Does the Ever-virginity of Mary Contradict Scripture?

[eternally-gratefull]

Understand that the Ancient Church decided to call Mary the Theotokos (Gr. Mother of God) in order to refute heretical doctrines which were WIDELY circulating during those times. I am talking about Arianism and Gnosticism, and a number of others. These heresies were and are, some of the most diabolical and insidious heresies of all time. Arianism believed just how you do: That Jesus only assumed a Divine Nature before he was born or after it. But the Sound Teaching (1 Timothy 6) which has been shown to be Truth is that Mary assumed the Full Divinity and Humanity at the decent of the All Holy Spirit.

Well my friend. That would be a heresy. You see that was tried before. The jews when they returned from Babylonian captivity wanted to make sure the heresies of their fathers which caused them to be captured by babylon did not happen again. So they wrote a bunch of laws and books which they considered equal with scripture. and inspired By God. They had good intentions, the problem is God already gave them what they needed. The law and prophets. They however, did not have faith that was enough. why? They did not trust God and his word.

Amazingly, when Isreal was dispersed, and this new entity came in its place in the name of the Church. Satan used the same tactic with them. And the end result is the same. People hold the writings of men over the inspired word of God.

God does not need men to refute heresies. He took care of that with his word. There is adequate references in scripture which would refute both of those heresies. But man did not trust God. so decided to take it on their own. their intentions might have been good. But like the jews. the end result is devastating.

It also allowed the state, which was about the make christianity a state religion, and thus offend all pagan people (which were the majority) and force them to worship the christian God, prevent a mass opposition, and possible chaos by adding pegan ritual like the "mother of God" into Christian writings.

I don;t expect you to see this. You are free to see what you want. God does not force us to believe anything, like the jews did, and your church did for hundreds of years. I am just explaining why I can't believe it/ and you have done nothing to show me otherwise. Like Christ, and the apostles after him. I do Trust God. I do trust his word. and I trust the fact that God knows enough that he answered all heresies that would ever happen in his given word. and he does not need mens help.

The Bible itself does not say, "You must take all 66 books of the Bible to be the only source of Christian doctrine". It says nothing of the kind. It says that the Church is the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth " (1 Tim 3:15), not Scripture. Its not 66 books anyways, its 72, the Protestants don't even use the right canon.

The bible does say it. just not in those exact words

paul states this,

Romans 15:4
For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

did he say we have hope through the church?

Galatians 3:22
But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

does it say the church has determined all are under sin, and that the church might give the promise?

2 Timothy 3:15
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Does it say the church made him wise for salvation? I did not think so.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Did it say the church is able to do all these things?

According to this, scripture is completely able to;

reproof: or censur all false doctrins and teachings.
Correction. Correct us in our thinking. Correct us in our actions. etc etc
Doctrine. All doctrines God desires us to know is readily available in Scripture.
Instruction in righteousness. Anything we need to know is foiund in scripture,

and what does paul tell us in his word this will do for every one of us?

2 Timothy 3:17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Does it say the church will do this? If Scripture can answer all my questions, Refute all heresies. And tell me all I need to know to live a righteous life. and can make me wise (help me know how to be ) for salvation. And make me COMPLETE in God and more than adequately equipped for every good work God has created me to do. Then what should I think about a church who states this is not true, and I should listen to them, and their "added" writings which they hold above or equal to scripture. and in doing so stating that according to them Paul lied. and scripture is not able to do all these things.

again, believe what you want, but I can't believe that way when Paul tells me otherwise!.

That's very narrow-minded to say that only the Bible the book of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. There are other writings which should be read. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, or the writings of Barnabas and the other Successors of the Apostles.

It is not arrogant my friend. Actually it is arrogant to say God needs our help. and thew word he spent all those years writting is not complete. and can not do what Paul tells us in timothy it can and will do.

Again, The jews made the mistake of making the writings of men not scripture equal with scripture. Why should I make the same mistake and not learn from the mistakes of History. And trust God that he knows all things that will happen, and in doing so, he gave us what we need in his word, and does not need men to help him.

There you go with Arius again. So Jesus was not born as God but only later assumed divinity? If this happened then Christ is not fully God and fully man and cannot save us. That's just the way it is: If Mary is not called the Mother of God (Bearer of God), then Jesus is not God and Man and we are dead in our sins. We still have the primordial curse of Adam and Eve on us. Understand?

Your not thinking,

God can not die, did Jesus die?
God does not need help to do a miracle. Did Jesus need help
God knows all things. Why did jesus need taught?
God .....

Again, think about what your saying.

yes, Jesus was God while he was here. He always was. But he left his diety and all his attributes which made him God behind. Took the form of man, and in this paid the penalty for our sin.

"If th flesh bore by Christ had divine characteristics. The body could not be killed." This is true and is why Jesus was allowed to die by the Father, but He would not have died if God did not allow it.

what part of "God can not die" do you not understand?

What's so difficult about that? Are you a Gnostic Christian which believes that the body is evil but the soul is bad? Why is it so difficult to accept that Jesus' body is divine? This means that you actually believeJesus was not fully God in body and fully God in soul united in two natures. If you do not believe that Jesus' Body and Soul were not fully God and fully man, then you are teaching that Jesus only died for our Soul and not our bodies also. This is the teaching of the Gnostics. Do you see your error?

lol. So when I am saved my body will stop suffering? stop getting old, and live forever? This body will die, it will return to dust. It is my spirit which needs saved. My body is already doomed. I don't care what a heretic almost 2000 years believed. I care about reality.
Paul says in a moment of time, we will be changed. we will be given NEW BODIES. we will not keep our old ones.
again, if you would just think about some of the things you are saying. you might see the flaw in the doctrines.

1. God uses ink pens? Ooo, I wonder what kind of papyrus he would have used?
2. God can just magically rain down bibles on us? What about the money it would cost God to rain down a complete papyrus Bible in the 2nd Century? It would be millions by our currency.
3. The Church is Christ. It is the Body of Christ. The Church believes that the Christ gave the Church, it has nothing to do with giving credit to men over God.

Wow. So the sameritan woman who spoke to Christ in John 4 could not have knows scripture because it was not given to her? So Timothy could not have known scripture from birth because it was not given to him? So david could not comment on scripture and study it because it was not given to him? Do you understand you just offended God by saying he is not capable fo doing what he promised to do?

Scripture was readily available to all men, even if they had to go to a place to read it. If not. all these men in scripture who knew it would not be able to know it. And people would not take Pauls writings, as peter said, and misinterpret it.

Yes you do take credit. you take it away from God. God does not need money. Look at the money he collected from the churches to help the christians in jerusalem because the jews took their property. Took everything they had, because they believed in Christ.

You want to denigrate the status of men when our Lord Jesus Christ said,

Joh_14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.


You want to say that men are useless? You also are a man, so why do you think you know anything about God if us "Men" are so useless?

