Posted on 09/21/2004 7:43:13 AM PDT by Tantumergo
Thank you for saving me the trouble, and acting as my straight man, I appreciate it. :)
That said, no one has, or can , prove otherwise.
Mary, the mother of Jesus is Mary, the mother of James and Joses, and she’s also referred to as “the other Mary” by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Or is it your claim that Mary left her son on the cross, and went home to make Matzo bread for the Passover? :)
Where was she at if not with Mary Magdalene?
JH :)
To all who live solo scriptura I plead to please consider that if there is no mediator between God and man (as is so frequently mis-interpreted), then your Bible is worthless because it *is* your mediator.
I appreciate the compliment.
I appreciate Biblical truth from whatever source it may come. I hope I would not change in that regard.
Hoping you have a bright day and evening too!
The angel Gabriel calls her "full of grace" and "blessed among women" but, according to you, the best the Holy Spirit can inspire about her is "the other Mary."
It's so ridiculous that you believe this.
SD
It's so ridiculous that you believe this.
It's funny, but I just searched 8 Bible translations, and the only reference I see where the term "full of grace" is used, was about Jesus and Stephen. What Bible translation did you find that in? :)
It's ridiculous to me that those who center their whole faith around Mary, can't account for her whereabouts when her Son was being crucified.
On the other hand, I respect and love her enough to know she would never leave her Son's side.
JH :)
To mere, here is the hardest Scriptural nut of all in the Sola Scriptura approach.
(As a foreword, I am truly not trying to be controversial here, although what I say certainly will raise energetic responses. This really is my "gut check" issue. I will say that I really made a good faith effort to apply BOTH Sola Scriptura AND Catholic doctrine, hoping that they would perfectly jibe. But they don't. And here is the place where it all comes apart for me.)
Jesus, in speaking of marriage, prohibits divorce and remarriage, except in the narrow case of lewd conduct. Then he says: Moses let you divorce because of the hardness of your hearts, but in the beginning it was not that way.
And right there is the problem.
Moses didn't just LET the Hebrews divorce. HE WROTE IT DOWN IN THE TORAH. So, right there, Jesus is taking a direct piece of the Pentateuch: all of those explicit descriptions of how to properly go about divorcing your wife and what one may or may not do, and saying that NONE of it is Holy. It is SCRIPTURAL, right there in the Pentateuch, but we are NOT to take that Scripture as divinely inspired, according to Jesus! Indeed, we are to take the Scripture itself, in the Torah itself, as NOTHING BUT ERRONEOUS HUMAN TRADITION!
So, there's Jesus calling the holiest part of the Scripture as it existed at his time (there being no New Testament yet at all, and all Jews consider the Torah to be THE holiest part of the Jewish Scriptures. No Jew now, or in Jesus' time either, gave Kings or Esther or the Psalms equal authority to the Torah. The Torah is THE LAW according to the Jews to whom Jesus was speaking. The LAW from God. And Jesus takes whole sections of the Torah itself, describing the proper procedure for divorce, and says flat out that they are contrary to the will of God.
In that passage, Jesus says that all Scripture is NOT the inspired word of God. Those parts of the Torah that refer to divorce Jesus says are nothing but bad human traditions.
Given that, coming from the mouth of God, I cannot accept the argument that Scripture alone will tell us all the answers. Because Scripture says that another part of Scripture is not from God...and that very part of Scripture was understood by the audience to be the HOLIEST part of Scripture!
Nobody has ever been able to work out this conundrum for me, although plenty of people have spit bile all over me for bringing it up. My purpose is not to be controversial for the sake of controversy. Truly, for me Jesus has thrown such a wrench into the reliability of Scripture as a rule to live by, that I think the only thing to do is to follow the rules of the Church that he founded. The best summary catechism in existence, I think, is the Didache of the Apostles, circa 70-80 AD. But that's another story.
I welcome anyone who wishes
God truly made an allowance. Jesus, seeing that He would be giving the Holy Spirit to indwell Christians, felt this allowance unnecessary.
SD
Good post and absolutely true!
The Church is the keeper of the Scriptures not the other way around.
I must admit, you have done a magnificant job at keeping the scriptures hid from your people.:)
By the way, what year was it that your Church decided it no longer trusted the Bible, because if I remember correctly, some of the Church fathers were sola scripturalist them selves.
What year did you outgrow the word of God?
JH :)
Those who refuse to adhere to the authority of the Church by privately interpreting passages, which is in direct contradiction of the Bible AND the Church, blind themselves and are be the accusers that suggest the Church hid the Scriptures.
