Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Well said.
And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.
Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.
I cringe every time they say "just read the text".
They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.
It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.
There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.
What you are trying to do, intentionally or unconsciously, is frame everything within your traditions and rules.
I also notice you really get itchy to talk about 'catachesis' rather than what the text specifically says.
As for Biblical support, I have noted two places where the Bible says Mary and Joseph had other kids after Jesus. For your part, you have not shown even one verse which denies this or claims Mary remained a virgin forever.
But your last line is correct: You will do what you will, of course.
Please be careful about what you are claiming. No where in the NT explicitly state that Mary was the mother of anyone but Jesus.
We can argue about the meaning of adelphoi, but it is clear that the NT NEVER claims that she had other children.
Also no where in the NT does it explicitly claim she was without sin. Nor does it explicitly claim she was a forever virgin, or bodily assumed into heaven, or born without sin. If you want to go with explicitly claimed stuff, you will have to give up all of the Marian dogmas as well as purgatory, indulgences, the Papacy, and much more.
Meanwhile we have multiple scriptures which clearly states that Jesus had brothers & sisters, and none of them explicitly claim that they are cousins or half-siblings. It explicitly states that Jesus was the son of the carpenter and his mother's name was Mary and his brothers are named but his sisters are not. No where in the scriptures does it ever state that Joseph had another wife.
Going by explicit claims is not going to work well with many of the RCC doctrines since even the magisterium admits that they are not found in scriptures but come from traditions.
Yup. The perpetual virgin and sinless Mary is a completely made up idea. But of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have so many.
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Well said.
And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.
Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.
I cringe every time they say "just read the text".
They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.
It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.
There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.
You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.
The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH. "If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.
If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.
Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.
Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.
The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.
Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw: A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne. Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints. Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!" Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.
You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.
I certainly agree that there are a few people so bitter that their religion becomes opposition to Roman Catholicism. I would caution my RC brothers to not become the counterparts, hating Protestants automatically on the assumption that we are all haters of Roman Catholics. Frankly, it is a wrong path for any Christian to make a decision about our brothers or sisters based on hatred, or its close friend, hot anger.
Reformation I'm not bitter one bit. I feel for protestants that do not get to enjoy the fullness of faith or grace that the Catholic Church provides through Jesus. As I've stated before, I, typically, will only post here to defend the Church against an erroneous or slanderous post concerning the Catholic Church.
Oldbear83 said:
I accepted Christ not out of tradition, but out of contrition for my sins, belief in the Gospel, and faith in Christ's promise to all who accept Him as Lord. I believe in God the Father, Christ His Son Our Lord, and in the Holy Spirit. No human tradition drove that decision, then or now.
I'm glad that you have accepted Christ as your savior, but there's more to it than that. He established a church (Matt 16:18) while he was here on earth. That church is the Catholic Church. It is a historical fact. You may not like that fact, but it is a historical truth. If you'd like to propose another creator and date for the formation of the Catholic Church, I'd like to see the logic and documentation for that claim.
Oldbear83 said:
What precisely did Jesus say, that you claim I am rejecting? Keep in mind that rejecting your interpretation of what Jesus said is not at all rejecting what Jesus clearly said, and nowhere - with regard to this topic - did Jesus deny that Mary had other children after having Jesus, and nowhere did Jesus ever say that Mary was a 'perpetual virgin'. Those are human inventions, and it is no sin to note that.
He NEVER said that they were born from Mary.
Only Jesus is called "the son of Mary" in Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon?"
I have previously demonstrated that James and Joses are sons from a different Mary that was also at the crucifixion.
Jesus used the Aramaic words, adelphoi and adelphai, which ALSO mean cousin or kinsmen. You are completely rejecting that and saying that they ONLY mean brothers and sisters.
Oldbear83 said:
The Roman Catholics seem to put great stock in human opinion, especially if that human was famous or prominent or popular.
First, I don't understand your "human opinion" point. Don't humans interpret the bible? We look to the early Church fathers to help us better determine what the sacred writers meant.
Who would be in a better position to understand the intention of the Gospel writers, pastor Bob or Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught by John the Apostle?
Oldbear83 said:
But God often prefers men willing to stand alone, and the Bible is plain on that truth,
First, where in scripture does it even suggest that "God often prefers men willing to stand alone" in their interpretations of the scriptures? The reality is that the Bible emphasizes community, wisdom, and counsel. Proverbs 3:5 warns against relying on one's own understanding. Proverbs 27:17 seeking wisdom from collective body of believers as it says that "iron sharpens iron."
To quote Pilate, "What is truth?" Whose truth should I accept? Yours, pastor Bob's?
Do you see the inherent danger in letting everyone decide for themselves what their truth in the scriptures? Peoples, throughout the ages, have twisted scripture to justify all sorts of evil acts: abortion, slavery, same-sex acts, etc. This principle has led to men like Jim Jones, Charles Manon, David Koresh.
Oldbear83 said:
I do not follow Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli. I follow Christ. And I do not accept the word of man according to what men find popular, but try all claims by Scripture, and so trust in the Lord for my beliefs.
I'm glad that you follow Christ, truly. I wish everyone did.
