My Journey Into The Catholic Church

[Yeshua1]

So then using your language can I therefore say:"Since doing good works is a result of your salvation, are you therefore not saved if you are not doing good works?"

And if I can? Noting that the Catholic Church teaches that What then is the difference? After all James says the obvious answer of course is no.

Good works are a byproduct of us ALREADY having been saved/reconciled/justified back to God!

John calvin said it very well, in that Good works do NOT save us/do NOT contribute towards God saving us, but they will be the fruit of that salvation!

"faith alone saves, but the faith taht saves will not be alone!"

paul and james agree with him on this, for paul sees us saved before God by faith Alone in person and work of Christ, while James sees that once saved, true faith/salvation will have some fruith of good works to show that profession of salvation was indeed true!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Good works are a byproduct of us ALREADY having been saved/reconciled/justified back to God!

John calvin said it very well, in that Good works do NOT save us/do NOT contribute towards God saving us, but they will be the fruit of that salvation!

"faith alone saves, but the faith taht saves will not be alone!"

paul and james agree with him on this, for paul sees us saved before God by faith Alone in person and work of Christ, while James sees that once saved, true faith/salvation will have some fruith of good works to show that profession of salvation was indeed true!

Regarding salvation Y, lets make sure we are presenting DoG the right way so as not to confuse..... in our theology, we believe that sinners contribute nothing to their own salvation. It is God's work from beginning to end. For the gospel to be a gospel of grace, it must be all of grace.

 

[steaver]

Regarding salvation Y, lets make sure we are presenting DoG the right way so as not to confuse..... in our theology, we believe that sinners contribute nothing to their own salvation. It is God's work from beginning to end. For the gospel to be a gospel of grace, it must be all of grace.

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Good works are a byproduct of us ALREADY having been saved/reconciled/justified back to God!

Certainly, they are the "biproduct" of a heart converted to God of one who has reprented or being properly ordered to God which btw cannot happen unless God first moves you to that. But look at James' specific language

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

As I've pointed out many times Faith is not devoid of the works it produces. If no works are produced then no Faith. Look at what James says specifically with regard to Justification which is part of your salvation

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

. Therefore it is clear in scriptures that Faith must or has to be followed by works in order for it to be Faith. Else as James says its not the Faith that God requires which to save you. Which is what Jesus says in regard to the Christian

Every branch in me that does not bear fruit he takes away

And what does he mean by taking away those who don't bear the fruit of Faith (ie works)? Well, he says

the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned

That is hell language. Therefore Faith cannot be seen apart from works. Now I am agreed that works cannot save a man. Faith must always proceed works. But it must be a faith that produces works.

"faith alone saves, but the faith taht saves will not be alone!"

I agree with the bolded part. But since you hold to the bolded part you contradict your first statement. Therefore, James clearly points out

a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

paul and james agree with him on this, for paul sees us saved before God by faith Alone in person and work of Christ, while James sees that once saved, true faith/salvation will have some fruith of good works to show that profession of salvation was indeed true!

First Niether Paul nor James ever said you are saved by Faith Alone! In fact, Paul explicitly says he wants people to have the Faith which produces works of obedience. Listen to what he says

Paul, a servant[a] of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God...through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, 6 including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ

The whole Point of Expressing the need to have faith is to bring about their obedience which is expressed in their good works.

Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness... Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?...so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification...the fruit (ie the fruit of faith) you get leads to sanctification and its end

Paul instructs in Titus

Remind them...to be ready for every good work

Reminding them once again that even though he wants them to do good works they of themselves do not save

he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

But that by God's Grace given to us in Faith we can produce the works or fruit of that faith.

so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life... I want you to insist on these things, those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works.

As I have been saying all along. Faith cannot be devoid of works. However, works of their own cannot save. Faith it is that saves the kind of Faith which produces good works.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Regarding salvation Y, lets make sure we are presenting DoG the right way so as not to confuse..... in our theology, we believe that sinners contribute nothing to their own salvation. It is God's work from beginning to end. For the gospel to be a gospel of grace, it must be all of grace.

But grace can be RECEIVED or RESISTED/REJECTED. It also can be RECEIVED IN VAIN. God supernaturally enables (and occasions) faith/repentance, but He doesn't actually 'have faith' or 'repent' for the believer.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Certainly, they are the "biproduct" of a heart converted to God of one who has reprented or being properly ordered to God which btw cannot happen unless God first moves you to that. But look at James' specific language As I've pointed out many times Faith is not devoid of the works it produces. If no works are produced then no Faith. Look at what James says specifically with regard to Justification which is part of your salvation . Therefore it is clear in scriptures that Faith must or has to be followed by works in order for it to be Faith. Else as James says its not the Faith that God requires which to save you. Which is what Jesus says in regard to the Christian And what does he mean by taking away those who don't bear the fruit of Faith (ie works)? Well, he says That is hell language. Therefore Faith cannot be seen apart from works. Now I am agreed that works cannot save a man. Faith must always proceed works. But it must be a faith that produces works.


