Catholics must disregard Scripture to satisfy their doctrine.

[ralphinal]

SIA,
With all due respect, you have been on this board for a while. You have seen verses listed countering your assertions. I know that while you have not accepted our defenses, you are aware of them. Why start another thread like this?

 

[SIA]

Jesus said this is my Body in the following Chapter concerning the Real Presence.

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The wedding feast of Cana intercede in favor of the wedding couple when Mary told Jesus. They have no wine. That is all in scripture. You either blind to see this or just purely ignorant of Scripture.

Mary only had One Son. Even the Father said, “This in my only begotten Son.”

Jesus had no other siblings. That is Biblical and it is only the Protestant who believes that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Nobody asked for your rude intercession here. i simply stated that the Scriptures, more precisely Jesus tells us that the bread which comes from Heaven is his flesh. he obviously refers to it as bread and flesh do you not get that? And please show me how it can be Biblical for there to be no sibblings of Christ and for the Bible to name his brothers and at least proclaim that he had sisters. Typical Catholic argument. My response: you can’t have it both ways.

 

[Mannyfit75]

inJESUS;4004208:

uhhh what? So therefore we just assume that anything added to what Scripture says is automatically true?

Well, not everything in the Bible is found in Scripture. Paul quoted Jesus that is not found in Scripture.

In Acts 20:35, Paul said, “It is more blessed to give than to received.” He was quoting Jesus. Scripture has no record of this, but it is believed that Paul received this saying from the Apostles.

 

[SIA]

SIA,
With all due respect, you have been on this board for a while. You have seen verses listed countering your assertions. I know that while you have not accepted our defenses, you are aware of them. Why start another thread like this?

I specifically gave you the Scriptures to support my thread sir. Hello… Why don’t you attempt to counter my assertions or should I more correctly say, the Bible’s assertions. That’s the whole point of my thread.

 

[SIA]

SIA;4005861:

Well, not everything in the Bible is found in Scripture. Paul quoted Jesus that is not found in Scripture.

In Acts 20:35, Paul said, “It is more blessed to give than to received.” He was quoting Jesus. Scripture has no record of this, but it is believed that Paul received this saying from the Apostles.

You just quoted it from Scripture. Do you not accept Acts 20:35?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Nobody asked for your rude intercession here. i simply stated that the Scriptures, more precisely Jesus tells us that the bread which comes from Heaven is his flesh. he obviously refers to it as bread and flesh do you not get that? And please show me how it can be Biblical for there to be no sibblings of Christ and for the Bible to name his brothers and at least proclaim that he had sisters. Typical Catholic argument. My response: you can’t have it both ways.

Read Luke 1:41-52. Jesus is twelve when he went to the Temple with his parent. There are no mention of his so-called sibling at all. If indeed, Mary had other children.

When you read Scripture have to take into account what culture and times.

There are about ten instances in the NT where brothers and sisters of the Lord are mentioned. Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3-10, Acts, 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5.

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term brother (Greek, adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of full brother or half-brother. The same goes for sister (adelphe) and the plural form brother.

The Old Testament shows, that the word for brother had a wide range semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended.

Lot for example is called Abraham’s brother even though, he is the son of Haran, brother of Abraham. Similarly, Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban.

The point is there is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic word for that cousin. So the Greek writers used brother.

No body did but when YOU ATTACK the Catholic Church for having un-Biblical Doctrine,Catholics here have the right to defend it from heretical doctrines, like you claim. You preach something different from what the 1st Generation of Christians believed.

Go ahead, go rant your Anti-Catholic agenda in this Catholic Forum.

 

[SIA]

Read Luke 1:41-52. Jesus is twelve when he went to the Temple with his parent. There are no mention of his so-called sibling at all. If indeed, Mary had other children.

When you read Scripture have to take into account what culture and times.

There are about ten instances in the NT where brothers and sisters of the Lord are mentioned. Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3-10, Acts, 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5.

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term brother (Greek, adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of full brother or half-brother. The same goes for sister (adelphe) and the plural form brother.

The Old Testament shows, that the word for brother had a wide range semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended.

Lot for example is called Abraham’s brother even though, he is the son of Haran, brother of Abraham. Similarly, Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban.

The point is there is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic word for that cousin. So the Greek writers used brother.

No body did but when YOU ATTACK the Catholic Church for having un-Biblical Doctrine,Catholics here have the right to defend it from heretical doctrines, like you claim. You preach something different from what the 1st Generation of Christians believed.

