The not so virgin Mary

[Robert_in_SD]

Nope, no stretch. There are only four brethren of Jesus named in the Gospels: **Matthew 13:55 ** “Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?”

Mark 6:2-3 ** - “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?”
Let’s begin with James. There are two men named James among the disciples. One, of course, is the brother of John and the son of Zebedee. This cannot be him then. So, this is the other James, called in Scripture James the less: Mark 15:40: "There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary Magdalene, and ** Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, and Salome." (emphasis added)
So James is indeed the son of a woman named Mary. Not only that, but Joseph is his brother. That’s two of the four, right? Then, in Matthew, reciting the names of the twelve: Matt 10:3: “…'James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddeus.” (emphasis added)
This too is talking of James the less, as the other James, son of Zebedee, is spoken of in the previous verse. It is NOT a trick or really that hard! * Alphaeus* is this James’ father, not Joseph, the husband of Mary, mother of the Lord.

Now go to John also speaking of those witnessing the Crucifixion: John 19:25: “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His mothers sister, *** Mary the wife of Cleophas***, and * Mary Magdalene*.” (emphasis added)
Look up John 19:25 at blueletterbible.org/ and click the ‘C’ icon (for the Strong’s Concordance), then click the Strong’s number for the name Cleophas. It comes up “father of James the less, the husband of Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus.”

Did you get that? That Mary, who was the mother of James the less, and of Joseph, from Mark 15:40, is the wife of Cleophas, the father of James the less, and she is called the ‘sister’ of Our Lord’s mother - Mary!

So, two of the four ‘brothers’ have been identified as the children of parents other than Joseph and the Virgin Mary. Of the brothers named, that still leaves Jude and Simon. Next, Jude: Acts 1:13 ** "…James, the son of Alphaeus , and Simon Zelo’tes, and ** Jude the brother of James…" (emphasis added)
There goes Jude out of the mix! *** Matter of fact, Jude says the same in his own epistle: Jude 1:1 "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ *** and brother of James…" (emphasis added)
Lastly, Simon. Simon, called the Zealot, is identified as coming from Cana, not Nazareth as were Joseph, Mary and the Christ! Luke 6:15 "and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and ** Simon who was called the Zealot," (emphasis added)

Mark 3:18 “Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and ** Simon the Cananaean**…” (emphasis added)

Matt 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. (emphasis added)
Simon is a Cananean, while Jesus is a Nazarene!

We see that Simon the Zealot being from Cana, and a ‘brethren’ or ‘brother’ of the Christ. Let’s go to John’s Gospel, chapter 2. Mary and Our Lord are invited to a wedding there! So, close business associates, maybe, of Joseph from the carpentry trade, or more likely - family, or brethren, relatives, are having this wedding! Like, maybe the Holy Family had actual kinfolk in Cana, be they cousins, in-laws, nephews, aunts, uncles, all of which are routinely called ‘brethren’!

Remember what Mary said to the servants? She told them to ‘Do as He says.’

Think about that a second? What would give this humble woman from Nazareth any position to so speak to the servants of someone else in an entirely different town, at their wedding? The simplest and most easily understood answer would be – she is a family relation to those giving the wedding feast…

So Simon is from Cana, and a ‘brother’ of the Lord! He’s not a sibling though, but very likely related. And James, Joseph and Jude all have the same father and mother, and it is not Joseph and the Virgin Mary, but their mother is named Mary and called the sister of Jesus’ mother Mary. Even here ‘sister’ may not mean blood sibling, or we have two sisters with the same name in the same family.

GREAT JOB!!!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

My dear sir:

Of course, in return for the courtesy of staying in our little ghetto…

I don’t believe that you are restricted from any of the forum’s discussion boards. Unless there is a “catholics only” board - which I’ve never heard of - you are not confined to any “ghetto.” Please feel free to raise issues in the Apologetics forum or elsewhere as the topic fits.

Peace,
Robert

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t believe that you are restricted from any of the forum’s discussion boards. Unless there is a “catholics only” board - which I’ve never heard of - you are not confined to any “ghetto.” Please feel free to raise issues in the Apologetics forum or elsewhere as the topic fits.

Peace,
Robert

Thank you, but given that non-Catholics have frequently been scolded for posting here on the non-Catholic religions forum, I think that would be a bad idea. As well, Catholic Answers Forum IS a 'Catholics only" forum because it has made a place specifically for non-Catholic religions. If we non-Catholics were welcome elsewhere in the forum, there wouldn’t be such a place.

