Authority

Hi DHK,

I hope this post finds you well. I wanted to respond to something you wrote in a recent post that I thought was important.

You were talking about Scriptural evidence for your position that Jesus had blood brothers and sisters (and, in kind, that Mary eventually lost her virginity). You wrote that when one looks at any passage of Scripture, they must:

You ask the question about the familial relationships you've listed, "Are they all literal?" The answer is "No".

Jesus was not the "carpentar's son". At closest, he was Joseph's adopted son. On top of that, we would no doubt agree that the closest relationship Jesus could have possibly had to those you believe were his blood- "brothers and sisters" would have been that they were merely "half-brothers" and "half-sisters". No one could have had the same father Jesus had so no one could have literally been his "brother" or "sister", so, despite your claims to the contrary, these terms cannot be taken at face value.

So, right off the bat, we run into the "literal meaning" brick wall. We cannot take some of the relationships that you listed literally, lest we commit heresy. If we keep this in mind, suddenly we come to realize that "adelphoi" cannot be understood to be a literal description of the relationship Jesus shared with the individuals listed as such.

As I mentioned in my last post, we then are left with the fact that Scripture is not clear on the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity. And as I also mentioned in my last post, I have chosen to accept the ancient position of the Church. If you choose, you can accept the position of those who came after the Reformers (seeing as how even the major "Bible-only" Fathers of the Reformation accepted Mary's perpetual virginity).

In his book Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic , David Currie brings up another good point on this issue that I really relate to. He writes:

"On reflection, Mary's perpetual virginity makes the most sense. Even without a vow of celibacy, can anyone doubt that Joseph would have refrained from marital relations with the woman who bore the very Son of God? Think about that question for a moment. Although Catholics have pondered that question for generations, it is a rare Evangelical who has had it cross his mind. It is an implication of the Incarnation that he would rather ignore."

Food for thought.

For all:

Technically, it now Palm Sunday. Here's a thought for the day:

"The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road. The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: 'Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!'" ( Matthew 21:8-9 ).

Within a week, they crucified him.

"Christ comes to the world as the example, constantly enjoining: Imitate me. We humans prefer to adore him instead." - Soren Kierkegaard

God Bless, all.

+In Officio Agnus+
Deacon's Son

[ March 24, 2002, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

There is a Greek word (the language of the inspired text) for "cousin" suggenes.

KJV Luke 1
35:The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin (suggenes) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren…

57 Now Elisabeth's full time came that she should be delivered; and she brought forth a son.
58 And her neighbours and her cousins (suggeneis) heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.

Incidently, here are passages from the Douay-Rheims Confraternity concerning the usage of the names of family memberships:

DRA Matthew 13:56 And his sisters (sorores), are they not all with us? Whence therefore hath he all these things?

DRA Luke 1:36 And behold thy cousin (cognata) Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren.

The point being: the Holy Spirit moved the writers of the inspired text to use the words they chose. It would seem that in this case, the Douay-Rheims translators followed through faithfully from the Greek, Itala and Latin into English.

Can a linguistic and cultural argument be made which would confound the words "brother" and "sister" with "cousin"? Perhaps, but the evidence (even some of the older Catholic Latin Scriptural evidence) does not seem to support this theory at all.

HankD

[ March 24, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Gracesaves -

Before your question gets buried in the thread, women were generally not named in Jewish lineages unless there was no male offspring. It was a custom of the culture. A quick check of the lineages listed in the Torah will confirm this.

[ March 24, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Clint,

Thanks for the info. I promise not to use it again in one of the 400 Mary threads we get in the future, now that I know the answer.

 

Your argument might hold water as a person looking back with hindsight. You have to put yourself in the position of the average person who was there at that time. Who was asking those questions? What did they mean when they said, "Is not this the carpenter's son...and his brethren?" They, after behoding the miracles that Jesus had just performed, were questioning among themselves, "Just who is this man?" (paraphrased). They all knew him, that he belonged to Mary and Joseph's family, that his brothers were right there, as were his sisters. He was a local person, known to those people. "A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house." They, therefore rejected Him. The result:
58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
DHK

 

Hi all, Good stuff here.

