Can someone go through all the evidence for the perpetual virginity of mary for me?

[Mailman]

Mary ever virgin. A hard concept indeed unless you understand Why the Church teaches this truth.

Jesus IS the Son of God, now if Mary had other children after His birth, that would bring into question who the father of Jesus was. This Doctrine of the Faith (please others smarter then me point to actual Church teachings on this) was declared Officially by the Church (although always known and believed) because there were people who denied Jesus IS God’s Son–God the Son.

This is really a very Christ-Centered doctrine.

I really don’t see how Mary’s bearing other children could bring into question who the father of Jesus was. The Scriptures are clear that she was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, so Jesus’ father could not be Joseph. The Scriptures also do not say anything about Mary remaining a virgin throughout her married life with Joseph. So why should we insist she was a perpetual virgin? Is there a problem with Jesus being the Son of God if Mary did not remain a virgin? There is none.

 

[po18guy]

Of course the LDS is false. It’s worse than the RCC. It teaches that the Bible is full of errors that’s why Joseph Smith came up with the Book of Mormon. The RCC, at least, teaches only that the Bible cannot be trusted on matters other than faith and morals (it doesn’t realize though that the historicity of Abraham is a matter of faith), but even that it has to be according to its private interpretation. I’ve done my research. I hope you will do yours and… be like the Bereans who were admired for their open-mindedness because thay “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11).

SORRY! I thought, for some odd reason, that you were defending LDS. However, the modern Bereans have settled into a very familiar anti-Catholicism. The open-mindedness of the early Bereans lead to the twisting of scripture. God’s mind is one. It is not open. His word stands as our command. To view it through other eyes is to depart from the truth.

Only the Catholic and Orthodox have Christ in the flesh. Only the Catholic has the authority to teach without error, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised. All who have departed from the fulness of truth have a good measure of truth, but not all. This is settled matter. Any and all scripture study must be done without private interpretation!] See 2 Peter 1-19:20. If you are a bible literalist, why do you still have two eyers, two hands, or two feet? (Mark 9:46-48) To follow the bible explicitly, as your only source of truth is to accept even the parables as exact, historic fact, no?

The early Catholic Church canonized all scripture, lead by the Holy Spirit. How can any who claim to accept the bible also reject the very same Catholic teaching authority in matters of faith and morals? Who teaches the evil of contraception? Remember that all Christian churches did until about the 1930s. What changed? Certainly not God! The others, lacking the teaching authority, slowly surrendered to the secular and diluted the truth.

I admire your faith and your love of Christ. May the Holy Spirit illumine your heart to desire a much deeper relationship with Christ - Christ in the flesh, and to follow Him wherever He leads. I know you think my judgment faulty or incomplete, and the teachings of the Catholic church likewise, but persevere in your faith and the Gracious Lord will reveal the fulness of truth to you.

Christ’s peace, my brother.

 

[Mailman]

SORRY! I thought, for some odd reason, that you were defending LDS. However, the modern Bereans have settled into a very familiar anti-Catholicism. The open-mindedness of the early Bereans lead to the twisting of scripture. God’s mind is one. It is not open. His word stands as our command. To view it through other eyes is to depart from the truth.

Apology accepted. I think we all ought to be more circumspect in our opinions of others.

You are wrong about the early Bereans. The Scriptures do not say they twisted the Word of God. They examined the Word of God with an open mind to see if what Paul was telling them was according to the Scriptures. And the result? “Therefore many of them believed…” (Acts 17:12).

Had the Beareans not consulted the Scriptures, they would not have known the truth and would not have found the true Church of God that Paul was representing. The Jews then, like the Catholics now, had an established set of beliefs and traditions. God also established the early church with the Jews, just as the Catholics now believe their church was established by Christ. Had the Bereans dismissed one man’s new teachings like what most Catholics would do now, they would not have come to know the truth. The lesson is clear: The Scriptures are the ultimate authority in establishing the truth.

Only the Catholic and Orthodox have Christ in the flesh. Only the Catholic has the authority to teach without error, by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Christ promised. All who have departed from the fulness of truth have a good measure of truth, but not all. This is settled matter. Any and all scripture study must be done without private interpretation!] See 2 Peter 1-19:20. If you are a bible literalist, why do you still have two eyers, two hands, or two feet? (Mark 9:46-48) To follow the bible explicitly, as your only source of truth is to accept even the parables as exact, historic fact, no?

