My dilemma

[Rebel]

I just want to say I do not mind at all the derailment, in fact it's the very issue I am trying to get a better understanding of.

So far I would say my beliefs have become a hybrid of both. I am still not totally convinced of salvation by grace alone or the lack of any authority of the Catholic church and the Pope, for instance. To me it looked like an excuse by people who wanted to be freed from the authority of the Catholic church, to instead create hierarchies of their own.

If you would read Martin Luther and about Martin Luther, I don't believe you would maintain that.

Since you don't mind our "sidetracks", I will post more.

 

[OldRegular]

Oh, I detect a measure of hostility here. Calm down, OR, so we can have a civil discussion.

You ruled out a civil discussion in your post #74!

*******************************************

 

[OldRegular]

Rebel, the Catholic Church does not believe in continuing revelation, as the Mormons do. The Church recognizes two kinds of revelation.

(1) Public revelation is that given to by Christ and His apostles. It is meant for all the faithful of all time. It is the deposit of faith referenced in Jude 3. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. It is complete.

(2) Private revelation is sometimes given to specific persons for their own edification. It is beneficial to that person, sometimes even demanding that he or she perform certain works, but it never becomes applicable to the whole Church. It never becomes a part of the deposit of faith.

The above is laughable given the history of continued corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the leaders of the Church of Rome.

THE VIRGIN MARY

In spite of the great emphasis upon Mary in Roman Catholicism, the Bible says very little about her. In fact, she is never even mentioned by Peter, Paul, James, or John. Furthermore, none of the New Testament epistles refer to her either. This is significant in light of the elaborate system of Mariology created by Rome with its Mary works, veneration, and devotions. What is even more surprising is the fact that some of the most significant teachings concerning Mary are of fairly recent origin (i.e., the Immaculate Conception, [1854], and the Assumption of Mary, [1950]).

Though the Bible honors Mary as the mother of Jesus and calls her "blessed. . .among women" (not above women, Lk 1:28), it does not teach us to deify her, worship her, or pray to her. The Scriptures recognize Mary as a woman of humility, obedience, and virtue, but reject Rome's adoration of her on the grounds that it is idolatrous worship condemned by the Word of God.

On the following pages we will examine some of the more prominent Roman Catholic teachings concerning Mary in light of the Bible. The information footnoted was written by an individual canonized as a saint, and his book was officially endorsed by the church of Rome.

1. Rome claims that Mary acts as a mediator between sinners and God, and teaches that sinners receive pardon through Mary(1). This is refuted by the Scriptures. "For there is only one God, and there is only one mediator between God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5, J.B.V.). Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one can come to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6, J.B.V.).

2. "The Holy Church commands a worship peculiar to Mary"(2), but the Bible rejects this demand on the ground that it is idolatry. The worship of Mary in the form of prayers (Hail Marys), songs to her, and kneeling before her statues is blatant idolatry specifically forbidden by Christ: "You must worship the Lord your God, and serve him alone" (Matt. 4:10, J.B.V.).

3. Catholicism teaches that Christ is a stern, wrathful judge who cannot be approached by sinners. It teaches that Mary, on the other hand, is a tender understanding, merciful intercessor who is more sympathetic and compassionate than Christ and will plead our cause to her Son with the forceful
persuasion of a loving mother. But the Bible rejects Rome's claim that Mary is an intercessor or advocate who intercedes to God on our behalf in order to obtain grace for the sinner(3). The Bible declares that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God where "He stands and pleads for us" (Rom. 8:34, J.B.V.),--not Mary and that He is "living forever to intercede for all who come to God through Him" (Heb. 7:25, J.B.V.; see also Heb. 9:24).

4. The Bible rejects Rome's claim that "Mary is the Peacemaker between sinners and God"(4). The Bible states, "But now in Christ Jesus, you that used to be so far apart from us have been brought very close, by the blood of Christ. . .For he is the peace between us. . .Through him, both of us have in the one Spirit our way to come to the Father" (Eph. 2:13, 14, 18, J.B.V.). Christ is our peacemaker, not Mary, priests, popes, dead saints, or even the Church.