I did not say men are useless. I said men are fallible. And that only scripture can be trusted. History proves this. History proves men want to take credit and not give it to God. The jews did. and the romans did. They are brothers.

The Apostle Paul does not say that the Scriptures are the "Ground and Pillar of the Truth" (1 Timothy3:15) but that the Church is.

Yet paul said scripture is fully able to make man complete in God and furnish hium for ALL good works. and is completley able to refute all heresies. Not the church. Thus the church, which is the ground and pillar. must be founded on Scripture and Scripture alone, because the church can not make us complete. Only Scripture can.

Its not about study, study is only knowledge, bible knowledge cannot save.

2 Timothy 3:15
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


So Paul is a liar?

Only a complete regeneration by the Holy Spirit can save.

And this will only happen if we study the word. for it is the words of God which as Jesus said, Makes us clean, Saves us, Justifies us, and makes us complete.

Eph 1: 13-14
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[a] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.


We can't "hear the word" without scripture to tell us what that word is. We can't trust the word. or any entity that calls itself the teacher of the word (church) without the word which reproofs and corrects and instructs us which doctrine and church teaches truth from God.

It is by the 7 Sacraments of the Church. A person is saved when they are sanctified and become God-bearers themselves like the Virgin Mary. But this is not done by bible knowledge.

God did not teach a gospel of works, he taught a gospel of faith. We are saved today the same way abraham was. There are no sacramental system of salvation. That is a pagan belief, not from God.

Again believe what you want. I must take what God says through scripture. And he does not say what your church says.

 

[kujo313]

Yep. Here we go.
Back and forth.
Tradition vs. Scripture
New Traditions vs. Jewish Traditions

In the First Church, while the disciples were still alive, speaking and writing, nobody had a "Mommy Complex".
Nobody took that "Say-the-first-thing-that-comes-to-your-mind Test":

"black" "white"
"inside" "outside"
Good! Good!
"Father" "Mother"

Jesus taught God as Father, nobody went to look for "Mommy". When somebody made reference to "Mommy", Jesus redirected where she should be thinking.

Duh!

There are a group of people, today, who keep taking that "test". They don't look into the meaning of the Passover but only that Jesus took bread and said it was His body. "Well, well, well! Look at the bread aisle of the grocery store! FULL of Jesus! They have 'Plain Jesus', 'Wheat Jesus', 'Cinnamon Raisin Jesus' and 'High-Fiber Jesus'!"

Or, a wafer of bread.

Not even looking into the meaning of the Passover Lamb and how it pertains to us and our Salvation.

This whole thread is dung!
Go to another website where people think like you instead of spreading this nonsense here.
We got better things to do. Like, arming ourselves Spiritually.
It's a rough world out there. Lots of people who need the Truth. They can be like the Bereans in Paul's day and look it up for themselves.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I was pointing out that the English "until" still means the same thing in both examples even though the second example is nonsensical. Thus demonstrating that the Greek "until" and the English "until" have two different meanings.

You have not demonstrated anything, except like the English the word until must be taken in context to get the true definition.

Even in the hebew we get the same meaning. sarah did not have children until. the defenition means she did not have children up to that point, we do not know what that point is until we read context. "her death" there is context. without context we would not know when this ended. and she either had children or not. "Until death" tells us that it was impossible to have children after this point.

The english interpretors put the word there. it is not even worded in sequence as it is given in the english text. The order of words are in reality this.

"to children had no the daughter of saul and had michal her death the day. "

Which would confuse us today, much like the Old english texts confuse us because the language is foreign to most of us who did not grow up studying in that language.

what your doing (at least to me) is drawing on straws to try to make your belief believable. yet there is no proof what you say is true.

It's pretty simple. Those three are called brothers of Jesus,

No it is not that simple. it says that jesus had three brothers with that name, and also had three disciples with the same name, and no where does it say they are the same people. yu basing all your facts on assumptions which are not proven.

and Mary's sister just so happens to have children with those names, therefore it stands to reason that they are his cousins.

Stands to reason to who? Without proof? How can we base a doctrinal truth on circumstantial evidence with no proof? Is that what God wants us to do?

No one but you has disputed the identifications because everyone else sees, like me, that it is just too close to be coincidence. Is there the remote possibility it's a coincidence? Yes. But it is just that, remote.

You don't read many commentaries do you?

13:53-58. After instructing His disciples, Jesus returned to His hometown (Nazareth; Luke 1:26-27; Matt. 2:23; 21:11; John 1:45) and taught the people in their synagogue. On a previous visit to Nazareth, the populace had rejected His teaching and attempted to throw Him over a cliff (Luke 4:16-29). This time the people were impressed with His powers and teachings, but they rejected Him. They remembered Him as the carpenter’s Son (Matt. 13:55). They mentioned four (half) brothers (not cousins) of Jesus, children born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus Christ. Three of these sons—James … Simon, and Judas—are not to be confused with three of the Twelve by the same names.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Mt 13:53–58). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Mt 12:46; and its parallels, Mk 3:31; Lu 8:19; our present passage, and its parallels, Mk 6:3; Jn 2:12; Ac 1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. As to the names here mentioned, the first of them, “JAMES,” is afterwards called “the Lord’s brother” (see on Ga 1:19), but is perhaps not to be confounded with “James the son of Alphaeus,” one of the Twelve, though many think their identity beyond dispute. This question also is one of considerable difficulty, and not without importance; since the James who occupies so prominent a place in the Church of Jerusalem, in the latter part of the Acts, was apparently the apostle, but is by many regarded as “the Lord’s brother,” while others think their identity best suits all the statements. The second of those here named,“JOSES” (or Joseph), must not be confounded with “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus”(Ac 1:23); and the third here named, “SIMON,” is not to be confounded with Simon the Kananite or Zealot (see on Mt 10:4). These three are nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament. The fourth and last-named, “JUDAS,” can hardly be identical with the apostle of that name—though the brothers of both were of the name of “James”—nor (unless the two be identical, was this Judas) with the author of the catholic Epistle so called.

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Mt 13:56). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So instead of using the same excuse you people always use by saying it is "just me" and no one else believes it. A little study might help prevent you from sticking your foot in your mouth!

your whole supposed "scriptural" support is null and void. because it is not proof but mere speculation.

Your right, it is not proof. But it supports MORE than your proof. Which is why I said it supports more my beliefe than it does yours. But niether can be proven. so the doctrine can not be supported by scripture period. Paul tells timothy that scripture is fully capable of instructing us in all doctrine. If a doctrine can not be supported by scripture. it is NO DOCTRINE at all. He also says scripture is fully capable of refuting (reproofing) all false doctrines and lies and instruct us in all truth. since scripture does not support or deny what your church calls truth, and everyone who does not believe it is a major heretic. then again, it is no truth at all. we should not even be having this discussion. because it is not a part of tghe truth of God, if it was, it would be readily proven true or false by the very scripture paul says can make us complete in him.

why do you think it was not hotly debated in the NT church. not mentioned by paul or peter or james or jude? because it was not something the church discussed or even pondered. it was not a doctrine of the church, or the apostles would have made it clear in their letters to us what we are to believe, so we could be instructed by God the truth of his word.

