Mary’s Maturity

[JohnH]

2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Here we have “Scripture” telling us to hold fast to that which was taught orally” and wasn’t written down.
So to “the Church” it was perfectly Scriptural to hold oral teachings not written to be held.

And in my view, "the Church" was the Anabaptists from 1525 onwards, and then the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite from 1859 onwards. So if you want to learn about what you're supposed to hold fast to and any "traditions" then you should be in the One True Church as I understand it, because rather obviously the Catholic Church isn't it... right?

Who says which branch is the true one? As I've talked about earlier, there were major divisions in the 300s and 400s, and then a really big one in the 1000s.

[ohio jones]

Posts about children walking to school have been abducted.

[Soloist]

Were any of her other children there?

As recorded by Eusebius [c.235-339]:

Most people (better nights generally excepted) have difficulty tracing their genealogy back 200 years, let alone 2000. Perhaps those who did have that connection did not consider it "something to be used for [their] own advantage" (cf. Phil. 2:5-6 HCSB).

Why wouldn’t her other children have been with her at the Cross in probably the worse time in her life? By her side, and for their brother? Where were they? Even still Jesus entrusted her to Apostle John.

I have met TWO people who claim they are ancestors of people on the Mayflower.

I can only say, to be a descendant of Mary & blood relative of Jesus would seem a big enough deal to pass on to every generation afterwards.
Whatever happened to Joseph

Right, we don't know where Joseph was on that day, do we? We don't know where Jesus' brothers and sisters were that day. Why weren't they there for their brother? We don't know that either. So considering all the things we don't know it seems weird to latch onto one possible explanation and cling to it despite having no direct evidence that it's the correct explanation.

Apparently, being a direct descendant of Adam wasn't important enough to pass on to every generation afterwards. Apparently being a direct descendant of Joseph wasn't important enough to pass on to every generation afterwards - or possibly the family line got wiped out at some point.

Wife: speaking of Adam, we only know the names of three of his sons, and none of his daughters. Same with a bunch of other people in the Bible. It doesn’t seem like all the sons are mentioned unless it’s considered important and almost nobody in the old testament had daughters if they have to be mentioned.

Basically all the men in Jesus life, other than John, ditched him at the cross. James is said to be a brother of Jesus, and I would personally think blood brother, but I don’t think it matters all that much. Even if he was a stepbrother, he would have some responsibility to his father’s widow.

I’ve been under the opinion that part of the reason John was chosen (aside from actually showing up) was because he was the one that was going to live the longest.

Although, personally, I don’t think it matters too much whether or not Mary had other children aside from some of the Mary worship some people get into.

[barnhart]

Posts about children walking to school have been abducted.

See? Abductions are getting worse!!!

[Valerie]

They are the very church that gave us our scriptures.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that gave us the scriptures.

You mean they fell from the sky and there was no Church keeping them? Of course the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church which canonized the Scripures we trust.

Jesus said in Matthew 16:18:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

1 Timothy 3.15 (KJV)
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth

[Valerie]

2 Thessalonians 2:15:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Here we have “Scripture” telling us to hold fast to that which was taught orally” and wasn’t written down.
So to “the Church” it was perfectly Scriptural to hold oral teachings not written to be held.

And in my view, "the Church" was the Anabaptists from 1525 onwards, and then the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite from 1859 onwards. So if you want to learn about what you're supposed to hold fast to and any "traditions" then you should be in the One True Church as I understand it, because rather obviously the Catholic Church isn't it... right?

Who says which branch is the true one? As I've talked about earlier, there were major divisions in the 300s and 400s, and then a really big one in the 1000s.

I think your view is incorrect but you are one of thousands of sects that make the same claim.
They all forget the falling away doesn’t happen in the beginning, but prior to the Lords return- possibly the splitting up of his church into thousands of sects.

[ohio jones]

They are the very church that gave us our scriptures.

I thought it was the Holy Spirit that gave us the scriptures.

You mean they fell from the sky and there was no Church keeping them? Of course the Holy Spirit was guiding the Church which canonized the Scripures we trust.

I didn't say that, so don't put words in my keyboard. The scriptures did not originate with the church. As various writings circulated among the churches, they recognized and eventually came to fully agree on which writings were inspired and which were not.

[Southerner]

I like this thread...learning a lot of things before the Christmas season.

[JohnH]

I think your view is incorrect but you are one of thousands of sects that make the same claim.
They all forget the falling away doesn’t happen in the beginning, but prior to the Lords return- possibly the splitting up of his church into thousands of sects.

I think it’s worth noting the amillenial eschatology of both Catholic and Orthodox doesn’t really agree with this - there isn’t a concept there is some great falling away before the Lord’s return and 1,000 year reign.

[Soloist]

If our views are incorrect and we belong to a group believing the same, and your views are correct but you don’t belong to a group believing the same, do you really believe in it? You preach ancient church but refuse to actually follow. The chair doesn’t look stable enough to sit in?