5. The Bible rejects Catholic claims that Mary is ". . .the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through Her"(5), that "the Way of Salvation is open to none other than through Mary, and that our salvation is in the hands of Mary."(6) "Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12, C.R.V.). "Jesus said: I am the Way. . .No one can come to the Father except through me" (Jn 14:6, J.B.V.).

6. The Bible gives absolutely no support to the many exalted titles which the Roman Catholic Church has bestowed upon Mary such as, "Queen of the Angels, Prophets, Patriarchs, Apostles, Confessors, Virgins, and All Saints"(7), "The Door of Paradise," "The Gate of Heaven," "Our Life," "Mother of Grace," "Morningstar," "Refuge of Sinners," and "Mother of Mercy". These titles represent Rome's attempts to elevate Mary to a glorified position which is not taught in the Scriptures.

7. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception which teaches that Mary was born without sin is contrary to the Scriptures which stress that "everyone has sinned" (Rom. 5:12, 13 J.V.B.), and "there is no man who does not sin" (1 Kg. 8:46, J.B.V.; see also Ps. 53:3, 1 Jn. 1:8, 10). Even Mary acknowledged that she was a sinner in need of a Savior: "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord and my spirit exults in GOD MY SAVIOR" (Lk. 1:46, 47, J.B.V.).

8. The Roman Catholic doctrine of the Assumption of Mary which teaches that Mary's body was raised from the dead and taken to heaven as "Queen of Heaven" is a teaching which can't find the slightest support in the Bible and was not made an official doctrine in the Catholic Church until 1950.

9. Roman Catholicism's emphasis on Mary's perpetual virginity is clearly refuted in the Bible which plainly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt. 13:54-56; Mk. 6:3; Jn. 7:5, 6). Though Rome claims that these verses refer to Christ's cousins, the original Greek wording clearly refers to brothers and not cousins. After the virgin birth of Christ, Mary and Joseph lived a normal husband and wife relationship, bearing other children.

1 Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pp. 82, 83.
2 Ibid., pg. 130.
3 Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pg. 80; see also pp. 254, 257.
4 Ibid., pg. 197.
5 Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, pg. 160.
6 Ibid., pg. 169.
7 St. Joseph's Daily Missal, pg. 1305.

http://godondeathrow.com/index_htm_files/Roman Catholic Doctrine Discrepancies.pdf

The bolded statements above demonstrate the Church of Rome's effort to convert the Holy Trinity the Holy Quartet. Are these revelations promulgated by the Church of Rome public or private revelations or simply made up by the popes and teaching magisterium. They certainly are not based on Scripture. Rather as shown they are clearly refuted buy Scripture!

****************************************************************************************************

 

[Zenas]

The above is laughable given the history of continued corruption of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by the leaders of the Church of Rome.



The bolded statements above demonstrate the Church of Rome's effort to convert the Holy Trinity the Holy Quartet. Are these revelations promulgated by the Church of Rome public or private revelations or simply made up by the popes and teaching magisterium. They certainly are not based on Scripture. Rather as shown they are clearly refuted buy Scripture!

In contravention of forum rules, you have put up a mostly libelous statement without attributing the source. I clicked on the link and got nothing but an anti-Catholic diatribe in PDF format from an anonymous source. The anonymous author did attribute some of the statements therein to Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, although the good Bishop has been quoted out of context, and even if he has not been, he does not speak for the Catholic Church.

So, rather than trying to rebut so much garbage, which would require many pages and a lot of time that I don't have, I will give you the truth about the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is material I wrote myself and have posted before.

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.
4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

 

[DHK]

Zenas quotes:

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.

1. Scripture never says that Mary had other children. We can only infer this on account of Scriptural references to brothers and sisters of the Lord. But nowhere were they referred to as children of Mary.