You are talking here under the assumption that the RCC is the true Church of God. You would have to prove that first. Anyone can lay claim to being the church that Jesus established but that doesn’t make one the true Church. It’s just a claim, nothing more. The RCC interpreted Joshua 10:12 wrong. That alone is proof enough it does not have the Holy Spirit. It made a private interpretation of Scripture.

I take the Bible literally – that is, in its plain and obvious sense. The definition of a parable is this: It is a short, fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle. If it is fictitious, why should it be treated as historic fact?

The early Catholic Church canonized all scripture, lead by the Holy Spirit. How can any who claim to accept the bible also reject the very same Catholic teaching authority in matters of faith and morals? Who teaches the evil of contraception? Remember that all Christian churches did until about the 1930s. What changed? Certainly not God! The others, lacking the teaching authority, slowly surrendered to the secular and diluted the truth.

The early Catholic Church was the only VISIBLE church that canonized the Scripture. No, it was not led by the Holy Spirit because it included the books called the “deuterocanonicals” which is not part of Scripture. Jesus Himself confirmed the validity of the Jews’ Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), and their Scripture do not include those Apocryphal books. I think it is providential that the RCC was the one known to have canonized the Scripture because now the RCC would not be able to say its teachings contradict the Bible because the Bible is erroneous. Now, anyone can see its error from the teachings of the book they claim to have canonized.

I admire your faith and your love of Christ. May the Holy Spirit illumine your heart to desire a much deeper relationship with Christ - Christ in the flesh, and to follow Him wherever He leads. I know you think my judgment faulty or incomplete, and the teachings of the Catholic church likewise, but persevere in your faith and the Gracious Lord will reveal the fulness of truth to you.

Christ’s peace, my brother.

Thank you. I pray the same for you, brother. We both believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Our only difference is that you believe the RCC is the true church and so you follow what it teaches. I believe another church is the true Church and so I follow that Church. The reason I believe it is the true Church is because I have examined its teachings against the teachings in Scripture, like what the early Bereans did. I am hoping you would do the same and examine your beliefs as well.

God bless.

P.S.
Mark Twain, to be such a great humorist, novelist, short story author, and wit, must be such a keen observer of people’s ways and conduct in life. He says this of how people form their beliefs in life (and for which we can learn from):

“In religion and politics, people’s beliefs and convictions are, in almost every case, gotten at second-hand and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue, but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

 

[po18guy]

You are wrong about the early Bereans. They examined the Word of God with an open mind to see if what Paul was telling them was according to the Scriptures.

Well, since Paul wrote scripture, he essentially was scripture. The Bereans were skeptical then. That is good up to a point, since we are to test everything and retain what is good.

Had the Beareans not consulted the Scriptures, they would not have known the truth and would not have found the true Church of God that Paul was representing.

It was NOT the NT, because it didn’t exist then.

The lesson is clear: The Scriptures are the ultimate authority in establishing the truth.

NOT! The bible does not say this. I cannot get past that. The bible says it is incomplete. All who use it have an incomplete revelation. Scripture does not validate itself. The demon teaches that. It is useless without proper interpretation. This is where we depart. All writing, to be inspired, must have authority behind it. “He who hears you hears me” That is Christ’s 100% promise, and it’s true. That’s why the true Church must be Apostolic. Anything else is not of Christ’s intent. Now the Bereans followed the oral tradition, but you do not. Why? (Because it is too Catholic…). Well, the man-made tradition of SS has trashed Christ’s teaching via the oral tradition. Paul admonished Christians to retain both the oral and written traditions. The true Church must have both, or it is not scriptural - and not true.

You are talking here under the assumption that the RCC is the true Church of God.

Actually, it is you who are assuming it is not.

The RCC interpreted Joshua 10:12 wrong. That alone is proof enough it does not have the Holy Spirit. It made a private interpretation of Scripture.

What you mention is impossible. Let’s reverse this, as I believe you have it exactly backward! The CC has the sole authority to interpret scripture. You trust it for your bible, right? I do not place my salvation upon an assumption. It is upon revelation that I trust. Christ founded one Church for all time. The demon has split it and separated it until it is barely recognizable in the modern age, (30, 40, soon 50,000 denominations? “Denomination” does not appear in scripture, so is a false concept.

As to Joshua 10:12, I have no idea what you mean here.

