G
- Status
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
It didn’t come over as mockery 
Actually, the same approach is taken by Frank Duff (who is best known as founder of the Legion of Mary), in an essay he wrote called (IIRC) “Mary kept Hens at Nazareth”. Instead of the sanitised & unrealistic (& unincarnational) approach that treats her as a plaster saint totally unlike any other human being, 
the essay approaches her as someone who was on the surface totally ordinary & unremarkable. which is far better than emphasising her graces so much that she becomes totally unreal, & irrelevant to people like us: that sort of piety can all too easily give the false impression that she was given an unfair advantage over us.If “God is with us” as a man at all, then He is going to be credibly human - not floating ten feet off the ground in case He gets his hands dirty. That’s a Docetic Christology - it’s not Catholic. And if He is not above being totally human, then there is no basis for treating the BVM any differently: the handmaid of the Lord is not above her Master, in this or in anything. If the NT teaches us nothing else, it teaches us that.
J
jcrichton
Guest
***Hi, Old Scholar!
Firstly, I doubt that I said that there were contradictions in the Holy Scriptures… if I did it was an oversight; it should read “seeming” contradictions.
You ask for a contradiction:
It is fortold in the Old Testament that Yahweh will come to the People of Israel… that He Himself will be among them and He will come to His Temple…
…never happened!
To further fuel this seeming contradiction we find Jesus twisting words about when He takes a prophecy and interposes a pronoun or two:
New International Version
Malachi 3
1 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.
Matthew 11
10This is the one about whom it is written:
" ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you,
who will prepare your way before you.’
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
“Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says the LORD of hosts.
"This is the one about whom it is written,
‘BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU,
WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.’
Amplified Bible
BEHOLD, I send My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me. And the Lord (the Messiah), Whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; the Messenger or Angel of the covenant, Whom you desire, behold, He shall come, says the Lord of hosts.
This is the one of whom it is written, Behold, I send My messenger ahead of You, who shall make ready Your way before You.
New Living Translation
Look! I am sending my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. Then the Lord you are seeking will suddenly come to his Temple. The messenger of the covenant, whom you look for so eagerly, is surely coming,” says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.
John is the man to whom the Scriptures refer when they say,
‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you,
and he will prepare your way before you.’
King James Version
Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.
For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Compare also with St. Luke 7:27.
Is Yahweh lying? Is Yeshua? …perhaps it was a simple misprint… in all versions? Would my Catholic Bibles read differently? Nope, nope, nope, nope!
But there they are… seemingly contradictory passages.
Jesus is God so the prophecy is fulfilled. The Son, the Lord, the Emmanuel, came to the Temple. The Lord, Yahweh, can speak of Himself as I and me, and the Lord, Yeshua, can speak of the Father and His messenger or of Himself as He that is to come following God’s messenger… and knowing that the Bible does not limit God I can understand that Jesus as the Son of man did not come to reveal all truth; rather, He came to fulfill the promise of the Mesiah! Hence, no contradiction at all!***
***I do not mean to be disrespectful but you contradict yourself in your own statement… if Paul had a revelation, he would not need years to learn about what the Holy Spirit would already have had imparted to him… it was the Eleven that experience that lenth of time with our Lord–not that He could not have imparted the Holy Spirit to reveal everything at the very moment that He found them!
Please reread Acts 9:1-31–play close attention to verses 17-22.
As for Saul having special revelations that not even Kephas had, that is a dogmatic statement seeking to place Paul in a better light than Peter. Again, I commend you to reread Acts 9:32 thru 12:17, Kephas was not only involved with the conversion of the Jews but also with the conversion of the Gentiles; our Lord Jesus Christ did not simply abandoned the Eleven!
Maran atha!
Angel***
J
Janet_S
Guest
When the Fathers of the Church write about Mary’s perpetual virginity, they refer to Ezekiel 44:2. This verse was mentioned early in this thread:
If Jesus instructed the disciples that Ezekiel 44:2 refers to Him and His Incarnation-- which all the early Church Fathers taught that it did–then we must consider the meaning of this verse in light of the NT.
And what verse tells us is: that Jesus is God, that He entered into the world throught a “gate,” and that the “gate” would be shut ever after. Since Jesus came to the world through Mary’s womb, it is her womb that is the “gate.” Therefore, it is her womb that is shut ever after and by which “no man will enter.”
