Posted on 06/11/2017 10:27:59 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The point of origin of the Christian faith is Jesus Christ.
This page reviews the transmission of the Christian faith from Jesus Christ and the Apostles through the Traditions of the early Christian Church and the formation of the Canon of the New Testament of the Bible.
God has revealed himself to man through Divine Revelation, by sending us his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God chose to reveal himself to us so that we may become partakers of his divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). God first made himself known by creating our first parents, Adam and Eve, in his image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-28). Following the Fall of Adam and Eve through original sin, God's promise of Redemption gave them the hope of salvation (Genesis 3:15). In preparing for the redemption of the human race, God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses and the people and prophets of Israel. Salvation history is fulfilled through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word made Flesh.
Our appropriate personal response in our relationship with Christ Jesus is what St. Paul calls "the obedience of faith" (Romans 1:5, 16:26)!
There were three stages in the formation of the Gospels: the Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ, the Oral Tradition of the Apostles, and the Written Word.
(Excerpt) Read more at jesuschristsavior.net ...
You can save me the time and effort by googling “MRS DON-O” JESUS BROTHERS ADELPHOI and it’ll turn up most episodes of this ongoing discussion instantly for your perusal.
And each time you've been proven wrong in your assertions.
Thanks ealgeone. You’ve saved her time and effort by eliminating that disproven effort on her part. It just makes it easier for everybody.
I have never once seen a non-Catholic FReeper look into ancient liturgies--- including non-Roman liturgies --- to see how actual Christians actually prayed.
Because for Your sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. I have become estranged from my brothers And an alien to my mother's sons. For zeal for Your house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach You have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:7-9)
John 1:11 He came to his own, and his own received him not.
John 7:5 For neither did his brothers believe in him.
OTOH, a stated,deliberate, lifelong vowed virginity may well have been shocking. All the more reason to think that all those Christians who proclaimed Mary as Ever-Virgin, Asian, European and African, East and West, did not just make this up.
Like the doctrine of the Body and Blood of the Lord in the Eucharist, it's exactly the kind of radically disturbing, different thing they would have automatically rejected, unless they were convinced --- all of them --- that it were true.
to see how actual Christians actually prayed.
Luke 11:1 Once Jesus was in a certain place praying. As He finished, one of His disciples came to Him and said, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”
Note the disciples didn’t go to Johns disciples to learn to pray..................................
I've never been that interested in rites, rituals and formula type worship. It's too cultish for me.
I am reminded of Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." and Matthew 6:7 "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
I think the prayer should be un-rehearsed and un-orchestrated. Plain and simple and from the heart.
For instance, the Psalmist says, "God, you know my folly; my faults are not hidden from you." This describes a foolish and sinful man, not Jesus Christ.
Another example: in vv 23-29, the Psalmist calls down vengeance, wrath, fury and desolation upon his oppressors; the exact opposite of the suffering Messiah's words at Calvary, where he asks his Father to forgive them.
I point this out only to show that although this, David's psalm, looks forward also to the Messiah, it does not do so at every point. It doesn't "prove" that Jesus' mother had other sons, any more than it "proves" that Jesus was a man of vengeance, folly and sin. That's all on David.
One part of your argument sort of boomerangs on you. Students of the NT often point out that Jesus on the Cross gave his mother to St. John to care for her, showing that she had no other children to do the morally obligatory duty of taking her in and supporting her.
Some retort that Jesus' brothers were not disciples --- they were highly critical of him --- and therefore Jesus wanted his mother taken care of by disciples, by believers (brothers in the Faith), not by his kinship- brothers.
If the Epistle writers James and Jude were his literal biological brothers --- other sons of Mary --- AND brothers int he Faith, this undermines that argument. There would be no reason for Jesus to provide for his bereft mother by taking her out of the are of her natural sons and placing her in the care of a non-family-member, a non-relative, John.
The only way to solve this puzzling situation is to realize that the Church leaders James and Jude were not Jesus' biological brothers. He had no brothers born of Mary. She had no other sons.
You are certainly not shy about confirming your pervasive bias.
"Cultish"? Evidently Jewish prayer wouldn't appeal to you, either.
I disagree. The traditions Paul was talking about were the teachings of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Outside of Sacred Scripture, the only source we have today for what is "sacred tradition" is what the Catholic church claims was passed down orally through her. The writings of the Early Church Fathers are an unreliable source since we know not everything they taught or wrote about was in full agreement and sometimes contradicted Scripture.
Look at the Old Testament, for example. We know the history of the Jewish people and God's truths as revealed to them through His prophets about the origins of the universe, creation, man's history, the establishment of the laws, the nature of God, His plans, etc., because of what was preserved in these writings. We also have extra writings of the Jewish magisterium called the Talmud and Targums that are considered their traditions. But would you say the Sacred Scriptures are but a "part" of these or are they in subordination to the Scriptures as far as authority goes? If there was a conflict between the two, shouldn't Scripture be the higher authority because it is the Divinely-inspired word of God?
Certainly, we should expect that the Christian "tradition" is summed up in what Sacred Scripture says it is and not Scripture only being but a part of Christian tradition. They ought to agree and not be found in conflict. But we know that there have been many traditions over the centuries that are in contradiction to Scripture and even some that have NO Scriptural reference at all yet have been declared binding upon all Christians. My contention is that this was what Jesus castigated the religious leaders for doing - they negated God's word by their traditions. I don't have a problem with traditions, per se, just the idea that they are an authority above Scripture. Tradition has its place, God's word demands obedience.
“Cultish”? Evidently Jewish prayer wouldn’t appeal to you, either.
No Cptn, it doesn't make sense. I am an ex Catholic myself, so at one time I believed this stuff. I certainly don't believe it now.
We have been through this a thousand times. I have a friend here, who is from Greece. He speaks, reads and writes 7 languages, Greek, naturally, being his first language. He says the Greek words for the brothers and sisters of Jesus, tell him they came from the same mother. They don't accept that. Oh well, that's on them. I don't care much about that. I keep asking what is their plan of salvation? How do they plan to "attain" Heaven? As I recall, only one said anything, and he said he hoped he was good enough to go to Heaven. That ain't gonna cut the mustard.
I have no intention of waiting till I croak, to find out if I am going to Heaven. That is virtually an ironclad guarantee, that one will end up in the lake of fire 🔥 If people choose that, it's on them, but I will have none of it. 🙃
We know James later became a believer based on testimony from Paul and Acts.
You keep setting them up and we'll keep knocking them down.
We’re talking about Mary’s other kids.
We also have extra writings of the Jewish magisterium called the Talmud and Targums that are considered their traditions.
As for that "boomerang" you envision, the reason why Jesus gave the care of Mary over to John at the cross was simply because he was the ONLY one of the Apostles there. It took the resurrection and the giving of the Holy Spirit to convince Jesus' brothers of His deity. Your own boomerang is that you cannot ignore the many times the "brothers of Jesus" are mentioned specifically.
Except, as discussed and shown numerous times previously, there was no pledge of perpetual virginity. It is not supported in the New Testamemt accounts.
Religious leaders are a lot alike in that, aren't they?
I read something about straining gnats and swallowing camels, and a few other negative comments on the traditions of men from a Man who spoke with authority, unlike the religious leaders of the time...
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.