Strictly speaking yes you are, because you are denying an established orthodox belief. But you don't recognise "orthodox" so that shouldn't be a problem for you considering you have already adopted Nestorianism.

No. I have adopted scripture as my proof. and not made the mistake of the jews, and all the men and women who before and after them looked to the words of men, and held them equal to scripture because they did not trust God and his written word was enough, It is sad that we as a culture and those of us who call us ourselves the church of God would think God would leave us with an incomplete book. not able to do the things paul tells us in Timothy it can do.

Face it. whenever people have done this. it is because they have doctrines and beliefs outside of the mold and fabric of what God wanted us to know, and they need these things to support these faulty truths which are not from God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Never said they didn't have a word for cousin. The Gospel writers and the translators of the LXX both imported the Hebrew/Aramaic idiom into their Greek writing as can be seen by Peter's addresses to the crowd, the Greeks even used the same idiom. Peter for example could have said to the crowd "Friends, I feel confident.." Or "Men, I feel confident...", but he didn't he used the idiom "Brothers" and the Greeks understood him because they knew the idiom. The term ἀνεψιός is only used once in the entire Greek OT and NT in Colossians 4:10 by Paul, and thats significant because there are many times where it would be applicable in the OT but they used Adelphos in those instances instead. Not to mention that Paul was the most highly educated NT writer and writes with the highest register Greek, the Gospels are "street" Greek while the Pauline Epistles are "Dickens" Greek.

Idiom is important to understand, because a person 3000 years from now could look back on some writing I left that said "I went out with my bros" and if they didn't know the idiom of the day literally think that "I went out with my blood brothers".

the whole problem with your line of reasoning is it proves nothing.

the fact remains, even though it may not mean blood brothers. it more than likely can exactly mean blood brothers. even if it is only a 50/50 chance that it means blood,m and not just a plain relative other than literal brother. that 50 % chance that it is blood brothers prove that your whole line of reasoning is flawed at best. and is no proof at all. it is based on assumptions not facts.

 

[SantoSubito]

You have not demonstrated anything, except like the English the word until must be taken in context to get the true definition.

Even in the hebew we get the same meaning. sarah did not have children until. the defenition means she did not have children up to that point, we do not know what that point is until we read context. "her death" there is context. without context we would not know when this ended. and she either had children or not. "Until death" tells us that it was impossible to have children after this point.

The english interpretors put the word there. it is not even worded in sequence as it is given in the english text. The order of words are in reality this.

"to children had no the daughter of saul and had michal her death the day. "

Which would confuse us today, much like the Old english texts confuse us because the language is foreign to most of us who did not grow up studying in that language.

what your doing (at least to me) is drawing on straws to try to make your belief believable. yet there is no proof what you say is true.

If you look through English literature you will not find a single use of the word "until" like it's used in the translations of the OT, because in English using the word "until" there is nonsensical. But the only other way to say it is to insert a phrase which violates most Bible's literal translation philosophy.

No it is not that simple. it says that jesus had three brothers with that name, and also had three disciples with the same name, and no where does it say they are the same people. yu basing all your facts on assumptions which are not proven.

Stands to reason to who? Without proof? How can we base a doctrinal truth on circumstantial evidence with no proof? Is that what God wants us to do?

Three men called brothers of Jesus and three men with the same name are children of Mary's sister, and therefore his brothers. Seems pretty simple, unless Mary and her sister both decided to name their kids the same names and have three sons.

You don't read many commentaries do you?

13:53-58. After instructing His disciples, Jesus returned to His hometown (Nazareth; Luke 1:26-27; Matt. 2:23; 21:11; John 1:45) and taught the people in their synagogue. On a previous visit to Nazareth, the populace had rejected His teaching and attempted to throw Him over a cliff (Luke 4:16-29). This time the people were impressed with His powers and teachings, but they rejected Him. They remembered Him as the carpenter’s Son (Matt. 13:55). They mentioned four (half) brothers (not cousins) of Jesus, children born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus Christ. Three of these sons—James … Simon, and Judas—are not to be confused with three of the Twelve by the same names.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1983-). The Bible knowledge commentary : An exposition of the scriptures (Mt 13:53–58). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

I don't trust much of anything coming out of Dallas Theological Seminary, as they produce the most anti-Catholic graduates I've seen. That being said the commentary provides even less proof than I have provided, and are for the most part simply throwing out statements. As does the commentary below this one.

What were these “brethren” and “sisters” to Jesus? Were they, First, His full brothers and sisters? or, Secondly, Were they His step-brothers and step-sisters, children of Joseph by a former marriage? or, Thirdly, Were they cousins, according to a common way of speaking among the Jews respecting persons of collateral descent? On this subject an immense deal has been written, nor are opinions yet by any means agreed. For the second opinion there is no ground but a vague tradition, arising probably from the wish for some such explanation. The first opinion undoubtedly suits the text best in all the places where the parties are certainly referred to (Mt 12:46; and its parallels, Mk 3:31; Lu 8:19; our present passage, and its parallels, Mk 6:3; Jn 2:12; Ac 1:14). But, in addition to other objections, many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own. Thus dubiously we prefer to leave this vexed question, encompassed as it is with difficulties. As to the names here mentioned, the first of them, “JAMES,” is afterwards called “the Lord’s brother” (see on Ga 1:19), but is perhaps not to be confounded with “James the son of Alphaeus,” one of the Twelve, though many think their identity beyond dispute. This question also is one of considerable difficulty, and not without importance; since the James who occupies so prominent a place in the Church of Jerusalem, in the latter part of the Acts, was apparently the apostle, but is by many regarded as “the Lord’s brother,” while others think their identity best suits all the statements. The second of those here named,“JOSES” (or Joseph), must not be confounded with “Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus”(Ac 1:23); and the third here named, “SIMON,” is not to be confounded with Simon the Kananite or Zealot (see on Mt 10:4). These three are nowhere else mentioned in the New Testament. The fourth and last-named, “JUDAS,” can hardly be identical with the apostle of that name—though the brothers of both were of the name of “James”—nor (unless the two be identical, was this Judas) with the author of the catholic Epistle so called.

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. (1997). A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Mt 13:56). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

So instead of using the same excuse you people always use by saying it is "just me" and no one else believes it. A little study might help prevent you from sticking your foot in your mouth!

The reference I made was to no one here, meaning no one else on this board not the entire world. The fact that you had to go to a commentary by someone from the Dallas Theological Seminary speaks volumes to me. Heck I can go to commentaries and find proof as well. From the Haydock Commentary:

His brethren. These were the children of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, sister of our blessed Lady; (Matthew xxviii. 56.; John xix. 25.) and therefore, according to the usual style of the Scripture, they were called brethren, that is, near relations to our Saviour.