If Ezekiel 44:2 does refer to Jesus, like the early Christians taught, then belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is a vital Christian doctrine.
We know from Luke 24:27 that Jesus instructed His disciples about the OT verses that referred to Him:
Luke doesn’t list the OT verses Jesus interpreted. But who can doubt that the disciples on the road to Emmaus passed on what they learned from Jesus that day. And we know that Ezekiel was among the OT Scriptures Jesus interpreted. Since the Church Fathers comment in their writings that this verse refers to Jesus, and since we know that Jesus instructed His disciples about which OT verses refer to Him, we can reasonably be sure that we get this interpretation of Ezekiel 44:2 directly from Jesus.
If Jesus instructed the disciples that Ezekiel 44:2 refers to Him and His Incarnation-- which all the early Church Fathers taught that it did–then we must consider the meaning of this verse in light of the NT.
And what verse tells us is: that Jesus is God, that He entered into the world throught a “gate,” and that the “gate” would be shut ever after. Since Jesus came to the world through Mary’s womb, it is her womb that is the “gate.” Therefore, it is her womb that is shut ever after and by which “no man will enter.”
If Ezekiel 44:2 does refer to Jesus, like the early Christians taught, then belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary is a vital Christian doctrine.
J
Janet_S
Guest
On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): “This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it.” Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (De Annunt. Dom. iii): “What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this–‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it’–except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this–‘it shall be shut for evermore’–but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?”
St Thomas Aquinas, Summa
newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#3
T
teachccd
Guest
See post # 44 O’ wise man…
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
Janet S
Luther did pay with his life. He was driven into hiding for fear of being martyred for his beliefs. He had to live under other names for the rest of his life, even while he was still translating the German Bible. He died a natural death but could not live a natural life.
Since you believe that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then I suppose you believe his 95 theses as well??? Did yo believe everything Martin Luther did and taught?
Do you also believe that Luther believed Mary was the Mother of God? If so, then you obviously do not believe the first four words of Genesis: “In the beginning, God!”
It is hard to believe anyone who writes of Mary several centuries after the fact. **In order to find out about her, why not read what the apostles themselves had to say about her or what Christ had to say about her. What does Paul say about Mary? Or John? She lived with John. Where does Peter speak of her?
**
Without Scriptural references to Mary and her alleged perpetual virginity (although the Scriptures say she did not remain a virgin) we should then look to those who lived in the times of Mary.
How about quoting Polycarp, Ignatius or Clement on Mary? They lived during her time. Ignatius wrote her letters and letters to John. In a letter to John, he said how much he wanted to go there and see Mary and John as well as James, the Lord’s brother. He says about James, “I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, or ‘face,’ as if he were a twin brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.”
Ignatius had been told James looked so much like Christ, his brother, that they could be twins. Why are all the writings such as this one ignored?
You can list Jerome and others from many years later but we should really search the Scriptures and the writings of those who lived during that time for the truth. Don’t you think?
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.
You are incorrect about Hebrew referring to brothers and cousins with the same word. Likewise about the “first-born” mentioned in the Scriptures. The Jews only used “first-born” when there were others born of the same person, when there was only one, they always used “only son.”
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.
I too believe in tradition until it contradicts or adds to Scripture. Anything that has been handed down that contradicts Scripture cannot be legitimate. 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.
God Bless you all!
Luther did pay with his life. He was driven into hiding for fear of being martyred for his beliefs. He had to live under other names for the rest of his life, even while he was still translating the German Bible. He died a natural death but could not live a natural life.
Since you believe that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, then I suppose you believe his 95 theses as well??? Did yo believe everything Martin Luther did and taught?
Do you also believe that Luther believed Mary was the Mother of God? If so, then you obviously do not believe the first four words of Genesis: “In the beginning, God!”
It is hard to believe anyone who writes of Mary several centuries after the fact. **In order to find out about her, why not read what the apostles themselves had to say about her or what Christ had to say about her. What does Paul say about Mary? Or John? She lived with John. Where does Peter speak of her?
**
Without Scriptural references to Mary and her alleged perpetual virginity (although the Scriptures say she did not remain a virgin) we should then look to those who lived in the times of Mary.
