The Lord's Day

[Thomas]

I was stunned because she was the first Catholic I had ever met who knew her Bible cover to cover.

LOL, there are a few around!

On the flip side, knowledge of the Bible, cover-to-cover, chapter-and-verse, is no guarantee of anything. There have been some real villains who can justify themselves from Scripture. Having read something is no guarantee of understanding.

I read a tale somewhere (it may well be apocryphal) someone took a Bible to some distant land and showed it to a holy man – a Tibetan monk, a Buddhist, a Hindu, the actuality escapes me. The man in question took the book away. a few days later the giver said they would be going soon, could he have his bible back? The holy man said, "I've memorised nearly all of it, another day and I will be done."

The point was in discussion about the transmission of oral testimonies, and that those raised in strong oral traditions have a greater capacity for memorising, as we've got lazy, with easy access to texts ... still, probably not true ... what language was the Bible in?

I do know that 'illustrated manuscripts' were actually an aide memoire to learning the text. By picturing the illustration, the whole page comes to mind.

Eventually I asked her if her biblical knowledge contradicted the Catholic doctrine.

Seems the answer was 'no'?

I was puzzled by her claim, but she definitely seemed very intelligent.

Well it's there in Scripture ... ?

The quotes I gave on the previous thread not only bolster her claim, but illustrate that the Catholic church doesn't hold itself accountable to scripture aside from the verses above. The Catholic church can change whatever custom it sees fit, even if it isn't biblical.

That's not her claim nor the Church's – that's yours, and I'm afraid it's incorrect.

 

[juantoo3]

The Fourth: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, declared at the Synod of Milan in 389. Affirms the virginity of Mary before, during and after. Tricky one this: How do we know? And who would have 'the 'brass neck', as we say in the UK, to ask? And why?

Le sigh.

Regardless of the Synod, this is not Canonical. Long standing tradition, but it is not Biblical.

How could Jesus have a blood related brother James who grew up in the same house?

The brothers of Jesus or the adelphoi (Greek: ἀδελφοί, translit. adelphoí, lit. "of the same womb")[1][Notes 1] are named in the New Testament as James, Joses (a form of Joseph), Simon, Jude, [2] and unnamed sisters are mentioned in Mark and Matthew.[3]

Brothers of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Of the same womb" is pretty clear.

 

[Thomas]

Regardless of the Synod, this is not Canonical. Long standing tradition, but it is not Biblical.

That's my point.

"Of the same womb" is pretty clear.

LOL, to quote an infamous fictional politician, "You might possibly that, I couldn't possibly comment" (Francis Urquhart, House of Cards)

A literal reading would conclude that 'adelphoi' means physical kinship. However, the broader, metaphorical use of the term is so prevalent in the texts in question that they preclude any certain answer. The evidence is insufficient. Non-Catholic scholars have sided with Rome on this point.

Paul says 'brethren of the Lord" (hoi adelphoi tou kyriou) in 1 Corinthians 9:5 for example. We cannot rest on Mark 6:3 alone (Matthew and Luke following him).

However, it seems to me that Paul in Galatians 1:19 "But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." seems pretty emphatic, as all the apostles were the Lord's brethren, so how does this determine which James, other than a blood brother?

... The argument then devolves to whether the brothers are full brothers, or half-brothers by a prior marriage of Joseph.

Personally, I can see both sides of the argument, but I regard it as marginal to my faith.

 

[juantoo3]

A literal reading would conclude that 'adelphoi' means physical kinship. However, the broader, metaphorical use of the term is so prevalent in the texts in question that they preclude any certain answer. The evidence is insufficient. Non-Catholic scholars have sided with Rome on this point.

Likewise, Catholic scholars have sided with the literal interpretation....

To further compound the issue, I've always considered James to be younger than Jesus...not sure how Jesus could have a younger brother from his earthly father's previous marriage... And a subsequent marriage would imply divorce...can't have that either.

 

[Thomas]

Maybe he was older?

 

[Thomas]

Maybe he was older?

 

[juantoo3]

OK, but all of that is aside the issue, I would think.

How many Synods and Councils imposed extra-Biblical teachings? Over the centuries it appears to an outsider as if the Church / Vatican often couldn't make up its own mind.

Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Western Schism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Investiture Controversy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and even the "baptizing" of Pagan practices and sacred locations...and this is a small sample, there is plenty more available to point to.

So I believe I understand what moralorel is saying here, not least because I have frequently heard similar reports emphasizing "the Keys of Peter" and little else.

