It was a miracle.
Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
The Church cannot contradict Scriptures - ever. Were that the case, Christ would have never founded His Church, His kingdom here on earth. Certainly He could have commanded, "Go forth and tell folks to read, so that by private interpretation, they may be saved", but He chose to command them to "Go forth and teach" - which is what they did and still do.
Ignorance of the Bible is indeed ignorance of Christ, but our knowledge and beliefs of its contents derives from the teaching authority that Christ bestowed on His Church to define and explain certain things that are hard to be understood and wrested by many to their own destruction as 2Peter 3:16 plainly states. Thats one of the great things God did for us so that we all know which direction to travel heavenward together - not left to drift aimlessly scattered here and there.
But the church contradicts the Bible all the time. There are no scriptures that gives Mary the status that the church does. Mary is NOT Co-redemtrix, nor was she immaculately concieved, you are NOT to pray to Mary, etc, etc, etc. None of those can be found in the Bible. They are traditions of the church, not scripture. And if they are not in scripture, they are WRONG.
What other children?
It was a miracle.
Scripture tells us that Jesus commands us to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Do you eat his flesh and drink his blood or is your 'strict' reliance on Scripture applicable to only when you want to disparage the Mother of God?
Ted Turner playing a Catholic movie? Wow!
The Sunday sabbath is not in Scripture. It is an ancient tradition of the Church, nothing more. Is it "WRONG"?
By your definition, yes.
Monogamy is not in Scripture. Jesus does prohibit divorce, categorically, except in the case of adultery, but he does not prohibit a man from having more than one wife at a time. Nor does the Old Testament (adultery, under The Law, is a married woman having sexual relations with a man not her husband. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is not adultery under The Law; it is fornication, which also is not good, of course. Polygamy is neither adultery nor fornications.)
Christian monogamy is a Greco-Roman tradition of the Church, and not biblical at all. Is it, therefore, WRONG?
By contrast, divorce is categorically PROHIBITED by Jesus Christ in the Gospels, except in the narrow case of lewd conduct. (Irreconcilable differences are not "lewd conduct".) Practically every modern Church permits divorce, in direct and explicit defiance not just of Scripture in general (which generally allows it), but in specific defiance of the most authoritative part of all Scripture: the direct words of God Incarnate when he spoke on Earth. As if the underline the point, the absolute prohibition on divorce appears in more than one Gospel. Are all churches that permit divorce in direct defiance of the explicit words of God WRONG?
I would think that if the Scripture is the ONLY standard, then you are wrong if you keep the Sunday sabbath: the ONLY sabbath is on Saturday. And you are wrong if you doctrinally prohibit polygamy: Scripture permits it. And your Church directly defies the explicit Word of God, directly from the mouth of God, unfiltered by any prophet, if it allows divorce.
All of this would follow from the standard you have set.
Since all Christian Churches keep the Traditional Sunday sabbath and ignore the Scriptural Saturday sabbath, and keep the Greco-Roman rule of monogamy and ignore the Hebrew Bible rule permitting polygamy, and most shockingly of all, most permit divorce! I think that we skate out on very thin ice if we pretend that ANY Christian Church's practices are completely Biblical, or that ANY Christian Church does not substitute Tradition for the old Biblical rule.
Sunday, monogamy and divorce are but three examples.
And it only takes one counterexample to disprove a rule.
From another post...
***This statement must be capable of admitting exceptions, because we see his disciple/secretary St. Luke asserting the following: Both were RIGHTEOUS IN THE EYES OF GOD, OBSERVING ALL THE COMMANDMENTS AND ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESSLY." ***
But it is clear from the context that Luke doesn't mean they were "sinless" and therefore exempt from the passage in Romans because immediately he recounts the story of Zechariah's unbelief...
"And Zechariah said to the angel, "How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years." And the angel answered him, "I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news. And behold, you will be silent and unable to speak until the day that these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their time."
Luke 1:18-20
Zechariah was clearly punished because he "did not believe". He did something wrong and got rebuked for it by the angel. Lack of faith is a sin as Paul says here...
Romans 14:22
... For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
***If you want a precedent of a Saint who was sanctified from the womb...HE WILL BE FILLED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT EVEN FROM HIS MOTHER'S WOMB,***
Truly he was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb, and Jesus calls him the greatest of all those born of woman, but this didn't render him "sinless". If John were "sinless" then why would he appeal to Jesus...
"Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?""
Matt - 3:13-15
He recognized that he need to be baptized by Jesus.
I brought a cushion to Kneeling Vespers once. Does that count?
***According to Scripture, Job committed no sins***
Really?
Job 42
Then Job answered the LORD, and said... I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
"...repent in dust and ashes."
Only sinners repent.
***and the parents of John the Baptist also committed no sins (Luke 1).***
Again, not true. See post #169
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1222429/posts?page=169#169
***If Mary is the new Eve, then that would mean she is the bride of the New Adam, Jesus.***
Who is the Bride of Christ?
"For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."
The Church is the Bride of Christ.
Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church:
To say that Mary is the mother AND wife of Christ is something the NT writers would have considered immoral and scandeous beyond measure...
1 Corinthians 5
"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife."
Her children with her husband, Joseph.
Where in the Bible does it say that either Mary or Joseph had other children?
"While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." (Matt. 12:46,47) "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55). Unless you reply on some gnostic tradition, the plain reading of the text is that Mary and her other, natural children came to visit Jesus.
The text you posted refers to Jesus' brothers. Many biblical scholars have opined that the term brother can also mean cousin or close aquaintence. It can also be used as a term of endearment. For instance when I walk down the street and a homeless man says to me" "brother can you spare a dime", that doesn't make the man my natural brother.
So, back to what I origianlly asked you: can you provide a scriptural quote which refers to any other children of Mary or Joseph - not brothers of Jesus, but children of Mary or Joseph?
***I think that we skate out on very thin ice if we pretend that ANY Christian Church's practices are completely Biblical, or that ANY Christian Church does not substitute Tradition for the old Biblical rule. ***
That was EXACTLY my point. No church, including the Catholic church are perfectly Biblical.
Monogamy certainly is in scripture. God made Eve for Adam, not Eve and Sarah and Toni and Jane. This is the Biblical standard. Just because men in the Bible violated that does not mean it is ok. If so, I could kill my neighbor and take his wife (like David did).
Try finding ANY scripture that says to take more than one wife. You can't find any.
Romans 14:5-6 "One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord." Sunday worship is permitted by scripture.
Divorce is permitted, but not encouraged under Christ's mandate. I know if no Reformed, Conservative Church that permits divorce. Divorce happens, as one case in my own church is happening, but both parties are being counciled, prayed for, and encouraged to reconcile. If one of them continues to proceed with the divorce, then they will be disciplined by the church. It is not permitted, but sometimes we have to deal with it.
In short, I think you are wrong in your accusation, but right in your conclusion; the churches are run by men who are sinners, therefore, sin will enter the church. We need to be dilligent in routing the errors (as Paul told us to do in 1 Cor. 5), and the only basis we have to judge ourselves is scripture.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.