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

[patrickconnell]

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.

To fully understand the nature of Mary’s perpetual virginity
one has to go to the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy.
One can check out

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/20/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-preamble/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/20/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-hermeneutics/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/20/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-sex-and-marriage-in-the-law-of-moses/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/20/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-celibacy-of-women-married-and-unmarried-in-the-law-of-moses/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/20/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-mary-as-the-new-ark/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/21/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-the-annunciation/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/22/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-other-parts-of-the-bible/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/22/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-why-mary-matters-behold-your-mother/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/22/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-historical-perspectives/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/22/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-historical-perspectives/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/28/the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary-the-assumption/

timeimmortal.net/2008/08/29/marys-assumption-assists-our-paschal-journey/

It is not hinted at that Jesus probably had brothers and sisters.
To understood what is meant by the term brothers or sisters one has go back and look at the translation of the gospel text from the original aramaic/ancient hebrew or greek in which it was written. In the aramaic/ancient hebrew there is no word that properly describes the blood relationship between cousins and this is why the word “brothers” is used. A proper translation from the original greek would use the word “brethren” which does not indicate that Jesus had brothers or sisters and it is customary to use the word “brethren” in the Bible for relationships other than blood brothers. In the Greek OT, a “brother” can be a nearly related cousin, a more remote kinsman, an uncle or a nephew or the relation between men bound by a covenant. See
1 Chron 23:21-22, Deut 23:7, 2 Kings 10:13-14, Gen 13:8, 2 Sam 1:26, 1 Sam 18:3. The NT continues using this tradition. See Rom 9:3. It also connects biologically unrelated Christians in the New Covenant Family of God. See Rom 8:29, 12:1, Col1:2,Heb 2:11, James 1:2 and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

The “brethren” of Jesus are never called the children of Mary, but Jesus is (Jn 2:1,19:25, Acts 1:14).

The “James” and “Joseph” mentioned in Mt 27:56 (Mk 15:40, 16:1) are the son’s of Mary the wife Clopas, who accompanied His mother Mary and Mary Magdalene at the foot of the Cross (Jn 19:25). And John should know, since he was at the foot of the Cross with her (Jn 19:26-27).

Also in ancient Israel a woman who was widowed or without a male relative to look after her was on of the lowest members of society. If one reads Lk 7:11-17, we see that Jesus raises from the dead the deceased son of a widow. This woman would suffer great hardship with no man to look after her. She would have to depend on the generosity of the community(Deut 26:12). Our Lord commands her son to arise, out of great compassion for the widow’s situation. With this reasoning in mind it does do not make sense for Jesus, from the Cross, to entrust the care of His Mother Mary to the apostle John if He had brothers (Jn 19:26-27).

I learned this from Ignatius Catholic Study Bible: The Gospels of Matthew and Luke and the Navarre Bible on the Gospels of John and Mark. And if you’re still not convinced I suggest praying to the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ for guidance. I hope this helps.

 

[twb1621]

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

you did.

 

[twb1621]

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.

If I write that Bob was cool in the way he handled his agressor and the note is found 1500 years from no, how do you think this is meant.? Would the use of the word cool be interpreted the way I intended it?

you are not seeing the use of the word for that time period.

 

[twb1621]

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.

please tell me what is it that you find so wrong with Mary and perpetual virginity? Do you believe she could not have that kind of devotion to God or that Joseph after being approached by the Angel would not have such honor for Her or love of God to respect her in this way? I am sincerely asking. How devoted would you be if an angel confronted you and told you this was true? as much as perhaps Mary and Joseph felt after it happened to them? Think about it.

 

[fellowChristian]

Marian Prophecies

**Ezekiel 44:2 **

2The LORD said to me, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the LORD God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut.

Isaiah 7:14
14"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Scripture Catholic
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-IV

 

[Burdock]

i didnt misinterpret the bible about sexual relations between mary and joseph it says clearly that joseph had no sexual relations with mary until she had given birth to jesus. As for siblings i take your point on that.

 

[patrickconnell]

i didnt misinterpret the bible about sexual relations between mary and joseph it says clearly that joseph had no sexual relations with mary until she had given birth to jesus. As for siblings i take your point on that.

