Posted on 06/25/2015 1:13:01 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Long before Jesus turned water into wine, He turned Mary’s amniotic fluid into meconium, and her breast milk into transitional stools. Anyone who has ever changed a child’s diaper knows that the resulting odor offends the nostrils greatly. As Jesus would later instruct us, “whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly” and ends up in the toilet (Matthew 15:17), or in His case as an infant, in the diaper. Thus did Jesus’ lower gastrointestinal tract operate as it must for all men, and thus did our Lord endure the gastrocolic reflex, as all we mortals do. We therefore have no doubt that Mary’s milk passed through Him according to the course of nature, and into His diapers in a common and necessary movement. And thus did Jesus come all the way down to earth to save us, “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities” (Hebrews 4:15).
If that opening paragraph offends you, you do not know why Jesus came to earth, and you have not understood the Gospel. Jesus did not come to seek the whole, for the “whole need not a physician” (Matthew 9:12). He “came not to call the righteous” (Luke 5:32), for the righteous have no need of a Savior. He did not come to avoid sinners, but to find them. He touched lepers and whores (Mark 1:41, Luke 7:39), asked for a drink from an adulteress (John 4:7), asked for lodging from a tax collector (Luke 19:5), was adored by prostitutes (Luke 7:37-38), feted by sinners (Luke 5:29) and pursued by the ceremonially unclean, and He received them (Matthew 9:20, Luke 17:14).
In short, He is the sinners’ Savior, and He came to earth to pursue them, not to avoid them (1 Timothy 1:15). To find sinners, He became a man like us. Not a man like us in all ways but sweat and dirt. Not a man like us in all ways but meconium. He became a man like us—”touched with the feeling of our infirmities”—in all ways but sin (Hebrews 4:15). And as if it were not enough that His feet were soiled to walk among us, He stooped even further and soiled His hands as well (John 8:6). Thus Jesus truly condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, say our Roman Catholic acquaintances, such condescension must have its limits. There is only so much stooping God can do without soiling Himself beyond what He can bear. Sure, He fixed his tabernacle among His people, but God ministers at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus 33:9), and that tabernacle is Mary. And such a tabernacle would need to be sinless. But aside from having a sinless mother, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, being sinless, the womb of Mary was a step up, not a step down, from Heaven. He actually did not, and could not, condescend all the way to our level, say the Roman Catholics:
“The womb of Mary—I will not call it womb, but temple; … the more secret tabernacle, … Yea verily above the heavens must Mary’s womb be accounted, since it sent back the Son of God to heaven more glorious than He had come down from heaven.” (St. Maximus, Homily V)
Thus, while it is true that Jesus “humbled” Himself to become man, He did not so humble Himself that He actually came down from heaven. No, by the testimony of Rome’s saints, He actually went up into Mary’s womb! So aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was actually higher than the heavens that He had left behind, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that He was raised in a perfectly sinless home. Someone as holy as Jesus could not come this far and then live in a household contaminated by the sins He had come to take away. Therefore, Joseph must have been preserved from sin, too. The Apparition of Joseph in 1956 assured Sister Mary Ephrem that “immediately after my conception … because of my exceptional role of future Virgin-Father … I was from that moment confirmed in grace and never had the slightest stain on my soul.” So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, for the fact that His cousin, John the Baptist, the herald of the King, also lived a life without sin. This “acceptable belief,” as you can read here, is freely accepted as true by Roman Catholics. As one member of the Catholic Answers forum explains, “It is crystal clear from Scripture that St. John the Baptist was baptized within his mother’s womb … [and] was free of all sin from that point on.”
So widespread is this “pious belief,” that even Pope John XXIII in 1960 taught the logical implications of it: namely that Joseph and John the Baptist must have been assumed bodily into heaven, just as Jesus and Mary had been. “So we may piously believe,” said John XXIII, that the grace of assumption into heaven, so recently and infallibly declared for Mary in 1950, was also granted both to John the Baptist and to Joseph (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 52 (1960) 456). So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, and a sinless cousin, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, the fact that all of the apostles were sinless, too. That this is “acceptable belief” in Rome is evidenced from another writer at the Catholic Answers forum, who holds that not only the apostles, but many, many Roman Catholics led perfectly sinless lives after encountering Christ:
“What is being said is that they led sinless, blameless lives with the help of God’s grace. … Not only the Apostles, but many Saints, Martyrs, Fathers, desert fathers, Confessors and other members of the Church led sinless, blameless lives.”
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, and sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, Jesus condescended to be born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
Except, of course, that His maternal grandparents must have been “profoundly pure” as well. Consider this pious tradition of the conception of Mary in the womb of St. Anne. If Mary was housed in her mother, Anne, and Mary was the tabernacle, then that would make Anne “the inner sanctuary in which was formed the living tabernacle which was to house the Son of God made Man.”
