Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Writing a detail that was not included in Scripture is not necessarily a contradiction of scripture.
If that were the case, then the four Gospels contradict each other. Just look closely at the four very different narratives describing the Resurrection of Christ in each of the Gospels. You should see what I mean.
The Word of God is both 100% God, and 100% man.So was Jesus 100% God or some part man/ some part God?
If He was 100% God in Flesh, then it would only mean his Spirit was God. The Spirit of Man was too weak to even withstand the presence of God including Moses who could only look at God's back.
It made 100% sense to say, John 14:12-18, "
Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves. 12Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
So if He's 100% God, then no mankind participation would be necessary. If Man was necessary the immaculate conception could be saying, "Mary being a goddess/something of the nature." If He's 100% God but had to come to in the flesh for the sake of undoing what Adam did then he had to come back 100% pure.
So the work of his conception was 100% Holy Spirit. In that way, He would conquer the World and temptations that faced man from a God's Perspective not from Man ... for him to have been 100% sinless.
More so, it explains why He was able to be Human at the point of death. For him to have left his Church with the Holy Spirit, He knew He needed to leave us 100% pure too through the cleansing of His blood and the Salvation by Grace using his Holy Spirit.
The LORD Could have never been anything man!!! because the Spirit is either God's or of Evil. The Holy Spirit comes to lives in the heart because that's where everything is. In fact, Mary must have been under 100% surveillance of the Holy Spirit (sorry I don't know if that's okay). But the conception was GOD's alone.
The same way he breathed his Image into the clay to form man, the same way he breathed His son into flesh. Don't suggest something like Goddess!!! The LORD left us his HOLY SPIRIT as our Helper so that we won't be like Orphans!
John 14:16-18, "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever—17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will bec in you.18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.Scripture says Mary delivered and wrapped the baby. PoJ says the midwife did. It's a contradiction. Plus there are others, not the least of which has to do with the afterbirth. Why does the midwife (not Salome) believe Mary was a virgin after the baby appears?
If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.Different subject, but no, they don't contradict as regards Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.
I know it is a silly question but what is PoJ?The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.
If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.
It's the "Protoevangelium of James", which is an early Christian book that was written sometime in the second century. The Church decided that it did not belong in the Bible, but recognizes that some information contained in it is true.I know it is a silly question but what is PoJ?
Ok. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?It's the "Protoevangelium of James", which is an early Christian book that was written sometime in the second century. The Church decided that it did not belong in the Bible, but recognizes that some information contained in it is true.
The Church was extremely cautious about which books belonged to the Scripture and there were strict protocols. The authorship (who really wrote it) was a critical factor. The Church was somehow well aware that this book was not really written by James, the Lord's brother.Ok. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?
I think that might have been the Thomas. It's not in the PoJ. Read for yourself if you have time. It's rather short http://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/total-readings/james.pdfOk. Gotcha. Do you know why it was not included?
Edit: nevermind. I just found out that it was excluded because it was not of apostolic origin (i.e. James did not write it).
Is it true that the PoJ said that the child Jesus killed people out of anger and then resurrected them or was the the Po Thomas?
Thanks. I will look at it.I think that might have been the Thomas. It's not in the PoJ. Read for yourself if you have time. It's rather short http://www.asu.edu/courses/rel376/total-readings/james.pdf
So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.The Church does not claim that all details in the book are accurate, we merely know parts of it to be true based upon experience, as I explained in my prior post.
If you take each account and compare them, there are glaring differences between some of the Gospel narratives. Skeptics cite many of these differences as proof that the resurrection is a hoax. My point is that just because an apocryphal work contains inaccuracies, it does not necessarily make the entire work false. The Church, which is "the pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15), knows that some information found in the story is accurate even though some might not be.
The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.
There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.
Scripture is to be read from within Holy Tradition which is the Life of the Holy Spirit breathing in the Church, which is the "pillar and foundation of the Truth" (Timothy 3:15). The Church is not above Scripture, they belong together.So in this way, one sets their church above God-breathed scripture.
The Ecumenical council at Nicea in the year 325 (I think) is when the Church officially decreed the Biblical canon for the Church. There were quite a few writings produced by various Christian sects, some heretical but claiming Apostolic authorship.There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.
Had Adam not sinned, Christ would have incarnated, and we would have been united to Him without needing to die to the death into which we are born as a consequence of Adam's sin, in whom we now ARE born. Because of Adam's Sin, Christ died in our stead, putting the death that is our life to death in His Body, and Resurrecting Human Nature IN HIMSELF to Divine Life that death cannot any longer cause to die...
Theosis is not a process...
Romans 5, 12
The Greek text does no say "IN WHOM" but "THROUGH WHICH" [DEATH]...
Here he is writing AS one knowing the Law TO those knowing the Law...
Indeed, he is referring to himself historically prior to Christ...
Actually the little that Rome knows of Mary's life they received from the Church in Jerusalem. Everything else they've come up with is pious speculation.
Irenaeus spoke thus of Rome because Rome was not in error at that time. Context is important when understanding the fathers. In our current situation Irenaeus himself would not agree that his saying here would apply to Rome any longer, because Rome herself has broke with Apostolic Tradition.Pure pious conjecture.
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)
Who founded Constantinople? I forget the name of the Eastern Roman emperor.
J.A.
The New Testament was a product of the Church, not the other way around.
100% God, and 100% man
Interesting tradition you have there, not one I see much support for in history, unless you have something to enlighten us in that regard?There are a variety of OT canons, so I'd agree different churches did their part. But for NT, I believe the apostles like Paul and John assembled it, rather than leave it to simmer uncooked for some 400 or 1400 years.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?