Go read the links I put up and keep praying. I am aware of what it says in Matthew, but you have keep what Mary says in Luke’s gospel in mind and then read what the OT says regarding a woman’s vows for living and take this into account also.

 

[Mailman]

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?:
"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)

The word “reign” here is used in the context of Jesus ruling the world “with a rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15) that is, with the use of divine supernatural force to put down rebellion [His enemies are those who rebel against His laws]. This will happen at Christ’s second coming. There will come a time when men will no longer rebel against His laws and “until” that time comes, Jesus will use force to put any rebellion down.

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.

The catacomb being a burial place for true Christians is highly questionable. Remember, even during the time of the apostles there were already false teachers trying to form their own “Christian” groups. Only some 20 years after the church began, Paul warned the Thessalonians: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” The people who came to be known as “Christians,” especially in pagan Rome, may have mixed their beliefs with that of paganism. You will notice that fresco paintings in the catacombs has motifs from Roman mythology like one showing Hercules killing a serpent, the serpent supposedly symbolizing Jesus.

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?

No, this does not apply to Mary.

“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)

Christ indeed is God’s only Son, or as the NT texts have it – “only begotten Son.” But why is He also God’s firstborn – the first to be born among many? Do these two statements contradict?

Christ is God’s only begotten HUMAN son but— He is God’s firstborn among many SPIRIT sons.

It’s like this:

When we have God’s Spirit dwelling in us we become children of God: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Yet, at this time, we are in the gestation state – just like an unborn child in his mother’s womb who can already be called the child of his parents. And we are only heirs, not inheritors. “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ…” And then what happens? Continue: “… if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be [future – at resurrection] also GLORIFIED TOGETHER (verse 17). Yes, in the future – at the resurrection – we will be glorified. And how may we be glorified?

“For our conversation [citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body [flesh], that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY…” (Phil. 3:20-21). We will be glorified like how Jesus was glorified during His resurrection! We will become Spirit!

Notice how I John 3:2 explains this: “Beloved, now are we [meaning begotten, converted Christians] the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be…” We are later to be something different. As Jesus explained to Nicodemus [John 3:6], we shall be Spirit. “But,” this Scripture continues, “we know that, when he [Christ] shall appear [at His second coming] WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM…” We shall look like the glorified Christ – our bodies “fashioned like unto His glorious body” – not material flesh and blood, but Spirit.

That is why the apostle Paul says, “that he [Jesus] might be the FIRSTBORN among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Yes, literally FIRSTBORN, not just only Son. That’s what this Scripture says. And it is consistent with Zecariah 12:10.

“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing MANY SONS UNTO GLORY, to make the captain [be the first] of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE: for which cause he is not ashamed TO CALL THEM BRETHREN” (Heb. 2:10-11).

Yes, Christ will call them [that is, the true Christians] brethren because they will all become Sons of God, as He is.

 

[Mailman]

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?

Luke 1:28 does not say Mary is the daughter of the Father. Jesus “made under the law” means Jesus was “born subject to the law” as any Jew and does not refer to legitimacy of birth from a lawful husband-and-wife relationship. Mary’s conception from the Holy Spirit was only for that one special time for the birth of Jesus. If God wanted Mary to be a virgin all her life, wouldn’t God give an explicit command to her and Joseph, considering that the natural tendency for married couples is to have sexual relations?

By the way, if the Holy Spirit was the one who made her [Mary] with child, why is the father of the child [Jesus, God the Son] God the Father, and not God the Holy Spirit?

“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?

The text does not in any way refer to Mary, but to God’s Church.

 

[twb1621]

i didnt misinterpret the bible about sexual relations between mary and joseph it says clearly that joseph had no sexual relations with mary until she had given birth to jesus. As for siblings i take your point on that.

its the word “until” that is blocking your understanding and the information has been provided for you to better understand… the word does not represent a limit as used then.

 

[twb1621]

The word “reign” here is used in the context of Jesus ruling the world “with a rod of iron” (Rev. 19:15) that is, with the use of divine supernatural force to put down rebellion [His enemies are those who rebel against His laws]. This will happen at Christ’s second coming. There will come a time when men will no longer rebel against His laws and “until” that time comes, Jesus will use force to put any rebellion down.