2. Reference to brothers and sisters would certainly include the possibility that these people were "half siblings", i.e., children of Joseph by an earlier marriage. In fact, this belief prevailed in the early church until the time of Jerome (d. 420). Jerome concluded that these brothers and sisters were in fact cousins. In Hebrew and Aramaic there was no word for "cousin" and the relationship was either designated "brother" or it was shown by circumlocution, such as "son of my father's brother", etc. For example, Genesis 14:14 (KJV) refers to Lot as Abram's brother; in Genesis 29:15 (KJV) Laban calls Jacob his brother; in 2 Kings 10:13-14 (KJV) the 42 captives of Jehu call themselves brothers of Ahaziah. Indeed it is possible that some of the "brothers" of Jesus were half-brothers and others were cousins.

3. When the angel announced the coming birth of the King of Israel, Mary's response was, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" The implication here is that Mary had already committed herself to remain a virgin. The angel did not say when this birth was to take place and Mary was espoused to Joseph at that time. If she had planned on having sexual relations, she would be doing so shortly and it would not be a mystery how the birth was to occur. However, if she planned on remaining a virgin all her life, her question to the angel was perfectly understandable.
4. In the episode where the parents of Jesus found Him in the temple at age twelve, there is no mention of other children and if there had been other younger children they likely would have been mentioned.

5. None of the early church fathers advocated that Mary had other children. On the other hand, many of them advocated her perpetual virginity. Of particular note among this group were Jerome, Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) and Augustine (d. 430).

6. The early reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin and John Wesley all advocated the perpetual virginity of Mary.

7. The strongest indicator that Mary had no other children is contained in John 19:26-27, where Jesus places the care of his mother with John. If Mary had other children, this would have been unthinkable at every level imaginable. In fact, it was when I really thought about this event that I decided Mary did not have any other children.

The only difficult Scripture for those who advocate the perpetual virginity of Mary is Matthew 1:25 ("but [Joseph] kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son"). The implication may seem to be that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus. But the language of the Bible does not bear this out. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 15:25, "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet." Should we infer that He ceases to reign after He has put all His enemies under His feet? Likewise, we need not infer that Joseph had sexual relations with his wife after the birth of Jesus.

This is RCC propaganda and is patently false. Let's consider it.

Mary had no other children after Jesus was born. She remained a virgin her entire life. I came to this conclusion in the 7th decade of my life after a careful search of the Scriptures. However, I was unable to reach this conclusion until I opened my mind to the possibility and actually looked at the overwhelming evidence of the perpetual virginity of Mary. Here are some of the things I found.

What does the Bible say:
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--But he did "know her," that is had relations with her. She did not remain a virgin
There are other more explicit translations:
(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

Furthermore:
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--These are the half-brothers and sisters of Jesus. This is the family of Jesus, the other offspring of Mary.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
--Jude identifies himself as the brother of James.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
James is identified as the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--All of this evidence proves Zenas wrong.

The reason that Christ commended Mary to John was simply that James and Jude had not yet come to the Lord. The Bible indicates that they believed after the resurrection. John was known as "the beloved apostle." Jesus knew that John would take care of her. He had both the "love" or heart, and the means to take care of her. He was a true believer, and a spiritual brother has a much stronger bond than a brother through the flesh or blood.
Our Lord also taught the same thing.
All of Zenas's philosophy and rationalization of scripture is wrong.

 

[OldRegular]

In contravention of forum rules, you have put up a mostly libelous statement without attributing the source. I clicked on the link and got nothing but an anti-Catholic diatribe in PDF format from an anonymous source. The anonymous author did attribute some of the statements therein to Bishop Alphonse de Liguori, although the good Bishop has been quoted out of context, and even if he has not been, he does not speak for the Catholic Church.

Anonymous or not it is true!

So, rather than trying to rebut so much garbage, which would require many pages and a lot of time that I don't have, I will give you the truth about the perpetual virginity of Mary. This is material I wrote myself and have posted before.

You cannot rebut what I posted and that is the truth. You said the following in the post to which I responded, though I did not respond specifically to it.

Rebel, the Catholic Church does not believe in continuing revelation, as the Mormons do.