I'll modify the questions for you …
Why do you think that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (all anti-Catholic, who ready the bible and believed in sola scriptura) ALL believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary? Why do you think that the man who translated the Bible into Latin, St Jerome, believed in perpetual virginity? What do you think was deficient in their thought process?
Hopefully you will respond with answers to these questions.
Yup. The perpetual virgin and sinless Mary is a completely made up idea. But of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have so many.
Do you accept the Hypostatic Union and the Duel Natures of Christ? Were these made up or did they exist and given definition after the scriptures were written?
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Well said.
And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.
Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.
I cringe every time they say "just read the text".
They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.
It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear.
Well, I guess you and I can't agree on everything. I don't think it's surprising at all. I have found his/her reasoning in defense of their views, like pretty much with every Roman Catholic/Orthodox here, to be quite lacking most if not all the time.
Yup. The perpetual virgin and sinless Mary is a completely made up idea. But of course, Catholicism and Orthodoxy have so many.
Do you accept the Hypostatic Union and the Duel Natures of Christ? Were these made up or did they exist and given definition after the scriptures were written?
Do you not believe those concepts are completely derivable out of Scripture?
And your comment still isn't invalidating what he said - the RC and Orthododox churches have many made up, non-apostolic teachings.
Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.
Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?
Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.
I think we have gotten into the minute of religion and away from the basis of Christianity.
I appreciate the Catholic for the somber devotion that isnt seen much in modern protestant churches. I do become concerned over the continual repetition of prayer that can become a canned response instead of free form prayer as seen in protestant churches.
My son and I went to mass last sunday, it was amazing as the homily was about some things my son and I had been talking about earlier in the morning. Down to the verse.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
Protestants keep running the same move: something gets called "obsolete" or "fulfilled" in the NT, and they hear that as "gone." But fulfilled isn't the same as cancelled, Jesus says flat out in Matt 5:17 that he didn't come to abolish the Law, he came to fill it up. Filled up, not thrown out.
The Law doesn't disappear, it gets cranked up (the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus making the commandments harder, not optional). The priesthood doesn't end, it levels up into something eternal and heavenly. Sacrifice doesn't stop, it becomes real instead of a shadow of the real thing, and we still eat from it. The Temple doesn't get demolished as a category, it moves into Christ's body and then into the Church and the altar.
Every single time, what's "obsolete" is the earthly, animal-blood, temporary version, not the actual category. But Protestant readings treat "the shadow is done" as if it means "the whole thing is done," and that's just not the same claim. It's a slide, not an argument.
There is some truth to what he says, like all missions or outsiders Christianity adapted Pagan aspects to the religion to help bring people over and have a level of comfort and familiarity.
The question is whether the Christ "story" is considered true by those and only they can believe. It is all a story until it is believed.
I for one can say there are times i struggle with it based on science.
I read The Believing Scientist, Language of God and follow the Vatican Observatory (real priest physicist). Jesuits are good as they recognize the issue.
But he brings up a legitimate discussion point. In my opinion.
This take is not surprising at all coming from you. It has been obvious for quite a while that you're really not a believer. I do hope you become one, don't get me wrong, but I do need to point out that you were one of the most vocal defenders of Roman Catholicism here, and a constant opponent to everything I've said. I think this really tells us something.
I fully agree with your first point, that Christianity compromised with pagan beliefs, but this happened specifically within Roman Catholicism during the 4th-5th centuries. It is precisely what I've been arguing. It was the basis for many of RC's non-Scriptural, non-apostolic beliefs, particularly with the belief and practices surrounding the saints and Mary. I'm glad that someone who professes to be a Roman Catholic is able to recognize this. Maybe it's because you're sort of on the outside, not being an actual believer yourself, that you are able to see your own Church more objectively.
Protestants keep running the same move: something gets called "obsolete" or "fulfilled" in the NT, and they hear that as "gone." But fulfilled isn't the same as cancelled, Jesus says flat out in Matt 5:17 that he didn't come to abolish the Law, he came to fill it up. Filled up, not thrown out.
The Law doesn't disappear, it gets cranked up (the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus making the commandments harder, not optional). The priesthood doesn't end, it levels up into something eternal and heavenly. Sacrifice doesn't stop, it becomes real instead of a shadow of the real thing, and we still eat from it. The Temple doesn't get demolished as a category, it moves into Christ's body and then into the Church and the altar.
Every single time, what's "obsolete" is the earthly, animal-blood, temporary version, not the actual category. But Protestant readings treat "the shadow is done" as if it means "the whole thing is done," and that's just not the same claim. It's a slide, not an argument.
So, the Law was hard enough, if not impossible for any of us to fulfill.... but you say that Jesus came to make the Law even harder for us to fulfill?
And are we still under the Law, now made harder? Is Paul and Hebrews wrong?
Yeah, what you're saying is definitely NOT the Gospel.
Jesus Christ is the only pope I need. According to scripture, everyone who is saved is a saint. This label is defined by God, not man.
Concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, of course she was a sinner. Jesus is the only human in history who never sinned. That's why His death on the cross saved us: He was the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice for the propitiation of our sins. That's why the veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom the moment of His death: the OT covenant was fulfilled and animal sacrifices were no longer necessary or appropriate.
