Which one is a Cult? A or B?

[metis]

What's the early church as you say above? Let's start there...what do you mean when you say the early church never believed in scriptural innerancy"?

The first writings dealing with this issue of inerrancy was in the 2nd century whereas certain teachings were under discussion. The "millennial reign" mentioned in Revelation was one of them, for example, because there were no other citations that mention that. Another was dealing with whether Jesus' parables were real events or were allegorical.

Today, we see these letters as found in the NT as being "scripture", but that wasn't attributed to them at first. Matter of fact, there seems to be some difference of opinion between what Paul v James wrote in regards to "works".

Again -- either the Bible is true or -- it is true in parts (which parts do you believe) or it is based on myths, etc.

Any student of history well knows that what we read is someone's take on what supposedly happened. Often different books have different recall of events, such as the women's visitation to the empty tomb of Jesus whereas no two Gospels agree on the details.

did it believe Mary was a virgin?

No, but I can't say that it's impossible either. Some bishops in the 3rd century questioned it, but the general consensus was that she was.

Just curious if you feel like answering-- after all you're the teacher, and somewhat of an expert, aren't you?

No, I certainly don't call myself one, nor do I believe I am one. I've been involved in studies for almost six decades now, both at churches and synagogues, plus taking theology classes.

As Confucius supposedly said, the more you know, the more that you know that you really don't know all that much. And as Billy Graham said, the scriptures are simple enough so a person slow-of-mind can understand but complex enough to turn the hair of theologian's grey.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first writings dealing with this issue of inerrancy was in the 2nd century whereas certain teachings were under discussion. The "millennial reign" mentioned in Revelation was one of them, for example, because there were no other citations that mention that. Another was dealing with whether Jesus' parables were real events or were allegorical.

Today, we see these letters as found in the NT as being "scripture", but that wasn't attributed to them at first. Matter of fact, there seems to be some difference of opinion between what Paul v James wrote in regards to "works".
Any student of history well knows that what we read is someone's take on what supposedly happened. Often different books have different recall of events, such as the women's visitation to the empty tomb of Jesus whereas no two Gospels agree on the details.

No, but I can't say that it's impossible either. Some bishops in the 3rd century questioned it, but the general consensus was that she was.

No, I certainly don't call myself one, nor do I believe I am one. I've been involved in studies for almost six decades now, both at churches and synagogues, plus taking theology classes.

As Confucius supposedly said, the more you know, the more that you know that you really don't know all that much. And as Billy Graham said, the scriptures are simple enough so a person slow-of-mind can understand but complex enough to turn the hair of theologian's grey.

I want to apologize if I have offended you. One scripture I read recently came to mind -- that is when the disciples asked Jesus to give them more faith. Luke 17:5,6 "Now the apostles said to the Lord: “Give us more faith.” 6 Then the Lord said: “If you had faith the size of a mustard grain, you would say to this black mulberry tree,* ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea!’ and it would obey you.'"
We all must wrestle with our own faith. When I wanted help from God years ago, I had no faith, so I called a preacher. He told me I must have faith. I said I don't believe in God, how can I have faith? He then said that "faith is a gift of the spirit." He didn't go into any detail. And I thought, 'but I don't believe in God', so I said goodbye to him. That night -- I will never forget -- I prayed for the first time in years -- "Oh God, if you're there, give me this gift of faith." And to keep the account short, yes, He gave me after some years of study, this "gift of faith."
Take care.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first writings dealing with this issue of inerrancy was in the 2nd century whereas certain teachings were under discussion. The "millennial reign" mentioned in Revelation was one of them, for example, because there were no other citations that mention that. Another was dealing with whether Jesus' parables were real events or were allegorical.

Today, we see these letters as found in the NT as being "scripture", but that wasn't attributed to them at first. Matter of fact, there seems to be some difference of opinion between what Paul v James wrote in regards to "works".
Any student of history well knows that what we read is someone's take on what supposedly happened. Often different books have different recall of events, such as the women's visitation to the empty tomb of Jesus whereas no two Gospels agree on the details.

