James, Brother of Jesus?

[PRmerger]

**They have historical, cultural and geographical errors and the writer of 2 Maccabees states it is not inspired. The early Christian Jews used the books as resources to enhance spiritual truths already in the Bible. In a similar way; we all have or favorite writers and authors that put our faith in a light different but consistent with our faith. Commentaries would be a good example or the NewAdvent website would be another example. However; since God does not contradict Himself or make errors; we therefore know they are not of God.

One example would be praying to or through the earthly dead; you won’t find that in the 66 books of the Bible without twisting a verse. Hope that helps your understanding.**

Well, to be honest, Tanner, it sounds like a man-made tradition you’re using to determine what’s inspired and what’s not. YOU’VE decided that historical, cultural and geographic errors eliminate writings from the canon. That’s not a criteria that’s stated in Scripture, right?

Where does the sacred writer tell us in 2 Maccabbees that it is not inspired? The word “inspired” isn’t in the entire book of 2 Maccabbees.

 

[Tanner9188]

This is so wrong and C athloic and non-cathloics d o not believe this Rev 22:18-19 is talking only about the book od REV ONLY, NOT THE BIBLE and DEU is out of context read the book and get it right,Any milkmaind that can read has to get it right. May God help all non-cathhloics who believe as you…Sorry but this is so wrong

So by your comment you believe it is okay to add and subtract from the word of God? Please answer that question. And this one as well; if you add to God’s word; are you then playing God and speaking as God or not? And answer this question; if you subtract from His word; then are you saying God was wrong for having said it? Answer that as well please. In the end; it will come back that no one is to add or subtract; hopefully you will actually give us all a reasonable answer to these legitimate questions. And hopefully, Lord willing, you will see that adding and subtracting will tick Him off.

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, Do you notice how you are getting the same responses on every thread you are on? By different Catholics from different parts of the world. Why do you think that is?
I’ll give you the reason. Catholics worldwide have the same basis in faith . That is what you lack - the truth that comes from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

The Deutrerocanonical books are quoted dozens of times in the New Testament. scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
And they were part of the original canon in 382AD. They were only removed by Protestants who didn’t like what they said in the 1500s.

**Paul, as much as I would love to spend the time and prove these books are not of God because of the contradictions, historical, geographical errors and outright denial of inspiration by one of the authors. You would only parrot what you are taught; therefore it is not worth the time and energy. But anyone who knows God; knows He does not contradict Himself nor make errors, but we know that men do.

As far as the same answers on different threads; that speaks volumes to me, but you will get the same responses to the same questions from those of us who know God and love God because He first loved us.**

 

[Bill_Pick]

So by your comment you believe it is okay to add and subtract from the word of God? Please answer that question. And this one as well; if you add to God’s word; are you then playing God and speaking as God or not? And answer this question; if you subtract from His word; then are you saying God was wrong for having said it? Answer that as well please. In the end; it will come back that no one is to add or subtract; hopefully you will actually give us all a reasonable answer to these legitimate questions. And hopefully, Lord willing, you will see that adding and subtracting will tick Him off.

dONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I never said its okay to add to the Bible we are talking about the Bible and the book of REV thats all, but the Cathloics did add to the Bible they add all the NT.----If you read the Bible in context it never said not to add to the Bible,if you find the verse that said that please give it to me I,d love to read

 

[Tanner9188]

And when I do - I tell you where it came from.
Besides, I only paste truth - not unsubstantiated lies about the historicity of the Church.

If you believe that freedomwriter pasted - PROVE it.

**LOL; you let everyone know where it came from and save everyone else the trouble; thanks for your service; the check is in the mail…LOL

I don’t know why, but I really do like you Elvis and I pray God blesses you today in ways only He can!**

 

[Tanner9188]

dONT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH I never said its okay to add to the Bible we are talking about the Bible and the book of REV thats all, but the Cathloics did add to the Bible they add all the NT.----If you read the Bible in context it never said not to add to the Bible,if you find the verse that said that please give it to me I,d love to read

**As I suspected you refuse to answer the questions; please take one at a time and answer. What words did I put in your mouth; be specific? On my original post I said that it applies to all of Scripture; but all you said; no it is just Revelation; then I responded by opening the idea of the whole of Scripture.

Here is the my earlier reply giving sufficient evidence that God doesn’t want any adding or subtracting.