It's all part of God's divine plan and it's beautiful.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Jesus is the only human in history who never sinned. That's why His death on the cross saved us: He was the Lamb of God, the perfect sacrifice for the propitiation of our sins. That's why the veil in the temple was torn in two from top to bottom the moment of His death: the OT covenant was fulfilled and animal sacrifices were no longer necessary or appropriate.
It's all part of God's divine plan and it's beautiful.
Protestants keep running the same move: something gets called "obsolete" or "fulfilled" in the NT, and they hear that as "gone." But fulfilled isn't the same as cancelled, Jesus says flat out in Matt 5:17 that he didn't come to abolish the Law, he came to fill it up. Filled up, not thrown out.
The Law doesn't disappear, it gets cranked up (the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus making the commandments harder, not optional). The priesthood doesn't end, it levels up into something eternal and heavenly. Sacrifice doesn't stop, it becomes real instead of a shadow of the real thing, and we still eat from it. The Temple doesn't get demolished as a category, it moves into Christ's body and then into the Church and the altar.
Every single time, what's "obsolete" is the earthly, animal-blood, temporary version, not the actual category. But Protestant readings treat "the shadow is done" as if it means "the whole thing is done," and that's just not the same claim. It's a slide, not an argument.
So, the Law was hard enough, if not impossible for any of us to fulfill.... but you say that Jesus came to make the Law even harder for us to fulfill?
And are we still under the Law, now made harder? Is Paul and Hebrews wrong?
Yeah, what you're saying is definitely NOT the Gospel.
Cute reply to a strawman, not to what I said.
"Harder to fulfill" isn't a gotcha. The OT law regulates your hands, Jesus pushes it to your heart, and pairs that with the power to actually do it. assuming "harder" means "more meritorious effort required from unaided man," as if Jesus just raised the bar on the same old law-of-works game. That's not what's happening. The OT law regulated behavior (don't murder, don't commit adultery) because it was addressed to a people not yet given the Spirit in fullness. Jesus intensifies it to the level of the heart (don't hate, don't lust) because in the New Covenant the requirement isn't just "conform your actions", it's "be transfigured," and that's only possible synergistically, empowered by grace and cooperating with Christ.
Paul's "under the law" means under Torah as condemnation plus the Jew/Gentile boundary markers (circumcision, kosher, sabbath as ID). That's what's gone, read Galatians. "Love God, love neighbor" doesn't go anywhere and Paul calls that "the law of Christ," fulfilled by walking in the Spirit. You're arguing with Paul, not me.
"Not the Gospel," says who? You're just declaring sola fide "the Gospel" and calling that an argument. The apostolic Gospel is partaking of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), not staying exactly the same while getting declared innocent. If your gospel doesn't change you, that's the thing to worry about.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Archaeologists found the oldest evidence of Christianity in Northern Europe.
A silver amulet, buried with a man between 230 and 270 AD.
Scientists used CT scanning to digitally unroll the scroll and it said: “Holy, holy, holy! In the name of Jesus Christ, Son of God.” pic.twitter.com/uKaRLnQD6D
The scroll starts with "This prayer opens with "in the name of Saint Titus". We have evidence of invoking the saints extremely early. This is even pre Nicene. less than two centuries after Titus died, treating his intercession as a source of protection. It shows this practice even in the earliest parts of the Christian religion.
If invoking saints were the "unbiblical invention" sola scriptura advocates claim, it shouldn't be showing up this early, this far from the centers of Christian life, already assumed as normal practice.
Before I answer posts sent to me, I'd like to make clear my purposes in this thread. That is, I do not believe that people who made up their mind on this issue of Mary will seriously be open to reconsideration. But I honestly and fervently believe that the Enemy desires to sow discord among believers, and seeks to make great division between believers on unessential things. Sadly, this shows up in this thread, as evidenced by comments from posters:
FLBear5630, Jan 4 835 AM "Now, go and find every trace of information that indicates it is more and cross-reference with the Bible to be able to proclaim that us Catholics will not be able to get through the narrow gate. That should make you feel better" [ first implied personal insult ]
Fre3dombear, Jan 5 1202 AM "You really should read again. incompetent or lying? You choose" [ first direct personal insult ]
Mothra, Jan 5 450 AM "I'm not sure what you're referring but I've stopped trying to make logical sense out of your posts. You're about as clear as mud - intentionally so, it would appear." [ return fire ]
Mothra, Jan 6, 841 AM "You don't understand why heresy would bother some Christians? Huh." [escalation]
FLBear5630, Jan 6, 843 AM "We don't see a heresy. You do. You don't agree with the Catholic Churches view of Mary. Noted" [de-escalation effort]
Mothra, Jan 6, 747 PM "That's my point. We see a heresy. And that's why it bothers us. This isn't difficult." [de-escalation and dialogue effort]
Fre3dombear, Jan 6, 953 PM "Well you see ive already responded and always give chapter and verse. Its you denying those chapter and verses. Its just tiring and boring and circular." [demonstrably false claim (no chapter and verse cited by F3, very much the opposite)]
Fre3dombear, Jan 6, 955 PM "Receipts Post above. No gotcha. Just facts. Straight from the inspired text canonized by Catholics" [additional false claim, escalation and arrogance based on denomination]