The thing is, I agree with the approach. I think that there should be a place where Catholics can feel free to post questions of each other, to support each other in their faith, to spiritually uplift one another…to fellowship…free of worrying about criticism or attacks from anybody else.

I think Mormons should have that, as well. The problem is that it is very difficult to have and keep such an area, because others find it and barge in. Alt.religion.mormon and other LDS/Mormon sites are inundated by people who are determined to attack, criticise and annoy; there is no place that I’ve seen for us to do this…and alt.religion.christian.romancatholic is as full of hate as any newsgroup I’ve ever seen, full of anti-catholic vitriol.

As to Mormons, shoot, we even get picketed and have to thread our way through demonstrators and people literally trampling upon our beliefs in order to physically enter our Temples and sometimes even to regular church services. Catholics also get inundated with pamphlets and anti-Catholic junk all over the place.

Therefore, while I know I CAN post in these other forums, I would feel hypocritical in doing so; Others may not see the value in having a place free from outside strife, but I do, and I’m not willing to add to it. I’m annoying enough in HERE. I will admit to reading ‘ask an apologist’ from time to time in order to see if someone else has asked a question I want the answer to, though.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thank you, but given that non-Catholics have frequently been scolded for posting here on the non-Catholic religions forum, I think that would be a bad idea. As well, Catholic Answers Forum IS a 'Catholics only" forum because it has made a place specifically for non-Catholic religions. If we non-Catholics were welcome elsewhere in the forum, there wouldn’t be such a place.

As you have noted, this forum is for DISCUSSING differences between catholic and non-catholic religions. It is not intended to create a “ghetto.” I know this is getting off topic, but I think it should be pointed out that there are no “catholics only” portions to this forum. It is an open discussion board is it not? I have visited other sites only to learn that Catholics were not allowed access to “christian only” portions. That sort of thing, to the best of my knowledge, does not happen here. If someone makes a pest of themself, then they have no one to blame but themself. Similarly, if one wants to limit their time to the Non-Catholic forum, that is fine too, but let us not pretend that there is segregation going on at this forum.

dianaiad:

Therefore, while I know I CAN post in these other forums, I would feel hypocritical in doing so; Others may not see the value in having a place free from outside strife, but I do, and I’m not willing to add to it. I’m annoying enough in HERE. I will admit to reading ‘ask an apologist’ from time to time in order to see if someone else has asked a question I want the answer to, though.

Please check out the Apologetics forums as well. You may find yourself on the side of Catholics debating the merits of sola scriptura with Protestant Christians. An LDS perspective on that issue would be an interesting counterpoint to the Catholic position - IMHO. The object of these forums is to encourage debate and discussion. Just follow the golden rule and you should be okay, even if you strongly disagree with the Catholic position.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mark_a]

We didn’t. They are not the children of Mary the Mother of Jesus. They are relations more distant than half-brother or half sister. Some believe the reference is to twins. Others believe it may refer to children of Joseph from a prior marriage, as a pious belief is that Joseph married Mary in his older years after raising a family of his own with a wife who predeceased him. That’s the premise in the Protoevangelium of James. I tend to think the reference to the “brothers” of Jesus refers to his cousins and/or other distant relations. Nowhere in the bible does it refer to “Mary’s other children.” If she did have other children, where were they when Jesus was handing Mary over to the care of John? That act would have been perceived as an insult to any other children of Mary. So… where are these absent “brothers.”

Peace,
Robert

I guess my attemp at sarcasm wasn’t so clever. Sorry about that.

 

[mark_a]

Yes. She would glorify God by being what God created her to be–a fruitful, intimate wife and a mother. And of course Scripture states nothing different. It’s obvious to the Christian world, just not to RC’s.

except for Maronite, Syriac, Malankarese, Chaldean, **Syro–Malabarese, **Albanian, Belarussian/Byelorussian, Bulgarian, Czech, Krizevci, Greek, Hungarian, Italo–Albanian, **Melkite, **Romanian, Russian, Ruthenian, Slovak, Ukrainian

**AND **

All the Orthodox.

In fact, every church with valid apostolic succussion and some without apostolic succession.

Your ignorance shows through you presumption that you actually know more than your johnny-come-lately Christianity.

 

[Darian]

Are there any verses that show he wanted them to write?
Preach usually seems to be oral as does teach though I suppose you could give someone a text book, but again printing press was 1500 years later.

