Authority

[Gloria1]

Originally posted by Scott J:
[QBI do have a couple of questions though.

First, what scripture do you use to support the idea of the immaculate conception?

Second, if there is an apparent disagreement between papal decree, tradition, and scripture, which do you trust?[/QB]

Hi Scott. There are lots of scriptures I could cite to support the Immaculate Conception but really they are for you to find because mine would be like second hand oats to you and I fear you will spit them out. The Immaculate Conception is your gateway to heaven and must be from where Christ was born in your life.

Apparent disagreement only exists in the eyes of the unbeliever and so I do not even pose your question to find out how wrong I am.

 

[Gloria1]

Originally posted by Scott J:


There is no biblical support for the notion that Mary remained a virgin after Christ's birth.

Of course there is Scott but maybe you do not see them.

The Lord God (not God) told Joseph in a dream and God (not Lord God) send and angel to Mary (no dream) to indicate that the essence of man, in the image of God, was impregnated to give birth to the firstborn of the tribe. The firstborn of the tribe is the True Identity of man here conceiled in the soul of Joseph where it is protected by the virginity of Mary wherefore she went into the hills to visit her cousin etc.

What do you suppose the difference is between the role of God as opposed to Lord God and dream vs. not dream, hills, cousin, Elizabeth pregnant at old age, the silence of Zacheriah, etc.

Unless you can tell me the above, don't even think you know anything about the bible. Or did you think it was a grade one reader?.

 

[LaRae]

Scott,

Some info to look over.....

Some claim that Jesus had siblings. Who are they?
Brothers, cousins! Which is it?
[2] Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
[3] Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
[4] Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

1)Simon BarJona
2)Andrew BarJona
3)James Zebedee
4)John Zebedee
5)Philip
6)Bartholomew
7)Thomas
8)Matthew
9)James Alphaeus (the Less)
10)Jude Thaddeus (Lebbaeus)
11)Simon the Cananite (Zelotes-the Zealot)
12)Judas Iscariot

So we have the BarJona Brothers, the Zebedee Brothers, two Jameses, one a Zebedee, the other the Less because he was called secondly; we have two Judases-one the son of destruction, and the other the "brother" of Jesus. We have two Simons, one Simon Peter, and the other the Cananite.

Matt.13
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

The verse above shows that James, Joses, Simon and Judas are either His brothers or relatives of some kind.

At the cross we see: Mary Magdalene, Mary(same as Matt 13:55)the mother of James and Joses, and Mrs. Zebedee.
From Mark 15:40(see below)we see that Mary, the mother of James and Joses is the mother of James the Less. We know from the gospel of John that Jesus' mother is there. So if James the Less and Joses cannot be Jesus' blood brothers because we know from Luke6:15 that James the Less is the son of Alphaeus, not the son of Joseph. However if Blessed Mary, and Mary the mother of James the Less were related, then that would make Jesus and James the Less brethren or brothers and that is just what we see in John 19:25 (see below)where it states that Jesus' mother is the sister of Mary of Cleophas.
Note also that Luke 24:18 has Jesus appearing to a disciple named Cleop(h)as on the road to Emmaus. (Could this be James the Less, or Jude Thaddeus?)Rather than actually being brothers, they too may be cousins.
Matt.27
[56] Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.
Mark.6
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Mark.15
[40] There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
Mark.16
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Luke.6
[15] Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
[16] And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
Acts.1
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
Acts.12
[2] And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.
[17] But he, beckoning unto them with the hand to hold their peace, declared unto them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, Go shew these things unto James, and to the brethren. And he departed, and went into another place.
Here James Zebedee is martyred. (James the greater)
Jude.1
1] Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

John.19
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
Matt.27 [56] Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children.

So it seems to me that at the cross was Mary, Jesus' mother; Mary, the wife of Cleophas (Blessed Mother's sister), Mary Magdalene and Mrs. Zebedee (among others)

 

[Deacon's Son]

Whereas the Bible is our only source of revelation, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is all-sufficient for us in all things pertaining to doctrine and faith.

Gee, if only the Bible said this about itself!

Seeing as how Scripture nowhere claims to be "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice...all-sufficient...in all things pertaining to doctrine and faith" I'm tempted to label such an opinion "unbiblical".

Now, if you can find me just one passage of Scripture wherein the Bible claims to be "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice", not only will I be impressed, but I'll ask when you added it.

