A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Interesting thoughts.
- Status
D
Dokimas
Guest
The only thing I assume is that the Bible does not contradict itself. Or should I put it this way, God does not contradict Himself as the Author of the Bible. When the Bible clearly teaches that only God is worthy of worship and that it is blasphemy to worship anyone or anything but God, and Jesus allowed Himself to be worshiped on several occations, He’s claiming to be God. If He’s not God He’s, well no need to go there.
When the Bible says there is but One Savior and in Titus 3 times God is called the Savior and
3 times Jesus is called Saviour, Jesus is God.
While understanding how Jesus is God may be difficult, the Bible, if it isn’t contradictory, clearly portrays Jesus as God the Creator of the universe.
Your understanding could be correct. IMO, it’s incorrect.
You regularly take what I say out of context and make comments that have nothing to do with what I’ve said. I said NON-Christians need the Holy Spirit to understand the Trinity. I said NOTHING about Christians with differing understandings claiming the Holy Spirit lead them.Well, Christians with sincere hearts also read it, and come up with conclusions opposite from yours. They believe they have the HS.
Jesus given doctrine is perfect. It’s when it gets destorted or changed that it needs to be brought back to reality. Bring on the reform in ALL churches that claim Christ as Savior.
Show us from Scripture the definitions of herecy.
WOW, you agree.
If I’m saying what you claim I’m saying then you are saying God can only show them whom He chose by them talking amongst themselves, chosing the ones that have been there the longest and then by casting lots.
Acts 1:
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
The order of events:
They chose.
They prayed God would choose between the two.
They cast lots.
NOTICE:
They did not pray first that God would show them.
How was God to show them the one He was choosing was not one of the ones they had chosen? Was God to suspend the lots in the air?
Let’s be honest. It would appear God made His choice and His choice was Saul of Tarsus.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Ok, so those were the pertinent parts. Good to cut through the rest of the stuff. Its a bad read, I can see why it feel out of favor.
So then then the most that could be said about the Protoevangelium is that it strongly implies it but does not directly state it. It seems to be assumed as part of the Temple process. Of course the Jewish Temple did not have consecrated virgins but thats mythology for you.
G
guanophore
Guest
Then there is the matter of how it is that people fall into politics and power. Look what a hit the Da Vinci code was! Could you imagine children of Mary and their descendents? people being who they are? Sure would be one great way to take the focus off Christ…
We know he did from the Scriptures, and from Sacred Tradition. We are not sure what type of near relatives they were. All we know for sure is they did not come from the same womb Jesus did.
Thanks much for your thoughts.
Joseph had to accept her vow of virginity before the marriage. That is part of the Law of Moses.
A
AwGusTeen
Guest
Yes - the Protoevangelium is a very early document that implies the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Well, I don’t think you can make that statement with any certainty, and there exists evidence to the contrary. If you are interested, please go to the thread entitled “Were there consecrated virgins at the Jewish Temple?” In post #4, CentralFLJames provides many good points on the matter and provides some informative links.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=216584
Peace!
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree that not all consecrated virgins lived at the temple. The book of Numbers makes it clear that some maintained their vows of celibacy in the home of their father or husband.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I was looking for the verses that support your claim in Numbers. I’m having a difficult time. BTW, there was no temple in Numbers so where would they stay?
D
Dokimas
Guest
I did find this in Numbers 30:
3 ¶ "Or if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth,
4 "and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand.
5 "But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will release her, because her father overruled her.
6 "If indeed she takes a husband, while bound by her vows or by a rash utterance from her lips by which she bound herself,
7 "and her husband hears it, and makes no response to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her agreements by which she bound herself shall stand.
8 "But if her husband overrules her on the day that he hears it, he shall make void her vow which she took and what she uttered with her lips, by which she bound herself, and the LORD will release her.
If Mary had vowed to be celibate (and there’s no real evidence, just speculation for this assumption) then her father or husband could have freed her from it without any penelty of breaking a vow. Matthew 1:25 makes more sense now, that Joseph didn’t ask her to break her vow until Jesus was born.
M
mark_a
Guest
Excellent reasoning which hasn’t been brought to my attention before!
G
guanophore
Guest
Joseph accepted her vow before he agreed to take her into his home. the vow was not considered ratified until the male guardian approved it. This is why he was so upset when he learned she was pregant. He was a righteous man, and would not ask her to break a vow she made to God. He did not become unrighteous after Jesus was born.
His opportunity to deny the vow expired the day after he learned of it.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, of course we are in agreemenent on these points. You ar epreacing to the choir! however, those non-Trinitarian persons interpret these verses differently than we do. This is one of the problems with interpreteing scripture apart from Apostolic teaching.