Or heres one from John Wesley's notes on the Bible:

The carpenter's son - The Greek, word means, one that works either in wood, iron, or stone. His brethren - Our kinsmen. They were the sons of Mary, sister to the virgin, and wife of Cleophas or Alpheus. James - Styled by St. Paul also, the Lord's brother, Gal 1:19. Simon - Surnamed the Canaanite.

why do you think it was not hotly debated in the NT church. not mentioned by paul or peter or james or jude? because it was not something the church discussed or even pondered. it was not a doctrine of the church, or the apostles would have made it clear in their letters to us what we are to believe, so we could be instructed by God the truth of his word.

That is of course thoroughly debatable as the Early Church Father, some of them disciples of the Apostles, speak of the perpetual virginity.

 

[SantoSubito]

the whole problem with your line of reasoning is it proves nothing.

the fact remains, even though it may not mean blood brothers. it more than likely can exactly mean blood brothers. even if it is only a 50/50 chance that it means blood,m and not just a plain relative other than literal brother. that 50 % chance that it is blood brothers prove that your whole line of reasoning is flawed at best. and is no proof at all. it is based on assumptions not facts.

Technically considering the word is equally likely to be used for cousins, brothers, and friends, there is a 1 in 3 chance that it could mean blood brothers (which is doubtful considering the previous identifications of these mens mother). You also fail to notice that your argument against me is even more shaky than mine, since it relies entirely on the question, "What if it's a different (name)".

 

[HearOhIsreal]

Matthew 12
47Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 48But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

Well my friend. That would be a heresy. You see that was tried before. The jews when they returned from Babylonian captivity wanted to make sure the heresies of their fathers which caused them to be captured by babylon did not happen again. So they wrote a bunch of laws and books which they considered equal with scripture. and inspired By God. They had good intentions, the problem is God already gave them what they needed. The law and prophets. They however, did not have faith that was enough. why? They did not trust God and his word.

Amazingly, when Isreal was dispersed, and this new entity came in its place in the name of the Church. Satan used the same tactic with them. And the end result is the same. People hold the writings of men over the inspired word of God.

God does not need men to refute heresies. He took care of that with his word. There is adequate references in scripture which would refute both of those heresies. But man did not trust God. so decided to take it on their own. their intentions might have been good. But like the jews. the end result is devastating.

It also allowed the state, which was about the make christianity a state religion, and thus offend all pagan people (which were the majority) and force them to worship the christian God, prevent a mass opposition, and possible chaos by adding pegan ritual like the "mother of God" into Christian writings.

I don;t expect you to see this. You are free to see what you want. God does not force us to believe anything, like the jews did, and your church did for hundreds of years. I am just explaining why I can't believe it/ and you have done nothing to show me otherwise. Like Christ, and the apostles after him. I do Trust God. I do trust his word. and I trust the fact that God knows enough that he answered all heresies that would ever happen in his given word. and he does not need mens help.

You hold the word of men over the Word of God, for you believe that ordinary men like yourself can teach and understand the Scriptures, but the teaching is that not all can teach. (James 3).

Jas 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.


You and I may be judged with greater strictness, are you sure you are teaching the Truth? I know that I am, for the Ground and Pillar of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15) not the Bible. The Bible has no authenticity without the Church, and we cannot understand them fully without the Church.

The bible does say it. just not in those exact words

paul states this,

Romans 15:4
For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

did he say we have hope through the church?

Galatians 3:22
But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

does it say the church has determined all are under sin, and that the church might give the promise?

2 Timothy 3:15
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Does it say the church made him wise for salvation? I did not think so.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
+

Did it say the church is able to do all these things?

According to this, scripture is completely able to;

reproof: or censur all false doctrins and teachings.
Correction. Correct us in our thinking. Correct us in our actions. etc etc
Doctrine. All doctrines God desires us to know is readily available in Scripture.
Instruction in righteousness. Anything we need to know is foiund in scripture,

and what does paul tell us in his word this will do for every one of us?

2 Timothy 3:17
that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Does it say the church will do this? If Scripture can answer all my questions, Refute all heresies. And tell me all I need to know to live a righteous life. and can make me wise (help me know how to be ) for salvation. And make me COMPLETE in God and more than adequately equipped for every good work God has created me to do. Then what should I think about a church who states this is not true, and I should listen to them, and their "added" writings which they hold above or equal to scripture. and in doing so stating that according to them Paul lied. and scripture is not able to do all these things.

again, believe what you want, but I can't believe that way when Paul tells me otherwise!.

It is not arrogant my friend. Actually it is arrogant to say God needs our help. and thew word he spent all those years writting is not complete. and can not do what Paul tells us in timothy it can and will do.

Again, The jews made the mistake of making the writings of men not scripture equal with scripture. Why should I make the same mistake and not learn from the mistakes of History. And trust God that he knows all things that will happen, and in doing so, he gave us what we need in his word, and does not need men to help him.

The Scriptures do not tell us that Salvation is through reading a book. 2 Timothy 3:16, though is says, "2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

It does not say that ONLY Scriptures are what we must live by. Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.


The ironic thing about Sola Scriptura is that it cannot make apparent the absolute Truth about what the Bible says and for this reason everybody thinks they can understand it. We have SO many divisions in the body of Christ because of this harmful teaching, it brings nothing but division and not unity. You see so many people argue on this site and on the internet about what the Bible means and about proper interpretation. They just cannot come to the "Unity of the Faith" (Eph 4:13) because they all are wise in their own eyes about the Text Itself. This is the plague of Protestantism. It is the rot of the Reformers. It is the Babel come to make us all confused about what the Bible really means. The same goes for the many different translations ("biases" ) which make us more confused, more divided, and less united. Doctrinal Truths of the Bible are all relative. "The Truth is what I find it to be, by the 'Holy Spirit' ", thus say all of the deluded Protestants who do not believe the inspired interpreters of Holy Scriptures which have been instituted by the Church. For it was first the Apostles who were made authorized teachers of the Scriptures by Christ Himself....but all of these people who think they know the Scriptures, by whom were they given authority?
Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,



We have Christians nowadays who teach that you don't need holy Baptism in order to be saved... What?! This is totally contrary to Scripture!

2Pe_3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.


This shows the rot of Sola Scriptura.

Your not thinking,

God can not die, did Jesus die?
God does not need help to do a miracle. Did Jesus need help
God knows all things. Why did jesus need taught?
God .....

Again, think about what your saying.

yes, Jesus was God while he was here. He always was. But he left his diety and all his attributes which made him God behind. Took the form of man, and in this paid the penalty for our sin.


what part of "God can not die" do you not understand?

lol. So when I am saved my body will stop suffering? stop getting old, and live forever? This body will die, it will return to dust. It is my spirit which needs saved. My body is already doomed. I don't care what a heretic almost 2000 years believed. I care about reality.
Paul says in a moment of time, we will be changed. we will be given NEW BODIES. we will not keep our old ones.
again, if you would just think about some of the things you are saying. you might see the flaw in the doctrines.

Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. The body is the temple of the holy spirit. You want to believe that your body is evil well its not. That is blasphemy. That is imputing an evil to nature, evil is not to be imputed to nature. Now there is an evil fallen nature, but it has no substantive existence being that evil is non-existent itself. The exact same bodies that you and I have right now will be resurrected because that was what happened to Christ.

You said,

"yes, Jesus was God while he was here. He always was. But he left his diety and all his attributes which made him God behind. Took the form of man, and in this paid the penalty for our sin."


If this is true, then how can Jesus save our bodies? He can't. Our bodies are the Temple of the Holy Spirit,

1Co 3:16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you?
1Co 3:17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, and you are that temple.


We will be raised with the same bodies.

Wow. So the sameritan woman who spoke to Christ in John 4 could not have knows scripture because it was not given to her? So Timothy could not have known scripture from birth because it was not given to him? So david could not comment on scripture and study it because it was not given to him? Do you understand you just offended God by saying he is not capable fo doing what he promised to do?

Scripture was readily available to all men, even if they had to go to a place to read it. If not. all these men in scripture who knew it would not be able to know it. And people would not take Pauls writings, as peter said, and misinterpret it.

Yes you do take credit. you take it away from God. God does not need money. Look at the money he collected from the churches to help the christians in jerusalem because the jews took their property. Took everything they had, because they believed in Christ.



I did not say men are useless. I said men are fallible. And that only scripture can be trusted. History proves this. History proves men want to take credit and not give it to God. The jews did. and the romans did. They are brothers.

Yet paul said scripture is fully able to make man complete in God and furnish hium for ALL good works. and is completley able to refute all heresies. Not the church. Thus the church, which is the ground and pillar. must be founded on Scripture and Scripture alone, because the church can not make us complete. Only Scripture can.
2 Timothy 3:15
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


So Paul is a liar?

And this will only happen if we study the word. for it is the words of God which as Jesus said, Makes us clean, Saves us, Justifies us, and makes us complete.

Eph 1: 13-14
13 In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who[a] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.


We can't "hear the word" without scripture to tell us what that word is. We can't trust the word. or any entity that calls itself the teacher of the word (church) without the word which reproofs and corrects and instructs us which doctrine and church teaches truth from God.





God did not teach a gospel of works, he taught a gospel of faith. We are saved today the same way abraham was. There are no sacramental system of salvation. That is a pagan belief, not from God.

Again believe what you want. I must take what God says through scripture. And he does not say what your church says.

Rev_22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

 

[StephenDC]

many of the best interpreters, thinking it in the last degree improbable that our Lord, when hanging on the cross, would have committed His mother to John if He had had full brothers of His own then alive, prefer the third opinion; although, on the other hand, it is not to be doubted that our Lord might have good reasons for entrusting the guardianship of His doubly widowed mother to the beloved disciple in preference even to full brothers of His own.

Interesting. To what is he referring when he says "our Lord might have good reasons ... in preference even to full brothers of His own"?

 

[Grandpa]

You hold the word of men over the Word of God, for you believe that ordinary men like yourself can teach and understand the Scriptures, but the teaching is that not all can teach. (James 3).

Jas 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.


You and I may be judged with greater strictness, are you sure you are teaching the Truth? I know that I am, for the Ground and Pillar of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15) not the Bible. The Bible has no authenticity without the Church, and we cannot understand them fully without the Church.

Its strange that you would say we hold the word of men over the Word of God when it is us that tell you how much more important the bible is than your Tradition. The sad thing is you have attempted to replace God with your church and its church fathers. The bible is the Truth of Gods Word. Your church is just doctrines of men. Your church is doctrines of men that you hold more dear than the Truth of Gods Word written in the bible.

The ironic thing about Sola Scriptura is that it cannot make apparent the absolute Truth about what the Bible says and for this reason everybody thinks they can understand it. We have SO many divisions in the body of Christ because of this harmful teaching, it brings nothing but division and not unity. You see so many people argue on this site and on the internet about what the Bible means and about proper interpretation. They just cannot come to the "Unity of the Faith" (Eph 4:13) because they all are wise in their own eyes about the Text Itself. This is the plague of Protestantism. It is the rot of the Reformers. It is the Babel come to make us all confused about what the Bible really means. The same goes for the many different translations ("biases" ) which make us more confused, more divided, and less united. Doctrinal Truths of the Bible are all relative. "The Truth is what I find it to be, by the 'Holy Spirit' ", thus say all of the deluded Protestants who do not believe the inspired interpreters of Holy Scriptures which have been instituted by the Church. For it was first the Apostles who were made authorized teachers of the Scriptures by Christ Himself....but all of these people who think they know the Scriptures, by whom were they given authority?
Luk_24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

The Lord shows us what the scriptures mean. Not the church. Not inspired interpreters. Only the Lord.

This strategy of men to try and control mens thoughts and minds through religion has been tried lots of times. It is an obvious stumbling block. Go talk to a Jew who goes to synagogue about the Pillar and Ground of the Truth and how your church is the One True Church. Then you will start to see our point of view. Talk to a Jehovahs Witness about the One True Church, or a Mormon, or one of the other churches that think like you do that they are the One True Church, the Pillar and Ground of the truth...

We have Christians nowadays who teach that you don't need holy Baptism in order to be saved... What?! This is totally contrary to Scripture!

2Pe_3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.


This shows the rot of Sola Scriptura.

Do you mean baptised in water? Are you sure that baptism in water is absolutely needed in order to be saved? Are you sure that is what scripture states?

I'm not sure. I was baptised in water because that is what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Not because I thought it would save me. It seems like an un-scriptural idea because the bible says we are not saved by works, lest any boast. Baptism would seem like a requirement that men could fulfill.

Jesus was God manifested in the flesh. The body is the temple of the holy spirit. You want to believe that your body is evil well its not. That is blasphemy. That is imputing an evil to nature, evil is not to be imputed to nature. Now there is an evil fallen nature, but it has no substantive existence being that evil is non-existent itself. The exact same bodies that you and I have right now will be resurrected because that was what happened to Christ.

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

[StMichaelTheArchangel]

[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Its strange that you would say we hold the word of men over the Word of God when it is us that tell you how much more important the bible is than your Tradition. The sad thing is you have attempted to replace God with your church and its church fathers. The bible is the Truth of Gods Word. Your church is just doctrines of men. Your church is doctrines of men that you hold more dear than the Truth of Gods Word written in the bible.

The Lord shows us what the scriptures mean. Not the church. Not inspired interpreters. Only the Lord.

This strategy of men to try and control mens thoughts and minds through religion has been tried lots of times. It is an obvious stumbling block. Go talk to a Jew who goes to synagogue about the Pillar and Ground of the Truth and how your church is the One True Church. Then you will start to see our point of view. Talk to a Jehovahs Witness about the One True Church, or a Mormon, or one of the other churches that think like you do that they are the One True Church, the Pillar and Ground of the truth...