I agree with the bolded part. But since you hold to the bolded part you contradict your first statement. Therefore, James clearly points out


First Niether Paul nor James ever said you are saved by Faith Alone! In fact, Paul explicitly says he wants people to have the Faith which produces works of obedience. Listen to what he says The whole Point of Expressing the need to have faith is to bring about their obedience which is expressed in their good works. Paul instructs in Titus Reminding them once again that even though he wants them to do good works they of themselves do not save But that by God's Grace given to us in Faith we can produce the works or fruit of that faith.
As I have been saying all along. Faith cannot be devoid of works. However, works of their own cannot save. Faith it is that saves the kind of Faith which produces good works.

Good post--well said! :thumbs:

 

[Walter]

Certainly, they are the "biproduct" of a heart converted to God of one who has reprented or being properly ordered to God which btw cannot happen unless God first moves you to that. But look at James' specific language As I've pointed out many times Faith is not devoid of the works it produces. If no works are produced then no Faith. Look at what James says specifically with regard to Justification which is part of your salvation . Therefore it is clear in scriptures that Faith must or has to be followed by works in order for it to be Faith. Else as James says its not the Faith that God requires which to save you. Which is what Jesus says in regard to the Christian And what does he mean by taking away those who don't bear the fruit of Faith (ie works)? Well, he says That is hell language. Therefore Faith cannot be seen apart from works. Now I am agreed that works cannot save a man. Faith must always proceed works. But it must be a faith that produces works.


I agree with the bolded part. But since you hold to the bolded part you contradict your first statement. Therefore, James clearly points out


First Niether Paul nor James ever said you are saved by Faith Alone! In fact, Paul explicitly says he wants people to have the Faith which produces works of obedience. Listen to what he says The whole Point of Expressing the need to have faith is to bring about their obedience which is expressed in their good works. Paul instructs in Titus Reminding them once again that even though he wants them to do good works they of themselves do not save But that by God's Grace given to us in Faith we can produce the works or fruit of that faith.
As I have been saying all along. Faith cannot be devoid of works. However, works of their own cannot save. Faith it is that saves the kind of Faith which produces good works.

SLAM DUNK!! :applause:

 

[DHK]

Sorry guys, no slam dunk here; just the same old, same old; ignoring context; ignoring RCC practice in respect to Scripure, and ignoring Scripture itself.

Certainly, they are the "biproduct" of a heart converted to God of one who has reprented or being properly ordered to God which btw cannot happen unless God first moves you to that.

As explained before salvation is by faith. Works are a byproduct of a heart converted to God. Let's look at that by itself.
The RCC equates the New Birth to baptism, as defined in their Catechism (John 3:5). To be born again or saved faith is absolutely necessary. However the RCC baptizes infants who cannot exercise faith in the gospel. This is an impossibility. Romans 6:3,4 give the meaning of baptism and it has nothing to do with circumcision or a covenant as it did with Israel. It is always, in every case in the Bible, administered after one has put their faith in Christ and consequently has become a believer. It is "believer's baptism" for believer's only.
The RCC therefore practices baptismal regeneration, a damnable heresy, which Peter speaks out against. Why is it included here? Because Peter is speaking against the heresies of the false prophets, and this heresy is a heresy of false teachers. It infers that the blood of Christ was not sufficient enough to pay for the sins of mankind, but that man's baptism had to help it along. It is baptism that saves and not Christ. This is the teaching here, and thus the name, "baptismal regeneration." Or, regenerated by baptism. No greater heresy could be promoted by the RCC than this one.
There is no "saved by faith" here.
There are no good works that follow, as infants are not capable of doing good works. On the contrary they are very selfish. The baptism cannot wash away their Original Sin, or any sin. Again, go to Romans 6:3,4. It is a picture of the believer's death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ. That is why one is immersed (which the word baptidzo means). No doctrine of the RCC could do more damage and be more heretical than this one which, by believing in it, sends one to hell, rather than being a gateway to heaven.

But look at James' specific language As I've pointed out many times Faith is not devoid of the works it produces.

Faith alone in Christ produces works. Salvation comes first. James is writing to believers, "my brethren." The works are not part of the salvation. You ignore context here, especially the overall context of the book.

If no works are produced then no Faith.

Mother Theresa had works; that doesn't guarantee she had faith.
Many Muslims have works, Hindus as well. That doesn't guarantee faith.

Look at what James says specifically with regard to Justification which is part of your salvation . Therefore it is clear in scriptures that Faith must or has to be followed by works in order for it to be Faith.

By ignoring context you get the entire meaning backwards and have scripture contradict scripture when the Bible does no such thing. Works always follow salvation; follow justification, and never precede it, never are a part of it.

