Doesn't the Bible teach us that Jesus did have siblings??

[Sir_Knight]

As are you.

Pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail.Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James…Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

In Acts 1:12-15, we are told that the gathering of Jesus’s brothers number 120! Even if Mary had triplets EVERY year following the birth of Jesus, she still wouldn’t have been able to give birth to 120+ offspring.Obviously, “brother” has a different meaning than the one that you are assigning to it.

Or, what about Luke 22:32 where Jesus, referring to the other Apostles, tell Peter to “strengthen his ‘brethren’”? Are we to walk away from that verse with the belief that all of the apostles had the same parents?

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is my biggest concern…not whether of not Jesus’ had siblings, but why scripture says UNTIL and yet she is still a virgin after Jesus birth and her marriage. That makes no sense to me.

This was already addressed. “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

• Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.
• Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.
• Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.
• Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.
• 1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.
• Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.
• Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.
• Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”
• 2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.
• 1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

 

[AngelBee]

If it wouldn’t matter, doesn’t that make the doctrine meaningless? Why have a doctrine at all? Silliness.

What are we hiding here? Sexual intercourse is not dirty. Childbirth is an incredible miracle, capable of changing the world (evidence Jesus’ birth). There is absolutely no reason to insist upon Mary’s “perpetual” virginity UNLESS it is believed that sex is sinful in some way or another.

Mandating silence and mind control on this issue degrades the credibility and authority of the Chuch IMHO.

I could not agree more. It is things like this that are causing such disbelief for me in the church

 

[AngelBee]

Could someone please share the scripture that says Mary was born without sin? I am less experienced in looking these sort of things up.

 

[FCEGM]

I could not agree more. It is things like this that are causing such disbelief for me in the church

Angel, consider that it is not the doctrine itself but your ignorance of it that causes your disbelief. This article (recommended in an earlier post to Peregrino) may be of help:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a82.htm

You’ll find various articles at the above site address the Marian doctrines (as well as other doctrines of the Church ) - including her Immaculate Conception. I hope you will take the time to investigate more thoroughly from good Catholic sources what presently causes you concern.

 

[mike_sieber]

I’m coming to this rather late so someone may have already covered it, but in regards to Mary’s perpetual virginity, I’d really try to back as early as possible to see what the church believed about it.

I think that you’ll find that, even though the doctrine wasn’t infallibly defined until much later (when challenges arose), that the church believed from the get go in Mary’s perpetual virginity.

To my mind, if the early church and its fathers believed in the doctrine that’s good enough for me. Why in the world would I let two thousand years of authority, scholarship and tradition be overturned by some folks who got together at bible study and now have it all figured out?

If someone can offer some proof that there was widespread disbelief and doubt about Mary’s perpetual virginity in the first two or three centuries, then by all means, let me read it.

 

[sandusky]

Sir Knight:

If my understanding of those passages is incorrect, then perhaps you would be kind enough to show me where the mistakes were made.

You imply that my not pointing out your mistakes would be unkind.

The verses you cite are your proofs for your position, and you’ve merely listed them, and asserted that they prove your position without any explanation.

I’m not really interested in another round of disputation concerning the RCC’s self-proclamation of authority and infallibility; I’m certain there are a number of actives threads on that topic right now; search for them.

 

[sandusky]

Sir Knight:

Or, what about Luke 22:32 where Jesus, referring to the other Apostles, tell Peter to “strengthen his ‘brethren’”? Are we to walk away from that verse with the belief that all of the apostles had the same parents?

Context—obviously brother, in that context, does not mean sibling, but brother in Christ.

You wouldn’t even consider that it means step-brother, or cousin, or some other distant relative, as you do with respect to the Lord, would you?
Sir Knight:

In Acts 1:12-15, we are told that the gathering of Jesus’s brothers number 120! Even if Mary had triplets EVERY year following the birth of Jesus, she still wouldn’t have been able to give birth to 120+ offspring.Obviously, “brother” has a different meaning than the one that you are assigning to it.

You’ve mis-read the passage.

In v13, Luke identifies 12 men, by name, and continues in v14 saying:**These [the ones named in v13]…along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.**Luke makes a clear distinction between “these” (the 12 named in v13), the women, Mary, and ”His brothers” in v14. The ones in v13 are not His siblings, while the ones in v14 are.

As you have rightly pointed out the impossibility of it, neither are the 120 brethren in v15 His siblings; only those in v14 are His siblings.

Let me restate: Pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail.**Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James**…Does John have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

 

[Little_Mary]

As are you.

Pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail.Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James…Does James have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

This is what I mean. Haven’t we already discussed the use of the word “brother”? It could mean any relative or even a close friend. This going around in circles is tiresome.:yawn:

 

[bpbasilphx]

<< In Acts 1:12-15, we are told that the gathering of Jesus’s brothers number 120! Even if Mary had triplets EVERY year following the birth of Jesus, she still wouldn’t have been able to give birth to 120+ offspring.Obviously, “brother” has a different meaning than the one that you are assigning to it.