Rev 1:11 saying, What thou seest, WRITE in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
Revelation 1:19 Therefore WRITE the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things.
Rev 14:13 And I heard the voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them.
Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they that are bidden to the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are true words of God.
Rev 21:5 And he that sitteth on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he saith, Write: for these words are faithful and true.
Emphasis mine.

The following are quotes from John Chrysostom who is considered to be a Doctor of the Church by the Roman Catholic Church.

“There is another excuse employed by persons of this indolent frame of mind, which is utterly devoid of reason, namely, that they have not a Bible. Now, as far as the wealthy are concerned, it would be ridiculous to spend words on such a pretext. But, as I believe many of our poorer brethren are in the habit of using it, I should be glad to ask this question, Have they not everyone got complete and perfect the tools of their respective trades? Though hunger pinch them, though poverty afflict them, they will prefer to endure all hardships rather than part with any of the implements of their trade, and live by the sale of them. Many have chosen rather to borrow for the support of their families than give up the smallest of the tools of their trade. And very naturally; for they know that, if these be gone, their whole means of livelihood are lost. Now, just as the implements of their trade are the hammer or anvil or pincers, exactly so the implements of our profession are the books of the Apostles and prophets and all the Scriptures composed by Divine inspiration, and very full of profit. As with their implements they fashion whatever vessels they take in hands, so we with ours labour at our own souls, and correct what is injured, and repair what is worn out. Is it not a shame, then, if, when the tools of this world’s trades are concerned, you make no excuse of poverty, but take care that no impediment shall interfere with your retaining them, here, where such unspeakable benefits are to be reaped, you whine about your want of leisure and your poverty?”

“But, at any rate, the very poorest of you, if he attends to the continual reading of Scriptures that takes place here, need not be ignorant of anything that the Scriptures contain. You will say this is impossible. If it is, I will tell you why it is impossible. It is because many of you do not attend to the reading that takes place here; you come here for form’s sake, and then straightway go home; and some who remain are not much the better than those who go away, being present with us only in the body, not in the spirit.”

Chrysostom continues in the next quote to answer the excuse that the Scriptures are too difficult to understand.

“It is impossible for you to be alike ignorant of all; for it was for this reason that the grace of the Spirit appointed that publicans and fishermen, tentmakers and shepherds and goatherds, and unlearned and ignorant men, should compose these books, that none of the unlearned might be able to have recourse to this excuse; that the words then spoken might be intelligible to all; that even the mechanic, and the servant, and the widow-woman, and the most unlearned of all mankind might receive profit and improvement from what they should hear. For it was not for vainglory, like the heathen, but for the salvation of the hearers, that these authors were counted worthy of the grace of the Spirit to compose these writings. For the heathen philosophers, not seeking the common welfare, but their own glory, if ever they did say anything useful, concealed it, as it were in a dark mist. But the Apostles and prophets did quite the reverse; for what proceeded from them they set before all men plain and clear, as being the common teachers of the world, that each individual might be able, even of himself, to learn the sense of what they said from the mere reading.”

“And who is there that does not understand plainly the whole of the Gospels? Who that hears ‘Blessed are the meek,’ ‘Blessed are the merciful,’ ‘Blessed are the pure in heart,’ and so forth needs a teacher to comprehend any of those sayings? And as for the accounts of miracles and wonderful works and historical facts, are they not plain and intelligible to any common person? This is but pretext and excuse and a cloak for laziness.”

“You do not understand the contents; and how will you ever be able to understand them if you do not study them? Take the book in your hands; read the entire history; and when you have secured a knowledge of what is simple, come to the obscure and hard parts over and over again. And if you cannot by constant reading make out what is said, go to some person wiser than yourself; go to a teacher, [Notice he did not say go to a priest or bishop] communicate with him about the thing spoken of; show a strong interest in the matter; and if God see you displaying so much anxiety, He will not despise your watchfulness and earnestness; but if no man teach you what you seek for, He Himself will surely reveal it.”

 

[Canto]

The Revelation verses are specifically related to Revelation. Christ wanted the specific revelation recorded.

St John Chrysostom is indeed considered to be a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

He had this to say as well…

“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).

“…it was no object with them to be writers of books: **in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by unwritten tradition.” **John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1 (c. A.D. 392).

 

[Darian]

Paul was celibate. Thanks for the concession. If “most of the rest” were married are you also conceding that some of the others may also have been celibate? Or do you think they were living in sin? Paul urged celibacy for all full-time ministers - in scripture. Why is this part of the passage conveniently ignored by you?