The catacomb being a burial place for true Christians is highly questionable. Remember, even during the time of the apostles there were already false teachers trying to form their own “Christian” groups. Only some 20 years after the church began, Paul warned the Thessalonians: “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” The people who came to be known as “Christians,” especially in pagan Rome, may have mixed their beliefs with that of paganism. You will notice that fresco paintings in the catacombs has motifs from Roman mythology like one showing Hercules killing a serpent, the serpent supposedly symbolizing Jesus.

No, this does not apply to Mary.

Christ indeed is God’s only Son, or as the NT texts have it – “only begotten Son.” But why is He also God’s firstborn – the first to be born among many? Do these two statements contradict?

Christ is God’s only begotten HUMAN son but— He is God’s firstborn among many SPIRIT sons.

It’s like this:

When we have God’s Spirit dwelling in us we become children of God: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” (Rom. 8:14). Yet, at this time, we are in the gestation state – just like an unborn child in his mother’s womb who can already be called the child of his parents. And we are only heirs, not inheritors. “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ…” And then what happens? Continue: “… if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be [future – at resurrection] also GLORIFIED TOGETHER (verse 17). Yes, in the future – at the resurrection – we will be glorified. And how may we be glorified?

“For our conversation [citizenship] is in heaven; from whence also we look for the saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body [flesh], that it may be fashioned LIKE UNTO HIS GLORIOUS BODY…” (Phil. 3:20-21). We will be glorified like how Jesus was glorified during His resurrection! We will become Spirit!

Notice how I John 3:2 explains this: “Beloved, now are we [meaning begotten, converted Christians] the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be…” We are later to be something different. As Jesus explained to Nicodemus [John 3:6], we shall be Spirit. “But,” this Scripture continues, “we know that, when he [Christ] shall appear [at His second coming] WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM…” We shall look like the glorified Christ – our bodies “fashioned like unto His glorious body” – not material flesh and blood, but Spirit.

That is why the apostle Paul says, “that he [Jesus] might be the FIRSTBORN among many brethren” (Rom. 8:29). Yes, literally FIRSTBORN, not just only Son. That’s what this Scripture says. And it is consistent with Zecariah 12:10.

“For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing MANY SONS UNTO GLORY, to make the captain [be the first] of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified ARE ALL OF ONE: for which cause he is not ashamed TO CALL THEM BRETHREN” (Heb. 2:10-11).

Yes, Christ will call them [that is, the true Christians] brethren because they will all become Sons of God, as He is.

So you think that all these verses are references to back up the position that she did not maintain her virginity? So you then believe that Jesus reign ends here in the world and doesn’t continue in heaven?
Let me ask you this… how is it that you can base your faith on the foundation of interpretation laid out for centuries of about 2000 years, derived from the first Biblical interpretations but throw out any consideration toward the possibility of Mary’s virginity of all things? Do you think a human being can not live a life of chastity in devotion to God? Or do you think a man cannot honor the woman who he knows is the mother of the divine Savior? A little common logic is called in to play here. I can tell you that if a messenger of God came to me and said I was to accept my wife as the soon to be mother of my Savior, I would not only do that, but I would honor her as someone not to be defiled by me or any other human being as the spouse of the holy Spirit. Would you?
You can debate these issues with the Father’s of the church and Thomas Aquinas and the rest but as long as you accept the basic interpretations of the Bible from whence they came, you can not legitimately refute Mary or Joseph being unable to worship God with such a devotion and it is peculiar to refuse any possibility of such. it is strange to me that out of all the issues, her virginity gets called into play like we are nothing but reproductive brainless animals.

 

[twb1621]

Matt. 1:25 - this verse says Joseph knew her “not until (“heos”, in Greek)” she bore a son. Some Protestants argue that this proves Joseph had relations with Mary after she bore a son. This is an erroneous reading of the text because “not until” does not mean “did not…until after.” “Heos” references the past, never the future. Instead, “not until” she bore a son means “not up to the point that” she bore a son. This confirms that Mary was a virgin when she bore Jesus. Here are other texts that prove “not until” means “not up to the point that”:

Matt. 28:29 - I am with you “until the end of the world.” This does not mean Jesus is not with us after the end of the world.

