There is only one true church

[RedFan]

Thank you, RF. I really appreciate it. I do make a concerted effort at that any time I post.


You know, I kind of suspected that, actually... St. John's, maybe? Or New Hampshire... Cornell? You can see from my profile I'm in Nashville... my blood runs orange. <smile> I am a Tennessee Volunteer. <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

It's Cornell. Go Big Red!

 

[GodsGrace]

Yes...


Well, just quoting the Nazareth townsfolk themselves in Matthew 13:54-55...

"Where did this man... " ~ 'this man' obviously meaning Jesus
"...get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this..." ~ again, 'this' obviously referring to Jesus
"...the carpenter’s..." ~ Joseph's... 'carpenter' being a clear reference to Joseph
"...son?" ~ Joseph's son, Jesus, of course
"Is not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...mother called Mary?" ~ no explanation needed here, but obviously Mary, the mother of Jesus, not to be confused with Mary Magdalene or any other Mary in the Bible
) "And are not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...sisters with us?"

I really don't see how one could ask for a clearer context than that. Unmistakably, all are immediate blood relations of Jesus.

But so be it.

Grace and peace to you, RedFan.

P.S. I don't mean anything disparaging by this, RedFan, but that's an interesting moniker...

What you state is NOT so clear.
Even some Protestant theologians believe it's possible that the BROTHERS of Jesus might have been half brothers...
same father, different mother.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

 

[BreadOfLife]

But the context of Matthew 13 and Mark 6 is very clear, BOL. <smile> Respectively:

"...when Jesus had finished these parables, He went away from there, and coming to His hometown He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, 'Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not His brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?' And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown and in his own household.'"​

​

"He went away from there and came to His hometown, and His disciples followed Him. And on the Sabbath He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished, saying, 'Where did this man get these things? What is the wisdom given to Him? How are such mighty works done by His hands? Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us?' And they took offense at Him. And Jesus said to them, 'A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown and among his relatives and in his own household.' And He could do no mighty work there, except that He laid His hands on a few sick people and healed them. And He marveled because of their unbelief."​

How is that context “very clear”?

Mary’s sister (Mary) and her children couldn’t have lived with or near her sister? What if her sister was a widow?
These are possibilities about which Scripture is silent.

There is nothing “very clear” at all . . ..

There are multiple Marys, Jameses, and Johns in the Bible; they were common names of the day (and now...). And Jesuses (Joshuas), actually. We should not confuse them.

And they are usually differentiated in the text:

James “Son of Zebedee”
James “The Less”
James “Son of Clopas/Alphaeus”
Mary “Magdalene”
Mary “Wife of Clopas”
Simon “Of Cyrene"
"Sumon "The Zealot"

We know that the mother of James “The Less/Son of Clopas-Alphaeus” (Mark 15:40) is Mary’s “adelphe”, Mary (John 19:25). He is also known as the “adelphos of the Lord”

So, how could Jesus and this James be uterine siblings if they had different mothers??

Matthew 13:53-57 and Mark 6:1.6 are both unmistakable.

I think I just proved otherwise . . .

Respectfully speaking, it's nothing short of incredible to me that you don't see this as proof that, after the birth of Jesus, she did not remain a virgin. But so be it.

It’s just your 21st century English-speaking mind clouding your thinking.

Yes, Mark 6:3-4 is... irrefutable.

Already refuted.
See above . . .

Do you pray to her, BOL? Do you think her capable of answering prayer?

Grace and peace to you.

Rev. 5:8 shows the Elders in Heaven interceding for us before God.

I pray to saints in Heaven, my wife, my friends, my loved ones – and other members of the Body of Christ when I ASK them to pray for me.

I feel sorry for non-Catholics who don’t believe ALL true followers of Christ are part of His Body . . .

Definition of the word “PRAY”:
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
Full Definition of pray
transitive verb
1: entreat, implore —often used as a function word in introducing a question, request, or plea<pray be careful>
2: to get or bring by praying

intransitive verb
1: to make a request in a humble manner
2: to address God or a god with adoration, confession, supplication, or thanksgiving

Acts 27:34 - KJV
"Wherefore I pray you to take some meat: for this is for your health: for there shall not an hair fall from the head of any of you".

 

[Johann]

What you state is NOT so clear.
Even some Protestant theologians believe it's possible that the BROTHERS of Jesus might have been half brothers...
same father, different mother.