What about these verses, KJV, Matt.
"12:46: While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
12:47: Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.

Is brethren ("brothers" in other versions)here the same greek word as used for brethren in verse above? This verse certainly seems clear enough. I know this is silly to ask but---- If you just simply read the verses above without any deep thought or pre-concieved ideas what you say it meant? Side note: Most of the time the Bible and the people speaking in the Bible really mean just what they say. Food for thought anyway,

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

Your nota bene, "Side note: Most of the time the Bible and the people speaking in the Bible really mean just what they say.," speaks much truth.

Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." (Mt 26:26, RSV)

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson, that reminds me of the time I took a picture out of my wallet and showed it to a friend at work and said "this is my wife".

HankD

 

Hi Hank,

Did you ever take a piece of bread and tell your friend, "This is my wife"?

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson my friend, that was low, trapping me in my own words like that

So here in is a huge problem if we are honest.(I can be honest because I am free to believe what I want and am not restricted by pre-made church doctrine.) We both are taking the scriptures as literal and figurative as we see fit. I admit to doing this and wish that more of the RCC folk would admit it too. You see we all will look at scriptures at times and make them prove what we believe. The difference for me Carson is as I stated before is that I am free to learn and grow and change my mind as I get guidance from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit really can't guide you because you already have all the things you believe etched in stone. Believe it or not I have actually changed what I believe on a couple things as I learned more about God's word.

Back to the subject. "Brothers" to me or "Brethren" is easy to take as literal because that is how we speak and is normal language. This is my body as literal has a lot more difficulties, which have been gone over alot before. You see Carson you are on the less believable side of both of the arguments. When you play the odds at the casino you will always lose in the long run and that is what you face with how you look at those two passages. I will pray that you will study The Bible without restriction. You seem like a great guy and I really want the best for you. Keep searching and questioning!

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Hi Brian,

You wrote, "So here in is a huge problem if we are honest.(I can be honest because I am free to believe what I want and am not restricted by pre-made church doctrine.) We both are taking the scriptures as literal and figurative as we see fit."

This is where the true doctrine, taught by the apostles to the bishops they appointed (did they work in vain? was the Spirit not active in protecting this transmission of doctrine?), has been preserved in what we call the "rule of faith".

You wrote, "The difference for me Carson is as I stated before is that I am free to learn and grow and change my mind as I get guidance from the Holy Spirit."

Yes, you are (free to learn, grow, and change your indidividual mind concerning the eternal truths of the faith). You are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine."

You wrote, "The Holy Spirit really can't guide you because you already have all the things you believe etched in stone."

You're right.. the Holy Spirit can't lead the Church (which includes me; the Church is corporate) to believe doctrine contrary to what He has already revealed. He doesn't lie.

However, what "doctrine" and "dogma" the corporate universal Church has been lead to define by the action of the Spirit in no way affects the Spirit's guidance in my own life. It's precisely because I have the Rock of Faith secured by the Spirit that I can have the confidence to say that 2 Peter is the inspired Word of God (which you rely upon too whether you admit it or not) or that when I receive what appears to be a piece of bread, I'm receiving the Bread of Life, or when I pray with the name of Jesus, I'm praying with the name of the only Son of God, who has been given authority over heaven and Earth.

The Spirit continually leads this corporate body regarding doctrine - it's development and formulation. And, there is only one Body of Christ, visible on Earth, that the Spirit guides; it reaches back into history to the foot of the cross.

As a charismatic Catholic Christian, I can attest to the power of the Spirit in my life. I've met evil spirits face to face with the power of God, I've met what would seem to be miraculous answers through prayer, and consolation, at times, brings my prayer into the deep swells of the heart of God. St. Paul refers to my life as "life in the Spirit."

God bless,

Carson

 

You do have a problem with hermeneutics, don't you?
Take the Bible literally, unless the context dictates otherwise; not unless the Catholic Church dictates otherwise.
DHK

[ March 26, 2002, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Dear Carson,

You asked...

>>Did you ever take a piece of bread and tell your friend, "This is my wife"?>>

No Carson, because I have something people didn't have in Jesus day.

A camera.

But it's OK Carson.