The early Catholic Church was the only VISIBLE church that canonized the Scripture. Jesus Himself confirmed the validity of the Jews’ Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), and their Scripture do not include those Apocryphal books.

The “invisible” church is of satan. Christ founded a visible Church. Many of His quotes are taken directly from the deuterocanon. You disregard them because they might be a paraphrase? That can be dangerous. And Christ never quoted from some of the books that you accept. Please explain! The Jewish canon did not exist at that time! It was not "finalized until later, into the Christian era, and the Jewish canon was a response to Christianity. You’d better stick with the CC on this one.

I think it is providential that the RCC was the one known to have canonized the Scripture because now the RCC would not be able to say its teachings contradict the Bible because the Bible is erroneous. Now, anyone can see its error from the teachings of the book they claim to have canonized.

There is NO error. NONE. It is the demon of private interpretation that you see. Grasp this: there was no first canon for almost 400 years. So, did Christ’s church fail? If not, then why do you accept only part of it? You have declared the CC as faulty by your own authority. I follow the CC because, without it, all of Christianity would have long ago disappeared from the face of this earth. Without the CC, you would have no bible, and no Christianity. You would have a conglomeration of heresy, just as we see in Protestantism. It’s that simple. That you disagree is a matter of will and obedience only.

I am sorry, but SS, OSAS, SF and all of the other man-made doctrines trace back to Luther, no further. This shoould be a giant caution flag. They are a foundation of sand, since you and I can have diametrically opposed viewpoints from the exact same scripture. This is satan, not the Holy Spirit!

Truth is One. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. Authority makes the difference. If the CC interpreted anything wrong (how could it, since it existed before the NT, its members wrote the NT?). If she was in error, not lead by the Holy Spirit, there would have been more than one alleged error and the entire fabric would have been rent asunder. This has not happened, just as Christ promised it would not.

Thank you. I pray the same for you, brother. We both believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Our only difference is that you believe the RCC is the true church and so you follow what it teaches. I believe another church is the true Church and so I follow that Church. The reason I believe it is the true Church is because I have examined its teachings against the teachings in Scripture, like what the early Bereans did. I am hoping you would do the same and examine your beliefs as well.

God bless.

Scripture is an incomplete revelation. It says it is incomplete. There is not three years of teachings in the NT. Much is missing. Where its it?

I have examined the One True Church. I joined her. One Church for all time. Modern teachings I reject just as fervently as I embrace you as a brother in Christ.

 

[Erich]

The lesson is clear: The Scriptures are the ultimate authority in establishing the truth.

Even St. Paul, in 2 Thess 2:15, tells us: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

You are talking here under the assumption that the RCC is the true Church of God. You would have to prove that first. Anyone can lay claim to being the church that Jesus established but that doesn’t make one the true Church. It’s just a claim, nothing more.

From Proving Inspiration,

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as *merely a historical *book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

Jesus Himself confirmed the validity of the Jews’ Scripture (Luke 24:44-45), and their Scripture do not include those Apocryphal books.

The Jewish councils that rejected the deuterocanonicals (in 90-100 AD) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Meanwhile, the deuterocanonicals are referenced throughout the New Testament… see scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

I believe another church is the true Church and so I follow that Church. The reason I believe it is the true Church is because I have examined its teachings against the teachings in Scripture, like what the early Bereans did.

The Jews asked Jesus in Matt. 21:23, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” And so I ask you, are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities? (be sure to read By What Authority in its entirety before you answer!)

 

[Mailman]

It was NOT the NT, because it didn’t exist then.

Did I say NT? I said “Scripture.” Of course, there was no NT then. However, because the NT is also Scripture, the example set by the early Bereans shows us that we go the Bible [what is considered Scriptures now- OT and NT] to know if some teaching is true or not.

“The lesson is clear: The Scriptures are the ultimate authority in establishing the truth.”

NOT! The bible does not say this. I cannot get past that. The bible says it is incomplete. All who use it have an incomplete revelation. Scripture does not validate itself. The demon teaches that. It is useless without proper interpretation. This is where we depart.

Just what are you getting at? The Bible is incomplete and additional new truths are forthcoming, or the Bible is complete but it needs proper interpretation? The RCC’s stand [as a result of the Montanism] is that revelation ceased with the NT * but the church [the bishops of the church] determines the meaning of what is revealed in Scripture. So, in effect, it teaches that the Bible is complete but needs only to be properly interpreted. The RCC also teaches a “progressive revelation” or a development of doctrine within the church.

