Posted on 02/12/2014 7:34:09 AM PST by GonzoII
|
My mother recently sent me an email from a friend who was being challenged by an Evangelical to re-consider her Catholicism. He claimed the Catholic Church had perniciously omitted what he referred to as the second commandment—“You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth” (Exodus 20:4)—in order to keep the Catholic faithful in darkness as to the truth that they should not have statues in their churches. Despite appearances, we know Exodus 20 is not a prohibition against making “any likeness of anything” in a strict sense because we clearly see God either commanding or praising the making of images and statues in multiple biblical texts (see Numbers 21:8-9; I Kings 6:23-28; 9:3). Just five chapters after this so-called prohibition against statues, for example, God commands Moses to make statues representing two angels to be placed over the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant: And you shall make two cherubim of gold… The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another…. And you shall put the mercy seat on the top of the ark… There I will meet with you (Ex. 25:18-22). There are five key points to be made concerning this common misunderstanding among Protestants as well as many quasi-Christian sects. 1. Exodus 20:4 is part of the first commandment that begins in verse 3 and stretches through part of verse five: You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them. Verses 3 and 5 make clear that this commandment is not simply condemning making statues; It is condemning making gods that you bow down to or serve. In a word, this first commandment forbids idolatry, i.e., the adoration of anything or anyone other than God. The Catholic Church condemns this as well. 2. By lifting out part of the first commandment appearing to prohibit the making of “any likeness of anything,” not only do you have God contradicting himself in later commanding the making of statues, but you also end up making the first two commandments repetitive. They are both essentially condemning idolatry. 3. Though the commandments are said to be “ten” in Exodus 34:28, they are not numbered by the inspired authors of Sacred Scripture. If you count the “you shall nots” along with the “you shalls” of keeping holy the Sabbath and honoring father and mother, you end up with 13 commandments. So the actual numbering of the commandments depends upon which “you shall nots” you lump together as one commandment and which ones you separate. And in the end, which “you shall nots” you lump together depends upon your theology. 4. We believe the Catholic Church alone has the authority to give to God’s people an authoritative list of the Ten Commandments. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church does exactly that. At least, it gives us a list as a sure norm for us. 5. The problem with creating a second “commandment” where there actually is not one really comes to the fore at the bottom of the list. The common Protestant listing of the Ten Commandments combines coveting your neighbor’s wife, the Catholic ninth commandment, with coveting your neighbor’s property, the Catholic tenth commandment. And really it just can’t be any other way because you run out of room. I can’t imagine many women being happy with being equated to property! Some may argue at this point: “Well, that is what the Old Testament teaches. We’re just going with what the inspired author teaches.” Are you really? Let’s take a look. Now, it is true that Exodus 20’s version of the 10 commandments appears to place both women and servants in the place of property. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s. I say it “appears” to do so because Genesis 1:26-27 does reveal God himself to have said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness… So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” There is an essential equality between male and female revealed even in the Old Testament, though this revelation is not as clear and unambiguous as what we have in the New Testament. Exodus 20 certainly does anything but add to the clarity of the point. When I say the revelation of this essential equality is not as clear in the Old Testament, we need to understand why this is so. The Old Testament consists of 46 books written over a period of ca. 1500 years, representing a progressive revelation. Hebrews 1:1-2 says, “In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets.” The Greek word for “many ways” is polumeros, which means “in many portions;” God gave his revelation in piecemeal fashion over the centuries, taking an ancient people right where they were and gradually beginning to reveal more and more truth as they were able to receive it and as he gradually gave them more and more grace to be able to receive it, all the while respecting their freedom. “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son…” (Galatians 4:4) to communicate the fullness of the revelation God willed for his people. For example, the divorce God permitted in Deut. 24:1-4, he later says “[he] hates” in Malachi 2:16. And when Jesus elevated marriage to the level of sacrament eliminating divorce and remarriage absolutely in Matt. 19:5-6, he explained that this allowance by God through Moses was never intended from the very beginning citing Genesis 2:24, “the two shall become one flesh.” God permitted things early that he would not have ever willed in an antecedent sense as he helped his people to grow much like a parent does not treat a four year-old the same as he would treat a fourteen year-old. In a similar way, though God revealed the essential equality of man and woman very early in salvation history (Gen. 1:26-27), this revelation was given by God to an ancient people who did not have the same understanding of the essential equality of man and woman we so often take for granted given the fullness of revelation we have enjoyed in the New Covenant for 2,000 years. God did not expect his people to change immediately, nor did he give them the fullness of the revelation that we have in Christ all at once; rather, he helped them along as we’ve said. In fact, we can see this development of understanding even in the Old Testament itself. We cited the earlier version of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, but notice the change by the time God gave his people Deuteronomy: Neither shall you covet your neighbor’s wife; and you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox. Or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s. The inspired author of Deuteronomy now makes the distinction between wife and property sharper by using two different Hebrew words for “covet” and “desire” and by only using the word “covet” with regard to the wife. The two separate commandments now become undeniable. We’ll leave the discussion of the status of the servants for another blog post! If you liked this post and want to learn more, click here. |
From your link:
Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings.
