Randy doesn’t need to prove anything. It’s not about “proof”. Randy and other posters are telling you what the solid Tradition of the Church is, and backing it up with the Church’s own inseparable view of Scripture. You don’t believe? just say so and it’s all good.First, RandyCarson has not “proven” that they aren’t Jesus’ half-brothers.
(huge snip)
.
Show me where it explicitly says She did not. Again yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion and I see nowhere where it is proven the She did not, just personal opinions.If this is so, then why is it so hard for you to accept that the Blessed Mother remained a virgin? And yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion.
But your words “on this page” aren’t Inspired, nor is anything spoken by anyone that either isn’t God/Jesus, or written down in Scripture, because Scripture NEVER states that “tradition” that hasn’t been WRITTEN down is “Inspired.” The ONLY thing described as being “Inspired” is Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). That’s why GOD gave us the Scriptures – to compare what’s being taught TO Scripture (Acts 17:11), which for Christians include the NT Scriptures (1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16; Revelation 1:1,19). Now, can we PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE get back to the OP, & STOP with these Red Herrings already???Not true. If you added something to Scripture they would be your Scriptures, not your interpretation. All human beings must interpret the meaning of words, whether written or spoken. They do not interpret themselves. You must even interpret the words in this post. Therefore, any conclusions you reach are based upon your interpretation. That is why we require an infallible interpreter if we are to be certain of the truth present in an inerrant document.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. The ONLY thing Scripture states is “God-breathed” is Scripture. Of course, what God/Jesus states is God-breathed also, but people – including the Church – are not God. Therefore, even the writers of the NT – themselves – are not God-breathed, because they are not God. What Peter was talking about is that prophecy is not a matter of “man’s” interpretation, but God’s. So, even Peter’s writings are “led” by the Holy Spirit, not “cleverly devised tales” invented by him. But he wasn’t saying that he HIMSELF was “Inspired,” because Paul proves otherwise by “condemning Peter to his face” for siding with the Judaizers & not eating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-12). And man’s interpretation of Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin isn’t supported by God-breathed Scripture, because Scripture supports the opposite.“Only Scripture is described as God-breathed” No, Scripture itself declares that holy men of GOd SPAKE as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Significant portions of Scripture itself were spoken before they were written down, most significantly the words the Lord Himself spoke while on earth. Do you contend that these words only became “God-breathed” after they were written down? Or that the written word contains the only words ever uttered that were “God-breathed”?
Show me the actual VERSE that says “the Church is God-breathed.” And not your “interpretation” that the verse “implies” that the Church is God-breathed. I’m asking for the actual VERSE.Scripture says the Church is God-breathed.
So by your standard, the Church cannot be wrong.
That’s not the argument I, or any other Protestant, has every made. I’m not saying that “brother” MUST mean uterine brother. Rather, when taking ALL of the Scripture verses that discuss Jesus’ family - not just a few - it’s “painfully obvious” that in these verses, “brother” refers to Jesus’ half-brothers.Since it is painfully obvious that a “brother” in Scripture need not be a uterine brother or even have a common parent, to INSIST the “brothers” of Jesus were uterine brothers, in absence of ANY other evidence, is not to “take Scripture as it reads” but to stubbornly cling to an interpretation without answering any of the many objections raised.
I’m not an Arian, & neither is the subject of the OP. Besides Arians violated sola scriptura, & ignored numerous passages of Scripture, supported by the Greek, that describe the Trinity in the same way you & I do, so what’s your point?In defense of this idea, the Arians rejected tradition and pointed to texts like “my Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28) and “Why do you call me good? No one is good – except God alone” (Mk 10:18). They also pointed to the form of the Trinity as found in Paul: “God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.” They could come up with plausible explanations for terms and expressions which we Evangelicals thought could only point to Christ’s divinity. For example, Arians said the statement, “I and my Father are one” (Jn 10:30) refers to oneness of purpose, not oneness of being. They pointed out that Scripture refers to supernatural created beings as “sons of God” (Job 38:7) without intending they are one in being with the Father. They observed that even mere humans were called “gods” (Ps 82:6; Jn 10:34-36), without the implication that they are God. Therefore they inferred that the Son, supernatural though he may be (as angels, principalities and powers are supernatural), is neither co-eternal with the Father nor one in being with him.
It’s already been posted.Show me the actual VERSE that says “the Church is God-breathed.” And not your “interpretation” that the verse “implies” that the Church is God-breathed. I’m asking for the actual VERSE.
highlighting so as not to be missed!And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
I’ve read up on the “demolishing” of the “heos” argument. The problem is that the “argument” is based mostly on poor Scriptural eschatology & other strawman arguments. It also argues by exception.John Pacheco demolished the heos argument championed by Eric Svendson in his doctoral thesis (thereby destroying the thesis, as well).