I don't think we'll ever know for sure.

 

[BreadOfLife]

This is our participation in His carrying out of His purposes. He uses us, yes, in carrying out His plans, but the power is His, worked through us by the Holy Spirit.

We assist the church by using our spiritual gifts, the gifts of the Spirit that we each are given ~ but even these are empowered by God by the work of His Spirit in us ~ for the common good; they are empowered in us by one and the same Spirit, Who apportions to each one individually as God wills (1 Corinthians 12:4-10).

Paul, sats that we do BOTH.

He used his gifts in the ministry of spreading the Gospel (Acts 14:8-10) – AND he offered his redemptive sufferings for the Church (Col. 1:24).

Well, "to make the word of God fully known," as he writes in Colossians 1:25. God's Word is living and formative, not Paul or anyone else.

How sad it must be to have NO need of the Body of Christ . . .

Agreed. Not sure why you would feel compelled to say that...

Because many anti-Catholics accuse the Church of believing this,

We don't assist God in any way. We have the privilege of His using us ~ and in this way being instruments of His right hand, and in this way we serve Him ~ to accomplish His purposes for sure. As the writer of Hebrews says, "...every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God" (Hebrews 3:4), and "by faith, Abraham..." ~ as we all should be even now, "...was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God" (Hebrews 11:8-10). God calls us to participate fully, for sure, but He the One really doing it.
To Him alone be the glory.

Grace and peace to you.

That’s why I put quotes around “assist”.
But, make NO mistake, we are sunergos - “co-workers” with God ( 1 Cor. 3:9).

God doesn’t “need” our help – but He desires and even wills it (Matt. 28:19-20).

Do you think that the Bible just fell out of the sky?
Or did God use sunergos to write it down?

Did the Church just “magically “appear in countries around the world?
Or did God use sunergos to preach the Gospel and suffer for it?

If you’re NOT God’s co-worker – WHAT’S the point?

 

[BreadOfLife]

I have never argued that if it isn't in Scripture it cannot be true. Quite the opposite. Where are you getting these notions from, if not from my actual words?

Because this is the manner in which you argue.
You constantly demand Scriptural evidence for things about which Scripture is largely silent.

You can’t just “claim” to not be a Sola Scripturist – then argue like one . . .

 

[RedFan]

Because this is the manner in which you argue.
You constantly demand Scriptural evidence for things about which Scripture is largely silent.

You can’t just “claim” to not be a Sola Scripturist – then argue like one . . .

Asking if there is Scriptural evidence for a proposition does not make one a Sola Scripturist. (You've asked that question dozens of times yourself!) It makes one inquisitive and studious. The only way to argue like a Sola Scripturist is to reject any other evidence for a proposition. And that is something I have never done. EVER! EVER!!!

I should remind you that when we were both posting on another thread, "What is the purpose of infant baptism?", I agreed with you that sola scriptura was disproven as a thesis (Post #1,471).

 

[PinSeeker]

You missed the point.

No, I just didn't accept your "point."

I was simply differentiating between explicit Biblical teaching and implicit Biblical teaching – and showing that they are BOTH valid.

I don't disagree, and never did.

This was in response to the claim that Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is NOT implicitly taught in Scripture.

I know. <smile> I don't think I exlicitly... see what I did there? <smile> ...said that, but I will certainly accept that it is not, either implicitly or explicitly.

Sacred or Apostolic Tradition are truths that the Church has always taught from the beginning.

The Catholic Church. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but... <smile>

I’m NOT speaking of traditions (small “t”) such as meatless Fridays or carrying palms on Palm Sunday.

As Paul explains in 2 Thess. 2:15, Oral Tradition is the Word of God that is not written down.

Paul clarifies in that very verse this tradition of which he speaks as being "taught by us, either by (their) spoken word or by (their) letter." Soo from the outset of the letter to the Thessalonians, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy ~ by their word or their writing. All we have today is what is in his letters to the Thessalonians. I think we can be sure there were conversations and possibly sermons that took place while they were there in Thessalonica, but we were not of course privy to those conversations or sermons. Two things I think we can say with certainty are that 1.) they (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) did not say anything to the Thessalonians contradictory to what we have in these letters, and 2.) that He is not speaking of anything spoken that we would know as extra-Biblical today.

Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is ORAL TRADITION. It is not found in the Old Testament.