How about quoting Polycarp, Ignatius or Clement on Mary? They lived during her time. Ignatius wrote her letters and letters to John. In a letter to John, he said how much he wanted to go there and see Mary and John as well as James, the Lord’s brother. He says about James, “I desire to see the venerable James, who is surnamed just, whom they relate to be very like Christ Jesus in appearance, or ‘face,’ as if he were a twin brother of the same womb. They say that, if I see him, I see also Jesus himself, as to all the features and aspect of His body.”
Ignatius had been told James looked so much like Christ, his brother, that they could be twins. Why are all the writings such as this one ignored?
You can list Jerome and others from many years later but we should really search the Scriptures and the writings of those who lived during that time for the truth. Don’t you think?
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.
You are incorrect about Hebrew referring to brothers and cousins with the same word. Likewise about the “first-born” mentioned in the Scriptures. The Jews only used “first-born” when there were others born of the same person, when there was only one, they always used “only son.”
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.
I too believe in tradition until it contradicts or adds to Scripture. Anything that has been handed down that contradicts Scripture cannot be legitimate. 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.
God Bless you all!
J
Janet_S
Guest
I don’t believe the perpetual virginity of Mary based on what Luther taught.
That doesn’t change the fact that Luther believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m just pointing it out to show how much different the beliefs of modern-day Protestants are from those of the reformers while they both claim to go by the Bible alone.
Can you find any early Christian writings (besides Helvidius) where the perpetual virginity of Mary was denied?
Scriptures never say “Mary did not remain a virgin.” Don’t bother looking; it’s not there.
And just in general, about your view of Mary and her relative insignificance, I think you ought to seriously ponder this: Mary gave birth to Jesus, she watched him grow up, she kept memories of Him in her heart, she was present at His first miracle, she followed Him to Jerusalem, was present at His crucifixion, and was praying with the Apostles at Pentecost. Maybe it’s not all spelled out in Scriptures, but read between the lines–Mary was an important part of Jesus’ life and was highly regarded by the Apostles. If it weren’t for Mary, your Bible would be very different. For instance, how would Luke or Matthew have learned about the conception, birth, and early years of Christ if it weren’t for Mary?
I’ve often found those who claim to have a problem with Mary really have a problem with Jesus. Something to think about.
J
Janet_S
Guest
Jerome lived in the late 4th century. He wasn’t that far removed from the time of the Apostles. He didn’t make up the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, if that’s what you mean. He was a scholar, was fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Latin. He translated the Bible into Latin. He knew Scripture inside and out.
If we look at it just from the Bible alone, you read Matthew 1:25 and come up with one interpretation while Jerome comes up with the opposite. Now are you telling me I should ignore Jerome’s interpretation and believe yours? Why is your interpretation the right one especially considering that for at least the first 1500 years all Christians believed in Mary’s perpetual virginity? Also considering Jerome understood Scripture a lot better than either of us do.
Where in the Bible does it tell me you (not Jerome) are the one with the correct interpretation?
J
Janet_S
Guest
I found the writings of Ignatius (letter to John) you mentioned. These are interesting writings, you can read them here, but they are considered spurious (forgeries). That’s probably why you don’t hear about them much.How about quoting Polycarp, Ignatius or Clement on Mary? They lived during her time. Ignatius wrote her letters and letters to John. In a letter to John, he said how much he wanted to go there and see Mary and John . . .
This is from the introduction:
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.xiii.html
T
TOME
Guest
JanetS,
You wrote that the problems some have with Mary is actually a problem with Jesus and this struck me and I had to think about it for a while. I agree with you and if I may I would add that this problem with Jesus is carried over to problems with the Church.
I read a long time ago (I am writing this with no books or notes around me so I cannot be as specific as I should be) that a weakness in some protestant theology is the separation of Christology and soteriology. Some protestant doctrine focues to a great degree on the cross but forgets the Resurrection. This same theology has no problem examining the Church of Pentacost yet over looks the Resurrection and Ascension. The effects of this is a weakness in their theology in regards to Christology. In Catholic understanding and theology of Christ not only looks on the effects of the Christ dieing on the Cross but looks at what his message and more his demands on his followers - demands that called for a response that transcends jus acknowleding Christ as our Lord and Savior.
This weakness also leads to a failure of understanding the “Sacramental” Nature of Jeus and from this Christ’s Body the Church. As a result where the Catholic Church (Western and Eastern Traditions) understand the Church as the Body of Christ in our Belief (Creeds) and Word (Scripture) but also as Sacrament (the sacramental life of the Church - the 7 Sacraments with Christ in the Eucharist as the Primary Sacrament).