It is thus difficult for Roman Catholics to picture in their minds that Mary had been conceived through normal, biological, copulative processes, including the physical pleasure and all of the attendant physical intimacy between man and wife. So taught Christopher West in his lecture, Theology of the Body and Our Lady of Fatima:
“In the east, do you know how they depict the Immaculate ConceptIon? … The icon is of a chaste embrace between Joachim and Anne, with the marriage bed behind them. How is it possible that their marital embrace led to the immaculate conception, if their hearts had not also in some way been made profoundly pure.”(59:30-1:00:40)
It is apparently inconceivable to Mr. West that Mary might have been conceived in an intimate sexual embrace, her parents lying down in bed, naked, enjoying the sheer physical pleasure that, as Paul wrote, was the “proper gift of God” to each of them (1 Corinthians 7:7). No, their hearts had to be “profoundly pure,” and that level of purity does not countenance the horizontality of unashamedly pleasurable marital sex.
So, aside from having a sinless mother, and a first earthly home that was higher, not lower, than the heavens, and aside from having a sinless step-father, a sinless cousin, sinless apostles, disciples, saints, martyrs and other members of the church, and “profoundly pure” maternal grandparents, Jesus was born into a sinful world to save sinners, and was like us in all ways but sin.
The point we are making is that Jesus was incarnated to save sinners, yet Rome has built up a religion that is intent on saving Jesus from the sinners He came to save! We see this in the march of Roman Catholic tradition that is constantly expanding the circle of sinlessness that surrounds this Man who, so we thought, had come to dine with sinners, touch lepers and be worshiped by prostitutes. Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who freely and deliberately dined and lodged with sinners might have taken up His first residence in one, and received His first meal from one? Is it unfathomable that Jesus, Who left Heaven to find sinners might have included among them a mother, a step-father, a cousin and two grandparents who were as eager to be cleansed of their sin as the harlots and lepers? To Roman Catholics, the answer is yes—it is unfathomable. So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that to approach Him to be cleansed, one must already be clean.
But this not the only way Rome separates Jesus from the sinners He came to save. We are all too familiar with Mary’s alleged role as “mediatress.” Yes, Roman Catholics tell us, there is one mediator between God and men, the Man Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5), but despite His incarnation, Jesus’ divinity is still a hindrance, not a help, to His mediation. Read as Roman apologist William Most cleverly transitions from Jesus being “the answer,” to Mary being the much better answer, because her humanity makes her better qualified than Jesus to mediate on our behalf:
“How then can I understand God, how [to] know what He wills, how to deal with him? But In Jesus we have the answer. … Yes, but His heart is the heart of a Divine Person. However, her heart is purely, entirely human, … So her Immaculate Heart can and does assure us we have in heaven an Advocate whom we can understand, who understands us, who loves us to the extent that like the Father, she did not spare her only Son, but gave Him up for all of us” (Most, William G., Mary’s Cooperation in Our Redemption)
But even this cannot be sufficient for Rome, who ever strives by remarkable ingenuity to separate sinners further from their Savior. It is true, says Rome, that Mary is the Mediatress of all graces, and every grace that flows to us from Jesus comes through Mary. But every grace from Mary must necessarily flow through Joseph. In his book, True Devotion to St. Joseph and the Church, Fr. Domenico, makes the case:
“It seems fitting then that by his intercession St. Joseph should now obtain all the graces that Our Lady dispenses to the human race. … these grace come through Mary first, and then through St. Joseph who obtains them only through her. … all the other saints rely on St. Joseph in their intercessions, just as St. Joseph relies on the mediation of Our Lady.” (True Devotion to St. Joseph, 381, 383, 400).
One Mediator can never be enough, nor two, nor three, so far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome.
But there is yet another way Rome separates Christ from sinners, and that is by reducing Jesus’ death on the cross to merely a symbolic gesture. It was hardly necessary to die and bleed, they say, but Jesus did it anyway—not to pay for sins, but to demonstrate the horror of sin. So taught Fr. William Most:
“Really an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation. Yet to show the horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He agreed, to go so dreadfully far.” (Most, William, Eschatology).
That is completely contrary to the Scriptures (Hebrews 2:14-17, 9:22), for “it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren … to make reconciliation for the sins of the people,” for “without shedding of blood is no remission.” Yet as it turns out, in Rome, the real sacrifice of Jesus was not what He offered on the cross at all, but the bread He offered the night before in the Last Supper. That, we are told, was the real sacrifice:
“Those who crucified Christ did so at the sixth hour. But Jesus our High Priest immolated the lamb which He took towards the evening [the night before], when He celebrated the paschal banquet with His disciples and imparted to them the sacred mysteries.”
Indeed, Rome teaches that Jesus’ death on the cross was not an offering for sin. They do not hide this, but say it proudly and openly as the Catholic Legate demonstrates:
“The Last Supper was the real sacrificial offering of Christ for sin and it certainly was unbloody. Without the Last Supper I defy you to find any reference to the Body and Blood of Christ being offered as a sacrifice for sin in the entire of the Passion Narratives.”
