Immaculate Conception

[Albion]

Calling the ancient witness of the Church, legend, does not make it anything other than the ancient witness of the Church.

It's a legend. If the church unofficially adopted it in the same way as we've filled in some of the details concerning the Incarnation--like saying that the wise men were Zoroastrian priests or that one of them was black (per almost every creche you see) etc.--these remain legends that we perpetuate out of custom and because they're harmless so long as we do not make doctrine out of it. That's what the idea of Joseph being much older or the sire of other children who came before Jesus amounts to.

 

[FenderTL5]

I assume you are referring to Dr. Stanley. If so then yes, he is a wonderful Christian teacher and Pastor.

I would find it almost unbelievable that you would find your way out of and away from his Biblical foundational teachings.

However, I am very glad you are comfortable with where you are.

I'm well acquainted w/Dr. Stanley. I worked in Christian broadcasting for 7 years in Atlanta and have several close friends who actually work at In Touch. However, the person I referred to is linked in my post (linkage again).

 

[Major1]

It's a legend. If the church unofficially adopted it in the same way as we've filled in some of the details concerning the Incarnation--like saying that the wise men were Zoroastrian priests or that one of them was black (per almost every creche you see) etc.--these remain legends that we perpetuate out of custom and because they're harmless so long as we do not make doctrine out of it. That's what the idea of Joseph being much older or the sire of other children who came before Jesus amounts to.

I agree with that.

It is funny though that if you have been in as many Catholic churches as I have,(that is an assumption) every single statue of Joseph pictures him as a young man almost looking as young as Mary in most.

IMO the only reason it was perpetuated was to answer the question of who the "Brothers and sisters" of Jesus are, which are found in the Bible so as to explain the perpetual virginity of Mary.

 

[Major1]

I'm well acquainted w/Dr. Stanley. I worked in Christian broadcasting for 7 years in Atlanta and have several close friends who actually work at In Touch. However, the person I referred to is linked in my post (linkage again).

But you have to admit that my guess was really a good one. Agree that he is a good Christian teacher as well but not in Stanley's class.

 

[Albion]

I agree with that.

It is funny though that if you have been in as many Catholic churches as I have,(that is an assumption) every single statue of Joseph pictures him as a young man almost looking as young as Mary in most.

That's true. I never gave it any thought, but it seems as though he would be represented as an older man.

 

[prodromos]

It's a legend.

Yes, I understand that this is your opinion.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It's not an "official teaching of Protestantism."

It's taught as the factual interpretation in Protestant churches and on Protestant radio, that makes it official from my perspective.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thank you for adjusting your statement. Of course, some persons will say such things. My criticism was only about the statement that it's official teaching and, further, that that is the case with all Protestant churches. Neither of those is correct to say.

Protestant churches claim to be One Church guided by One Spirit. Therefore I hold you collectively responsible for any teaching taught officially in Protestant churches, just as it would be fair for you to hold the Orthodox collectively responsible for any teaching taught officially in Orthodox churches.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I can not agree with that.

Protestants teach that the siblings of Jesus are Mary's children because that is exactly what the Scriptures actually say. We do not need to fabricate or think up anything. We just read the words and accept them as they are.

Matthew 13:56 reads..........
“Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Aren’t all his sisters with us?”

No, Scripture doesn't say his siblings are Mary's children ANYWHERE. In fact, Acts 1:14 doesn't group Mary as the mother of Christ's siblings, but lists them separately after saying she is the Mother of Christ.

Your reading of Scripture did not exist five hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, fifteen hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago. It is a brand new reading, you "developed" your understanding and changed it, just like the Papists. And you will continue to do so, year after year. A hundred years from now, Protestantism will be still more different in how the Bible is understood, in ways that are at odds with today's Protestantism (and the "new understanding" will be called "conservative" when in fact it is innovative, just like the new understanding of today is). Your philosophy is one of change, like the Papists, one of doctrine improving and becoming more accurate; the only difference is you use "improved" understanding of the Bible to justify it. If the Protestant Church were guided by the Spirit of Truth, you wouldn't waffle on your doctrines, you would have consistent, unchanging doctrines. But your doctrines are not consistent and unchanging, you keep changing them! What's more, you teach contradictory dogma in different Protestant churches! How can you claim even remotely that the Spirit of Truth is guiding your Church when different, contradictory dogmatic truths are being taught within it? And they change over time?