First of all, this is not a prophecy or tradition. <smile> Also, Matthew is not quoting any specific Old Testament prophecy but is referring to a general theme in the Old Testament prophets (plural), saying that the Old Testament prophets foretold that the Messiah would be despised (Psalm 22:6; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Daniel 9:26), comparable to the way in which the town of Nazareth was despised in the time of Jesus (John 1:46; 7:41,52). Matthew may also have intended ~ again may have intended ~ a wordplay connecting the word 'Nazareth' to the Old Testament messianic prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, since 'Nazareth' sounds like the Hebrew word for 'branch,' which was a designation for the Messiah.

The rest... Moses's seat of authority, the rock following Moses, Pharoah's magicians, Jude... Sure, no disagreement, although I will say that Paul's claim in 1 Corinthians 10 that the Rock following them was both spiritual and Christ shows that he did not believe that a physical rock traveled with the Israelites, but that Christ ~ in spiritual form ~ was every-present with them; He was there to supply their need for water, and there to judge those who tested Him (1 Corinthians 10:9). "Rock" is a common Old Testament name for God (e.g. deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31), and this facilitated Paul's identification of the rock with Christ.

Okay, that's enough of that, really. I don

The Ark is about Mary – as it pertains to Jesus.

Disagree. Jesus. All of Scripture is about Jesus. The Ark is not about or indicative of Mary in any way.

In the sense of what the Ark WAS – Mary is the fulfillment.

Absolutely not.

As for what the Ark was FOR – Jesus is the fulfillment.

The Ark symbolized the Lord’s throne/footstool as seen in the fact that the “testimony” of Yahweh would be placed within it (Exodus 25;21), and Jesus is that Testimony, the very Word of God.

Once again – ALL types, fulfillments and prophecies POINT to Jesus, whether they are directly about Him or not.

Well, thank you for acknowledging that, but one clarification: They are directly about Him, without exception, as He Himself said (John 5:46; Luke 24).

For example:
The 12 stars in Rev. 12:1 (12 Tribes/12 Apostles)

Disagree. The sun, moon, and twelve stars whow that the woman symbolizes Israel ~ God's Israel, consisting of both Jew and Gentile (see Genesis 37:9. Joseph's dream:

"Then he (Joseph) dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, 'Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.'” Joseph is a "type," a shadow of Christ, as he was in Egypt to save Israel from the famine.

The Woman in Gen. 3:15 (May/Jesus)

Disagree. Just Jesus there; we discussed that. <smile>

The Water in 1 Pet. 3:20-21 (Flood water/Baptismal water)

The water symbolized God's judgment, which we are delivered from, of which baptism is an outward sign and "an appeal to God for a good conscience," as Peter says.

BUT Jesus (GOD incarnate) had a mother and she DID carry Him in her womb.

Absolutely. <smile>

She was specially chosen by God to be the vessel that carried God within her – physically. THAT's why Mary is considered by ALL generations to be "blessed" (Luke 1:48)

No doubt. I agree. <smile> But the Ark of the Covanant was in no way indicative of Mary. <smile>

How sad it must be to have NO need of the Body of Christ . . .

Well, we all have need of the Body of Christ... that's why God gave us His Spirit, and each other. <smile> And one day our faith will be sight.

If you’re NOT God’s co-worker – WHAT’S the point?

I would call us servants of the Most High. Mary did (Luke 1:48). <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Johann]

Asking if there is Scriptural evidence for a proposition does not make one a Sola Scripturist. (You've asked that question dozens of times yourself!) It makes one inquisitive and studious. The only way to argue like a Sola Scripturist is to reject any other evidence for a proposition. And that is something I have never done. EVER! EVER!!!

I should remind you that when we were both posting on another thread, "What is the purpose of infant baptism?", I agreed with you that sola scriptura was disproven as a thesis (Post #1,471).

If you’re grappling with a question, it’s important to look to the Early Church Fathers, as they can provide valuable insight into the answers you’re seeking. Just as Proverbs 11:14 says, "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety." The Early Church Fathers serve as those wise counselors who can help guide your understanding of Scripture and the faith.

And no-I am not Catholic.

 

[Augustin56]

Yes...


Well, just quoting the Nazareth townsfolk themselves in Matthew 13:54-55...