Luke 1:80 - John was in the desert “up to the point of his manifestation to Israel.” Not John “was in the desert until after” his manifestation.

Luke 2:37 - Anna was a widow “up to the point that” she was eighty-four years old. She was not a widow after eighty-four years old.

Luke 20:43 - Jesus says, “take your seat at my hand until I have made your enemies your footstool.” Jesus is not going to require the apostles to sit at His left hand after their enemies are their footstool.

1 Tim. 4:13 - “up to the point that I come,” attend to teaching and preaching. It does not mean do nothing “until after” I come.

Gen. 8:7 - the raven flew back and forth “up to the point that” [until] the waters dried from the earth. The raven did not start flying after the waters dried.

Gen. 28:15 - the Lord won’t leave Jacob “up to the point that” he does His promise. This does not mean the Lord will leave Jacob afterward.

Deut. 34:6 - but “up to the point of today” no one knows Moses’ burial place. This does not mean that “they did not know place until today.”

2 Sam. 6:23 - Saul’s daughter Micah was childless “up to the point” [until] her death. She was not with child after her death.

1 Macc. 5:54 - not one was slain “up to the point that” they returned in peace. They were not slain after they returned in peace.

Exodus 13:2,12 - Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “first-born” son of Mary. But “first-born” is a common Jewish expression meaning the first child to open the womb. It has nothing to do the mother having future children.

Exodus 34:20 - under the Mosaic law, the “first-born” son had to be sanctified. “First-born” status does not require a “second” born.

Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus.

Mark 6:3 - Jesus was always referred to as “the” son of Mary, not “a” son of Mary. Also “brothers” could have theoretically been Joseph’s children from a former marriage that was dissolved by death. However, it is most likely, perhaps most certainly, that Joseph was a virgin, just as were Jesus and Mary. As such, they embodied the true Holy Family, fully consecrated to God.

Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you “will” conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, “How shall this be?” Mary’s response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 2:41-51 - in searching for Jesus and finding Him in the temple, there is never any mention of other siblings.

John 7:3-4; Mark 3:21 - we see that younger “brothers” were advising Jesus. But this would have been extremely disrespectful for devout Jews if these were Jesus’ biological brothers.

John 19:26-27 - it would have been unthinkable for Jesus to commit the care of his mother to a friend if he had brothers.

John 19:25 - the following verses prove that James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins and not his brothers: Mary the wife of Clopas is the sister of the Virgin Mary.

continued next post

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post…

Matt. 27:61, 28:1 - Matthew even refers to Mary the wife of Clopas as “the other Mary.”

Matt. 27:56; Mark 15:47 - Mary the wife of Clopas is the mother of James and Joseph.

Mark 6:3 - James and Joseph are called the “brothers” of Jesus. So James and Joseph are Jesus’ cousins.

Matt. 10:3 - James is also called the son of “Alpheus.” This does not disprove that James is the son of Clopas. The name Alpheus may be Aramaic for Clopas, or James took a Greek name like Saul (Paul), or Mary remarried a man named Alpheus.

Luke 1:36 - Elizabeth is Mary’s kinswoman. Some Bibles translate kinswoman as “cousin,” but this is an improper translation because in Hebrew and Aramaic, there is no word for “cousin.”

Luke 22:32 - Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his “brethren.” In this case, we clearly see Jesus using “brethren” to refer to the other apostles, not his biological brothers.

Acts 1:12-15 - the gathering of Jesus’ “brothers” amounts to about 120. That is a lot of “brothers.” Brother means kinsmen in Hebrew.

Acts 7:26; 11:1; 13:15,38; 15:3,23,32; 28:17,21 - these are some of many other examples where “brethren” does not mean blood relations.

Rom. 9:3 - Paul uses “brethren” and “kinsmen” interchangeably. “Brothers” of Jesus does not prove Mary had other children.

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

Gen. 29:15 - Laban calls Jacob is “brother” even though Jacob is his nephew. Again, this proves that brother means kinsmen or cousin.