Therein lies the fallacy of the "Scripture is all we need" argument, in my eyes. You see, if Scripture is to be the only guide for doctrine and faith, then it must necessarily say so, otherwise, it does not contain all doctrine and faith.

Are you following me? If the Bible does not explicitly claim to be the only source of doctrine and faith then you are forced to admit: "Scripture contains all doctrines, except this one." < a logical fallacy.

I am curious, too, as to the fortune of all those "Bible-only" Christians who were unlucky enough to be born before the invention of the printing press, something that did not happen for the first 1,400 years of Church history. Since I'm sure these "biblicists" did not attend Mass to listen to the readings of Scripture, I suppose they each had their very own costly, hand-made, hand-written and hand-bound copy of the Bible at home, right? And further, I suppose they were all literate as well?

"Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum!", cried the well-educated, critically-thinking, wealthy, literate "Bible Christians" that seem to have vanished from the history books.

"Non-biblical traditions" seem to run rampant even with non-Catholic Christians - like the "man-made tradition" of Scripture Alone.

God bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ March 22, 2002, 02:36 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Deacon's Son:

Seeing as how Scripture nowhere claims to be "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice...all-sufficient...in all things pertaining to doctrine and faith" I'm tempted to label such an opinion "unbiblical".

Now, if you can find me just one passage of Scripture wherein the Bible claims to be "the final authority in all matters of faith and practice", not only will I be impressed, but I'll ask when you added it.

Therein lies the fallacy of the "Scripture is all we need" argument, in my eyes. You see, if Scripture is to be the only guide for doctrine and faith, then it must necessarily say so, otherwise, it does not contain all doctrine and faith.

In Theravada Buddhism there are three groups of writings considered to be holy scripture, known as "The Three Baskets" (Tripitaka). The total volume of these three groups of writings is about 11 times larger than the Bible.
In Mahayana Buddhism the scriptures are much more voluminous. Mahayana scriptures have multiplied to the point where standard editions of the Chinese canon encompass over 5,000 volumes.
The Granth Sahib, the sacred Scriptures of the Sikhs, is written in six different languages and several dialects. It is therefore nearly impossible for even the learned Sikh to study these scriptures in their entirety, much less so for the unlearned.
Yet, whether the person be a Buddhist, a Sikh, or a Muslim, they will all point to their own source of authority, whether or not they are able study them in their entirety. They all have their Scriptures. It is their Scriptures which become their final guide in matters of faith and practice. This is so with a Muslim, and with most other religions. With faulty logic you demand a verse in the Bible to say "show me where it says so." It doesn't have to say it is our authority. It is our authority, by virtue of being the very inspired Word of God (2Tim.3:16; 2Pet.1:19-21).
As for me I am thankful that God gave us one book, the Bible, in which are contained 66 smaller books, all of which are understandable and readable, and all of which speak of the redemption of mankind by the blood of Christ. I don't have an open continuing revelation, as some on this board do. I am not a Buddhist that has to sort through thousands of volumes of Scripture, only to find that many of them contradict each other. I am not a Sikh, needing to know at least six different languages, as well as some other related dialects just to read the Scriptures. God has given to us His Word, His revelation. Everything that we need to know about Him is contained in those 66 books. It is authoritative, all-sufficient, our final guide and authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

[Briguy]

Scott and DHK, Thanks for your good sound arguments. These discussions are good for all of us in confiming what we believe and why we believe it.

Pauline, If you believe that a revelation is true, then for you that revelation is from God and is the Word of God, right? Therefore for you it would have to be authoritative. Are you and others really careful which revelations you believe? And finally what about DHK's point and scripture reference that says that when Jesus came, God now speaks to his people by his son only, and His Son is revealed in the Bible, as you know. Oh and I wonder about the revelations being given to women because when they share them they are teaching men, in fact if you think about it they have authority because they are claiming to be speaking God's Word, both of which are Biblical No No's.

In a God of Truth,
Brian

 

[Deacon's Son]

Hi DHK,

First and foremost (before we get deeper into this disagreement that I'm fairly sure we won't resolve - but that's okay 'cause we're having fun), I want to tell you that I am thankful to the Lord for your zealous defence of and knowledge of His Holy Scripture. Even though we disagree, you are certainly blessed by God to be a vigilant defender of the Bible. Thanks be to God that we are united in Christ Jesus, despite our differences of opinion.