FLBear5630, Jan 7, 515 AM "The Bible was also written by men" [strongly disputable claim, apparent escalation, also appears to imply human superiority to Scripture]
BusyTarpDuster, Jan 7, 1109 AM "Rrrriiight. I'm sure it had a lot more to do with you going to your typical "Pharisee" retort every time I call out errors. It would go right along with what you've already done here in this thread, calling it "threatening" and "authoritarian" to call out sheer and plainly obvious heresy and idolatry. Your modus operandi has been to attack those who attack false beliefs including your own, as a method of deflection from the important point at hand. I don't apologize for what you perceive as "abrasive behavior". All I've done is make my points directly and pointedly against egregious error. Considering your tendency to be "abrasive" yourself in attacking those who are simply telling the truth, I consider that a good sign." [provocative and insulting, no apparent purpose beyond attack, significant amount of personal pride]
The barBEARian, Jan 7, 1209 PM " but at least Catholicism and the Orthodox have ****ing badass aesthetics and conservative vibes.... there is a reason why those denominations are overtaking Protestantism. Bcs Protestantism is fake AND lame. Most Protestant churches have more Israeli flags than crosses." [insulting, escalation and plainly false claims]
Doc Holliday, Jan 7, 154 PM "Some protestants share that same view with the Orthodox, but a massive amount of them, especially boomers are subscribers to Evangelical dispensationalism which teaches the opposite, that God has two parallel peoples: Ethnic national Israel and The Church. It's essentially Christian Zionism and is very easy to refute." [escalation, largely false claim against Protestants with implied arrogance based on denomination]
FLBear5630, Jan 7, 1139 PM "The Bible was also written by men... Dictated by one as well" [continued escalation and repeated claim without purpose beyond emotional argument]
Fre3dombear, Jan 7, 1142 PM "Of course rhats not what happened as you always change your story when met with facts. Mary is referenced in revelation obviously and of course David's mom as tie in to how the mother of the king is referred to simpol. Just more scripture to consider." [false claim, personal insult, continued escalation]
Mothra, Jan 8, 1135 AM "As usual you can't communicate a coherent thought. I have no idea what you are saying. All i know is you failed to answer some pretty simple questions. If you get brave enough to do so let me know" [returned insult and attack]
BusyTarpDuster, Jan 8, 246 PM "Everyone can see your lie and/or stupidity. You really are in darkness." [personal insult, attack and escalation]
Fre3dombear, Jan 8, 1049 PM "You scared. Deflect deflect. As always. Why its your MO nobody knows." [personal insult, attack and escalation] That's just in the first three pages of posts.
Lord help us, and almost all of them from people claiming to be practicing Christians.
The truly sad thing is not just that all sides have such posts, or that the most angry and bitter people continue to launch insults and attacks. To me, the sad thing is how no one stops to look at this, and tell those on their own side to tone it down. None apologized for people on their side making such attacks on other Christians. I included posts from FLBear and Mothra where they at least made an effort to get the focus back on topic and de-escalate the tone. But such efforts were all too rare.
I would suggest that we all, all of us, should take a respite to approach the Holy Spirit, confess unchristian aspects of our thoughts and words, and ask our Lord to clean our spirits and purify our hearts when discussing matters of His Will and Purpose. I cannot believe He is pleased with Christians posting ridicule and attacks on other Christians.
Thanks to you all for reading.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Protestants keep running the same move: something gets called "obsolete" or "fulfilled" in the NT, and they hear that as "gone." But fulfilled isn't the same as cancelled, Jesus says flat out in Matt 5:17 that he didn't come to abolish the Law, he came to fill it up. Filled up, not thrown out.
The Law doesn't disappear, it gets cranked up (the Sermon on the Mount is Jesus making the commandments harder, not optional). The priesthood doesn't end, it levels up into something eternal and heavenly. Sacrifice doesn't stop, it becomes real instead of a shadow of the real thing, and we still eat from it. The Temple doesn't get demolished as a category, it moves into Christ's body and then into the Church and the altar.
Every single time, what's "obsolete" is the earthly, animal-blood, temporary version, not the actual category. But Protestant readings treat "the shadow is done" as if it means "the whole thing is done," and that's just not the same claim. It's a slide, not an argument.
So, the Law was hard enough, if not impossible for any of us to fulfill.... but you say that Jesus came to make the Law even harder for us to fulfill?
And are we still under the Law, now made harder? Is Paul and Hebrews wrong?
Yeah, what you're saying is definitely NOT the Gospel.
Cute reply to a strawman, not to what I said.
"Harder to fulfill" isn't a gotcha. The OT law regulates your hands, Jesus pushes it to your heart, and pairs that with the power to actually do it. assuming "harder" means "more meritorious effort required from unaided man," as if Jesus just raised the bar on the same old law-of-works game. That's not what's happening. The OT law regulated behavior (don't murder, don't commit adultery) because it was addressed to a people not yet given the Spirit in fullness. Jesus intensifies it to the level of the heart (don't hate, don't lust) because in the New Covenant the requirement isn't just "conform your actions", it's "be transfigured," and that's only possible synergistically, empowered by grace and cooperating with Christ.
