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.
We claim to be the fullness, say that the schismatic bodies are "local Churches" (that is not Universal), and deny that anyone else even has a Church properly and in official documents use the terms "ecclesial community" (which while "ecclesial" means "Church/Assembly" it is not used in this sense). Here is the document from us clarifying that this is in fact our view (extremely short).
Personally I do not think it is worth being in a group that does not claim such things. I am currently discerning between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, the latter which can be even more exclusive with it's claims. "Go big or go home" is my mentality I suppose. That everyone can be wrong is not an interesting question or observation to me, the real big scary one is "who among us is right?" For Jesus' prayer that the Church be one was not denied to Him, and someone has been "led into all truth" by the Holy Spirit, and contradictory bodies can not both be the fullness, so one of them is right, and I'd very much like to be in them.
You're just assuming that based on the theology that you believe. It is just that you don't want to believe that Mary had other children after Jesus and therefore did not become a perpetual virgin. The Word of God is quite clear that Jesus did have brothers and sisters and nowhere in the Gospels does it say that Joseph was ever married before he married Mary. To say that Joseph was a widower is total fantasy, but then if you decide to believe it, there is nothing more to say here.Same term can refer to half-brothers, it doesn't have to be mentioned. What's clear as the nose on your face is that you have made an unjustified assumptions about what a word means saying it can only mean only one thing when it in fact means more than one thing and you refuse to provide an argument as to why the definition you selected is correct.
By the 4th Century, the church had largely departed from a total reliance on God's Word, and many started believing nonsense that is not found in the Scriptures. As I said to our other friend, if you wish to believe in fantasy doctrines, there is nothing more I can add here.I quoted a Church father, Saint Augustine, in the post just before yours!
How about Peter Chrysoslogus? "Where are they who think that the Virgin's conception and giving birth to her child are to be likened to those of other woman? For, this latter case is one of the earth, and the Virgin's is one from heaven. The one case is a case of divine power; the other of human weakness. The one case occurs in a body subject to passion; the other in the tranquility of the divine Spirit and peace of the human body. The blood was still, and the flesh astonished; her members were put at rest, and her entire womb was quiescent during the visit of the Holy One, until the Author of flesh could take on His garment of flesh, and until He, who was not merely to restore the earth to man but also to give him heaven, could become a heavenly Man. The virgin conceives, the Virgin brings forth her child, and she remains a virgin."
Sermon 117,(A.D. 432),in FC,XVII,200
Saint Ambrose said: " Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son."
To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111(A.D. 396),in NPNF2,X:473
Saint John Chrysostom: "And when he had taken her, he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.' He hath here used the word till,' not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, till'? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.' And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, From age until age Thou art,' not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,' it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word "till," to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home? How then, one may say, are James and the others called His brethren? In the same kind of way as Joseph himself was supposed to be husband of Mary. For many were the veils provided, that the birth, being such as it was, might be for a time screened. Wherefore even John so called them, saying, For neither did His brethren believe in Him.' "
Gospel of Matthew,V:5(A.D. 370),in NPNF1,X:33
You were there? Actually the Catholic Church was finishing up choosing the 73 books of the Bible, God's Word, giving the Bible to the world in the late 300s.By the 4th Century, the church had largely departed from a total reliance on God's Word, and many started believing nonsense that is not found in the Scriptures. As I said to our other friend, if you wish to believe in fantasy doctrines, there is nothing more I can add here.
They WERE half-siblings. They had the same mom, but their father was Joseph, while Jesus' Father is GOD.I don't see how it shows that. If someone had half-siblings the exact same things could be said.
I wonder why the RCC adopted that false doctrine.What applies is: "Why do you wonder at this, O man?”
I don't see why it could not be the opposite then.
Actually, if Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and Joseph was not the physical father of Jesus, and Joseph was the father of other children but not with Mary, then Jesus would not have had any half-brothers or half-sisters at all because they would not have shared at least one physical parent.
Indeed, but I mean legally and as St. Luke says (since the discussion is what people in Nazareth though) "as was supposed." For St. Joseph counted as his father for inheritance of the Davidic promise, and Mary also a descendent of David according to God counted. But if people supposed Him to be half-brothers with these people through St. Joseph (and I personally do not even favor half-brother theory but I am just saying for the argument as it is popular) then their statement would mean the same thing.
In essence the best position for someone who does not acknowledge Sacred Tradition or the Magisterium would be to say Scripture is silent on the matter, that is my whole point. For it does not definitively prove by these words people contend over one thing or another.
Scripture is far from silent concerning the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. The challenge comes in attempting to conform them to dogmas developed from scriptural silence, particularly the perpetual virginity of Mary dogma.
Not silent that He had brothers and sisters, silent as to which definition of brothers and sisters is being used. Unless you think there is a proof of definition in it? And I personally do not think there is silence ("all in Tradition, all in Scripture" is the model I follow) and none of the dogmas argue from silence either, it is just for someone as Rob, if I were him, I'd think Scripture was silent.
You are on a very slippery slope my friend. Using such a speculative hermeneutic could easily redefine what "son" means as in the "son" of God or the "son" of Adam. It is exactly what got Mohammed and his ilk quite off kilter.
The question is, why are you insistent at establishing a belief that is not proven by the Bible even though you appear to be one who believes in sola scriptura? 2 Kings 10:13-14I wonder why the RCC adopted that false doctrine.
That's just a fault of language. Which is why we have an intellect which can pick up meaning from things such as this, and as I believe the necessity of a Living Tradition with authority that guides through the times what this or that means, and a life of God to be received into to gain immediate knowledge (1 Corinthians as a whole is about this latter thing and I am studying it currently).
The problems with any "Living" Tradition are that in order for it to be "living" it cannot be a tradition and in order for it to be a tradition it cannot be "living". The moment a tradition is changed it is no longer a tradition.
It is similar to the conundrum faced by the United States Supreme Court. Some "progressive" justices view the United States Constitution as a "living" document which it is, at least in its ability to be amended. Other "conservative" justices view it as immutable and unchangeable except when amended formally. The net result is that the cases which are heard by the Supreme Court are virtually all directly related to the Constitution in one form or another. The Supreme Court lacks the legal jurisdiction to pass judgement on other countries and their laws or even on non-constitutional issues such as motorcycle helmets.
There's absolutely no evidence indicating such.I don't see why it could not be the opposite then.
The Bible PLAINLY establishes Jesus had at least 6 half-siblings.The question is, why are you insistent at establishing a belief that is not proven by the Bible even though you appear to be one who believes in sola scriptura? 2 Kings 10:13-14
Just an excuse. His Nazarene neighbors said they were siblings. Remember, they were wondering why Jesus was so different from the rest of His family. Had His siblings had a different mom, that would've been mentioned. The context of the Scriptures showed they believed they were all one family & all the kids were of the same two parents.Is there evidence for what you think here? The passage you cite doesn't specify which person He has half-siblings from (if it even specifies this at all).
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?