Okay; let’s look at all the warnings about adding or subtracting and it is quite fitting that the very last words of the last scroll of the NT would have such a warning and I believe it can be reasonably shown that it applies to all of Scripture. If for no other reason; the Bible is the very words of God and adding or subtracting from God’s word would not please Him; probably anger Him. Why? Who would want to add or subtract but someone with an evil agenda; The devil was the first starting in the Garden of Eden. Some or many believe verse 18 is John speaking, but verse 20 says He who testifies, which is the Lord Jesus; therefore it is probable that verse 18 is the Lord speaking and not John. (just a side note w/o much significance as far as I understand)

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Did the Jews do that? Yes What was the consequences? Do you think it makes sense that it would apply to all God has revealed?

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” Do you think it is mere coincidence that this warning was put at the end of the Pentateuch? I don’t think so.

Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Does this just apply to Proverbs or this verse or all?

Jeremiah 26:2 "Thus says the LORD, 'Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship {in} the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!

Do you believe he warnings forbids any alteration of this book, the Bible, and any alteration of anything that God has ever written, which goes for all sixty-six books.
I say 66 because the Apocrypha; which have been added to various religions, against all the warnings, have geographical and historical errors and the writer of Maccabees states directly that it is not inspired (If I recall 2 Maccabees). The early Christian teachers used the Apocrypha as an enhancement tool to teach spiritual truths already used in the Bible , but did not consider it inspired. Why? Because it isn’t; but some religions use these books a inspired and therefore add and/or subtract from the very word of God; which He warned about. Don’t you believe that is worth thinking about?

Ezekiel 3:10 "Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely.

This an example of the positive use and not the negative use; there are man more we could add to the positive side of staying the course on the use of God;s word. Hopefully you and others get the whole of the picture and the seriousness of the handling of His word.

Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Your Church was not started by Christ or Peter as you may claim; that is one thing that a Christian easily discerns, in my opinion and knowledge of both the Bible and religion.

You know what is funny; go back to post#450 and i never said one way or the other that the warning was just specific to revelation; Elvis started putting assumptions or words into what he believed I was saying…we all do that from time to time; okay. But then i brought the challenge from Scripture about whether there is sufficient evidence not to add and subtract and provided much Scripture in that light; then asked some reasonable and logical questions, which Bill decided not to answer. just thought i would point that out. Blessing to all!**

 

[Tanner9188]

Hi freedomwriter,

Since you and I are having a facual disagreement, I thought that I would bring in a third party source, of a neutral nature. The encyclopedia:

ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD…The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning “universal.” The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination.(Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. (Marriam-Webster’s Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy. The claim of supremacy on the part of the bishop of Rome rests on the belief that Christ conferred on the apostle Peter a ‘primacy of jurisdiction;’ that Peter fixed his see and died at Rome and thus, that the bishops of Rome, as successors of the apostle Peter, have succeeded to his preorgatives of supremacy. In this light, historians read the facts of the early history of the church—and they trace to this acknoledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churhces, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies—of which the first five centuries, especially the 4th and 5th, present examples. . . In all the controversies on the Incarnation—the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite—not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. ( Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903)

The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome.(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)

The office of Pope was founded on the words of Christ: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [which means a rock], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” ( Matthew xvi, 18). The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued t flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built “upon a rock,” (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume13)

Historical Notes. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles . The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles.( World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)

At first the Christians were terribly persecuted, but gradually they spread the Christ’s radian spirit and teachings until they united many races, classes, and religious beliefs into a brotherhood which extended from Persia to the Atlantic Ocean. Later, this brotherhood spread to American, and Christianity became the prevailing religion of the Western Hemisphere. It has now ben taught in all countries.For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics. "The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)

I could go on and on but I think you get the picture.

**Hate to change or add to the topic, but this is noteworthy concerning the relationship between Rome and the 3rd Reich; Article 16 is very interesting and antisemitic. Can anyone imagine the oath the Bishops and Holy See made; blows my mind.
catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html I’m actually quite surprised that the Catholic site would even allow this. The good news is I’m researching Catholic sites. **:clapping:

 

[paul_c]

Hate to change or add to the topic, but this is noteworthy concerning the relationship between Rome and the 3rd Reich; Article 16 is very interesting and antisemitic. Can anyone imagine the oath the Bishops and Holy See made; blows my mind.
catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html I’m actually quite surprised that the Catholic site would even allow this. The good news is I’m researching Catholic sites. :clapping:

How in your wildest imagination do you see this as a Catholic site? Its clearly an anti-Catholic site, full of hate mongering. Now the basis of your understanding of Catholicism is becoming more clear.

