The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[Pelayo]

I do believe Mary was "Blessed". I also believe Mary was a normal wife and had other children. This, in no way, diminishes her blessedness. It is just a fact.

But the early Church fathers disagree. They were closer to the time why would they lie?

Origin
"The Book [the Protoevangelium] of James(written around AD 120) [records] that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honor of Mary in virginity to the end, so that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word . . . might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Spirit came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the firstfruit among men of the purity which consists in [perpetual] chastity, and Mary was among women. For it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity" (Commentary on Matthew 2:17 [A.D. 248]).

[RobbyS]

And what is that dear lad?

[OLD REGGIE]

Are you really saying Zechariah new about Jesus befor Mary was told? Where, in the Bible, did the Angel tell him about Jesus?

You are right. Mary was the first who heard the name Jesus. I probably wasn't paying enough attention to your exact question. I still don't know what that has to do with "Perpetual Virginity" but, if you think so, that is fine with me.

[Iowegian]

First of all thanks for your interesting reply, and it is not just the usual regurgitaded gobbledegook that some of the RC's post. Are you sure you're Catholic :-) But it does raise some questions and comments.

But the mid-term result of their sin was to dis-grace us as a people. That is - Adam & Eve essentially said "no" to God and we became unable to ever say "yes" to Him. Our very nature is in opposition to His design for us and to His law. We have not the grace to respond to His call (until Christ, of course). We are generated after Adam and receive that fallen nature.

Why is it impossible to say yes to God? Is this a Catholic doctrine or belief and is there Scriptural support. If it is true then all of us who are Christians would have to be forced into salvation and would require the most extreme hyper-Calvinist view of predestination and election.

So now we come to Mary. Many non-Catholics (and many Catholics) believe that the Catholic position is that it would be impossible for a sinful woman to bear a sinless creature, so Mary had to be sinless. This is not so (and is demonstrably false since it would require Mary's mother to also be sinless etc. etc. etc.) Mary need not be sinless, and in fact, she certainly had committed the same types of sins all of us do. She only needs to be free from the dis-gracing nature of original sin (the stain of Adam) so that it is possible for her to say "yes" to Christ.

Mary wouldn't need to be sinless or without "original sin" if the sinful nature were passed through the human father to the child (as I believe). What do you think of this possibilty? It doesn't violate Scripture, yet does preserve the very Biblical idea that all have sinned and have the sinful nature except one, Jesus, who had no human father.

[IMRight]

The point I am trying to make is that this person had a wonderfull promise that was on the verge of being realized and it effected his attitude in a major way

Very nicely put!

[OLD REGGIE]

But the early Church fathers disagree. They were closer to the time why would they lie?
------------------------------------------------------------

You probably didn't see this the first time I posted it so I will repeat.

Starting with Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI, "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."

Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4: ".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."

<**> Hmmmm! That's funny, Eusebius seems to agree with Clement.

Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5: "Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."

<**> Now Hegesippus was a first generation member of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus’ disciples and family. He knew the folks..... how could he have gotten so confused??

Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus: "These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx: "So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."

=================================

Would they lie?

[RobbyS]

And do you know when the court is valid? After all, Hitler established parrot courts. Were they "valid" to you?> You were asking why Catholics accept Augustine's opinion in one case but not on all others. It is because the Church has not adopted all his opinions.

[RobbyS]

The rest of the story is that James died and, soon afterwards, did the Jerusalem that Jesus and the Apostles knew, and any preeminance that the family of Jesus might have enjoyed as blood relatives. The Gospels and Acts make clear that Peter, not James, was the outstanding personality. Assuming that James was the true author of the Letter, he demonstrates gravity but no boldness or originality and is the inferior of either Peter or Paul in either respect: a figurehead but no prince.

[IMRight]

Why is it impossible to say yes to God? Is this a Catholic doctrine or belief and is there Scriptural support. If it is true then all of us who are Christians would have to be forced into salvation and would require the most extreme hyper-Calvinist view of predestination and election.

It is impossible for us to say "yes" to God in and of ourselves (but with Christ it is possible). And I believe that is less a Catholic belief than a Fundamentalist one (I'm not sure what a "hyper-Calvinist" is - the plain variety is scary enough :-) but they would probably remind you that your heart is "incurably wicked" or some such). Our nature is in total opposition to God. This is why we cannot save ourselves through "good works" done apart from Christ - because there is no such thing! No work has any merit (is in any real way "good"), if it is done from a motivation other than love for Him.

Mary wouldn't need to be sinless or without "original sin" if the sinful nature were passed through the human father to the child (as I believe). What do you think of this possibilty? It doesn't violate Scripture, yet does preserve the very Biblical idea that all have sinned and have the sinful nature except one, Jesus, who had no human father.