In your last post, you wrote:

With faulty logic you demand a verse in the Bible to say "show me where it says so." It doesn't have to say it is our authority. It is our authority, by virtue of being the very inspired Word of God

I say this with all due respect, but your definition of "logic" baffles me. I don't think it is "faulty logic" to ask where the Bible claims to be the only source of faith and doctrine. I did not say it had to, but your argument says it has to.

If the Bible does not explicitly claim to be the only source of faith and doctrine, then logically it cannot be. Logic demands this verse, not me.

As I stated in my last post, without such a verse, what you're really claiming is that "Scripture contains all faith and doctrines, except this one" which, of course is not logically sound.

It's like me saying "I'll never tell a lie again, except this one." Now, of course, I am free to lie. Do you see the logical problem? It is inescapable.

God Bless and have a great day.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ March 22, 2002, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

[chz]

Originally posted by DHK:

Whether or not they are required to believe in them is an entirely different matter. The fact remains that the message received is a "revelation." If it is a revelation, and it is from God, then why would I not want to believe in it? I want to believe the very words of God. That is what this discussion centers around: authority. Revelation is authoritative. If a person has a revelation, that person is saying that he or she has received the very words of God. If you choose not to believe, according to your own faith, you are choosing not to believe the very words of God. Right?
DHK

No, not really. The Church's "stamp of approval" only says that we can be sure that the private revelation doesn't teach anything contrary to the Church and that there is strong evidence to suggest that the person receiving the revelation is telling the truth as God is giving it to them. The approval is not a guarantee that the private revelation is 100% accurate.

For the purpose of arguement, say I told you I prayed to Jesus and he told me "Just don't listen to anyone who isn't Catholic." I would be receiving private revelation outside the Bible. Now, you might be interested because I claim that my revelation is from God. However, you don't have to believe what I say is true because I might be making it up or I might have misunderstood and Jesus really said "Just don't listen to anyone who is Catholic."

The bottom line is that private revelation, whether its from a dream, prayer, or apparition, is only binding on the person receiving it. That's why its called private.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Gloria1:
Hi Scott. There are lots of scriptures I could cite to support the Immaculate Conception but really they are for you to find because mine would be like second hand oats to you and I fear you will spit them out. The Immaculate Conception is your gateway to heaven and must be from where Christ was born in your life.

I apologize in advance because this will surely read as confrontational but your answer is very evasive. I am not defending the doctrines of the Catholic church. I am simply asking that the defenders of it do so with scripture. I am not satisfied with the authority of the church nor its traditions. Both of these have changed significantly over the past 1300-1400 years. I am well satisfied with the Bible as it can be validated as not having lost any of its original meanings or message.

Apparent disagreement only exists in the eyes of the unbeliever and so I do not even pose your question to find out how wrong I am.

Again, the answer is evasive and indirect. I agree that if you believe the RCC doctrines intensely that you will not see any disagreement. I am not questioning your faith in the Church. The question is, when you feel confused by the meaning of something scriptural as it relates to your belief system, do you judge the belief system by the scriptures or do you judge the scriptures by the belief system?

 

[chz]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by chz:

3) There is little question about whether or not God's Word is everyone's final authority. I'm not sure why you keep suggesting that Catholics don't believe this. The issue is a) "What is God's Word?" and b) "Who has the authority to interpret it?" A good place to start for these questions concerning Catholics would be here: THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION

This is a flip-flop in your position. You now agree that the Bible is the final authority. That is sola scriptura, the one doctrine that the Catholics so hate, and claim that the reformers invented (which is not true).
The issue is "What is God's Word?" That may be an issue with you, but it never has been an issue for us. It is the 66 books of the Bible, the written revelation of God. This has always been the accepted position from the time of the Apostles onward, except for the Catholic Church.</font>

My position hasn't flip-floped. From the Catholic perspective, the God's words are not limited to scripture. You seem to understand this later in your post so I'm baffled by this comment.

66 Books from the time of the Apostles? Please show me a reference from anyone before 300 AD that claims that the Bible contains the same 66 books you claim it does. You seem to be arguing from a non-historical point of view. Are you suggesting that since you believe that the Bible you have is the complete Bible then all true Christians must have had access to it from the time of the Apostles? If you are, I don't see much room for discussion here.

