MARK 6:3 DID JESUS HAVE BROTHERS AND SISTERS ?

[Marymog]

Mary,
I know of a Baptist denomination down in Florence that DOES confess in public in the church! No need to be a fly on the wall ! A friend of mine attends that church and loves it.

Agreed. I don't think Jesus meant that. I'm worried we don't really know what He meant...Did He mean confess our sins one to the other? Like when we do harm to a person?

Did He mean to give this authority to the APOSTLES, John 20...but not go beyond them?

Every priest I know believes confession is necessary.
They say God forgives and they just "proclaim" the forgiveness at absolution.
And yet, they all agree with it,,,even Pope Francis (for now).

Even for venial sins it's recommended (strongly) that at least once a year a person should go to confession...pref at Easter time.

The Orthodox only confess if they WANT TO.

This baffles me, TTYTT. The whole thing, I mean.

GG,

Confess publically in church??? I couldn't do it.....

Would you rather go back to the 1st century practice of public confessions?

Does scripture even support public confessions? I know it says "confess your sins to one another" sooooo I wonder why that Baptist church practices public confessions? I can confess my sins to you personally.....it doesn't have to be public.

Scripture also gave the Apostles (hence Apostolic successors) the authority to forgive sins. They wouldn't know what sins to forgive if we didn't tell them sooooo it seems to suggest private confession of sins is in Scripture.

It is baffling. The important things is to confess your sins and I don't find scripture saying to God directly like some people beleive....unless you can find it?

 

[Marymog]

Mary: agin you forget: non-Catholics* prize a relationship with God. Any earthly insutiutional body ranks much lower. Trying to persuade a Christian person to look away from God and instead solely to a man (even a man who's a servant of God) isn't going go over well.

*And many Catholics too, obviously.

Jane agin [sic] you forget: Jesus established an institutional church. Trying to persuade me that just because I belong to an "institutional body" means that I am looking away from God or that I don't "prize a relationship with God" shows your ignoragce of Scripture and Christian history.

Mary

 

[Helen]

Well, those churches that accept abortion believe that they are following the teachings of Scripture. Who has the authority to say they are wrong?

I do!!

Not that telling them changes anything lol

 

[Nondenom40]

Jane agin [sic] you forget: Jesus established an institutional church. Trying to persuade me that just because I belong to an "institutional body" means that I am looking away from God or that I don't "prize a relationship with God" shows your ignoragce of Scripture and Christian history.

Mary

I don't recall Jesus establishing an institution. The ekklesia is all believers everywhere that are truly born again. Regardless of what local church they attend.

 

[farouk]

I don't recall Jesus establishing an institution. The ekklesia is all believers everywhere that are truly born again. Regardless of what local church they attend.

What we have is Scriptural apostolic doctrine, not an apostolic hierarchy.

 

[Helen]

The important things is to confess your sins and I don't find scripture saying to God directly like some people believe....unless you can find it?

How about Matt 18 ?
" if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

That is between the two of them and a couple more ,if needed.

21 " Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

That to me also seems like just the two of them. Not any go between.
That is just off the top of my head, I haven't looked for more verses.

But I can see that if someone was on their death bed, and needed to clear their chest of something....then some man of God would be the best one to to listen to your confession before God. ( IF it was impossible to be rectified with the person who had been 'sinned against.' )

My two cents.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Jane agin [sic] you forget: Jesus established an institutional church. Trying to persuade me that just because I belong to an "institutional body" means that I am looking away from God or that I don't "prize a relationship with God" shows your ignoragce of Scripture and Christian history.

Mary

I'm not tiny to convince you to look away God or said that because you are Catholic that means you look away from God -- in fact I specifically said that many Catholics look to God.
But it is important to remember that only Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is synomous with Christ's Church. So asking a non-Catholic to look to the Catholic Church is to asking them to look away from God -- hence goes no where. The harder you push that angle, the harder people are going to push back and be more convinced you're asking them to look away from God.

 

[Marymog]

I don't recall Jesus establishing an institution. The ekklesia is all believers everywhere that are truly born again. Regardless of what local church they attend.

Thank you Nondenom.

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of truth mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:15?

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia does a person have to refuse to listen to in order to be considered a publican or heathen man in Matthew 18:17?

