Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 1:25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus. |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 1:25 but he kept her a virgin until she had given birth to a Son [her firstborn child]; and he named Him Jesus (The LORD is salvation). |
Subject: Was Mary a virgin her whole life |
Bible Note: You wrote: "Last, for many, many years, there was no New Testament. All teaching was based upon traditions of the Apostles. Where in the Bible is it written that the traditional teachings of the Apostles were no longer valid and should not be used in conjunction with the written New Testament, once the written New Testament was compiled." Well, I wouldn't put a handful of decades on the order of "many, many years," but I agree that the traditions of the apostles are completely valid for today. I disagree, however, when you imply that RCC traditions as they exist today are identical to the traditions of the apostles. The New Testament was written with the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the apostles themselves or their associates. They are as close to the source of apostolic tradition as you can get. Compare that to papal encyclicals and bulls of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Am I to hold them as part of the apostolic traditions as well, even if there is no clear link whatsoever between the doctrine contained in them and every early-church record of the apostolic traditions? The short, Protestant answer: the traditions of the apostles, for all practical purposes, are faithfully and infallibly recorded in the New Testament. There is not a "second" tradition that runs alongside the NT, nor is there additional revelation given by God to supplement His all-sufficient word. One last question to drive home my problems of an "infallible church." During the Great Schism, who was the true vicar of Christ, the "pope" at Avignon or the "pope" at Rome? Both claimed the chair of Peter, both had their loyal followers, and both anathematized the other. Yet, after several decades, the schism was healed without any commentary on which pope was the real pope. Likewise, for centuries bishoprics were given as political favors to people as young as toddlers. Are we to consider these bishops as being part of the infallible teaching magesterium of the church? The RCC has also had its history of wicked popes (not merely "sinful" popes, since we all fall into that category, but downright depraved). Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was using these apparent enemies of Christ to be his Vicar? It is the difficulties like these which cause me to believe more fully that while the church was established by God, the only infallible source of authority and the only source of revelation in the post-apostolic age is the Bible. --Joe! |