SD Wrote: "I think the point is that God allowed divorce to be written into His Law for the people at the time, but Jesus had the authority to alter it.
God truly made an allowance. Jesus, seeing that He would be giving the Holy Spirit to indwell Christians, felt this allowance unnecessary."
This brings up three points:
(1) Jesus said no divorce (except for lewd conduct), and if divorce, no remarriage (even after divorce for lewd conduct). That's in, what?, 3 Gospels? It isn't unclear, not in the way that "I am" is unclear. ("I am", in Greek, is not the same thing as saying "I am God", in Greek.)
If a Christian church adheres strictly to the Bible, it must not permit divorce, except for lewd conduct (presumably by the OTHER spouse, although the Bible does not say that explicitly), and more importantly, it must never, ever, ever recognize a remarriage as legitimate, except of a widowed spouse. Because Jesus is explicit that the remarried spouse after divorce is an adulterer. Period. He does not add any qualifying language. Remarriage after divorce is absolutely, explicitly prohibited by God in all cases whatsoever: Jesus leaves no wiggle room at all. Ergo, any Church that permits any divorced person to remarry in that Church, or with the blessing of the Church, blesses adultery, and do so entirely based upon its own tradition, in direct defiance of the explicit word of God. That is what the Bible says.
(2) Even if God made the allowance, that is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that MOSES allowed you to divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. It does not say that God did. It says, rather, that it was not this way in the beginning. And Jesus says that this is the Jews' traditions, indeed, it is part of the tradition that Jesus condemns. He simply does not say that this was the Law, and now the law is changing. What he says was: That was NEVER the law of God, it was your tradition, from the moment it was written down by Moses, because of the hardness of your heart.
(3) And by saying that, Jesus points out that the holiest part of the existing Scriptures themselves: the Torah, is rife with human tradition, and must be read in light of that knowledge. Jesus says that you have to follow HIM here, and not the Torah, because the Torah records a mere tradition, inserted by Moses, that did not come from God.
If there is one such tradition, how do we know that there aren't more?
I don't think we do know that.
That is why, I think, Jesus did not leave a Bible, or any Scripture at all. He left a Church invested with authority.
Now, the decrees of the Apostles: the Apostles Creed and the Didache especially, tell us what the Apostles believed. One does not find there a bookish Church, but a Church focused on good moral behavior, almsgiving, and the eucharist.
The problem with reducing the faith to the Bible, I think, is that one risks turning the Bible itself into an idol.
Jesus' direct assault on the words of the Torah itself were a direct assault on the Jews' placing their faith in Scripture, demanding instead that they place primary faith in HIM as the mouthpiece of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Presumably we ought to do that too, and pay particular attention to what Jesus says.
***if there is no mediator between God and man ***
But, see, Jesus is the mediator, and the Bible is his word. Therefore, I will follow him and his word.
I have no doubt that you are a believer in Jesus, and that you are counting on his blood to remove all your sins. It is just that the church you are following adds to God's word, and I am afraid for those who follow them. Belive in the Bible, it is God's word. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us."
***But the Bible does not say that priests need to be unmarried. Indeed, it say that they can only be married once, and to one woman. Priestly celibacy is a disciplinary rule of the Roman Catholic Church, put in place because the Church was convinced, by bad experience, that Paul comments about divided focus was correct.***
Right, the Bible does not say that priest must be celebate, but the church adds to God's word and makes it so. There are way to many talented, God fearing men that need a wife that are being wasted by not being able to do their work for God.
I don't know if I agree with you that Jesus is saying that this was mere tradition, inserted by Moses. This makes it sound happenstance, and calls into question the inspiration of the Old Testament.
I think Jesus is simply saying "Moses" did this as a figure of speech, to contrast the revelation given to Moses against His new revelation. I think you are reading too much into the phraseology.
I agree with the rest of what you said. I am a Catholic.
SD
And just who made up that circular argument of the Church authority?
Jesus Himself condemned Church authority, but since your not encouraged to read the Bible and allow the Holy Spirit to use it in your life, you probably have no idea what I’m talking about, so I’ll show it to you if your allowed to read it.
Matthew 20:25-27 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
This same command is repeated in Mark 10:42-44, and Luke 22:25-26.
It's words of Christ such as these that your Church would just as soon you never read or ask for an explanation.
The Church is not a building or an organization as you have been taught, it's any group of people who are believers.
Each of us make up the church, and God no longer dwells in building made with hands, but in each believer.