Romans 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God.
There are no works in that verse.
In Romans 4. Therefore righteousness was imputed unto Abraham when he believed.
--No works were necessary.

Else as James says its not the Faith that God requires which to save you. Which is what Jesus says in regard to the Christian And what does he mean by taking away those who don't bear the fruit of Faith (ie works)? Well, he says That is hell language.

NO he doesn't. Where do you get that from? You are making things up.
A true believer will have works follow his salvation. That is all that is being taught here.
However there are also many that do works that have no faith.
Jesus pointed that out in Matthew 7:

Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
--Their works could not save them, though they did many wonderful works in the name of Jesus.
Jesus said about them: "Depart from me ye that work iniquity."
Works do not save.

Therefore Faith cannot be seen apart from works. Now I am agreed that works cannot save a man. Faith must always proceed works. But it must be a faith that produces works.

Again, if faith always precedes works, then baptismal regeneration, the baptizing of infants is one of the most dangerous and heretical doctrines known to mankind. It denies all that Christ did on the cross; makes him just a man and not God--a damnable heresy taught by false teachers.

First Niether Paul nor James ever said you are saved by Faith Alone!

Yes Paul did, and more than once. You just don't like the way he said it.
There is more than one way to say the same thing.

Romans 5:1 says that a man is saved by faith alone.
"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God."
--What other conclusion can one come to? If you add anything to faith in this verse you are adding to the Word. If you take anything away you are taking away from the Word of God. The conclusion: Man is justified by faith alone, not by faith PLUS works or anything else.

Romans 4
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
--How was he made righteous? By belief alone. That is the teaching here.

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
--It is so clear here. It is not by works but only by belief.
It is by him that believes on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous." This statement is preceded by "him that works not." It means simply faith alone, not of works. It can't get any clearer.

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
--faith without works or faith alone.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
--saved by grace through faith without works!

But your belief contradicts the rest of Scripture over and over again.

In fact, Paul explicitly says he wants people to have the Faith which produces works of obedience.

No one said any different.

Listen to what he says The whole Point of Expressing the need to have faith is to bring about their obedience which is expressed in their good works. Paul instructs in Titus Reminding them once again that even though he wants them to do good works they of themselves do not save But that by God's Grace given to us in Faith we can produce the works or fruit of that faith.

It is faith and faith alone that saves. That faith alone in Christ alone will produce good works. Good works are never part of salvation.

As I have been saying all along. Faith cannot be devoid of works. However, works of their own cannot save. Faith it is that saves the kind of Faith which produces good works.

Faith in and of itself is not a work. Faith and works do not mix. See Romans 4:3-5 again. Faith alone in Christ alone produces work. But faith and works cannot be mixed together.

 

[Alive in Christ]

This ought to be interesting.

200 verses supporting justification by faith alone....


http://www.openbible.info/topics/justification_by_faith_alonehttp://http://www.openbible.info/topics/justification_by_faith_alone

 

[Walter]

Many of those 'supporting verses' do absolutely nothing to support Sola Fide. In fact, James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone, is even on this 'list of supporting verses'.

I wanted to respond to your accusation of 'Mary worship' as this is not the first time you have posted the pictures you believe dipict 'Mary worship'. Honoring is not worshipping. Catholics know who and what we worship. The picture of the pope having placed a crown on the statue of Mary is not worshipping her (quite clever to show a picture as he is lowering his hands as if he is in some gesture of worship). He has placed a crown on the statue because it is commemorating her as the Queen Mother. I don’t think there should be any question that Christ is a Davidic king (2 Samuel 7:12-14, Psalm 132:11-13, Matthew 22:42) and His kingdom is the anti-type of the Davidic Kingdom. Since that’s the case the structure of the earthly Davidic Kingdom is also a type of the heavenly Davidic Kingdom. After David and Bathsheba’s son Solomon took the throne he also entrhoned his mother Bathsheba as the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom in a position of honor and authority – sitting on his right side (1 Kings 2:19). The office of the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18 and 2 Kings 24:15. Since Jesus is undoubtedly the Davidic King His mother has the Davidic office of Queen Mother. Revelation 12 also contains royal language about a mother and a queen. There we see Mary described as “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1). Finally, we are told that she is the mother of all Christians (Revelation 12:17). Therefore, we rightly and biblically honor Mary with all honor due to her as the Davidic Queen Mother and as our mother as well.

 

[DHK]

Many of those 'supporting verses' do absolutely nothing to support Sola Fide. In fact, James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone, is even on this 'list of supporting verses'.

Of course it isn't. The Catholics like to use this verse in James even though it is speaking of practical Christian living, written to "the brethren," and not speaking of salvation at all. The reason it is not mentioned is because it is not speaking of salvation at all. Those who think it is do not know their Bible well.