No, I don't have an issue with "What is God's Word." The issue is between us. Just don't want you to think I belive that God's Word isn't the final authority. We may disagree on what God's Word is but we should both respect the fact that each of us places what we believe to be God's Word above everything else.

"Who has the authority to interpret it?" Again, not an issue for us, but it is for you.

Again, it's not an issue for me, its an issue between us.

... addressing the rest in a new post...

 

[chz]

Originally posted by DHK:
Every believer has the authority to study the Bible and come to his own decisions. Jesus Himself commanded us to "Search the Scriptures." Paul said, "Study to show yourselves approved unto God." Jesus again said, "Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures." It is our responsibility to study, know, and interpret the Scriptures according to the enlightenment that the Holy Spirit gives each individual.

I'm not following your arguement. I agree that we should study scripture but how are your quotes supporting yourself as the final authority?

The magesterium does not take the place of the Holy Spirt. That is just not in the Bible."

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Granted, we have different beliefs on what exactly the Church is. My point would be that the difference between us is interpretation and not lack of scriptural support. My arguement would be that the magesterium is part of the churhc of the living God and therefore, part of the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Pet.2:5,9 teach that we are priests before God, each and every believer. I do not need a priest to interpret the Bible for me. I am a priest before God. He gives me the Holy Spirit and grants me understanding in the Word.

I find nothing contrary to Catholic belief in this. We too recognize the priesthood of believers and while we give homilies the respect they deserve (as you give sermons the respect they deserve), they are not infalliable interpretations.

I looked at your website, The Transmission of Divine Revelation, and basically it says the same thing that I have been saying all along. That is, that you (the Catholics) accept the Bible as a major source of revelation, and second, you accept sacred tradition as another source of revelation. You also accept apparitions, but it doesn't get into that very much. You have an open system of revelation, even if you just consider the first two sources of revelation. Tradition is still on-going. Magesterial decrees, papal bulls, vatican councils, etc., are always on-going. You have an open revelation. All of these things are included in your source of authority, your revelation.

From your point of view, revelation in the Catholic Church may still be open but I strongly disagree. I don't think we disagree on when public revelation ended. However, our understanding of public revelation continues to grow as more people study it and learn from it.

It seems that you are putting a double standard on Catholics. When you study and learn from public revelation, you call it truth. When Catholics study and learn from public revelation, you call it an open system of revelation. If you want to call the Magesterium, Papal Bulls, etc. on-going revelation, that's fine. But you should know that from the Catholic side of things, they aren't new revelation. They are simply a better understanding of what has already been revealed.

Have we beat this to death yet?

 

[chz]

ScottJ & DHK,

Thanks for yor answers to my questions. I wish I had more time to deal with the answers but for now, I'll have to let it go.

 

[Deacon's Son]

Hi Scott J,

Thank you for your insight and your questions. As fellow heirs of the Christ-life, I think it is important that we all show respect when addressing our differences of opinion and Scriptural interpretation. Asking questions (instead of levelling accusations based on basic misunderstandings of position) is a great way to maintain our Christian unity, even when we are in disagreement. I thank you for taking this approach.

In refrence to one particular question you raised in an earlier post, I thought I would try and give you the Catholic perspective. I hope I am helpful.

You wrote:

We believe that Jesus had brothers and sisters (of the flesh) borne by Mary because the Bible declares in plain language that He did; Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 2:12, I Corintians 9:5, Galatians 1:19. If your contention is that those mentioned were not related to Jesus through Mary, who do you say their father (or Father) was? If you say that they were cousins, provide the proof.

As you are fully aware, I'm sure, the Catholic position is (and always has been) that Mary bore no other children besides Jesus and remained, Ever Virgin. If one reads the verses you pointed out in your post, they will immediately wonder how the Church could maintain such a position, with the "clear" refrences to Jesus' "brothers and sisters" in the New Testament.

Our problem lies in translation. Although the Greek language has a word for "cousin", Aramaic, the language of the First Century Jews, (and ancient Hebrew, as well) does not. Cousins were referred to with the same words used for brothers and sisters. The Gospel writers and Paul were reflecting their linguistic culture when they referred to Jesus' cousins as his "brothers and sisters" in Greek.

You may say, "well, that's just the Catholic opinion." No, it is also the Orthodox opinion and has been held by the historic Church as far back as anyone kind find refernce to the subject.

