Actually, you only posted references to “brothers.” Where does it say that Mary actually bore them?SureIts easy enough to miss, as people often come in to the topic without reading it fully
Here is what you are after!
that is no evidence! We use the terms today, we have simply kept the meaning of the early church, and not the meaning the Roman Catholics have made it.You mean like Roman Catholicism has done? Not at all
I know of Roman Catholics that teach that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The general consensus on this forum would be that they disagree with this
I do believe I gave a list before…somewhere.
Nope, no dice.
Could you, possibly, try to use some logic in your posts? that would be swellWhich makes the Jews wrong about Joseph being the biological father of Jesus …
and wrong about Jesus having any biological brothers.
Sorry
victus’ smugness distracted me from the fact that he was putting words into my mouth. No, Scripture no more says she actually bore them than it states she was actually a virgin after Jesus was born. That is not my argument.I am saying what I said before: The Jews called it like they saw it and were wrong about 1) their assumption that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus and 2) they were wrong to assume that Jesus had biological siblings.Could you, possibly, try to use some logic in your posts? that would be swell
The two statements have no causal link in ‘wrongness’.
Jews look at an older married couple (at least in their late 40s, if not older) and assume that all their children are their children.
Unbeknown to them, the first child was actually of God, not the earthly father.
That is the source of their error - are you now going to claim that all the other siblings they knew of were likewise conceived? Perhaps by a variety of other gods, so that they were only half-siblings?
Sorry
If Mary was not a virgin after the birth of Jesus, then she was still a virgin during her marriage to Joseph up and till the birth right? What would have been the point or purpose of that? Was sex forbidden between husband and wife during pregnancy or something? Do you have a good answer to that question?
But having the Holy Spirit does not mean you can interpret and understand Scripture, does it?
If the focus of the issue is death, then, for John to be able to remain and not experience death means that a change within his earthly nature is needed for this to occur. So, if the prophecy did indeed occur (let’s assume that it did), we could ask when was John transformed from being a mortal person, to being immortal? At the coming of Christ?.. or sometime during his earthly life? I would think that the transformation happened sometimes during his earthly life ( for how could he have survived for two thousand years?). Therefore, for John, the event of the coming of Christ, where the dead in Christ will be risen, does not concern him personally, since he is already transformed, wouldn’t you think? Therefore, since for John, the coming of Christ is not his time of change from being a mortal to becoming immortal, then the statement that he would not die “until the coming of Christ” does not imply that he will experience such a change at the coming of Christ, making that statement…it’s meaning,being simply that he will never experience death.
If you use this type of exegesis for John, that is, John will be changed from being a mortal to being an immortal “without going through the process of dying”, then, in my opinion, the same should be implied for Mary as well; that is, Mary, at the birth of Jesus becomes a mother while still remaining a virgin. If the implication of John is that he will never experience death, then, what is wrong in assuming the scriptures **suggesting ** the same for Mary; therefore implying that she will always remain a virgin?
It’s more like trying to prove that Jesus is divine by showing (proving)that the early christians, the followers of the apostles, understood the gosple in the such a way. You know as well as I do, that some christians, in using scriptures only, denie the divinity of Christ through their own private interpretations…
.
Would this include James? We know that Jesus chose twelve apostles to be the foundation of His church .After Judas died, the apostles replaced him with a disciple **who had to have been a follower of Jesus from the beginning. **.
And I was hoping you wanted to objectively look at the evidence but you are reinventing the word “Catholic” and placing a 21st century label on it. Even Protestant theologians readily admit that “Catholic” means the current “Roman Catholic church” and so do secular sources…[hvg3akaek;2215325]
catholic = universal
There is only one “universal” church, only one “catholic” group of followers of Christ. That group stretches across the world, goes back in history and forward in time, and comes under many different headings.
Why don’t you and I compare the early church (the next generation of disciples of the Apostles) post first century and prereformation with your Protestant beliefs and my Roman Catholic beliefs and see who “doctrines” agree with whom.But it is not one organisation which has adopted the term, and uses it to try to state that all outside are not part of God’s family.
You mean like Roman Catholicism has done? Not at all
Helvidius thought that also in the fourth century but Jerome already knew the truth and corrected his heterodoxy. Even Protestant theologians hail Jerome as one of histories greatest scholars. Here is a link where Jerome corrects Helvidius.I know of Roman Catholics that teach that Mary was not a perpetual virgin. The general consensus on this forum would be that they disagree with this
Perhaps you are thinking of the “rites” within the Catholic church? Some areas have differing rites but they all consent to the authority and doctrines of the Magisterium and Bishop of Rome (Pope).
