Prove it!

[guanophore]

How about 1 John 2:27 But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him.​

Did the Holy Spirit have John write this to you and me?

No, this passage was written to the Church. It only applies to those who are in union with the Apostles, and their successors. Individuals such as you and I can only benefit from this promise to the extent that we are in union with the Church in which John was a foundation stone. The HS does not lead individuals in directions opposite from what He has already revealed to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

-Context, context, context.

The context of the Revelation of God is the Church He founded. Why do you suppose that Church believed, up until just a couple hundred years ago in America, that Mary was a perpetual virgin? How is it that God was to weak, or disinterested to correct His Church on this matter?

Why did all the Apostles, and all their disciples, believe that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

Oy!

These are the arguments that seem to come up from Protestants about Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. They are not new.

1. Scripture says Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn”. That means that Mary had a second born. Which means Mary was not perpetually a virgin.

Catholics respond: nuh-uh. For all the above arguments that have already been stated. Namely, firstborn only means “he who opens the womb”. THERE IS NO INDICATOR THAT FIRSTBORN MEANS ANOTHER CHILD IS COMING.

1. Scripture says that Joseph knew her not until Jesus’ birth. Therefore, after his birth they had sex.

Catholics respond: nuh-uh. For all the reasons already stated. “Until” does not indicate anything about subsequent events. The only thing that this verse tells us is that Joseph was not the father of the babe in Mary’s womb.

I sighed with relief when Dokimas stated that here:

That’s the one and only reason for that little word “until”–to tell us that Mary and Joseph did not have sex during her pregnancy.

Now, we know that they did not have sex afterwards because of Luke 1:34 and the Ezekiel verse.

Hey PRmerger:

Ah yes…and the circle of disagreement begins again. I know the Catholic response, not only have I read it over and over here in this thread, but I used to be Catholic too.

Dokimas and I agree on many points, but you and I don’t. And with your posting above we are right back at the beginning of our discussion. I think probably the only thing we can agree with is our frustration in stating our opinions over and over.

And the world still turns and the Lord still loves us. Listen friend, have a good night, ok? I’m going to float around on some other threads. Just know that I genuinely appreciate all of your (name removed by moderator)ut. We talk, we think, we write, we discuss. And then there is a time to come to a peaceful resolve.

Have a peaceful night. Rest well.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t understand how all the people of an organization can be fallible but the organization can’t be. Jesus is the only Infallible anything.

If people were not capable of benefitting from the gift of infallibility, we would not have a Church, or a NT. It is God, working through men, that make infallible acts possible.

It is because the Church is larger than the sum of the parts. The modern American Evangelical concept of “church” is deficient, in that it only identifies the Church as the body of believers on earth. This makes up only the smallest and most fallible element of the Church.

The Church also consists of all those who have gone on before us in the faith. they are perfected, and therefore, incapable of sin. The Church has Jesus as the Head, and the HS as her Soul. These divine elements prevent her from error.

In order to understand the infallibility of the Church, one must realize that the Church is much bigger than “the body of believers”.

The Church is not just an “organiziation”, but His Body.

Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her,
Eph 5:26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,
Eph 5:27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

From God’s point of view, she is sanctified, cleansed, splendorious, without spot or wrinkle, holy, without blemish. She is His beloved bride, whom He loved enough to give His life.

Men can partake of this divine nature to the extent that we remain in unity with Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

You have not quoted me in context of the discussion so I don’t know specifically what was being said so I can’t give a direct response. Give me context and I’ll do my best to respond.​

BTW, the only understanding I’m concerned about is the orignal disciples. I’m not concerned about the other several thousand yrs of belief, especial if it doesn’t match the Bible.

When I asked you why you thought the disciples of the Apsotles misunderstood them, you agreed that they had not! Don’t you think the Apostles, and those who learned directly from them, would have known if Mary had other children?

Itr is interesting you say tha tyou are not interested in your own family history here.

What does not match, Doki, is your interpretation of the bible. You are taking it out of it’s context - separating it from the Church that produced it, and trying to understand it in the vaccuum of modern American Evangelism, cut off from the Source.

 

[fbl9]

Yes! Your example reinforces my point exactly, thank you! Because, as far as I know Joseph wasn’t married before his marriage to Mary. So, the term first born refers to the probability that there were more children born to Mary and Joseph or they were going to try for more, making Jesus their first born son. Very cool, thanks!

Totally answers my question.

At that ime of my life there was no intent for my son…let alone more…my daughter is not of my blood but of my wife’s…so my son is my firstborn and only born.

 

[Jars_of_Clay_1]

At that ime of my life there was no intent for my son…let alone more…my daughter is not of my blood but of my wife’s…so my son is my firstborn and only born.