My point is that any Scriptural reference to the "brothers" of Jesus is actually irrelevant to the question of whether Jesus actually had siblings (or half-siblings). They could actually be cousins, just as the Church has held from the beginning.

I found some other interesting points on the subject in my Ignatius Catholic Study Bible . I thought I would share them, so that they might help you undertand the Catholic position better:

"1) The "brothers" of Jesus are never called the children of Mary, though Jesus is (Jn 2:1, 19:25; Acts 1:14).
2) Two names mentioned, James and Joseph, are sons of a different "Mary" in (Matthew) 27:56 (and Mk 15:40).
3) It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26-27).
4) The word "brethren" (Gr. adelphoi) has a broader meaning than blood brothers. Since ancient Hebrew had no word for "cousin", it was customary to use "brethren" in the Bible for relationships other than blood brothers. In the Greek OT, a "brother" can be a nearly related cousin (1 Chron 23:21-22), a more remote kinsman (Deut 23:7; 2 Kings 10:13-14), an uncle or a nephew (Gen 13:8), or the relationship between men bound by covenant (2 Sam 1:26; cf. 1 Sam 18:3). Continuing this OT tradition, the NT often uses "brother" or "brethren" in this wider sense. Paul uses it as a synonym for his Israelite kinsmen in Rom 9:3. It also denotes biologically unrelated Christians in the New Covenant family of God (Rom 8:29; 12:1; Col 1:2; Heb 2:11; Jas 1:2)."

I hope this is helpful for your understanding, Scott.

God Bless.

In Officio Agnus,
Deacon's Son

[ March 22, 2002, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Deacon's Son ]

 

[GraceSaves]

I might add that all of the original reformers (Calvin, Luther, etc) believe in Mary's perpetual viriginity. It is contained in the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther preached about it often (after he left the Catholic Church). While Calvinism isn't something I've done as much study on, it would be relatively easy to find quotes of the same manner, I assume.

 

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;Therein lies the fallacy of the "Scripture is all we need" argument, in my eyes. You see, if Scripture is to be the only guide for doctrine and faith, then it must necessarily say so, otherwise, it does not contain all doctrine and faith.&gt;&gt;

We have been down this road before.

The Word of God was the final authority for the Bereans even after receiving the Gospel from the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the flesh. It is written of them…

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The RCC has claimed many things, many of us have likewise searched the scriptures regarding these claims (for instance, Papal infallibility concerning faith and practice) and found these claims to be false.

HankD

 

[Scott J]

I understand the arguments. However, at best, all that could be demonstrated is that Mary was possibly not the mother of the people mentioned in the text (although I require much more conclusive evidence than what has been shown so far). Even if it could be biblically demonstrated that Mary had no more children, that argument would still fall well short of proving that Mary did not become the wife of Joseph in every sense after the birth of Jesus.

Originally posted by Deacon's Son:


You may say, "well, that's just the Catholic opinion." No, it is also the Orthodox opinion and has been held by the historic Church as far back as anyone kind find refernce to the subject.

I have no argument with this statement...everyone has the right to be wrong on this.

"1) The "brothers" of Jesus are never called the children of Mary, though Jesus is (Jn 2:1, 19:25; Acts 1:14).

...nor are they identified as other than his actual siblings.

2) Two names mentioned, James and Joseph, are sons of a different "Mary" in (Matthew) 27:56 (and Mk 15:40).

This is not necessarily the disqualifier that is implied. We know that James and Joseph were very common names.

3) It is unlikely that Jesus would entrust his Mother to the Apostle John at his Crucifixion if she had other natural sons to care for her (Jn 19:26-27).

Several possiblities exist to explain this event. The one I would ascribe to is that His physical half-siblings had rejected Him so He entrusted Mary to the beloved disciple.

4) The word "brethren" (Gr. adelphoi) has a broader meaning than blood brothers. Since ancient Hebrew had no word for "cousin", it was customary to use "brethren" in the Bible for relationships other than blood brothers....

Yes. However, the Apostles without any doubt commended the Greek versions of the Gospels to the churches. Having been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit Himself, they knew what meanings were to be conveyed. If cousin were a better understanding and if they knew that Mary had remained a virgin, there is no doubt that they would have made it clear.

I hope this is helpful for your understanding, Scott.