 

[paul_c]

**Paul, as much as I would love to spend the time and prove these books are not of God because of the contradictions, historical, geographical errors and outright denial of inspiration by one of the authors. You would only parrot what you are taught; therefore it is not worth the time and energy. But anyone who knows God; knows He does not contradict Himself nor make errors, but we know that men do.

As far as the same answers on different threads; that speaks volumes to me, but you will get the same responses to the same questions from those of us who know God and love God because He first loved us.**

Tanner,
this has become a pattern as it has been on other threads. You make a statement. I give you concrete biblical evidence that shows you are wrong. You then claim it is not worth your time to address it. Can’t you see, you are just avoiding the truth?

When you make statements about contradictions, historical and geographical errors that would render books of the bible invalid, you at least owe us some explanation of what they are. Further, when you say that a sacred author denies that his work is inspired, you need to show where he says this. This would only be fair to those that are seeking the truth as you claim to be. Unfortunately, we both know the truth, here. You can’t validate your statements, because they aren’t true.

You have now showed your hand. You are searching out anti-Catholic sites for insight on how to address what we say is the truth. Can’t you see that these sites are all about hate? Doesn’t doing research about Catholics on a site called Catholicarrogance give you a clue as to where you are on this? Trust me on this, we can answer every charge they make on that website. If your intent is to transfer every accusation from that site to this one and have us refute them, feel free. However, if you really want to understand Catholicism, it would be a better use of your time to simple read the catechism.

 

[Tanner9188]

How in your wildest imagination do you see this as a Catholic site? Its clearly an anti-Catholic site, full of hate mongering. Now the basis of your understanding of Catholicism is becoming more clear.

Hi Paul,

**I apologize; I did not realize the the original site linked indirectly to the NewAdvent site; which was not my intent. I agree that a site, which I stumbled upon ( God as my witness), with a name like “Catholic arrogance” is not pro-Catholic or maybe even anti-Catholic; I did not spend but a minute or two there.

Here is the correct Catholic link:
newadvent.org/library/docs_ss33co.htm This is the direct Catholic link and brings to the same place.

Again; I apologize! ** :manvspc:

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,
this has become a pattern as it has been on other threads. You make a statement. I give you concrete biblical evidence that shows you are wrong. You then claim it is not worth your time to address it. Can’t you see, you are just avoiding the truth?

When you make statements about contradictions, historical and geographical errors that would render books of the bible invalid, you at least owe us some explanation of what they are. Further, when you say that a sacred author denies that his work is inspired, you need to show where he says this. This would only be fair to those that are seeking the truth as you claim to be. Unfortunately, we both know the truth, here. You can’t validate your statements, because they aren’t true.

You have now showed your hand. You are searching out anti-Catholic sites for insight on how to address what we say is the truth. Can’t you see that these sites are all about hate? Doesn’t doing research about Catholics on a site called Catholicarrogance give you a clue as to where you are on this? Trust me on this, we can answer every charge they make on that website. If your intent is to transfer every accusation from that site to this one and have us refute them, feel free. However, if you really want to understand Catholicism, it would be a better use of your time to simple read the catechism.

**Paul; you rarely give anything concrete and you already know and have seen and heard the valid arguments in regards to the Apocrypha books. This is not the first time you have heard any of this in this forum and despite the fact that it has been brought to your attention in more detail in the past you are not allowed to admit that perhaps the Church may have been wrong on this point; maybe it explains why they were not canonized by your church until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. Why do you just throw insults and false accusations at people; not very Christ-like is it?

May God bless you!**

 

[josie_L]

**Paul, as much as I would love to spend the time and prove these books are not of God because of the contradictions, historical, geographical errors and outright denial of inspiration by one of the authors. You would only parrot what you are taught; therefore it is not worth the time and energy. But anyone who knows God; knows He does not contradict Himself nor make errors, but we know that men do.

As far as the same answers on different threads; that speaks volumes to me, but you will get the same responses to the same questions from those of us who know God and love God because He first loved us.**

Was there ever a Bible with 66 books prior to the Reformation?