I know you understand what I was saying.

The bread is a picture or symbol Christ used to portray His body.
The wine a picture of His blood. Baptist (at least this one) believe that is what He meant.

You believe that it is a literal transubstantiation.
You have that right and we (at least I and many other Baptists)
repect that right and will not persecute or revile you for your exercising your right.

we may tell you that we believe you are wrong and some may even warn you of the possible consequences of believing such an error (and vice versa).

HankD

[ March 26, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

Hi Carson, I wish I had as much computer time as you do, anyway two quick points. You talked about the church starting at the foot of the cross and going through the disciples and into the church today. I have stated before, many early churches were a mess within a fews years of the ressurection. Look at the church in Corinth. How many churches got the two thumbs up by John in revelations. The early churches were goofing up left and right and yet you want me and others to believe there was a body with no problems that is the RCC today. There is no logic to that at all.

Second, RCC doctrine has had changes over the years, correct? Are there now not individual confessionals in all RCC churches? Actually, I asked this on another thread and there were no answers. You tell me, what has changed when different popes have headed the RCC?

In Love and Truth,
Brian

 

Carson,

Your posts are starting to get more and more hostile with every passing day....take a deep breath and relax.

Ironically, you too are also subject to be "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" if you are to research the subject of creation at all. The Catholic Church has maintained that they don't know the age of the universe as it has not been revealed to them.

So, before you go and accuse someone of something...think about how the statement applies to yourself and your 'one and only' church.

This is a side note type of question. If there is only one catholic church, why are there so many different types of catholics? You are charismatic. I have heard of latin rite(not sure what that is), orthodox, greek orthodox, Anglo-catholic, Byzantine catholic etc etc.

Plus, I have read about the mixing of catholic faith with voodoo and other sorts of spirituality.

Now, simply put, how can the catholic church be the 'only' true church when there isn't even one catholic church? I know you are probably going to tell me that:
1. I just don't understand
2. I am being simple
3. Satan is trying to keep down the CC (which one?)
or
4. I am being decieved by my pride full heart

As always, God is great.
jason

 

Hi all,

I hope that Holy Week is bringing special blessings to all of you as we near the celebration of our Lord's Passion and Resurrection. I hope you are all doing well.

I wanted to respond to a couple of questions raised in the last few posts.

First of all, Brian asked:

My opinion is that it would be more accurate to say that customs and practices have changed. I would equate doctrine with dogma which does not change.

For example, you used the confessional as an example. The confessional (where and how you make your confession in the Sacrament of Reconcilliation and Penance) has changed in the past and could change in the future. It is a custom. The actual Sacrament of Reconcilliation and Penance, however, is eternal and unchangeable.

In other words, outward appearances of the Sacrament may change but the Sacrament itself is Christ-instituted and unchangeable.

Another example of a custom is the celibate priesthood within the Western, or Latin rite of the Church. While many think that celibacy is good and useful (and few will argue the antiquity of the practice), the fact is that it is a custom. The other 21 rites of the Catholic Church (the Eastern Catholic Rites) have a custom of allowing married or celibate men into the priesthood. Will the requirement for priestly celibacy change in the Western rite sometime in the future? Who knows?

You see, these practices are not the same as dogmas or Apostolic teachings such as the Incarnation or (every Protestant's favorites) the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption of Mary. These beliefs, or dogmas, are unchangeable Apostolic teachings, part of the Deposit of Faith entrusted to the Church.

Of course I'm not saying you all have to believe those teachings are true, I'm just trying to explain the historic position of the Church.

Now, this brings me to the other good question I wanted to address, posed by Jason. He asked:

Earlier in this post, I mentioned the "other 21 rites of the Catholic Church". How could there be 22 rites of only One Church? I would say its similar to the way that there are 50 states of our one country.

There are indeed different rites of the Catholic Church, most with fascinating histories of Apostolic establishment. The main difference between the rites are the liturgies they use. Western, or Latin rite Catholics (which is what 90% of U.S. Catholics are) use the Roman Liturgy for their services. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari is used in the Malabar and Chaldean rites of the Catholic Church. There are many other liturgies.

