Immaculate Conception

[All4Christ]

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.

Please remember that Orthodox is not the same as Catholic, unless you are referring to the "catholic" as meaning universal.

 

[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.

May I say to you that in my personal opinion, the reason why Sola Scriptura is so important is that when at any time, we allow the Word of God to be changed, we open the door to heresy.

Change being either the addition or substation of words or a word.
The problem seems to me is not the removal of any words or word but the addition of the same.

I have to ask all those who read this if Deuteronomy 4:2 means anything at all to them.......
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

How can that be understood as anything other than what it actually says?????

Consider the New World Translation. I know that you are aware it is the translation which was ordered by and produced for the Jehovah Witnesses. In just ONE verse they changed the whole dynamic of the Bible.

In the Gospel of John 1:1 that added ONE LETTER.......
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was A God".

Grammatically speaking, the Greek letter A is impossible to be used but they ADDED it anyway and what they did was to make the Word, Christ, ONE of many gods. He became plural instead of the ONE true God.

The only reason that I have been on this site and posted negative things about Catholic teaching is not because I dislike any single Catholic person, or because I enjoy seeing people get angry at me, but I believe you know that the Catholic church has done the exact same thing when they have added terms and words which are not anywhere to be found in the Word of God. That is my only concern.

As a result we have from the Catholic church the......
Perpetual virginity of Mary,
The Rosary,
the Assumption of Mary,
Joseph married with children,
Single Bishops and on and on.

Now as we have observed, those additions to the Scriptures are explained, and spun by good Catholic believers, However they have not and can not be verified in the Scriptures themselves and that fact alone brings me right back to Deut. 4:2.

Please forgive me of venting to you but I wanted you to understand my position of Sola Scriptura and the reason why it is important.

 

[Major1]

Please remember that Orthodox is not the same as Catholic, unless you are referring to the "catholic" as meaning universal.

Thank you for your post. Please notice the post in which I actually said......
"There has been Catholic teachings given".

Blessing to you !

 

[Albion]

The only reason that I have been on this site and posted negative things about Catholic teaching is not because I dislike any single Catholic person, or because I enjoy seeing people get angry at me, but I believe you know that the Catholic church has done the exact same thing when they have added terms and words which are not anywhere to be found in the Word of God. That is my only concern.

Fair enough, although that isn't a top concern with me.

The Catholic translations of the Bible are much more similar to other translations than people suppose and, in any case, we can correct anyone's monkeying around with the wording of the Bible, just as you did with your New World Translation example.

What is much more at the heart of the Sola Scriptura controversy is the creation of a mythical second source of divine guidance that is supposedly equal to that of the Bible--Tradition.

It has no Scriptural basis, but it is what guides all the Catholic churches. This is what Sola Scriptura, when enunciated during the Reformation, was intended to put straight. Nothing man can turn to or invent is the equal of God's own word. If we depart from it, there is no limit to the number of strange doctrines that can be invented.

 

[FenderTL5]

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

It is part of the prayers, hymns, and liturgy of the church.

You are correct, it has never been decreed by council because the seven ecumenical councils were primarily concerned with Christology.
This is why they did decree Mary as Theotokos.

 

[Albion]

It is part of the prayers, hymns, and liturgy of the church.

So it has been incorporated into the life of the church but never "established" in the sense of having been made dogma.

 

[Major1]

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.

I have no desire to argue or debate you. I would only like to ask you to think about the doctrines which have come about which were not accepted by the early church.

If Martin Luther had not Posted his 95 Thesis on the door of the bishop in 1554, (? Not sure of date and I am too lazy yo look it up) would the doctrine of Justification by Faith be rejected because it was NOT 2000 years old and was not explained by the early church fathers.

Then consider the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. That is a relatively new teaching is it not???
I believe it was Galileo who challenged the Catholic teaching in about 1650 or so and he was arrested by the Catholic church. But it was not untill 1820 that the churches position was changed.

Sometimes new is good and when it is Biblical, it is always right.

Good to speak with you.

 

[Albion]

If Martin Luther had not Posted his 95 Thesis on the door of the bishop in 1554, (? Not sure of date and I am too lazy yo look it up)

Because this is the 500th anniversary of that event, I just know that you are going to be kicking yourself more than a few times before Reformation Sunday has come and gone--every time you hear the mention of it, in other words.

(I sometimes do the same thing, of course, but usually not with this date. Now I'm wondering what happened in 1554.)

 

[All4Christ]

Thank you for your post. Please notice the post in which I actually said......
"There has been Catholic teachings given".