 

[paul_c]

**Paul; you rarely give anything concrete and you already know and have seen and heard the valid arguments in regards to the Apocrypha books. This is not the first time you have heard any of this in this forum and despite the fact that it has been brought to your attention in more detail in the past you are not allowed to admit that perhaps the Church may have been wrong on this point; maybe it explains why they were not canonized by your church until the Council of Trent in the 1500’s. Why do you just throw insults and false accusations at people; not very Christ-like is it?

May God bless you!**

What insults did I throw at anyone? And what do you mean I never give anything concrete? I gave you an entire list of quotes from what you call the Apocrypha books that are in the new testament. Did you even look at the link? You have made no substantial arguments against the Deuterocanonical books at all, other than to say that there are geographical and historical errors (which you didn’t identify) and a statement that once of the sacred authors said he wasn’t inspired, yet you haven’t identified the biblical verse that says that. As for the your statement that the deuterocanonical books were not canonized until the Council of Trent, well you haven’t done your homework. The Deuterocanonical books were part of the Septuagint that was used by the early Christians and also were part of the original canon approved by the council of Hippo and by the Pope in 382AD. They were reiterated at the Council of Trent because the Protestants were denying those books.

There have been entire threads devoted to this. The Catholic position is clear and documented. The catholic encyclopedia describes this well. You can find it in wikipedia too, for that matter.

 

[Bill_Pick]

**As I suspected you refuse to answer the questions; please take one at a time and answer. What words did I put in your mouth; be specific? On my original post I said that it applies to all of Scripture; but all you said; no it is just Revelation; then I responded by opening the idea of the whole of Scripture.

Here is the my earlier reply giving sufficient evidence that God doesn’t want any adding or subtracting.

Okay; let’s look at all the warnings about adding or subtracting and it is quite fitting that the very last words of the last scroll of the NT would have such a warning and I believe it can be reasonably shown that it applies to all of Scripture. If for no other reason; the Bible is the very words of God and adding or subtracting from God’s word would not please Him; probably anger Him. Why? Who would want to add or subtract but someone with an evil agenda; The devil was the first starting in the Garden of Eden. Some or many believe verse 18 is John speaking, but verse 20 says He who testifies, which is the Lord Jesus; therefore it is probable that verse 18 is the Lord speaking and not John. (just a side note w/o much significance as far as I understand)

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”

Did the Jews do that? Yes What was the consequences? Do you think it makes sense that it would apply to all God has revealed?

Deuteronomy 12:32 “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” Do you think it is mere coincidence that this warning was put at the end of the Pentateuch? I don’t think so.

Proverbs 30:5-6 "Every word of God is pure;
He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.
6Do not add to His words,
Lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar.

Does this just apply to Proverbs or this verse or all?

Jeremiah 26:2 "Thus says the LORD, 'Stand in the court of the LORD’S house, and speak to all the cities of Judah who have come to worship {in} the LORD’S house all the words that I have commanded you to speak to them. Do not omit a word!

Do you believe he warnings forbids any alteration of this book, the Bible, and any alteration of anything that God has ever written, which goes for all sixty-six books.
I say 66 because the Apocrypha; which have been added to various religions, against all the warnings, have geographical and historical errors and the writer of Maccabees states directly that it is not inspired (If I recall 2 Maccabees). The early Christian teachers used the Apocrypha as an enhancement tool to teach spiritual truths already used in the Bible , but did not consider it inspired. Why? Because it isn’t; but some religions use these books a inspired and therefore add and/or subtract from the very word of God; which He warned about. Don’t you believe that is worth thinking about?

Ezekiel 3:10 "Moreover, He said to me, "Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I will speak to you and listen closely.

This an example of the positive use and not the negative use; there are man more we could add to the positive side of staying the course on the use of God;s word. Hopefully you and others get the whole of the picture and the seriousness of the handling of His word.

Matthew 5:18 “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
Your Church was not started by Christ or Peter as you may claim; that is one thing that a Christian easily discerns, in my opinion and knowledge of both the Bible and religion.