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia is the rock that Jesus built His Church upon in Matthew 16:18?

According to Scripture (Acts 15, Council of Jerusalem) all 'local churches' are to conform to the teaching of the Apostles. Soooo are you sure your theory that "Regardless of what local church they attend" they are true believers and a truly born again?

I look forward to your answers. If your answers are backed up by Scripture then you will have me convinced and I will join whichever church you belong to.

Thank you in advance....Mary

 

[Marymog]

How about Matt 18 ?
" if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

That is between the two of them and a couple more ,if needed.

21 " Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven."

That to me also seems like just the two of them. Not any go between.
That is just off the top of my head, I haven't looked for more verses.

But I can see that if someone was on their death bed, and needed to clear their chest of something....then some man of God would be the best one to to listen to your confession before God. ( IF it was impossible to be rectified with the person who had been 'sinned against.' )

My two cents.

Hmmmm.....Matthew 18 says "go and tell him" and "him" is the brother who trespassed against you. It doesn't say go and tell God soooooo I am a bit confused why you chose that passage?

Maybe I'm missing something here.....

 

[Marymog]

I'm not tiny to convince you to look away God or said that because you are Catholic that means you look away from God -- in fact I specifically said that many Catholics look to God.
But it is important to remember that only Catholics believe that the Catholic Church is synomous with Christ's Church. So asking a non-Catholic to look to the Catholic Church is to asking them to look away from God -- hence goes no where. The harder you push that angle, the harder people are going to push back and be more convinced you're asking them to look away from God.

Hi Jane,

What criteria do you use to determine if a Catholic or any Christian is or isn't looking toward God?

The harder you push your own personal interpretation of scripture the harder other Protestants that don't believe what you believe will push back and be more convinced you're asking them to look away from God.

If the CC is not synonymous with Christ's Church then which church is?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I'm not tiny ......

I know your not....

Keeping it fun....Mary

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Hi Jane,

What criteria do you use to determine if a Catholic or any Christian is or isn't looking toward God?

The harder you push your own personal interpretation of scripture the harder other Protestants that don't believe what you believe will push back and be more convinced you're asking them to look away from God.

If the CC is not synonymous with Christ's Church then which church is?

Mary

When the *only* thing a person wants to talk about is how their institutional body is correct, and they never want to talk about a person's relationship with God (let alone the relationship between God & person who isn't part of their institution), then it's pretty clear that they aren't focusing a lot on God directly.

I know some Catholics who fall into that boat, also some Orthodox, Protestants, and others.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thank you GG.

Scripture flat out says that Joseph was of the bloodline of David. It never says that Mary was.

The closest a person can come to suggesting that Mary is from David's bloodline is by using Luke's genealogy and scholars disagree on even that. Luke 1 CLEARLY states that Joseph is from David's line and that Joseph was the son of Heli in Luke 3.

Christian historical records have Joachim and Anna as Mary's parents. Putting Scripture and historical records together point strongly toward both Matthew and Luke's account as being Josephs bloodline; not Mary's.

Mary

Agreed for Joachim and Anna.

I can't, and won't, insist on the rest.
I just don't know.
Going by memory is not always a good idea.

I could ask my theologian friend the next time I see him.
I WILL do this, in the meantime, you could also try to find out.

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't recall Jesus establishing an institution. The ekklesia is all believers everywhere that are truly born again. Regardless of what local church they attend.

I hope @Marymog replied to this.
There were home churches everywhere Paul and Peter travelled,,,and they went as far as Naples and maybe even Pisa in Italy.

Our faith would not exist without "an institution".
How do you think Jesus meant for the Apostles to preach to all the world?
One door at a time?

It starts like that and then grows.
The grown congregation is the institution.

 

[Nondenom40]

Thank you Nondenom.

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia is the pillar and foundation of truth mentioned in 1 Timothy 3:15?

First, you misquoted the verse. If you'd cite it correctly next time, it does make a difference in its interpretation. Any believer in their respective local churches are responsible for the integrity of the bible. 2 Tim 2:15 says clearly;

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

He never mentions the infallible magesterium, or papacy or college of cardinals. He says as a workman you can accurately handle or rightly divide the word of truth. If a particular church fails to do this, its on them. This is why there is a bema seat judgement for us. I'd be happy to have the discussion of the rcc's interpretation of various verses or its sacred tradition or late arriving dogmas. None of it is holding up the truth as 1 Tim suggests we do.