No, but I can't say that it's impossible either. Some bishops in the 3rd century questioned it, but the general consensus was that she was.

No, I certainly don't call myself one, nor do I believe I am one. I've been involved in studies for almost six decades now, both at churches and synagogues, plus taking theology classes.

As Confucius supposedly said, the more you know, the more that you know that you really don't know all that much. And as Billy Graham said, the scriptures are simple enough so a person slow-of-mind can understand but complex enough to turn the hair of theologian's grey.

Yet it is written that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

 

[metis]

Yet it is written that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.

Yes, that is what's written.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is what's written.

(At least we agree there...) Thank you, Metis.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, that is what's written.

Here I must say something, although I know I differ from what the (Roman) Catholic church teaches about that. And maybe the Eastern Orthodox church also, I'm not sure since I'm more familiar with Roman Catholic beliefs. But when Mary gave birth her hymen was broken. Therefore --
And something else comes to mind. When Jesus was kind of left behind during their trip to Jerusalem, aside from other points, if they only had one child they surely would known right from the start of the trip back that he was missing. I know, there are other things to consider.

 

[metis]

And something else comes to mind. When Jesus was kind of left behind during their trip to Jerusalem, aside from other points, if they only had one child they surely would known right from the start of the trip back that he was missing. I know, there are other things to consider.

Many theologians do not view the journey to Bethlehem as being literal, instead a possible drawing of a symbolic affiliation with David. IOW, allegorical. On a literal basis, it simply doesn't make sense, but figuratively it does.

 

[metis]

Here I must say something, although I know I differ from what the (Roman) Catholic church teaches about that. And maybe the Eastern Orthodox church also, I'm not sure since I'm more familiar with Roman Catholic beliefs. But when Mary gave birth her hymen was broken. Therefore --

Unless it was a miracle as was her impregnation if taken literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless it was a miracle as was her impregnation if taken literally.

Well, we can discuss more about this -- but Joseph seemed very concerned that Mary was pregnant, he must have liked her (she was young anyway) because he didn't want to embarrass her and he was told miraculously to marry her. I know some believe she never had other children, interpreting those texts about his brothers and sisters as meaning disciples. (Which doesn't quite add up to me, which is another reason why I believe Mary was not the eternal virgin.) But again -- for one reason in a literal (not miraculous) sense -- when Joseph and Mary left the festival without Jesus it stands to reason they had other children by that time.
Also this scripture about Joseph and Mary helps to think about it: "But he did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son, and he named him Jesus." (Matthew 1:25) I checked a Catholic Bible to make sure it has it in there, and it says "He had no relations with her until she bore a son,* and he named him Jesus."
Matthew, CHAPTER 1 | USCCB
Now they make an interesting comment, not that it makes too much sense to me in the theological viewpoint of maintaining her perpetual virginity, but here it is: "Until she bore a son: the evangelist is concerned to emphasize that Joseph was not responsible for the conception of Jesus. The Greek word translated “until” does not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus’ birth, nor does it exclude it." At least the commentators say the word translated 'until' may or may not imply normal marital conduct after Jesus' birth. It seems apparent to me from other scriptures that Jesus had half brothers and sisters. Yet what also is striking to me is that the word 'until' is not translated differently so as to say that she never had sexual relations with Joseph. I can look into the Greek word for until there, but even the Catholic commentators say it may or may not exclude normal marital relations after Jesus' birth.

 

[metis]

I know some believe she never had other children, interpreting those texts about his brothers and sisters as meaning disciples.

More likely a "cousin", as the Greek word for "brother" does not distinguish between them.

However, I don't lose any sleep over this.

 

[pearl]

But when Mary gave birth her hymen was broken.

That's why some Catholic theologians distinguish between a virginal conception and a virgin 'birth' in which the hymen would have remained intact.
No less than a Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, professor of Catholic theology would write "According to the faith of the Church, the Divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father, the doctrine of Jesus divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage."