Paul's "under the law" means under Torah as condemnation plus the Jew/Gentile boundary markers (circumcision, kosher, sabbath as ID). That's what's gone, read Galatians. "Love God, love neighbor" doesn't go anywhere and Paul calls that "the law of Christ," fulfilled by walking in the Spirit. You're arguing with Paul, not me.
"Not the Gospel," says who? You're just declaring sola fide "the Gospel" and calling that an argument. The apostolic Gospel is partaking of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), not staying exactly the same while getting declared innocent. If your gospel doesn't change you, that's the thing to worry about.
First of all, how ironic that you call it a straw man. Straw men is all you do when arguing against Protestantism.
But regardless, my response isn't even a strawman at all. Obeying the Law from the heart is much more difficult to achieve than obeying by hand. Anyone can pretend by their behavior. To actually have the right heart is something that you can't pretend. If you're saying that we're still under the Law, meaning our righteousness and thus our salvation is dependent on our fulfilling the Law, even wholly from the heart, then salvation has become even much, much less achievable.
What Paul, and the gospel message from the New Testament tells us, is that the Law is "obsolete" in that our personal aderence to it, even from the heart, is no longer the means of obtaining the righeousness required for eternal life. Our righeousness now comes as a free gift of grace, that we receive by faith in Jesus Christ.
What you're doing is trying to negate this, the Gospel message. You're trying to make adherence to the Law, now upgraded by Jesus, as a determinant of our righteousness for salvation. You're tying our merit to our salvation. Good luck with that. If this were true, then let's stop kidding ourselves - NONE of us would be saved. And you're still stuck with the fatal flaw in your view - you can't ever know if you've achieved enough Law keeping to get your salvation. Your trust is not in the finished work of Jesus, but on your own "cooperation" with him.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Nothing in your response is negating the point just made - that Scripture clearly says that it alone is sufficient, and that tradition is not needed.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Nothing in your response is negating the point just made - that Scripture clearly says that it alone is sufficient, and that tradition is not needed.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to?
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Nothing in your response is negating the point just made - that Scripture clearly says that it alone is sufficient, and that tradition is not needed.
Imagine that, the authors of Sola Scriptura that broke away from the Catholic Church, so money went to Berlin not Rome, interpreted the Bible to say they dont have to follow what Rome says or follow their millennium old traditions.! Wow, what are the odds...
Again, you prefer your human tradition to what is written in Scripture. I am a simple man, and will just trust what God wrote in Scripture.
After all, being first does not make you right. Adam was not right opposed to Christ simply because Adam was the first man. Cain was born before Able, yet Cain became the first murderer. Esau was the firstborn son, yet his brother Jacob was the one who became Israel. And of course God gave a true covenant to Abraham, yet by the time Christ walked on the earth, Judaism had strayed from God's purpose to such a degree that their priests rejected the Messiah when He appeared.
Tradition has inherent flaws, therefore.
EDIT - I notice you edited your post while I was writing my answer. I must remind you again, the founder of my faith is Jesus Christ, and so I depend on Him and what the Scriptures say, not what any man holds for his personal opinion.
Scripture - When the bible was composed, was it in English or even Latin? No, the NT was written in Greek and some Aramaic. Catholics and Orthodox are simply following what was written in the Greek AND as it was understood by the people that composed the bible.
Tradition - You too are following a tradition. A tradition started by anti-Catholics 500 years ago.
First - Jesus was first born, but by your account doesn't make him right because he would have had siblings. Your argument is silly.
You say you follow Jesus, but you reject what HE said in Aramaic and written in Greek.
Finally, it is apparent that you cannot answer honestly why Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
Well said.
And it wasn't even standard, classical Greek: it was Jewish Koine Greek. The authors were thinking in Hebrew or Aramaic idioms and cultural concepts but writing them down using Greek words, heavily influencing the syntax and grammar. It would be like me trying to write a Spanish sentence but forcing it to strictly follow English word order and structure. On top of that, you have different New Testament authors with vastly different levels of education and exposure to the Greek language.
Prots also face a major challenge with the OT. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures from the 3rd & 2nd century BC). Most Protestant Bibles translate their OT from the Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is written in the original Hebrew, its oldest surviving manuscripts and final vocalized form were compiled by Talmudic Jewish scholars much later, between the 6th and 10th centuries.
I cringe every time they say "just read the text".
They ignore typologies, the early church unanimous consensus and solely rely on a translation of a translation of another translation and think its perfected.
It wasn't REALLY well said. In fact, it was kind of simplistic and absurd reasoning, which is surprising given that it is coming from Coke Bear. It's just that you agree with it.
There is no scriptural support for so many Catholic and Orthodox beliefs. We've been over this ad nauseum, but I am truly amazed at your willingness to put faith in man-made tradition over the written word of God. There is nothing to support perpetual virginity in any scripture. You guys just like the idea, so you find a way to justify the unbiblical belief.
You think the Bible alone is the ultimate authority of truth. That's just false.