I don't particularly like the idea (although I think you may find RnMomof7 interested in it). For one thing. They're talking about being able to create life without any genetic material from a male (some kind of cloning offshoot where the child would have two mothers and no father). It appearently works. By your theory we would be creating heavenly children without the stain of original sin. The feminists will have a field day! :-)

Also, I have always thought that the "seed of the woman" refered to Christ because He was the only child born of a woman without a natural father (normally the bearer of the seed) and it would be the only case where ther might be a "seed of the woman". I have read some Hebrew scholars debate this point. If that is so, the rest of us receive the seed of Adam (and his fallen nature), Christ did not. He did not have any generations of the flesh for us to inherit, so we must be re-generated in the Spirit.

[mitch5501]

Thanks bro/sister...I'll take that as an amen! 8-)

Imagine what the effect of those great and exceeding promises might be when it begins to dawn on whichever generation it is that Jesus actually is coming in their lifetime....I litterally shudder to think!

Maybe in one way we should be glad that we cannot fully comprehend the glory to come and our place in it all...we might be prone to running around as if our hair were on fire! LOL!

Still....one good effect is that sooner or later there will be a generation that will really begin to "look up" and it won't just effect their attitude in a major way,it will have a very distinct impression on those around who don't know God.....they will find a lot of folks asking them "what is the reason for the hope that lieth within you?" they won't need to tell folks they have it,it will be written all over their faces.

God created us and He knows precicely what makes us tick.

grace and peace to you IMRight

God bless

[IMRight]

I should clarify a bit. By saying "yes" I mean responding to God's call to be in communion with him directly.

I don't mean that no person throughout Scripture ever answered affirmatively to God (of course Scripture is full of faithful servants). But non of them responded in a way that we can now accomplish by simply saying yes to Christ.

[mitch5501]

Do'h!..He also knows how to spell precisely.

[IMRight]

Imagine what the effect of those great and exceeding promises might be when it begins to dawn on whichever generation it is that Jesus actually is coming in their lifetime....I litterally shudder to think!

It need not be a generation. It is also true for each individual. Which is why I thought that portion of your post was so insighful.

Scripture often has multiple fulfillments. Many prophesies in Revelations appear to have an initial fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem around 70A.D. and "the number of the beast" has been tied by many scripture scholars to Caesar Nero. This does not mean that there is not a final fulfillment due at the end.

What is my point?
The long story of salvation history is not just about our past and distant future. It is also told out in the life of the individual Christian. You are created. You fall. Your sin causes Christ to suffer and die. You relive the life, death, burial & resurrection of Christ within your own person. And you WILL see Christ come again in your lifetime.

This is why the joyful officeworker preparing for a better place is you!

In His Name

[mitch5501]

"This is why the joyful officeworker preparing for a better place is you!"

WOOOHOOO!!! eeer..ahem...Amen.

"I go to prepare a place for you" ....what I want you to do is BELIEVE it....the rest will be history.

God bless

[Iowegian]

I don't mean that no person throughout Scripture ever answered affirmatively to God (of course Scripture is full of faithful servants). But non of them responded in a way that we can now accomplish by simply saying yes to Christ.

Yes, it does help a little to clarify what confused me about your statement and this is why it would requite extreme predestination, but I am still not sure what the last part of this means.

[Iowegian]

They're talking about being able to create life without any genetic material from a male (some kind of cloning offshoot where the child would have two mothers and no father). It appearently works.

But a clone would have the same nature as that which it was cloned from, that is, a sinful nature. Feminists? They all have (obviously) the same sinful nature themselves.

[JHavard]

Scripture often has multiple fulfillments. Many prophesies in Revelations appear to have an initial fulfillment in the destruction of Jerusalem around 70A.D. and "the number of the beast" has been tied by many scripture scholars to Caesar Nero. This does not mean that there is not a final fulfillment due at the end.

IMRight, I just ran your post #1613 through my secret catholic decoder ring, and it told me that you missed Mitch5501's whole point, he said that a man who knows his salvation is assured, lets the light from that joy and freedom shine so others see it, and want that same joy.
Mitch, correct me if I read this wrong.

IMRight, you said that you do not believe that the end of the age is necessarily near, and that a lot of the prophecy’s were already fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed, and therefore the end may not be near, but every man through his life cycle experiences the full plan of salvation by, life, sin, redemption, death, burial, and finally the resurrection, and this cycle repeats it's self with every birth, and life is kind of like a soul factory.
Is that a fair annalist of your post?

Have I been wrong in thinking you were a catholic? Because that is the exact teaching of the Prederist religion.

Please clarify this for me, are you Preterist, or Catholic, and if you are catholic, is that their belief?

[mitch5501]

"Mitch, correct me if I read this wrong."

Nope...you nailed it.

God bless and no arguing! 8-)

[JHavard]

Nope...you nailed it.

God bless and no arguing! 8-)

If I end the post with "God Bless" does that make it a friendly discussion? Lol (*g*)

[mitch5501]

"If I end the post with "God Bless" does that make it a friendly discussion?"

Well I expect we shouldn't say "God bless" unless we really mean it.Since we all here name the name of Jesus surely we could assume that to be the case.....

so...

Even if we we appeared to get a little "hot" during the post we could assume that the poster...by saying "God bless" has also realized this and has made an effort to end off on more brotherly terms.

How did that sound?

8-P < /numbskullery > LOL

oh...and God bless