I’m seriously happy for you. Children are a wonderful thing and a gift from God.

Let me turn this to me because I in no way want to address you in a personal manner.

I have no children. I have no first born. As a couple we continue to have sex. Just because we have no children - doesn’t mean we don’t have sex.

If I had a first born and an adopted child as a married couple we’d still have sex. If I only had an adopted child as a married couple we’d still have sex.

Having a firstborn child or an only child doesn’t stop the married couple from having sex.

Between a husband and wife sex is a wonderful and intimate blessing! God created it!

(I know - I said I was looking around in other threads and I was, but I just had to come back here!)

FBl9 - bless you and your wife and your children.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

Actually, he was just pointing out that you criticizing other members for immature expressions might be the least bit hypocritical, given your track record.

Thank you so much for your in put…I am sure you are right, or perhaps you just preclude the way.

 

[Leslie_Polley]

The context of the Revelation of God is the Church He founded. Why do you suppose that Church believed, up until just a couple hundred years ago in America, that Mary was a perpetual virgin? How is it that God was to weak, or disinterested to correct His Church on this matter?

Why did all the Apostles, and all their disciples, believe that Jesus was the only child of Mary?

Oh they did…well see thats just one more thing I am learning…from you…not the Bible

 

[guanophore]

It doesn't mean a child will be born, but it means sexual relations will take place.

I will accept what you stated in your previous post. I recognize that you are unable to accept the Apostolic Teaching on this matter.

I agree that Jesus is the first born of Mary.  I don't believe that Jesus is the only born of Mary because I believe that Mary had sex with Joseph after Jesus' birth, like any normal married couple. That in no way is even a disrespectful comment about Mary.  Is it?  Being a mother is a great thing.  If Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus' birth - still a great thing.  Sex is a gift from God to be shared in marriage.

It would be a great disrespect for one who has made a vow of perpetual virgnity to forsake the vow, and indulge in pleasures of the marriage bed, after one had consecrated oneself as a holy vessel to the Lord. It has to do with being faithless to one’s promises. There is nothing wrong with sex.

 

[fbl9]

I’m seriously happy for you. Children are a wonderful thing and a gift from God.

Let me turn this to me because I in no way want to address you in a personal manner.

I have no children. I have no first born. As a couple we continue to have sex. Just because we have no children - doesn’t mean we don’t have sex.

If I had a first born and an adopted child as a married couple we’d still have sex. If I only had an adopted child as a married couple we’d still have sex.

Having a firstborn child or an only child doesn’t stop the married couple from having sex.

Between a husband and wife sex is a wonderful and intimate blessing! God created it!

(I know - I said I was looking around in other threads and I was, but I just had to come back here!)

FBl9 - bless you and your wife and your children.

sorry i missed a page in which i later read how you developed your postion into:it is possible that they didn’t have any more children but not for lack of trying.
later.yuh all

 

[guanophore]

When I think about this whole discussion, I don’t even know why this would be such a sticking point.

Because we have received the Gospel as a unified whole, and we are not at liberty to jettison parts of it that Modern American Evangelicals don’t find reasonable. If we do that (start dividing the seamless garment) the whole is compromised. We are not at liberty to discern the “essential elements” ordained by God. We cannot relinquish parts that don’t seem relevant. In no time, we will be relinquishing that which defines the faith.

 God invented sex.  Why would he deny Mary and Joseph an intimate joining that he invented for married couples?

God does not “deny sex” to anyone! Those who choose chastity or celibacy freely choose to consecrate their whole being to God, for the service of His Kingdom. As Jesus said “the one who can receive it should receive it”. It is a gift from God, that is received and lived out with joy.

God may have denied them more children, therefore you would believe Jesus didn't have siblings.  I believe that Jesus had brothers because I see references in the bible that distinguish the words, "mother, brothers, and disciples" in the same sentence.

You have misunderstood the Scriptures, Jars. You have taken them out of their context, which is the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

Oh they did…well see thats just one more thing I am learning…from you…not the Bible

I hope you stick around, Leslie, because you will learn a great many more things about your family history that are not in the Bible. Like, how you got your bible? I learn something new on here every day.

 

[rovimax]

I don’t have a problem with God’s part; my problem is with any group that says, “I’m the one and only”. The more the one and only takes over, the less God can take control. There’s little humility in ‘I’m the one’. There’s One Name under Heaven given to us mortals by which we can be save: that Name is Jesus, the Christ, the One from Nazareth, the King of king, Lord of lords, the Prince of Pease, etc.; that name is the Beginning and the End and it doesn’t go through a church. There is One Mediator between God and us and that’s Jesus (not Jesus plus a church or church leader)​

BTW, why don’t you trust God to be able to speak to individuals? It’s the same question as you asked me.