Now, our beliefs are not that different. I also believe that all truths are contained in the Bible [OT and NT] and that no new truths will come out in addition to those already revealed in Scripture. As far as “progressive revelation” is concerned, it should not nullify previous revelation. Additional revelation augments or adds to previous revelation. It never contradicts it; otherwise God’s Holy Spirit leads into error. Any “Tradition” of the church, therefore, should be consistent with biblical teaching, never contrary to it.

What the RCC believes is that its canonization of the Bible completed the necessary requirements for its understanding and that now, truth is made known by church scholars, who in turn pass it on to the bishops. But the Bible tells us that God’s recorded Word came to us through holy men inspired by the Holy Spirit (II Pet. 1:21) and that it is by the inspiration of that same Spirit that we come to its understanding (John 16:13). Scholarship and research does not provide the key to Bible understanding. Revelation cannot be understood by means of “private interpretation” (II Pet. 1:20); for those whom God calls, it can only be understood by means of the Bible interpreting the Bible (Isa. 28:9-10). God provided a commissioned ministry, led by that same sprit, to teach the Truth of God to those called. Those called, who truly seek to do God’s will, will have no difficulty understanding the true doctrine (John 7:16-17).

The Scriptures (of the Old and New Testaments) are God’s revelation to man. These are messages of God communicated to man by intermediaries over the years and preserved in written form. These words of God were recorded, even recorded over again when destroyed by the king of Judah. What God selected for a permanent record contains that essential knowledge man needs in order to gain salvation. Jesus called the original Scriptures [the OT] the “Word of God” and testified to its infallibility (John 10:35). Jesus said it is the truth (John 17:17). Since the NT is also Scripture, we can say that the whole Bible [OT and NT] is the ultimate authority in establishing the truth. “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice” (II Tim. 3:16). If all Scripture is useful for teaching and Scripture is the truth, then all of Scripture is useful for teaching or establishing the truth. Any teaching not consistent with biblical teaching then is false (Matt. 12:29; Mark 12:24).

“Denomination” does not appear in scripture, so is a false concept.

Nor does “Roman Catholic Church,” and should be a false concept as well. Her many estranged daughters are what makes up these many “denominations” and is equally false because it sprouted from a false mother church.*

 

[Mailman]

The “invisible” church is of satan. Christ founded a visible Church. Many of His quotes are taken directly from the deuterocanon. You disregard them because they might be a paraphrase? That can be dangerous. And Christ never quoted from some of the books that you accept. Please explain! The Jewish canon did not exist at that time! It was not "finalized until later, into the Christian era, and the Jewish canon was a response to Christianity. You’d better stick with the CC on this one.

God used the Jews to preserve the OT (Rom. 3:1-2). By reading of the Jews’ Scriptures (Luke 4:16), Jesus in a way acknowledged that the Jews were able to preserve God’s written Word intact.

In Luke 24:44-45, Jesus confirmed that the Jewish Scripture [the OT, without the Apocrypha] is not only valid, but complete:

“These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:44-45). Here, Christ clearly shows the three major divisions of the OT – the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (referred to as Psalms).

“The Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges by saying: “The Jews at the time of Jesus Christ acknowledged as canonical, or included in their collection of sacred writings, all the so-called proto-canonical books of the O.T. Christ and the apostles endorsed this faith of the Jews, so that we have divine authority for their Scriptural character.”

The completeness of the Jewish Scriptures and its 3 divisions as stated by Christ is also confirmed by the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Jewish Bible of today is composed of three divisions, whose titles combined form the current Hebrew name for the complete Scriptures of Judaism: Hat-Torah, Nebiim, & wa-Kethubim, i.e., the Law, the prophets, and the writings.”

Truth is One. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. Authority makes the difference. If the CC interpreted anything wrong (how could it, since it existed before the NT, its members wrote the NT?). If she was in error, not lead by the Holy Spirit, there would have been more than one alleged error and the entire fabric would have been rent asunder. This has not happened, just as Christ promised it would not.

The CC existed before the NT and it wrote the NT? That’s another wild claim. And I did not say there is only one error. There are many. In fact, too many that the only way you can distinguish Catholicism from the other religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc., is its belief in Jesus as God and the existence of only one God. Everything else is nearly the same. Teaching love of neighbor is not exclusive to Catholicism, you know. All the other religions preach the same thing.