You must admit that is patently false or else confess that the following is true:

Judas and his Jewish cohorts betrayed Jesus Christ to pagan Rome and the so-called Bishop of Rome has betrayed Jesus Christ because he has corrupted and blasphemed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

************************************************************************************************

 

[Zenas]

Anonymous or not it is true!



You cannot rebut what I posted and that is the truth. You said the following in the post to which I responded, though I did not respond specifically to it.



You must admit that is patently false or else confess that the following is true:

No, I don't have to do either one because the Bishop of Rome has not corrupted the gospel. In fact he has, for 2,000 years, "contended earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Can you say the same for your church?

 

[Walter]

Zenas quotes:

This is RCC propaganda and is patently false. Let's consider it.

What does the Bible say:
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--But he did "know her," that is had relations with her. She did not remain a virgin
There are other more explicit translations:
(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

Furthermore:
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--These are the half-brothers and sisters of Jesus. This is the family of Jesus, the other offspring of Mary.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
--Jude identifies himself as the brother of James.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
James is identified as the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--All of this evidence proves Zenas wrong.

The reason that Christ commended Mary to John was simply that James and Jude had not yet come to the Lord. The Bible indicates that they believed after the resurrection. John was known as "the beloved apostle." Jesus knew that John would take care of her. He had both the "love" or heart, and the means to take care of her. He was a true believer, and a spiritual brother has a much stronger bond than a brother through the flesh or blood.
Our Lord also taught the same thing.
All of Zenas's philosophy and rationalization of scripture is wrong.

DHK, let's just look at one of your 'proofs' that Mary had children. 'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son' In the Scriptures, the word 'until is used in different ways. Sometimes it is used to designate a fixed time, however it can also be used to designate indefinite time. Here is an example from Psalms 122:2: 'Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, UNTIL He have mercy on us' So, do you think we should turn our eyes away from the Lord after He is meciful? No! Our eyes are fixed on the Lord until He shows us his mercy and, after He is merciful to us, our eyes should be fixed on Him all the more.

Listen to what St. Jerome said: 'Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards.” (Adversus Helvid. v)

Now, are there other examples of this in scripture? Indeed there are:


2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death. So, DHK, Do you believe she had children after she died?

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. DHK, should Timothy should stop teaching after Paul arrives?

1 Corinthians 15:25: For He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. According to your thinking that means Jesus reign will end.

 

[DHK]

No, I don't have to do either one because the Bishop of Rome has not corrupted the gospel. In fact he has, for 2,000 years, "contended earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Can you say the same for your church?

The gospel that the RCC states and practices is nowhere found in the Bible, not similar to the gospel as defined in the Bible, and is a message of works and not grace which Paul said is "accursed," and those who preach it is are "accursed."

According to the Catholic Church:
Concerning the Gospel,

III. The New Law or the Law of the Gospel

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: “I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel.... I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
It doesn't even come close.

 

[DHK]

DHK, let's just look at one of your 'proofs' that Mary had children. 'And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son' In the Scriptures, the word 'until is used in different ways. Sometimes it is used to designate a fixed time, however it can also be used to designate indefinite time. Here is an example from the Psalms 122:2: 'Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, UNTIL he have mercy on us' So, do you think we should turn our eyes away from the Lord after He is meciful? No! Our eyes are fixed on the Lord until He shows us his mercy and, after He is merciful to us, our eyes should be fixed on Him all the more.

Listen to what St. Jerome said: 'Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards.” (Adversus Helvid. v)

Now, are there other examples of this in scripture? Indeed there are:


2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to until the day of her death. So, DHK, Do you believe she had children after she died?

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. DHK, should Timothy should stop teaching after Paul arrives?

1 Corinthians 15:25: For He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. According to your thinking that means Jesus reign will end.

Your argument doesn't make sense.
How do they compare with the plain sense reading?

(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
--How much clearer can it be? Does that have to be spelled out for you?

How about this one:
(CEV) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.

(GW) He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.

