Scripture and Mary

[TOME]

JanetS,
Thank you for your link to Mark Shea I hadn’t read it before but I greatly appreciate your providing me with the opportunity for doing so - I hope every one else involved in this thread will also take up the same opportunity and read his article.

In keeping with the topic I would like to suggest three works of Pope Benedict XVI. The first is “Mary the Church at the Source” (which includes important essays by Hans Urs von Balthasar as well), “Daughter Zion” and “Introduction to Christianity”. All are revelant to this topic and provide, I think, important teaching of modern Mariology explaining the Church’s teachings on Mary all deeply rooted in scripture.

I believe these three works provide a unique source of the Scriptural foundation for our understanding of Mary especially in her relationship to the Church. And given this is Post # 101 - I am tempted to say these three works form the basis of my Mariology 101).

 

[Janet_S]

You also asked how Matthew would have learned of Jesus’early life if Mary had not told him. Surely you are not serious.

I am serious. Who better to go to for this information than Mary. Why wouldn’t the evangelists have talked with her? If you were alive at the same time Mary was alive, wouldn’t you have loved to had the opportunity to ask her questions? I know I would.

Jerome writing about what happened during the time of Jesus would be like you writing about the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock. How accurate could you be about that? All you would have would be books of what someone else had to say, nothing you heard directly.

He’s closer to the time of the Apostles than you are. You’re asking me to ignore the constant teaching of the Church, at least for the first 1500 years, and go with your interpretation. Why is your insight into the Bible better than Jerome’s? Or Calvin’s or Luther’s for that matter?

Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

We’ve already discussed Jerome’s and Calvin’s interpretation of this verse and their argument against Helvidius. You, on the other hand, interpret this verse the the same as Helvidius. (BTW, I’m still looking for the verse in the Bible that says your interpretation is the correct one.)

It is curious to me that you believe Jerome, 400 years later but simply put aside those who were eyewitnesses, such as Polycarp, Ignatius and Clement. How naïve. You might mention that the only reason the writings of Ignatius are not considered valid are because they don’t follow the Catholic line of thought about Mary that came about hundreds of years later, not that they are not historical. Who made that distinction and when? Ask yourself that!

I got the information about the spurious (forged) letter of Ignatius from ccel, which is a Protestant website. Sorry if you’re upset about that, but maybe you should have checked it out before you posted it.

I don’t remember that you cited anything from Polycarp or Clement. I’m familiar with them and have read their writings, and would not put them aside. What did they say?

You would do well to read the Bible and not what someone else tells you it says. We are told by Scripture that nothing there is difficult for us to believe.

So you never used a Bible commentary or took a Bible study class? You’d better steer clear of that; you know It might be dangerous to have someone else tell you what the Bible says.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

Scripture is explicit.

“Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” (Ezekiel 44:2)

That’s pretty much irrelevant to a Protestant. The reason is they typically avoid typology like it was a plague. A “Popish Plague” which is probably worse than the plagues God sent on Israel.

The Protestants that are into typology, they don’t take it as far as Catholics and Orthodox do.

 

[Janet_S]

TMC,

Thanks for taking the time to read my post and to comment. You raise some good points.

I just wanted to respond to a few things.

Belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary must be important/vital since the Church defined it as a dogma. Why would it bother if it weren’t important?

Whether Christ was referring to Ezekiel 44:2 when he instructed his disciples on the road to Emmaus, I can’t say for sure. But, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think what was handed on from the Apostles to the Church fathers came directly from the lips of Christ. I feel pretty confident saying that since the Church makes that claim for herself.

Also, I never believed I could prove from the Bible alone that the doctrine of Mary’s PV is true. I pretty much agree with you, I believe it because that’s what the Church has always taught. But if you’re going to discuss the PV of Mary with a non-Catholic, you have to address the Bible, especially Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” and the meaning of the word “until.”

 

[byoby]

Clearly, if you read the entire Psalm in context, it is David speaking. How could verse 6 apply to Jesus? Text out of context is a pretext. We must be very careful and make sure to read the entire passage and know who it is written by and to whom.