Go ahead, go rant your Anti-Catholic agenda in this Catholic Forum.

Thats faulty logic and you know it Manny. The RCC should be ashamed of the way it tries to pass this logic off on all of its RCIA candidates. Both Hebrew and Greek languages have words to depict and differentiate between brothers, half sibblings and cousins. Scripture speaks of jesus’ sibblings on several occasions.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Read Luke 1:41-52. Jesus is twelve when he went to the Temple with his parent. There are no mention of his so-called sibling at all. If indeed, Mary had other children.

When you read Scripture have to take into account what culture and times.

There are about ten instances in the NT where brothers and sisters of the Lord are mentioned. Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3-10, Acts, 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5.

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term brother (Greek, adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of full brother or half-brother. The same goes for sister (adelphe) and the plural form brother.

The Old Testament shows, that the word for brother had a wide range semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended.

Lot for example is called Abraham’s brother even though, he is the son of Haran, brother of Abraham. Similarly, Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban.

The point is there is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic word for that cousin. So the Greek writers used brother.

No body did but when YOU ATTACK the Catholic Church for having un-Biblical Doctrine,Catholics here have the right to defend it from heretical doctrines, like you claim. You preach something different from what the 1st Generation of Christians believed.

Go ahead, go rant your Anti-Catholic agenda in this Catholic Forum.

Second in John 6:51-52, Jesus said. "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any one who eats this bread, he will live forever, and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

The Jews then dispute this claim, and they said to him. “How can this man (Jesus) give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus repeated his answer and insist on the literal, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Let me repeat what Jesus said again, For my FLESH IS FOOD INDEED AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD ABIDES IN ME, and I IN HIM.

The Jews refuse to believe in this doctrine, and 70 of his disciples left because Jesus told them that they have to EAT him. It is not symbolic

 

[SIA]

Mannyfit75;4005905:

Read Luke 1:41-52. Jesus is twelve when he went to the Temple with his parent. There are no mention of his so-called sibling at all. If indeed, Mary had other children.

When you read Scripture have to take into account what culture and times.

There are about ten instances in the NT where brothers and sisters of the Lord are mentioned. Matt 12:46, 13:55, Mark 3:31-34, Mark 6:3, Luke 8:19-20, John 2:12, John 7:3-10, Acts, 1:14, and 1 Corinthians 9:5.

When trying to understand these verses, note that the term brother (Greek, adelphos) has a wide meaning in the Bible. It is not restricted to the literal meaning of full brother or half-brother. The same goes for sister (adelphe) and the plural form brother.

The Old Testament shows, that the word for brother had a wide range semantic range of meaning and could refer to any male relative from whom you are not descended.

Lot for example is called Abraham’s brother even though, he is the son of Haran, brother of Abraham. Similarly, Jacob is called the brother of his uncle Laban.

The point is there is neither a Hebrew or Aramaic word for that cousin. So the Greek writers used brother.

No body did but when YOU ATTACK the Catholic Church for having un-Biblical Doctrine,Catholics here have the right to defend it from heretical doctrines, like you claim. You preach something different from what the 1st Generation of Christians believed.

Go ahead, go rant your Anti-Catholic agenda in this Catholic Forum.

Second in John 6:51-52, Jesus said. "I am the living bread which came down from Heaven, if any one who eats this bread, he will live forever, and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.

The Jews then dispute this claim, and they said to him. “How can this man (Jesus) give us his flesh to eat?”

Jesus repeated his answer and insist on the literal, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.”

Let me repeat what Jesus said again, For my FLESH IS FOOD INDEED AND MY BLOOD IS DRINK INDEED. HE WHO EATS MY FLESH AND DRINKS MY BLOOD ABIDES IN ME, and I IN HIM.

The Jews refuse to believe in this doctrine, and 70 of his disciples left because Jesus told them that they have to EAT him. It is not symbolic

Look Manny, you don’t seem to slow down enough to get it. I totally believe that we are required as Scripture says to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. You keep quoting Scripture to me and that’s perfectly fine. What I said is that Jesus ALSO said in Scripture that the bread which comes down from Heaven is his flesh. Catholics disregard this fact in the definition of transubstantiation. That’s what I said.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Thats faulty logic and you know it Manny. The RCC should be ashamed of the way it tries to pass this logic off on all of its RCIA candidates. Both Hebrew and Greek languages have words to depict and differentiate between brothers, half sibblings and cousins. Scripture speaks of jesus’ sibblings on several occasions.