You know what is funny; go back to post#450 and i never said one way or the other that the warning was just specific to revelation; Elvis started putting assumptions or words into what he believed I was saying…we all do that from time to time; okay. But then i brought the challenge from Scripture about whether there is sufficient evidence not to add and subtract and provided much Scripture in that light; then asked some reasonable and logical questions, which Bill decided not to answer. just thought i would point that out. Blessing to all!**

Tanner You are one very confused person REV 22:18-19 is only talking about the Book of REV IT IS NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THE BIBLE. and BTW I will asnwer any questions you ask and Please asnwer theis question Please tell me the chapter and verse that said do not add to the Bible like I said the Cathloic Church add all the NT.=====PS Tanner You may think any thing you like but that will not make it true,do you know any history of the Bible ???

 

[Bill_Pick]

Was there ever a Bible with 66 books prior to the Reformation?

Did the first KJB have all the books , the one of 1611

 

[paul_c]

Hate to change or add to the topic, but this is noteworthy concerning the relationship between Rome and the 3rd Reich; Article 16 is very interesting and antisemitic. Can anyone imagine the oath the Bishops and Holy See made; blows my mind.
catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/1933Concordat.html I’m actually quite surprised that the Catholic site would even allow this. The good news is I’m researching Catholic sites. :clapping:

Catholics do not hide the truth, no matter how inconvenient. However, if you read the condordat, it was about protecting Catholic rights to independently teach the faith in Germany. Having clergy from the country is not a problem. That is generally desireable. And yes, it is good news that you are researching Catholic sites. make sure they really are Catholic sites, however. Catholicarrogance is NOT a catholic site. it is an anti-Catholic site. I accept your explanation that you stumbled on to it.

 

[josie_L]

Did the first KJB have all the books , the one of 1611

Yes I believe so.

 

[jlhargus]

What we do know is that Jesus saw John and Mary at the foot of the cross and Jesus declared that John should take care of her. We do not know the reason because we are not told; an implicit reason maybe because Jesus referred to John as the disciple He loved, but that is still mere speculation; which brings us back to we do not know. This is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but what was is that Jesus, for whatever reason, chose John to watch over Mary. It would have probably grieved Mary to know that His other brothers did not believe in Him. How loving of the Savior to think of His mother at the very time He was taken the burden of the world on; our Lord is so loving and caring and never to busy to express His love for His own.

JL: if James was an unbeliever and only believed after the the resurrection. Would such a new convert not trustworthy enough to provide for his own mother be made head of the church in Jerusalem without spiritual development, to provide for the welfare and care of the people of God. If James could not run his own house, how could he in charge of God’s. [1Tm3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)]

While James and the other brothers and sisters shirked their family duties, which in Jewish culture, in that day would have been outrageous and maybe a stoneable offense to publicly dishonor one’s parent. That’s how it would have looked to the Jew and Christian alike, at that time. Even in our society this would be looked down on as a dysfunctional uncaring family. When Christ died the alleged eldest son would have become the head of the family. It would have been his duty to take care of his mother and to his dishonor not to take care of her. He probably could have commanded Mary to his house. But instead all four alleged brothers and several sisters all without objection turn over the care of their mother to John to be taken wherever.

I wouldn’t let a relative take care of my mother would you? If my older brothers did not want her, what would that say about them. Believer or non believer Christ would not have commended his mother to anyone but her children, had she anyothers. In fact I don’t think he could have done so even as eldest son. Those children had the absolute responsibility and duty to take care of her. Do you suppose not one of them liked their mother? Seems there was no problem with Mary being with them while Christ was still alive. Do you suppose Mary was so weak in faith that an unbeliever would be a danger to her faith? Do you suppose God’s grace would not be sufficient? Many have faced being the only believer in a village in mission lands, yet they are the source for conversion in those places. Mary was a woman of faith and full of grace.

Do you suppose Christ as God would not have known his alleged brothers would have converted after his death? By the way at Pentecost the so called brothers were there, with Mary, Acts1:12 Then they returned to Jerusalem from the hill called the Mount of Olives, a Sabbath day’s walk from the city. 13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. THOSE PRESENT were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James. 14 They all joined together constantly in prayer, ALONG WITH the women AND MARY THE MOTHER OF JESUS, AND WITH HIS BROTHERS

 

[jlhargus]

[Lk1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel HOW SHALL THIS BE SEEING I KNOW NOT A MAN? 35 And the angel answered and said unto her The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God] Mary was espoused to Joseph, why would she ask the angel, “How shall this be seeing I know not Man?” The Church Fathers have always seen this as Mary having a vow of virginity, otherwise it would be only natural to expect to conceive and bare children.