The pillar and foundation of truth is THE CHURCH. "If I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." 1 Timothy 3:15 Scripture itself points to the Church as the authority that safeguards and interprets the Word of God. Tradition isn't an "add-on" to the Bible, it's the living memory of the Church, where the Bible was written, and the keys needed to understand it correctly.
If you trusted the visible and physical Church that Christ established, you could see the New Testament realities prefigured in Old Testament people, places, and objects. Typology is the ultimate key to seeing how the entire Bible fits together. The New Testament is concealed in the Old, and the Old Testament is revealed in the New, aka Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant.
Your Post-Reformation beliefs carry a quiet, unstated assumption that "real religion" is strictly inward, mental, and simple. Your instinct is rooted in the ancient heresy of Gnosticism, which falsely divides the world into the "good spiritual realm" and the "suspicious physical realm." You don't actually understand Orthodoxy/Catholicism. You have absolutely no idea why we have certain traditions. You see an altar as "an unnecessary stage prop." You see an icon as "an idol." You don't understand the underlying why and you don't trust that this was tradition established by the early Church and apostles who were taught ORALLY for YEARS.
Your theology is purely intellectual and symbolic and that's why you're baffled by ancient Christian realism. You don't understand that Catholics and Orthodox believe the water of baptism actually cleanses, the oil of Chrism actually seals you with the Spirit, and the Eucharist is the literal body and blood of Christ. You think its all superstition.
The book of Revelation, for example, is entirely structured around a heavenly liturgy featuring an altar, incense, robes, and a marriage supper. That's John's vision of THE CHURCH. Why does it look like an Orthodox Church? When John was caught up into heaven, he didn't see a modern lecture hall, a classroom, or a stage. He saw a cosmic temple. The Church has always understood that Christian worship on earth is not a performance we invent for God, it is a literal participation in the eternal worship that is already happening in heaven. There's not two Churches, John saw the same Church.
Read Revelation and know that when you get to heaven this is what you're going to see based on what John saw: A cloud of witnesses (literal in the flesh Icons): the saints, the elders, the martyrs, and the cherubim surrounding the throne. Incense: Revelation says the golden altars of heaven are thick with the smoke of incense carrying the prayers of the saints. Liturgy: There are no rock bands or casual, conversational sermons in John's vision. It is a highly structured, unceasing, thunderous responsive chant: "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, Who was and is and is to come!" Bowing down/Prostrations: The elders and the angels don't just stand there with their hands in their pockets... they are constantly falling down on their faces, bowing, and throwing down their crowns before the altar.
You're going to find that heaven looks exactly like the very thing you're protesting.
Watch this:
When Paul calls the Church the "pillar and foundation of the truth," he's saying the Church upholds and proclaims the truth, not that it creates the truth or becomes the ultimate source of it. A pillar supports something; it isn't the thing being supported. The Church is God's appointed witness to the truth, but the truth itself comes from God.
The question isn't whether tradition exists. We agree it does. The question is how we know which traditions are truly apostolic and which developed later. Jesus Himself warned that religious traditions can drift away from God's Word. That's why every tradition must ultimately be tested against Scripture rather than placed on the same level as Scripture.
With respect to typology, I don't think Protestants reject it at all. The New Testament is full of typology. Adam points to Christ, the Passover points to Christ, Jonah points to Christ, and so on. The disagreement is whether typological connections can be used to establish doctrines that aren't clearly taught elsewhere. Seeing Mary as a new Ark may be a meaningful parallel, but a parallel by itself doesn't prove every doctrine associated with Mary.
This idea that Protestantism is Gnosticism is just ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. Disagreeing about icons, relics, or sacramental theology doesn't make someone a Gnostic. Don't be ridiculous.
As for Revelation, I agree that heaven is portrayed as majestic, liturgical worship filled with praise, reverence, incense, and the throne of God. But Revelation doesn't prove that any one modern church tradition perfectly mirrors heaven. The book is full of symbolic imagery.
The biggest problem with your argument is that appealing to "the Church" doesn't actually resolve the question of authority, because Catholics and Orthodox both claim to preserve Holy Tradition, yet they disagree on significant issues. They disagree about the authority of the Pope, certain Marian doctrines, purgatory, and other important matters. If apostolic tradition is supposed to function as a clear and infallible rule of faith, then simply saying "follow the Church" isn't enough. Which Church? Rome or Constantinople? And if two communions that both claim apostolic succession and sacred tradition reach different conclusions, then tradition by itself doesn't solve the problem.
That is just further proof of why one must appeal to Scripture as the final authority. Whenever churches, traditions, and interpretations conflict, there must be a higher standard by which they are judged. Protestants rightly believe that standard is the inspired Word of God.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Nothing in your response is negating the point just made - that Scripture clearly says that it alone is sufficient, and that tradition is not needed.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to?
God. He's the only infallible one. His Holy Spirit isn't idle in true believers. It leads all of them to the same essential truths.
Who was the authoritative, binding, correct interpreters of Scripture for the Jews? The "seat of Moses"? Did they interpret their Scripture correctly? Obviously, not.
and of course 2 Timothy 3:16 "all Scripture is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Of course it is. The problem is that you read 2 Timothy 3:16 as "ONLY scripture is...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."