Here are a few scriptures you probably have never read.
Acts 7:48 Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,
John 14:16-18 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Can we only learn from a teacher?
1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The anointing that John is referring to, is the receiving of the Holy Spirit when we’re born of God.
God never intended for His church to become a Walmart.
JH :)
SoothingDave wrote: "And by saying that, Jesus points out that the holiest part of the existing Scriptures themselves: the Torah, is rife with human tradition, and must be read in light of that knowledge. Jesus says that you have to follow HIM here, and not the Torah, because the Torah records a mere tradition, inserted by Moses, that did not come from God.
I don't know if I agree with you that Jesus is saying that this was mere tradition, inserted by Moses. This makes it sound happenstance, and calls into question the inspiration of the Old Testament.
I think Jesus is simply saying "Moses" did this as a figure of speech, to contrast the revelation given to Moses against His new revelation. I think you are reading too much into the phraseology.
I agree with the rest of what you said. I am a Catholic.
SD"
What I am doing is being a Sola Scripturalist, but adamantly refusing to add in ANY of the external traditions that have grown up around what this passage means and that passage means.
The Bible does not define what constitutes the Bible, for instance. Nor does it define what is Scripture and what is not Scripture. Nor does it say that Scripture alone is the only source of law.
I am applying literal Sola Scriptura, and being very, very hardminded about the literalism.
And in the process, I am finding that the Bible alone, without an interpretive hermeneutic, which is to say, a Tradition, tears at itself.
The Bible does not say that every word of the Bible is inspired by God. Yes, it says that Scripture is "God breathed", but it doesn't define what Scripture is, and what it is not. Only tradition does that. Jewish understanding of what Scripture was, and was not, certainly uses a different Tradition from all Christians. To all Jews, the Torah is the most authoritative part of Scripture. Most Christian traditions hold that every word of Scripture is as authoritative as every other word. But Scripture itself does not provide that hermeneutic. THAT is supplied by tradition alone. External. Not Biblical.
Same thing with "I am". I hate to get into an argument with PetroniusMaximus, because he's so sensible. But what I am trying to show with the I am business is that the literal words of the Bible, without some sort of external interpretive tradition, simply do not get you to "I am God". They MIGHT. But they don't HAVE to. To make them do that, you have to start adding in what everybody already knows from Church. But we know those things because of our respective traditions. The Bible itself, and what constitutes it and what doesn't, and what was the "textus receptus" is itself a Tradition.
That there are things in the Torah that were purely Jewish tradition and that Jesus struck down does not really call into question the divine inspiration of the Torah, no more than some of Paul's comments about the role of women, or Jude's citation to two apocryphal works, calls into question their divine inspiration. The Bible is indeed divinely inspired, but it does not come with an interpretive guide in any of its original languages as originally written. And most certainly the interpretive guides that appear in the footnotes and margins of every page of a modern study Bible are themselves the product of the various traditions of the translators. Stop reading the footnotes and read the text itself, without those traditional references, and you can come to different conclusions.
Also, Scripture directly contradicts itself.
Are good works necessary to salvation?
Jesus seems to say so. Paul says no. But James says that faith without works is dead.
Who wins? And why?
Each tradition has its answers, but if you rely directly on the text of the Bible, you do not get there.
Are you saved once and for all by accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior? Many say the Bible says that. It does not use those words anywhere. James says that faith without works is dead, in fact. Meaning that if you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, and don't follow up, you lose the salvation you gained. At least if you read James literally. Of course, Paul can be read to override James, but why is Paul's epistle superior in authority to James, the brother of Jesus and the head of the Church at Jerusalem? The Bible does not say that Paul is superior in authority, and the interpretation of Paul to override James is a tradition, not a literal reading of Scripture.
Scripture says, in 2 Maccabees, that prayers and offerings for the dead atone for their sins. That is not contradicted anywhere in Scripture. Yet some say this is not Scripture at all. On what authority? Jesus' generation had only the Septuagint, and 2 Maccabbees is in the Septuagint. Scripture does not say that 2 Maccabbees is not Scripture, and the early Church fathers and Councils said it was. Why is this not even read by some?
Does it matter if one is a member of a church that does not perfectly practice the Scriptures? Or is membership in such a church following the teachers of false doctrines? Jesus says in 3 Gospels that remarriage after divorce is adultery. Therefore, is any Church that allows divorce and then blesses remarriage Scriptural at all? Or is it false teaching, and therefore fruitless and useless?