You might want to read the whole thing here:
Heos Hou and the Protestant Polemic
By John Pacheco
catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/MaryAndTheSaints/HeosHouPolemic/HeosHouAndProtestantPolemic.aspx
BTW, sola scriptura is not “traditions of MEN” [see Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Ecclesiastes 3:14; Isaiah 30:1; Jeremiah 26:2; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 22:18-19]. Adding to Scripture, as well as taking away & contradicting to Scripture are. That’s what makes it “MAN-made.” If a belief is BASED on Scripture, then it’s not MAN-made, but GOD-made. But if a “tradition” isn’t BASED on Scripture, then it’s MAN-made. And this “adding” to Scripture is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees of (Matthew 15:1-9).I have no problem condemning traditions of men, either. Like sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.
But the problem is that you cannot seem to distinguish between Tradition and tradition.
The number of women at the cross DOES have bearing on it, because if you mess up the number of women on the cross, you don’t realize that there are TWO “James’ & Joseph’s” rather than ONE pair. And if you get that wrong, then you get wrong the family dynamics & “mesh” the “James & Joseph” who are the half-brother of Jesus, with “James & Joseph” who are sons of Alpheaus & the “other” Mary. For your convenience, here is a Scriptural breakdown that I provided in Scriptural detail for SteveVH:The number of women at the cross has no bearing whatsoever on whether Mary ever had a second child.
However, I will be happy to review your argument if you will kindly provide a link to the post.
Thanks.
This “assumption” is simply not the case. Even though many Christians – Protestant & Catholic alike – “depend” on the Church to “tell them” which books are Inspired & which are not, not “all” Protestants are “dependent” on the church leaders to tell them this. The godly attributes of God (such as inerrancy, lack of contradictions, etc) as well as fulfilled prophecies, being written by a recognized prophet of God or apostle of Christ (or their close contemporaries: Mark Peter; Luke Paul), having been read in the Church, etc are. I understand that there were epistles read in the Church that are not in the canon, like 1 Clement, but that’s because despite being read, these books are not inerrant. But the whole argument is moot, since we both agree in the EXACT SAME 27 book NT canon, which either supports or negates Mary “remaining” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. And based on these 27 Inspired writings – again, they DON’T support Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. Just the opposite, both for the fact there are ZERO Scripture verses commanding the mother of the Messiah to “remain” a virgin, so there would be no reason for Mary to disobey God’s command for married couples to “be fruitful & multiply,” and that Scripture supports that the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers, not any other “type” of extended family member.The idea came from a highly regarded protestant scholar, Michael Gorman. His book on St. Paul can be read here. I recommend the book (yes a Catholic can read a protestant book…and I hope a protestant would read a Catholic author’s book). He makes the following points on St. Paul’s alleged writings. It’s to the point of the OP in this way: even when scripture says “all of Paul’s writings” are inspired - protestants are not certain which writings are St. Paul’s and which are not.
To bring it back to the OP…
I trust SCRIPTURE on Mary, since SCRIPTURE is “God-breathed,” not the Church. Even the Church that Christ founded is still subject to the Word of God, which does NOT support that Mary “remained” a virgin after the birth of Jesus. If it did, God would have been explicit about it, just as He was explicit about the mother of Jesus being a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT His birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:25). Scripture is silent on the “remaining,” & even conflicts with it.If you can not trust The Church on Mary, then neither can you trust that all the books in your bible are the inerrant and inspired written Word of God.
We know Jesus isn’t the “natural” son of Joseph because Scripture STATES that he’s not (“as was supposed”)(Luke 3:23). And, no, it’s not Scripturally “possible” that the brothers of Jesus were Joseph’s, because Scripture neither supports that, plus it creates too many Scriptural problems, such as where were these older STEP-brothers on the Mary & Joseph’s trek to Bethlehem for the census, or to Temple for Jesus to be “given up to the Lord,” or the flee to Egypt, or back to Nazareth, or in the caravan when Jesus was at the Temple when He was 12, or where were THEY when Jesus was dying & entrusted His mother to one of them, instead of His cousin & faithful disciple, John? Likewise, Scripture supports that the brothers of Jesus are His half-brothers, but it requires more than a SINGLE verse to demonstrate this. Refer to my reply to SteveVH:That same scripture - clearly and unreservedly - even directly calls Jesus the son of Joseph - that would be natural son of Joseph … in the exact same sentence these brothers are named and the sisters referred to …
Now theta - that sentence clearly states Jesus is the child of Joseph … now where are these other children listed as being children of Mary …
Is Joseph the natural father of Jesus? Because using your scripture alone rendition of passages would have to say “yes”
If you say “No- Joseph is not the natural father of Jesus” - then you have to admit that the children listed after equally might not be the natural children of Mary and or perhaps even Joseph. Because if Jesus is not - then it leaves open the possibility that they are not either …
It is possible they are Josephs but not Mary’s …
Please! Jehovah Witnesses are the ones who ADD words & verses into Scripture, such as adding the indefinite article “a” to John 1:1 & the word “other” FOUR times in Colossians to change Jesus from “God” to “a” god. But when this is pointed out to them how ADDING things to Scripture that wasn’t originally there, they reject this, just as you are rejecting that “adding” to Scripture that Mary “remained” a virgin, despite this “belief” not being in Scripture, but ADDED to it, you too reject it. So your Jehovah’s Witnesses argument applies better to you than me.That’s exactly what the Jehovah’s Witness says to you.