**Better check again. The requirements, as set forth by Paul, to be an elder/bishop included being the husband of one wife, having children, and ruling his house well.

1Ti 3:1 Faithful is the saying, If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 The bishop therefore must be without reproach, **]the husband of one wife/****B], temperate, sober-minded, orderly, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 no brawler, no striker; but gentle, not contentious, no lover of money;
1Ti 3:4 ***one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (but if a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) ***

 

[Darian]

The Revelation verses are specifically related to Revelation. Christ wanted the specific revelation recorded.

You cannot still continue to ask the question, “When did Jesus ever tell anyone to write anything?”
St John Chrysostom is indeed considered to be a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

He had this to say as well…

“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).

“…it was no object with them to be writers of books: **in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by unwritten tradition.” **John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1 (c. A.D. 392).

So is this Doctor of the Church contradicting himself? My main point in quoting him was to show the weakness of the argument of “the printing press wasn’t invented until 1452” (I believe that is the correct date.) Sorry if I wasn’t more clear.

 

[dianaiad]

The Revelation verses are specifically related to Revelation. Christ wanted the specific revelation recorded.

St John Chrysostom is indeed considered to be a Doctor of the Catholic Church.

He had this to say as well…

“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).

“…it was no object with them to be writers of books: **in fact, there are many things which have been delivered by unwritten tradition.” **John Chrysostom, Homilies on Acts 1,1 (c. A.D. 392).

I’m about to ask a dumb question.

How do you know about the things that are/were ‘unwritten?’

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD:

Paul was celibate. Thanks for the concession. If “most of the rest” were married are you also conceding that some of the others may also have been celibate? Or do you think they were living in sin? Paul urged celibacy for all full-time ministers - in scripture. Why is this part of the passage conveniently ignored by you?

Better check again. The requirements, as set forth by Paul, to be an elder/bishop included being the husband of one wife, having children, and ruling his house well.

You are reading too much into this passage, which of course you are considering without also taking into account the exhortation of Paul to be celibate as a full time minister. Paul’s concern was for men who took more than one wife (whether by serial monogamy or otherwise), or otherwise showed that they could not manage their family life in addition to their responsibilities as a full time minister. It is not a mandatory requirement that one be married, it was a maximum limitation of one wife (not one wife per year, etc.)

In addition, never contended that a celibate clergy is a doctrinal stand taken by the Catholic Church. There are non-Latin rites within the Catholic Church that allow married priests. Celibacy is a *discipline *imposed by the Western (Latin) Church on its clergy - based upon the same concerns voiced by Paul when urging his young disciple. The discipline may be changed because it is not a doctrinal stance. My point in citing to Paul and the Gospels was to show that celibacy was not a novel invention by later Catholics, but was a practice that was exhorted from the beginning by both Jesus and Paul.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Canto]

I’m about to ask a dumb question.

How do you know about the things that are/were ‘unwritten?’

Christ didn’t write, he spoke, and what he spoke was passed from the apostles down through the Church to this day. And so that there’s no Chineses whispers, just as the Holy Spirit protects written tradition from error He also protects oral tradition from error.

 

[Canto]

You cannot still continue to ask the question, “When did Jesus ever tell anyone to write anything?”

Jesus specifically asked John to write down specific revelation - which he did with the book of Revelation.

Did he ask John to write epistles, a gospel? In the NT only 8 people wrote something. Jude only wrote one little epistle, a very good on at that!

So is this Doctor of the Church contradicting himself? My main point in quoting him was to show the weakness of the argument of “the printing press wasn’t invented until 1452” (I believe that is the correct date.) Sorry if I wasn’t more clear.

He is not contradicting himslef. Written Tradition and Oral Tradition both constitute the word of God.

Bible at churches, schools, monastries
Read and taught from at mass
Bible displayed artistically in stained-glass windows, paintings, and other works of art
Chant too
Church documents and oral preaching etc

Though some of Chrysostom’s comments are very broad, if you properly read scripture in light of Tradition (oral Tradition was used to select the books of the canon) can you be ignorant of the gist of things.

For example Chrysostom said “…If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact – if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors – why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?”

And this also of Peter “The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.”

If people of the ‘lower class’ composed the Bible it should not keep other such people from knowing the scriptures and “receive profit and improvement from what they should hear.”

If you don’t understand you can go to a teacher from the Church i.e. your local priest, who teaches and preaches the written word every day at mass.