Yes. I appreciate your and LaRae's efforts.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by GraceSaves:
I might add that all of the original reformers (Calvin, Luther, etc) believe in Mary's perpetual viriginity. It is contained in the Lutheran Confessions, and Luther preached about it often (after he left the Catholic Church). While Calvinism isn't something I've done as much study on, it would be relatively easy to find quotes of the same manner, I assume.

A couple of points here. First, lumping all non-Catholic "Christians" into the same boat with Luther or Calvin would be a mistake. I am not a follower of either of them. I believe in the scriptures. Where that causes my beliefs to overlap with someone else's, good. However, the opinions of men are only as valid as the scriptural evidence which supports them.

Second, many people including myself reject the notion that the protestants or reformers promoted new or even revived ideas. I reject the fanciful successionism that some Baptists claim. However, there are enough reports of anabaptist type sects down through the history of the Catholic church to show frequent occurences of believers in "scripture only" and "grace only"- and possibly even a consistent line of them.

My Military History teacher asserted a universal truth of historical recounts- "the winners get to write the history books." In that the RCC dominated Europe religiously and politically for about 1000 years, it is hardly surprising that few favorable accounts of dissenters have survived.

[ March 22, 2002, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Scott J ]

 

[Pauline]

So, Scott, then how would you know anything favorable about the dissenters if there is no such record? How can you know anything about them at all?

Concerning Mary remaining a virgin after Christ's birth -- it was Hebrew Christians who told me that given the Jewish view in the days of Joseph and Mary it is unthinkable that a faithful Jew such as Joseph would have considered having sexual relations with Mary after she bore a child that was not his. It simply wasn't done by faithful Jews.

It is a grave error to read Scripture as if it was written in the year A.D. 2002. And that is what a lot of people try to do today. That's why we need to rely on experts who have studied the language and culture and customs of that day in order to understand the message of Scripture.
God inspired men to write using their own language and cultural understandings.

Pauline

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Pauline:
So, Scott, then how would you know anything favorable about the dissenters if there is no such record? How can you know anything about them at all?

Please re-read what I wrote. I did not say that there was nothing. I said there was not as much as there would have been if there had been an honest, thorough recording of history. An example of what I am talking about is the US Civil War. Most people today believe it was fought over slavery. Slavery was a just an extension of the core problems between the agricultural south and industrial north. The winners write the history books.

...it was Hebrew Christians who told me that given the Jewish view in the days of Joseph and Mary it is unthinkable that a faithful Jew such as Joseph would have considered having sexual relations with Mary after she bore a child that was not his. It simply wasn't done by faithful Jews.

First of all, this situation was unique in all of history. Mary was still a virgin and sexually pure in every way. For anyone to say that Jewish customs would have prevented Joseph from having normal, lawful, marital relations with the wife that God Himself told him to not fear taking is much less than believeable.

Second, there was no law against marrying a widow with children. Mary did not have a living, human husband besides Joseph.

Third, sex has always been an important part of marital intimacy. This fact was no less true for Mary and Joseph than any other couple.

It is a grave error to read Scripture as if it was written in the year A.D. 2002. And that is what a lot of people try to do today.

Some of scripture must be read in the context of its time, that is true. However, most of scripture communicates clearly and accurately in terms that are timeless.

That's why we need to rely on experts who have studied the language and culture and customs of that day in order to understand the message of Scripture.

I disagree. "That" is why we must diligently study these issues out for ourselves. We do rely on 'experts' for information however our 'experts' will not stand before God for us. We will be judged individually.

The idea that only the elite leaders are able/responsible to know and understand the Word of God is alien to biblical Christianity.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Pauline:
Concerning Mary remaining a virgin after Christ's birth -- it was Hebrew Christians who told me that given the Jewish view in the days of Joseph and Mary it is unthinkable that a faithful Jew such as Joseph would have considered having sexual relations with Mary after she bore a child that was not his. It simply wasn't done by faithful Jews.

Mat.1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

So, accordingly, we are to take the word of Pauline and her Hebrew friends over the Words of God? The Scriptures clearly indicate that Joseph knew her not "till" she had brought forth her firstborn son. The clear teaching of that Scripture of course, is that he knew her afterward, something that the Catholics do not want to admit.
He knew her not til...but he did know her. That is plain and simple. It means he had sexual relations with her, if has to be spelled out. Mary did not remain a virgin, not according to the Bible.
DHK