 

[Dogknox20]

Except that humans are the only ones we know about who even think about living forever.

.
Right you are.... OUT..

YoursTrue out of all the creatures God has made only Man can say thankyou! Only man has the intellect to think about living forever. I am sure Cows don't! Man has god's man has always worshiped gods. Science can explain the material world but not the spiritual world! Because only man can say thankyou to God don't you think we should!?

 

[Dogknox20]

What's the early church as you say above? Let's start there...what do you mean when you say the early church never believed in scriptural innerancy"? Again -- either the Bible is true or -- it is true in parts (which parts do you believe) or it is based on myths, etc., including Jesus and Mary -- the "early Church," did it believe Mary was a virgin? Just curious if you feel like answering-- after all you're the teacher, and somewhat of an expert, aren't you?

YoursTrue the early church did not have a bible.. It was the Church that decided the truly inspired words of God from the many phony manuscripts kicking around at the time 400 years after the Church was established!
The Church is a living organism, she grows in understanding, now 2000 years old she has a good grasp on truth! Like all living things she is grows in size and intellect!

 

[YoursTrue]

.
Right you are.... OUT..

YoursTrue out of all the creatures God has made only Man can say thankyou! Only man has the intellect to think about living forever. I am sure Cows don't! Man has god's man has always worshiped gods. Science can explain the material world but not the spiritual world! Because only man can say thankyou to God don't you think we should!?

I thank God for many things.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's why some Catholic theologians distinguish between a virginal conception and a virgin 'birth' in which the hymen would have remained intact.
No less than a Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, professor of Catholic theology would write "According to the faith of the Church, the Divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father, the doctrine of Jesus divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage."

Can't say I know too much about it, but Adam came from the soil. God was his father.

 

[Lain]

Which one is a Cult? A or B?

'Next, the end, when he hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power.' (1 Corinthians 15:24)


A. Trinitarians Claim that God hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father
B. Christians Claim Jesus hands over the Kingdom to his God and Father

Both are cults. A cult is "a particular form or system of worship," from the Latin cultus meaning "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence."

 

[YoursTrue]

More likely a "cousin", as the Greek word for "brother" does not distinguish between them.

However, I don't lose any sleep over this.

I don't either, but it makes theological sense to me that Mary and Joseph had other children and I couldn't personally agree with an organization that continually teaches that she never had sexual relations with Joseph. I'm very thankful to know (realize, recognize, understand) that after Jesus birth they had normal marital relations. The scriptures indicate that. To me.

 

[Lain]

I don't either, but it makes theological sense to me that Mary and Joseph had other children and I couldn't personally agree with an organization that continually teaches that she never had sexual relations with Joseph. I'm very thankful to know (realize, recognize, understand) that after Jesus birth they had normal marital relations. The scriptures indicate that. To me.

"Theological sense"? Why so? What is the theology that makes that make sense to you.

 

[YoursTrue]

That's why some Catholic theologians distinguish between a virginal conception and a virgin 'birth' in which the hymen would have remained intact.
No less than a Cardinal Ratzinger, Benedict XVI, professor of Catholic theology would write "According to the faith of the Church, the Divine Sonship of Jesus does not rest on the fact that Jesus had no human father, the doctrine of Jesus divinity would not be affected if Jesus had been the product of a normal human marriage."

Well, I believe the Bible when it says that Mary conceived by holy spirit, she was a virgin at that point. There is no question in my mind from examining the scriptures with God's help (holy spirit) that she and Joseph later had normal marital relations and other children. If they had only one child they would have immediately noticed that Jesus wasn't with them when they headed for home after the festival in Jerusalem. Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the Bible means that Joseph had relations with her after Jesus was born. Matthew 1:25.

 

[YoursTrue]

"Theological sense"? Why so? What is the theology that makes that make sense to you.

That Mary was not eternally a virgin.