Deut. 23:7; 1 Chron. 15:5-18; Jer. 34:9; Neh. 5:7 -“brethren” means kinsmen. Hebrew and Aramaic have no word for “cousin.”

2 Sam. 1:26; 1 Kings 9:13, 20:32 - here we see that “brethren” can even be one who is unrelated (no bloodline), such as a friend.

2 Kings 10:13-14 - King Ahaziah’s 42 “brethren” were really his kinsmen.

1 Chron. 23:21-22 - Eleazar’s daughters married their “brethren” who were really their cousins.

Neh. 4:14; 5:1,5,8,10,14 - these are more examples of “brothers” meaning “cousins” or “kinsmen.”

Tobit 5:11 - Tobit asks Azarias to identify himself and his people, but still calls him “brother.”

Amos 1: 9 - brotherhood can also mean an ally (where there is no bloodline).

 

[Erich]

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.]?

Hmm, so you’re saying the Catholic Church is wrong to teach the Trinity?

I would agree that “praying to dead saints” is not scriptural… but of course the saints in heaven aren’t really dead… and Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans) don’t pray to the saints in heaven so much as ask them to pray for us… so you’re comparing apples and oranges. Scripture clearly indicates that those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

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.

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matt. 16:19. One verse earlier, He declared that Peter is the rock on which He will build His church. One of the first things Peter did on the first Pentecost, as recounted in Acts 1, was to name a successor to Judas, namely Matthias, who from that time forward was “counted with the eleven apostles.”

And, as this article on Apostolic Succession points out,

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

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?

As The Eternal Sonship of Christ notes,

Without a Son there is no Father. … the Bible depicts the Son as having his identity as the Son before his incarnation. In 1 John 4:9 we read, that “the love of God was made manifest among us [in] that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.” Thus, the second person of the Trinity was already the Son when he was sent into the world.

The same truth is taught under a different analogy in John 1:1,14 where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly, a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both analogies, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.

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.

Adam received life from the breath of God precisely because the breath of God is the Holy Spirit. The Hebrew word behind spirit is ruach, and it means “air in motion.” It is the same word for “wind,” “breath,” “mind,” and “spirit.”

 

[Erich]

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.

Jesus Himself *is *the Word of God Incarnate. And where does He tell us to refer to a book? In Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to “the Church.” Notice the article “the” referring to a specific entity. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority. Not a book (or, more correctly, a collection of books… 27 of which hadn’t even been written yet).

 

[Mailman]

Jesus Himself *is *the Word of God Incarnate. And where does He tell us to refer to a book? In Matthew 18:17, Jesus said that if one brother offends another they were to take it to “the Church.” Notice the article “the” referring to a specific entity. Not “churches” but one visible, recognizable Church that can be expected to have a recognizable leadership with universal authority. Not a book (or, more correctly, a collection of books… 27 of which hadn’t even been written yet).

The Holy Bible is not just “a book.” It is God’s WRITTEN WORD! We need to show some respect to the Word of the Almighty God. He says: “To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and TREMBLETH AT MY WORD…Hear the word of the Lord, YE THAT TREMBLE AT HIS WORD” (Isa. 66:2, 5). I don’t think we tremble at His Word if we disrespectfully refer to His Word as just “a book.”

You ask where Jesus tells us to refer to His Word, the Holy Scriptures? On a question about the doctrine of the resurrection, Jesus told the Sadducees: “How wrong you are, and do you know why?” (Mark 12:24) Yes, why indeed were the Sadducees wrong about their idea of the resurrection? What was Jesus’ basis for saying their doctrine was wrong? Jesus continued: “IT IS BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW THE SCRIPTURES…”! Yes, Jesus clearly referred to the “Book” to establish the truth about the resurrection, a faith issue!

But what about Matthew 18:17? You will note that this does not involve questions about faith and salvation, or about religious beliefs and practices. Rather, this involves petty differences between individuals – when one person offends another. Rather than go to the civil authorities, the Christians are instructed to settle their differences within the Church.