You claim to follow Bible Alone, but If it is the Lord who shows you what the Scriptures mean then why did not the text say, "And he opens YOUR understanding, that YOU may understand the Scriptures"? Luke 24:45
Notice that the real text is talking about the APOSTLES of the Lord and not anybody else (like you or me). The New Testament Scriptures are not written so that anyone can pick it up and think of it as referring to ones own self. This is because the Spiritual Stature of the Apostles and Christians of the 1st Century was much greater and different than us Christians today, and they had the Power of God. For example, for you and other Protestant Christians to think that first John 2:27, "ye need not that any man teach you:" is referring specifically to you is just plain self delusional and conceited. Its arrogant.

Its like you are so deluded you actually believe that all of the New Testament Letters are specifically talking about you and to you in every single point... but there is NO PROOF of this. The Letter of John is being read to the 1st Century Church who DIFFERENT THAN US and were WAY more spiritual and holy and we are today.

Sola Scriptura is defeated by itself.

Do you mean baptised in water? Are you sure that baptism in water is absolutely needed in order to be saved? Are you sure that is what scripture states?

I'm not sure. I was baptised in water because that is what the Lord Jesus Christ did. Not because I thought it would save me. It seems like an un-scriptural idea because the bible says we are not saved by works, lest any boast. Baptism would seem like a requirement that men could fulfill.

Absolutely we must be baptized in water, that IS what the Scripture states. "WATER", it says, "And the SPIRIT", not SPIRIT only, but WATER and SPIRIT.
Do you need to read the text again?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.



You claim to follow Bible Alone when in fact you don't. Sola Fide (Faith Alone) was created by Martin Luther and the Reformers in the 16th Century and is not in the Bible.
When the glorious Apostle Paul was talking about "works", 90% of the time he was referring to Works of the Old Testament Law, not works which all Christians are commanded to do (like the Commandments of Christ).
Jesus Himself said,

Mat_16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

You claim that you follow the Scriptures yet you do not therefore, it is you who hold on to the traditions of men and not I or my holy Church.

Mar_7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, (Water Baptism, etc) that ye may keep your own tradition. (Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura)

Psalm 51
1Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions.

2Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.
4Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest.
5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
6Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom.
7Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
8Make me to hear joy and gladness; that the bones which thou hast broken may rejoice.
9Hide thy face from my sins, and blot out all mine iniquities.
10Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.
11Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.
12Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.
13Then will I teach transgressors thy ways; and sinners shall be converted unto thee.
14Deliver me from bloodguiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation: and my tongue shall sing aloud of thy righteousness.
15O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall shew forth thy praise.
16For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. 17The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

5Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

This is proof of what, that our bodies are evil? What utter blasphemy. God made man in His own image and he made man "very good" (Genesis 2). Through the fall though, evil has taken its abode in our bodies - and this is exactly why Jesus took on a body and died in a body. He, the entire Christ, became a body and a soul of man to save our body and our souls. He assumed our essence and our nature to destroy sin in our bodies and souls.

Do you not hear the Scriptures? They teach us that we shall appear before Christ IN OUR BODIES WHICH WE HAVE NOW, not a different body. This same body will be resurrected, we will not have a "magical swap of bodies" at the resurrection.


2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.



This is Gnostic Hersesy you guys are teaching, for they also believed that the body was evil but that only the soul was good. They taught that the body is a prison for the soul and that the body had to be destroyed through various evil methods. These methods involved extreme debauchery or extreme suffering. This is what they believed, that the body was evil but the souls was good.

But what saith the Scriptures?

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?



Can you guys understand this or do you want to follow your own traditions rather than the word of God?

 

[Grandpa]

You claim to follow Bible Alone, but If it is the Lord who shows you what the Scriptures mean then why did not the text say, "And he opens YOUR understanding, that YOU may understand the Scriptures"? Luke 24:45
Notice that the real text is talking about the APOSTLES of the Lord and not anybody else (like you or me). The New Testament Scriptures are not written so that anyone can pick it up and think of it as referring to ones own self. This is because the Spiritual Stature of the Apostles and Christians of the 1st Century was much greater and different than us Christians today, and they had the Power of God. For example, for you and other Protestant Christians to think that first John 2:27, "ye need not that any man teach you:" is referring specifically to you is just plain self delusional and conceited. Its arrogant.

Its like you are so deluded you actually believe that all of the New Testament Letters are specifically talking about you and to you in every single point... but there is NO PROOF of this. The Letter of John is being read to the 1st Century Church who DIFFERENT THAN US and were WAY more spiritual and holy and we are today.

Sola Scriptura is defeated by itself.

If the Lord opened their understanding of the scriptures why would you think He would not open mine as well? Do you think that the Lord loved the Apostles but "protestants" not so much?

I believe that the bible is written specifically for each person and not just popes.

Absolutely we must be baptized in water, that IS what the Scripture states. "WATER", it says, "And the SPIRIT", not SPIRIT only, but WATER and SPIRIT.
Do you need to read the text again?

Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and of Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

LoL. You think born of water means being baptized by men?

You claim to follow Bible Alone when in fact you don't. Sola Fide (Faith Alone) was created by Martin Luther and the Reformers in the 16th Century and is not in the Bible.
When the glorious Apostle Paul was talking about "works", 90% of the time he was referring to Works of the Old Testament Law, not works which all Christians are commanded to do (like the Commandments of Christ).
Jesus Himself said,

Mat_16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Its in the bible over and over that we are saved by faith. It is by Grace we are saved through Christ, and not of works lest any boast.

I don't claim to follow Luther or any other men. I say I read the bible and the Lord opens my understanding.

Didn't Luther believe that Mary was a forever-virgin? I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't believe that.

You claim that you follow the Scriptures yet you do not therefore, it is you who hold on to the traditions of men and not I or my holy Church.

Mar_7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, (Water Baptism, etc) that ye may keep your own tradition. (Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura)

I still am not sure that being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit means for men to dunk other men in water and there you go, you've been baptized... Glad we got THAT requirement out of the way, now lets check off some of the other ones...

I think it means something more than that.

This is proof of what, that our bodies are evil? What utter blasphemy. God made man in His own image and he made man "very good" (Genesis 2). Through the fall though, evil has taken its abode in our bodies - and this is exactly why Jesus took on a body and died in a body. He, the entire Christ, became a body and a soul of man to save our body and our souls. He assumed our essence and our nature to destroy sin in our bodies and souls.

Do you not hear the Scriptures? They teach us that we shall appear before Christ IN OUR BODIES WHICH WE HAVE NOW, not a different body. This same body will be resurrected, we will not have a "magical swap of bodies" at the resurrection.


2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

I know that there is going to be something we agree on, even if just by accident. This isn't one of those times...

That verse is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to teach. It does not say that a man appears in his body before the Lord. It specifically says a man will not appear in front of the Lord in his body but that he will recieve things done in his body, according to what he did in that body.

Theres a verse I remember that says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

There is another verse I remember that says that the flesh is enmity with the spirit. And we know God is spirit.