Jesus is Divine and will do anything for us but if he chooses to have a church who are we to argue on his intentions. 1 Cor 3:9 Paul siad that they are co-workers with Christ, it did not take away anything from Jesus. So what’s your problem? Otherwise other Jesus’s command will be meaningless if you insist in this kind of logic.

 

[Dokimas]

I think you and Jars ought to visit the other thread for the extensive treatment of this topic.

I also recommend a study of the word “firstborn” in the Pentateuch. The reason it was so “expensive” to give the firstborn of everything to the Lord is BECAUSE there was no promise of any to follow. Any livestock might not bear again, and any marriage may not produce another child. In asking for the firstborn, God was asking for everything.

And I thought it had to do with Pharoah cursing himself and Egypt with his self imposed prophecy (of course intending it to be on Moses).

 

[Dokimas]

This is a good example of the Reformation thinking. If the authority does not act appropriately, then God must have failed to appoint the right people, or we are at liberty to disregard them.

Are you relating this to the topic? Is it your assertion that, since men in positions of authority have sinned, the Catholic Church is not the one founded by Christ?

I was responding to the idea that a person or group not connected to the CC has no authority to settle disputes. I don’t remember who made the statement. I said history reveals that the CC is no better able to settle disputes than any other Christian organization. That’s all.

 

[Dokimas]

Amen to that!

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy: :bowdown2:

So I finally said something correct. WOW, wonders of wonders!

 

[Deconi]

With all due respects to all of you arguing about “firstborns” and “sexual normalities” of married life, when you’ve finished going round and round in circles, perhaps you might want to adjourn to the the foot of the cross and let Our Beloved Lord tell you Himself that He had no brothers or sisters.

Before He died, He didn’t say, ***“John, take my mother to her son, my younger brother, Edward of Loxley, and give the rest my love”! ***

No. Quite the contrary! He commits His Mum, to “Little John” who was not his sibling, BECAUSE His Mum had no other children to take over!

The "firstborn’ gets to delegate responsibility in Jewish life and law.

Of course, there are those who would argue against that and refuse to be ‘convinced’ it means ‘firstborn’ and ‘only-child’…but then, they are no longer arguing against me, but the Guy on the Wood.!!

With respects…

 

[Dokimas]

When I asked you why you thought the disciples of the Apsotles misunderstood them, you agreed that they had not! Don’t you think the Apostles, and those who learned directly from them, would have known if Mary had other children?

Itr is interesting you say tha tyou are not interested in your own family history here.

What does not match, Doki, is your interpretation of the bible. You are taking it out of it’s context - separating it from the Church that produced it, and trying to understand it in the vaccuum of modern American Evangelism, cut off from the Source.

The source is two fold: the Holy Spirit and the original penners of the letters (Paul, Peter, John, Luke, James, etc.). Later disciples collected all the letters (including, I’d guess) those not present in the 27 letters of the NT. If I remember correctly there were two other letters from Paul to the Corinthians. Still other disciples decided which to use to form what we call the NT. We have the 27 books and the Holy Spirit – no vacuum there.​

As some of you say from time to time, some things were done to stop wrong teachings. I believe it was Paul who wrote of several such wrong teachings. My point is that false teachings have been around (like gnosticism) from the beginning. My guess is that one such teaching is that Mary had no more children. The NT writers didn’t have to directly address this as a wrong teaching because the NT has things in it that reveals she had children, subtle as they may be, so the wrong teaching about Mary’s celebacy must not have come til after Paul and John finished their writings. Of course, that’s my opinion gleaned from the NT and your comments.

 

[Dokimas]

With all due respects to all of you arguing about “firstborns” and “sexual normalities” of married life, when you’ve finished going round and round in circles, perhaps you might want to adjourn to the the foot of the cross and let Our Beloved Lord tell you Himself that He had no brothers or sisters.

Before He died, He didn’t say, ***“John, take my mother to her son, my younger brother, Edward of Loxley, and give the rest my love”! ***

No. Quite the contrary! He commits His Mum, to “Little John” who was not his sibling, BECAUSE His Mum had no other children to take over!

The "firstborn’ gets to delegate responsibility in Jewish life and law.

Of course, there are those who would argue against that and refuse to be ‘convinced’ it means ‘firstborn’ and ‘only-child’…but then, they are no longer arguing against me, but the Guy on the Wood.!!

With respects…

That’s a nice point but I’d say a wrong conclusion. We don’t know why Jesus gave John the command to watch over His mother. Let’s think about it for a moment in light of the evidence in the NT that probably had siblings: maybe none of His siblings were at the foot of the Cross; or, maybe the siblings of Jesus were not in tune enough yet with His teachings so He’d choose someone He could trust to take care of His mother.