There are other differences in customs such as the customs on priestly celibacy that I mentioned earlier. But we are One Church in our recognition of the Petrine office and in our unity with Rome. Some differences may be found in some customs, but we are all united in One Apostolic Faith.

You also mentioned Orthodox and Greek Orthodox, which should not be confused with Eastern Rite Catholics, although the externals are very similar. Orthodox Christians are not in communion with Rome (for different reasons for different churches) but the Catholic Church recognizes them as being Apostolic in character as many of the Orthodox communities have Apostolic foundations. The Orthodox churches agree with the Catholic Church on most doctrinal issues and share many liturgies with Eastern Catholic rites.

As far as some "mixing the Catholic faith with voodoo and other sorts of spirituality", I am full aware that some Catholics still participate in pre-Christian pagan practices. The attitude of the Church has been to allow the continuation of such practices that can be Christianized or at least do not conflict with Christian teachings and beliefs. The use of wedding rings is a good example of this.

Voodoo, however, is in conflict with Christianity in many aspects and so should not be practiced by faithful Catholics. I know that there are Caholics who practice Voodoo (in Haiti and Cuba especially), but they do so at grave peril to their salvation and certainly outside of the blessings and teachings of the Church.

I hope I was helpful. God bless.

"Worthy of glory from every mouth, and of thanksgiving from all tongues, and of worship and exaltation from all creatures, is the adorable and glorious name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit!" - The Liturgy of Addai and Mari , Malabar and Chaldean rites of the Catholic Church

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ March 27, 2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

quote by DHK: "I compare everything with the Word of God. As I have said in many other posts, if teachings such as purgatory, indulgences, assumption of Mary, sacrifice of the mass, confession of sins to a priest, etc., are not in the Bible, and in fact are contrary to the Bible, they are to be rejected, no matter what history has to say."

Quote:
"You know, I cannot resist asking the question: How do you feel about some other "teachings" that are "not in the Bible"- church buildings, weekly Sunday worship, the doctrine of the Trinity, church weddings, confessing one's sins only to God (see James 5:16)? Surely, "they are to be rejected" since they are "not in the Bible", right?"
Deacon's Son

Deacon,
I thought that this question, asked on another thread (now closed), would be well answered here, because it has to do with authority. Our authority is the Bible. The difference here is that the Catholic Church teaches the aforementioned doctrines as church dogma. They have become sacred tradition, part of the revelation of the Catholic Church put on an equal with the Word of God. We call that heresy. The teaching of purgatory, indulgences, assumption of Mary, etc, are heretical teaching, all going directly contrary to the plain teaching of Scripture, and many of them, if not all, directly affecting major doctrines such as salvation.

There are many things that are extra-Biblical that have no effect on Biblical doctrine whatsoever. To go completely secular one might use the example of driving a car. But to keep the subject on track, and use the examples you mentioned, religious examples, such as the use of church of buildings, is better. The use a church building did not become common until about 250 years after Christ. Up until then Christians met where ever they could: in homes, out in the open, in the Roman catacombs, etc. It is not unbiblical to have a church building. It does not violate any doctrine. It is extra-biblical, but not unbiblical. There is a big difference. The same hold trues for musical instruments such as pianos and organs. They didn't have any instruments at all in the New Testament churches. Yet we do not believe it wrong to have them in ours. They are not unbiblical, but extra-biblical. Some times they can be abused if not used in a glorifying way to the Lord, but that is another matter. The Catholic doctrines mentioned are both unbiblical and extra-biblical. They go directly contrary to what the Bible teaches. That is where the difference lies.
DHK

 

Concerning your other specific questions:

weekly Sunday worship, the doctrine of the Trinity, church weddings, confessing one's sins only to God (see James 5:16)? Surely, "they are to be rejected" since they are "not in the Bible", right?"
Weekly Sunday worship was established by the early believers as is evidenced by Acts 20:7,
Acts 20:7 And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

The doctrine of the Trinity is taught in many places in the Bible, the most obvious of which is 1John 5:7
1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Weddings have always been common. There is the marriage feast of the lamb mentioned in the Bible. There is the parable of the Ten Virgins in Mat.25:1-13. There is the wedding at Cana that Jesus and his mother attended. They became common in churches when believers had churches as meeting places to meet in, around 250 A.D. There is nothing unbiblical here.