 

[Mailman]

“Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.”

Church historians are in general agreement concerning the absence of any historical record between about 90 and 150 A.D. Schaff, in his “History of the Christian Church” p. 196, writes:

“The remaining thirty years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is the period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most. This period is the favorite field for ecclesiastical fables and critical conjectures.”

The first writings, apart from the Scriptures, are those of the “Church Fathers” who were distinct from the original apostles and appeared on the scene about 150 A.D. These writings display a marked contrast from those of the original apostles. NT evidence of Gnostic, Jewish-Christian influence within the church is seen in the epistle to the Colossians, as well as in the pastoral epistles. The respected mainline Protestant scholar, Jesse Lyman Hurlbut in his “Story of the Christian Church” p. 41, says:

“For fifty years after St. Paul’s life a curtain hangs over the church, through which we strive to look; and when at last it rises, about 120 A.D. with the writings of the earliest church-fathers, we find a church in many aspects very different from that in the days of St. Peter and St. Paul.”

Was the church that appeared 50 years after the death of Paul, the true Church? I believe it was not. When we go to the Word of God for some sure history of the early church and what God has revealed about His Church, we can conclude that the RCC could not be the church that Jesus founded.

Nowhere in the Bible do we find God’s Church described as a large and influential body in the world. The RCC is a very large and influential church. It even used to crown kings and emperors. On the night Jesus was seized to be crucified, He quoted a prophecy for His Church: “It is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.” Later in Acts 8, we read of a great persecution which caused the Church to be scattered throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria.

Is it possible that the small body of believers remained scattered over the face of the earth ever since? Of course, it is possible. In fact, that is highly possible as the Word of God never said anything about the Church becoming big and influential in world affairs. Christ’s instruction to His Church, through the New Testament, was NOT to participate in this world’s politics and affairs. His command to His Church is, “COME OUT FROM AMONG THEM, AND BE YE SEPARATE” (II Cor. 6:17).

Soon after the Church came into being, there were already false teachers trying to supplant the truth. Even in the earliest of Paul’s epistles, he says “the mystery of iniquity doth already work” (II Thess. 2:7). Paul apparently wrote this about 50 or 51 A.D. The Roman world then was being filled with numerous mystery religions which stemmed from the old sun-worshipping mysteries.

In Acts 20:29-30, Paul delivered this final message to the local congregations: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things.” Why? “TO GAIN DISCIPLES AFTER THEM.” To gain a personal following for themselves! To start some new church! These “grievous wolves” must have been successful in forming their own “Christian” groups. What if one of these groups became what is now the RCC? Is that possible? Of course!

Now, not only Paul, but also Peter, warned the churches that MANY would be misled. There were already false teachers among Christians who would bring in heresies, “and MANY shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the WAY OF TRUTH shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. 2:2).

Jude also included in his letter the admonition that every Christian “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares…” (Jude 3, 4, 19).

The apostle Paul instructed Timothy to, “reprove, rebuke, exhort … For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts” – the congregations wanting to do what they please – “shall heap to themselves teachers” – ministers who will preach what they want to hear – “… and they shall TURN AWAY THEIR EARS FROM THE TRUTH, and shall be turned unto FABLES” (II Tim. 4:2-4).

This was in the days of the apostles. Many who fellowshipped in the local churches of the early Church were already being enticed by false teachers with mysticism and sun-worship that were engulfing the Roman Empire. The letters of Paul were twisted to give another meaning than intended (II Pet. 3:15-16). And these false teachers remained within the congregations and soon began to expel the true Christians.

In John’s letter to Gaius, we read: “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes… received us not… and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and CASTETH THEM OUT OF THE CHURCH” (3 Jo 9-10).

Here we see that the true Christians were being put out of the visible, organized congregations. They were the SCATTERED ones of whom John said: “Therefore the world knoweth us not” (John 3:1).

The visible, organized church in Rome that the world saw as Christian when the curtain was finally lifted in the middle of the second century could well have been a false church. And I believe it was because the RCC teaches a different doctrine from what is revealed in the Bible by the apostles and the prophets.

 

[Mailman]

Even St. Paul, in 2 Thess 2:15, tells us: “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”

Yes, but traditions should not clash with biblical revelation. The RCC’s “Traditions” contradict the clear teachings of the Bible.