Thus does the religion of Rome nullify the incarnation and “make the cross of Christ of none effect” (1 Corinthians 1:17)—as if Paul had not said we have access to the Father by the blood of the cross (Ephesians 2:13-19), and Peter had not said Jesus “bare our sins in his own body on the tree ” (1 Peter 2:24-3:18), and as if Hebrews did not instruct us that Jesus is “mediator of the new testament … by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions” (Hebrews 9:15). Rome would have Him mediate the new covenant, without blood, without death, without the cross and without suffering for our transgressions, for “an incarnation in a palace with no suffering or death” would have sufficed.
Couple this with the visions of Mary, and what we find is an utter and absolute denial of everything the incarnation was to accomplish. The visions of Mary teach Roman Catholics that it is Jesus Who is angry at them, and that Mary is holding back His wrath, and she is suffering for them—contrary to Romans 5:9 which assures us that “we shall be saved from wrath through him.” The visions of Mary also teach that it is Jesus Who needs to be consoled by our sufferings—contrary to 2 Corinthians 1:5 which assures us that “as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” Compare these Scripture verses, above, with what the apparitions of Mary teach (Both of these visions and messages, La Salette and Akita, have the ecclesiastical approval of the Roman religion):
“If my people will not obey I shall be compelled to loose my Son’s arm. It is so heavy, so pressing that I can no longer restrain it. How long I have suffered for you! If my Son is not to cast you off, I am obliged to entreat Him without ceasing.” (Apparition of Mary in LaSalette, France to Maximin Giraud and Melanie Mathieu, 1846)
“Many men in this world afflict the Lord. I desire souls to console Him to soften the anger of the Heavenly Father. I wish, with my Son, for souls who will repair by their suffering and their poverty for the sinners and ingrates.” (Apparition of Mary in Akita, Japan, to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, 1973)
So far removed is Jesus from sinners in the religion of Rome, that we are told that Jesus is angry with us, and that we must suffer to console Him and save Him from His Father’s wrath! Is not the sum total of Rome’s doctrines a material denial of the incarnation?
Consider Rome’s teachings in light of John’s instruction in his first epistle. 1 John is an exquisite magnification of the incarnation, “which we have heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked upon, and our hands have handled,” (1 John 1:1). If we have sinned, there is a Mediator for us, for “we have an advocate with the Father” (1 John 2:1). “God … sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” and “your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake.” (1 John 2:12, 4:10). “He was manifested to take away our sins” (1 John 3:1). All these speak of an incarnation that provided us with one Mediator, provided us with one propitiation for our sins, and let us boldly approach Him (1 John 4:17) not because we are without sins (1 John 1:8-10), but because He Himself has made propitiation for them. “This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John 5:11). But Rome denies this record. The Serpent attempted to prevent the incarnation from occurring (Revelation 12:4), and failing that, now every effort is made by Rome to undo all of the benefits to be gained from it.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to seek and save sinners? Rome responds by surrounding Him with as many sinless people as possible to make Him distant an inaccessible to those who need Him.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to make a propitiation to the Father? Rome responds by relegating His sacrifice to the background—merely a profound gesture that was not strictly necessary—and making the real sacrifice an unbloody one the night before the crucifixion, when He “offered” bread for sins of the world.
Did Jesus come in the flesh to die, making peace through the blood of His cross? Rome responds by teaching that every sin Jesus pays for just makes the Father and Jesus angrier and angrier, and it is we who must, by our sufferings, make reparation for sin and thus save Jesus from His Father’s wrath.
Did Jesus become a man to be a Mediator between God and His people? Rome responds by adding as many mediators as possible between Jesus and sinners, as if His incarnation had failed, and left Him incapacitated, unfit and unable to serve.
Was Jesus “made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death” (Hebrews 2:9)? Rome responds by saying He was made higher than the heavens, so high is Mary’s womb above the children of men. The leisure of a palace, they say, instead of the humiliation of the cross, would have sufficed as a reparation.
Like the disciples, Rome would send away the unclean (Matthew 15:23), keep the simple from approaching Him (Luke 18:16), and rebuke Jesus for dying on the cross (Matthew 16:22)—for Rome has “taken away the key of knowledge,” not entering themselves, and hindering those who would (Luke 11:52).
When John wrote, “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God” (1 John 4:3), he did not write this as an isolated formulaic incantation. He did not write this as if the mere recitation of the Nicæan Creed was sufficient as a substitute for faith in what had really been accomplished in the incarnation. John wrote this in the context of an incarnation that guaranteed to us a propitiation for sins and the favorable disposition of our heavenly Father, that provided us an Advocate who took on flesh to represent us and intercede before Him, that comforted us with an assurance of pardon for our sin through an accessible Savior Who hears us when we call upon Him. All these things are in practice denied by Rome, and we are offered no peace, no security, an angry Father, an angry Son, an endless line of mediators and a Savior unable to sympathize with our weakness, unapproachable and inaccessible except by those who are already “whole” and already “righteous.”
We hold therefore that when John wrote, “he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” (1 John 5:10), it is proof that the religion of Rome, at its core, is a rejection of the incarnation, for Rome has done all in its power to nullify it and make God a liar. Does Rome recite the Nicæan Creed? Well did Isaiah speak of her:
“Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (Isaiah 29:13).