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia does a person have to refuse to listen to in order to be considered a publican or heathen man in Matthew 18:17?

Read the previous verses. Taking it to the church is the last thing they are to do, not the first. And it would be whatever local church they are in. Read the beginning to most of Pauls letters. Paul to the church in Galatia, Corinth, Rome, Philippi...Read the end of Romans;

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Rom 16:4-5 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

But lets put some wheels on this. Your claim is its YOUR church we need to take things to because yours is the institution set up by Jesus (allegedly). Hows that working out for you people? Your pope wrote a letter now a couple three years ago that caused quite a stir within your church. Bishops and cardinals have been trying to bend the popes ear for years now. How is 'taking it to the church' working out for them? What about the multiple scandals going on right this second in your church. Whose taking it to the church to get father so and so booted for their crimes? I can go on and on. I see this all the time. You want us to believe your church and yours alone has this power or authority, but it can't even take care of its own issues.

If the ekklesia are all believers throughout the entire world then which ONE of those ekklesia is the rock that Jesus built His Church upon in Matthew 16:18?

The rock is Jesus. His church is built when people believe in Him, repent and trust Him as their savior. Its Peters confession of who Jesus is, not Peter himself.

According to Scripture (Acts 15, Council of Jerusalem) all 'local churches' are to conform to the teaching of the Apostles. Soooo are you sure your theory that "Regardless of what local church they attend" they are true believers and a truly born again?

Yes, scripture is the highest/final authority. We should conform to it, not it to us. Apostolic teaching is what Jesus told them to go and preach...'teaching them all what i have commanded you....' What Jesus taught the apostles, they teach to others, they bring it to us down through history. Concerning apostolic teaching. Which apostle taught marys assumption? I mean since we all want to be apostolic in our teaching.

I look forward to your answers. If your answers are backed up by Scripture then you will have me convinced and I will join whichever church you belong to.

Thank you in advance....Mary

All my answers are backed up by the bible and is consistent with it.

 

[Nancy]

Hi Nancy,

I love bible and Christian history study. Luke makes it clear in vs 27 that Joseph is from the house of David. If he wanted us to know that Mary was from the House of David, he had his chance and he didn't take it. Luke states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was the daughter of Heli. At no point, zero, none, zilch nadda in Scripture is Mary associated to the House of David via a bloodline.

Jewish genealogies follow the male line. Joseph was the legal father of Jesus. The legal father is on par with the real father. Since it was quite usual for people to marry within their clan it can be concluded that Mary belonged to the house of David via marriage to Joseph.

Since Matthew 1:16 CLEARLY says Jacob was Josephs father and you seem to be curious as to how Heli could be his father according to Luke's account the question is: Why is Joseph said to have two fathers?

1. The theory that Luke's' genealogy is through Mary's bloodline is not supported by Scripture. Luke CLEARLY states that Joseph was the son of Heli, not that Mary was the daughter of Heli.

2. The 2nd century historian Julius Africanus, a native of Israel, records information given by Christ’s remaining family in his day. According to their family genealogy, Joseph’s grandfather Matthan (mentioned in Matthew) married a woman named Estha, who bore him a son named Jacob. After Matthan died, Estha married his relative Melchi (mentioned in Luke) and bore him a son named Heli (marrying relatives was common among Jews at this time). Jacob and Heli were thus half-brothers. Heli died childless, so Jacob married his widow and fathered Joseph, who was biologically the son of Jacob but legally the son of Heli.

3. The earliest historical record from the 2nd century Christianity document Protoevangelium of James has the parents of Mary as Joachim and Anne.

Mary

Thank you for all that research, could not have done it myself. I am going to confess something to you and I'm sure it is evident on here but, yeah...I flunked freshmen year History . Then they punished me by making me stay in a freshman homeroom when I was a sophomore!!!!!!!! We did only have to have one year of American History so, all I had to do was take it again in Soph. year.
I did pass with a bit of an above average grade, the second time around.
Thanks for clearing that up, it was confusing to me.