This is a lamentation prayer in which the psalmist cries in anguish out of great distress. I respect your sincere effort but you need to look elsewhere. This does not refer to Christ. Re-read the ENTIRE psalm…God Bless…teachccd

I can appreciate your answer except for that the passage immediately following (Psalm 69:9) is quoted in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3 and is attributed to Christ. Psalm 69:4 is quoted in John 15:25 to show that Christ fullfilled this passage as well. It seems that a case can be made that psalm 69 is not just a lamentation prayer as it also contains prophecy.

Psalm 69:8 coupled with what I think is the plain reading of new testament passages indicating that Joseph and Mary did not know each other until she gave birth to her firstborn, that Jesus is called her firstborn and not her only son, that Jesus had brothers that did not believe on him until after Jesus death and ressurection seems to be a prophetic fullfillment of Psalm 69:8.

This is one of the arguments that I struggle with for having the Catholic view of the Blessed Mary.

Peace be with you!

 

[jcrichton]

You would do well to read the Bible and not what someone else tells you it says. We are told by Scripture that nothing there is difficult for us to believe.

***Hi, Old Scholar!

…you confound me yet again!

Which passage in the Holy Scriptures tells you that?

Are you meaning to say that the Holy Scriptures are simple to understand?

If you are saying this… than you are a wiser man than St. Peter:

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 St. Peter 3:15-16–DRV)

---

A better teacher than Jesus:

I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. (St. John 16:12–DRV)

And you are greater than the Holy Spirit:

Which things also we speak: not in the learned words of human wisdom, but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Corinthians 2:13–DRV)

I’ve spoken with too many who have mastered the skill of reading the complete Bible without gaining a single glimpse of what Faith is. And I’ve had many exchanges with those who promote self as the final word in the Word of God–they shun Christ’s Church and the Holy Spirit’s guidance as they seek to find God in their own wisdom.

Reading the Bible is a great start; humbling ourselves to Christ Commands is the Way to the Truth!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TOME]

byoby,
I agree with you that Ps 69must be seen as referring to Christ, however, I cannot accept that this psalm and its verse 8 should be used as a scriptural basis for denying the perpetual virginty of Mary. To do so I believe fails to grasp the importance of Christ’s own words in Mt 12:50, Mk 3:35 and Lk 8:21. In these three verses of three seperate gospels Christ proclaims to relationship with him is not contingent on a blood relationship but in doing the Will of the Father.

This psalm is the prayer of one who is in deep anguish - the anguish of total abandonment Jesus felt as he was dying on the cross (Mk 15:34). Except for His mother, the “disciple whom he loved” Mary Magdaline and the other women, Jesus was abandoned by his “Brothers” and “Sister” during his crufixion and if we are to believe Jesus that his true brothers and sisters and mother are those who do the Father’s Will, then he had become an “outcast” to his kin. In John 19: 26 -27 Jesus gave his mother to be our mother when he gave her to the “Disciple whom he loved” so that the words of Ps 69 vs 8 were true, " I have become an outcast to my mother’s children".

You may reject the Church’s belief (a belif held not only by the Western Church but the Church of the Eastern Tradition as well) of the meaning of John 19: 26,27 that Mary is truely our mother, however can you understand that Ps 69 vs 8 and its reference to kinship, in light of the gospel passages above transcends the notion of relationship with Christ being based on blood and that the psalm speaking of kin and children of my mother is something other than siblings or cousins?

In regards to the terms “until” and “Firstborn” there have been many post that relate the fact that “Until” only refers to a state of being upto a certain point in time and does not refer to any later actions. Also that “First born” in the semetic use of the term only refers to the status of position of birth but doesnot necessarily indicate any other offspring. In Mary’s case specifically if nothing else it shows Jesus was her first child.

 

[Old_Scholar]

jrichton

We are told that a man of God will have no problem understanding the Word of God. See:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Those who do not believe in Jesus have very little understanding but those who have the spirit shall be given the ability to understand and have more abundance:

**For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever have not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:12) **

The holy Spirit will guide you through the Scriptures as through life if you have Him in your heart. This is the promise of God.
The Scripture of Peter you gave says that the unlearned and unstable wrest with the Scriptures to their own destruction.
Sorry if you have problems with that but you should not. Just read the Scriptures asking God for guidance and you will understand. There is no mystery that has not been disclosed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

TOME

You seem so quick to take verses that do not say anything about "blood’ relations, yet deny those that do.

