Immaculate Conception

[Albion]

Adjusting? that one remains unedited (which I will certainly confess is a a rarity for me).

I should have been clearer. I wasn't referring to adjusting the post (although there was an Edit involved) but in clarifying your point. The follow-up post agreed that it is not an official position of "Protestantism" although you had used that wording in the first one.

Of course there are no 'official teaching of all protestants'.

But that is what you wrote--"official teaching of Protestantism."

 

[Albion]

you have even pointed out the differing definitions of what 'Sola Scriptura' means

No, I haven't. I've consistently argued that Sola Scriptura has a meaning, even if some people have come up with their own knock-off versions and called them by that term.

 

[FenderTL5]

I should have been clearer. I wasn't referring to adjusting the post (although there was an Edit involved) but in clarifying your point. The follow-up post agreed that it is not an official position of "Protestantism" although you had used that wording in the first one.


But that is what you wrote--"official teaching of Protestantism."

That wasn't I.

added for further clarification:
my post at 4:01 this morning, Post 158, was my first post in this thread since Post 80, on June 22. The discussion was still on the primary topic back then.

 

[FenderTL5]

No, I haven't. I've consistently argued that Sola Scriptura has a meaning, even if some people have come up with their own knock-off versions and called them by that term.

Agreed. However many times the one's you have called out are fellow protestants. That was precisely my point.

 

[Major1]

I am not sure that's fair to say. When early Protestant leaders accepted some of the Marian beliefs or this one--that Joseph was old and a widower--we are not talking about doctrine but about custom, and they were never incorporated into any confessional statements. These are educated guesses or, at best, what some people call "pious opinions." But when we turn to the Catholic/Orthodox POV, we ARE talking about official teachings.

Agreed.

 

[Major1]

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



Hmm. Maybe so, but I've heard it from many Catholics. It's the easiest approach to explaining away Jesus having brothers and sisters, so if they did not employ this theory, they'd be left with the argument that brothers did not really mean brothers but something else instead.

It seems to me that the RCC of many years ago invented/fabricated the teaching that Joseph had children from a previous marriage for only one reason......to facilitate the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

 

[Albion]

Fender, there IS NO "official Protestant" POV with regard to any of this and Protestantism doesn't refer to any church body, so generalizations about what Protestantism stands for are almost necessarily going to be wrong. There is no "The Protestant Church."

But I do apologize for the mistake about who was saying what here. I traced it back and see where things went wrong. I have several guesses as to how that happened (such as the fact that I didn't quote anyone in my initial reply), but that's probably unimportant now.

 

[Albion]

It seems to me that the RCC of many years ago invented/fabricated the teaching that Joseph had children from a previous marriage for only one reason......to facilitate the teaching that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

I don't know that that is so. Usually, it's said that he had such a high regard for her, being chosen by God, etc. etc., that he wouldn't think of touching her, not that he was unable or something like that.

 

[FenderTL5]

Fender, there IS NO "official Protestant" POV with regard to any of this and Protestantism doesn't refer to any church body, so generalizations about what Protestantism stands for are almost necessarily going to be wrong. There is no "The Protestant Church."

no worries - we're good, apology accepted but not really necessary.

This (quote, to which I agree) is similar to what I almost posted at 4am. However, every time I read it back before posting, it read judgmentally coming from me and that was not my intent.

 

[Major1]

Adjusting? that one remains unedited (which I will certainly confess is a a rarity for me).

Of course there are no 'official teaching of all protestants'. Even among the things all protestants seemingly have in common there is broad disagreement. For example the Five Solas; you have even pointed out the differing definitions of what 'Sola Scriptura' means (or can mean).
(edit to add {see what I mean}): the definition of the Reformation is not exactly the same as how the term is used commonly today.

I would say to you that just as the Catholic church is a denomination which has certain doctrines it follows, so do other denominations as well.

Those teachings are usually called "Statements of Faith".

The Assembly of God has its official teaching which they produce and have every church of their denomination agree to.

Southern Baptists do exactly the same thing as do Methodists and Lutheran's and so on.

 

[Major1]

I don't know that that is so. Usually, it's said that he had such a high regard for her, being chosen by God, etc. etc., that he wouldn't think of touching her, not that he was unable or something like that.

The reality of Scripture is recorded in Matthew. Also from the ETWN's own web site we find this................EWTN.com - St Joseph as widower and father of several by his first marriage

Matthew 12:46 ..........
"While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother, and sister, and mother."

The most commonly proposed solution to understanding this text in light of the infallible teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary is that these "brothers" are kinfolk. A minority solution proposes that perhaps St. Joseph had children by a previous marriage and took Mary as his wife as an older man.

"St. Jerome notes that such a belief is based upon a non-biblical writing and he rejects it. Such an apocryphal idea may represent a sincere attempt to account for this seeming complication."

All I am saying is that the suggestion that Joseph was married previous to being mentioned in Scripture as Mary’s betrothed is completely fictional, and that there is no scriptural evidence, or even a subtle suggestion, that Joseph was married to anyone but Mary.

It is often tempting to try to make Scripture say something it does not say in order to create a theology we like and it seems to me that is exactly the case here. The RCC need an explanation for the brothers and sisters of Jesus so as to explain the perpetual virginity of Mary.