With the rejection of Christ in the Eucharist comes the rejection of the rooted in the Apostolic Tradition and proclaimed in the Liturgy. As we know the Oral Traditions of the Apostles and the Liturgical Life of the Church came before any of the words of the NT were writen. The Holy Spirit working through and guiding the Body of Christ use the human instruments of the Apostles teaching and the Church’s worship (the principle of “Sacramentality” - The transendental God works through His creation - Man) as part of Divine Revelation.
But what does this have to do with Mary? I feel from a Catholic perspective this is almost a rhetorical question but it is not. To understand Mary is to see God’s loving activity, Mary’s own words in the Canticle of Mary in Luke tells us this. She doesn’t say her soul is magnified but her soul magnifies the Lord. I think this is the key to any scriptural understanding of Mary. If Mary can proclaim that her soul magnifies (some translation will state “glories” but I think magnifies is a better translation) then how does she do this?
There are theologians and scripture scholars who are far better qualified than I am to answer this question but I don’t think any can deny the statement is there and if it’s there it must be there for a reason.
I know many of our protestant brethern reject the principle of sacramentality as I presented above - it’s too Catholic, but again I think this point back to what you wrote that the real problem was with Christ. If you accept Christ as “THE” Sacrament of The Father then doesn’t one have to accept The Church as the Sacrament of Christ? But are we (The Church) more than just preachers of the Word?
I realize I now have two seperate ideas running through my small mind - perhaps I should write thing down first. Here is a question, as alluded to above, Mary clearly states her soul (that is her whole being) magnifies the Lord. Since this is true I would like any or our protestant brothers and sisters prove this statement is true using the Old and New Testaments. The Bible doesn’t lie so use the Bible to prove this truth.
Finally, in Catholic theology of the past 50 plus years there has been a growing understanding of a Mariology devoid of past excesses but focuses on the role of Mary in relationship to Christ and the Church. JanetS, you seem to have some grasp of this so I hope you will be able to further develope Mary and her role in the Church as rooted in scripture.
You wrote that the problems some have with Mary is actually a problem with Jesus and this struck me and I had to think about it for a while. I agree with you and if I may I would add that this problem with Jesus is carried over to problems with the Church.
I read a long time ago (I am writing this with no books or notes around me so I cannot be as specific as I should be) that a weakness in some protestant theology is the separation of Christology and soteriology. Some protestant doctrine focues to a great degree on the cross but forgets the Resurrection. This same theology has no problem examining the Church of Pentacost yet over looks the Resurrection and Ascension. The effects of this is a weakness in their theology in regards to Christology. In Catholic understanding and theology of Christ not only looks on the effects of the Christ dieing on the Cross but looks at what his message and more his demands on his followers - demands that called for a response that transcends jus acknowleding Christ as our Lord and Savior.
This weakness also leads to a failure of understanding the “Sacramental” Nature of Jeus and from this Christ’s Body the Church. As a result where the Catholic Church (Western and Eastern Traditions) understand the Church as the Body of Christ in our Belief (Creeds) and Word (Scripture) but also as Sacrament (the sacramental life of the Church - the 7 Sacraments with Christ in the Eucharist as the Primary Sacrament).
With the rejection of Christ in the Eucharist comes the rejection of the rooted in the Apostolic Tradition and proclaimed in the Liturgy. As we know the Oral Traditions of the Apostles and the Liturgical Life of the Church came before any of the words of the NT were writen. The Holy Spirit working through and guiding the Body of Christ use the human instruments of the Apostles teaching and the Church’s worship (the principle of “Sacramentality” - The transendental God works through His creation - Man) as part of Divine Revelation.
But what does this have to do with Mary? I feel from a Catholic perspective this is almost a rhetorical question but it is not. To understand Mary is to see God’s loving activity, Mary’s own words in the Canticle of Mary in Luke tells us this. She doesn’t say her soul is magnified but her soul magnifies the Lord. I think this is the key to any scriptural understanding of Mary. If Mary can proclaim that her soul magnifies (some translation will state “glories” but I think magnifies is a better translation) then how does she do this?
There are theologians and scripture scholars who are far better qualified than I am to answer this question but I don’t think any can deny the statement is there and if it’s there it must be there for a reason.