In psalm 69, the quotes in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3, 25 all show a blood relationship with Christ, not the type relationship we all have as brothers and sisters in Christ. You certainly have to stretch those verses to get them to say otherwise.

Peace

 

[jcrichton]

I suggest you read the New Testament again. It is about Jesus and his coming to earth and establishing His church. How can you say it never happened?
What you list as contradictions in word usage is simply different translations… There is no discrepancy in that.

***Again… are you simply skimming through?

You cite a passage of the Holy Scriptures that totally contradicts your statement:***

immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: 17) Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. 18) Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

---

Paul is not saying that he went to Arabia to get schooled or instructed further. He went to do what was commanded of him; to preach Jesus Christ! He was clarifying that this wisdom came not from man but from God, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior!***

…Peter was assigned to preach to the Jews and he preached Christ dying for our sins and being resurrected. Christ converted Paul to bring the revelation of the gospel of Christ to the gentiles. Paul taught salvation by Grace, a different gospel than Peter. Do you not wonder why Christ had to convert Paul in order to bring this message? Since he had apostles already there, why didn’t He use Peter to do this? While Peter showed his love for Christ, the problem is that he was ignorant and illiterate to a degree. Paul was well educated and better able for such a message as indicated by the fact that the New Testament is pretty much his writing

---

You are now entering the “better than yours” faith phase… I cannot respond to that. …as for a different Gospel? Are you sure you are getting that from the Holy Scriptures? Here’s what Paul had to say:***

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:6-9–DRV)

---

Conversely, Peter did not think that there were several Gospels nor that his was different or lesser or better than Paul:***

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 St. Peter 3:15-16–DRV)

---

There is One God, One Lord, One Spirit, one Gospel! (Ephesians 2:15-22)

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[jcrichton]

If you are a Roman Catholic, you soon realize that it is not tradition that is important. Nor is it Scripture. It is the church that has the final say in everything. That thought is neither traditional or Scriptural.

We would all be wise to follow Augustine and teach nothing that cannot be found in Scripture…

---

Hi, Old Scholar!

Please, either read (not skim or selective reading) the Holy Scriptures or do not make contradicting statements using the Holy Scriptures as your basis:

New International Version
8Although I am less than the least of all God’s people, this grace was given me: to preach to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things. 10His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, 11according to his eternal purpose which he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord.

New American Standard Bible
8To me, the very least of all saints, this grace was given, to preach to the Gentiles the unfathomable riches of Christ,
9and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
10so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places.
11This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,

Amplified Bible
8To me, though I am the very least of all the saints (God’s consecrated people), this grace (favor, privilege) was granted and graciously entrusted: to proclaim to the Gentiles the unending (boundless, fathomless, incalculable, and exhaustless) riches of Christ (wealth which no human being could have searched out),
9Also to enlighten all men and make plain to them what is the plan (regarding the Gentiles and providing for the salvation of all men) of the mystery kept hidden through the ages and concealed until now in (the mind of) God Who created all things by Christ Jesus.
10(The purpose is) that through the church the complicated, many-sided wisdom of God in all its infinite variety and innumerable aspects might now be made known to the angelic rulers and authorities (principalities and powers) in the heavenly sphere.
11This is in accordance with the terms of the eternal and timeless purpose which He has realized and carried into effect in (the person of) Christ Jesus our Lord,

New Living Translation
8 Though I am the least deserving of all God’s people, he graciously gave me the privilege of telling the Gentiles about the endless treasures available to them in Christ. 9 I was chosen to explain to everyone this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning.
10 God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord.

King James Version
8Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
9And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

---

You may deny it all you want but the Holy Scriptures tells us different. Paul unequivocably asserts that it is the Chruch that has the function to reveal God’s Plan to all!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[TOME]

Old Scholar,

If I am not mistaken, Jesus promise of the Holy Spirit was never to persons as individuals but to the Apostles as representatives and in context of their ministry within and for the Church.