This is Gnostic Hersesy you guys are teaching, for they also believed that the body was evil but that only the soul was good. They taught that the body is a prison for the soul and that the body had to be destroyed through various evil methods. These methods involved extreme debauchery or extreme suffering. This is what they believed, that the body was evil but the souls was good.

But what saith the Scriptures?

1Co 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?



Can you guys understand this or do you want to follow your own traditions rather than the word of God?

I don't believe the body or soul is good. Where in the bible does it say our bodies or our souls are good?

I thought Psalm 51 explained it perfectly but I will try to expound.

We were born sinful. We need the Lord to cleanse us from this sin. He needs to cleanse our bodies and our souls in order for us to be temples of the Holy Spirit.

It is not something we get from our church, or from the pope, or from the bathtub. It is from the Lord. We need to go directly to Him and ask for cleansing and forgiveness. We can only understand this through His Word.

 

[dscherck]

If the Lord opened their understanding of the scriptures why would you think He would not open mine as well? Do you think that the Lord loved the Apostles but "protestants" not so much?

I believe that the bible is written specifically for each person and not just popes.

You do realize that StMichaelTheArchangel is Eastern Orthodox and doesn't really support the papacy. That said, it's not that the Lord loves the Apostles more, or Protestant Christians less. He loves us all, even those who curse His name and commit horrifying crimes. He loves each and every single person on Earth equally. And even if He could die over and over again for each person's individual sins, He'd be willing to do so and would think it a small price to pay for the sake of His love for us.

That said, loving each of us equally doesn't mean that each one of us has the same role or understanding of the Scriptures. If that were the case then there would be no arguments over things like infant baptism, leavened or unleavened communion bread, etc... We need to realize that just like the Ethiopian eunuch, we cannot fully comprehend the gospel or the Scriptures without someone to guide us.

LoL. You think born of water means being baptized by men?

And you don't? The apostles certainly taught so. Notice how even Paul, who was chosen directly by an appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ, was baptized in water before beginning his ministry.

Its in the bible over and over that we are saved by faith. It is by Grace we are saved through Christ, and not of works lest any boast.

And the apostle James warns us that faith without works is dead. So apparently works are important in the process of salvation.

I don't claim to follow Luther or any other men. I say I read the bible and the Lord opens my understanding.

Didn't Luther believe that Mary was a forever-virgin? I thought I made it pretty clear that I don't believe that.

And how should we determine who is correct when two interpret the bible completely differently? Why should we trust your interpretation of the Scriptures over RoboOp's? Or SantoSubito's? Or StephenDC's interpretation? How can you be so sure that your interpretation is correct?

I still am not sure that being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit means for men to dunk other men in water and there you go, you've been baptized... Glad we got THAT requirement out of the way, now lets check off some of the other ones...
I think it means something more than that.

The Scriptures and the teachings of Our Lord are pretty clear. He commanded the apostles to go out and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He also instituted communion, and gave the apostles the authority to bind and loose the sins of men.

I know that there is going to be something we agree on, even if just by accident. This isn't one of those times...

Well, despite us disagreeing with you on a lot of things, I do know that you love the Lord and are doing your best to serve Him. We just disagree on how to do that properly. But we do definitely agree that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords.

That verse is saying the exact opposite of what you are trying to teach. It does not say that a man appears in his body before the Lord. It specifically says a man will not appear in front of the Lord in his body but that he will receive things done in his body, according to what he did in that body.

Theres a verse I remember that says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.

There is another verse I remember that says that the flesh is enmity with the spirit. And we know God is spirit.

2 Cor. 5:8 & Romans 8:7 are the two verses you're thinking of.

I don't believe the body or soul is good. Where in the bible does it say our bodies or our souls are good?

Go back and reread Genesis chapter 1. Notice how after every instance of creation, from the seas, the land, the animals, etc. God pronounces it "good". And notice how after God creates man, He looks and says not just "good" but "very good". Man is a combination of body AND soul. And this creation is told to be "very good" by God.

SIZE=2]I thought Psalm 51 explained it perfectly but I will try to expound.[/SIZE]

We were born sinful. We need the Lord to cleanse us from this sin. He needs to cleanse our bodies and our souls in order for us to be temples of the Holy Spirit.

It is not something we get from our church, or from the pope, or from the bathtub. It is from the Lord. We need to go directly to Him and ask for cleansing and forgiveness. We can only understand this through His Word.

We do agree here that we need cleansing. We just disagree on how we get cleansed. For us Catholics/Orthodox, we put our faith in Christ's Church and in the authority He invested in His apostles and their successors. He gave men the authority to bind and loose sin in His name. We see in this promise and inference that in order to know what sins to bind and which sins to loose, the apostle (and their successors) would need to know what sins we have committed. Thus, the practice of confession to a priest. When I was in catechism class prior to being received into the Catholic Church, the teachers would emphasize that while we are talking to a priest, the forgiveness comes to us from Jesus. The priest is there merely as a witness, but he acts only through the authority given to him by Christ the Lord. It isn't the priest who forgives us, confession to the priest is merely the method Christ chooses to forgive us through.

 

[Snackersmom]

But we do definitely agree that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords.

I sincerely hope that we can ALL agree with that. He who unites us is SO much greater than the doctrinal differences that divide us......... It is by His sacrifice that I can say "Brother/Sister to ANYONE who believes in Him as their Savior

 

[PopClick]

Aww, StMichaelTheArchangel, you ignored my last post! I was really looking forward to your response, too.

In case you missed it, here's a link

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Technically considering the word is equally likely to be used for cousins, brothers, and friends, there is a 1 in 3 chance that it could mean blood brothers (which is doubtful considering the previous identifications of these mens mother).

where do you get 1 in 3?? it is nice how you pic numbers out of the air.. and you have not identified anyone. again, all you have done is stated opinion on who these men are which can not be verified with facts. i even proved to you I was not the only one who believed this. and as usual you did not admit your mistake.

You also fail to notice that your argument against me is even more shaky than mine, since it relies entirely on the question, "What if it's a different (name)".

again your opinion based not on fact but on possibilities.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You hold the word of men over the Word of God, for you believe that ordinary men like yourself can teach and understand the Scriptures, but the teaching is that not all can teach. (James 3).

Jas 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.

1. I never claimed to be teaching anything. I even admited and spoke on this matter a few times. I am giving my opinion. This is a bible discussion forum where we discuss our beliefs and why we believe the way we do.
2. The fact you can't even admit I never stated to be teaching. You can't admit I have said over and over I could care less what you think. And can't answer basic questions, but just stick to ad hominem attacks means we can no longer discuss anything.

Your pride runs far to deep my friend. No one can discuss anything wiht you because if you do not agree with them. instead of explaining why or how, you just go off on tangents of "we are the only church", "we have the only inspired teachers" and "who gave you the right to teach anyone, only we have been given this honor of truth" Which is exactly what the Jewish religious leaders said to Christ, when he apposed their sacramental, traditional belief system.
If you don't want to be compared to the Jews, stop acting like them!

