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.
So your church allows babies to commune without being baptized?
The Eucharist?Commune in what way? Participating in the table? Present at the preaching and singing?
Ah. But I guess from the reformed perspective the Eucharist would not have quite the same meaning as it would to an Orthodox. The primary reason we baptize Babies is so they can commune. Oddly enough after the schism the RCC stopped this practice of letting babies commune, while still baptizing them which I think defeats the entire point.Well, my local church believes in an open-communion (to my disagreement), but we don't have babies participate.
Ah. But I guess from the reformed perspective the Eucharist would not have quite the same meaning as it would to an Orthodox. The primary reason we baptize Babies is so they can commune. Oddly enough after the schism the RCC stopped this practice of letting babies commune, while still baptizing them which I think defeats the entire point.
Me and virtually every other Christian for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.So says you.
You mean other than the fact that the words "brother" or "sister" don't appear in the original texts, I suppose.I believe there's better reasoning for holding that sisters and brothers means, you know, sisters and brothers.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. As was already pointed out, they could have been children from Joseph's first marriage.
Me and virtually every other Christian for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.
If you mean they don't appear in English, you're correct.chilehed said:...the words "brother" or "sister" don't appear in the original texts...
More to the question, who can really know God and suspect Him of being or doing anything creepy?Sorry, I forget where, but I once read about Jesus' parents that at the time they were betrothed Mary was about 14 years old, while Joseph was about 40.
Is this accurate? Is it what church tradition says? Does anyone here find it a little creepy?
Wrong.
Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.
Wrong.
Nowhere does the Bible say Mary had children by Joseph.
His brothers don't treat Him as such.
He could not have been recognised as a Rabbi at younger than 30.
The perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true, though.Those things are not necessarily synonymous you know? There are in fact things outside of scripture that are true.
Not a good one and not a biblical one.Yes, one can be made.
The perpetual virginity of Mary isn't true, though.
Singing hymns is not extra-biblical, no.And singing from hymnals is NOT extra biblical theology?
Yes, the perpetual virginity of Mary DOES have a basis in Scripture.
Singing hymns is not extra-biblical, no.
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; (Eph 5:19)
Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Col 3:16)
The perpetual is a false teachig and is not found in the Bible.
More to the question, who can really know God and suspect Him of being or doing anything creepy?
The fact that Jesus had a nuclear family is evidence that Mary did not remain a virgin. The Biblical writers wrote in plain language and I give them credit for knowing what terms like "brothers" and "sisters" mean in familial context. I don't have to engage in a lot theological gymnastics in order to re-interpret the Bible in order to accommodate a false teaching that is nowhere in the Bible.You have no evidence to prove that.
Yes, but those only happened in special circumstances. It was not done in ordinary parlance, otherwise you would not be able communicate in a coherent manner. There were special circumstances where a given word might be expanded to refer to nephew as a son. That happens in the OT, but you can't make that the rule. Those instances are exceptions.At most you can take the english outside of its original Jewish context and say that is what you interpret. But it wouldn't be accurate because it is a proven fact that the Jews would use the terminology "brother" to refer to cousins and half brothers, and "wife" to refer to a betrothed.
Yes, you have to rely on the opinions of fallible men. I rely on the evidence from the infallble, inerrant Scriptures, wholly inspired by God. So my appeal is to a much higher authority.Sure you can make the argument that it doesn't prove she wasn't his wife either- However Christ giving her into the care of John instead of James, and the witness of thousands of miracle working martyrs and saints that preached that message convince me otherwise.
I don't trust in alleged miracles. I trust the Lord. The fact is that your appeals are always made to stuff outside the Bible and you have to appeal to anything and everything except the Bible. I will put my faith in the unmovable, indisputable rock of Scripture. You can trust in fallible men, if you want.Tell me of one true miracle working person who has denied the ever virginity of the virgin Mary? I've seen a myrr steaming, miracle working Icon of the blessed virgin. Now tell me why would my church which believes in the ever virginity, be subject to constant miracles for 2000 years, many of which are from the direct influence of the visitation and prayers of Mary?
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?