They are his cousins.Consider this as an example, suppose there was a News footage of the World Youth Day with Pope Benedict XVI and he addresses that the 50,000 who take part as brother and sister.

2,000 yrs past from now and if some one read that. Someone would assumed that Pope Benedict XVI has 50,000 brothers and sisters.

 

[SIA]

They are his cousins.Consider this as an example, suppose there was a News footage of the World Youth Day with Pope Benedict XVI and he addresses that the 50,000 who take part as brother and sister.

2,000 yrs past from now and if some one read that. Someone would assumed that Pope Benedict XVI has 50,000 brothers and sisters.

Baloney.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Mannyfit75;4005927:

Look Manny, you don’t seem to slow down enough to get it. I totally believe that we are required as Scripture says to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. You keep quoting Scripture to me and that’s perfectly fine. What I said is that Jesus ALSO said in Scripture that the bread which comes down from Heaven is his flesh. Catholics disregard this fact in the definition of transubstantiation. That’s what I said.

Catholics do not deny that Jesus came down from heaven. Why that is foolish. In the Creed, we say that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and became man. Do you know what Bethelem means. It is a Hebrew Word for “House of Bread.” The Transubstantiation teaches that during the consecration, the priest through the workings of the Holy Spirit, can change it to Jesus and the wine is blood. The appearance remains the same, but the Presence of Jesus is there. This is real. This is what Christians believed in the beginnning.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Baloney.

You are Baloney

 

[Mannyfit75]

Real Presence:

The New Testament accounts describe the Holy Eucharist as Jesus gave it to us. The term “bread from heaven” becomes fully clear only when we reach the Revelation to John. The Gospels Christ said at Capernaum. Jn 6:51 “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”

Jewish life is rich in symbolism. The Seder table is filled with symbolic foods. Jesus said, Mt 26:23 “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with Me, will betray Me.” He referred to the urhatz, the first washing; slaves eat quickly without stopping to wash their hands, but now Jews wash their hands in a bowl of warm water as a symbol of their freedom. The moror, bitter herbs which remind Jews that the Egyptians made their ancestors’ lives bitter with hard labor, are dipped in charoset, a sweet mixture of chopped apples, nuts, and wine, to recall that even hard lives have their sweet moments. The matzo is the bread of haste that the Hebrews ate as they fled from Egypt. The karpas, green vegetables, represent the coming of Spring with its renewal of life, symbolizing the journey from slavery to the promised land; Jews dip them in salt water before eating to recall the tears shed along the way. If Jesus had said the Holy Eucharist was a symbol the Jews at Capernaum would instantly have accepted it.

The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.

Jesus knew we would need a lot of help to become accustomed to the Holy Eucharist. He performed the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes in the dim light of the original Passover sacrifice Ex 12:6 and of His Crucifixion. Mt 27:45 He performed the four great Eucharistic actions: He took the bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to His apostles to feed the people: Mt 14:15 “When it was evening, the disciples came to him and said, ‘This is a lonely place, and the day is now over; send the crowds away to go into the villages and buy food for themselves.’ Jesus said, ‘They need not go away; you give them something to eat.’ They said to him, ‘We have only five loaves here and two fish.’ And he said, ‘Bring them here to me.’ Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over.”

The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 “While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Acts of the Apostles

The apostles celebrated the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Acts 2:46 “Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes…”

The Apostles were visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer shawl with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). Long after Jesus ascended to the Father, Peter protested that he had never in his life eaten anything unkosher. Acts 10:14 When these Jewish Apostles remembered Christ’s command, Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me,” they added it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, and then went to their homes to celebrate the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. To this very day, the Introductory Rite and Liturgy of the Word come directly from Jewish synagogue worship. The Liturgy of the Eucharist comes directly from the Apostles’ breaking bread in their homes.

At Troas, Paul spoke all night, but he made sure to receive the Holy Eucharist. Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:11 “And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”

On the Adriatic Sea, at dawn, Paul celebrated Mass for 276 people. Acts 27:35 “…he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves.”

The Epistles

Acts 20:11 “When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…” St. Paul explained clearly what “breaking bread” meant. 1 Cor 10:16 “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?” St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.” St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the “bread … of the Lord” is truly Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the “cup of the Lord” is the same substance: “Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.”

St. Paul added, 1 Cor 11:29 “For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.