The spiritual gifts Paul writes about is never given to and individual outside the context of ministry of the Church. 1 John 4 gives us the guide to test the spirits to see if they belong to God.
1 John 4 tells us not every spirit that comes to us comes from God and we should test all spirits, that proof that a spirit is from God is the acknowledgement “that Jesus Christ come in the flesh” (vs 3) and acknowledge that Jesus comes from God.

You may think, however, that this bolsters the concept of individual interpertation but I would disagree. In his letters to the Corinthians (1 Cor 12) that the Church is the Body of Christ and that within this Body are different ministries and charisms. But they are exercised within the Church and for the Church, not by individuals acting outside the ministry of the Church. It was to the Apostles (and later through the Apostles their sucessors the Bishops) who received the commission to preach the good news and make disciples of all nations. It was to the Apostles, not individuals, that Christ promised the Holy Spirit to guide them.

You wrote giving references to Paul’s letter to Timothy but you reference fails to take into account that in this Letter Paul is instructing Timothy not because Timothy was a good christian but what Paul wrote to him in context of Timothy role as Bishop. The use of scriptures here is for Timothy’s use in his ministry.
Mt 12:13 Jesus is teaching his Disciples that it was the failure of the religious leaders - in their role of spiritual leadership - that forced him to speak in parables because they (religious leaders) “who has not” (proper understanding of the truth of the Law and Prophets (LK 24: 25 -27) and what little they did have (true knowledge of the scriptures and Law) would be taken away.
The two passages you cited must be seen in the context of charisms received in the exercised of the mandate the Apostles and their sucessors received from Christ.

 

[anthony022071]

Anthony022071

You list a great deal of what the church says about this but nothing from Scripture, which we both would agree, I am sure, is the Word of God.

It is the Word of God,but it the written down in the form of dead words on the page. The living Word of God is passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth,by tradition. And the church fathers knew that not everything that pertains to the faith was written down.

You are incorrect about Hebrew referring to brothers and cousins with the same word.

I am not incorrect. In the Hebrew and Aramaic,there was no special word for “cousins”,so the word for “brothers” was to cover for “cousins”.

And Peter never received the gospel Christ revealed to Paul until Paul taught it to him. It was not the same gospel Christ taught the apostles. You need to study a little more about Paul’s gospel.

That is crazy. There is no justification from either scripture or from the church fathers for that view. Paul went to Peter for information about Christ. Peter had nothing to learn from Paul in regard to the gospel. The gospel that Paul preached was the same as the gospel that Peter preached. Christ did not give them two different gospels.

I too believe in tradition until it contradicts or adds to Scripture. Anything that has been handed down that contradicts Scripture cannot be legitimate.

That is false. The Church fathers did not believe that.

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have delivered to us in a mystery by the Apostles by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force.” Basil, Holy Spirit 27 (c. A.D. 370).

“The day would fail me, if I went through the mysteries of the Church which are not in Scripture. I pass by the others, the very confession of faith, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, from what written document have we?” Basil, Holy Spirit 67 (c. A.D. 370).

‘So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word, or by our epistle of ours’. Hence it is manifest, that they did not deliver all things by Epistle, but many things unwritten, and in like manner both the one and the other are worthy of credit. Therefore let us think the tradition of the Church also worthy of credit. It is a tradition seek no farther." John Chrysostom, Homilies on Second Thessalonians (c. A.D. 392).

God gave us the written word so that we would know the truth. When people started teaching different things, that was when the heretical age came.

There were heretics from the beginning of Christianity,and it was always those who departed from the traditions of the Church and interpreted scripture differently from the Church,like the Gnostics and Arians.

“If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts’ (Mt 5:19)” Maximinus (Arch-Arian Heretic), Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c. A.D. 428).

Sola scriptura is for heretics…

 

[TOME]

Old Scholar,
For some reason I cannot see either in John 2: 17 (the Cleansing of the Temple) or Romans 15: 3, 25 referring to any blood relatives of Jesus?

Would you kindly explain how these verses indicate any blood relationships Jesus might have? Also I would be interested in reading your comments on what I wrote concerning Ps 69 taken in light of Mt 12: 50, Mk 3: 35 and Luke 8:21.