I wanted to respond to your accusation of 'Mary worship' as this is not the first time you have posted the pictures you believe dipict 'Mary worship'. Honoring is not worshipping. Catholics know who and what we worship. The picture of the pope having placed a crown on the statue of Mary is not worshipping her (quite clever to show a picture as he is lowering his hands as if he is in some gesture of worship). He has placed a crown on the statue because it is commemorating her as the Queen Mother.

Mother of who? James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? (Mat.13:55)
Yes, she was the mother of those children.
The vessel that God chose to bring Jesus into this world at a certain point in history? Yes God used her in a special way for that small period of time, even though she herself admitted that she was a sinner.

I don’t think there should be any question that Christ is a Davidic king (2 Samuel 7:12-14, Psalm 132:11-13, Matthew 22:42) and His kingdom is the anti-type of the Davidic Kingdom.

It was Origen, whom the Catholic Church itself labeled a heretic, that introduced the allegorical method of interpretation into Christianity. Yet that is the very method of interpretation you are using here. It is far-fetched and reaches conclusions that are heretical.
First, the Bible simply teaches that Christ is coming back, and will set up his kingdom. We both agree on that. I was taught it as a Catholic in memorized prayers just like the Lord's prayer: "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done,...thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, forever, amen." (Mat.6:9-13)
When Christ rules in that kingdom he will sit on what will be called "the throne of David." His genealogy is from David (humanly speaking). This goes right back to the blessing given by Jacob upon Judah.
Genesis 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
--Here also is the promise of the coming Messiah. The sceptre is what a king holds, and Christ shall indeed hold it when he sets up his kingdom.

Since that’s the case the structure of the earthly Davidic Kingdom is also a type of the heavenly Davidic Kingdom. After David and Bathsheba’s son Solomon took the throne he also entrhoned his mother Bathsheba as the Queen Mother of the Davidic Kingdom in a position of honor and authority – sitting on his right side (1 Kings 2:19).

That is as foolish as saying that the wives of Jacob (Rachel and Leah) should be the queens of heaven. Or perhaps the wife of Judah from whom the lawgiver would come? Ridiculous!
This is where you can make the Bible say anything you want--through allegory. It is what the heretic Origen did. And it is what the RCC does as well. It is not what Paul says: "rightly dividing the word of truth."
Just because David had a mother doesn't mean God does.
Just because David's mother temporarily sat on the throne while David was dying doesn't mean that God has a mother sitting on a throne. That is blasphemy, and is not taught in the Bible anywhere.

The office of the queen mother can also be seen in Jeremiah 13:18 and 2 Kings 24:15.

Have you ever read the context of these passages?
Do you know what they are talking about?
Look at the passage in Jeremiah:

The passage is a passage of judgment and doesn't condone anything:
Jeremiah 13:18 Say unto the king and to the queen, Humble yourselves, sit down: for your principalities shall come down, even the crown of your glory.
--Humble yourselves; sit down!!

Jeremiah 13:13 Then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness.
14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
--More than the king is judged here:: priests, prophets, and all the inhabitants--no one is excluded. It is a passage of judgment. God will not spare anyone from judgment in this passage.
And what happens after verse 18?
Jeremiah 13:19 The cities of the south shall be shut up, and none shall open them: Judah shall be carried away captive all of it, it shall be wholly carried away captive.
--They are carried into captivity and there is no king, and no queen.

Since Jesus is undoubtedly the Davidic King His mother has the Davidic office of Queen Mother.

A presumption, but not true.

Revelation 12 also contains royal language about a mother and a queen. There we see Mary described as “clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Revelation 12:1).

You have not studied this book much.
The woman is Israel. The twelve stars are the 12 tribes. Christ came from the nation of Israel.

Finally, we are told that she is the mother of all Christians (Revelation 12:17).

Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
--As already noted the woman is Israel. The time is at the end of the Tribulation Period when Christ comes for his own (the believing Jews). He will defeat Satan (the dragon) and all the enemies of Israel at that time, and then will set up His Kingdom. (with those who have the testimony of Jesus Christ).

Therefore, we rightly and biblically honor Mary with all honor due to her as the Davidic Queen Mother and as our mother as well.

No you don't.
When you honor her as such, you rob God of that honor. To Him belongs all honor. By robbing God you commit idolatry. This is what the Ten Commandments teach. Your "honor" is a form of worship. You cannot redefine worship simply by changing the meaning of the word. That is just too convenient isn't it. We go by the definitions that the Bible gives us. Honoring, adoring, reverencing another except for God is idolatry.

 

[Walter]

I only have time to respond to one of your claims this week-end. I'm involved in my RCIA retreat and have little time for anything else. You claim the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel. Many other Protestants say she is the Church. I also see the Church as one of the meaning here. And although the Church is indeed one of those meanings it is not the only one. I think Revelation 12 helps to show this because it too allows for a fulfillment in the Church, we must keep in mind that every person in that chapter is a real person. Therefore to relegate the woman to only a metaphorical interpretation posits an unwarranted discontinuity with the context. So if the woman of this chapter is Mary, then she is a royal woman in the Davidic Kingdom who is in a sense also the mother of all Christians. When taken together with the fact that she is the real mother of Christ the King, Mary is an even greater Queen Mother than those of OT times which is exactly what typology is all about.