"Where did this man... " ~ 'this man' obviously meaning Jesus
"...get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is not this..." ~ again, 'this' obviously referring to Jesus
"...the carpenter’s..." ~ Joseph's... 'carpenter' being a clear reference to Joseph
"...son?" ~ Joseph's son, Jesus, of course
"Is not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...mother called Mary?" ~ no explanation needed here, but obviously Mary, the mother of Jesus, not to be confused with Mary Magdalene or any other Mary in the Bible
) "And are not His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all His..." ~ again, Jesus's
"...sisters with us?"

I really don't see how one could ask for a clearer context than that. Unmistakably, all are immediate blood relations of Jesus.

But so be it.

Grace and peace to you, RedFan.

P.S. I don't mean anything disparaging by this, RedFan, but that's an interesting moniker...

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

 

[PinSeeker]

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary...

But they are mentioned in the same breath by folks in Jesus's hometown as His mother and father ~ even the very same sentence. And they're talking about them as brothers and sisters of Jesus. The same immediate family context of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and his brothers and sisters ~ in both Matthew 13 and John 6 ~ is irrefutable.

...although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

He is, yes. <smile>

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Disagree. See above.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

Yes, in order of your mention here:..

• Mary Magdalene, who had no children
• Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee (the wife of Zebedee, of course) ~ the mother of the apostles James and John
• Mary, yes, the mother of Jesus, also the mother of James and Joseph, but not the same James as the son of Salome. (corresponding with Matthew 13:55).

Matthew 13 and John 6 passages are Matthew's and John's accounts of the very same event, Augustin.

As the great Stuart Smalley (Al Franken, Saturday Night Live) said, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt."

LOL!

Grace and peace to you, Augustin.

 

[Augustin56]

But they are mentioned in the same breath by folks in Jesus's hometown as His mother and father ~ even the very same sentence. And they're talking about them as brothers and sisters of Jesus. The same immediate family context of Joseph, Mary, Jesus, and his brothers and sisters ~ in both Matthew 13 and John 6 ~ is irrefutable.


He is, yes. <smile>


Disagree. See above.


Yes, in order of your mention here:..

• Mary Magdalene, who had no children
• Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee (the wife of Zebedee, of course) ~ the mother of the apostles James and John
• Mary, yes, the mother of Jesus, also the mother of James and Joseph, but not the same James as the son of Salome. (corresponding with Matthew 13:55).

Matthew 13 and John 6 passages are Matthew's and John's accounts of the very same event, Augustin.

As the great Stuart Smalley (Al Franken, Saturday Night Live) said, "Denial is not just a river in Egypt."

LOL!

Grace and peace to you, Augustin.

What you're doing is called eisegesis, which is reading into the text what you want it to mean. It's the opposite of exegesis, which good Bible scholars use. Exegesis is drawing out of the text what it actually means.

You have to read Scripture as a whole, rather tha snippets out of context. Mark 6:3 refers to the same "brothers" of Jesus as the children of another Mary, not the mother of Jesus.

In John 19:25 we read, “Standing by the foot of the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary of Magdala.” Cross reference this with Matthew 27:56: “Among them at the cross were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” We see that at least two of the men mentioned in Matthew 13 were definitely not siblings of Jesus (although they’re called adelphoi); they were Jesus’ cousins–sons of their mother’s sister.
The Bible is simply silent on the exact relationship between Jesus and the other two men, Simon and Jude, mentioned in Matthew 13.

This proves two important things. First, it proves that the Greek word for brother is sometimes used to mean something other than sibling, and it proves that Matthew 13:55-56 in no way demonstrates that Mary had other children.

 

[Hobie]

If you believe what Christians have believed and have taught in all generations, then you're built upon the Apostles. But if you're particular faith..what you think is so important to say, is something that only began to be said in 500 AD or in 1000 AD or in 1500 AD or in 1959 AD..whatever you're in, as good as it might be, is inadequate and is something less than the church of Christ. It isn't Apostolic. There is one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that church has been teaching the gospel and preaching the Christian faith for 2000 years. It is evangelical, but not Protestant. It is Orthodox, but not Jewish. It is Catholic, but not Roman. It is not non-denominational, it is pre-denominational. It has been believed, taught, preserved, defended, and died for. It is the Faith that has established the universe. Proclaiming the Truth since 34 AD. The Church began on the day of Pentecost after Christ's resurrection.

It is the Church of Christ, not of man or traditions of man. It follows His Word and keeps His Law, its that simple...

 

[Augustin56]

It is the Church of Christ, not of man or traditions of man. It follows His Word and keeps His Law, its that simple...