 

[jcrichton]

I can appreciate your answer except for that the passage immediately following (Psalm 69:9) is quoted in John 2:17 and Romans 15:3 and is attributed to Christ. Psalm 69:4 is quoted in John 15:25 to show that Christ fullfilled this passage as well. It seems that a case can be made that psalm 69 is not just a lamentation prayer as it also contains prophecy.

Psalm 69:8 coupled with what I think is the plain reading of new testament passages indicating that Joseph and Mary did not know each other until she gave birth to her firstborn, that Jesus is called her firstborn and not her only son, that Jesus had brothers that did not believe on him until after Jesus death and ressurection seems to be a prophetic fullfillment of Psalm 69:8.

This is one of the arguments that I struggle with for having the Catholic view of the Blessed Mary.

Peace be with you!

***Hi, byoby!

I find that there are complications when we seek to atribute reference passages… not all of a Psalm or passage or chapter is necessarily defining the Person of Jesus… (i.e: Psalm 55; Isaiah 7; Jeremiah 31…).

Another problem I find is that when there seems to be a gap or some content missing we tend to fill it in with our own predisposed theologies… i.e.: some people claim that when they brought the woman to Jesus, acused of adultery, He was writing down on the ground the various sins committed by those in the crowd; when Paul falls to the ground when Jesus appears to him some think that he falls from a horse…

We get so caught up that we lose track of truly important things…

What is the importance of the “first born son?” Just check the Old Testament! There’s this promise made by Yahweh and He keeps it with the “first born.” So would the Holy Scriptures say that Jesus was the only born or the first born?

Again, when searching the Holy Scriptures we find “discrepancies…”

Was Isaac the first born? (Coincidentally he is called the only son: Genesis 22:2) Is Yahweh pulling one over us?

This sort of “first born/not” is repeated again with Jacob… and Jacob perpetrates this same selection with Ephraim!

The first born’s rights and blessings are given by Yahweh. It is He who selects the person who will carry His promise; this person is either born or made into the first born (as Salomon) by Yahweh.

Jesus definitely had to be “first born;” calling Jesus the “only son” would not have the same meaning, though both are technically the same in the case of an only son.

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[Janet_S]

---

Old Scholar’s quote: …Peter was assigned to preach to the Jews and he preached Christ dying for our sins and being resurrected. Christ converted Paul to bring the revelation of the gospel of Christ to the gentiles. Paul taught salvation by Grace, a different gospel than Peter. Do you not wonder why Christ had to convert Paul in order to bring this message? Since he had apostles already there, why didn’t He use Peter to do this? While Peter showed his love for Christ, the problem is that he was ignorant and illiterate to a degree. Paul was well educated and better able for such a message as indicated by the fact that the New Testament is pretty much his writing

---

You are now entering the “better than yours” faith phase… I cannot respond to that. …as for a different Gospel? Are you sure you are getting that from the Holy Scriptures? Here’s what Paul had to say:******

Old Scholar is referring to the idea of a “better than yours” faith or in other words the idea that Paul preached a new improved Gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

The “better than yours” faith is an idea that can be traced back no further than Martin Luther who believed that some books of the NT were more important than others. Actually, Luther believed that only 6 NT books contained everything you needed to know: St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle. Luther says these “are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine.”

Luther believed that the Gospel of John ranked above all other NT books. After John, the epistles of St Paul and St Peter came next. And after the epistles of Paul and Peter, which far surpassed the synoptic Gospels, came the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And of course we know there were 4 NT books Luther didn’t want in the NT at all. Those 4 books which he didn’t consider to be on the same level as the other 23 books were: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. They were placed at the end his first NT translation.

Anyway, that’s where this idea of 2 competing Gospels comes from. It was a necessary manipulation of Scripture to fit the novel and unbiblical doctrine of sola fide.

Imagine if a Pope came up with this idea.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Anthony022071
jrichton

And Peter never received the gospel Christ revealed to Paul until Paul taught it to him. It was not the same gospel Christ taught the apostles. You need to study a little more about Paul’s gospel.

That is crazy. There is no justification from either scripture or from the church fathers for that view. Paul went to Peter for information about Christ. Peter had nothing to learn from Paul in regard to the gospel. The gospel that Paul preached was the same as the gospel that Peter preached. Christ did not give them two different gospels.