There are many more instances in the Bible where Jesus [and His disciples] teaches us to refer to the “Book” He calls His Word. Here are but a few:

On the doctrine of divorce and remarriage, Jesus referred the Pharisees to the “Book” for the truth. He said: “Have ye not read [referring to His written Word in the book of Genesis], that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4). Not only did Jesus in this statement settle the issue in question by referring to the “Book,” He also confirmed the truthfulness of the creation story and the first human couple. Yes, Adam and Eve are real! The creation story is true! The real Christian cannot say, like the Catholic Church, that we cannot be sure of the historicity of the account in Genesis. If we believe in Jesus Christ, we can be sure!

And who is the head of God’s Church and the coming Kingdom of God? Jesus said: “Did ye never read in the scriptures [referring to His written Word in Psalms 18], The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner…” (Matt. 21:42). Jesus Christ is the head, not some human “pope”! Jesus again teaches a faith issue by referring to the “Book.”

When Satan tempted Jesus three times, He referred to the “Book” THREE times. The most revealing, yet most overlooked of the Scriptures Jesus referred to, was the first one He used to counter Satan’s temptation. Jesus said: “It is written [referring to His written Word in Deut. 8:3], man shall not live by bread alone, but BY EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4). Did you get the point? Jesus said we are to live BY EVERY WORD of the Bible! That is how important that “Book” is! If we are to live by every word written in the Bible, we ought first to read those every word so we would know what they are and thereby live by it, right? By making that statement, Jesus acknowledged the Bible to be the final authority in faith and life.

Now, what about the Church? Let’s consider two Scriptures. The first is this: “… the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Is that true? Is the Church the pillar and ground of the truth? Of course! So then, should we go to the Church to know the truth? Absolutely! Is the Church, then, more important than the Bible? Or, does the Church have more authority than the Bible and can it do as it pleases without regard for what is written in the Bible? NO!

Consider this second Scripture: “Now therefore you [the Church of God] are… built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone” (Eph. 2:19:20).

This Scripture explains WHY the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. And why is that? Because the Church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets – in other words, THE WHOLE BIBLE! And then, again, Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, not some human “pope.”

The Bible is the foundation of the Church that is why it has the truth. Without the Bible, there could be no truth in the Church. That’s how the two Scriptures come into perfect harmony. When you take the Bible away from the Church, or if the Church disregards the teachings in the Bible and “does its own thing,” it won’t have the truth anymore! Truth is based on God’s Word –“Thy word is truth” (John 17:17) - thus saith the Lord!

 

[Mailman]

Hmm, so you’re saying the Catholic Church is wrong to teach the Trinity?

Yes, I am.

I would agree that “praying to dead saints” is not scriptural… but of course the saints in heaven aren’t really dead… and Catholics (and the Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans) don’t pray to the saints in heaven so much as ask them to pray for us… so you’re comparing apples and oranges. Scripture clearly indicates that those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.

You and your church are terribly wrong about dead saints being in heaven. King David, “a man after God’s own heart” is not even in heaven. The Word of God says, “For David is not ascended into the heavens” (Acts 2:34). And so is Abraham, the father of the faithful, not in heaven: “Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead?” (John 8:53). Yes, Abraham is dead and not in heaven, “and the prophets are dead…” Now, you might ask me: “So no one has ever gone to heaven?” I’ll let Jesus answer that. He said: “And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13).

Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matt. 16:19. One verse earlier, He declared that Peter is the rock on which He will build His church. One of the first things Peter did on the first Pentecost, as recounted in Acts 1, was to name a successor to Judas, namely Matthias, who from that time forward was “counted with the eleven apostles.”

The “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 is Jesus Christ, not Peter. Even the Catholic Augustine acknowledged that. Speaking of the Israelites under Moses, in the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock [Greek word Petra, same word used in Matthew 16:18, meaning a large massive rock] was Christ” (I Cor. 10:4).

Addressing Peter, Jesus said: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone” (John 1:42). The English word “stone” is translated from the Greek word “petros,” meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word “Kephas” means such a stone. The “Rock” in Matthew is translated from the Greek word “Petra” meaning a large rock.

If Peter was the “Rock” upon which the Church was built upon, then we can say that Peter is the foundation of the Church. But the apostle Paul said, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 3:11). Peter clearly could not have been the “Rock.”