And yet you believe he is wrong.
How is it that you get to say that he is wrong, but the Church cannot do this to you?
Why do you reserve for yourself what you deny for others?
Then why did Jesus condemn the Pharisees for “adding” their “traditions” & “precepts the doctrines of MEN” that weren’t found in the OT Scriptures? (Matthew 15:1-9)And this is a self-refuting paradigm because Jesus never spelled out this “rule”.
If taz is following this “rule” he’s going to have to limn where Jesus lays out this “rule” in Scripture.
And one can search Genesis through Revelation and will never find this “rule” in a single verse.
Maybe you have not realized it yet…but it is your “INTEPRETATION” that is conflict.
As a former Catholic, I understand that “tradition” is. But that “tradition” is based on a mid-to-late SECOND Century false “gospel” written “allegedly” by James the Just who had been DEAD for 100-150 years, which is being “forced” into Scripture, & ignores the fact that this “tradition” conflicts with other issues in Scripture, as well the family dynamics of Jesus - both His nuclear & extended family. For a breakdown, refer to my reply to SteveVH:Randy doesn’t need to prove anything. It’s not about “proof”. Randy and other posters are telling you what the solid Tradition of the Church is, and backing it up with the Church’s own inseparable view of Scripture. You don’t believe? just say so and it’s all good.
Ok, we get that you’re not Catholic.As a former Catholic, I understand that “tradition” is. But that “tradition” is based on a mid-to-late SECOND Century false “gospel” written “allegedly” by James the Just who had been DEAD for 100-150 years, which is being “forced” into Scripture, & ignores the fact that this “tradition” conflicts with other issues in Scripture, as well the family dynamics of Jesus - both His nuclear & extended family. For a breakdown, refer to my reply to SteveVH:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12683200#post12683200
First, when Jesus “breathed” on His disciples this was still WEEKS before the Church was established at Pentecost. And if you read the surrounding passages, Jesus “breathed” on them for a specific purpose. Also, keep in mind that if “breathing” on the **pre-**Church makes them “Inspired,” then anything they would say or do after that would have to be true. If this is the case, they “why” did Paul have to “condemn Peter to his face” (Galatians 2:11) for siding with the Judaizers? This only proves that even the Church - including Jesus’ disciples, including Peter - isn’t “God-breathed” in the context that Paul uses it in 2 Timothy 3:16. Because anything Inspired (God-breathed) CAN’T utter a false-hood. Peter did, which Paul points out. Therefore, since Scripture ONLY calls Scripture Inspired (God-breathed) in the context Paul uses it, then Scripture can’t utter falsehood about whether or not Mary had children after Jesus’ birth. And Inspired (God-breathed) Scripture supports that Mary not only lost her virginity to her HUSBAND, but the further evidence this is true, is because Scripturally, the “brothers” of Jesus are His half-brothers. Ergo, Jesus can’t have half-brothers, if His earthly mother is still a virgin, since Joseph wasn’t His natural father.It’s already been posted.
Disingenuous much?
Here’s one.
highlighting so as not to be missed!
But of course, you don’t believe that means anything, do you…
If this is true, then please show me – explicitly – in Scripture “where” it states that Mary “remained” a virgin AFTER the birth of Jesus, just as God spells out – explicitly – that the mother of the Messiah was to be a virgin DURING her pregnancy & AT the His birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:25). Remember, since the OP is about Mary “remaining” a virgin after Jesus’ birth, I don’t have to prove a negative (that Mary obeyed God’s COMMAND to married couples to “be fruitful & multiply”). You have to prove your assertion that she “remained” a virgin, since Scripture NEVER gives a command for the mother of our Savior to “remain” a virgin after His birth. And as far as the “evidence” that you’ve been provided, I can’t do anything about the fact that you reject it. It sounds more like since the evidence – from Scripture – that you reject is because that Scriptural evidence contradicts your already personal “belief.” So, it’s really an authority issue – the Word of God vs. you.Show me where it explicitly says She did not. Again yes I have seen all of the supposed “Evidence” that has been put forth in this discussion and I see nowhere where it is proven the She did not, just personal opinions.