The priests of Rome honor the incarnation with their lips, but by removing Jesus from sinners, they have denied the incarnation, and have removed their hearts from God.
“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)
“don’t want to rattle on too long here, I just to point out that there’s a lot there that is neither pagan nor fraud. It’s Apostolic. You’re got to take the whole dimensions of ancient Christianity into account.”
1. It isn’t inspired.
2. At best, it is second hand with no inspiration.
You are claiming that a purportedly important doctrine never made it into Sacred Scripture-that God somehow never inspired it... Nor any apostle taught it before 100 ad. Sorry, without prebelief, no one would buy any of the gymnastics your earlier post went through to find a possible rationale for this idea.
Apostles (briefly) taught, as did pastors and teachers. Their teaching was not equivalent in authority to Inspired Scripture.
What we do have in Scripture was by definition, inspired as the Holy Spirit moved men to write. There is a reason why He chose certain things and not others.
So much of the Catholic acretions are pagan in origin and do not show up in history until hundreds of years later. Many popes had histories of paganism. I am still waiting for your evidence from before 100 ad. Actually, I’m asking for it, but I don’t think it exists. Still I keep an open mind.
Best
Not at all. At Luke 1 v. 34 (the "perplexity" verse) she doesn't yet know that it's "without having sex". She doesn't yet know she's going to be overshadowed by the power of the Most High. Why would she think it would be "without having sex" if she fully expected to have sex with Joseph?
Why wouldn't she assume she'd be like Sarah, Hannah, Samson's mother, etc. and have a marvelous baby with her husband? That's the part that's NOT clear or even explicable. That is, her perplexity is explicable only if she knew she was going to remain a virgin.
The Angel Gabriel did NOT say her pregnancy was going to happen right away: he left this in the undefined future. For all she knew, she could be long-married to Joseph, like Sarah was long-married to Abraham, when they'd have this angel-announced baby together. She'd expect that she'd have the baby with Joseph. This absolutely makes sense. But she didn't expect that. Isn't that odd? And why not?
"The idea that God let Mary become betrothed and then told Joseph to marry her but don’t touch, forces Joseph into a sexless marriage that he clearly wasn’t anticipating."
Nobody's forcing Joseph to do anything here.
The more likely explanation is that Joseph knew he was to safeguard Mary's virginity because it was a vowed thing. It was vowed before they were betrothed: he knew she was vowed to God. It's "more likely" because otherwise, the solution to the "problem" would be simple: he would have just promptly taken the newly-pregnant Mary into his home, and let people assume the baby was his.
"There is not one reason in the world for Mary to have remained a virgin after the birth of Christ when the prophecy that a virgin shall bear a son, was fulfilled."
Well, yes there is, if God's choosing Mary had something to do with a Covenant --- a permanent Covenant of love-- and not just using her instrumentally, using her like the slave Hagar, a borrowed reproductive unit.
You really think that's OK? That's the part I don't get. It only contradicts every love, spousal, fidelity, covenant thing that's taught, sung, or celebrated in the entire Bible. That's all.
For a moment, suspend your modern POV and look at it in the framework of the historic Judeo-Christian culture. The Covenant theme was central to their understanding of the whole of Scripture. This is why nobody, for a millennium-and-a-half, neither Catholic nor Orthodox nor even Protestant up to and including Luther, would have countenanced the idea that God would do Mary that way. That He would make Mary the mother of His Son without a personal, exclusive, and permanent covenant. That He would dishonor His Beloved, Blessed-among-women, by treating her like a borrowed breeder-utility, a rented wench.
I think if you throw out the idea of a permanent covenant, involving Mary's permanent fidelity to God the Father of her Child, belonging to Him only, you're throwing out the every single spousal image, type, and prophecy in the Old Covenant. You're writing her out of the "covenant" framework entirely. It makes all that love-fidelity-talk in Hosea, Isaiah and Ezekiel irrelevant. She might as well be Hagar.
T'ain't fittin, metmom. Just t'ain't fittin.
This whole chapter of Salvation History is not about the base usage of a concubine but about God's magnificent gifts of love and fidelity.
This is why Mary remained a virgin. Not because sex is dirty, but because fidelity is holy. And Mary's reserving herself from any man's embrace was based n Mary's realization that she, blessed among women, was that Beloved, that Blessed one, that Highly-favored one, that Daughter Zion. She didn't merit it, but He chose her. He did great things for her, unprecedented things, matchless things, ineffable things --- and she knew she belonged to God alone.
Second, the teachings of the Apostles were and are inspired, even when they were oral, preached, spoken. Everything Paul taught was inspired before he wrote it down, wasn't it? After all, he was preaching in Damascus immediately from his conversion around 36 AD, (Acts 9) but he didn't do any writing that we know of before about 51 AD, (1 Thessalonians.)
You wouldn't say that none of his teachings were inspired during those 15 years, just because they weren't written --- would you?
The same is true of Peter, James, John, all the Apostles. Their teachings were all inspired, both what was preached and what was written. In fact, ALL of it was preached, and authoritatively so, years or decades before it was written.