The Revelation to John

In the beginning God had said of marriage, Gen 2:24 “Therefore a man … cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus assured us, Jn 6:56 “He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.” God prepared us first through natural marriage and then through the Holy Eucharist for the supernatural marriage to come at the end of time, Rev 20:7 “For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride [the Church] has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed in … the righteous deeds of the saints.” The Holy Eucharist, through which Christ abides in us and we in Him, will be our wedding feast. Rev 19:9 “Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.”

 

[Mannyfit75]

Brothers and Sisters of the Lord explained:

MATTHEW 13:55-56, and MARK 6:3, both say, “Is not this the carpenter, the
Son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JO’SES (JOSEPH), and of JUDE and
SIMON? And are not His sisters here with us?” (Note! Only the ‘carpenter’
is called ‘THE Son of Mary’, not ‘A Son of Mary’)
Some people refer to these verses as ‘proof’, that Mary had other children.
See also: Mt 12:46, Mk 3:31, Lk 8:19, Jn 7:5,
Let us examine this more closely, using your bible…
The word: ‘Brethren’…appears over 530 times in the Bible.
‘Brother’…appears over 350 times.
‘Brothers’…appears only once, in Num 36:11.
‘Sister’…appears over 100 times.
‘Sisters’…appears over 15 times.
BRETHREN: This is a plural word for ‘brother’ as shown in dictionaries.
BROTHER: The Hebrew word ‘ACH’, is ordinarily translated ‘brother’. Since
Hebrew, and Aramaic in which the Gospel of Matthew was written, had
fewer words than our English, the Jews at that time, used it in a
broader sense to expresses kinship. The Hebrew terms for different
levels and degrees of relationship did not exist. ‘Brother’ meant
the sons of the same father, and all the male members of the same
clan or tribe. In Greek, in which the Gospel of Mark was written,
‘brother’ is Phratry, from the Greek Phrater, meaning a fellow member
of a clan. Even today, the word is used in a larger meaning, so that
friends, allies, fellow believers, and fellow citizens can be
included in the same brotherhood. It was no different in the time of
Christ. Four dictionaries I have checked list three or four classes
of meanings of the word ‘brother’. The first class concerns sons of
the same parents. The other two or three classes say, kinsman, fellow
man, a close friend, a pal, a member of a religious order, a fellow
member of a Christian Church, etc. How many times have you seen T.V.
Evangelists address their audiences as ‘Our brothers and sisters’?
Marian detracters accept the last three meanings to suit themselves,
but when it comes to Mary, the mother of GOD, they always refer to
the first meaning. Is this fair to her? How do you explain this?
See: Num 8:26, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26, 1King 9:13, 2Chron 29:34.
For Example…
If you will read Gen 29:15, “And Laban said to Jacob, because thou
art my brother…” At first you would think Jacob and Laban are blood
brothers. Now compare Gen 29:5, “…know ye Laban, the son of Nahor…”
Compare Gen 25:21-26, and you will see Jacob was the son of Isaac and
Rebekah. Laban was the son of Nahor. They were not blood brothers but
fellow citizens. Christ tells the Multitude and His disciples in
Mt 23:1-8, “AND ALL YE ARE BRETHREN.” In Mt 12:50 and Mk 3:35, Jesus
says, “For whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in
Heaven, the same is my ‘BROTHER’, and ‘SISTER’, and MOTHER.” That
verse says it all.
In 1Cor 15:6, Jesus appeared to five hundred ‘brothers’ at one time.
Could all of these be blood brothers? Hardly. Then there is Peter
speaking before one hundred and twenty brothers in Acts 1:15-16.
Paul speaks of one ‘called a brother’, in 1Cor 5:11. The Bible has
many more similar verses.
Now we have four ‘brothers’, JAMES, JO’SES, SIMON, and JUDE to account for
as written in Mk 6:3…
Mk 15:40, “There were also women looking on afar off: among whom were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of JAMES the less, and of JO’SES,
and Salome.” These people were at the crucifixion.
Jn 19:25, “Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother (Mary) and His
mothers sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.”
Mt 10:2-3, “…‘JAMES’ the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname
was Thaddeus.” Alphaeus is an alternate translation of
Cleophas (Clophas) and so he is the same person.
Acts 1:13, “…JAMES, the son of Alphaeus, and SIMON Zelo’tes, and
JUDE the brother of JAMES.”