 

[Marymog]

When the *only* thing a person wants to talk about is how their institutional body is correct, and they never want to talk about a person's relationship with God (let alone the relationship between God & person who isn't part of their institution), then it's pretty clear that they aren't focusing a lot on God directly.

I know some Catholics who fall into that boat, also some Orthodox, Protestants, and others.

Hi Jane,

Got it......soooo when I repeat the teachings/practices/beliefs/doctrines/dogmas of the CC that is a good indication that I am not "focusing a lot on God directly"?

But when you repeat YOUR teachings/practices/beliefs/doctrines/dogmas (which you often do on this forum) that ISN'T a good indication that you are not "focusing a lot on God directly"?

Where does Scripture say one is not supposed to talk about their "institutional body" and how correct they are? Am I only supposed to talk about how in-correct they are????

If the CC is not synonymous with Christ's Church then which church is?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Agreed for Joachim and Anna.

I can't, and won't, insist on the rest.
I just don't know.
Going by memory is not always a good idea.

I could ask my theologian friend the next time I see him.
I WILL do this, in the meantime, you could also try to find out.

Thank you.

I am not sure what you mean by you "I can't, and won't, insist on the rest. I just don't know."

Luke 1:27 makes it clear that Joseph was a descendent of David.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you.....

Mary

 

[Marymog]

First, you misquoted the verse. If you'd cite it correctly next time, it does make a difference in its interpretation. Any believer in their respective local churches are responsible for the integrity of the bible. 2 Tim 2:15 says clearly;

2Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Hi nondemon,

Nope....I didn't misquote anything. You have just accepted the Reformation translation of that passage. I accept the 2,000 year Church teaching of that passage.

But I will go with your theory/interpretation on this. You believe that 1 Timothy 3:15 supports each individual being the "pillar and foundation of truth": Is that what you are saying?

Also, you do know that the passage you site are instructions from Paul to Timothy who was a successor to the Apostles? 2 timothy 2:15 is meant for HIM not you, not me, not each individual "workman" for the next 2,000 years.

If that passage was meant for all of us, and we implement your theory, we should all be able to rightly divide the word of truth. Do you think the men of the CC has "rightly divided the word of truth"??

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Read the previous verses. Taking it to the church is the last thing they are to do, not the first. And it would be whatever local church they are in. Read the beginning to most of Pauls letters. Paul to the church in Galatia, Corinth, Rome, Philippi...Read the end of Romans;

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea:

Rom 16:4-5 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

But lets put some wheels on this. Your claim is its YOUR church we need to take things to because yours is the institution set up by Jesus (allegedly). Hows that working out for you people? Your pope wrote a letter now a couple three years ago that caused quite a stir within your church. Bishops and cardinals have been trying to bend the popes ear for years now. How is 'taking it to the church' working out for them? What about the multiple scandals going on right this second in your church. Whose taking it to the church to get father so and so booted for their crimes? I can go on and on. I see this all the time. You want us to believe your church and yours alone has this power or authority, but it can't even take care of its own issues.
The rock is Jesus. His church is built when people believe in Him, repent and trust Him as their savior. Its Peters confession of who Jesus is, not Peter himself.

Hi nondenom,

You are correct....taking it to the church was the last thing they did because The Church has the final authority. Not you....not me...not you and me together as the final authority....THE CHURCH!!

Paul wrote to those churches to teach those new churches Christian doctrines and to advise them on errors and problems occurring. He wrote to some churches to correct them on subjects that they had strayed on. He wrote to Timothy to encourage him in his works.

Soooooo Paul, and the other Apostles, had the authority to tell ALL the other Churches what they should believe and practice; Council of Jerusalem is a good example. The Apostles then taught other men the Truth and they were to teach other men (2 Timothy 2:2) and all the Churches were to hold to that teaching/truth so that we may all be one (John 17:21); not individual churches like you seem to believe. They were to hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that they would be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9, 2:1). If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing (1 Timothy 6). Whatever the Apostles said/wrote/taught/passed down in tradition is the same as if it came from Christ himself (Luke 10:16).

Sooooo your theory does not stand up to what is written in Scripture.

If the CC doesn't have authority which church does?

Bible Study Mary