The pomp and pageantry and mysticism certainly play a role...and if that assists someone in their reach to connect with the Divine, I am not one to stand in their way. I do not see *most* of this as even necessary, and certainly not required, in order to achieve the same result. I would go so far as to say that is the specific understanding I personally get from the teachings of Jesus as Messiah - that is, we do not have to go through human authority to connect with the Divine. We never did.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The pomp and pageantry and mysticism certainly play a role...and if that assists someone in their reach to connect with the Divine, I am not one to stand in their way. I do not see *most* of this as even necessary, and certainly not required, in order to achieve the same result. I would go so far as to say that is the specific understanding I personally get from the teachings of Jesus as Messiah - that is, we do not have to go through human authority to connect with the Divine. We never did.

Mmm .. once it all started, with Jesus being "of the same essence as the Father", so it continued,
with councils declaring things like "fully man / fully G-d".

I agree with you, that these things should not be the b all and end all .. more importantly, what did Jesus say?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Baptism to me is a public declaration. It's an outward demonstration of an inward transformation. Dying to self and being reborn in Christ. It's a very special event for us.

This would refer to a believer's baptism (teen or adult) as opposed to infant baptism?

 

[TheLightWithin]

The sad truth was, the rural Coptic communities practiced an ancient and simple piety – one might call them indigenous Egyptian Christians. They played no part in the Arian disputes, probably were ignorant of them. They continued for several centuries with little or nothing to do with the great debates of the day, but by simply existing posed a perceived threat to the Greek-speaking See of Alexandria, and in the 7th century were wiped out by the local patriarch in a series of persecutions.

I wish one of the reaction options was a sad face.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I wish one of the reaction options was a sad face.

By tham I mean the reaction option at the bottom of the post. The emoji fill in the gaps. But I'd like a sad post react too.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Le sigh.

Regardless of the Synod, this is not Canonical. Long standing tradition, but it is not Biblical.

How could Jesus have a blood related brother James who grew up in the same house?

Brothers of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Of the same womb" is pretty clear.

I never really "got" the perpetual virginity claim, why it matters.
However, Jesus could have had an older "half" brother through Joseph
I guess they would not be genetically his brothers.
"Of the same womb" seems straightforward enough.
Unless of course it was a figure of speech and used loosely somehow, for relatives in the same household or cousins with the same maternal grandmother or something.
So, the usage of the phrase might not have been literal. I don't know if that is a known thing or not.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Likewise, Catholic scholars have sided with the literal interpretation....

To further compound the issue, I've always considered James to be younger than Jesus...not sure how Jesus could have a younger brother from his earthly father's previous marriage... And a subsequent marriage would imply divorce...can't have that either.

Did Jewish men take more than one wife in that era?
How common were adoptions?

Yet also... if Mary simply had later children, how disastrous is that really for the faith? How crucial is that idea of perpetual virginity?
Is it about salvation? Or is it just about keeping Mary within a clear cut identity and never evolving? Scripture doesn't tell us much about her as a person much less how she evolved, so... ?

 

[moralorel]

I'm not sure you're that well-informed about the process? Let me assure you, any dogmatic declarations made by the Church are usually well-founded on Scriptural grounds.

If there's an instance you're aware of, I'll gladly discuss it with you.

A talking point would be the 'Four Marian Dogmas' declared by the Church.

The First: Mary is Theotokos – the Mother of God – declared at the Council of Ephesus (431). This is clearly argued from Scripture, notably Luke 1 and John 1.

The Second: The Assumption into heaven of Mary, body and soul. This was declared by the Church in the reign of Pope Pius XII in 1950.
There is no direct Scriptural support for this dogma whatsoever, but it is a truth of tradition of the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican communions. It was the common belief dating back to the 5th century, and is actually attested in apocryphal literature from the 2nd. The stories differ, some place her passing at Jerusalem, others at Ephesus.

(There are also obvious mythological elements – in one, Thomas the Apostle (who was absent when the risen Christ appeared to the others in the 'upper room') was absent from the city when the body of Mary was laid in the tomb. He returned, and the tomb was opened for him to see, but was empty. The story goes on, but its clearly derivative.)

There are however Scriptural references which would seem to support the belief – Genesis 3:15 and Revelations 12:1.

The Third: The Immaculate Conception – by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This belief is that Mary, at her conception, was preserved immaculate from the stain of Original Sin. This rests on the angelic salutation in Luke 1: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ... Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God." (v28, 30).

On my degree course we discussed this. Was Mary baptised, and by whom? Clearly, she was 'baptised' when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Was that immediately prior to the conception or, being known before the creation of the world that she would conc

I'm not sure you're that well-informed about the process? Let me assure you, any dogmatic declarations made by the Church are usually well-founded on Scriptural grounds.

If there's an instance you're aware of, I'll gladly discuss it with you.

A talking point would be the 'Four Marian Dogmas' declared by the Church.

