Posted on 08/07/2019 3:20:08 PM PDT by ebb tide
Warm aprpeciation to you, Paul, Sylvanus and Timotheus.
So this is a distinction without a difference. I don't think the comma, wherever its placed, points to any difference --- far less, any contradiciton--- between the written or the oral transmission of the Apostles' teachings.
BTW it's 2 Thess 2:15. I had the wrong verse of Thess.
Still in a fog, eh? No one on this thread is anti-Mary the Mother of Jesus. I and others are not swallowing the heresies of the Catholicism created Mary. Is there some point upon which you are stuck and cannot comprehend that?
Have you ever read that passage where MAry and Jesus’s brothers AND sisters stood outside a house and asked to speak with Him?
---but you must make a distinction between Apostolic Tradition (which all comes from the Apostolic era -- the Apostles themselves and their co-workers, companions and disciples like Timothy, Titus, Barnabas, Silas, etc.) and lower-case "t" tradition, which could be later and could vary, e.g. whether the Sign of Peace is to be observed with a kiss or a handshake.
Some of the kids do a thumbs-up, but I don't think this is traditional. :o).
Interesting, one of us is right. The other is wrong.
I based my view on what the scriptures tells us. You on what someone tells you. It should give you pause.
Yes, a thousand times and the first time I read it I thought as you do, that mary had other children.
Jesus had brothers and sisters is the only hint that mary had other children which is a false concept.
There is no hint other than that that mary had other children
but there are several scriptures that hints pretty strongly that she didn’t.
John 19:25-27 25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.
The above scripture alone is enough to convince any one that Jesus was Marry`s only child.
not to mention the other scriptures I gave you.
No one on this thread is anti-Mary the Mother of Jesus........
That is false.
So that's four parts to the Trinity...Five if you count the Catholic's Mary...
Aren’t you the nice one. Personal insults are of only the last resort of the one that has lost the argument they are also not allowed on the forum
So that’s four parts to the Trinity...Five if you count the Catholic’s Mary...
I only count three my self, the father, the son which is Christ and the holy spirit.
Jesus was born and became the son Christ, that still leaves only three.
Aren’t you the nice one........
I suppose I could go into revelation 17 which describe the prods of being whores , yeah talk about nice.
Show me from scripture..........
It does no good to show some one scripture who does not believe scripture.
Really. What verse describes protestants as whores. I eagerly await your answer.
The “brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Clopas, not Joseph.......
That is true and it is pretty well documented for any one who wants to know the truth but make believe Christians are not interested in the truth, they just want every one to think they have all kinds of faith.
It is rather foolish to argue that Protestants have a uniform view, but as regards the logic that Jesus was God in the the flesh so therefore Mary is the mother of God, the problem (as I have before times expressed) is that while even if allowable in that specified sense, yet yet this lack of specification of Mary being the mother of the Divine Christ who created her versus what the normal use of "Mother of God" naturally conveys. As would be calling the mother of Mary the grandmother of God (and all the way back to Eve), being contrary to the language of Scripture, and its careful distinguishing btwn the Creator and the created.
While in a specified technical sense Mary could be called the mother of God as the bearer of the incarnated Divine creator Son, like as Israel itself could be called the God-bearer as qualified, (Rm. 9:5) yet the uncritical common use of the formal title "Mother of God" is misleading and even a blasphemous use since its normal denotation is that of ontological oneness, while Mary contributed absolutely zero to the deity of Christ, and was not responsible for the Divine nature that makes Him the very Son of God.
In contrast, the Holy Spirit is careful to add the qualifier "according to the flesh" and emphasizes Deity ("and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever") when stating that the Divine Christ came out of Israel. (Rm. 9:5)
While "mother of my lord" as specifying Christ can be used, (Lk. 1:43) "Mother" of" and Deity are not to commonly go together, and at best, what Ratzingers states regarding "Co-redemptrix" applies to "Mother of God," as concerns the language of Scripture:
"the formula “Co-redemptrix” departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings” (53).
“Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything she is through Him. The word “Co-redemptrix” would obscure this origin. A correct intention being expressed in the wrong way. “For matters of faith, continuity of terminology with the language of Scripture and that of the Fathers is itself an essential element; it is improper simply to manipulate language” (God and the world: believing and living in our time, by Pope Benedict XVI, Peter Seewald, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2000, p. 306)
Pinning the charge of being a hater on those who are opposing thinking of a mortal far, far, far above that which is written, ascribing power, titles and glory that is nowhere given to any created being in Scripture, and only to God, has no more warrant than liberals charging those who oppose their perversion of male and female with being haters.
I am sadly confident that most Catholics, as well as liberal Prots, are in Hell (And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 1 Peter 4:18), but I disagree with the popular conception that the lost are railing against God in Hell, and have no thought about the welfare of those on earth. Instead, the (true) story of the rich man in Luke 16 reveals a souls with more concern for lost souls then most who profess to be Christians today.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. (Luke 16:22-28)
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.