I know many of our protestant brethern reject the principle of sacramentality as I presented above - it’s too Catholic, but again I think this point back to what you wrote that the real problem was with Christ. If you accept Christ as “THE” Sacrament of The Father then doesn’t one have to accept The Church as the Sacrament of Christ? But are we (The Church) more than just preachers of the Word?
I realize I now have two seperate ideas running through my small mind - perhaps I should write thing down first. Here is a question, as alluded to above, Mary clearly states her soul (that is her whole being) magnifies the Lord. Since this is true I would like any or our protestant brothers and sisters prove this statement is true using the Old and New Testaments. The Bible doesn’t lie so use the Bible to prove this truth.
Finally, in Catholic theology of the past 50 plus years there has been a growing understanding of a Mariology devoid of past excesses but focuses on the role of Mary in relationship to Christ and the Church. JanetS, you seem to have some grasp of this so I hope you will be able to further develope Mary and her role in the Church as rooted in scripture.
J
Janet_S
Guest
Tome,
I like this article by Mark Shea, “.The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion.” Have you read it?
crisismagazine.com/december2004/feature1.htm
I like this article by Mark Shea, “.The Mother of the Son: The Case for Marian Devotion.” Have you read it?
crisismagazine.com/december2004/feature1.htm
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
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. Matthew was an apostle chosen by Jesus Himself and was with Jesus during his life and ministry. Luke was a companion of Paul and obtained most of his material directly from eyewitnesses, including Mary and the apostles. Mary was not with Christ all during His time on earth however so most of the material in Luke came from elsewhere. It is unlikely however that either Luke or Matthew would have missed such an important event as Mary remaining a virgin if in fact it had happened. Matthew tells us differently however by describing Mary’s other children.
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.
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
You don’t need Jerome to translate that verse for you. It is quite clear. The Jewish people used “knew” as an idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. In addition, the Jews always used “first born” to signify the “first” one born and in the case of an “only child” they always used “Only son.” Matthew is telling us that Jesus had sexual intercourse “after” Jesus was born and not before. You have to really try and distort what is said here. It doesn’t take someone of Jerome’s standing to interpret this for you. You must remember that by Jerome’s time, the Catholic Church was already attempting to prove Mary remained a virgin but without Scriptural support, they had to rely on those like Jerome. It simply did not happen.
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 certainly appreciate your devotion to your faith. I firmly believe that in the beginning, and by that I mean the first couple of centuries after Christ, the church was as Christ intended it to be and was as established by Paul and the apostles. It is right after that when the heretical beliefs began to infiltrate the church. There was no Pope or one bishop in charge of the church in the 4th century so the council of Nicæa was held in order to eliminate some of those heresies. Unfortunately some of them remained, such as the ones about Mary and after the Popes began to appear, other heretical beliefs infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church. It was after that when the Catholics began to keep the Bible from the common man and refused him the right to read it. For centuries, you either believed what you were told or else you were declared anathema or even excommunicated.
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.
That is correct, neither does it say “Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ.”
You also asked how Matthew would have learned of Jesus’early life if Mary had not told him. Surely you are not serious. Matthew was an apostle chosen by Jesus Himself and was with Jesus during his life and ministry. Luke was a companion of Paul and obtained most of his material directly from eyewitnesses, including Mary and the apostles. Mary was not with Christ all during His time on earth however so most of the material in Luke came from elsewhere. It is unlikely however that either Luke or Matthew would have missed such an important event as Mary remaining a virgin if in fact it had happened. Matthew tells us differently however by describing Mary’s other children.
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.
Matt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
You don’t need Jerome to translate that verse for you. It is quite clear. The Jewish people used “knew” as an idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman. In addition, the Jews always used “first born” to signify the “first” one born and in the case of an “only child” they always used “Only son.” Matthew is telling us that Jesus had sexual intercourse “after” Jesus was born and not before. You have to really try and distort what is said here. It doesn’t take someone of Jerome’s standing to interpret this for you. You must remember that by Jerome’s time, the Catholic Church was already attempting to prove Mary remained a virgin but without Scriptural support, they had to rely on those like Jerome. It simply did not happen.