They interpret them differently. They believe Jesus is the saviour, but that He is not the second person of the Trinity. who is to say that their interpretaton is not of equal value to yours?
Well, of course not! Otherwise, you would have to become catholic.
My point is, we understand it this way for the same reason you understand the verses you cited reveal that Jesus is the second person of the Trinity. You approach the text with this Truth already in your mind, so you find the evidence of it in the Scripture. Those that have not embraced that Truth, or have espoused another doctrine, don’t “see” what you see.
But they do, don’t they? I rarely meet any of my separated brethren that read their bible and live a prayerful life who do not believe that they are led by the HS. My point is that we all believe we are led by the HS when we read, and yet, we all come up with different interpretations. Now I think we will agree that the text does not change, and that the HS does not change. That leaves only us as individuals who vary in our perceptions.
But you see, Doki, my dear brother in Christ, it is the “distortion” of the doctrine that is the problem, and that problem is the people. Jesus Teaching is immutable (cannot be changed). That means that if it is distorted, then it is through the people. People are always in need of reform. Jesus’ Teachings did not need to be Reformed. Not then, and not now.
I am happy to do this, but I think we should start a new thread. Would you like to do it, or should I?
No. God is not constrained in how He reveals Himself. However, he has given certain tools to us to understand His will. Before the outpouring of the HS on Pentecost, the casting of lots was one common method.
You left out a step. Peter had already been in prayer, and reflecting on the Scriptures, and believed that God spoke to him through the scriptures.
The reason they chose the two is because Jesus taught them that there were specific requirements for being an Apostle.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you are making assumptions about Peter’s prayer life here. How did he come to have that scripture in his mind? I know it is ingrained in you to deny the authority of the Apostles to engage in actions of this kind. It is germaine to this thread because it is that same authority that proclaims Mary to be ever virgin. When you deny the authority Jesus gave to the church, then all sorts of machinations have to be conducted to get rid of the things they did by that authority, such as choosing a successor for Judas.
Without a doubt, Jesus chose Saul just as He did the other 12. However, you construct assumes that there were not many more Apostles besides those.
Paul himself testifies that he was “like one born out of due time”. He was not one of the 12, and that did not concern him in the least.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Why?
All the miracles Jesus performed would answer every important question about who He was. All the rest fits in nicely to all who are of a mind, heart and soul to believe.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I have not been shown that the 1st century apostles have said Mary was a perpetual virgin. This would make your claim of who you think I am and what I believe, false.
I’m quite sure Jesus gave the church He founded lots of authority. He did not give it perfection because it is people and no person is perfect. The real question here is whether the CC after, say 300 AD is the exact church founded by Jesus. IMO, not exactly and if I’m correct, another false accusation on your part.
It assumes NO SUCH think. We’re speaking of Judas’ replacement. I am assuming one ONE person can replace him.
I’m not sure you have good evidence to assume what you are assuming, that Paul meant he was not one of the twelve.
It would be helpful if we would actual show the Bible references when we quote them so we all can look for ourselves and check context. I’ll try to do a better job myself.
D
Dokimas
Guest
I noticed you didn’t comment SPECIFICALLY on:
[SIGN]The order of events:
They chose.
They prayed God would choose between the two.
They cast lots.
NOTICE:
**
How was God to show them the one He was choosing was not one of the ones they had chosen? Was God to suspend the lots in the air?**[/SIGN]
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Point one he makes a connection between Anna and there being women who were in holy orders. A very tenuous connection based upon this verse only
Nothing is said about virginity.
Point two
Is that really a good point? The presence of monastic men in a small sect of Jews who held unorthodox beliefs, by most descriptions, means that larger Judaism had women consecrated in their virginity at the Temple?
Point three is something I happy to discuss. When in seminary, I did a 30 page exegetical analysis of this. Needless to say, no, almost no scholars believe that Temple virgins existed or that this is what he did. It is a very small group of people, ironically, based from my fundamentalist background, who assert this without proof. Now, people are free to dispute my exegesis about Jepthah fulfilling his vow but that is the literal rendering as well as the Jewish view from then until now. A rather long span.
Point Four is kinda funny. Does he really believe in multiple ancient Christian sects? I certainly do but that rather goes against the Catholic line does it not? There is not a lot of scholarly information on it but most internet sites tend to repeat the same thing about it with minor word variations…and not cited of course. It would be interesting to read more about it. I certinly have not read anyone who attributes it to anyone early on.
G
guanophore
Guest
Actually, I think this supports my point. You reject the authority of the Church to hold and teach the doctrine that was delivered to her in the first century. You rely on your own senses, in exclusion from the promise of Jesus that He would lead His Church into All Truth. You are starting to sound like Thomas! “Unless I see his hands and feet, and put my hand into His side;…”
I am glad we are in agreement that Jesus really did give His Church authority.