The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. There was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. The Catholic Church alone has the fullness of Christ's teaching, which it has never changed from the beginning. St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth." Historically, the only Church that existed at the time Paul wrote that wasthe Catholic Church.

It's that simple.

 

[Hobie]

The Church of Christ IS the Catholic Church. There was no other Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity. The Catholic Church alone has the fullness of Christ's teaching, which it has never changed from the beginning. St. Paul refers to the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth." Historically, the only Church that existed at the time Paul wrote that wasthe Catholic Church.

It's that simple.

They reject truth and follow traditions of man, even they declare it. God says His Sabbath is on the Seventh Day, but Rome claims it has the authority to replace it with the day of the sun, from pagan origin which it follows...

 

[Augustin56]

They reject truth and follow traditions of man, even they declare it. God says His Sabbath is on the Seventh Day, but Rome claims it has the authority to replace it with the day of the sun, from pagan origin which it follows...

Not once has the Catholic Church rejected Christ's truth. They follow Holy Tradition which is the Oral tradition (teachings) of Christ that St. Paul refers to in 2 Thes 2:15. Without the Catholic Church, you have no Bible or teachings of Christ. Protestantism, with it's man-made traditions of Bible alone and faith alone and personal translation of Scripture (which is against Scripture) cannot be the source of Christ's truth came in the 16th century, way late in the game. Where would they have gotten "different" information from what was always taught from the beginning?

Or are you Mormon and claim that an angel came back to correct some of the teachings? That's looney toons, too.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Asking if there is Scriptural evidence for a proposition does not make one a Sola Scripturist. (You've asked that question dozens of times yourself!) It makes one inquisitive and studious. The only way to argue like a Sola Scripturist is to reject any other evidence for a proposition. And that is something I have never done. EVER! EVER!!!

I should remind you that when we were both posting on another thread, "What is the purpose of infant baptism?", I agreed with you that sola scriptura was disproven as a thesis (Post #1,471).

No - you rejected the Sacred Tradition with regard to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
You will only accept Scriptural evidence. THAT is am argument from Sola Scriptura.

Again - you CLAIM to be accepting to other forms of evidence – but you really aren’t. Even though Scripture itself puts Apostolic Tradition ON PAR with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).

To distrust Apostoloc Tradition is the SAME as distrusting Scripture because they are from the SAME source . . .

 

[RedFan]

No - you rejected the Sacred Tradition with regard to Mary’s Perpetual Virginity.
You will only accept Scriptural evidence. THAT is am argument from Sola Scriptura.

Again - you CLAIM to be accepting to other forms of evidence – but you really aren’t. Even though Scripture itself puts Apostolic Tradition ON PAR with Scripture (2 Thess. 2:15).

To distrust Apostoloc Tradition is the SAME as distrusting Scripture because they are from the SAME source . . .

Either one believes EVERYTHING in Apostolic Tradition, or one is a Sola Scripturist? Is that what you think? That is just nuts! Some things in that tradition are less well attested than others.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No, I just didn't accept your "point."
I don't disagree, and never did.

I know. <smile> I don't think I exlicitly... see what I did there? <smile> ...said that, but I will certainly accept that it is not, either implicitly or explicitly.

Only God can open your eyes to His Word . . .

The Catholic Church. Yes, I understand what you're saying, but... <smile>

The Catholic Church that has existed since the Apostles.
The same cannot be said of your sect . . .

Paul clarifies in that very verse this tradition of which he speaks as being "taught by us, either by (their) spoken word or by (their) letter." Soo from the outset of the letter to the Thessalonians, Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy ~ by their word or their writing. All we have today is what is in his letters to the Thessalonians. I think we can be sure there were conversations and possibly sermons that took place while they were there in Thessalonica, but we were not of course privy to those conversations or sermons. Two things I think we can say with certainty are that 1.) they (Paul, Silvanus, Timothy) did not say anything to the Thessalonians contradictory to what we have in these letters, and 2.) that He is not speaking of anything spoken that we would know as extra-Biblical today.

With "certainty??

Give me a SINGLE Sacred Tradition that “contradicts” Scripture.
Otherwise, your argument collapses . . .