From these four passages, we see we have another ‘Mary’, who was the wife of
Cleophas (Alphaeus), and the mother of three of Jesus’s ‘brethren’, JAMES
(the less), and JO’SES, and JUDE. This clearly shows that Mary, the mother
of Jesus, was not the mother of JAMES, JO’SES, and JUDE of Mk 6:3. To keep
Mk 6:3 in harmony, since three are not children of Mary, the mother of Jesus,
then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite Mk 3:18, also called the
‘Zealot’ (Zelo’tes), Mt 10:4, Lk 6:15, Acts 1:13. Jude, who authored the Epistle
of Jude, says he is the brother of James in Jude 1:1. Jude was also called
‘Thaddeus’ in Mt 10:3, and in Mk 3:18. This was to distinguish him from Judas
Iscariot. Lk 6:16 further distinguishes the two by saying, “And Judas (Jude)
the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.”

More on the topic of ‘Mary’s other children’, I have another point to make…

Jn 19:26-27, “When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple standing
by, whom He loved…” The disciple was John, the author of the
Gospel of John. “Then He said to the disciple, BEHOLD THY
MOTHER.” Was John a child of Mary and blood brother of Jesus?

Read the following verses to see…

Mk 1:19, “…He saw James, the son of Zebedee, and ‘JOHN’, his brother.”
Mk 3:17, “And James the son of Zebedee, and ‘JOHN’ the brother of James.”

In neither of these passages is it said that Jesus saw a blood brother or
even recognized them as men that He knew.

Mt 27:56, “Among which was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James
Mt 20:20, (the less) and Jo’ses, and the mother of Zebedee’s children.”
Mk 15:40, “…among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James (the less), and Salome (mother of Zebedee’s children).”
Lk 24:10, “It was Mary Magdalene…and Mary (‘the other Mary’) the mother
of James (the less)…”

A comparison of Mt 27:56, and Mk 15:40, clearly shows that Zebedee had a wife
whose name was Salome. She is called the ‘mother of Zebedee’s children’ in
Mt 27:56, and ‘Salome’ in Mk 15:40. They had two children, JOHN and JAMES,
Mk 3:17. JOHN at the foot of the cross to whom Jesus gave His mother, was not
a child of Mary, the mother of Jesus, but of Zebedee and Salome. If Jesus had
blood brothers, why then did He not give His mother to them? Jewish law would
have demanded it…
+
GENEALOGY:
—Zebedee-----------------------------------------------
+ >------begat------James and John----------------------
—Salome------------------------------------------------
+
—Cleophas-(Alphaeus)-----------------------------------
+ >------begat------James (the less), Jo’ses, and Jude–
—Mary—(the other Mary, Mt 27:56,61, 28:1, Jn 19:25)–
+
—THE HOLY SPIRIT---------------------------------------
+ >------begat------JESUS THE CHRIST--------------------
—Mary--------------------------------------------------
+
This ‘Genealogy’ shows who the real parents of the ‘brothers’ in Mark 6:3,
and Matthew 13:55, are, and makes the word ‘brother’ a non-argument.
Additional notes…
Mt 1:25, “And knew her not till…”. The old meaning of the word ‘till’ or
‘until’, meant an action did not occur up to a certain point. It does not
imply the action did occur later. Gen 8:7, “He sent forth a raven, which
went forth to and fro, ‘until’ the waters were dried up off the earth.”
2Sam 6:23, “…the daughter of Saul had no child ‘until’ the day of her
death.” Did she have a child after she died?
Lk 1:34, “Then said Mary unto the Angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not
a man?” This shows Mary had no relations with a man before and was virgin.
Lk 2:7, “And she brought forth her ‘firstborn’ Son and wrapped Him in
swaddling clothes…” Firstborn, at the time of the writing of the Gospels,
meant, ‘the child that opened the womb’. See Ex 13:2 and Num 3:12.
Firstborn does not imply that Mary had other children, as an ONLY son, IS
a ‘FIRSTBORN SON’. The author of this letter is one.

    NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THAT MARY, THE MOTHER OF JESUS,
    HAD OTHER CHILDREN. WHY THEN, DO SOME INSIST THAT SHE DID?