Confessing ones sins only to God (James 5:16)
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
---The context of this passage is both in the context of the church, of healing, and of prayer. If we want people to pray for certain weaknesses that we have we had better tell them what they are so that they may pray for them. It is not talking of confessing our sins. The word is fault. The context is praying one for the other.

1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
---The Christian is to bring his sins to Christ alone. He will forgive them, and cleanse the believer from all unrighteousness, and restore the believer to a right relationship with God.
DHK

 

Hi Jason,

You wrote, "I have heard of latin rite(not sure what that is), orthodox, greek orthodox, Anglo-catholic, Byzantine catholic etc etc."

The Greek, Coptic, Eastern, etc. Orthodox churches are not Catholic churches. They broke in schism with the Bishop of Rome in 1054 A.D. Anglo-Catholic may refer to the Anglican Church (i.e. Church of England), which broke off from union w/ the Bishop of Rome under King Henry VIII ca. 1530.

There are 22 rites in the Catholic Church (21 eastern rites and the 1 western latin rite). There are Coptic Catholics, Ethiopian Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, Malankarese Catholics, Syrian Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Ukranian Catholics, etc..

I'm a "Latin Catholic", or, a Catholic who practices in the Latin rite of the Church. In my area there are, in addition to about 20 Latin rite Catholic churches, 1 Byzantine Catholic church (of which is in communion w/ the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter) and 1 Greek Orthodox Church (which is in schism w/ the Catholic Church & does not adhere to the bishop of Rome).

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi DHK,

I hope this post finds you doing well. I want to point out, first of all, that I know and agree with your differentiation of "non-biblical" and "extra-biblical" practices. I think we have an inherent inabibility, however, to see eye-to-eye on the Scriptural background of many historically Christian (Catholic and Orthodox) practices and beliefs. But that's okay.

Forgive me but I only have a few minutes to respond to part of your last post- maybe we can address some of those later.

Anyway, here are my responses to some of your last post...

You wrote:

With all due respect, one is reading a whole lot into this verse to get out of it weekly Sunday worship. The verse says only that on one particular Sunday, Paul preached to the disciples. That's it.

To boot, if one is to interpret this verse as describing a weekly liturgy, one cannot ignore the line that says the disciples "came together to break bread". So, one could gather from that a weekly Eucharist, following this same logic of reading into this verse things not evident.

You wrote:

I would disagree with the statement that the doctrine of the Trinity (as we both confess it) is taught clearly anywhere in Scripture. The verse you sighted above, 1 John 5:7, indeed states that there are "three witnesses that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and that these three are one." Now, I won't get into a translation battle here, but let it suffice for me to say that I am not academically fond of the KJV.

However, even if we accept the disputed verse you sighted, it still does not state that Jesus and the Word are one in the same; eternal and fully God and fully Man - that took the Church 300+ years to pin down! Sure, we can bring the first chapter of John's Gospel into play here, but even it does not adequately explain the doctrine of the Incarnation (necessary for a true understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine).

Our understanding of God's Trinitarian nature comes from the first two ecumenical councils of the Church in 325 and 381 (the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, respectively)- generations removed from the last writings eventually accepted as the New Testament. From the statements of Scripture alone on the matter, heresies such as Subordinationism, Adoptionism, Modalism and Arianism hold just as much credence as do the "orthodox" view of the Trinity currently held by all of Christendom.

You wrote:

I doubt not the references of Scripture to wedding ceremonies and celebrations. I'm merely pointing out the fact that the "New Testament Church" nowhere performs or blesses "Christian marriage ceremonies" anywhere in Scripture.

I'm sorry I can't get to more of the topics you brought up or responded to in your last post. I'll try to make time later tonight or tomorrow. But now, I must go eat supper and go to church, for we are having rehearsal for our Easter Vigil service, where, Lord-willing, I'll be confirmed and receive first Communion this Saturday night. My wife and sister-in-law are also to be confirmed.

I really enjoy our disagreements, DHK. Have a great night!

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ March 27, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]