Some have raised the objection that the celibate clergy is not directly demanded by the Scriptures. (They seem to place no weight on Jesus' and Paul's comments that celibacy is highly prized and holy, or in Paul's pragmatic arguments in favor of Scripture.) They argue, vigorously, that because it is not in the Scripture clearly and explicitly, it is sinful.
Fine.
Sunday is not in the Scripture. At all. One of the Ten Commandments says to keep the Sabbath holy - the SATURDAY sabbath. The Sabbath is relentlessly preached throughout the Bible. The Saturday Sabbath. The Bible never, ever, ever, ever, even once, authorizes Christians to change the Ten Commandments. But all (except the Adventists) adhere to the SUNDAY "Day of the Lord" and disregard the Ten Commandments and half of the Old Testament in doing so, with NOT ONE WORD of Scriptural authority in the New Testament. I do not hear anyone at all railing against THIS tradition on Scriptural basis. But if you are a Sola Scripturalist who does not keep the Saturday Sabbath, but who says Sunday is the holy day, and Saturday is dispensed with, you are illiterate and have made up a tradition that directly defies the explicit word of God, with no biblical authority at all.
This is the problem I am aiming at.
The Scriptures are indeed good for instruction, but they don't carry a reader's guide. To understand what they are meant to mean requires an external hermeneutic: a tradition. It requires the grace of the Holy Spirit to guide the mind right. And to maintain the Christian Unity for which Jesus prayed, that means that it requires a source of AUTHORITY. Jesus didn't leave a leaderless, rudderless Church and a Bible Dispensary, he left a Church with a leader: Peter, and with Apostles, and then disciples, and then other charismatics in descending order of authority. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would cover those who invoked Him in His Name.
What I am trying to do is to sow confusion to SHOW confusion. The Bible does not interpret itself. If you read it literally, it contradicts itself AND it contradicts the practices of every Christian Church. Interpreting the Bible requires a hermeneutic, which is to say, a tradition. And the consequences of a hermeneutic without authority is dissension and division. That is why God left a Church, and not a Bible. The Church unites, the Bible, read outside the Church, becomes a tool to divide. Unfortunately, the only way to PROVE that is to be a hard-ass literalist with it, as I have been in a few places. This flummoxes the literalists...but sadly it also disturbs the faithful sheep. Satan tossed us a good curveball when he persuaded us that we could be our own priests if we just read the Bible. We can't.
***but why is Paul's epistle superior in authority to James, the brother of Jesus and the head of the Church at Jerusalem?***
But I thought you guys didn't believe that Jesus had any brothers, that they were just cousins, because Mary had to stay pure.
What I can tell you is your interpretation of what your Bible says contradicts what my Bible says.
Before Christ ascended into heaven, He built His Church and commanded the Apostles to teach the same things He TAUGHT - only with the help of the Holy Ghost.
How on earth do you think folks were saved before there was an official NT? Before there were enough Bibles to go around? Before folks were literate enough to read? - ANSWER: They were TAUGHT and still are because THATS what Jesus Christ commanded.
Private interpretation of Scripture is condemned - even in your Bible.
Saint Cleophas (First Century). Saint Cleophas was one of the greatest brothers and husbands and fathers and grandfathers who has ever been in the history of the world. His brother was Saint Joseph, the virginal spouse of the Blessed Virgin Mary. His wife was Saint Mary of Cleophas, whose feast day is April 9. Three of his sons, Saint Simon, Saint James the Less and Saint Jude--and two of his grandsons, Saint James the Greater and Saint John--were Apostles of Jesus. They are called in Holy Scripture, "the brethren of Our Lord." His daughter, Mary Salome, the mother of Saint James the Greater and Saint John, is also a saint. Her feast day is October 22. Still another son, Joseph Barsabas, who is called in Holy Scripture, "the Just," and who was one of the two nominated to take the place of the traitorous Judas Iscariot, is a saint and has a feast day on July 20. Saint Cleophas was one of the two disciples Our Lord met on the road to Emmaus on the day of His Resurrection, as we are told in the Gospel of Saint Luke, Chapter 24. Our Lord stopped to have supper with these two disciples. At the end of the meal Jesus blessed bread and gave them His Sacred Body to eat. And Saint Luke tells us that "they knew Him in the breaking of bread." Saint Cleophas was murdered by the Jews in the very house in which he had been host to Our Lord on the first Easter Sunday.
>>Indeed? In which verse?<<
I wuz kinda wondering where the bible tells us that Mary gave birth to other children?
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.