Prior to the Council of Rome in 382AD we had no NT canon
So approx 252 years without a NT canon
In the middle ages most people were illiterate

 

[dianaiad]

Christ didn’t write, he spoke, and what he spoke was passed from the apostles down through the Church to this day. And so that there’s no Chineses whispers, just as the Holy Spirit protects written tradition from error He also protects oral tradition from error.

No, the answer to my question is much simpler than that. You are correct, Christ Himself did not write.

So how do you know what He said?

 

[dianaiad]

No, the answer to my question is much simpler than that. You are correct, Christ Himself did not write.

So how do you know what He said?

I’m going to expand on this before everybody gets too frustrated.

Is there anything, and I do mean anything, that you learn as part of your catechism and as part of the 'Oral History" you mention that isn’t written down somewhere?

 

[Canto]

No, the answer to my question is much simpler than that. You are correct, Christ Himself did not write.

So how do you know what He said?

We know what Christ said because it was passed from the apostles down through the Church to this day in written and oral from.

Is there anything, and I do mean anything, that you learn as part of your catechism and as part of the 'Oral History" you mention that isn’t written down somewhere?

3 examples off the top of my head of things not in the Bible that are known via sacred oral Tradition

-the Bible canon (i.e. the contents page)
-the definition of the most Holy Trinity
-the names of Mary’s parents

 

[Good_Fella]

Mary is sometimes described as a kind of super-person…

“My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness.”
2 Corinthians 12, 9

“He has looked with favor on his lowly handmaid.”

– not only sinless, but incapable of sinning,

And coming to her he said, "Hail, favored one. The Lord is with you."*
Luke 1, 28

• kecharitomene, which means “made perfect by grace”

“Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it.”
Luke 11, 28

“My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord.”

feeling no pain or discomfort in pregnancy or childbirth,

“I will put enmity between you and the woman.”
Genesis 3, 15

*But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man? And the angel said to her in reply, “The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” *
Luke 1, 34-35

“My spirit rejoices in God my savior.”

never doubting her mission,

And Mary said,* “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word.”*
*Luke 1, 38 *

“Blessed are you who believed that what was spoken to you by the Lord would be fulfilled.”
Luke 1, 45

“Behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.”

experiencing no anguish over the Son that was taken from her, the husband she lost too soon, or the grandchildren she didn’t have.

Here we beg to disagree.

“And you yourself a sword will pierce so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

“Do whatever he tells you.”

Mary is admirable and to be revered and emulated not because she was a super-person with special power to be perfect and wonderful, but because she was a real human person who stuck with it through the pain, doubt and despair and was darn near perfect despite not having any special power to sustain her.

For this I labor and struggle, in accord with the exercise of his power working within me.
Colossians 1, 29

“The Almighty has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.”

The super-Mary is not so inspirational to me. Peasant Mary that made it through all that with the same tools the rest of us have is pretty amazing.

“Without me you can do nothing.”

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I’m going to expand on this before everybody gets too frustrated.

Is there anything, and I do mean anything, that you learn as part of your catechism and as part of the 'Oral History" you mention that isn’t written down somewhere?

This is really not the test for what constitutes Sacred Tradition. Please see the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia that I posted to before. For your convenience I’ll post the link again here.

I suppose the initial question to ask (and to which I think we both would respond “no” but for different reasons) is: Did Jesus ever say that all of His teachings were to be written down and recorded within the confines of the Sacred Scriptures. And by Sacred Scriptures I am referring only to the Scriptures contained in the 73 book canon that was officially closed at the Council of Trent. (Set aside the issue of an open LDS canon for the moment.)

The Catholic would answer “no” Jesus did not make such an order, although it does appear that with respect to the Apocalypse of John, the Apostle was specifically ordered to accurately record his experience in writing. But the direction was not an order to record all of Christ’s doctrinal teachings in writing. That being the case, there are doctrines and moral teachings that were passed down morally, and which may have been recorded in writing (non-inspired). The mere recording of a thing purported by a non-inspired writer to be Sacred Tradition does not necessarily mean the recording is accurate, complete and non-ambiguous. Moreover, the attempt to records such a Tradition does not transmute it from Sacred Tradition passed on orally from Christ and His Apostles to Sacred Scripture.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No, the answer to my question is much simpler than that. You are correct, Christ Himself did not write.

So how do you know what He said?

How do you know that Christ did not write? If he could read the Sacred Scriptures, then I’m pretty sure he was taught to write as well. Or, did you mean to say it’s undisputed that Jesus Christ is not known to be the original author of any piece of Sacred Scripture?

Peace,
Robert