BTW, you don't know Mary had other children. You don't know that Jesus had uterine siblings. Quite possibly Joseph had children from a previous marriage and they were step brother and sisters, you don't know. The bible is silent on many things. It was common practice of consecrated virgins marrying older widowers, thereby receiving care and providing companionship. You simply jump to the conclusion that Jesus had other full brothers and sisters because that is what you want to believe.

 

[DHK]

I only have time to respond to one of your claims this week-end. I'm involved in my RCIA retreat and have little time for anything else. You claim the woman in Revelation 12 is Israel. Many other Protestants say she is the Church. I also see the Church as one of the meaning here. And although the Church is indeed one of those meanings it is not the only one. I think Revelation 12 helps to show this because it too allows for a fulfillment in the Church, we must keep in mind that every person in that chapter is a real person. Therefore to relegate the woman to only a metaphorical interpretation posits an unwarranted discontinuity with the context. So if the woman of this chapter is Mary, then she is a royal woman in the Davidic Kingdom who is in a sense also the mother of all Christians. When taken together with the fact that she is the real mother of Christ the King, Mary is an even greater Queen Mother than those of OT times which is exactly what typology is all about.

If it is a matter of "my scholars vs. your scholars" I will win, since my view is the accepted view throughout history, just not the RCC view.
If it is a matter of rightly exegeting the passage I will win out there as well. There is only one interpretation that fits (and others will verify that as well). It is impossible for Mary to fit into that chapter.
Though metaphorical each verse has to make sense. For example:
Revelation 12:16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
--Where and when did the earth help Mary? Where and when did the earth open her mouth and swallow (what?) flood which Satan cast out of his mouth?
This verse has no relevance to Mary at any time. But it does have relevance to Israel and the Jews.

BTW, you don't know Mary had other children. You don't know that Jesus had uterine siblings. Quite possibly Joseph had children from a previous marriage and they were step brother and sisters, you don't know.

Those things the Bible state we know.
You remain in unbelief because of your indoctrinated prejudice.

The bible is silent on many things.

On this the Bible is not silent but speaks with authority for all that will look with any degree of openness in their mind.

It was common practice of consecrated virgins marrying older widowers, thereby receiving care and providing companionship. You simply jump to the conclusion that Jesus had other full brothers and sisters because that is what you want to believe.

Your prejudice is shown in you statement above.
Once Mary gave birth to Jesus she was no longer a virgin. Be realistic here! Neither do you have any proof of Joseph's age. We know he died earlier than Mary, but we don't know why. Heart attack maybe? I know a seven year old near here who died of a heart attack. You propagate a fictitious story with no basis in history.

Matthew 13:55 you call a lie. Why do you call Scriptures lies?
Does not God tell the truth?
Shameful!

 

[Walter]

I have not called Mathhew 13:55 a lie. The key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.
The word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

 

[Baptist4life]

I have not called Mathhew 13:55 a lie. The key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.
The word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

Yep, you've definitely drunk the koolaid. Sad.



And THIS isn't "worshipping" Mary either. Right? :tear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLnqnntuCoU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idPVzqP4lpQ

 

[DHK]

I have not called Mathhew 13:55 a lie. The key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.

Absolutely, it is a false doctrine; not only proved here but elsewhere.

The word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

You are really stretching. Those are all minor meanings rarely used. The common meaning is "brother," and the context, most of all, gives the actual meaning of the word.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

Again you are neglecting the most important thing--context, which gives the meaning of the word.

Matthew 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
--Here is the context.
He came to his own country, his home where he grew up. They knew that he grew up as a carpenter's son as verse 55 states, so they as "From where does this man have such wisdom?" They knew him from his childhood up. They were astonished.

55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
--Again the reference to Joseph the carpenter and he being "Joseph's son" for they didn't know about the virgin birth. In his earthly family these were his brothers: James, Joses, Simon, and Jude. His mother and father were Mary and Joseph as far as his neighbors were concerned. They were amazed at his wisdom and teaching as he returns to his own neighborhood, after being gone for sometime, and then starts teaching.
They knew him as a child growing up. Now he teaches him doctrine as the very Son of God. Amazed they were!

56 And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
--Again the repetition to his own family, but now including his sisters. Apparently Mary had other children than just sons. She had daughters as well. They were all there and accounted for. They knew them. The family was there and well known in the community. This is the family of Jesus that the community is speaking about.
You cannot ignore the context and make it mean something else!

Matthew 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

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

(ISV) He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

The meaning is clear. Joseph went and had proper marital relations with her after Christ was born, just as other translations say that she did. You cannot translate this verse any other way. The children mentioned in Matthew 13:55,56 came from a union between Joseph and Mary. The union is described right here.