It’s good that you agree with Sir Frederic Kenyon on the accuracy of the NT texts. Since the OT was confirmed by Christ [in the NT] to be valid as well, then the whole Bible must be accurate – that is, in all things. The caption says “The Bible as Historical Truth.” Yet, the RCC still doubts the historicity of the many personalities and events recorded in the OT. It could not even believe [yet] in the real existence of Adam and Eve. How could it be the true church when it has confirmed very little of what is clearly recorded in Scripture but teaches things not evident in Scripture [like the things about Mary, the observance of pagan holidays, the trinity, the praying to dead saints, etc.]?

The Jews asked Jesus in Matt. 21:23, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” And so I ask you, are you certain that the man who shepherds your soul is a legitimate leader? or are you following a self-appointed shepherd who is in rebellion against God’s appointed authorities? (be sure to read By What Authority in its entirety before you answer!)

The article is directed to those who believe that the RCC used to be the original church, like the Protestants. I do not believe so. I believe the RCC never had the authority from the very beginning because it was never the true Church, and so could not claim that authority now by way of succession.

But I could venture a guess on how Protestants would answer that question. They would say that Luther was given authority by what used to be the original church. When it apostatized, Luther and those with him who did not want to follow the error of the RCC gave the authority to those whom they appointed. That is possible because Christ also acknowledged the Jews’ synagogue to be the house of worship and the scribes and Pharisees to be sitting in “Moses’ seat.” Yet Christ said this of them: “And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men. For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men… Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:7-9).

I would like to comment on some of the things taken up by the author (I hope he speaks for the RCC as many different teachings come out from the Catholic community). Mr. Michael said – and I agree with him – that Jesus Christ received His authority from God the Father, a superior authority. But, how could God the Father be superior in authority to God the Son when, according to the Trinitarian dogma, the three “Persons” comprising the trinity are co-equal in power and authority?

Mr. Michael also said: “Note that God, in the act of fathering his first human son, breathes on the Man, at which point the Man receives his living spirit. Compare this to Jesus and the Apostles: “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’” (John 20:21-22).”

I would beg to disagree with Mr. Michael here. When God breathed into the first man, Adam, God gave him the breath of life, not His Holy Spirit. That breath gave Adam life – he became a living, walking creature. God’s Holy Spirit was not made available prior to the appearance of Christ in the flesh, except for a chosen few [the prophets and those called of God].

In closing, let me emphasize the importance of God’s Word. The Bible says of God’s Word: “… To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and TREMBLETH at my word” (Isa. 66:2). God’s words are of SUPREME AND FINAL AUTHORITY in faith and life. God’s words are going to JUDGE us. Jesus said: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:48).

 

[AMDGtoo]

“Roman Catholic Church,”

Gee, for someone who supposedly knows so much, one would think that you’d get it right. There is no Roman Catholic Church. It is “Catholic” or just “Church”. There is a Latin Rite, and there are Eastern Catholic Rites and all make up one Catholic Church under the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

BTW, I see that you claimed that Isaiah 28:9-10 says that the Bible interprets the Bible, and yet you admit that there was no Bible (OT and NT bound together) and, until you were “called” on it, you even when you claimed that the Bereans studied the Bible (knowing that the remark about them studying the Scriptures insinuates to all that the Bereans actually consulted the Bible).

If a man can’t be trusted to “get it right” in small matters, what guarantee is there that he can be trusted in larger ones?

 

[po18guy]

Yes, but traditions should not clash with biblical revelation. The RCC’s “Traditions” contradict the clear teachings of the Bible.

You have identified the problem associated with sola scriptura. What “clear teachings”? 30,000+ teachngs? Insanity!

 

[po18guy]

The article is directed to those who believe that the RCC used to be the original church, like the Protestants. I do not believe so. I believe the RCC never had the authority from the very beginning because it was never the true Church, and so could not claim that authority now by way of succession.

Well, you need not believe even in God! That does not change the truth one bit. If you choose to ignore both scripture and history, no one on earth can help you. However, you must be very satisfied with the church you have. It must fit you perfectly.

 

[Mailman]

Gee, for someone who supposedly knows so much, one would think that you’d get it right. There is no Roman Catholic Church. It is “Catholic” or just “Church”. There is a Latin Rite, and there are Eastern Catholic Rites and all make up one Catholic Church under the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

BTW, I see that you claimed that Isaiah 28:9-10 says that the Bible interprets the Bible, and yet you admit that there was no Bible (OT and NT bound together) and, until you were “called” on it, you even when you claimed that the Bereans studied the Bible (knowing that the remark about them studying the Scriptures insinuates to all that the Bereans actually consulted the Bible).