The First: Mary is Theotokos – the Mother of God – declared at the Council of Ephesus (431). This is clearly argued from Scripture, notably Luke 1 and John 1.

The Second: The Assumption into heaven of Mary, body and soul. This was declared by the Church in the reign of Pope Pius XII in 1950.
There is no direct Scriptural support for this dogma whatsoever, but it is a truth of tradition of the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican communions. It was the common belief dating back to the 5th century, and is actually attested in apocryphal literature from the 2nd. The stories differ, some place her passing at Jerusalem, others at Ephesus.

(There are also obvious mythological elements – in one, Thomas the Apostle (who was absent when the risen Christ appeared to the others in the 'upper room') was absent from the city when the body of Mary was laid in the tomb. He returned, and the tomb was opened for him to see, but was empty. The story goes on, but its clearly derivative.)

There are however Scriptural references which would seem to support the belief – Genesis 3:15 and Revelations 12:1.

The Third: The Immaculate Conception – by Pope Pius IX in 1854. This belief is that Mary, at her conception, was preserved immaculate from the stain of Original Sin. This rests on the angelic salutation in Luke 1: "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ... Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God." (v28, 30).

On my degree course we discussed this. Was Mary baptised, and by whom? Clearly, she was 'baptised' when she conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. Was that immediately prior to the conception or, being known before the creation of the world that she would conceive, from the moment of her creation? The Church declared the latter.

(Note: a common erroneous belief is that 'The Immaculate Conception' means Virgin Birth. This is a mistake – it refers to her conception, not that of the child Jesus.)

The Fourth: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, declared at the Synod of Milan in 389. Affirms the virginity of Mary before, during and after. Tricky one this: How do we know? And who would have 'the 'brass neck', as we say in the UK, to ask? And why?

There is a reference in an apocryphal gospel, but the proving of the hymen still intact seems just too invasive ...

Scripture talks of the family of Jesus, but not of the children of Mary ... so the tradition has always treated this as 'extended family'.

+++

Sooooo you used a non-scriptural example to assure me that the Catholic church uses scripture for doctrine.

Juantoo3 appears to have this covered. I can just add "ditto" to the end of everything from Juantoo3 and call that part a day. Juantoo3 I owe you a beer!

 

[moralorel]

This has been discussed ad nauseam here before.

Short answer: The Johannine account is generally regarded as the more accurate, whereas the Friday-to-Siunday is the tradition, but wrong.

So Good Friday and Easter Sunday are wrong? Are you sure you're Catholic?

 

[moralorel]

LOL, there are a few around!

On the flip side, knowledge of the Bible, cover-to-cover, chapter-and-verse, is no guarantee of anything. There have been some real villains who can justify themselves from Scripture. Having read something is no guarantee of understanding.

I read a tale somewhere (it may well be apocryphal) someone took a Bible to some distant land and showed it to a holy man – a Tibetan monk, a Buddhist, a Hindu, the actuality escapes me. The man in question took the book away. a few days later the giver said they would be going soon, could he have his bible back? The holy man said, "I've memorised nearly all of it, another day and I will be done."

The point was in discussion about the transmission of oral testimonies, and that those raised in strong oral traditions have a greater capacity for memorising, as we've got lazy, with easy access to texts ... still, probably not true ... what language was the Bible in?

I do know that 'illustrated manuscripts' were actually an aide memoire to learning the text. By picturing the illustration, the whole page comes to mind.


Seems the answer was 'no'?


Well it's there in Scripture ... ?


That's not her claim nor the Church's – that's yours, and I'm afraid it's incorrect.

1. I think she is the only one I have ever met. I wish I was joking.
2. She acknowledged that doctrine sometimes contradicted scripture. But that the verses provided were the only ones important. The rest were laws for the Jews. Of course, since I was a child I have had priests telling me that the OT laws were "for the Jews". So that wasn't really new.
3. Yes, those few verses she gave were scriptural. Did they specifically give the Catholic church the power to change doctrine to such a degree? I definitely don't see it. But I assume this is where Catholic tradition (traditions of men) supercede laws from Jesus.
4. I know I'm a broken record, but these aren't my claims. I literally took claims from a young devoted Catholic AND quotes from prominent members of the Catholic church. You couldn't verify one.... so I guess they're all lies. OR you're struggling with the truth. The Catholic church changed the Lord's Day on its own authority, not scriptural authority.

 

[juantoo3]

Which comes back around to politics.

As much as Thomas and I have discussed this, and he downplays the role of politics, I see the two as inseparable.

Let me be clear: I am NOT saying Constantine told everybody what to do. He didn't have to.

Politics and religion were one and the same long before Christianity, and continued long after the Christian faith gained political pre-eminence.