For the RCC to promote false doctrine, to push lies upon society that go directly against the teaching of Scripture is shameful. I would get out of there as quickly as possible.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?
--Here is further proof. Paul is no doubt referring to James and Jude, the brethren of the Lord. Respectively they wrote the epistles of James and Jude. Again, this refutes the virginity of Mary. Paul says that Jesus had brothers.

John 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.
4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world.
5 For neither did his brethren believe in him.
--This was a family dispute. His own brothers did not believe on him. It is well known that James and Jude did not come to Christ until after the resurrection. That is one of the reasons that Jesus, as he was dying on the cross, committed the care of Mary to one of his trusted disciples (John), going entirely against Jewish custom, rather than his own family, who was unsaved at the time.

Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.
--James is the Lord's brother.

Jude 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 is Jame's brother.

Both James and Jude were brothers of Christ. Mary was definitely not a virgin. The evidence stacks up against her.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I have not called Mathhew 13:55 a lie. The key to explaining Matthew 13:55 is understanding the Greek word for "brethren" (adelphoi) and its feminine counterpart (adelphe). If the Greek words used in this passage connote only siblings, then the Catholic dogma of Mary’s perpetual virginity is false.
The word adelphoi has a much broader meaning. It may refer to male relatives that one is not a descendant of and that are not descendant from one (such as a blood brother, step-brother, nephew, uncle, cousin, etc.) or non-relatives such as neighbors, fellow workers, co-religionists, and friends.

Because of this broad usage, we can be sure that the 120 "brothers" in Acts 1:15 did not have the same mother. Neither did Lot and his uncle Abraham, who were called "brothers" (Gen. 11:26-28, 29:15).

This is absolutely false, as I have proved beyond question in the thread "Sisters of God". However, since there seems to be continually a repeated need to put false doctrine and superstition to rest, here it is again:

"The holy Scripture written by Luke was penned in Greek, which has two different words for blood-sibling (adelphos) vs. cousin-sibling (neepsios). When Luke refers to Christ's Mother & brethren in one of Jesus' sermons, he uses the word for blood-brothers: Adelphoi. This is as conclusive as it can get.

At any rate, Mary was a Hebrew woman who was married during the Old Covenant. It would've been a sin for her not to have provided as many children for Joseph as possible.

Tertullian took the "brothers" literally, making no mention of cousins in his 7th chapter of "On the Flesh of Christ":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html

Interestingly, Tertullian says that His mother and brethren sinned by coming to try to stop Christ from preaching that day.

We must all believe that Mary of Nazareth was a Virgin when the Holy Ghost conceived the LORD in her womb, and that she was the highly-favored one, kecharitoméne. There is nothing in any of the prophecies or in the teaching of the LORD Jesus that indicates the necessity of her carrying virginity into death. Only the bizarre disdain of sexuality that emerged since Origen can be blamed for this odd refusal to believe that Mary was a normal, godly Christian.

If the expert-in-Greek St. Dr. Luke says Adelphoi, and not Neepsioi, I am prone to believe the Holy Spirit, and not Calvin or Zwingli. Anyway, we are not Luther-ans, but Christ-ians, and His Word breathed & confirmed by His Spirit is the measure. This is the glory of the Scriptures.

By the way, why is virginity equal to purity? This is tied up with Original Sin, no doubt, but we cannot be anti-marriage, anti-sexuality Manichaeans. There is simply no prophecy pointing to an ever-virgin, and the fulfillment of all things spoke of blood-brothers. There's no way around this.

For those who are not interested in debating Medieval traditions and fears about sex, but only the words of Holy Scripture, here is Luke 8:19-21 in three languages, with "brothers" in bold:

19 Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε. 21 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς: μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες.

19 Venerunt autem ad illum mater et fratres ejus, et non poterant adire eum præ turba. 20 Et nuntiatum est illi : Mater tua et fratres tui stant foris, volentes te videre. 21 Qui respondens, dixit ad eos : Mater mea et fratres mei hi sunt, qui verbum Dei audiunt et faciunt.

19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born.

I find it interesting that the first recourse any Catholic has (in disputes of doctrine) is the Fathers & Councils, but not the Scriptures. Where the Scripture is silent, only then do we look to the Fathers & the Church for an answer. The Scripture is loud & clear on this issue, however, so we have no reason to cite from the Fathers.

If any one teaching of the Church contradicts the holy Scripture, that teaching must be utterly banished from the minds of Christians. Why is it so important to follow the mere opinions of men when the surest teaching of the Holy Ghost has made it plain that the LORD Jesus was humble enough to share the womb with younger brethren to come after Him? He is not jealous, envious, or terrible - but meek, and humble of heart.

According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings), not anepsioi (wider, extended family).

Scripture clearly and undeniably refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Case closed.