In every one of the Epistles written by St. Paul, he exhorts the believers to believe in, live by, cling to, be faithful to the "Gospel" --- all before a single Gospel was written!
Paul insists on the authority of his preaching far, far more, dozens of times more, than his writing.
2 Thess. 2:15
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
John, too:
John 21:24-15 - "There are many other things that Jesus did, but if they were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world could contain the books that would be written."
Do you think these "things" were not inspired, just because they were not written down?
And do you think John and the other Apostles never spoke of them?
2 John 1:12
(Repeated a 3 John 1:13-14)
"Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and speak face to face..."
This, too, is inspired teaching.
So don't scorn Apostolic oral teaching, It has authority equal to that of Apostolic writings.
And what we know about it is not esoteric, weird, secret or hidden. It's in the living practice (now written down!) of the most ancient Christian communities. It forms the framework within which all the NT Scriptures were written, and by which those Scriptures are correctly interpreted.
“So don’t scorn Apostolic oral teaching, It has authority equal to that of Apostolic writings.”
1. If God chose not to inspire the teaching in written Scripture, it is not equal to a scripture.
2. If it is not in Scripture, it is second hand or further removed - hear-say.
3. Authority to carry out the authority of the limited office of the Apostles is not identical to Scripture.
4. Historical, factual truth is not equal to inspiration.
5. Teaching, at the time was authoritative, but obviously not inspired or we would have it in Scripture.
6. Apostolic writings are different than Scripture inspired by God’s Spirit.
7. Ancient is not equivalent to earliest, or you’d be finding evidence from before 100 ad.
8 making any other source equivalent to the unquestioned authority of that which was inspired by God in Scripture as the basis for doctrines, opens Pandoras Box and results in accepting paganism into his Church- as we see in the accretions of Rome.
9. There is no Doctrinal Blank check that can be written and drawn on the Truth account.
Best to you
No; it is NOT why Rome has chosen to tell this lie about Mary.
Like the seven Catholic ones in Asia John wrote about???
You need more straw as the current is increasing!
She said, *since I know not a man*, not *Because I will never know a man*.
It’s only an assumption that she meant a vow of perpetual virginity, and since she was a betrothed woman, that assumption is not a valid one.
One of the worst articles I’ve ever read.
There may be valid conclusions to the arguments poised, but the entire article is preoccupied with presenting blasphemous positions and then debating them.
IMHO, it’s without fruit. A lust for approbation.
I confess, I could only make it through about 5 paragraphs and scanned several more throughout the article and found no change in thinking of the author.
I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years?
There's a huge cultural and interpretive gap here, I think, stemming from the modern failure to read the many "lifelong covenant" passages of the OT as context and prophecy. You also don't understand that covenant means honor, and concubinage dishonor. You achieve clarity by omission.
Things that make you go "hmmmm..."
Must have been those Laodicean Baptists, huh?
“So the “perplexity” problem remains unanswered.”
To you it is an issue because, perhaps it is perceived to open the door to prebelief? In the end, there is no passage of Scripture at all that says Mary remained a virgin.
“I understand it seems obvious to you, which only raises the other question: why did nobody interpret i your way for 1500 years? “
This is a very big assumption, since you’ve yet to demonstrate it was believed before 100 ad, MDO.
More importantly, if something is falsely believed, regardless of how long, it remains false. In this case, no evidence it was taught by the Apostles before 100 ad. No declaration in the inspired Scriptures.
1. Since God chose to inspire His teaching in oral form years or decades before it became written Scripture, the Apostles' oral teaching is equal to Scripture.
2. Non-Scriptural sources of Apostolic truth can be discerned in the continuity and consensus of beliefs and practices of the most ancient Apostolic-founded churches.
3. Authority to carry on the office of the Apostles is found in Scripture.
4. Historical, factual truth, while not identical to inspired truth, is still truth. All truth has its own proper authority.
5. Apostolic oral teaching was authoritative at the time it was spoken, and thus was inspired even before it was transcribed.
6. Apostolic writings are inspired by God’s Spirit. (I add here that the canon of Scripture closed at the death of the last Apostle.)
7. Ancient is equivalent to earliest, since we have evidence from before 100 A.D.
8. Recognizing other sources equivalent to Scripture, such as Sacred Tradition, Natural Law, and the teaching office of the Church, as the basis for doctrines, is required by the unity of Truth, and the authority of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth. This results in consistent continuity in the development of doctrine, as we see in the Catholic Church.
9. Many checks can be written and drawn on the Truth account, since we know that Christ teaches us through His Church --- as Scripture itself acknowledges.
OK, you established your points by mere assertion; and I refuted them the same way.
Omitting sources and argumentation sure conserves space and time :o) Have a good Sunday.
“Good morning, AMPU! I really appreciate well-organized posts, and what you’ve sent me is rather a treat. Here’s my response:”
Back at ya. After a weekend with two grandkids and not much sleep, a list was all the energy I had.
1. Since God chose to inspire His teaching in oral form years or decades before it became written Scripture, the Apostles’ oral teaching is equal to Scripture.