Grace is a spiritual being???
I highly recommend that no one anywhere trust nor believe anything put out by the Catholic religion when it pertains to scripture...
Grace is a spiritual being??? That's nuts...Don't trust anything but God's words...
I still would really like to know how tradition trumps the written Word.
That's okay - Protestants think that the Papists lost their way quite a while ago.
Coming up on 500 years now.
“That’s okay - Protestants think that the Papists lost their way quite a while ago.”
Yes, but since they follow a work of Satan their opinions can be ignored.
“I still would really like to know how tradition trumps the written Word.”
I still would really like to know how you make things up about tradition trumping the written Word.
You want a list? Start w/post #33 above.
Then let’s move to the tradition that Jesus was an only child.
Then the tradition that Mary was sinless.
Then the immaculate conception (of Mary).
You really don’t wanna go there... there’s innumerable examples.
Yes: Catholic traditions very often supercede the written Word.
***Extensive research by Samuele R. Bacchiocchi***
A member of the Seventh Day Adventist church. While appearing on several SDA religious TV broadcasts, his SDA membership was not mentioned, making it look like he was just a scholar who found out the Seventh Day doctrine by his own personal study, and not that he had been raised in it from birth.
“You want a list?”
Yes.
“Start w/post #33 above.”
It doesn’t say anything about tradition trumping scripture. Try again.
“Then let’s move to the tradition that Jesus was an only child.”
You think there were other Sons of God? Scripture says Mary was a virgin and implies she intended on staying that way; Scripture says Joseph was a righteous man. A righteous man would not touch what had been given to God. Scripture says Jesus was THE son of Mary. Scripture says those who modern Protestants think of as the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Alpheus/Cleopas and another Mary. Scriptures says Jesus gave Mary to John for her care while he died on the cross. If He has siblings that would be a violation of all law and custom.
“Then the tradition that Mary was sinless.”
Doesn’t trump scripture. Nothing in scripture says Mary was sinful, for instance. Verses about “all” being sinful are not statements about Mary but instead hyperbole. And Luke’s use of kecharitomene: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm
“Then the immaculate conception (of Mary).: Ditto: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a116.htm; http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ImmaculateConceptionMaryJuniperCarolMariology.htm
“You really don’t wanna go there...”
Absolutely.
“there’s innumerable examples.”
So far you haven’t presented even one. When will you start?
“Yes: Catholic traditions very often supercede the written Word.”
No, but let’s try something different. Show me, using scripture alone, where it says either of the following:
1) Matthew wrote a gospel.
2) Matthew’s gospel is inspired.
I cannot speak to how the SDA’s introduced Bacchiocchi. He was on the faculty of one of the universities. However, he was admitted to be a researcher at the Vatican and he was awarded a gold medal by the pope for his scholarship, and his book was given the imprimatur of that church, so I accept that the Catholic Church accepts what he wrote in the book.
I am not an SDA because I disagree with them on several points. However I do observe all the Commandments, including the Fourth.
it is ABSOLUTE TRUTH if everyone could do their own interpretations (as many try to do ) you could end up with thousands of "denominations" all of which think that they are correct........wouldn't want that now, would we??
Actually states (clearly) just the opposite:
Matthew 1:24-25: "24 When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son."
