A
Catholics and Non-Catholics: Do you believe in the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mother?
- Status
D
dianaiad
Guest
The ‘pearls before swine’ remark originally was a caution, by Jesus, to avoid displaying your most sacred and precious things before people who mock, denigrate and disparage both you and your beliefs.
Perhaps you should read the threads and think a bit before you decide which role which side is taking in that parable.
C
campeador
Guest
You are so funny today!!!
E
elvisman
Guest
**First of all - when did I argue against the beliefs of the Orthodox Church? I never even brought them into the conversation.
Secondly - you’re taking the proof text that I gave to to PROVE that Jesus built the Church - not men - and derailing the point to debate who the Rock is that the Church is built upon.
That is not the pont I was making. Nice try, but no cigar.
HOWEVER - if you want to go there - let’s go there . . .
Jesus IS the Rock spoken of in Deuteronmy and Corinthians and Ephesians. I would defend that statement to the death. BUT - it is Jesus’ perogative to pass that onto whomever he wishes because he is GOD - even though you refuse to believe that and instead claim that he is the spirit brother of Lucifer.
What did Jesus tell the Apostles at the Last Supper in John 16:12-15? THIS is what he told them:
***"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. ***
**But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. ****He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. **
Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you."
You see - this is more proof that Jesus passed his authority onto his CHURCH.
When he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and declared him Kepha (the Rock) - he passed his Authority onto him.
NOWHERE in ALL of Scripture do we see him passing his authority onto Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, yet you believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Church fell into apostasy and these men brought it back.
**Your rejection of God’s word - and his Church - and ultimately of HIM - is why you cannot *possibly *understand why Mary was a virgin and remained a virgin. **
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
LUKE 1:35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called, the Son of God.
Mary conceives through GOD. Mary is touched by the Holy Spirit.
MATT 1:20 As he considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. “Joseph, son of David,” the angel said, "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife. For the child within her was conceived by the Holy Spirit.
Not sure what the point is here. But I agree with adrift. Whats the point?
D
Dokimas
Guest
If holding you accountable for what you say is derailing, I hope I’m guilty as often as needed.**Oh, Doki **-
You can always be counted on to derail the thread when you run out of things to say . . .
Your attitude and false presuppositions are tiring AND don’t further the cause of Jesus throught the CC.
Sure you have your fan club but those you are to show the character of Jesus you drive away.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Your claims are no more valid than Todd’s.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Agreed. Do you think Elvis will agree?
D
Dokimas
Guest
Good point. Thanks for the Scriptures
There are those who point finger yet do the same thing. Reminds me of the fact that when we point a finger at others we have 3 pointing back at us. Also reminds me of Paul’s warnings in Romans 2 and Romans 14.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Another arrogant comment that lacks charity.
While I have serious questions about Mormonism, I’d have to say that Diana and Tobb have interacted with far more class and kindness than several of you who are supposed to be a representative of the Christ of the One true church. IMO, you dishonor your church.
B
benedictus2
Guest
2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death.
Does this mean the Michal had children after her death?
1 Tim. 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching.
Therefore they must cease reading scripture, preaching and teaching after St Paul’s arrival?
And taken from this web page eastern-orthodoxy.com/Mary_files/Mary.htm
Something that fails to come straight from translations here is the usage of “έως ου” (= eos ooh). The words “έως ου” mean “never”. It doesn’t mean, in other words, that after Christ’s birth Joseph met her as his wife, but it means that he never did. The “έως ου” in the Holy Bible, is found many a time to mean “never”.
Code:
For example:
1) The Bible says regarding Noe's raven that it didn't return to the Ark "έως ου εξηράνθη τα ύδατα" (= *eos ooh* the waters had been dried up). But since it didn't return to the Ark before the waters had dried up, when it had nowhere to stand upon, what happened then; it returned when the waters had dried up?!
2.) The Bible says: "Said the Lord to my Lord; sit on my right έως αν θω τους εχθρούς σου υποπόδιον των ποδών σου" *i.e.* “*eos an*” I place your enemies under your feet. I ask therefore: after the submission of His enemies, will Christ cease to sit on the right hand of the Father?!