There is One Spirit, One Truth. And He doesn't waffle, and He isn't a cacophony.

 

[Albion]

It's taught as the factual interpretation in Protestant churches and on Protestant radio, that makes it official from my perspective.

You still are talking as though there's some particular denomination involved. Not only have you identified none, but you are only talking about individuals anyway. Yet you called it "official." No. You're not even close.

 

[Albion]

Protestant churches claim to be One Church guided by One Spirit. .

Another round of claiming that "Protestant churches" believe something or other, when that's totally false. What Protestant churches are you talking about? What have they said that would cause you to make this allegation?

By the way, the Orthodox churches officially believe that the Czar of Russia will return to reclaim his throne. Well...I know a couple of people who are Orthodox and they say this, so is it accurate for me to say what I did here?

 

[prodromos]

That simply is not he case at all. I hate to keep saying this because it makes me look like I have lost my memory. But the truth is that the suggestion that Joseph was married previous to being mentioned in Scripture as Mary’s betrothed is completely fictional. There is no scriptural evidence, or even a subtle suggestion, that Joseph was married to anyone but Mary. The idea that Mary was Joseph’s second wife originated with Catholic tradition in an effort to explain the existence of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.
You are welcome to believe that teaching but please understand that there is nothing in the Scriptures to validate it. IF there was, you and every other Catholic would have shared it and we would not be having this lovely conversation.

I am getting rather tired of your strawmen. I did not say it is found in Scripture, I said it is in complete harmony with Scripture.

My dear friend, that just is not so either. How can I acknowledge something that does not exist?????

I can assure you that my posts are not fiction. Once again your response simply does not address what I have written, and I have to admit it is getting rather tiresome.

The Catholic church calling itself the pillar and ground of truth is like the wolf being caught in the henhouse and he says the farmer threw him in the pen. The Catholic church can say whatever it chooses to say and you can believe everything they say. However, what I am saying yet once again....
those teaching to do apply to me and the rest of Protestant believers for ONE reason....................
none of them are found in God's Word the Bible. Those doctrines you posted are Catholic doctrines and are in NO way Bible doctrines.

Yet another strawman. I have not once mentioned the Catholic Church. Everything I have posted is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and was well established long before Rome seperated and started 'developing' their doctrine.

I really do not think that I have been anymore combative toward you than you have been toward me. If my responses to you have not been what you would like them to be, it is probably because I tend to respond to people as they respond to me. I will try to do better as I know you will as well.

If I am combatative, it is out of frustration at having to deal with your non responses which do not address what I have posted. I don't know if it a deliberate tactic of yours or if you really do have a problem with comprehension, but it is extremely annoying either way.

 

[Major1]

I am getting rather tired of your strawmen. I did not say it is found in Scripture, I said it is in complete harmony with Scripture.

I can assure you that my posts are not fiction. Once again your response simply does not address what I have written, and I have to admit it is getting rather tiresome.

Yet another strawman. I have not once mentioned the Catholic Church. Everything I have posted is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and was well established long before Rome seperated and started 'developing' their doctrine.

If I am combatative, it is out of frustration at having to deal with your non responses which do not address what I have posted. I don't know if it a deliberate tactic of yours or if you really do have a problem with comprehension, but it is extremely annoying either way.

What is really tiresome is you stating opinions without ever posting Scripture to validate that opinion.

All you need to do is post the Scriptures where you believe they are in harmony with the things we have discussed.

Just post the Scriptures and we can end this debate.

I am sorry you feel like I am not responding to your questions and you feel the need to think I have a problem understanding you. To me that is a personal comment which seems to come out of your frustration of not being able to prove your theories Biblically.

Considering YOUR combative nature, how many Scriptures have you posted to validate your theories? I have asked and asked and asked so again, how many have you posted?