It was. We no longer have it firsthand. It no longer exists as oral teaching.
2. Non-Scriptural sources of Apostolic truth can be discerned in the continuity and consensus of beliefs and practices of the most ancient Apostolic-founded churches.
No, because that makes the assumption that what they hold today is equal to what was originally believed. That would require proof. I asked for any of multiple kinds, but haven’t seen it yet.
3. Authority to carry on the office of the Apostles is found in Scripture.
The authority to continue the limit of Apostles as the foundation of the church is not found in Scripture.
4. Historical, factual truth, while not identical to inspired truth, is still truth. All truth has its own proper authority.
Truth with a capital T, meaning authoritative and inspired is different than little-t truth.
5. Apostolic oral teaching was authoritative at the time it was spoken, and thus was inspired even before it was transcribed.
I think we agree. Where it appears we disagree is that we no longer have the oral teaching. It was never inspired by God as Scripture.
6. Apostolic writings are inspired by God’s Spirit. (I add here that the canon of Scripture closed at the death of the last Apostle.)
No. They are not equivalent to Scripture that was inspired.
7. Ancient is equivalent to earliest, since we have evidence from before 100 A.D.
We do not. It has not appeared on this thread either.
8. Recognizing other sources equivalent to Scripture, such as Sacred Tradition, Natural Law, and the teaching office of the Church, as the basis for doctrines, is required by the unity of Truth, and the authority of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all Truth. This results in consistent continuity in the development of doctrine, as we see in the Catholic Church.
No we will disagree. General revelation, “natural law”, etc. are not equally authoritative. They neither carry the Gospel nor what is required for authority. Tradition is not sacred. It is an amalgamation of accretions throughout history that are far from authoritative. This is how error gets codified. This is how Christianity became religion in your denomination. This is how grace became a hamster wheel of works.
9. Many checks can be written and drawn on the Truth account, since we know that Christ teaches us through His Church -— as Scripture itself acknowledges.
Christ gave us teachers to expound the word. Not to add to it. The Holy Spirit illumines His word.
“OK, you established your points by mere assertion; and I refuted them the same way.”
Again, sorry. Sleep deprivation. A happy cause of sleep deprivation, but not enough energy to do anything by general refutation.
Best.
Your argument would be dispositive if we were arguing on the basis of Sola Scriptura; but we can't accept that principle, because it's historically untrue and logically impossible.
There was a NT Church for almost two decades before even the first book of NT Scripture was written (1 Thessalonians, around 51 AD at the earliest), and there were hundreds of Christian ecclesial communities comprising tens or hundreds of thousands of believers before the canon of the NT was closed (around 96 - 100 AD) --- and even then, most had never even seen a written copy.
The spread of the Holy Church far outstripped the writing, translation, copying and publication of Holy Text. The Church was based on Oral Tradition--- Apostolic preaching --- as the Written Tradition (Scripture) itself demonstrates.
The authority of Written Tradition itself is founded on the reliability and authority of the Oral Tradition which preceded it, sourced it, and provided the hermeneutic context for its correct interpretation.
Remember that even the canonization of the Written Tradition was based on the practice of the churches: the faith of the church was the exclusive source of the canon; the canon of Scripture was not the exclusive source of the faith of the church.
What are the principal truths we have from Oral Tradition? The basics of Sacraments, Liturgy, Apostolic Succession and hierarchy, the veneration of the Saints and of Mary, and the Canon of Scripture itself.
I think this does not interest you because it is not Sola Scripture. But as I said, Sola Scriptura is not tenable, and is not supported by the Bible itself.
In short, "Sola Scriptura" is un-Biblical. It's one of those troublesome "traditions of men". :o!
BTW, if you're ever in Rome, here's an inscription you can see for yourself in the 1st - 2nd century catacombs:
"Beata Maria Semper Virgine" (= "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin")
Well?
Where is YOUR data showing it DID??
on the other, an assumption that any error in 1st century central Anatolia must have been Catholic error.
It is Catholics who make the claim that ALL churches were Catholic from Day One; so how can it NOT be so?
I can hear Mary's mom now:
"Girl... when you ever gonna give me some more grandchillen?"
“Your argument would be dispositive if we were arguing on the basis of Sola Scriptura; but we can’t accept that principle, because it’s historically untrue and logically impossible.”
First, it is not historically untrue, as we will examine below. Second, your specific claim is that a major doctrine was left out of God’s Word - that same inspired Word that came directly from God.
Now, on to your additional observations and claims.
“There was a NT Church for almost two decades before even the first book of NT Scripture was written (1 Thessalonians, around 51 AD at the earliest), and there were hundreds of Christian ecclesial communities comprising tens or hundreds of thousands of believers before the canon of the NT was closed (around 96 - 100 AD) -— and even then, most had never even seen a written copy.”
Before you hurry on to the NT Scriptures, I pause to tell you that the Hebrew Scriptures were in every major city and according to the Apostle Paul, they contained what was needed to understand Messiah and salvation.