If a man can’t be trusted to “get it right” in small matters, what guarantee is there that he can be trusted in larger ones?

Well, you Catholics * are really a mixed-up lot. I’ve been on the other threads and those fiery Catholics I came across with ALL call their church the RCC-- and that’s how I came to use that name. I assumed that meant the “Roman Catholic Church.” But if it isn’t, I’m stumped.

You guys speak a hodgepodge of beliefs because I think your church can’t seem to make up its mind on what to believe. Like I said, even the clear teachings in the Bible, the CC [hope you like that] likes to be uncommitted and ambiguous. Using your logic --If a church can’t be trusted in small matters, what guarantee is there that it can be trusted in larger ones? The upside to that is it can’t be proven wrong because it can go either way but the downside is its members speak and teach different things.

I used to be Catholic too * and we always write “Roman Catholic Church” whenever we’re asked for our religion - and that’s what we’re taught in school, too.

On your other point, I’m sorry I can’t comment on that. I really don’t know what you’re talking about. It seems you’re hung up on my misusing the word Bible?**

 

[Mailman]

Well, you need not believe even in God! That does not change the truth one bit. If you choose to ignore both scripture and history, no one on earth can help you. However, you must be very satisfied with the church you have. It must fit you perfectly.

The Truth is in God’s Word, the Holy Bible. That’s where we can find the truth. I have addressed the evidence in Scripture. As far as man’s historical records, here’s something about uninspired history writing.

History is not mere recording of facts. It is essentially interpretative. G. Ernest Wright in “The Biblical Archaeologist Reader,” says: “The reconstruction of ancient history is an abstracting from the facts by means of hypothesis …” And what happens when the hypothesis is in error? The reconstruction of history will be in error as well. If some historian “thinks” the church that sprung up in Rome is apostolic, that assumption becomes fact when he writes its history.

Each historian interprets the facts in accordance with his own hypothesis. He ignores those facts that do not fit the hypothesis. “This is inevitable for any hypothesis,” admits George E. Mendenhall; for a hypothesis “is not intended as a presentation of eternal truth” (page 38 of “Biblical History in Transition,” “The Bible and the Ancient Near East”). Yet many of these hypotheses ARE passing for truth in history books.

It is usually assumed that history is solely a matter of collecting factual material, judiciously evaluating it, and recording it for posterity. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” was what C. W. Ceram wrote in “Secret of the Hittites,” p. 119.

A historian is not a scribe, but a JUDGE of the evidence that is brought before him. He is his own final authority. He is not judged by, but sits in judgment of, history. Whatever evidence does not conform to the commonly accepted beliefs of the age or community in which he lives he could easily reject.

History, in other words, is based only on that part of evidence which agrees with the prevailing opinions of the society in which a historian lives. Of course historians use facts – but how they use those facts, which facts they use, which facts they ignore or reject and the interpretation they place on the facts – that is the crux of the problem.

Again, from C. W. Seram: “The SELECTION of sources still rests upon the discretion of the individual historian. What he chooses as relevant depends upon his conception of the period he is studying. In this the historian is limited by his own temperament and guided by the spirit of his age.”

One cannot read any major historical subject such as the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, or Church History without discovering Catholic, Protestant or agnostic bias. No Biblical subject can be read in any encyclopedia without noting the author’s liberal, conservative or orthodox views.

The Catholic historians will write that the church at Rome is without doubt the off-shoot of the Church of the early apostles. But non-Catholic historians may not write the same thing.

Is the church at Rome the Church that Jesus founded? One can never be sure from the historical record. The only sure way to find out is to refer to the book that Jesus Himself said is the Word of God. The church that follows the teachings of that Book is the true Church.

 

[Burdock]

in the bible it says that joseph had no relations wirh mary until she had given birth wich suggests that they did have sexual relations, It also suggests that jesus had siblingss.

 

[Mailman]

in the bible it says that joseph had no relations wirh mary until she had given birth wich suggests that they did have sexual relations, It also suggests that jesus had siblingss.

You’re right. And can you imagine a couple living together for years under one roof without having sexual relations? Unless they were prohibited by God to have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus, they must have had sexual relations. The Bible says nothing of such prohibition.