<<Or, what about Luke 22:32 where Jesus, referring to the other Apostles, tell Peter to “strengthen his ‘brethren’”? Are we to walk away from that verse with the belief that all of the apostles had the same parents?>>

Just other examples of where the Bible uses “brother” and it clearly does not mean “of the same mother” or even necessarily any biological relationship at all.

 

[mozart-250]

Self-proclaimed? Hardly! I guess you haven’t been following along. Here are some scripture passages which explicitly or implicitly speak of infallibility in the Church founded by Jesus Christ which has been known since the first century as the Catholic Church:

• Matthew 28:18-19 = Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’
• Luke 10:16 = He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.
• John 14:16-17 = If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you.
• John 14:26 = But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
• John 16:13 = But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
• John 20:21 = Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’
• 1 Thessalonians 2:13 = And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
• 1 John 4:6 = We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

High School Reading Comprehension Quiz time.

True or False

One can reasonably infer reading the above passages that it is impossible for the objects referenced in these passages to err.

If you answer True here, you have a reading comprehension problem.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You imply that my not pointing out your mistakes would be unkind.

That is correct. Doesn’t scripture instruct us that if our “brother” errors, we have a duty to correct him?

The verses you cite are your proofs for your position, and you’ve merely listed them, and asserted that they prove your position without any explanation.

The passages that I referenced point to the authority of the Catholic Church.

• Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.
• Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 - Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.
• Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.
• Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.
• Matt. 18:17-18 - the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.
• Matt. 28:20 - Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.
• Mark 8:33 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to down play Peter’s authority. This does not make sense. In this verse, Jesus rebukes Peter to show the import of His Messianic role as the Savior of humanity. Moreover, at this point, Peter was not yet the Pope with the keys, and Jesus did not rebuke Peter for his teaching. Jesus rebuked Peter for his lack of understanding.
• Luke 10:16 - whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
• Luke 22:32 - Jesus prays for Peter, that his faith may not fail. Jesus’ prayer for Peter’s faith is perfectly efficacious, and this allows Peter to teach the faith without error (which means infallibly).
• John 11:51-52 - some non-Catholics argue that sinners cannot have the power to teach infallibly. But in this verse, God allows Caiaphas to prophesy infallibly, even though he was evil and plotted Jesus’ death. God allows sinners to teach infallibly, just as He allows sinners to become saints. As a loving Father, He exalts His children, and is bound by His own justice to give His children a mechanism to know truth from error.
• 1 & 2 Peter - for example, Peter denied Christ, he was rebuked by his greatest bishop (Paul), and yet he wrote two infallible encyclicals. Further, if Peter could teach infallibly by writing, why could he not also teach infallibly by preaching? And why couldn’t his successors so teach as well?
• John 14:16 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would be with the Church forever. The Spirit prevents the teaching of error on faith and morals. It is guaranteed because the guarantee comes from God Himself who cannot lie.
• John 14:26 - Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit would teach the Church (the apostles and successors) all things regarding the faith. This means that the Church can teach us the right moral positions on such things as in vitro fertilization, cloning and other issues that are not addressed in the Bible. After all, these issues of morality are necessary for our salvation, and God would not leave such important issues to be decided by us sinners without His divine assistance.
• **John 16:12 - **Jesus had many things to say but the apostles couldn’t bear them at that point. This demonstrates that the Church’s infallible doctrine develops over time. All public Revelation was completed with the death of the last apostle, but the doctrine of God’s Revelation develops as our minds and hearts are able to welcome and understand it. God teaches His children only as much as they can bear, for their own good.

*** Continued in NEXT Post ***

 

[Sir_Knight]