Even the RSV/Cathloic Edition: 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son...
I know the RCC wants to spin this another way, but that's simply not the plain meaning of the text.
Next: the only child thing
Matthew 12:46: "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him."
> Certainly this doesn't mean his disciples, for they had direct access to him always; the context indicates that was a special visit. The original text uses the plain, ordinary word for a sibling - a brother.
But since I know you won't buy that... Galatians 1:19 is helpful. Paul is writing:
"18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother."
Of course, since he already mentioned 'apostles', there's no need to refer to James as a brother/apostle... unless he meant something else: that he was really Jesus' half-brother James - who became the head of the first church and later wrote the epistle we call James. Clearly, Paul mentioned him as the brother of Jesus to distinguish him from any other James.
Heck Mark 6:3 NAMES his brothers and mentions sisters as well! This is the best context to prove the point: it's the words of local townspeople that KNEW the family and were clearly referring to them!
Regarding your further commentary about this:
"You think there were other Sons of God?" No, but there were other sons of Mary and Joseph... half-brothers, if you will. But I already showed that in scripture.
"Scripture says Joseph was a righteous man. A righteous man would not touch what had been given to God." Not relevant - you are imposing a meaning the isn't in the text. Mary was used for one purpose: to birth and raise the Son of God. Righteous, in that context, simply meant that he was intending to do the right thing and not expose Mary to public ridicule once he found out she was preggers.
"Scripture says Jesus was THE son of Mary." It also says that he was the son of Joseph. If your argument is based around insisting that "the" is a singular article, then that's a little silly, given that it's easily refuted. In either case, nothing is implied in any translation I searched tonight that there is an exclusivity intended by this particular 'the'. And yes, I have cited scriptures to support my interpretation.
"Scripture says those who modern Protestants think of as the brothers of Jesus were the sons of Alpheus/Cleopas and another Mary." Not in my Bible. James of Alpheus is referred to twice, Levi of Alphesus once. John 19:25 refers to Mary of Cleopas as the sister of Mary. I only found these references in Young's Literal Translation.
"Scriptures says Jesus gave Mary to John for her care while he died on the cross. If He has siblings that would be a violation of all law and custom." In the light of the previous evidence, I think I'd defer to our Lord on what might be right and proper to do with his mother.
Way too long already, but Matthew has evidentiary evidence to prove he was a gospel writer... not a 'tradition'. It's both internal and external. I googled multiple sites for this. Have at it. That's the most straightforward argument I can make in this forum.
Lol, that's convincing. Real scholarship.
“Actually states (clearly) just the opposite:”
Actually, no, it doesn’t. Matthew 1:25 only tells us about actions leading up to the birth of Christ, not after. Most people today are too stupid to know that “until” in ancient languages implies nothing about a time period after the event in question. As Catholic Answers pointed out years ago:
Until Then
Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”)
In recent years, some have argued that because Matthew 1:25 uses the Greek words heos hou for “until” whereas the texts I mentioned above from the New Testament use heos alone, there is a difference in meaning. The argument goes that Heos hou indicates the action of the first clause does not continue. Thus, Mary and Joseph “not having come together” would have ended after Jesus was born.
The problems with this theory begin with the fact that no available scholarship concurs with it. In fact, the evidence proves the contrary. Heos hou and heos are used interchangeably and have the same meaning. Acts 25:21 should suffice to clear up the matter: “But when Paul had appealed to be kept in custody for the decision of the emperor, I commanded him to be held until (Gk. heos hou) I could send him to Caesar.”
Does this text mean that Paul would not be held in custody after he was “sent” to Caesar? Not according to the biblical record. He would be held in custody while in transit (see Acts 27:1) and after he arrived in Rome for a time (see Acts 29:16). The action of the main clause did not cease with heos hou.
“Even the RSV/Cathloic Edition: 25 but knew her not until she had borne a son...”
Right, because that’s what the text says. The problem is that some modern readers are too stupid to know that “until” means something different in English than the original word meant in ancient languages - as I just demonstrated.
“I know the RCC wants to spin this another way, but that’s simply not the plain meaning of the text.”
Actually, it is the plain meaning of the text. The text only says what it says - “until”. It does not say “until, but then afterward”.
