How do we know . . . .

[Mathetes the kerux]

Where in the Bible did Jesus establish Bible Colleges?

Probably when He established the micro-chip that runs your computer that you are now typing on.

C'mon brother . . . you can show better reasoning than that . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So he was taught from Scriptures and taught a 'lesson' not found in the Gospels?

OOPS!


I wasn't the one who raised the spectre that it might have been prophetic.


We say that God's message leads us to salvation, if we live that message.

You say God's message leads to salvation, only if it's written, and only read, because living it means nothing.


Since he doesn't present any written texts that he learnt from then he doesn't say "Follow the book I learnt from" but "Follow the teachings I give you by word and by epistle"

So he was taught from Scriptures and taught a 'lesson' not found in the Gospels?

OOPS!

No oops there bro. Just proves my point Paul didn't rely on tradition.

I wasn't the one who raised the spectre that it might have been prophetic.

You are right, but your attempt at feigning an answer was deplorable . . . you are welcome to try again though . . . just use good logic.

We say that God's message leads us to salvation, if we live that message.

You say God's message leads to salvation, only if it's written, and only read, because living it means nothing.

Here you go again . . . you have no idea what I say . . . you haven't even asked by stereotyped me into a category . . . that is arrogance. Perhaps you should ask me instead of assert what you THINK I believe?

My only assertion is that SCRIPTURE is said to grant the wisdom that leads to salvation . . . this is NEVER attributed to tradition. Nice try at an ad hominem . . . but it won't work. Show me where tradition is given equal authority as Scripture and then perhaps you can wax all you want . . . but until then . . . my point stands.

Since he doesn't present any written texts that he learnt from then he doesn't say "Follow the book I learnt from" but "Follow the teachings I give you by word and by epistle"

Are you serious? Count how many quotes Paul uses of the OT in his corpus. Count how many times he argues FROM THE SCRIPTURES in Acts . . . see Jesus' own seminar in the 40 days before He is recieved into heaven . . . it is the SCRIPTURES that He opens their minds to understand . . . NOT ORAL TRADITION OR THE TARGUMS. Try again brother. He presents HUNDREDS of texts from the OT from Gen onward.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You are right. This is the crux issue.

For you, men, their interpretaions and tradition are equally as authoritative as Scripture.

For me they are not. If the gift of NT prophecy was not considered infallible . . . but the Scriptures are . . . then men, interpretation and tradition certainly fall under (meaning as lesser authority) the gift of prophetic utterance . . . ergo . . . the church is fallible and never will I accept the generally held tradition nor teaching of the church over the clear meaning of the Scriptures. I don't think you would either . . . but the structure of authority that you propose I don't see in the NT. Tradition is never given equal import as Scripture . . .

In your opinion.

Peace.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes the kerux,

Where did you get the idea that Paul went into the wilderness for 3 years? The Church does not, and has never taught this.

What Church body baptized St. Paul? What was his mission home? What Church community did he claim?

Was it not Antioch? Was it not to the Street called Straight that he was told to go to? (ACTS 9) Was it not the Antiochian Priest Ananias that brought him into the Church? Do you know where the headquarters for The Church of Antioch is? On a street called Straight in Damascus. Do you know that we still maintain the chapel where St. Paul was baptised? Perhaps you do not realize that this ancient Church still exists?

Do you expect me, as a member of the Church of Antioch, being taught by the Priesthood of The Antiochian Church to trust your bible college's training over that of The Church that Paul called his home?

Do you honestly expect me not to accept my training from this source and give precedence to western secular bible colleges who, at best, are attempting to piece together information that they get from so many sources and wind up with such a distorted picture?

Forgive me...

Here:

Gal 1:15-19
5 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
NASU

Which is within the context of:

Gal 1:11-12
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NASU


Well known chronological sequence after Paul's conversion. He spends three years in the Arabian wilderness being taught the Gospel of Christ . . . presumably in the same way as the other Apostles . . . Christ's revelation and opening of the meaning of the Scriptures . . . hence Paul's WHOLE theology ROOTED in the OT sacrificial system and in the rest of the OT JEWISH Canon.