Just post the Scriptures.!!!!

 

[Major1]

No, Scripture doesn't say his siblings are Mary's children ANYWHERE. In fact, Acts 1:14 doesn't group Mary as the mother of Christ's siblings, but lists them separately after saying she is the Mother of Christ.

Your reading of Scripture did not exist five hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, fifteen hundred years ago, or two thousand years ago. It is a brand new reading, you "developed" your understanding and changed it, just like the Papists. And you will continue to do so, year after year. A hundred years from now, Protestantism will be still more different in how the Bible is understood, in ways that are at odds with today's Protestantism (and the "new understanding" will be called "conservative" when in fact it is innovative, just like the new understanding of today is). Your philosophy is one of change, like the Papists, one of doctrine improving and becoming more accurate; the only difference is you use "improved" understanding of the Bible to justify it. If the Protestant Church were guided by the Spirit of Truth, you wouldn't waffle on your doctrines, you would have consistent, unchanging doctrines. But your doctrines are not consistent and unchanging, you keep changing them! What's more, you teach contradictory dogma in different Protestant churches! How can you claim even remotely that the Spirit of Truth is guiding your Church when different, contradictory dogmatic truths are being taught within it? And they change over time?

There is One Spirit, One Truth. And He doesn't waffle, and He isn't a cacophony.

AMEN! That is what I have been saying.
I wonder why it took so long for anyone to agree with me as It is what the Scriptures actually say.

Acts 1:14 to me is as you said....."a fact" that the children were grouped separately is YOUR OPINION.......
" They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers."

It is a statement of fact that Mary had children which were half siblings of Jesus which is THE FACT presented. How else could it have been said ????

I understand your argument about my reading. However the real fact is just as simple. The words read existed 2000 years ago when they were written. They existed 1500 years ago when the Catholic church canonized the Bible. Age ha nothing to do with truth. Truth is true whether it is 1 day old or 1 million years old.

I would also disagree that my doctrines change. #1.....I do not have any doctrines what so ever.

Would you please post the comment # where I have changed a Bible doctrine???????

 

[Major1]

That's true. I never gave it any thought, but it seems as though he would be represented as an older man.

Absolutely my point. The statues, or images it seems to me would have been passed down through the years from "TRADITION".

Some of our Catholic friends have said and promoted the presence of pictures of Mary and Jesus because their likeness was from the "Traditions" of those who saw them. But it seems that that logic is very subjective when it turns against them and the explanation can not be explained or spun.

 

[FenderTL5]

..it seems as though he would be represented as an older man.

He represented as older in Orthodox iconography.

 

[Albion]

He represented as older in Orthodox iconography.

Interesting to know.

Incidentally, I was thinking earlier that this might have something to do with Western art forms because, as is often noted, the babe in many manger scenes or 'Madonna and Child' paintings often doesn't look like a newborn, either.

 

[FenderTL5]

Interesting to know.

Incidentally, I was thinking earlier that this might have something to do with Western art forms because, as is often noted, the babe in many manger scenes or 'Madonna and Child' paintings often doesn't look like a newborn, either.

Art forms are not an issue I can speak to with any authority.

Here's the wiki page on the traditional orthodox Nativity icon explaining all of the meanings in the imagery. (linkage to Nativity Icon)
FWIW: He's older in the icons of the Presentation at the Temple (to Simeon) as well.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

You still are talking as though there's some particular denomination involved. Not only have you identified none, but you are only talking about individuals anyway. Yet you called it "official." No. You're not even close.

Why would it matter if a particular denomination is involved, if you all identify as One Church? If non-denominational churches do it, that would make no difference.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Another round of claiming that "Protestant churches" believe something or other, when that's totally false. What Protestant churches are you talking about? What have they said that would cause you to make this allegation?

What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?

This is an official site representing an official Protestant ministry.

By the way, the Orthodox churches officially believe that the Czar of Russia will return to reclaim his throne. Well...I know a couple of people who are Orthodox and they say this, so is it accurate for me to say what I did here?

No Orthodox church teaches that, no. No official Orthodox site suggests that, no.