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

That doesn’t say anything about apostolic succession. It comes naturally to any teacher or preacher – even a pagan – to tell his pupil to teach others also. That instruction is nowhere near a proof to apostolic succession. Also, the “church fathers” are Catholics, so what do you expect them to say? The same with Protestants as they believe the RCC was originally the true church.

 

[AMDGtoo]

RCC

There you go again–insulting the millions of Eastern Catholics who like the Latin or Roman Rite Catholics belong to one Church (and making at least me recall Luke 15:10, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” The name is “Catholic Church” or just “Church” (as in Matthew 16:17 “But if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church or 1 Timothy 3:15 “the church” of the living God (is) the pillar and ground of the truth”.)

 

[Abbadon]

The Holy Bible is not just “a book.” It is God’s WRITTEN WORD! We need to show some respect to the Word of the Almighty God.

You don’t know that, you can’t possibly know that. The bible was written by men. You can assert that it is “gods” written word “inspired” by the holy spirit through men, or whatever. But so many holy books make that claim.

If we look at the bible it seems hardly appropriate for a book written by a god. It needs to be continually interpreted and is hardly ever straight forward. Full of analogies rather than fact. Has contradictions and immoralities that need apologizing for. Is contrary to historical evidence on multiple occasions.
AronRa;"http://darwinwasright.homestead.com/2ndFFoC.html":

Creationist Christians think that if the Bible is wrong, then God lied. They cannot accept that God could exist but the Bible be wrong because they can’t distinguish doctrine from deity. So it is a form of idolatry wherein the believers worship man-made compilations as though those books were God himself -because they think it is HIS word. But God never wrote or dictated any of the scriptures of any religion. Everything men chose to reject from or include in their supposedly “inalterable word” of whatever god was conceived, composed, compiled, translated, interpreted, edited, and often deliberately altered and enhanced by mere fallible men.

 

[Crumpy]

Perhaps the apologetic site on SC Borromeo (scborromeo.org/index2.htm ) can help you understand about the Dogma of Mary as Perpetual Virgin. It’s under “Point Papers”.

I went to the Borromeo link and I didn’t see my idea, so I’m jumping into the discussion at this point. Consider the prophecy:

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you this sign: the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.

Well, what is the “sign”? If the sign is that his name shall be Immanual, then I’m a bit lost because I don’t see the connection between “Immanual” and “Jesus.” But, every commentary says that this specific prophecy has been fulfilled.

So, I turn to the first part of the prophecy that says a “virgin” shall “conceive” and “bear” a son. Now, that would be a sign if Mary was still a virgin when she “bore” a son. That is, in fact, the position of the Catholic Church, that she was a virgin before, during, and after she bore the child Jesus.

So, scripture is telling us here that Mary WAS a virgin before, during, and after she bore Jesus.

Now maybe this is a bit subtle to consider, maybe not. But consider that this prophecy proves who Jesus was, because a virgin did conceive and bore him. So, Mary’s perpetual virginity POINTS TO the fact that Jesus is the AWAITED ONE.

I arrived at this conclusion after years of mulling over the perhaps sacriligious idea: So what if Mary WAS a VIRGIN? So what?

Well, again. Her perpetual virginity POINTS TO WHO Jesus was.

The remarkable thing is not her perpetual virginity, but WHO Jesus was (is).

There is nothing remarkable about a virgin becoming pregnant. Nothing remarkable about such a woman bearing the offspring of that pregnancy. Nothing especially remarkable about naming this boy Jesus ( Y’eshua or Joshua). None of this is a “sign” that anybody would “write home about.”

(If the argument “goes” that the text really is that a “young woman” will conceive and bear a son and his hame will be Jesus (Immanuel) then where is the “sign” from God in that? That boils the prophecy down to the idea that the Messiah would be the son of a young woman and he would be called Joshua – not very clear, not a great sign.)

But, throw the perpetual virginity of Mary into the mix and there you go! The prophecy is fulfilled.

You “can’t have” Jesus without the perpetual virginity of Mary, to put it another way.

In all this, I am relying on the translations of Isaiah, not being a student of Hebrew. Perhaps my explanation doesn’t hold water, but then that mean that the text has been incompetently translated and that the sense is not rendered as it should be.