It seems that you consider that authority limited to what you can accept as true…
Jesus said that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven. So, when they “enrolled Matthias with the eleven”, it was bound in heaven.
Jesus has already perfected the Church. The part of the Church that is in heaven is perfected forever. They can never sin, because He has preserved them for eternity.
The perfection of the part of the Church that remains here on earth is not contingent upon the imperfections of man. The Church is perfect because of her Divine elements, not the human. Jesus is her Head, and she is ensouled by the HS. She contains innumerable angels, created in perfection and the triumphant saints perfected forever.
I think it is the abbreviation of “church” to admit only the current humans alive on earth that leads to such misunderstandings.
If it is not the same, then you are in serious trouble, since you base your faith entirely on a document created by that Church. If she fell into error around some arbitrary date such as 300, then you have no basis to believe and accept the canon of scripture, which was formed in 382 by that same Church. It was done by the Church who believed that Mary is an eternal virgin. If she fell into error, how do you know she did not err on the canon of Scripture?
Ok, we are in agreement then. Only one person can replace Judas. What evidence do you have that Saul of Tarsus was considered “one of the 12”?
Paul was confident that he was an apostle, called and appointed by Christ, with as much authority as the other Apostles. He never considered himself “one of the 12”.
Then there is the problem of the entire church getting it wrong for 1800 years until American Fundamentalism emerged to take issue with the facts. How is it that Jesus was so weak and disinterested in His Own Church that He was unable to convince them that they made a mistake? What happened to the powerful Jesus depicted in Revelation?
Your theory assumes that no one sought for God, or wanted to know His truth.
Rev.21
[14] And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
The early church accepted Matthias as the 12, and all the artwork has reflected this from the first century. Even if your theory is correct that Peter’s heart was in darkness and his mind sought not, and found not, the will of God, how is it that every elder from that time until now did the same?
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed, I did comment. I commented that you left out some steps. I think you just did not like my comments.
However, I will make them again:
12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[SIGN][13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [/SIGN]
[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[18] (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms,
Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and His office let another take.’[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
[23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
[24] And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
[25] to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
[26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Your "order of events’ leaves out this time of prayer and reflection. You also have not explained how Peter got deceived about the Scripture. If he was asking the HS for help, then how did he end up fastening on a scripture that was not relevant?
Also, you will need to explain the mistake the HS made in the accounting later in Acts:
Acts.6
[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2][SIGN] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples [/SIGN]and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
[3] Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty.
[4] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch.
[6] [SIGN]These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. [/SIGN]
According to your theory, the HS made a mistake when He inspired Luke to count Matthias as “one of the twelve” and again when it is written that the Apostles ordained the Deacons. Not only is Jesus apparently asleep, and cannot guide His Church, but the HS is getting inattentive.
D
Dokimas
Guest
D
Dokimas
Guest
Good points.Indeed, I did comment. I commented that you left out some steps. I think you just did not like my comments.
However, I will make them again:
12] Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a sabbath day’s journey away;
[SIGN][13] and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
[14] All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers. [/SIGN]
[15] In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
[16] “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.
[17] For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.
[18] (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.
[19] And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.)
[20] For it is written in the book of Psalms,Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; andHis office let another take.’
[21] So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
[22] beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection.”
[23] And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab’bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi’as.
[24] And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
[25] to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.”
[26] And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi’as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.
Your "order of events’ leaves out this time of prayer and reflection. You also have not explained how Peter got deceived about the Scripture. If he was asking the HS for help, then how did he end up fastening on a scripture that was not relevant?
Also, you will need to explain the mistake the HS made in the accounting later in Acts:
Acts.6
[1] Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists murmured against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution.
[2][SIGN] And the twelve summoned the body of the disciples [/SIGN]and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables.
[3] Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty.
[4] But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
[5] And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch.
[6] [SIGN]These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. [/SIGN]
According to your theory, the HS made a mistake when He inspired Luke to count Matthias as “one of the twelve” and again when it is written that the Apostles ordained the Deacons. Not only is Jesus apparently asleep, and cannot guide His Church, but the HS is getting inattentive.
I never said God didn’t accept the choice of Matthias by the disciples. I said it wasn’t His choice. God is gracious and merciful. He takes our mistakes and if our hearts are after Him, He uses them for His glory. He said David was a man after His heart. David was quite a sinner. One sin was murder and one adultery. Sinful choices. David married the woman he commited adultery with. They bore Solomon. God uses our mistakes.
There you go again. As anyone who understands the Bible even a little bit knows the Holy Spirit doesn’t make mistakes. We, the followers of God, are the ones that make mistakes. I’m glad to correct you again.
- Status