".... that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
Seems to indicate that Scripture alone is sufficient and that tradition is not needed.
The Spirit and you have identical opinions on literally everything you've ever believed. Funny how that works for every sola scriptura Protestant I've ever met.
Who has the authoritative, binding, correct interpretation that everyone else is obligated to submit to? If your answer is 'each believer, individually, guided by the Spirit,' then you don't have a RULE of faith.
What's failed is this 500-year-old experiment of assuming the Spirit's normal mode of operation is 'illuminate each individual believer directly, apart from the Church as a structured, authoritative body.' Christ never promised that. He promised the Spirit would guide the Church.
Nothing in your response is negating the point just made - that Scripture clearly says that it alone is sufficient, and that tradition is not needed.
Imagine that, the authors of Sola Scriptura that broke away from the Catholic Church, so money went to Berlin not Rome, interpreted the Bible to say they dont have to follow what Rome says or follow their millennium old traditions.! Wow, what are the odds...
Imagine that, a non-believer, who literally said in another thread that Islam and Judaism are the same narrow paths to God just the same as through Jesus, is arguing against me in support of Roman Catholicism.
I just wish people could see what this means. Unfortunately, even some protestants here don't have the discernment.
Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.
Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?
Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.
I'll give a shot at an answer, and I'll stay away from discussing why the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos is true which we've already done.
1. It matters because truth matters. The Church has held and defended the doctrine since its earliest days. Certainly the Church Fathers, for example, would not defend an untruth. As we've shown here, even the first three protestant reformers accepted this doctrine. When you show up on the scene 1600 years after the fact, pick up an abridged translation of a translation with an errant Old Testament compiled by Christ-rejecting authors and declare something contrary to a millenium and a half of Christian teaching you put yourself in the position of someone making the case that it was actually ancient aliens, not Egyptians, who built the pyramids. The sole burden of proof falls on you, and in this case it boils down to the misunderstanding of a single "proof" text.
2. The virgin birth and Mary's perpetual virginity are signs of Mary's total consecration to God, single-minded service to him, and utter abandonment to his will...and as such, are an example and reminder to us all of how we are to live in the here and now. It is also a reminder to us of how we are to live in the hereafter as recorded in Matthew's gospel: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven," (Matt 22:30).
3. The virgin birth wasn't merely a stunt to get people to say "hey, look at this!" It was a single event in broader life of someone so dedicated to God from her earliest life as a child that God chose her out of all women of all time of all places to be the Theotokos. Trying to strip that away and merely look at it as an event in the life of a random person who went back to living a normal life thereafter...now which spiritual entity do you think would be behind such a campaign? "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)
You say "Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today." Maybe so, and whether or not such people can be saved or not is a decision that is made far above my paygrade. But I will say this: when you come to the place in life where you reject the ancient teachings and Christian disciplines of the church that Christ founded and take the stance of "Jesus, my Bible, and Me" you place yourself in the position of a soldier who volunteers to be behind enemy lines with nothing but a 9mm and a single magazine. You might make it to the end of the war alive and be reunited with your unit...but you put yourself in a position where the odds are dramatically against it.
We need to establish some truths first about what you guys affirm and don't affirm from the exact same authority:
After 2000 years of Christianity in Thessaloniki, Protestants want us to believe the only thing guiding their traditions, dogmas, and doctrines were two letters... until a few decades AFTER the Reformation when scripture was finally canonized...
On Nicea: Protestants accept the doctrinal ruling Nicaea handed down in the creed, but reject Nicea Canon 4 (bishops ordained under metropolitan authority), Canon 5 (binding regional synods), and Canon 6 (jurisdictional primacy of Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch): all issued by the same council, in the same session, under the same claimed authority. So what's your basis for accepting the creed's authority while simultaneously rejecting the ecclesial structure that same council said carried it?
You have to claim they were led by the Holy Spirit for only a portion of that council.
The Council of Ephesus (431) forbade any alteration to the Nicene Creed. The Filioque was added later, unilaterally, by regional councils and eventually Rome, with no ecumenical council ever approving it…the exact kind of unauthorized change Ephesus prohibited. If you affirm the creed because an ecumenical council produced it, why do you also affirm a clause that was added in direct violation of another ecumenical council's ruling?
On the NT canon of scripture: The 27-book NT canon wasn't settled in the apostolic age, it took over 250 years of disputed reception (Hebrews, Revelation, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, and Jude were all genuinely contested), and even longer before councils like Hippo, Carthage, and Trullo ratified it due to more opposition. So by what principle do you trust the outcome of that centuries-long ecclesial discernment process for the canon, while rejecting the authority of the very structure: bishops, synods, councils, that carried out the discernment?
Jesus Christ is the only pope I need. According to scripture, everyone who is saved is a saint. This label is defined by God, not man.
Is there a heirarchy of beings and saints in heaven? Or is it like communism where everyone's a comrade?
It's a bit ironic that you're appealing to the papacy to defend earthly hierarchy when, as an Orthodox Christian, you don't accept the pope's authority yourself.
If a divinely instituted earthly hierarchy were supposed to provide certainty and unity, your own rejection of the highest office in that hierarchy seems to illustrate that the system is fallible in practice.