I want to answer the question raised about the different gospels but this is not the subject of this thread. Therefore I will begin a new thread entitled, “different gospels” in order to elaborate on what I said about Paul’s gospel. But I will not attempt to comment on what the early church fathers thought. One cannot imagine them believeing anything that places Peter in a bad light compared to Paul. I will only consult the Scriptures.

The other questions asked of me here can probably be answered on this thread.

 

[guanophore]

I want to answer the question raised about the different gospels but this is not the subject of this thread. Therefore I will begin a new thread entitled, “different gospels” in order to elaborate on what I said about Paul’s gospel. But I will not attempt to comment on what the early church fathers thought. One cannot imagine them believeing anything that places Peter in a bad light compared to Paul. I will only consult the Scriptures.

The other questions asked of me here can probably be answered on this thread.

At least you can see that the early fathers had the sense to recognize that the two were equal in authority as Apostles and that their gospels were identical. Of course they would not believe anything that place Peter in a bad light compared to Paul, or the other way around, either! They were all in union with one another, one in doctrine, one in faith.

 

[guanophore]

jrichton

We are told that a man of God will have no problem understanding the Word of God. See:

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17) That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

This passage does not say what you assert that it does. Men of God do have trouble understanding the Word of God. Nicodemus was a righteous God - Seeker, but did not understand what Jesus was telling him about being born again.

The Eunuch was a God-seeker, and he did not understand the Word until Phillip explained it to him.

After reading your other posts, I think you will say that Peter is not a real man of God, did not understand Jesus’ message, and was a deficient Christian, and that is why he found Paul’s letters hard to understand.

Those who do not believe in Jesus have very little understanding but those who have the spirit shall be given the ability to understand and have more abundance:

**For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever have not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. (Matthew 13:12) **

The holy Spirit will guide you through the Scriptures as through life if you have Him in your heart. This is the promise of God.
The Scripture of Peter you gave says that the unlearned and unstable wrest with the Scriptures to their own destruction.
Sorry if you have problems with that but you should not. Just read the Scriptures asking God for guidance and you will understand. There is no mystery that has not been disclosed.

Are you purporting that unlearned and unstable babes in Christ are incapable of misunderstanding the scriptures?

On another thread, I am in dialogue with a man who believes that baptism has nothing to do with water…

 

[jcrichton]

Old Scholar is referring to the idea of a “better than yours” faith or in other words the idea that Paul preached a new improved Gospel from that of Peter and the 12.

The “better than yours” faith is an idea that can be traced back no further than Martin Luther who believed that some books of the NT were more important than others. Actually, Luther believed that only 6 NT books contained everything you needed to know: St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle. Luther says these “are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine.”

Luther believed that the Gospel of John ranked above all other NT books. After John, the epistles of St Paul and St Peter came next. And after the epistles of Paul and Peter, which far surpassed the synoptic Gospels, came the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And of course we know there were 4 NT books Luther didn’t want in the NT at all. Those 4 books which he didn’t consider to be on the same level as the other 23 books were: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. They were placed at the end his first NT translation.

Anyway, that’s where this idea of 2 competing Gospels comes from. It was a necessary manipulation of Scripture to fit the novel and unbiblical doctrine of sola fide.

Imagine if a Pope came up with this idea.

Hi, Janet S.!

Thank you! …I am not as read as I should be; your post has come as a blessing since I have been wondering if there’s a list of all of the books that Luther wanted banned from the Bible… I could not understand why or where he got his compulsion… you have shinned a bright light onto what I thought as a capricious and arrogant act.

No wonder such erroneous understanding of the Holy Scriptures exists among so many!

And you are so right… had any Pope dissected the Bible in such a manner and presented it as his own private revelation for all Christians to follow Protestants would be promoting Wisdom, Tobit, Maccabees, and Sirach and demanding that the Church reinstate all of the original books of the Bible—they would probably refer to the incident as an abomination which the Holy Scriptures warns against (changing/removing/adding); and they would probably cite it as one of the mayor reasons why they left the Church!

Maran atha!

Angel