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.
But Joab my friend some of the INSPIRED writings lead us to believe that Mary and Jesus' brothers hung with him, no reason to think they weren't Mary's kids...
No, I do know....You don't know?
Under the direction of the Holy Spirit.....You mean like self interpretation of the scriptures where what choses what they think they mean?
Hi Joab. Thanks for your input. I meant 'only child' as in the only offspring of Mary, since she is the focal point of the topic at the moment. I don't find any evidence that Joseph was a widower coming into his relationship with Mary, and no reference at all to his pre-existing children being with them before the birth of Jesus. You'd think it'd mention his other kids if they escaped to egypt with them, right? Or if he left them behind with other family, or anything. I haven't read through the birth account of Jesus in some time, but from what I recall, there is nothing that would lead to this assumption, other than extrabiblical texts written at a later date. Being that the text is not written till later, or 'uninspired' as you may call it, what gives it the veracity to base a belief upon? Other than that it is an answer? I consider gnostic writings as uninspired, and therefore do not give them any particular level of trust. Is this another issue of trusting the teacher rather than the teaching? If I'm incorrect, please correct me on this. This is one subject in which I'm still trying to understand the catholic view. Thanks, and God bless.
Under the direction of the Holy Spirit.....
I thought you believed in this thing called the Perpetual Virginity
But Joab my friend some of the INSPIRED writings lead us to believe that Mary and Jesus' brothers hung with him, no reason to think they weren't Mary's kids...
God created Adam and Eve in His image and likeness. Once Adam and Eve had sinned we read that they begot children in their own image and likeness: tainted by sin.
Mary was no exception. She was born out of a human father and mother.
You mean like the church father Hegesippus who apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20In fact the believers of the time believed Jesus brothers to be either his cousins as the Jews refered to cousins as brothers or Josephs children from previous marriage.
You mean like the church father Hegesippus who apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Hegesippus refers to Jude as "the Lord's brother according to the flesh" (church history of Eusebius, 3:20
And Tertullian apparently didn't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary. He writes that Jesus' brothers were "really" his brothers, his "blood-relationship" (Against Marcion, 4:19).
No, of course not. Even pastors and popes can be misguided.If the pastor next door has a different interpretation yet both feel guided by the Holy Spirit are both interpretations correct?
To compare scripture with scripture.What is the correct method to interpret scripture?
Do you believe Jesus was tainted with original sin because He was born of Mary?
No, of course not. Even pastors and popes can be misguided.
To compare scripture with scripture.
There can only be one correct I would think. It depends a little on the problem. Problems can be multifaceted of course.Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?
The NT "Canon" comes from the writing of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament.Where does the canon come from and which interpretation do will be used?
Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.Then what happens when both opinions are apparently scriptural and there is a stalemate, are both of the Holy Spirit?
Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.
Just because someone thinks it's the Holy Spirit,
doesnt mean that it is.
Anyone can be in error.
This is important to me. I have thought myself that different teachings cannot all come from God. So who is to decide which is right and which is wrong.Both cannot be scriptural if they're in disagreement.
Just because someone thinks it's the Holy Spirit,
doesnt mean that it is.
Anyone can be in error.
There can only be one correct I would think. It depends a little on the problem. Problems can be multifaceted of course.
The NT "Canon" comes from the writing of the apostles and prophets of the New Testament.
The OT canon was established by the prophets from before the Hellenistic period. It is abundantly testified to by itself, by Jesus and the Apostles and prophets of the New Testament as well.
Between all the books of Scripture there is internal and intrinsic evidence for their Godly origin......
For what it's worth...
I'm an Anglican; I have no special need to believe in the Immaculate Conception, but no particular grounds to be required to doubt it either.
I would observe that the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, a separate Catholic doctrine (shared with others, BTW) is being confused with the I.C. here. The I.C. simply says that Mary, unlike all other humans, was conceived without original sin, that the human tendency to sin innate in us since the Fall was not transmitted to her. She was conceived by a normal act of marital sex between her parents, not herself a virgin birth.
Even many Catholics, however, in attempting to honor Mary, fail to recognize the Church's teaching: like all the Faithful, Mary was saved through the grace of God mediated through the Atonement of Christ. The difference is that in the Catholic view, this worked "retroactively" -- since God is indeed master over time like all other created things -- to save her from conception onward, in order that her womb would be a sinless dwelling for the Incarnate Son. Like many another Catholic dogma, it needs to be seen as Christocentric, focusing on His Incarnation and Atonement, and His redeeming work.
As I noted above, the question of the I.C. is tangential to my own faith. But taking it as detracting from a focus on Christ is, I think, a mistake, and one we should avoid.
What are the choices?This is important to me. I have thought myself that different teachings cannot all come from God. So who is to decide which is right and which is wrong.
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?