Coke Bear, appreciate your well thought out responses. I have a question.
Why does it matter if she is a virgin with only one child or a typical mother of the era with many children?
Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today.
I'll give a shot at an answer, and I'll stay away from discussing why the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos is true which we've already done.
1. It matters because truth matters. The Church has held and defended the doctrine since its earliest days. Certainly the Church Fathers, for example, would not defend an untruth. As we've shown here, even the first three protestant reformers accepted this doctrine. When you show up on the scene 1600 years after the fact, pick up an abridged translation of a translation with an errant Old Testament compiled by Christ-rejecting authors and declare something contrary a millenium and a half of Christian teaching you put yourself in the position of someone making the case that it was actually ancient aliens, not Egyptians, who built the pyramids. The sole burden of proof falls on you, and in this case it boils down to the misunderstanding of a single "proof" text.
2. The virgin birth and Mary's perpetual virginity are signs of Mary's total consecration to God, single-minded service to him, and utter abandonment to his will...and as such, are an example and reminder to us all of how we are to live in the here and now. It is also a reminder to us of how we are to live in the hereafter as recorded in Matthew's gospel: "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven," (Matt 22:30).
3. The virgin birth wasn't merely a stunt to get people to say "hey, look at this!" It was a single event in broader life of someone so dedicated to God from her earliest life as a child that God chose her out of all women of all time of all places to be the Theotokos. Trying to strip that away and merely look at it as an event in the life of a random person who went back to living a normal life thereafter...now which spiritual entity do you think would be behind such a campaign? "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." (John 10:10)
You say "Peope who believe both ways accept Jesus Christ as the savior sent by the Father to die on the cross and rise again on the 3rd day and He is eternally alove today." Maybe so, and whether or not such people can be saved or not is a decision that is made far above my paygrade. But I will say this: when you come to the place in life where you reject the ancient teachings and Christian disciplines of the church that Christ founded and take the stance of "Jesus, my Bible, and Me" you place yourself in the position of a soldier who volunteers to be behind enemy lines with nothing but a 9mm and a single magazine. You might make it to the end of the war alive and be reunited with your unit...but you put yourself in a position where the odds are dramatically against it.
I agree that truth matters. That's precisely why I find your argument so unpersuasive. Notice that almost everything you wrote appeals to post-biblical tradition, church fathers, reformers, and theological symbolism - not to an actual biblical text teaching Mary's perpetual virginity.
The question isn't whether Christians historically believed it. The question is whether God revealed it. Christians have historically believed various things that later generations concluded were mistaken. Antiquity alone doesn't establish truth.
You say the burden is on those who reject a 1,600-year-old tradition. I would say the burden is on those asserting a doctrine that Scripture never explicitly teaches. If perpetual virginity is important enough to be binding doctrine, where is the clear biblical support for it? We are repeatedly told of Jesus' brothers and sisters, yet nowhere are we told, "Mary remained a virgin her entire life." A doctrine shouldn't require centuries of extra-biblical development before believers can find it.
As for your second and third points, I would submit that a woman does not become less dedicated to God by being a wife and mother. Your thoughts on this seem to have their roots in a chauvinistic view of women.
As for the suggestion that questioning perpetual virginity is somehow part of a spiritual campaign to diminish Mary, that's ridiculous. One can honor Mary as "blessed among women," affirm the virgin birth, affirm that she was chosen by God for a unique role in redemption history, and still conclude from Scripture that she later had a normal marriage with Joseph.
Finally, I would challenge the underlying assumption that rejecting a church tradition is equivalent to rejecting Christ's Church. The Bereans were commended for testing what they were taught against the Scriptures. The apostles themselves appealed to Scripture as the authority by which claims were examined. The issue is not "Jesus, my Bible, and me" versus the Church. The issue is whether the Church is subject to God's Word or whether later traditions can effectively create doctrines not found in God's Word.
You are describing the basic difference, Protestants believe everything is in scripture, Catholics believe there are other sources of information from that time.
This is a perfect example of something that scripture would not care about so not explain and outside info gives the answer. It does not matter to being a Christian or Christ's message whether he had brothers or cousins
I understand your overall point here. As a protestant, I can agree that if Jesus had siblings or not, it doesn't matter to the Gospel message and salvation.
However this is an important topic when it comes to RCC Marian dogmas. The RCC teaches that Mary was a "forever virgin" even though that is in direct contrast to the Scriptures themselves. These dogmas are also the basis for the worship or veneration of Mary, which also leads to her being label as a co-redeemer and co-mediatrix and having a "saving office" in all eternity.
So if you look at it from that perspective and you include Galatians 1:8, you can see why this can be such an important topic to so many.
Also, the RCC teaches that anyone who rejects any of the dogmas defined by the RCC, cannot be in communion with the church.
Jesus Christ is the only pope I need. According to scripture, everyone who is saved is a saint. This label is defined by God, not man.
Is there a heirarchy of beings and saints in heaven? Or is it like communism where everyone's a comrade?
God is at the top, obviously, and Jesus sits at His right. The Bible does not provide much in the way of a description of heaven so much of what we think is speculation of someone's imagination (ie Peter and the Pearly Gates, clouds, etc).
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
