household and negate the work of the Holy Spirit.

For what if some did not believe? Will their unbelief make the faithfulness of God without effect? Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true and every man a liar.
Romans 3, 3-4

Catholic doctrine keeps developing with more and more being added. As such, the catholic/universal Church of the 3rd century would have held less truth than the Catholic Church of the 19th century…yet you would insist that both held the fullness of truth….

Original sin is a true doctrine of the Church, although it has developed over the centuries, having begun on a simple, rudimentary proposition: “When Adam sinned, sin entered the world” (Rom 5:12). We understand what St. Paul meant to be true, and by adding further propositions through extra considerations and proposals derived from insight and a clearer understanding in conformity with the apostle’s teaching, we still have what is true: the existence of original sin in the world. This truth isn’t more or less than what it essentially is, nor distinct from another. The fullness of this truth has been revealed, but our understanding of it can be comparatively measured by degrees in the course of time. Since the truth of original sin has been revealed to the Church, it remains in her custody to safeguard its content while she unravels its meaning under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Naturally new terms and models will be introduced to represent how the Church perceives original sin as it was first proposed by St. Paul, as the Church grows in knowledge of the truth.

“But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another’s; but while dealing faithfully and judicially with ancient doctrine, keeps the one object carefully in view, if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, this, and nothing else, has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those in olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.”
Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory of the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 2:4 (A.D. 434)

The thing is, the earlier CC didn’t know that what it was teaching needed redefining or was unofficial. They believed what they taught …plain and simple….yet you would insist that the earlier CC was the pillar and foundation of truth…

In all her history, the Catholic Church has never redefined a dogma - or else it wouldn’t be a dogma. And she has always understood that what she is teaching is official. However, non-infallible teachings can be revised for the sake of clarification and the avoidance of any given misunderstanding by taking things out of context, and often have been reformulated by subsequent councils and the introduction of canon laws.

PAX

 

[adrift]

I would like to see an honest answer to why would Mary ask.

34 And Mary said unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

This was not a single woman who had no husband. This is a question asked by a married woman who

1. Does not assume that the child will be the child of Joseph her husband.
2. Does not mention Joseph her husband
3. Mentions not Joseph specifically but men in general.

I would like to understand how it can be understood in any other way than the way Catholics understand it.

 

[joe370]

Radical;10261317]I don’t think he views it as being unappreciative….what do you think Christ thinks about the act of attributing qualities to her that she did not possess?

Hey Radical. Agreed. God would not appreciate that, obviously. However, in order for you, me or the church (in terms of governing leadership, regardless of denomination) to make that claim, someone has to be able to prove that the CC is in fact attributing qualities to Mary that she did not possess. Can you? Please do not cite scriptural passages to prove your point for the simple fact that that approach is seriously flawed; different folks interpret scripture differently for whatever reason (you and I for example) and there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. If there was a way everyone (e.g. you and I) would be on the same page.

 

[cheezey]

Hey Radical. Agreed. God would not appreciate that, obviously. However, in order for you, me or the church (in terms of governing leadership, regardless of denomination) to make that claim, someone has to be able to prove that the CC is in fact attributing qualities to Mary that she did not possess. Can you? Please do not cite scriptural passages for the simple fact that that approach is seriously flawed; different folks interpret scripture differently for whatever reason (you and I for example) and there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. If there was a way everyone (e.g. you and I) would be on the same page.