“Next: the only child thing”
There’s no evidence these were blood brothers of Jesus.
As Catholic Answers puts it:
Oh, Brother!
First, we must understand that the term brother has a wide semantic range in Scripture. It can mean a uterine brother, an extended relative, or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 and 14:12, we read of one example of brother being used to describe an extended relationship: Abraham and Lot. Though they were actually uncle and nephew, they called one another “brother.” Moreover, in the New Testament, Jesus told us to call one another “brothers” in Matthew 23:8. The passage obviously does not mean to suggest that all Christians have the same physical mother.
Second, if we examine more closely the example of James, one of these four “brothers of the Lord” mentioned in Matthew 13:55, we discover him to be a cousin or some other relative of Jesus rather than a uterine brother. For example, Galatians 1:18-19 informs us: “Then after three years I [Paul] went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”
Notice, the “James” of whom Paul was speaking was both a “brother of the Lord” and an “apostle.” There are two apostles named James among the 12. The first James is revealed to be a “son of Zebedee.” He most likely would not be the “James” referred to because according to Acts 12:1-2 he was martyred very early on. Even if it was him, his father was named Zebedee, not Joseph.
Paul more likely is referring to the second James who was an apostle, according to Luke 6:15-16. This James is revealed to have a father named Alphaeus, not Joseph. Thus, James the apostle and Jesus were not uterine brothers. Easy enough. Some will argue, however, that this “James” was not an apostle or that he was not one of the original 12. Though this is a possibility—others in the New Testament, such as Barnabas in Acts 14, are referred to as “apostles” in a looser sense—the argument from Scripture is weak. When Paul wrote about going “up to Jerusalem” to see Peter, he was writing about an event that occurred many years earlier, shortly after he had converted. He was basically going up to the apostles to receive approval lest he “should be running or had run in vain.” It would be more likely he would have here been speaking about “apostles” (proper), or “the twelve.”
But for those inclined to argue the point, the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses another line of reasoning:
The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression. (CCC 500)
The Catechism here refers to the fact that 14 chapters after we find the “brothers” of the Lord listed as “James, Joseph, Simon and Judas,” we find “James and Joseph” mentioned again, but this time their mother is revealed as being named Mary, but not Mary, the Mother of Jesus. We can conclude that “James and Joseph” are “brothers” of Jesus, but they are not uterine brothers.
But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”
The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.
“But since I know you won’t buy that... Galatians 1:19 is helpful. Paul is writing:”
Again, see the above. James was not a blood brother of Jesus.
“Of course, since he already mentioned ‘apostles’, there’s no need to refer to James as a brother/apostle... unless he meant something else: that he was really Jesus’ half-brother James - who became the head of the first church and later wrote the epistle we call James. Clearly, Paul mentioned him as the brother of Jesus to distinguish him from any other James.”
No, simply a male relative.
“Heck Mark 6:3 NAMES his brothers and mentions sisters as well! This is the best context to prove the point: it’s the words of local townspeople that KNEW the family and were clearly referring to them!”
Not siblings: http://jimmyakin.com/the-perpetual-virginity-of-blessed-mary-against-helvidius
“No, but there were other sons of Mary and Joseph... half-brothers, if you will. But I already showed that in scripture.”
Actually, you did not show that. Show me where they are referred to as half-brothers, or the sons of Mary. Can you? No, you can’t because it never once happened. Only Jesus is referred to as THE son of Mary. Also, why would younger sons think they have the right to deal with Jesus - the eldest brother - as they do? Nothing in Jewish custom would allow that. They were not brothers. They were simply male relatives - the children of another Mary and Cleopas/Alpheus.
“Not relevant - you are imposing a meaning the isn’t in the text.”
No, I am correctly seeing the meaning of what it would mean to be righteous before the Lord.
“Mary was used for one purpose: to birth and raise the Son of God.”
No. Mary was not “used”. She was asked. An angel was sent to her to ask her. Ever wonder why she was not punished with muteness even though she questioned the angel in what seems to be the same way as Zachariah?
“Righteous, in that context, simply meant that he was intending to do the right thing and not expose Mary to public ridicule once he found out she was preggers.”
No. He was righteous anyway - not just in his relationship with Mary, but in his relationship with God.