Clear enough?

 

[Zenas]

Zenas quotes:

This is RCC propaganda and is patently false. Let's consider it.

What does the Bible say:
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
--But he did "know her," that is had relations with her. She did not remain a virgin
There are other more explicit translations:
(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

Furthermore:
Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Mat 13:56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--These are the half-brothers and sisters of Jesus. This is the family of Jesus, the other offspring of Mary.

Jud 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
--Jude identifies himself as the brother of James.
Gal 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
James is identified as the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ.
--All of this evidence proves Zenas wrong.

The reason that Christ commended Mary to John was simply that James and Jude had not yet come to the Lord. The Bible indicates that they believed after the resurrection. John was known as "the beloved apostle." Jesus knew that John would take care of her. He had both the "love" or heart, and the means to take care of her. He was a true believer, and a spiritual brother has a much stronger bond than a brother through the flesh or blood.
Our Lord also taught the same thing.
All of Zenas's philosophy and rationalization of scripture is wrong.

DHK, I notice you did not address a single point that I made except for Matthew 1:25, and in that you had to look for an obscure paraphrase (that you have never used here before) which does not accurately translate this sentence. If it does, all the real translations got it wrong and I doubt that.

Tell me, where does the Bible say Mary had other children?

Tell me, where do any writers or commentators before about 1600 say Mary had any other children? Do you really think people like Luther and Calvin were ignorant bumpkins?

As for your speculation about why Jesus left his mother to the care of John, you really haven't thought it through. If you had, your would realize that you just stripped our Lord of all divine wisdom. The Son of God would know full well that six weeks hence James and Jude would be in the upper room with Mary and the disciples praying and awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit. So their unbelief can't be the reason He gave His mother to John. Unless, that is, you have a low view of Jesus Christ.

Now let's take it from a worldly perspective. Let's assume Mary did have other children. After Jesus died, the eldest of those other children, probably James, would have simply taken charge of their mother. They were nonbelievers so they wouldn't have paid much attention to what their brother said. John, as an outsider, cousin maybe but no more, would have had no say in the matter.

No, DHK, I have not put forth anything untrue here. I have simply pointed out certain facts, most of them from scripture, that compel the conclusion that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

 

[Zenas]

The gospel that the RCC states and practices is nowhere found in the Bible, not similar to the gospel as defined in the Bible, and is a message of works and not grace which Paul said is "accursed," and those who preach it is are "accursed."

According to the Catholic Church:
Concerning the Gospel,

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...techism-of-the-catholic-church/epub/index.cfm
It doesn't even come close.

I will agree that the Catholic understanding of the gospel is not what your understanding is.
But maybe what you have been led to believe all these years is wrong. Frankly, I would go with the church that actually wrote the New Testament, the OHCAC. They are in a better position to understand what they wrote and then taught to others than someone who came along 1500 years later.

 

[Zenas]

Your argument doesn't make sense.
How do they compare with the plain sense reading?

(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.
--How much clearer can it be? Does that have to be spelled out for you?

How about this one:
(CEV) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.

(GW) He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.

Clear enough?

No, that's not clear at all. When you read the ISV, it supplies the past perfect tense, which makes it pretty clear that there were conjugal relations after the birth of Christ. However, I don't think that is in the original. If it were a lot of good Protestant leaning translations (KJV and NASB for example) would be using it.

As for the CEV and the GW, there is absolutely nothing conclusive there. For instance, consider this sentence. "I did not study a foreign language before going to college." It is clear that before college I did not study a foreign language. It is not clear at all that I took any foreign languages in college. It's not even absolutely clear that I ever went to college.

And with that, I am going to step aside for the time being. This is really fun but I am still a member of the working class and must attend business.

 

[DHK]

DHK, I notice you did not address a single point that I made except for Matthew 1:25, and in that you had to look for an obscure paraphrase (that you have never used here before) which does not accurately translate this sentence. If it does, all the real translations got it wrong and I doubt that.