But we should remember a basic principle of scriptural interpretation: “Whenever possible, let Scripture interpret Scripture.” We get into trouble when we try to make God’s Word fit our preconceived ideas or a doctrine we find comforting. The notion of Joseph’s previous marriage is such an idea and has no foundation in God’s Word

 

[Major1]

No, I haven't. I've consistently argued that Sola Scriptura has a meaning, even if some people have come up with their own knock-off versions and called them by that term.

Sola scriptura means that Scripture alone is authoritative for the faith and practice of the Christian. The Bible is complete, authoritative, and true.

2 Timothy 3:16........
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”.

I am sure you will correct my thinking if I am not correct, but from what I have learned over the years is that for centuries the Roman Catholic Church had made its traditions superior in authority to the Bible.

What that did resulted in many practices that were in fact contradictory to the Bible. Some examples are prayer to saints and/or Mary, the immaculate conception, transubstantiation, infant baptism, indulgences, and papal authority.

The primary Catholic argument against sola scriptura is that the Bible does not explicitly teach sola scriptura and that is actually true.

We know that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible declares itself to be God-breathed, inerrant, and authoritative. We also know that God does not change His mind or contradict Himself. So, while the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.

Sola scriptura is not as much of an argument against tradition as it is an argument against unbiblical, extra-biblical and/or anti-biblical doctrines.

 

[Major1]

And the doctrine that Christ's siblings are Mary's children has more or less become an official teaching of Protestantism today, which it was not before, and in fact conflicted with original Protestant belief.

I think a lot of Catholics believe Joseph was also always a virgin, and Christ's cousins are called his siblings. The understanding they were from Joseph's prior marriage is mostly an Orthodox teaching.

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?”

 

[prodromos]

All I am saying is that the suggestion that Joseph was married previous to being mentioned in Scripture as Mary’s betrothed is completely fictional, and that there is no scriptural evidence, or even a subtle suggestion, that Joseph was married to anyone but Mary.

It has been demonstrated multiple times that Joseph being a widower with children is in complete harmony with Scripture. Not being explicitly stated in Scripture does not make something fictional, else I could easily dismiss your existence on the same basis.

 

[prodromos]

I am not sure that's fair to say. When early Protestant leaders accepted some of the Marian beliefs or this one--that Joseph was old and a widower--we are not talking about doctrine but about custom, and they were never incorporated into any confessional statements.

They may not be incorporated into any confessional statements, but they are incorporated into the liturgy, in the hymns on particular feast days, which to we Orthodox is much the same thing. "We pray what we believe. We believe what we pray."
[edit] I understand you are referring to the early Protestant Churches. They apparently did not take much of the liturgy with them when they seperated from Rome[/edit]

These are educated guesses or, at best, what some people call "pious opinions."

Or true knowledge, handed down. Why do you dismiss that as a possibility?

But when we turn to the Catholic/Orthodox POV, we ARE talking about official teachings.

Correct.

 

[Albion]

It has been demonstrated multiple times that Joseph being a widower with children is in complete harmony with Scripture..

Oh, it's possible all right. But so are a number of other scenarios. The fact is that we have no way of knowing which of them--if any--are true.

 

[kepha31]

Jesus having biological brothers with Joseph as the father doesn't make sense. He was a righteous man and knew better than to enter into the Ark of the New Covenant. I think a first step is to identify what "sacred' means.

 

[FenderTL5]

Oh, it's possible all right. But so are a number of other scenarios. The fact is that we have no way of knowing which of them--if any--are true.

Once again, I'm in qualified agreement.
Of the scenarios that I'm aware of; I prefer the one that was the ancient witness of the church. I doesn't bother me that other views are being explored, but I'm not going to accept any as fact unless it can verifiably overturn what has already been established by the church.
An average Joe/Jill sitting at his/her desk reading between the lines of scripture and making assumptions based on what he/she believes the scriptures say in their preferred modern translation, within their 21st Century American cultural mores, is not enough to change what has been taught by the church for millennia - for me.
Of course your mileage may vary, tax tag title sold separately.

 

[Major1]

It has been demonstrated multiple times that Joseph being a widower with children is in complete harmony with Scripture. Not being explicitly stated in Scripture does not make something fictional, else I could easily dismiss your existence on the same basis.

That is not a true statement. It has not been demonstrated ONCE that Joseph was a widower with children. NOT ONE SINGLE TIME.

There has been opinions given. There has been Catholic teachings given. But not a single time has it been demonstrated or even suggested from the Scriptures that Joseph was a widower with children.

On top of that it will never be demonstrated from the Bible of such a position. That is because just like the Rosary, and sinlessness of Mary, and the assumption of Mary, and on and on and on, such theology is only from the Roman Catholic church and it is not found anywhere in the Bible.

However, I thank you for your comment and it is always a blessing to respond to your opinions.

 

[Albion]

Once again, I'm in qualified agreement.
Of the scenarios that I'm aware of; I prefer the one that was the ancient witness of the church.

Sure, but calling a legend "the ancient witness of the church" doesn't really make it anything other than a legend.

but I doesn't bother me that other views are being explored, but I'm not going to accept any as fact unless it can verifiably overturn what has already been established by the church.

To what extent HAS it been "established by the church?"

To my knowledge, this has never been made a doctrine, never been decreed by an Ecumenical Council, never traced to the earliest Christians, etc.