“It also says that he was the son of Joseph.”
And He was - just not in the biological sense.
“If your argument is based around insisting that “the” is a singular article, then that’s a little silly, given that it’s easily refuted.”
No, it isn’t easily refuted. No one else is called the son of Mary - no one.
“In either case, nothing is implied in any translation I searched tonight that there is an exclusivity intended by this particular ‘the’. And yes, I have cited scriptures to support my interpretation.”
No, actually you really haven’t. First of all, there doesn’t have to be any exclusivity intended by the article. The simple fact is never once is anyone else - other than Jesus - called a son of Mary or a son of Joseph for that matter. Not once.
“Not in my Bible.”
Then you have a very strange Bible that is somehow missing some obvious verses. As the old Catholic Encyclopedia says:
The identity of James, Jude and Simon
James is without doubt the Bishop of Jerusalem (Acts 12:17, 15:13, 21:18; Galatians 1:19; 2:9-12) and the author of the first Catholic Epistle. His identity with James the Less (Mark 15:40) and the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18), although contested by many Protestant critics, may also be considered as certain. There is no reasonable doubt that in Galatians 1:19: “But other of the apostles [besides Cephas] I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord”, St. Paul represents James as a member of the Apostolic college. The purpose for which the statement is made, makes it clear that the “apostles” is to be taken strictly to designate the Twelve, and its truthfulness demands that the clause “saving James” be understood to mean, that in addition to Cephas, St. Paul saw another Apostle, “James the brother of the Lord” (cf. Acts 9:27). Besides, the prominence and authority of James among the Apostles (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9; in the latter text he is even named before Cephas) could have belonged only to one of their number. Now there were only two Apostles named James: James the son of Zebedee, and James the son of Alpheus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). The former is out of the question, since he was dead at the time of the events to which Acts 15:6 ssq., and Galatians 2:9-12 refer (cf. Acts 12:2). James “the brother of the Lord” is therefore one with James the son of Alpheus, and consequently with James the Less, the identity of these two being generally conceded. Again, on comparing John 19:25 with Matthew 27:56, and Mark 15:40 (cf. Mark 15:47; 16:1), we find that Mary of Cleophas, or more correctly Clopas (Klopas), the sister of Mary the Mother of Christ, is the same as Mary the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, or Joses. As married women are not distinguished by the addition of their father’s name, Mary of Clopas must be the wife of Clopas, and not his daughter, as has been maintained. Moreover, the names of her sons and the order in which they are given, no doubt the order of seniority, warrant us in identifying these sons with James and Joseph, or Joses, the “brethren” of the Lord. The existence among the early followers of Christ of two sets of brothers having the same names in the order of age, is not likely, and cannot be assumed without proof. Once this identity is conceded, the conclusion cannot well be avoided that Clopas and Alpheus are one person, even if the two names are quite distinct. It is, however, highly probable, and commonly admitted, that Clopas and Alpheus are merely different transcriptions of the same Aramaic word Halphai. James and Joseph the “brethren” of the Lord are thus the sons of Alpheus.
Of Joseph nothing further is known. Jude is the writer of the last of the Catholic Epistles (Jude 1). He is with good reason identified by Catholic commentators with the “Judas Jacobi” (”Jude the brother of James” in the Douay Version) of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13, otherwise known as Thaddeus (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18). It is quite in accordance with Greek custom for a man to be distinguished by the addition of his brother’s name instead of his father’s, when the brother was better known. That such was the case with Jude is inferred from the title “the brother of James”, by which he designates himself in his Epistle. About Simon nothing certain can be stated. He is identified by most commentators with the Symeon, or Simon, who, according to Hegesippus, was a son of Clopas, and succeeded James as Bishop of Jerusalem. Some identify him with the Apostle Simon the Cananean (Matthew 10:4; Mark 3:18) or the Zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). The grouping together of James, Jude or Thaddeus, and Simon, after the other Apostles, Judas Iscariot excepted, in the lists of the Apostles, (Matthew 10:4-5; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) lends some probability to this view, as it seems to indicate some sort of connexion between the three. Be this as it may, it is certain that at least two of the “brethren” of Christ were among the Apostles. This is clearly implied in 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Have we not the power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” The mention of Cephas at the end indicates that St. Paul, after speaking of the Apostles in general, calls special attention to the more prominent ones, the “brethren” of the Lord and Cephas. The objection that no “brethren” of the Lord could have been members of the Apostolic college, because six months before Christ’s death they did not believe in Him (John 7:3-5), rests on a misunderstanding of the text. His “brethren” believed in his miraculous power, and urged him to manifest it to the world. Their unbelief was therefore relative. It was not a want of belief in His Messiahship, but a false conception of it. They had not yet rid themselves of the Jewish idea of a Messiah who would be a temporal ruler. We meet with this idea among the Apostles as late as the day of the Ascension (Acts 1:6). In any case the expression “his brethren” does not necessarily include each and every “brother”, whenever it occurs. This last remark also sufficiently answers the difficulty in Acts 1:13-14, where, it is said, a clear distinction is made between the Apostles and the “brethren” of the Lord.