That is sufficient, but further consider this: Does any intelligent and logical person really believe that Mary remained married to Joseph all their lives and never -- NEVER -- had sexual relations with him? There are no words to adequately describe such absurdity.

This superstition about Mary came about for three reasons: The desire to have a Christian "goddess"; a faulty view of original sin; and a fear of sex and a view that sex is somehow impure or dirty.

The fact is that Jesus had biological siblings. The scriptures prove it; that settles it."

 

[Walter]

This is absolutely false, as I have proved beyond question in the thread "Sisters of God". However, since there seems to be continually a repeated need to put false doctrine and superstition to rest, here it is again:

"The holy Scripture written by Luke was penned in Greek, which has two different words for blood-sibling (adelphos) vs. cousin-sibling (neepsios). When Luke refers to Christ's Mother & brethren in one of Jesus' sermons, he uses the word for blood-brothers: Adelphoi. This is as conclusive as it can get.

At any rate, Mary was a Hebrew woman who was married during the Old Covenant. It would've been a sin for her not to have provided as many children for Joseph as possible.

Tertullian took the "brothers" literally, making no mention of cousins in his 7th chapter of "On the Flesh of Christ":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.vii.vii.html

Interestingly, Tertullian says that His mother and brethren sinned by coming to try to stop Christ from preaching that day.

We must all believe that Mary of Nazareth was a Virgin when the Holy Ghost conceived the LORD in her womb, and that she was the highly-favored one, kecharitoméne. There is nothing in any of the prophecies or in the teaching of the LORD Jesus that indicates the necessity of her carrying virginity into death. Only the bizarre disdain of sexuality that emerged since Origen can be blamed for this odd refusal to believe that Mary was a normal, godly Christian.

If the expert-in-Greek St. Dr. Luke says Adelphoi, and not Neepsioi, I am prone to believe the Holy Spirit, and not Calvin or Zwingli. Anyway, we are not Luther-ans, but Christ-ians, and His Word breathed & confirmed by His Spirit is the measure. This is the glory of the Scriptures.

By the way, why is virginity equal to purity? This is tied up with Original Sin, no doubt, but we cannot be anti-marriage, anti-sexuality Manichaeans. There is simply no prophecy pointing to an ever-virgin, and the fulfillment of all things spoke of blood-brothers. There's no way around this.

For those who are not interested in debating Medieval traditions and fears about sex, but only the words of Holy Scripture, here is Luke 8:19-21 in three languages, with "brothers" in bold:

19 Παρεγένετο δὲ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ μήτηρ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ οὐκ ἠδύναντο συντυχεῖν αὐτῷ διὰ τὸν ὄχλον. 20 ἀπηγγέλη δὲ αὐτῷ ἡ μήτηρ σου καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί σου ἑστήκασιν ἔξω ἰδεῖν θέλοντές σε. 21 ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς: μήτηρ μου καὶ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοί εἰσιν οἱ τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀκούοντες καὶ ποιοῦντες.

19 Venerunt autem ad illum mater et fratres ejus, et non poterant adire eum præ turba. 20 Et nuntiatum est illi : Mater tua et fratres tui stant foris, volentes te videre. 21 Qui respondens, dixit ad eos : Mater mea et fratres mei hi sunt, qui verbum Dei audiunt et faciunt.

19 Then came to him his mother and his brethren, and could not come at him for the press. 20 And it was told him by certain which said, Thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to see thee. 21 And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it.

Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born.

I find it interesting that the first recourse any Catholic has (in disputes of doctrine) is the Fathers & Councils, but not the Scriptures. Where the Scripture is silent, only then do we look to the Fathers & the Church for an answer. The Scripture is loud & clear on this issue, however, so we have no reason to cite from the Fathers.

If any one teaching of the Church contradicts the holy Scripture, that teaching must be utterly banished from the minds of Christians. Why is it so important to follow the mere opinions of men when the surest teaching of the Holy Ghost has made it plain that the LORD Jesus was humble enough to share the womb with younger brethren to come after Him? He is not jealous, envious, or terrible - but meek, and humble of heart.

According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings), not anepsioi (wider, extended family).

Scripture clearly and undeniably refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Case closed.

That is sufficient, but further consider this: Does any intelligent and logical person really believe that Mary remained married to Joseph all their lives and never -- NEVER -- had sexual relations with him? There are no words to adequately describe such absurdity.

This superstition about Mary came about for three reasons: The desire to have a Christian "goddess"; a faulty view of original sin; and a fear of sex and a view that sex is somehow impure or dirty.

The fact is that Jesus had biological siblings. The scriptures prove it; that settles it."

I appreciate you reposting this. I had intended to respond but got caught up on a different thread and forgot about it.

Origen’s commentary on Matthew, he said believing that Mary remained in her virginity is reasonable, but he himself never committed to the belief.

Here is Clement:
“[M]any even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal (= pertaining to or connected with childbirth) state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin” (The Stromata, Bk. 7, Ch. 16).