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 certainly appreciate your devotion to your faith. I firmly believe that in the beginning, and by that I mean the first couple of centuries after Christ, the church was as Christ intended it to be and was as established by Paul and the apostles. It is right after that when the heretical beliefs began to infiltrate the church. There was no Pope or one bishop in charge of the church in the 4th century so the council of Nicæa was held in order to eliminate some of those heresies. Unfortunately some of them remained, such as the ones about Mary and after the Popes began to appear, other heretical beliefs infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church. It was after that when the Catholics began to keep the Bible from the common man and refused him the right to read it. For centuries, you either believed what you were told or else you were declared anathema or even excommunicated.
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.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
jrichton
I have been waiting for time to answer your comments.
You did say “seemingly contradictions.”
What you list as contradictions in word usage is simply different translations. The message is still the same, God sent John the Baptist and Jesus Christ followed. There is no discrepancy in that.
You are wrong about Paul. Paul did not receive the revelation from Jesus instantly. It took quite some time for him to receive the complete revelation. After Paul received his eyesight in Damascus then read this:
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; 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.
19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Read the verses in Acts you referred me to a little more carefully and you will see that it said *many days were fulfilled *and Paul says what happened to him in Galatians, quoted above.
I never said Christ abandoned the apostles, but 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.
I have been waiting for time to answer your comments.
You did say “seemingly contradictions.”
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. The message is still the same, God sent John the Baptist and Jesus Christ followed. There is no discrepancy in that.
You are wrong about Paul. Paul did not receive the revelation from Jesus instantly. It took quite some time for him to receive the complete revelation. After Paul received his eyesight in Damascus then read this:
Gal 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
16) To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; 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.
19) But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother. 20) Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.
Read the verses in Acts you referred me to a little more carefully and you will see that it said *many days were fulfilled *and Paul says what happened to him in Galatians, quoted above.
I never said Christ abandoned the apostles, but 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.
T
TMC
Guest
Janet,
I hold to the perpetual virginity, but only because I believe it is a long-standing tradition. I don’t believe it can be “proven” with Scripture and I think that trying to do so is not helpful. The best we can do is say that the Scriptures do not preclude the doctrine, and the Church has held to the doctrine since early times. Trying to prove it through Scripture gives the impression that we believe it must be in Scripture to be true, which is not Catholic teaching.
I think that Catholics hold to this doctrine because we believe it was passed down from the Apostles as part of the Sacred Tradition. I don’t believe it because the Scriptures compel it, or because any other tenet of the Faith compels it. If the doctrine were opposed to Scripture or some other tenet of the Faith, I would have to seriously question it, but I don’t think it is. I can’t go any further than that, though. Those that don’t hold to the Sacred Tradition, or who read the Scripture different than I do, are not going to believe in PV.
I hold to the perpetual virginity, but only because I believe it is a long-standing tradition. I don’t believe it can be “proven” with Scripture and I think that trying to do so is not helpful. The best we can do is say that the Scriptures do not preclude the doctrine, and the Church has held to the doctrine since early times. Trying to prove it through Scripture gives the impression that we believe it must be in Scripture to be true, which is not Catholic teaching.
This is a good example. The fact that early Church Fathers held to this teaching is good evidence that it is a long held doctrine that must have originated from the Apostles. But it is a big jump to put Ez 44:2 into Christ’s mouth. I avoid attributing to Him anything the Apostles did not record as coming from Him.
Again a big if. I would say that all the OT must be considered in light of the NT, but that does not mean that every allegory in the OT refers to Christ. Aquinas believed this one does, he is a great authority. I don’t think everyone agrees with him.
Again, I find this a non sequitor. How does this make PV a vital Christian doctrine? Again, I accept PV because the Church says so, there is no convincing opposing authority, and there is no other good reason not to. But I do not find it vital to the Faith.
I agree that Jerome is a good authority. But to say that someone living in the late 4th Century is not far removed from the Apostles is disingenuous. That is like saying that we are not far removed from Ben Franklin and George Washington. Jerome read the same Scripture that we do. He had great insights. The same is true for many other Biblical scholars. But his opinion is based on scholarship and tradition, just like later scholars.
I think that Catholics hold to this doctrine because we believe it was passed down from the Apostles as part of the Sacred Tradition. I don’t believe it because the Scriptures compel it, or because any other tenet of the Faith compels it. If the doctrine were opposed to Scripture or some other tenet of the Faith, I would have to seriously question it, but I don’t think it is. I can’t go any further than that, though. Those that don’t hold to the Sacred Tradition, or who read the Scripture different than I do, are not going to believe in PV.