NBRS 30:6 And IF SHE HAD AT ALL AN HUSBAND WHEN SHE VOWED or uttered ought out of her lips wherewith she bound her soul 7 AND HER HUSBAND HEARD IT AND HELD HIS PEACE at her IN THE DAY THAT HE HEARD IT THEN HER VOWS SHALL STAND and HER BONDS WHEREWITH SHE BOUND HER SOUL SHALL STAND 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips wherewith she bound her soul of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her

 

[jlhargus]

So by your comment you believe it is okay to add and subtract from the word of God? .

JL: It is never okay to add or subtract from the word of God, Whether by word or epistle, 2Thes2:14. By the way, if the Holy Spirit by the church can infallibly discern and faithfully preserve the written Apostolic Tradition of Scripture, without distortion. Then that same Holy Spirit can certainly by the same church preserve that Apostolic oral Tradition, without distortion. It is that same Holy Spirit who is the origin and acts thru both the church and scripture. Who outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not see the Watch Tower translation of scripture as deliberately distorted to fit their own traditions of men. So we see even the written word doesn’t guarantee, there is no distortion, not to mention misinterpretation.

1Tim6: Timothy, KEEP THAT WHICH IS COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

Philip4:9 THOSE THINGS, which YE HAVE both LEARNED, and RECEIVE, and HEARD, and SEEN IN ME, DO

2Thes2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, BREATHREN, STAND FAST, and HOLD THE TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, WHETHER BY WORD OR our EPISTLE.

1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.

2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGSthe things that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.

[Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands, (holy orders, in apostolic succession.) It is thru the Holy Spirit oral apostolic tradition is discerned, by the church, as opposed to a tradition of men, such as Sola Scriptura.] 1Tm 3:15 As the pillar and ground of truth the church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both and active in both, as the council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, Act15:28 For it seemed GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US, other scriptures say, 1Jn 4:6 We are of God Whoever knows God LISTENS TO US and he who is not of God DOES NOT LISTEN TO US. BY THIS WE KNOW the spirit of TRUTH AND the spirit of ERROR. Jn 15:20… if they have kept MY SAYING they will KEEP YOURS ALSO Jn 17:20 Neither pray I for THESE alone but for THEM which shall believe on me THROUGH THEIR WORD. [Apostolic tradition is discerned by the help of the Holy Spirit, were scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The canon of the NT and OT were both discerned thru the Holy Spirit, by the church, using apostolic tradition. The scriptures themselves do not give a list of inspired books.]

I could go on, there are many more good scripture examples of tradition, the burden of proof is on you, you must SHOW scripture alone, which is a tradition of men, made a doctrine of God around 1520, [Jer 23:36 36 But you must not mention the oracle of the LORD again, because EVERY MAN’S OWN WORD BECOMES HIS ORACLE and so you distort the words of the living God,…] Or you must show scripture saying all oral tradition has now been included in the written tradition=scripture. Paul says in 2 Thes, OUR GOSPEL, brethren, WHETHER word=oral OR epistle=written.

It is also interesting that JESUS, MATHEW, Paul AND JUDE used oral Jewish tradition, where is the following written in the OT?

Mt 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in MOSES’ SEAT. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. [Find in the Old Testament, MOSES’ SEAT, you wont as it is OT oral tradition, that Jesus quotes.]

1Cor10:4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that FOLLOWED THEM, and that Rock was Christ. [Where does the OT tell us THE ROCK FOLLOWED THEM? It does’nt, it is an OT oral tradition.]

Jude used an oral Jewish tradition: Jude 1:9 Yet MICHAEL the archangel, in contending with the devil, when he disputed about the body of Moses, dared not bring against him a reviling accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke you! [Find in the OT, were it is says MICHAEL, contended over Moses’ body]

Jude 1:14 Now ENOCH, the seventh from Adam, PROPHESIED about these men also, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, [Where does the OT QUOTE ENOCH as prophesing this?]

2Tim 3:8 Just as JANNES AND JAMBRES opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. [Find the names JANNES AND JAMBRES in the OT? you wont it is OT oral tradition.]

1Cor11:34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And THE REST WILL I SET IN ORDER WHEN I COME. [Where did Paul set this in order by scripture?]