Mother of James?

[DNB]

I removed the ambiguity of individuals in certain verses, by explaining how they are often the same person, and how they are related to others. If you paid attention to the explanations, and linking evidence, you would see there is fewer people being mentioned (see post #261).

You offered a speculative option, nothing definitive. All scholars agree on this.

Now, you claimed Scripture "clearly states" Simon, Joseph, James, and Judas, in Mat. 13:55, and Mk. 6:3, are Jesus's brothers, as in "a male born from the same womb", which contradicts your claim the issue is inconclusive either way, because Scripture "does not offer enough details" (see posts #268, #277). That is why I instructed you to pick a lane, and I see you have chosen to stick with "Scripture clearly states" your position.

I was referring to those at the cross, which is where almost your entire thesis lies. That is inconclusive, not the passages that i cited (Matthew 13:55, and Mark 6:3).

those in the Synagogue at Nazareth targeted Jesus's family in order to "deprecate His pedigree in order to challenge His authority", and they could only have been immediate family, because extended family, e.g., cousins, "does not bear the same weight", and present them as fact.

I am saying that between the explicit nature of the verse, and the context, one may confidently define that Jose, Simon, Jude & James, were the siblings of Joseph & Mary.

Firstly, you mixed up "eisegesis", and "exegesis". I put the word, which has been translated into English as "brother" (ἀδελφός, Adelphos), into its proper context how it was used at the time, as well as in the Bible verses I referenced (see post #261).

Nope, you eisegeted the text. Adelphos primarily means direct sibling, and secondly, may mean a non-immediate blood relative

Secondly, your view of those who perform "etymological assessments" is a simple, and reductive, understanding of the work that scholars do. If not for the great biblical scholars who were able to put ancient words in their proper context, no one in modern age would be able to understand Scripture.

If the Bible has not explicitly stated something numerous times, both in expression and context, then we find that the favorite tool of the eisegete is to perform an etymology on the words in question. Outside of the synoptic repetition, you have barely two passages to support your position, and in both cases, either can be construed in several ways. But, again, to regard Mary as being the biological mother of Jose & Simon, etc.. is the most direct and simplest explanation (Ockham's razor).

 

[BreadOfLife]

I know you will stick to your church's misleading teaching so there's not a lot of point re-hashing all the old arguments for and against.

ly
Funny - I didn't give you th Church's officially defined doctrinal positoin.
I made MY case directly from Scripture..

Nice cop-out, though . . .

 

[2nd Timothy Group]

Awesome, and you experienced this? I felt like I could see everything more clearly and that colours were brighter and I felt lighter and cleaner on the inside.

Yes. I have been given the most unbelievable of gift . . . to feel such Raw, Universal Power. I wish that all could know God in this way!

 

[BreadOfLife]

The meaning of the word tradition, when used in current-day theological circles, refers to non-Scriptural sources. For example, the Midrash, Talmud ( Gemarah, Mishna). This is what Jesus was denouncing, when the Pharisees were indignant that he didn't wash his hands before eating.
You are also guilty of adhering to that type of tradition, doctrines made by men.

Paul used the word tradition in a different sense, or a more authorized sense - it was handed by either eye-witnesses,, or those who were instructed by them (Luke, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Barnabas, etc..), Centuries have passed between the time of the Apostolic period, and when the Roman church established the majority of their doctrines - fallaciously claiming that they were received by apostolic succession.

Paul was a Jewish scholar and used the word "Tadition" in the SAME way it was understood by the Jews. Sacred Tradition was the Word of God passed on ORALLY.

Jesus and the Apostles relied on Tradition - as we see in the following examples:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.


YOUR postion on Tradition is obliterated by Scrioture . . .

.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well then, is there any part of Scripture that I accept (current canon), that you don't? For example, you believe in the entirety of Scripture that I believe in, I just don't believe in all the sources that you accept as authoritative. Thus, at a minimum, you agree with the principle of Tota Scriptura (Scriptura being the Bible).

WRONG.

I believe in EVERYTHING Scripture teaches. HOWEVER, as Scripture itself teaches - I DON'T believe it to be our "Sole Authority".
Scripture itself teaches explicity that Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

 

[DNB]

Paul was a Jewish scholar and used the word "Tadition" in the SAME way it was understood by the Jews. Sacred Tradition was the Word of God passed on ORALLY.

Jesus and the Apostles relied on Tradition - as we see in the following examples:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.

Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the ORAL TRADITION of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.

2 Timothy 3:8 - Paul relies on the ORAL TRADITION when speaking of Pharoah’s magicians, Jannes and Jambres. Their names are not recorded in the Old Testament.

Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.

Jude 9 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.

Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the ORAL TRADITION of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.


YOUR postion on Tradition is obliterated by Scrioture . . .

.

But, they are either giving the account of historical facts that are not subject to personal opinion or interpretation, or, they are making reference to what we call today, Scripture. For, John wrote, if all thing that Jesus did were documented, there would not be enough books in the world to contain them. Yes, there are countless events that are not recorded in Scripture, but, again, these testimonies come from either eye witnesses, revelation, or true rabbinic transmission. Due to the disparity between the formation of the Catholic Church, and the passing of Peter or John, we cast a rather dubious eye on, first of all, the authenticity of the apostolic succession, and ultimately, on the outrageous, arrogant and unfounded doctrines of the papacy.
And the latter is the most incriminating aspect of the current day Catholic Church's, claims, the absurdity of the dogma.

 

[DNB]

WRONG.

I believe in EVERYTHING Scripture teaches. HOWEVER, as Scripture itself teaches - I DON'T believe it to be our "Sole Authority".
Scripture itself teaches explicity that Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority . . .

Matt 16:18-19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that 'every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the CHURCH. If he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven, and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

2 Thess 2:15
"Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a LETTER from us."

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

But, you see, you made a leap from affirming that Christ's Church is the final authority, then to claiming that that authority has been preserved in the Roman Catholic church - the Church who organized the crusades and the inquisitions, who warranted the death of Martin Luther, and fought in the Thirty Year War (tacit approval).
I agree with the Scripture that you quoted, but judging by history, I can unequivocally affirm that the Roman Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with apostolic succession, ...but, nor does the protestant or eastern churches - the Church of Christ is hidden.

 

[Pearl]

ly
Funny - I didn't give you th Church's officially defined doctrinal positoin.
I made MY case directly from Scripture..

Nice cop-out, though . . .

Funny - but I don't read 'shouty' posts.

 

[Pearl]

Pearl, I could not locate your answer, if you answered at all. If you did, can you cite the post #, or reply with an answer, please?

Hi Pearl,

I understand it is difficult for you to allow any religious leader to have authority over you or what you believe. Especially men who wear robes with pointy hats (bishops). You feel you have just as much ability/authority to read Scripture and interpret it as the pointy hats club!!

Would you please list for me the letters that you consider the inherent word of God? There are 27 on my list.

Curious Mary

This was Mary's original question and I said the ones in my bible. If that is a wrong answer then I do not understand the question. So, here is a list of letters/epistles in my bible:

• Romans
• 1 Corinthians
• 2 Corinthians
• Galatians
• Ephesians
• Philippians
• Colossians
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1 Timothy
• 2 Timothy
• Titus
• Philemon
• Hebrews
• James
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude

 

[Nancy]

This was Mary's original question and I said the ones in my bible. If that is a wrong answer then I do not understand the question. So, here is a list of letters/epistles in my bible:

• Romans
• 1 Corinthians
• 2 Corinthians
• Galatians
• Ephesians
• Philippians
• Colossians
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1 Timothy
• 2 Timothy
• Titus
• Philemon
• Hebrews
• James
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude

Bam!! We go DIRECTLY to the "source" of Life itself. JUST as the bible tells us to.
xx

 

[BreadOfLife]

Funny - but I don't read 'shouty' posts.

Nobody's "shouting"(!!).
You just don't like being exposed . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

But, you see, you made a leap from affirming that Christ's Church is the final authority, then to claiming that that authority has been preserved in the Roman Catholic church - the Church who organized the crusades and the inquisitions, who warranted the death of Martin Luther, and fought in the Thirty Year War (tacit approval).
I agree with the Scripture that you quoted, but judging by history, I can unequivocally affirm that the Roman Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with apostolic succession, ...but, nor does the protestant or eastern churches - the Church of Christ is hidden.

I don't belong to a "Roman" Catholic Church. It doesn't even exist.
I belong to The Catholic Church that was built by Christ - 2000 years ago.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But, they are either giving the account of historical facts that are not subject to personal opinion or interpretation, or, they are making reference to what we call today, Scripture. For, John wrote, if all thing that Jesus did were documented, there would not be enough books in the world to contain them. Yes, there are countless events that are not recorded in Scripture, but, again, these testimonies come from either eye witnesses, revelation, or true rabbinic transmission. Due to the disparity between the formation of the Catholic Church, and the passing of Peter or John, we cast a rather dubious eye on, first of all, the authenticity of the apostolic succession, and ultimately, on the outrageous, arrogant and unfounded doctrines of the papacy.
And the latter is the most incriminating aspect of the current day Catholic Church's, claims, the absurdity of the dogma.[/QUOTE
And yet YOU and every other Protestant adhere to a Canon of Scripture that was declared by that SAME Catholic Church thet YOU reject.
Ummmmmm, WHY is that?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Bam!! We go DIRECTLY to the "source" of Life itself. JUST as the bible tells us to.
xx

Where does the Bible tell you that the BIBLE is your "Sole" Authority - because MY Bible tells me that Christ's CHURCH is our final earthly Authority (Matt.16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Chapter and Verse, please . . .

 

[Pearl]

Nobody's "shouting"(!!).
You just don't like being exposed . . .

When people use a lot of bold print in their posts and large text and different colours it seems like they are shouting at you and I never read such posts as they even look threatening. You think I'm exposed? Well aren't we all on here; exposing ourselves to other people's criticism and judgment. Be blessed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When people use a lot of bold print in their posts and large text and different colours it seems like they are shouting at you and I never read such posts as they even look threatening. You think I'm exposed? Well aren't we all on here; exposing ourselves to other people's criticism and judgment. Be blessed.

"Shouting" usually requires ALL CAPS or exclamation points (!!).
Formatting is there simply to emphasize the text.

As far as exposing you - I simply meant that you cannot argue your point on facts alone. You guys always resort to what you THINK the Church teaches. As I stated before - MY argument came straight from Scripture and NOT the Catechism . . .

 

[Pearl]

Again, I have not been referring to Marymog's original question, and your answer to that, rather her follow-up question (see bold below), and your answer to this which I could not locate, if you answered at all. If you did, can you cite the post #, or reply with an answer, please?

i don't understand the question. It seems a bit silly. How could I decide? Did you decide which ones are in yours?

 

[DNB]

I don't belong to a "Roman" Catholic Church. It doesn't even exist.
I belong to The Catholic Church that was built by Christ - 2000 years ago.

Vatican City is in Rome. Either way, you accept the pope as the vicar of Christ, thus, whatever church that you accept as Christ-ordained is axiomatically heretical.

 

[DNB]

Even heretics get a point or two correct, that is why that they are called heretics as opposed to apostates.

 

[Pearl]

@Marymog is asking you who decided which books are in your Bible?

Who decided which are in yours? It might give me a clue as to what you're on about.