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
TMC
I appreciate your comments, although they were directed to another. I hope you will allow my comments.
You seem to grasp tradition better than most people I have ever discussed it with. I disagree with you however when you say that Scripture does not preclude doctrine. In the sense that it was spoken before written, then I would agree. However I do not believe any doctrine that does not appear in the written Scriptures is viable or divine in nature.
The early church fathers had a much different view than those of hundreds of years later. With few exceptions, they believed that Scripture was the final word in things moral and spiritual. Augustine wrote:
"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;” but be wise, as himself saith, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)
Augustine. Like Chrysostom and Jerome believes in “unwritten customs and laws” passed down orally by the apostles but they involved trivial matters like *“drinking milk and honey after baptism.” * He clearly believed that we must abide within Scripture:
"Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; … For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. (Augustine, On the Nicene Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens, 1)
Augustine believed, as all the early fathers did, that every phrase in the Nicene creed had its origin in Scripture, not some “unwritten oral tradition of the apostles.” He says it is the “rule of faith” and this phrase was first used by Tertullian in the third century. Every denomination, including the Catholic and Orthodox believe their creeds are based directly upon the Bible. However this cannot be true since some of them contradict one another and the Bible itself.
{more}
I appreciate your comments, although they were directed to another. I hope you will allow my comments.
You seem to grasp tradition better than most people I have ever discussed it with. I disagree with you however when you say that Scripture does not preclude doctrine. In the sense that it was spoken before written, then I would agree. However I do not believe any doctrine that does not appear in the written Scriptures is viable or divine in nature.
The early church fathers had a much different view than those of hundreds of years later. With few exceptions, they believed that Scripture was the final word in things moral and spiritual. Augustine wrote:
"Whereas, therefore, in every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; in order that by teaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incited not to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripture setteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behoveth to be wise;” but be wise, as himself saith, “unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted the measure of faith.” (Augustine, On the Good of Widowhood, 2)
Augustine. Like Chrysostom and Jerome believes in “unwritten customs and laws” passed down orally by the apostles but they involved trivial matters like *“drinking milk and honey after baptism.” * He clearly believed that we must abide within Scripture:
"Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the Symbol (or Creed). And when ye have received it, write it in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; … For this is the Creed which ye are to rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are in the Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reduced into one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; that every person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have ye now merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for your father, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother. (Augustine, On the Nicene Creed: a Sermon to the Catechumens, 1)
Augustine believed, as all the early fathers did, that every phrase in the Nicene creed had its origin in Scripture, not some “unwritten oral tradition of the apostles.” He says it is the “rule of faith” and this phrase was first used by Tertullian in the third century. Every denomination, including the Catholic and Orthodox believe their creeds are based directly upon the Bible. However this cannot be true since some of them contradict one another and the Bible itself.
{more}
O
Old_Scholar
Guest
TMC (cont’d)
Paul instructed Timothy, even though Timothy had received much oral teachings, he wrote to Timothy:
And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
(2 Timothy 3:12; 4:5)
Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus. In spite of the rich oral teaching that Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct people of God in faith and all good works. John Chrysostom said it this way: “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know. Cited in Whitaker, p. 637
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…
Paul instructed Timothy, even though Timothy had received much oral teachings, he wrote to Timothy:
And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
(2 Timothy 3:12; 4:5)
Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus. In spite of the rich oral teaching that Timothy had, he is to preach the Scriptures because those Scriptures give him clearly all that he needs for wisdom and preparation to instruct people of God in faith and all good works. John Chrysostom said it this way: “You have Scripture for a master instead of me; from there you can learn whatever you would know. Cited in Whitaker, p. 637
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…
T
TMC
Guest
Old Scholar, thanks for the kind words which are surely not deserved. I think we may be closer on tradition than it first appears. I will get back with a response to your comments, no time for real thought right now.
B
byoby
Guest
I have heard Psalm 69:8 used as a proof that Mary had children other than Jesus. I do not know if it is the correct interpretation, but I do wonder since I think Jesus quoted from Psalm 69 concerning himself. Curious for your thoughts.
NIV
8 I am a stranger to my brothers,
an alien to my own mother’s sons;
T
teachccd
Guest
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
- Status