I assume he was baptized in the community that he recieved the Baptism of the Spirit in . . . Damascus . . . seeing that the common NT pattern is baptism asap after being saved.

As for your attempt at a line of authority to the Antiochian church . . . no dice. They submitted to the Scripture as all in the early church.

Was it not Antioch? Was it not to the Street called Straight that he was told to go to? (ACTS 9) Was it not the Antiochian Priest Ananias that brought him into the Church?

Are you kidding me? I have been impressed by you on many things brother . . . but this is just error.

Acts 9:1-4
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice
NASU

and

Acts 9:10
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
NASU

And this Damascus is about 150 mi south of his missionary base of Antioch of Syria.

Do you expect me, as a member of the Church of Antioch, being taught by the Priesthood of The Antiochian Church to trust your bible college's training over that of The Church that Paul called his home?

Do you honestly expect me not to accept my training from this source and give precedence to western secular bible colleges who, at best, are attempting to piece together information that they get from so many sources and wind up with such a distorted picture?

Do what you want brother . . . by the error that you have presented I know what I would do if I were you. ut facts are facts and churches are fallible. NO ONE AT ANTIOCH DIED ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS . . . so why put so much faith in what men tell you?

Sure there is AN authority there . . . but it is not the supreme authority. And plenty of unbaised sources affirm the facts about the LXX . . .

Truth be told . . . my bible college holds the same authority as your church. Men trying humbly to maintain fallibly what God has entrusted to them in the Glory of the Gospel of Christ. The office of a teacher or apostle or prophet were not localed to regional authorities . . . only poimenas and presbuteros were.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

In your opinion.

Peace.

Forgive me...

So show me where tradition is given equal authority . . . and our case will be closed . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

The well is poisoned, but I didn't do it.

For instance.

Bible college's still teach that St. Joseph was a young man, when in truth he was 85 and Mary was 15. They were never married, only betrothed, and Mary remained a virgin all her life.

So... who do you trust?

Forgive me...

Yet she had other children and the scriptures state clearly that she and her HUSBAND Jospeh had sex.

Wow . . . you really have swallowed hook line and sinker tradition as more authoritative than Scripture . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

St. Joseph was 110 when he died, and Christ himself buried him the year before starting his ministry.

Like I said... It all depends on who you trust for information.

I see The Church of Antioch as being the most reliable source.

Forgive me...

Well when you die . . . it certainly will not be the church of Antioch that atones for your sin.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Why?

The Holy Scriptures don't say one way or the other? It's a popular modern myth that they were both young.

ALL the ancient Churches (every one of them) teach otherwise.

Forgive me...

Yes the Scriptures state EXACTLY THE CONTRARY:

Matt 1:24-25
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NASU

The word "until" presuppose a terminus . . . he kept her a virgin until after the birth of Christ and then consumated the marriage.

So, sorry brother but the Scriptures do indeed say "one way or the other" . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Bible colleges don't teach that partaking of The Holy Eucharist is the center of Christian worship either. Why should I trust anyone who misses the very heart of the matter? The Holy Eucharist is Christ among us (and within us), and is the center of worship.

Forgive me...

How do you know? You have no idea dude and you haven't even asked what mine did teach . . . you presume too much . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yes the Scriptures state EXACTLY THE CONTRARY:

Matt 1:24-25
24 And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
NASU

The word "until" presuppose a terminus . . . he kept her a virgin until after the birth of Christ and then consumated the marriage.

So, sorry brother but the Scriptures do indeed say "one way or the other" . . .

No... The word "until" does not presuppose a terminus.

http://www.orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm

The Greek word most often translated as "until" is eos (pronounced āōs), and is negated by ouk at the beginning of the phrase, meaning "not."

The modern-day meaning of the word "until" might lead us to think that Joseph "did not know her until..." but that he did afterwards. However, the biblical usage is quite different. In ancient and biblical usage, the word eos is used to designate a "boundary formed by a historical event."