Baptism? How about the Church of Christ, they and some Lutherans and Anglicans assert the need for Baptism and some reformed as well, that’s why all but the Church of Christ practice padeo baptism.
Ah, I see. So sola scriptura is not found in the OT? Great I agree, and it is NOT found in the NT nor post Apostles, not until Martin Luther created it in the sixteenth century. Luther I might add affirmed Mary’s perpetual virginity as did Calvin.Nope, no dice.
First, it does not say that they had interpreted the scripture incorrectly, only that they were told (from v3) “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ”, and checked their scriptures, and agreed.
Second, they only had the OT, so ‘sola scripture’ has nothing to do with them. ‘sola scripture’ is not just about the OT, but the NT too.
And thirdly, this discussion really should be over here.
If they just read the OT and knew Jesus was the true Messiah then why would they need Paul to show them He was?Nope, no dice.
First, it does not say that they had interpreted the scripture incorrectly, only that they were told (from v3) “This Jesus I am proclaiming to you is the Christ”, and checked their scriptures, and agreed.
Second, they only had the OT, so ‘sola scripture’ has nothing to do with them. ‘sola scripture’ is not just about the OT, but the NT too.
And thirdly, this discussion really should be over here.
Actually, since the Church wrote the Bible, one would expect that Tradition and Scripture go hand in hand. Not everything was written down as the Apostle John himself makes a point of telling us.Hi Randy! I look forward to hearing your response to my thoughts on your explanations
Thanks
Actually, the Church was called “Catholic” in Irenaeus’ “Letter to the Smyrnaeans” in 110 A.D. Since he was a disciple of Peter and John, you’d think he would have some familiarity with this issue. Thus, it can be clearly deomonstrated that the Catholic Church is one and the same with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon Peter the Rock. (cf. Matthew 16:18) Consequently, you cannot simply dismiss the quotes of the Early Church Fathers since they were all members of the one Church which was first called “the Way” then “Christian” and finally “Catholic”.I can understand that, and will read through your responses. Naturally, I can only view them as a ‘novelty’ (can I say that? Is it OK to call other people’s beliefs “novelties”, but not “whacky”? personally, i would have thought the two terms were much closer together
Perhaps it might be best to do a bit of research first, then ask your questions?So, as to these big quotes, I have a few questions for you (as I do not know much about these sources
Do you have any document even remotely close to that age which states unequivocally that Jesus had uterine brothers and sisters? Remember, Aramaic had no word for “cousins”, so I will not accept the scriptures themselves as your proof. This issue is explained to my satisfaction (obviously, I am not alone given the course of Church history).
There are many issues here: 1) Mary’s vow of virginity and Joseph’s agreement to marry her as a protector - not as a normal husband, 2) the fact that in becoming pregnant through another (in this case the Holy Spirit), Joseph could not have her as his wife in the normal sense according to Jewish law; 3) Joseph is thought to have been an older widower - hence his qualification and willingness to take Mary into his home as her “husband” though he would not have sex with her due to her vow; and 4) the action of grace in his life given to him by God who chose him to be the father on Earth of His Son, Jesus. Obviously, there are many men and women who take vows of celibacy in response to God’s call. Joseph is not unusual in this…Paul did the same.
This is difficult for us men to understand today, but that’s because we don’t have “St.” in front of our names.
I’m going to suggest that you think long and hard about that question.
Wrong. As has been pointed out, the Church was called the Catholic Church probably within the lifetime of the last living Apostle, John. So, from here, your disagreement is without merit.
My argument against sola scriptura exactly. But that is another thread.However, that a commentator on the Bible should reach the same incorrect conclusion does not make it any less incorrect. This discussion will not be won on votes
) it would be proof for me.Growing up in the Roman Catholic traditions" didn’t stop Luther from throwing out many other beliefs he had previously held. This would have been his big chance to put an end to the Marian nonsense once and for all…and he did not take it.When we get as late as **Martin Luther **and friends, I cannot see the logic in claiming that he believed in it. He also believed in other things that Roman Catholics clearly do not - are all his beliefs correct?
He grew up in the Roman Catholic traditions, stepping out as much as he did was hard. So he didn’t shake everything off - it took time, generations. That is understandable. But trying to say “Luther believed it, so it must be true” simply does not work. Unless you are willing to say that he was infallible, and all his views were correct.
This is a nice sentiment…but wrong.
catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (*Against the Letter of Mani Called The Foundation’* 4:5 [397 A.D.]).