First of all, this is no"t a prophecy or tradition. <smile> Also, Matthew is not quoting any specific Old Testament prophecy but is referring to a general theme in the Old Testament prophets (plural), saying that the Old Testament prophets foretold that the Messiah would be despised (Psalm 22:6; Isaiah 49:7; 53:3; Daniel 9:26), comparable to the way in which the town of Nazareth was despised in the time of Jesus (John 1:46; 7:41,52). Matthew may also have intended ~ again may have intended ~ a wordplay connecting the word 'Nazareth' to the Old Testament messianic prophecy in Isaiah 11:1, since 'Nazareth' sounds like the Hebrew word for 'branch,' which was a designation for the Messiah.

The rest... Moses's seat of authority, the rock following Moses, Pharoah's magicians, Jude... Sure, no disagreement, although I will say that Paul's claim in 1 Corinthians 10 that the Rock following them was both spiritual and Christ shows that he did not believe that a physical rock traveled with the Israelites, but that Christ ~ in spiritual form ~ was every-present with them; He was there to supply their need for water, and there to judge those who tested Him (1 Corinthians 10:9). "Rock" is a common Old Testament name for God (e.g. deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 30-31), and this facilitated Paul's identification of the rock with Christ.

Okay, that's enough of that, really. I don

Talk about dancing around the issue . . .

Matt. 2:23 is an oral tradition. It’s NOT something that Matthew simply surmised because of Jesus’s address. It wouldn’t be in the OT now, would it?? That’s what makes it ORAL Tradition . . .

It's glaringly apparent that you don’t understand ORAL Tradition.

Disagree. Jesus. All of Scripture is about Jesus. The Ark is not about or indicative of Mary in any way.

Correction – all f Scripture points to Jesus.

Absolutely not.

Ad a thousand denials doesn't make it "untrue" , , ,

The Ark symbolized the Lord’s throne/footstool as seen in the fact that the “testimony” of Yahweh would be placed within it (Exodus 25;21), and Jesus is that Testimony, the very Word of God.

Like I said – Jesus IS the fulfillment of what the Ark carried.

Mary is the Ark that carried Him.

Well, thank you for acknowledging that, but one clarification: They are directly about Him, without exception, as He Himself said (John 5:46; Luke 24).

That’s NOT what Jesus said.

He said:
John 5:46
If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.

Luke 24:25-27
He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

NEITHER of these passage ever implies that “everything” in Scripture s directly about Jesus.

Disagree. The sun, moon, and twelve stars whow that the woman symbolizes Israel ~ God's Israel, consisting of both Jew and Gentile (see Genesis 37:9. Joseph's dream:

"Then he (Joseph) dreamed another dream and told it to his brothers and said, 'Behold, I have dreamed another dream. Behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me.'” Joseph is a "type," a shadow of Christ, as he was in Egypt to save Israel from the famine.

In either case – it’s not directly about Jesus - but alludes to Him because of the Joseph/Israel connection. Rev. 12:1-5 is a polyvalent prophecy that encompasses more than none thing.

Disagree. Just Jesus there; we discussed that. <smile>

No – YOU simply issued yet another denial . . .

The water symbolized God's judgment, which we are delivered from, of which baptism is an outward sign and "an appeal to God for a good conscience," as Peter says.

Once again – in either case it’s not directly about Jesus - but alludes to Him.

This time through reference about Baptism.

No doubt. I agree. <smile> But the Ark of the Covanant was in no way indicative of Mary. <smile>

Then you’ll have to refute all of the Scriptural type and fulfillment comparisons I presented to the contrary . . .

Well, we all have need of the Body of Christ... that's why God gave us His Spirit, and each other. <smile> And one day our faith will be sight.

Yet, you reject the Word of God that Paul penned with regard to redemptive suffering for the sake of the Body of Christ (Col. 1:24) . . .

I would call us servants of the Most High. Mary did (Luke 1:48). <smile>

Grace and peace to you.

We ARE His servants.
“Serve” is the key root here. To serve is to WORK.

Sunergos is to work together (co-worker).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Either one believes EVERYTHING in Apostolic Tradition, or one is a Sola Scripturist? Is that what you think? That is just nuts! Some things in that tradition are less well attested than others.

Jesus gave supreme earthly Authority to His CHURCH. The Church is His mouthpiece on earth.

He told the leaders of His Church:
Matt 16:19 / Matt. 18:18
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.

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."

This is how Paul was able to say – with God-given Authority:
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."

Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit claimed that ORAL Tradition was on even par with Scripture.
That said - if you reject Apostolic Tradition – ANY of it – you are rejecting God’s Word . . .