3.) Elsewhere again the Lord tells His apostles: "with you I am all the days έως της συντελείας του αιώνος" *i.e.* "until the end of the eon". OK, I ask again: isn't Christ going to be with His disciples after the end of the eon in Heaven?
4.) The OT also says regarding the barren woman, Melchol: "και τη Μελχώλ ... ουκ εγένετο παιδίον έως της ημέρας του αποθανείν αυτήν" ( = "she had no child until the day she died"). According to the Protestant interpretation,* i.e.* interpreting the word "*eos*" not as "never", we must deduce that Melchol must have born a child after her death, when she was in her grave!
In fact, the term "έως ου" is used in the same way even today in Modern Greek. For example the teacher tells the children: "Keep quiet 'έως ότου' *eos otou*] I return"; until I return "*otou*" being the modern Greek equivalent of "*ou*" here]. Does he mean that, after his return, the children must be noisy? On the contrary! The teacher is only interested that they keep quiet till he comes back. Afterwards, it follows that they must be quiet when he is present!
So clearly the Evangelist is interested to prove that Panagia [the All-Holy Virgin] was a Virgin until (*eos*) Christ's birth, Who was born supernaturally, from the Spirit the Holy, and He is not son of Joseph's but Son of God. Regarding the issues after the birth, these are of no interest in the semantics of this sentence. It was obvious that she stayed a Virgin, since she had been honoured to bear the All-Holy Word in the first place.
B
benedictus2
Guest
No Todd, sorry to puncture your bloated ignorance but the Catholic Church was born on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts.
If anything is man made it is the Church that came 1600 years later after the Christ established His church.
I would suggest reading history. It is painful to see this kind of ignorant post being repeated over and over again.
Now whatever church you are moving to is DEFINITELY man made.
B
benedictus2
Guest
And you are right on these verses.
**Unfortunately the verses we refer to are in Matthew Chapter 16 where God Himself (i.e. Jesus Christ) makes Peter the Rock. **
E
elvisman
Guest
Explain how.
Please enlighten me . . .
E
elvisman
Guest
Then PROVE that the Catholic Church started 300 years after the death and resurrections of Christ.
You’re very adept at scattered one-liners but when it comes to providing evidence - you are extremenly lacking.
E
elvisman
Guest
Your little hit-and-run on-liners aren’t holding anybody accountable for anything.
It’s simply about you attempting to get your little anti-Catholic jabs in here and there, rather unsuccessfully, I might add.
Here’s some advice: If you have something to add to the conversation/topic - then do it. If not - find another hobby . . .
B
benedictus2
Guest
I wait with bathed breath for the proof
T
Todd520
Guest
Please read my post again and lookout for the word ‘formal structure’ (big hint)
I’m also sure most historians agree that the first council was the pivotal point where the catholic church began to exhibit a universal nature and formal structure.
E
elvisman
Guest
THIS** is what you said:**
"Sorry to burst your bubble, but Jesus died and was resurrected maybe 300 years before the ‘catholic’ church started to take formal structure, before the first council. DEFINITELY MAN MADE."**
***You and ******Doki ***are very fond of tossing false claims out there yest neither of you can back them up.
***Debates are not just about opinions but evidence. If you ******don’t ***have the evidence to back up your claims, you shouldn’t make them in the first place.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Catholic tradition and doctrine holds that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ in the 1st century A.D. The New Testament records Jesus’s activities and teaching, his claims and personal death and resurrection, appointment of the twelve Apostles and his instructions to them to continue his work and teaching. The Church teaches that the coming of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, an event known as Pentecost, signaled the beginning of the public ministry of the Church.
Beginning in the 2nd century, bishops often congregated in regional synods to resolve doctrinal and policy issues. Doctrine was further refined by a series of influential theologians and teachers, known collectively as the Church Fathers. Ecumenical Councils came to be recognized as infallible and authoritative in resolving theological disputes. This leads us to the 3rd century. The Church was well established by then.
The elect didn’t decide to gather out of a passing thought during the 3rd century
So who are these so called historians whom agree?
- Status