The Greek conjunction eos (till), like the Hebrew ad-ki and the Latin donec, while expressing what has occurred up to a certain period, leaves the future entirely aside"

Here are some cross references to illustrate that ouk...eos it more accurately translated as "not until this important event, but still not after" (i.e. never.)

1) Note Luke 2:36-37, the story of Christ's Presentation at the Temple. The verse describes Anna the prophetess as having lived with her husband for 7 years after their marriage, and then, "she has lived as a widow until (eos) ." At the time of The Presentation of Christ she is still a widow, and will continue to be so after this. The "boundary" historical event is the Presentation of Christ.

2) Another good example of this is Acts 8:40. The verse says "Phillip.... traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until (eos) he reached Caesarea" (NIV) Did Phillip the deacon preach the gospel after he reached Caesarea? Of course he did. The "boundary" historical event is Phillip the deacon's arrival in Caesarea and the word eos is used to denote the importance of this event. He preached before, until this significant event, and still after.

3) Another example is Matthew 24:21, where the use of the word (eos) as having an action as continuing into the future is actually clarified in the text: "then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until (eos) now – and never to be equaled again." This great distress has not been seen until now, and still, will never be seen again.

4) See John 5:17. Jesus is speaking: "My Father is always at work to (eos) this very day, and I, too am working." (NIV) or "My Father has been working until (eos) now..."(NKJV) "My Father is still working, (eos) and I also am working." Clearly Jesus did not mean that His Father was working only until that very day, but still. Jesus' presence on earth was a "boundary" historical event. The Father worked until that day, and still afterwards.

5) other examples: Genesis 8.7 "Noah...sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro till the waters were dried up from the earth."
Psalm 110.1 "the Lord said to my Lord: Sit thou on my right hand until I make thy enemies thy footstool."
See also Isaiah 22.15, Matt 12.20, 1 Tim 4.13, Psalm 90.2, Psalm 72.7
Finally, back to Matthew 1:25a, the birth of Mary's Firstborn Son is a "boundary" historical event. In the same sense as the examples above, Joseph did not know Mary before the birth, but also after this watershed event of the birth of the Messiah.

Believe it or not, it is not difficult to argue (using only modern Biblical exegetical methods) that the position of the Orthodox Church of the Ever-Virginity of Mary is true. However the most significant argument in this discussion is not the Biblical evidence, but that it has simply always been the teaching of the Church. Any contradictory views were always considered heretical. This alternate view did not gain momentum until after the Protestant reformation, after which many of the foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity, and especially anything which appeared "Popish" (or Roman Catholic) had been thrown out entirely.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How do you know? You have no idea dude and you haven't even asked what mine did teach . . . you presume too much . . .

And you don't know how many Orthodox have attended them, left them and found the Truth.

I'm sorry for not asking... but your statement make it clear what they have taught you.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Well when you die . . . it certainly will not be the church of Antioch that atones for your sin.

Nor is that what they teach.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Yet she had other children and the scriptures state clearly that she and her HUSBAND Jospeh had sex.

Wow . . . you really have swallowed hook line and sinker tradition as more authoritative than Scripture . . .

Totally incorrect.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

No... The word "until" does not presuppose a terminus.

http://www.orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm


Forgive me...

however, it's a rather incomprehensible way to write it.

if, as the Orthodox state, that Joseph never actually married her, and was an octagenarian, and the matter of sexual relations between Mary and Joseph was of note, there would be no need to write it as it was in the Gospels.

why the author would state anything about it at all, is a very dubious mystery, if it were not in question.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Here:

Gal 1:15-19
5 But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased 16 to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went away to Arabia, and returned once more to Damascus.
18 Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days.
NASU

Which is within the context of:

Gal 1:11-12
For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
NASU


Well known chronological sequence after Paul's conversion. He spends three years in the Arabian wilderness being taught the Gospel of Christ . . . presumably in the same way as the other Apostles . . . Christ's revelation and opening of the meaning of the Scriptures . . . hence Paul's WHOLE theology ROOTED in the OT sacrificial system and in the rest of the OT JEWISH Canon.