All the translations had it right. Your comprehension of them is wrong. In my last post I posted a couple of others to support the ISV

(GW) He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.
(CEV) But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.
--This is not a case of "Zenas alone is right and everyone else is wrong."
All the translations point to what these three translations are saying, not to what you are trying to twist them to say.

Tell me, where does the Bible say Mary had other children?

I did: Mat.13:55,56, etc. It is a matter of belief or unbelief. Your choice.

Tell me, where do any writers or commentators before about 1600 say Mary had any other children? Do you really think people like Luther and Calvin were ignorant bumpkins?

I don't have Luther's commentaries. Calvin didn't rule it out.

On Gal.19:
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
Calvin, in identifying who James is, says this:

Except James. Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was "Oblias" and "The Just," and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. 1 Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother's side: 2 but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion.

He may hold to another opinion as to James is, but he doesn't rule out that James is the son of Mary. (Calvin's commentary on Galatians)

As for your speculation about why Jesus left his mother to the care of John, you really haven't thought it through. If you had, your would realize that you just stripped our Lord of all divine wisdom.

That is a terrible accusation for you to make. The biblical record is correct. Jesus did leave the care of Mary to John. This is indisputable.

The Son of God would know full well that six weeks hence James and Jude would be in the upper room with Mary and the disciples praying and awaiting the coming of the Holy Spirit. So their unbelief can't be the reason He gave His mother to John. Unless, that is, you have a low view of Jesus Christ.

Have no idea what you are talking about. Six weeks is a long time. It takes three days for Jesus to die, be buried and rise again. Shortly after his resurrection his brothers trusted Him. They did so because of the resurrection. That is what convinced them.

Now let's take it from a worldly perspective. Let's assume Mary did have other children. After Jesus died, the eldest of those other children, probably James, would have simply taken charge of their mother. They were nonbelievers so they wouldn't have paid much attention to what their brother said. John, as an outsider, cousin maybe but no more, would have had no say in the matter.

Would Jesus have entrusted Mary to Saul of Tarsus? to Ananias, the High Priest, to Caiaphas? Such were the brothers of Jesus--enemies of the cross of Christ--part and parcel of the crowd wanting to put him to death--they too jealous and envious of the works that He did. No, they could not be trusted. Haven't you read the scriptures?

Look at the story here:
Joh 7:1 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
Joh 7:3 His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest.
--These were his actual brothers, sons of Mary.

Joh 7:5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
Joh 7:6 Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready.
--They did not believe. Their time had already come. They associated themselves with the world, with those that were about to crucify Christ.

Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
--It was not yet time for Christ to die; their time to do evil was there.

Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
Joh 7:11 Then the Jews sought him at the feast, and said, Where is he?

No, DHK, I have not put forth anything untrue here. I have simply pointed out certain facts, most of them from scripture, that compel the conclusion that Mary remained a virgin all her life.

Nothing you have said compels a belief in the virgin Mary; nothing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Catholics are deceived and deceptive. Here is the evidence to prove it.

1. They claim "without works" in regard to justification refers to Judiasm and becoming a Jew rather than good and bad deeds defined by both conscience and Law. The proof they are wrong is that Paul uses Abraham as the example of "works" who lived 430 years prior to the Law or Judaism - proving it has nothing to do with becoming a Jew or judaism. - Rom. 4:1-6

2. They claim that justification is a progressive action only completed in final judgement after the resurrection but Paul denies justification occurred "in circumcision" but was a completed action "Had" while "in uncircumcision" - Rom. 4:9-11

3. They claim that justification is inclusive of divine ordinances while Paul using Abraham as the pattern of justification by faith for "all who are of faith" both Jews and Gentiles demands it was a completed action PRIOR TO the only divine ordinance given Abraham - Rom. 4:9-11.

The truth bears repeating!

 

[The Biblicist]

Originally Posted by Walter View Post
He is absolutely wrong.......

The PRACTICE, not DOCTRINE of offering the cup to the laity began after Vatican II.