Now, the NT canon began early and closed before the end of 100 ad. During the years before and during the completion of the canon, God did not leave his gatherings without instruction. First, they continued to have the Hebrew Scriptures, they had the Holy Spirit to give them understanding, they have God’s gift of living Apostles, pastors and teachers and they had circulating letters from the Apostles. They heard the Word. They heard the word taught.
“The spread of the Holy Church far outstripped the writing, translation, copying and publication of Holy Text. The Church was based on Oral Tradition-— Apostolic preaching -— as the Written Tradition (Scripture) itself demonstrates.”
It was not simply “oral tradition” as you are claiming. It was oral teaching of what was inspired, and teaching exposition of what was written.
“The authority of Written Tradition itself is founded on the reliability and authority of the Oral Tradition which preceded it, sourced it, and provided the hermeneutic context for its correct interpretation.”
The Scriptures are more than “written tradition”. If you really believe that is all that inspiration means, you are expressing a particularly low view of inspiration. The Authority of Scriptures does not come from oral tradition. It comes from God.
“Remember that even the canonization of the Written Tradition was based on the practice of the churches: the faith of the church was the exclusive source of the canon; the canon of Scripture was not the exclusive source of the faith of the church.”
The canonization of the Word in both testaments was based on a number of things, including what was already known to be from Apostles and some from Peter’s declaration that includes Paul’s inspired books with “the rest of scriptures.”
The source of the inspiration, preservation and canonization was God. Again, this is a rather low view of God’s sovereign work and an exaltation of men.
Later Churches have reexamined the canon and corrected the few errors that remained.
“What are the principal truths we have from Oral Tradition? The basics of Sacraments, Liturgy, Apostolic Succession and hierarchy, the veneration of the Saints and of Mary, and the Canon of Scripture itself.”
The sacraments - baptism and the memorial of the Lord’s supper do not save. The liturgy is not inspired and is not necessary. Apostolic succession is not biblical. Never commanded. Hierarchy is a failure. Idolization of saints and mary is a falsehood and pagan. The canon was completed on multiple factors from a human point of view, but again, if you have a rather low view of the attributes of God, you have larger problems to deal with. You did not mention one “truth” in this paragraph that provides what is needed to save and mature a Christian. Only God’s inspired Word can do this.
“I think this does not interest you because it is not Sola Scripture. But as I said, Sola Scriptura is not tenable, and is not supported by the Bible itself.”
It is and is supported by hundreds of verses in the Hebrew Scriptures and NT. What God reveals about the Scriptures is never said of tradition.
“In short, “Sola Scriptura” is un-Biblical. It’s one of those troublesome “traditions of men”. :o!”
I will disagree. Holding God’s inspired Word at the level of ultimate authority over the actions and traditions of man, holding it as the ultimate authority in every doctrine, prevents tragic failure. It is when churches elevate the teachings of man to equality with Scripture - or completely “dethrone” Scripture, that heresy arises. At that point, paganism rules. Idolization occurs. Sin is accepted. Hierarchies are built. Costumes are sewn. The Spirit leaves.
“BTW, if you’re ever in Rome, here’s an inscription you can see for yourself in the 1st - 2nd century catacombs: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine” (= “Blessed Mary Ever Virgin”)”
So we agree that idolization happened as early as the 200s ad. I will assume that is the best you can find in your quest to claim “it was always believed until 1500.”
And on what authority do you claim a scared believer in the catacombs wrote this? No authority.
By which Apostle do you claim they heard it? No Apostle.
Which inspired Scripture did they read this in? No Scripture.
Best, as always.
You actually succeeded in making me laugh there!
For primary sources, you'll want the ante-Nicene Fathers, especially Polycarp and Irenaeus. Google that. Here's a good FReeper resource list with clickable links (See, I'm making it easy for you).
For near-contemporary but secondary sources -- that is, historians of late antiquity --- you'll want Eusebius of Caesarea and Hippolytus of Rome. Google.
Here's a little standard history from a modern scholar:
History of the Catholic Church"The Catholic Church is the longest-enduring institution in the world. Beginning with the first Christians and continuing in our day..." (For heaven's sake, do look up the rest of it...)
Here are citations from non-Catholic sources.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, Catholicism "The Christian church that has been the decisive spiritual force in the history of Western civilization. Along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism" ...The Catholic Church; When was it founded..."
"ROMAN CATHOLICISM. The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD...The name of the church is derived from its base in Rome and from a Greek term meaning "universal." The word Catholic refers to the wholeness of the church, and for many centuries the Roman church claimed to be the only true Christian denomination."b>(Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)
ROMAN CATHOLICISM: "Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E." (Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )
"The history of the Roman Church, therefore, in relation to the ancient oriental churches, is in fact, the history of this claim to supremacy... historians trace to this acknowledgment of the superiority of that see, the numerous references to Rome on matters of doctrine or discipline; the appeals from other churches, even those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople; the depositions or nominations of bishops, examination and condemnation of heresies. . .