*** Continued from PREVIOUS Post ***

• John 16:13 - Jesus promises that the Spirit will “guide” the Church into all truth. Our knowledge of the truth develops as the Spirit guides the Church, and this happens over time.
• 1 Cor. 2:13 – Paul explains that what the ministers teach is taught, not by human wisdom, but by the Spirit. The ministers are led to interpret and understand the spiritual truths God gives them over time.
• Eph. 4:13,15 – Paul indicates that attaining to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to mature manhood is a process. We are to grow up in every way into Christ. Doctrine (which means “teaching”) develops as we understand God’s Revelation.
• Acts 15:27-28 - the apostles know that their teaching is being guided by the Holy Spirit. He protects the Church from deception.
• Gal. 2:11-14 - non-Catholics sometimes use this verse to diminish Peter’s evident authority over the Church. This is misguided. In this verse, Paul does not oppose Peter’s teaching, but his failure to live by it. Infallibility (teaching without error) does not mean impeccability (living without sinning). Peter was the one who taught infallibly on the Gentile’s salvation in Acts 10,11. With this rebuke, Paul is really saying “Peter, you are our leader, you teach infallibly, and yet your conduct is inconsistent with these facts. You of all people!” The verse really underscores, and not diminishes, the importance of Peter’s leadership in the Church.
• Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God’s infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn’t be endowed with the wisdom of God).
• Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.
• Eph. 3:20 - God’s glory is manifested in the Church by the power of the Spirit that works within the Church’s leaders. As a Father, God exalts His children to roles of leadership within the body of Christ.
• Eph. 5:23-27, Col. 1:18 - Christ is the head of the Church, His Bride, for which He died to make it Holy and without blemish. There is only one Church, just as Christ only has one Bride.
• Eph. 5:32- Paul calls the Church a “mystery.” This means that the significance of the Church as the kingdom of God in our midst cannot be understood by reason alone. Understanding the Church also requires faith. “Church” does not mean a building of believers. That is not a mystery. Non-Catholics often view church as mere community, but not the supernatural mystery of Christ physically present among us.
• 1 Thess. 5:21 - Paul commands us to test everything. But we must have something against which to test. This requires one infallible guide that is available to us, and this guide is the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have never changed.
• 1 Tim. 3:15 - Paul says the apostolic Church (not Scripture) is the pillar and foundation of the truth. But for the Church to be the pinnacle and foundation of truth, she must be protected from teaching error, or infallible. She also must be the Catholic Church, whose teachings on faith and morals have not changed for 2,000 years. God loves us so much that He gave us a Church that infallibly teaches the truth so that we have the fullness of the means of salvation in His only begotten Son.
• 1 John 4:6 – John writes that whoever knows God “listens to us” (the bishops and successors to the apostles). Then John writes “This is the way we discern truth and error. John does not say “reading the Bible is the way we discern truth and error.” But if listening to mere human beings helps us discern truth and error, God would have had to endow his chosen leaders with the special gift of infallibility, so that they would be prevented from teaching error.

I’m not really interested in another round of disputation concerning the RCC’s self-proclamation of authority and infallibility; I’m certain there are a number of actives threads on that topic right now; search for them.

YOU challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. I have provided biblical references supporting that authority. It is up to YOU to back-up that challenge. It is NOT up to me to look up your challenges FOR you.

 

[Sir_Knight]

High School Reading Comprehension Quiz time.

True or False

One can reasonably infer reading the above passages that it is impossible for the objects referenced in these passages to err.

If you answer True here, you have a reading comprehension problem.

As I pointed out above (see my last two posts), there is a difference between Infallibility (teaching without error) and impeccability (living without sinning). The apostles and the church are infallible, not impeccable. Big difference.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Context—obviously brother, in that context, does not mean sibling, but brother in Christ.

You wouldn’t even consider that it means step-brother, or cousin, or some other distant relative, as you do with respect to the Lord, would you?

Neither does “brother” mean sibling anywhere else when referenced to Jesus because He had no blood brothers or sisters.

You’ve mis-read the passage.

In v13, Luke identifies 12 men, by name, and continues in v14 saying:These [the ones named in v13]…along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.Luke makes a clear distinction between “these” (the 12 named in v13), the women, Mary, and ”His brothers” in v14. The ones in v13 are not His siblings, while the ones in v14 are.

Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

As you have rightly pointed out the impossibility of it, neither are the 120 brethren in v15 His siblings; only those in v14 are His siblings.

Nor, are they His siblings anywhere else in scripture.

Let me restate: Pertaining to the other children of Mary, if the Catholic didn’t have a commitment to RCC tradition, and, a so-called “infallibly defined dogma” (to which he must wholly submit), leading him to believe that the plain meaning of the words “brothers, and sisters, and until” cannot be understood in their plain sense with respect to the Lord, then, and only then, could the plain meaning of the words prevail.Mark 3:17

…James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James…Does John have a brother?

If so, why doesn’t Jesus?

Because Jesus didn’t have any brothers.

Let me put it to you another way. The bible was put together by the Catholic Church in the late fourth century. They included passages that were consistent with their beliefs at the time and excluded passages that were not consistent with their beliefs. Which is why the gospel of Matthew is in and the gospel of Thomas is out and the gospel of Mark is in, etc.

The belief of the early Church Fathers, as demonstrated by their writings, was that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. THAT is the interpretation of the passages that were placed in the bible. That is the interpretation that is consistent with the early church fathers’ belief. That is the belief that was held even by Luther and Calvin and the other Protestants when they broken from the Catholic Church.