Bible References: Gen 8:7, Gen 25:21-26, Gen 29:5,15, Ex 13:2, Num 3:12,
Num 8:26, Deut 23:7, 1Sam 30:23, 2Sam 1:26,6:23, 1King 9:13,
2King 10:13-14, 2Chron 29:34, Mt 1:25, Mt 4:21, Mt 10:2-4, Mt 12:46,
Mt *12:50, Mt 13:55-56, Mt 20:20, Mt 26:26, Mt 27:56,61, Mt 28:1,
Mk 1:19, Mk 2:14, Mk 3:17-21,31,35, Mk 6:3, Mk 15:40,47, Lk 1:34, Lk 2:7
Lk 2:41-51, Lk 5:10, Lk 6:16, Lk 8:19, Lk 24:10, Jn 7:2-7, Jn 19:25-27,
Acts 1:13-16, Rom 8:29, 1Cor 5:11, 1Cor 9:5, 1Cor 15:6, Gal 1:19,
1Pet 5:12, Jude 1:1

I PLACE THIS FILE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. FEEL FREE TO COPY IT AND PASS IT ON,
SO LONG AS NOTHING IN IT IS CHANGED…

 

[Mannyfit75]

There are some very common objections to the belief that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus. The first considers the “brothers” of Jesus from the Gospels.

Mt 12:46-50; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19
While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers (adelphoi) appeared outside, wishing to speak with him. (Someone told him, “Your mother and your brothers (adelphoi) are standing outside, asking to speak with you.”) But he said in reply to the one who told him, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers (adelphoi)?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers (adelphoi). For whoever does the will of my heavenly Father is my brother (adelphos), and sister (adelpha), and mother.”
Mk 6:3
Is he not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and the brother (adelphos) of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? And are not his sisters (adelphai) here with us?
First it is important to note that the Bible does not say that these “brothers and sisters” of Jesus were children of Mary.

Second, the word for brother (or sister), adelphos (adelpha) in Greek, denotes a brother or sister, or near kinsman. Aramaic and other Semitic languages could not distinguish between a blood brother or sister and a cousin, for example. Hence, John the Baptist, a cousin of Jesus (the son of Elizabeth, cousin of Mary) would be called “a brother (adelphos) of Jesus.” In the plural, the word means a community based on identity of origin or life. Additionally, the word adelphos is used for (1) male children of the same parents (Mt 1:2); (2) male descendants of the same parents (Acts 7:23); (3) male children of the same mother (Gal 1:19); (4) people of the same nationality (Acts 3:17); (5) any man, a neighbor (Lk 10:29); (6) persons united by a common interest (Mt 5:47); (7) persons united by a common calling (Rev 22:9); (8) mankind (Mt 25:40); (9) the disciples (Mt 23:8); and (10) believers (Mt 23:8). (From Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Thomas Nelson, Publisher.)

A second objection to Mary’s virginity arises from the use of the word, heos, in Matthew’s gospel.

Mt 1:25
He (Joseph) had no relations with her until (heos) she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.
The Greek and the Semitic use of the word heos (until or before) does not imply anything about what happens after the time indicated. In this case, there is no necessary implication that Joseph and Mary had sexual contact or other children after Jesus.

A third objection to the perpetual virginity of Mary arises from the use of the word, prototokos, translated “first-born” in Luke’s gospel.

Lk 2:7
(Mary) gave birth to her firstborn son (prototokos). She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger …
The Greek word prototokos is used of Christ as born of Mary and of Christ’s relationship to His Father (Col 1:25). As the word does not imply other children of God the Father, neither does it imply other children of Mary. The term “first-born” was a legal term under the Mosaic Law (Ex 6:14) referring to the first male child born to Jewish parents regardless of any other children following or not. Hence when Jesus is called the “first-born” of Mary it does not mean that there were second or third-born children.

 

[po18guy]

OP, simply put, you have been blinded by the man-made tradition of sola scriptura. Nothing that anyone on earth can say will ever open your eyes. Only the Holy Spirit is capable of that. And, so I pray for you.

Christ’s peace.

 

[SIA]

SIA;4005940:

Catholics do not deny that Jesus came down from heaven. Why that is foolish. In the Creed, we say that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and became man. Do you know what Bethelem means. It is a Hebrew Word for “House of Bread.” The Transubstantiation teaches that during the consecration, the priest through the workings of the Holy Spirit, can change it to Jesus and the wine is blood. The appearance remains the same, but the Presence of Jesus is there. This is real. This is what Christians believed in the beginnning.

by your own doctrine, you disregard Jesus saying that the bread which comes from Heaven is his flesh. You just said it. Luther had it right. You people have it wrong. Nobody has the power to metaphisically change anything at will. Where does that come from in Scripture? Jesus becomes present, your priest doesn’t command him to appear, there is no hocus pocus.

 

[SIA]

You are Baloney

Please read the Scriptures you quote to me without your Catholic blinders on manny, maybe the Spirit will get through to you. i will pray for you brother. jesus loves you and so do I.