Blessing to you !

Ah ok. Since Fender and Prodromos are Orthodox - and since the Orthodox Church has been here since the early church - I assumed you were equating the two Churches. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Phil 1:21]

(I sometimes do the same thing, of course, but usually not with this date. Now I'm wondering what happened in 1554.)

Possibly the Wyatt Rebellion. (yeah, I love Google)

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/tudor-england/the-wyatt-rebellion-of-1554/

 

[Major1]

Ah ok. Since Fender and Prodromos are Orthodox - and since the Orthodox Church has been here since the early church - I assumed you were equating the two Churches. Thank you for clarifying.

Absolutely, my pleasure.

 

[Major1]

Because this is the 500th anniversary of that event, I just know that you are going to be kicking yourself more than a few times before Reformation Sunday has come and gone--every time you hear the mention of it, in other words.

(I sometimes do the same thing, of course, but usually not with this date. Now I'm wondering what happened in 1554.)

You will be my age one day and there will come a day when you are standing in the bathroom asking yourself if you just came in or were going out!

 

[Major1]

Fair enough, although that isn't a top concern with me.

The Catholic translations of the Bible are much more similar to other translations than people suppose and, in any case, we can correct anyone's monkeying around with the wording of the Bible, just as you did with your New World Translation example.

What is much more at the heart of the Sola Scriptura controversy is the creation of a mythical second source of divine guidance that is supposedly equal to that of the Bible--Tradition.

It has no Scriptural basis, but it is what guides all the Catholic churches. This is what Sola Scriptura, when enunciated during the Reformation, was intended to put straight. Nothing man can turn to or invent is the equal of God's own word. If we depart from it, there is no limit to the number of strange doctrines that can be invented.

Agreed! That is what I am saying.

 

[FenderTL5]

I have no desire to argue or debate you. I would only like to ask you to think about the doctrines which have come about which were not accepted by the early church.

If Martin Luther had not Posted his 95 Thesis on the door of the bishop in 1554, (? Not sure of date and I am too lazy yo look it up) would the doctrine of Justification by Faith be rejected because it was NOT 2000 years old and was not explained by the early church fathers.

Then consider the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. That is a relatively new teaching is it not???
I believe it was Galileo who challenged the Catholic teaching in about 1650 or so and he was arrested by the Catholic church. But it was not untill 1820 that the churches position was changed.

Sometimes new is good and when it is Biblical, it is always right.

Good to speak with you.

The Orthodox Church is far more measured in its dogma than some others.

[apologies for the off-topic nature of this part of the post]
Major1, I have no desire whatsoever to argue nor debate. I'm responding, just as information, to the challenge given and already previously accepted:

My move to the Orthodox Church was not something taken lightly. I was Chrismated on Lazarus Saturday in 2015 after little over a year in catechism. However, the roots were much older than that. I have had an interest in the hows/whys of church for a long time and there have been many steps in the journey. (I recall sitting in a Sunday School class as a middle schooler in the Independent, Fundamental church I grew up in and asking, "soooooo, what was the Bible BEFORE 1611?")
I am now 54 years old, the balance of my life has been spent in various 'Baptist' churches with a couple of years in a nearby Methodist Church when my youngest was first born (economia as we say in Orthodoxy). I have been a part of church leadership and been privileged to sit under some very good evangelical Bible teachers, even a few years in the same Sunday School class with a nationally recognized teacher.(Atlanta, late 80s/early90s)

I'll be glad to share more privately if you're interested/curious but the short version is; I studied my way out of the SBC and into the Orthodox Church.
I showed up, completely unannounced or invited to my first catechism class by seeing it on the parish website/calendar.
Godspeed.

 

[Albion]

You will be my age one day and there will come a day when you are standing in the bathroom asking yourself if you just came in or were going out!

Oh, it's not THAT bad.

 

[All4Christ]

The Orthodox Church is far more measured in its dogma than some others.

[apologies for the off-topic nature of this part of the post]
Major1, I have no desire whatsoever to argue nor debate. I'm responding, just as information, to the challenge given and already previously accepted:

My move to the Orthodox Church was not something taken lightly. I was Chrismated on Lazarus Saturday in 2015 after little over a year in catechism. However, the roots were much older than that. I have had an interest in the hows/whys of church for a long time and there have been many steps in the journey. (I recall sitting in a Sunday School class as a middle schooler in the Independent, Fundamental church I grew up in and asking, "soooooo, what was the Bible BEFORE 1611?")
I am now 54 years old, the balance of my life has been spent in various 'Baptist' churches with a couple of years in a nearby Methodist Church when my youngest was first born (economia as we say in Orthodoxy). I have been a part of church leadership and been privileged to sit under some very good evangelical Bible teachers, even a few years in the same Sunday School class with a nationally recognized teacher.(Atlanta, late 80s/early90s)

I'll be glad to share more privately if you're interested/curious but the short version is; I studied my way out of the SBC and into the Orthodox Church.
I showed up, completely unannounced or invited to my first catechism class by seeing it on the parish website/calendar.
Godspeed.