Kindly explain how for the first 1500+ years of Christianity, believers got this point incorrect. Wouldn’t it make sense that those closest to the Apostles and early church fathers had a better grasp on the truth then those studying their writing many centuries later?

 

[mozart-250]

As I pointed out above (see my last two posts), there is a difference between Infallibility (teaching without error) and impeccability (living without sinning). The apostles and the church are infallible, not impeccable. Big difference.

Yes I am well aware of that distinction. Thus I used the term “impossible to err” not “impossible to sin”.

If you would like me to be more clear I can change it to “impossible to err in teaching”.

The point remains that if you were to answer on a reading comprehension test that that based on the above passages one can logically infer it is impossible for the objects referenced in these passabes to err in teaching, you would be marked wrong.

 

[sandusky]

High School Reading Comprehension Quiz time.

True or False

One can reasonably infer reading the above passages that it is impossible for the objects referenced in these passages to err.

If you answer True here, you have a reading comprehension problem.

I’ll be borrowing this in the future, Mozart; thank you. :tiphat:

 

[sandusky]

Sir Knight:

That is correct. Doesn’t scripture instruct us that if our “brother” errors, we have a duty to correct him?

I don’t understand how you can call me your brother, Sir K; you believe a completely different gospel from the gospel that I believe.
Sir Knight:

YOU challenged the authority of the Catholic Church. I have provided biblical references supporting that authority. It is up to YOU to back-up that challenge. It is NOT up to me to look up your challenges FOR you.

I’ve not challenged the authority of the RCC, I’ve dismissed it as self-proclaimed, and you’ll argue with anything I say, and it’s off-topic.

If you are so inclined, you can search out all of my posts (with the exception of the many hundreds lost in the great crash), and read what I’ve said with respect to those verses that you’ve listed, and I’ve addressed—a daunting task, I’ll admit—and you can ignore them.

Again, I’m not interested in another round of disputation concerning the self-proclaimed authority, and infallibility of your church—it’s off-topic.
Sir Knight:

Neither does “brother” mean sibling anywhere else when referenced to Jesus because He had no blood brothers or sisters.

Because your church has infallibly proclaimed it so, right?
Sir Knight:

Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

:nope:

You mis-read the passage. :yup:
Sir Knight:

The belief of the early Church Fathers, as demonstrated by their writings, was that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. THAT is the interpretation of the passages that were placed in the bible. That is the interpretation that is consistent with the early church fathers’ belief. That is the belief that was held even by Luther and Calvin and the other Protestants when they broken from the Catholic Church.

You’re off-topic, but since you’ve brought it up, the ECF’s writings are not scripture, and their teachings are not binding on God’s people; neither are Luther, and Calvin’s teachings; all must be examined in the light of the highest authority—God’s revealed word.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes I am well aware of that distinction. Thus I used the term “impossible to err” not “impossible to sin”.

If you would like me to be more clear I can change it to “impossible to err in teaching”.

The point remains that if you were to answer on a reading comprehension test that that based on the above passages one can logically infer it is impossible for the objects referenced in these passabes to err in teaching, you would be marked wrong.

That is your opinion. Please explain why?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t understand how you can call me your brother, Sir K; you believe a completely different gospel from the gospel that I believe.

I believe the gospel of the Son of God as taught by the one true Church that HE established and according to that teaching, you are my brother in Christ. Apparently the gospel that you follow teaches otherwise. How sad. :nope:

I’ve not challenged the authority of the RCC, I’ve dismissed it as self-proclaimed, and you’ll argue with anything I say, and it’s off-topic.

I have argued that their authority was given to them by the Son of God and presented biblical references to support that position. How is that off-topic?

If you are so inclined, you can search out all of my posts (with the exception of the many hundreds lost in the great crash), and read what I’ve said with respect to those verses that you’ve listed, and I’ve addressed—a daunting task, I’ll admit—and you can ignore them.

I am not inclined to do so. I, too, have presented these points numerous times in support of the church’s authority. If I can re-present them for your benefit, then you can re-present your disagreements. If not, then my point stand unchallenged.

Again, I’m not interested in another round of disputation concerning the self-proclaimed authority, and infallibility of your church—it’s off-topic.

You keep saying that it’s off-topic. I disagree.

Because your church has infallibly proclaimed it so, right?

Yes, unless you believe the Son of God to be a liar when He said that whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you loosen on earth will be loosen in heaven.

:nope:

You mis-read the passage. :yup:

You keep saying that but you are unable to explain how – leaving your conclusion without a leg to stand on.

You’re off-topic, but since you’ve brought it up, the ECF’s writings are not scripture, and their teachings are not binding on God’s people; neither are Luther, and Calvin’s teachings; all must be examined in the light of the highest authority—God’s revealed word.

Doesn’t scripture tell us to OBEY the ORAL teachings that are passed down to us?