 

[twb1621]

You all may want to consider these points. This is an excerpt but you can read more at the link provided;

Does the word “till (until)” in the following passage mean a cessation of Mary’s virginity after the birth of Christ?:
“And (Joseph) knew her not TILL she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus.” (Matthew 1:25)
If it is true that Mary’s virginity ceased after the birth of Christ, then using this same “flawed” logic, Christ’s reign will end at some point according to the following passage:
“For he must reign, TILL he hath put all enemies under his feet.” (1 Corinthians 15:25)
However, this cannot be true as the following passage contradicts that one when using this line of logic:
“And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever .” (Revelation 11:15)
So “till (until)” cannot mean that the state of Mary’s virginity stopped for if that were so Christ’s reign would also end.
According to history and the writings in the catacombs, the early Christians called Mary “the Virgin Mary” or “the Blessed Virgin” or “the Virgin.” Why would the early Christians continue to call her a “virgin” if she was no longer so? A person does not continue to state “my unmarried brother” after that brother has married.
In addition, Ezekiel 44:2 states that the “gate” in which the Lord passes is closed further for others. Does this not apply to the Blessed Virgin Mary’s womb through which Christ passed during His birth? All of the initial Protestant Reformers (Zwingli, Luther and Calvin) interpreted this passage to mean that Mary’s virginity continued after the birth of Christ.
“And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.” (Zechariah 12:10) Obviously, this is a prophetic reference to Jesus Christ (i.e., “piercing” as described in John 19:37). And it is definitely stated in this Scriptural passage that he is an “only son” yet He is also “firstborn.” The two do not contradict each other as certain “Bible” Christians claim. Firstborn means just that “the first to be born.” It does not preclude “the only to be born” also.
If Mary is the daughter of the Father (Luke 1:28), is the mother of Christ (Acts 1:14), then is she not the spiritual bride of the Holy Spirit as that is Who made her with child (Matthew 1:18 )? For Jesus certainly was “legitimate,” for Scripture states Jesus Christ was “made under the law” (Galatians 4:4). Yet St. Joseph and the Virgin Mary were not married when Christ was conceived (“made”) (Luke 1:27). Consequently, the Holy Spirit must be the “spiritual” husband of Mary, otherwise Christ would have been illegitimate. If the Holy Spirit is the “spiritual” husband of Mary, then would she not be “in essence” committing adultery if she and St. Joseph were to have sex? Therefore, both Mary and St. Joseph must have remained chaste during their marriage. For they had to raise and serve Jesus (God) as their son and it is better to remain chaste when one is to serve the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:32). Scripture states it is best to remain chaste (1 Corinthians 7:1) and to live as if one does not have a spouse (1 Corinthians 7:29). This is exactly what both the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph did. They were called by God while in “the state of virginity” and that is the state in which they remained (1 Corinthians 7:20).
“For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:2). How can Mary who was “espoused” to one husband (St. Joseph) also remain a “chaste virgin” (as she did according to Catholic teaching) if she actually had sex with St. Joseph as some non-Catholic Christians teach?

catscans.com/catholicsite/mary.htm

 

[Burdock]

The bible clearly ststes that joseph did not have marital relations until mary had given birth. This is clear and cannot be misinterprated.

 

[AMDGtoo]

in the bible it says that joseph had no relations wirh mary until she had given birth wich suggests that they did have sexual relations, It also suggests that jesus had siblingss.

The Bible (1 Corinthians 15:25) also says that “He must reign until all His enemies are put under his feet” According to your interpretation, I suppose that means that once that happens, God will no longer reign. And the Bible also tells us that David’s wife, Michael, will not have children until she dies. According to your interpretation, I guess that means that they were having a baby shower for Michael at Michal’s own funeral! Actually the Greek word heos (until) doesn’t mean that after a certain point in time, a different action occurred.

And the Bible does not ever say that Jesus had siblings. The supposed people called brothers and sisters are actually the sons and daughter of Alpheus (also known as Cleophus) and his wife. (Really, I thought you guys read your Bibles.)

And as for Mary and Joseph living together under one roof while not being intimate, yes, it is indeed possible, especially since Joseph is a righteous man.

 

[Burdock]

Here we go again unfriendly comments such as i thought you guys read your bibles there is no need for this. matthew chapter1 verse 25 ststes that joseph had no union with mary until she had given birth to jesus.As for siblings it is hinted at that jesus probably had brothers or sisters.