The extra-Biblical "tweaks" were politically motivated. Like the quote Thomas provided earlier to which I commented along the lines of "nevermind what G!d said, I'm the Pope, I say how it will be." Power corrupts...thank you Lord Acton.

One wants to believe the motivation was sincere, but if that were always the case why did Martin Luther nail the 95 Theses to the door of the Wittenburg church? When one of their own sees clearly the abuses of authority, how can one continue to defend the indefensible?

But then 800 pound gorillas do exactly that...

I do feel compelled to remind that much good is done through the Church, and many followers and believers do wonderful things across humanity. Likewise, much good is also done through the various Protestant sects as well, but because these are so splintered they don't receive the same kind of attention. Ever the caveat, attention should not be the motivation in order to truly be charity.

 

[juantoo3]

Did Jewish men take more than one wife in that era?
How common were adoptions?

Yet also... if Mary simply had later children, how disastrous is that really for the faith? How crucial is that idea of perpetual virginity?
Is it about salvation? Or is it just about keeping Mary within a clear cut identity and never evolving? Scripture doesn't tell us much about her as a person much less how she evolved, so... ?

Among the Romans adoption was long established, and if the words of Jesus are any indication I think adoption was in practice if not widely reported (the "grafting into the vine" passage).

At least among the aristocracy in Rome I think multiple marriages were discouraged. Constantine's own father put his mother aside and married aristocracy in order to accept the mantle of junior Emperor. I don't recall any examples of multiple marriages among the Jews at this time, which is to say if a man could afford it I suppose it remains a possibility. The adultery and divorce laws would seem to indicate some level of fidelity was expected.

Mary's virginity, particularly perpetual virginity, has no import on my faithwalk. It is irrelevant. But once again, if it aids someone in their faithwalk then I would not take that away from them. I see potential ties to certain Pagan practices, but going off on that tangent will only lead to arguments I want no part of.

Glastonbury: archaeology is revealing new truths about the origins of British Christianity

New archaeological research on Glastonbury Abbey pushes back the date for the earliest settlement of the site by 200 years – and reopens debate on Glastonbury’s origin myths.

theconversation.com

The link is not Gospel, but it is yet another hint in a direction I keep pointing. The Vatican long ago recognized the antiquity of the Glastonbury church, and the Bishop of that church was accorded special privilege. Just a little piece of info I stumbled on accidentally, posted elsewhere (the history thread I think) and with AI running internet searches lately some information is harder to obtain. I suppose with some digging I could find it again.

Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' uncle. Whether father's or mother's side I don't know, but I would doubt two brothers having the same name in the same house. Joseph of Arimathea, the same who gave his newly hewn tomb for the burial of his nephew, and claimed the body by his right as kinsman redeemer, is said to have carried Mary the mother of Jesus and others to Glastonbury. One problem unravelling the story is that the Arthurian legends also get wrapped up in this, though Arthur lived about 400-500 years later. Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, and was a tin merchant, having at least one ship that plied the route to the tin mines in Cornwall and back to the Mediterranean.

There are those who dismiss it all as myth, as is their right, there is much too little "evidence" in the sense we usually think, though there is some. I don't think the Vatican would accord special privilege to a myth. I do think once Catholicism reached Britain that the local history got a coat of paint, in addition to being obscured by the Arthurian tales, and the whole was pretty well wiped out by Henry VIII when he chased the Catholics out of Britain and established the Church of England (and burned the Glastonbury Abbey in the process).

 

[Thomas]

OK, but all of that is aside the issue, I would think.

How many Synods and Councils imposed extra-Biblical teachings?

Well, not the most illustrious moments from our history ... but I don't really see the relevance to the discussion.

The issue is whether Catholic doctrine goes contra to Scripture ...

and even the "baptizing" of Pagan practices and sacred locations...and this is a small sample, there is plenty more available to point to.

But they're not contra-Biblical, are they? Nor contra the Spirit of Message of Christ:
"John answered him, saying: Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him. But Jesus said: Do not forbid him. For there is no man that doth a miracle in my name, and can soon speak ill of me. For he that is not against you, is for you." (Mark 9:38-39).

The pomp and pageantry and mysticism certainly play a role...and if that assists someone in their reach to connect with the Divine, I am not one to stand in their way. I do not see *most* of this as even necessary, and certainly not required, in order to achieve the same result.

But many find it enabling ... so I would ask for an extension of charity.

I would go so far as to say that is the specific understanding I personally get from the teachings of Jesus as Messiah - that is, we do not have to go through human authority to connect with the Divine. We never did.

OK.

 

[Thomas]

I guess they would not be genetically his brothers.

Half-brothers.

"Of the same womb" seems straightforward enough.
Unless of course it was a figure of speech and used loosely somehow,

Yes, it was. The majority use in Scripture is as 'brethren', rather than siblings.