In all the controversies on the Incarnation---the Arian, the Nestorian, the Eutychian, the Monothelite---not only was the orthodoxy of Rome never impeached, but she even supplied at every crisis a rallying point for the orthodox of every church. "(Imperial Encyclopedia and Dictionary, Volume 32 © 1903)
"The Church of Rome is the earliest of Christian organization; after three centuries of persecution, it was given freedom by the edict of Constantine and Licinius and acquired increased influence. Bishoprics were established in various parts of the empire, but the one at Rome remained supreme, and in time the title of Pope, or father originally borne by all the bishops indiscriminately, began to be restricted to the bishop of Rome."(The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 6166, Volume 14,)
"The attention of every historian has been attracted by the endurance of the Papacy through centuries that have seen the downfall of every other European institution that existed when the Papacy arose, and of a number of others that have originated and fallen, while it continued to flourish. The Roman Catholic offers these facts as evidence that the Church is not merely a human institution, but that it is built "upon a rock" (The World Book Encyclopedia © 1940, Page 5730 Volume 13)
"Historical Notes. The Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church recognizes the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, as the Vicar of Christ on this earth, and as the Head of the Church. It traces its origin from the naming of the Apostles Peter by Jesus as the chief of the Apostles . The authority of Peter as head of the Church is exercised by his successors as the Bishops of Rome. The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church come from the faith given by Christ to his Apostles." (World Religions, By Benson Y. Landis, © 1957 Page 110)
"For nearly a thousand years the Christians remained practically one great community. Then the Greek Catholics broke away from the Roman Catholics." (The World Book Encyclopedia ©1940, Page 1413 Volume 3)
"(The Catholic) Church... traces an unbroken line of popes from St. Peter in the 1st century AD to the present occupant of the papal throne. During this nearly 2,000-year period there were more than 30 false popes, most notably during the late 14th and early 15th centuries. These men were merely claimants to the position. There have rarely been periods when a genuine pope was not ruling the church. In 1978 John Paul II became the 264th true pope." (Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia © 1996)
"The Roman Catholic church ... the only legitimate inheritor, by an unbroken episcopal succession descending from Saint Peter to the present time, of the commission and powers conferred by Jesus Christ...Until the break with the Eastern church in 1054 and the break with the Protestant churches in the 1500s, it is impossible to separate the history of the Roman Catholic church from the history of Christianity" (The Encarta Encyclopedia © 1997)"
"33-40 A.D.The Roman Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ"(The Timetables of History © 1975)
"St. Peter, of Bethsaida in Galilee, From Christ he received the name of Cepha, an Aramaic name which means rock. Prince of the Apostles, was the first pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He lived first in Antioch and then in Rome for 25 years. In C.E. 64 or 67, he was martyred. St. Linus became the second pope." (National Almanac © 1996)
"ROMAN CATHOLICISM The largest of the Christian denominations is the Roman Catholic church. As an institution it has existed since the 1st century AD, ..." (Comptons Encyclopedia ©1995)
"Roman Catholic authority rests upon a mandate that is traced to the action of Jesus Christ himself, when he invested Peter and, through Peter, his successors with the power of the keys in the church. Christ is the invisible head of his church, and by his authority the pope is the visible head." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)
"Roman Catholicism Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctrinal and organizational structure that traces its history to the Apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century AD." (Encyclopedia Britannica ©1999)
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, the largest single Christian body, composed of those Christians who acknowledge the supreme authority of the bishop of Rome, the pope, in matters of faith. The word catholic (Gr. katholikos) means "universal" and has been used to designate the church since its earliest period, when it was the only Christian church." (Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)
"The doctrine of apostolic succession, that is, the continuous transmission of ministry from the time of Jesus until today. The doctrine is found as early as the Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96) of Pope Clement I."(Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia ©1998-2000)
I expect I'll be criticized for not putting in enough, and for putting in way, WAY too much. (I know that cut-and-paste makes the eyes grow weary.) Anyhow I figure there's enough here to get a person rolling who's really itnersted in digging out the truth.
I don't have time right now to make a pre-cooked, pre-sliced, pre-chewed and pre-digested version for everybody along the lines of "My Weekly Reader." I have to clean my kitchen and work some more on my long-neglected parish newsletter.
Grr, grr, grr.
See, I do have a life outside of Free Republic.
EXACTLY! That's exactly the point.
IF all the Christian churches were Catholic from Day One (and "catholic" = the church "according to the whole," all the churches together)--- then the Seven Churches of Asia in John's Revelation are indeed erring Catholic churches, and they are being reprimanded by a Catholic Apostle/Bishop (John).
And that's fine. There were at least 40 local churches by 100 AD, and some needed correcting by St. John, which is exactly what he should be doing as a good Catholic leader: teaching, correcting, governing.
Meddling.
On the other hand, IF the early Church was Baptist or Pentecostal or Non-Denom or something else, as claimed by some FReepers, then the Seven Churches are erring Bapt-Pent-Nondenom churches.
Except as I understand it, Baptist churches don't cotton to "authoritarian hierarchies" and outside interference upon the local congregation, so I suppose they'd just shrug off the correction and go their merry way.
Which explains why there are so many whackadoo Baptists in central Greece.
:o)
"That's a joke, son." (Quote from Foghorn Leghorn)
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.