He says that “some say” that she was found to be a virgin after birth, and we can see from his first sentence that he agrees with them that she certainly was a virgin because he says that even though many others think the opposite, “she was not” what these latter supposed. Note also that, while some say she was examined and found thereby to be a virgin, this testimony is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, as we’ve already gathered from his first sentence, the fact that she was a virgin after birth is true.


Tertullian was also labelled as "Antidicomarianites" ("Anti-Mary") by the orthodox. There were others that held this same view, mostly Arians such as Photinus. When Helvidius proposed this idea in the 4th century, Jerome maintained that Mary remained always a virgin, and held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of Clopas, a brother-in-law of Mary. Let me ask you, what would be the Greek word used for 'step-brothers' or 'step-sisters'?
As to the 'Jewish law' argument. I have read it also would have violated Jewish law for Jesus to have handed over the care of His mother to John if He, in fact, had uterine siblings. It would have been their responsibility to care for her.
True, the Greek word for cousin was used in Colossians 4:10. It wasn't used in Matthew 13:55. My own belief is that James relates to Jesus as a step-brother, rather than as a cousin. You seem to have the common misconception that Catholics believe these 'brethren of the Lord' were actually cousins. That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I appreciate you reposting this. I had intended to respond but got caught up on a different thread and forgot about it.

Origen’s commentary on Matthew, he said believing that Mary remained in her virginity is reasonable, but he himself never committed to the belief.

Here is Clement:
“[M]any even down to our own time regard Mary, on account of the birth of her child, as having been in the puerperal (= pertaining to or connected with childbirth) state, although she was not. For some say that, after she brought forth, she was found, when examined, to be a virgin” (The Stromata, Bk. 7, Ch. 16).

He says that “some say” that she was found to be a virgin after birth, and we can see from his first sentence that he agrees with them that she certainly was a virgin because he says that even though many others think the opposite, “she was not” what these latter supposed. Note also that, while some say she was examined and found thereby to be a virgin, this testimony is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, as we’ve already gathered from his first sentence, the fact that she was a virgin after birth is true.


Tertullian was also labelled as "Antidicomarianites" ("Anti-Mary") by the orthodox. There were others that held this same view, mostly Arians such as Photinus. When Helvidius proposed this idea in the 4th century, Jerome maintained that Mary remained always a virgin, and held that those who were called the brothers and sisters of Jesus were actually children of Clopas, a brother-in-law of Mary. Let me ask you, what would be the Greek word used for 'step-brothers' or 'step-sisters'?
As to the 'Jewish law' argument. I have read it also would have violated Jewish law for Jesus to have handed over the care of His mother to John if He, in fact, had uterine siblings. It would have been their responsibility to care for her.
True, the Greek word for cousin was used in Colossians 4:10. It wasn't used in Matthew 13:55. My own belief is that James relates to Jesus as a step-brother, rather than as a cousin. You seem to have the common misconception that Catholics believe these 'brethren of the Lord' were actually cousins. That’s not the Catholic position. In fact, we can’t tell if any of the "brothers" were cousins. All the Church affirms is that they were not children of Mary. They could have been children of Joseph from a prior marriage. But the specific word for cousin (anepsios) probably would not have been used in Matthew 13:55 unless all the "brothers" were cousins. If even one of them was not a cousin, the more general term " adelphoi" covers the situation. Even if all of them were cousins, the term "brother" could still be used by Matthew to appropriately describe them.

The relevant part of my post which puts the matter beyond question is this:

"The holy Scripture written by Luke was penned in Greek, which has two different words for blood-sibling (adelphos) vs. cousin-sibling (neepsios). When Luke refers to Christ's Mother & brethren in one of Jesus' sermons, he uses the word for blood-brothers: Adelphoi. This is as conclusive as it can get.

If the expert-in-Greek St. Dr. Luke says Adelphoi, and not Neepsioi, I am prone to believe the Holy Spirit, and not Calvin or Zwingli.

Seeing that the original Greek Scripture uses the word for a brother of the same womb, there is no debate on this subject: St. Mary the blessed Virgin had children with St. Joseph, her lawful spouse, after the LORD Christ was born.

According to the Most Holy Spirit of God, in His inspiration of the Divine Word through St. Luke, Christ's brothers & sisters were adelphoi (womb-siblings), not anepsioi (wider, extended family).

Scripture clearly and undeniably refutes the perpetual virginity of Mary. Case closed.

The fact is that Jesus had biological siblings. The scriptures prove it; that settles it."


One reason that I could never be Roman Catholic is that it requires its adherents to accept man-made tradition above scripture.

 

[Walter]

So then, you are saying there is no way these 'brethren' could have been step-brothers? Children of Josheph from a previous marriage. I have read that 'adelphos'(a general term and not restricted to uterine siblings) would have been used for step-children as well.