“Way too long already, but Matthew has evidentiary evidence to prove he was a gospel writer... not a ‘tradition’.”
What? Evidentiary evidence would be a tradition. Scripture is a written tradition. Where in scripture is Matthew said to have written a gospel? Provide a verse.
“It’s both internal and external.”
Actually, no. It is not even slightly “internal”. There is not a single word in scripture about Matthew writing a gospel and there is not a single word - NOT ONE WORD - about Matthew writing anything inspired. Not one word.
“I googled multiple sites for this.”
Gee, worked up a seat did you?
“Have at it. That’s the most straightforward argument I can make in this forum.”
You have yet to make an argument of any kind. That’s the way it will stay too isn’t it?
That’s funny, Christ said there were just 2 Commandments....
How could any one say they loved God after they had tried to change his day of rest from the real day to another day and how could any one say they loved their neighbor as their self if they were lying to them about the gospel?
By acknowledging all of the commandments is a sign that you are true to the two greatest ones.
If I may ask, are you a Seventh-day Adventist?
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.
Exodus 20:8–10
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle...
Exodus 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Ezekiel 20:12
12 Moreover also I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.
Or a Saturday service each week too...that deserved a whoa when I started asking, seeking and knocking..
I think the fact the Gregorian calendar (namesake pope gregory) is the latest attempt by man to calculate time and not use what God gave us in Scripture and in His sky, is a devious yet seemingly harmless design.
Scripture says times and laws would be changed if they could.. they were by man or by powers and principalities..
Almost the entire religious and secular world follows after one calendar.. the UN, the US, Europe, Vatican, Asia, Israel in part, some Muslim nations....
A motley crew to be sure.. and if anyone has guessed about who revelation is speaking of, some of those powers would be a good guess..
God’s calendar uses both the sun and the moon, just as Scripture tells us.
Scriptures tells us what a year is, what a month is, what a week is, what a day is..
And the Gregorian calendar, a solar only based calendar, have different definitions we all grew up learning that are different than those in Scripture.
Makes the catholic/protestant feud seem insignificant when we all use(d) the same conterfeitting of time for worship. And those who just choose a different day in that same Gregorian are under the same counterfeiting..
The appointed times, feasts, Sabbaths can only be found with His calendar.
And it isnt on the smart phones or a wall calendar.
And I know no church who will hold a sabbath service on a Gregorian Thursday if that is the Sabbath day for any of God’s months.
Most people with five day work week is working that day anyways..
We all need more grace and mercy than we can even imagine when His calendar is revealed to a believer.. not an easy calendar for one to follow if the world system holds what a believer deems important or not worth losing.
If the calendar is revealed to one like it was me, there is a clear choice.
Jobs, church culture, man’s holy days, all those are things can be in conflict with God’s calendar, and can make it a real choice.
Come out of her may be just that call in revelation. How attached we are to the world just by using their timekeeping, which counterfeits God’s timekeeping, and then counterfeits worship to Him.
I don’t think that is overstating it at all.
Certainly turns the Saturday/Sunday debate on its ear.. or at least starts the debate with a false, counterfeit premise that the whole world has followed after..
John 7:17 If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
I pray that I will do God’s will.
Gee, I better throw out all of my digital cameras.
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.