On one hand he claims the Catholic church DOCTRINE demands remission of sin is inseparably connected with both the cup and the bread but in ACTUAL PRACTICE Walter admits that Rome "BEGAN AFTER VATICAN II" to even offer the cup to the laity.

Think about that admission!!! On one hand their DOCTRINE demands it is essential for remission of sins but on the other hand their PRACTICE has not historically agreed with their DOCTRINE and even now they only OFFER it but don't demand their PRACTICE matches their DOCTRINE! Is it, or is it not essential for remission of sins????????

However, their DOCTRINE is straight out of hell and perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. Abraham is given TO US as the PATTERN for remission of sins and imputation of righteous WHICH IS Justification (Rom. 4:5-8) as there is no justification of those still in sins and without righteousness and Abraham was justified as a completed action at the point of faith while "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" (Rom. 4:9-10).

Paul explicitly denies Abraham was justified "IN CIRCUMCISION" - v. 10-11 using the Aorist tense of completed action demanding it occurred PREVIOUS to circumcision. Hence, PRIOR TO DIVINE ORDINANCES justification was a completed action at the point of faith.

Only by perverting Romans 4:16-21 does Rome attempt to justify PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION when this text is not dealing with Justification but with the nature or kind of faith involved in the act of justification, which is not PROGRESSIVE FAITHFULNESS but simply taking God at His Word that he is able to obtain the promise rather than a partnership in obtaining the promise.

However, Catholics are spiritually blind and committed to their errors and are incapable exegetes.

The truth bears repeating

 

[Walter]

Biblicists said: '
On one hand their DOCTRINE demands it is essential for remission of sins but on the other hand their PRACTICE has not historically agreed with their DOCTRINE and even now they only OFFER it but don't demand their PRACTICE matches their DOCTRINE! Is it, or is it not essential for remission of sins????????'

So, you are thinking that Christ Divinity can be divided? The entire substance of the body, blood, soul and divinity is present at Mass under both species - bread or wine. You cannot receive only the body or only the blood. It is not possible to receive only one. When you receive one, you receive the other.
Even the Early Fathers accepted the reality of Christ TOTAL and Complete Presence being available in either and in BOTH Species.

One of the early Church practices which I witness each mass I attend, is still commemorated today in the "fracture" and this was to send a "consecrated host' to a neighboring Church each week as a sign of unity.

Many Martyrs were caught "smuggling "holy bread to the sick or family members. So right from the beginning this fact was understood.

BTW, it is not just Catholics that understand that full communion is made if a person prefers to receive only the host or the cup. Anglicans and Lutherans who also believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist also allow this option. I have witnessed it in both denominations. I visited a Missouri Lutheran Church recently and observed some people received only the host. The overheard the pastor say as he communed those who wished to receive from the chalice say: 'The True Blood of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ keep you unto everlasting life'.

 

[OldRegular]

No, I don't have to do either one because the Bishop of Rome has not corrupted the gospel. In fact he has, for 2,000 years, "contended earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Can you say the same for your church?

The so-called Bishop of Rome has actually destroyed the Gospel of Jesus Christ and substituted for it the false, and sometimes pagan, teaching of the himself and/or the teaching magisterium!

These people toss out Salvation by the Grace of God alone and substitute for it a religion of ritual, works, and fear based solely on the teaching of sinful men!

**********************************************************************************************

Here is one example of how the Bishop of Rome treated dissidents:

Unrestrained Savagery

The religious wars of France, once fought on battlefields, now moved into homes. The government sent dragoons, selected from the basest elements of the army, into Protestant areas with orders not to be gentle to the Huguenots with whom they were quartered. Being soldiers and also bullies, they were only too glad for a little "fun." They bounced old Huguenots in blankets, made the Protestants dance until they collapsed from exhaustion, beat their feet with rods and poured scalding water down their throats. They robbed Huguenots and raped their women. Huguenots had no redress from the law, for they were not permitted to bring cases into court.