I assume he was baptized in the community that he recieved the Baptism of the Spirit in . . . Damascus . . . seeing that the common NT pattern is baptism asap after being saved.

As for your attempt at a line of authority to the Antiochian church . . . no dice. They submitted to the Scripture as all in the early church.



Are you kidding me? I have been impressed by you on many things brother . . . but this is just error.

Acts 9:1-4
Now Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters from him to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he fell to the ground and heard a voice
NASU

and

Acts 9:10
10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
NASU

And this Damascus is about 150 mi south of his missionary base of Antioch of Syria.



Do what you want brother . . . by the error that you have presented I know what I would do if I were you. ut facts are facts and churches are fallible. NO ONE AT ANTIOCH DIED ON THE CROSS FOR YOUR SINS . . . so why put so much faith in what men tell you?

Sure there is AN authority there . . . but it is not the supreme authority. And plenty of unbaised sources affirm the facts about the LXX . . .

Truth be told . . . my bible college holds the same authority as your church. Men trying humbly to maintain fallibly what God has entrusted to them in the Glory of the Gospel of Christ. The office of a teacher or apostle or prophet were not localed to regional authorities . . . only poimenas and presbuteros were.

You might try finding out where the headquarters of The Church of Antioch is.... On a street called Straight in Damacus.

You reject what you do not understand. But then, so would I.

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

No... The word "until" does not presuppose a terminus.

http://www.orthodoxonline.com/ever_virginity.htm


Forgive me...

Your quotation COMPLETELY misses the context . . . until is GIVEN ITS TERMINUS in the text itself . . . the terminus is the birth of Christ . . . there is no open ended qualification of the term but rather an antecedant clause is connected in the passage itself . . . that antecedant clause is the birth of Christ. Sorry bro . . . no dice.

Pointing to the usage in other passages only proves ways that the word IS used . . . that doesn't necessitate the same usage. Context determines meaning in proper exegesis and hermeneutical enterprise . . . and the context is 1. Marriage (which if Joseph does not consummate is in violation of the covenant of marriage) 2. Virginity till after Jesus is born.
The mention of marriage requires the terminus usage of the term in the passage for it assumes the conjugation of the married parties with the "until" statement.

Your citation is weak a priori arguement . . . not to mention full of error . . . even the assertion of the abandonment of "foundational tenets of orthodox Christianity" is such a baltantly uninformed statement.

If you want to cut and paste someone's arguement . . . at least do a good one . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

And you don't know how many Orthodox have attended them, left them and found the Truth.

I'm sorry for not asking... but your statement make it clear what they have taught you.

Forgive me...

No my statement have never even touched upon the eucharistos . . . so they reveal nothing. YOU ASSUME. Not all bible colleges are uniform . . . and to assume so is either ignorance or arrogance.

Next time ask . . .

You are forgiven.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Nor is that what they teach.

Forgive me...

I don't think they do . . . but your exaltation of them places them so highly that they will rival God for your affections. You have placed much more trust in man than you should . . . that was my point.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

however, it's a rather incomprehensible way to write it.

if, as the Orthodox state, that Joseph never actually married her, and was an octagenarian, and the matter of sexual relations between Mary and Joseph was of note, there would be no need to write it as it was in the Gospels.

why the author would state anything about it at all, is a very dubious mystery, if it were not in question.

Very good point. To even include the statement in Matthew makes NO sense if they did not consummate the marriage. Might as well not even said it . . . or better yet . . . Matt. could have clearly chosen UNDISPUTABLY CLEAR words in Greek to have conveyed that Jospeh never had sex with her instead of a "well that is what he said . . . but he really meant . . ." obscure and convoluted communicae.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Very good point. To even include the statement in Matthew makes NO sense if they did not consummate the marriage. Might as well not even said it . . . or better yet . . . Matt. could have clearly chosen UNDISPUTABLY CLEAR words in Greek to have conveyed that Jospeh never had sex with her instead of a "well that is what he said . . . but he really meant . . ." obscure and convoluted communicae.

that's what I was thinking.

It would be just as easy to write "and they didn't have sex. (not using modern vernicular, of course, but there would be no question then, would there?)