You and I may be judged with greater strictness, are you sure you are teaching the Truth? I know that I am, for the Ground and Pillar of the Truth is the Church (1 Timothy 3:15) not the Bible. The Bible has no authenticity without the Church, and we cannot understand them fully without the Church.

I rest my case!

The Scriptures do not tell us that Salvation is through reading a book. 2 Timothy 3:16, though is says, "2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

It does not say that ONLY Scriptures are what we must live by. Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible.

If Paul tells us scripture can tell us ALL these things. Then it most certainly does say that it is all we need. And paul also said we are to use this same scripture to test ALL doctrines, to see if they are from God or not. How can we know who is the right church and who is teaching truth if we do not use Gods guideline? We can't! We are then left to the whims of men, and tossed to and fro with every idle doctrine. Sorry if I refuse to listen to ANY MAN without testing what they say. I was commanded to by Paul. and no one can or should tell us different!


When you are ready to discuss scripture. let me know. If you just want to mock and belittle everyone that does not go to your church, have a nice life. I will pray for you!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Interesting. To what is he referring when he says "our Lord might have good reasons ... in preference even to full brothers of His own"?

what if his brothers did not believe in him? what if he did not think they would or could take good care of her, and keep her grounded in truth? there are many reasons i could think of. we may never know until we see him and ask him ourself.

jesus knew Jerusalem was going downhill. Paul collected money for the church and their members probably because jewish leaders ostracized anyone who believed in Christ. Some say before Jerusalem was destroyed, the leaders took peoples property, refused to allow them to work, and did other things to anyone who believed in Christ (much like the roman church did for many years) thus the church had to go underground and fend for itself. it is likely Christ knew john could take care of his mother during this time. of course we can not know, we were not there, and scripture is silent on the subject. This leads me to believe it is something God did not really care if we knew or not. Or held he would have told us in his word.

 

[Grandpa]

You do realize that StMichaelTheArchangel is Eastern Orthodox and doesn't really support the papacy. That said, it's not that the Lord loves the Apostles more, or Protestant Christians less. He loves us all, even those who curse His name and commit horrifying crimes. He loves each and every single person on Earth equally. And even if He could die over and over again for each person's individual sins, He'd be willing to do so and would think it a small price to pay for the sake of His love for us.

It doesn't matter to me if you call them popes or supreme priests or head bishops or whatever you want to call them. It boils down to the same thing.

If a person asks the Lord directly for wisdom and knowledge in the Revelation of Him, what do you think He will give that person? Will He say "I'm sorry, you belong to the wrong church, go join the right one and then we will talk"?

I'm not the kind of person that can be told what to believe. I have to find out for myself.

That said, loving each of us equally doesn't mean that each one of us has the same role or understanding of the Scriptures. If that were the case then there would be no arguments over things like infant baptism, leavened or unleavened communion bread, etc... We need to realize that just like the Ethiopian eunuch, we cannot fully comprehend the gospel or the Scriptures without someone to guide us.

We have the Apostles, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to guide us. I don't think we need more than that.

And you don't? The apostles certainly taught so. Notice how even Paul, who was chosen directly by an appearance of the Lord Jesus Christ, was baptized in water before beginning his ministry.

We don't have a choice when we are born, how we are born or where we are born. Teaching that being born of water means being dunked in water violates the meaning of the word Born.

And the apostle James warns us that faith without works is dead. So apparently works are important in the process of salvation.

No, works are not any part of the Salvation process. Works are only a way for other people to know if you are saved. Or if you are wondering about yourself, you can look at your works, your life.

And how should we determine who is correct when two interpret the bible completely differently? Why should we trust your interpretation of the Scriptures over RoboOp's? Or SantoSubito's? Or StephenDC's interpretation? How can you be so sure that your interpretation is correct?

The Holy Spirit guides us into all Truth. You won't know whose interpretation is correct until you go to the One who dispenses Wisdom and Knowledge liberally. The Truth is not the Truth simply because some men agree on it.

Well, despite us disagreeing with you on a lot of things, I do know that you love the Lord and are doing your best to serve Him. We just disagree on how to do that properly. But we do definitely agree that Jesus Christ is Lord of Lords.

I just knew we would agree on something...

Go back and reread Genesis chapter 1. Notice how after every instance of creation, from the seas, the land, the animals, etc. God pronounces it "good". And notice how after God creates man, He looks and says not just "good" but "very good". Man is a combination of body AND soul. And this creation is told to be "very good" by God.

I do know what God said in Genesis. But that was before the fall. Show in the bible that our bodies and our souls are good after the fall.

We do agree here that we need cleansing. We just disagree on how we get cleansed. For us Catholics/Orthodox, we put our faith in Christ's Church and in the authority He invested in His apostles and their successors. He gave men the authority to bind and loose sin in His name. We see in this promise and inference that in order to know what sins to bind and which sins to loose, the apostle (and their successors) would need to know what sins we have committed. Thus, the practice of confession to a priest. When I was in catechism class prior to being received into the Catholic Church, the teachers would emphasize that while we are talking to a priest, the forgiveness comes to us from Jesus. The priest is there merely as a witness, but he acts only through the authority given to him by Christ the Lord. It isn't the priest who forgives us, confession to the priest is merely the method Christ chooses to forgive us through.

I was cleansed and sanctified in a different way. The Lord Himself cleansed me. From reading the bible I didn't see that this happens any other way. I do not see the power in taking what Jesus does and giving it to men. Isn't that just pretending?

I disagree with most of the doctrines of the Catholic/Orthodox church that some of you have posted. While this may make me a heretic in the eyes of the Catholic/Orthodox church I do not think I am anything less in the eyes of the Lord.

Don't you find it odd that I value the opinion of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ above all others and yet I don't care one bit about the opinion of the Catholic/Orthodox church? I would think that if you were to try and follow Jesus that you would Hold His Word in the Bible as over all other opinions... What if men have, over time, twisted and contorted the scriptures meaning? How could you know, if you have been trained by these same men in how to read the scriptures? You can't. You have to choose which to have faith in. Gods word. Or mens teaching handed down through the generations.

The Lord has shown us what to have faith in. He has shown us the error of trusting mens teachings handed down through the generations. Thats what the Pharisees did, didn't they? They just KNEW they were the one True Church and that everyone else was in error. They even had scriptures that they thought proved that they were the pillar and ground of the truth. But were they?

 

[SantoSubito]

where do you get 1 in 3?? it is nice how you pic numbers out of the air.. and you have not identified anyone. again, all you have done is stated opinion on who these men are which can not be verified with facts. i even proved to you I was not the only one who believed this. and as usual you did not admit your mistake.

Because theres three options, and one of those options is favorable to you so you have 1 in 3.

again your opinion based not on fact but on possibilities.

Nah simple observation, other than the until argument your entire premise has revolved around this man being a different James and this man being a different Joseph, etc.