My journey is almost identical, except I was single and was part of Evangelical and Pentecostal churches.

I also randomly showed up at a catechism class without going to services first. I was an inquirer / catechumen for about 2 years after about 5 years of learning (and visiting and learning about a wide range of churches) and years before that searching.

 

[prodromos]

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

That is NOT what I said. I said that Joseph being a widower with children of his own is in complete harmony with Scripture. Please do not argue strawmen.

There has been opinions given.

Yes, you have repeatedly posted yours too.

There has been Catholic teachings given.

I've given Orthodox teaching.

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

Your refusal to acknowledge what has been posted is noted.

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.

The sinlessness of Mary, her ever virginity and her bodily assumption after her death are found in the Church, which Scripture calls the pillar and ground of truth.

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

I am glad that you find it a blessing. Some of your earlier responses have suggested otherwise.

 

[prodromos]

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

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

It is in the liturgy, in the hymnology of the Church. We pray what we believe, we believe what we pray.

 

[Major1]

That is NOT what I said. I said that Joseph being a widower with children of his own is in complete harmony with Scripture. Please do not argue strawmen.

Yes, you have repeatedly posted yours too.

I've given Orthodox teaching.

Your refusal to acknowledge what has been posted is noted.

The sinlessness of Mary, her ever virginity and her bodily assumption after her death are found in the Church, which Scripture calls the pillar and ground of truth.

I am glad that you find it a blessing. Some of your earlier responses have suggested otherwise.

Your comment was............
" I said that Joseph being a widower with children of his own is in complete harmony with Scripture".

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.

You said................
Your refusal to acknowledge what has been posted is noted.

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


You said..............
"The sinlessness of Mary, her ever virginity and her bodily assumption after her death are found in the Church, which Scripture calls the pillar and ground of truth."


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.

John 17:17..........
"Sanctify them with truth.........THY WORD IS TRUTH".

Psalms 119:9.........
"How can a young man keep his way pure? By guarding it according to your word."

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.

That being said, I am very glad you have brought these church teachings up as it allows me to get out the Word of God to those who need to hear it. That is always a blessing.

 

[Major1]

The Orthodox Church is far more measured in its dogma than some others.

[apologies for the off-topic nature of this part of the post]
Major1, I have no desire whatsoever to argue nor debate. I'm responding, just as information, to the challenge given and already previously accepted:

My move to the Orthodox Church was not something taken lightly. I was Chrismated on Lazarus Saturday in 2015 after little over a year in catechism. However, the roots were much older than that. I have had an interest in the hows/whys of church for a long time and there have been many steps in the journey. (I recall sitting in a Sunday School class as a middle schooler in the Independent, Fundamental church I grew up in and asking, "soooooo, what was the Bible BEFORE 1611?")
I am now 54 years old, the balance of my life has been spent in various 'Baptist' churches with a couple of years in a nearby Methodist Church when my youngest was first born (economia as we say in Orthodoxy). I have been a part of church leadership and been privileged to sit under some very good evangelical Bible teachers, even a few years in the same Sunday School class with a nationally recognized teacher.(Atlanta, late 80s/early90s)

I'll be glad to share more privately if you're interested/curious but the short version is; I studied my way out of the SBC and into the Orthodox Church.
I showed up, completely unannounced or invited to my first catechism class by seeing it on the parish website/calendar.
Godspeed.

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.

Just to be clear, most of the Catholic believers and some Orthodox are believing that I am anti Catholic and in some way am attacking them for their faith.

That is not true. I am not anti-Catholic but I am Pro Jesus and the Bible as IMO it is the written Word of God. The practices I have posted in the past are those which are not found in the Bible but are practiced by the Catholic church.

Actually, I do not care if any Catholic chooses to follow those practices. All I have done is to say that those things are NOT BIBLICAL.

Anyone can say over and over that the Rosary is in the Bible. But I am sure that you know that it is not. Same with the assumption of Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary. Those teachings are NOT to be found in the Scriptures and that is all I have been saying.

Nice speaking with you and I am so pleased to here your story.