To Louis' credit, when he heard what was being done, he ordered it stopped. The violence continued but the facts were hidden from the king. He was told that all Protestants had either converted or fled. Convinced by the lies of his courtiers, he revoked the Edict of Nantes. It had become little more than a scrap of paper anyhow, for church and state had conspired to evade its provisions.
With even the illusion of protection gone, many Huguenots felt they must flee their homeland. Conditions at home were so intolerable that the risk seemed worthwhile. Four hundred thousand escaped. Remaining Huguenots were forced to take mass. Any who spat out the wafer were burned alive.

KEY EVENTS IN HUGUENOT HISTORY

1533 John Calvin flees Paris, becomes pastor in Geneva in 1536 and maintains strong ties
and influence with French reform movement until his death in 1564
1550’s Calvinism comes to France, wins thousands of converts
1559 First Huguenot synod held, in Paris
1559 Attempt to replace the Catholic Guises with the Huguenot Condé as regent
1560 Huguenots petition the king and threaten revolt if persecution persists
1562 Massacre at Vassy begins the French religious wars
1562 Huguenots sign a manifesto saying they were forced to take arms
1565 Huguenot colony massacred at St. John, Florida by Pedro Mendendez
1572 Catherine de Medici orders an attempt to assassinate Huguenot leader Coligny
1572 St. Bartholomew's Day massacre kills as many as 100,000 Huguenots
1585 Huguenots and other Protestants are ordered expelled from France (most stay)
1593 Huguenot Henry IV converts to Catholicism to gain the throne
1598 Edict of Nantes promises protection to Huguenots
1685 Revocation of the Edict of Nantes leaves Huguenots defenseless; 400,000 flee THEIR LIVES a POWERFUL TESTIMONY

[Sheldon's Church History provides a description of the Huguenots from Florimond de Raemond, a Roman Catholic historian in the late 16th century. He observed the life and behavior of the Huguenots and summarized his impressions.]

They comported themselves as the pronounced enemies of luxury, of public festivities, and of the follies of the world, which were all too prevalent among the Catholics. In their societies and at their banquets, one found neither music nor dancing, but discourses from the Bible, which lay upon the table, and spiritual songs, especially the Psalms as soon as they were brought into rhyme. The women, with their modest apparel and bearing, seemed like sorrowing Eves or penitent Magdalens, repeating in their lives the description which Tertullian gave of the (Christian) women of his age. The men appeared dead to the world, and filled with the Holy Spirit. Each was a John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness. The outward demeanor expressed only humility and obedience. They sought to gain a place for themselves, not by cruelty but by patience, not by killing but by dying, so that in them Christianity in its primitive innocence seemed to be restored."

http://www.christianity.com/church/.../huguenots-driven-out-of-france-11630022.html

**********************************************************************************

And now we are horrified by the butchery of Radical Islam!

***************************************************************************************

 

[OldRegular]

More on the Mass from the Canons of Trent

From Chapter IX, SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND,

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

CANON V.--If any one saith, that it is an imposture to celebrate masses in honour of the saints, and for obtaining their intercession with God, as the Church intends; let him be anathema.

CANON VI.--If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON VII.--If any one saith, that the ceremonies, vestments, and outward signs, which the Catholic Church makes use of in the celebration of masses, are incentives to impiety, rather than offices of piety; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.--If any one saith, that masses, wherein the priest alone communicates sacramentally, are unlawful, and are, therefore, to be abrogated; let him be anathema.

CANON IX.--If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct22.html[/quote]

Notice what Canon II says:

CANON II.--If any one saith, that by those words, Do this for the commemoration of me (Luke xxii. 19), Christ did not institute the apostles priests; or, did not ordain that they, and other priests should offer His own body and blood; let him be anathema.

Sounds to me that if anyone says the Mass is an un-bloody sacrifice they are to be accursed!

**************************************************************************************************

 

[annsni]

No, I don't have to do either one because the Bishop of Rome has not corrupted the gospel. In fact he has, for 2,000 years, "contended earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." Can you say the same for your church?

The bishop of rome is 2000 years old? That's older than Methuselah!