Did Mary & Joseph have children?

[jochoa]

So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).

My friend, you present a very interesting challenge! One of which I am curious to understand your intention. Please consider the following question:
Would you please tell me your intention in posting your belief that Catholic Teachings ‘can’ be wrong?
It seems as though you are trying to prove Catholic Teachings as fallible. Given this intention, please consider the following concept:
The most easy book to prove as seemingly false is the Holy Bible. Simply ask yourself the following questions: If the Holy Bible knows:
-Love is patient and Love is kind
-God is Love
Then how was Jesus acting patiently and kindly when he was overturning tables in the temple? How was God acting patiently and kindly when he ordered the killing of people?
If your goal is to prove Catholic Teachings as wrong, why are you trying so hard?
The greater reward in life: the knowledge of God, the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, Heaven, the purpose of life, His Church; is found by proving Catholic Teachings as right! Please recognize that Catholic can mean All-Encompassing and Universal, therefore start trying to prove everything you hear as valid in some sense.

Regarding your questions:
These are very difficult questions for me to answer because the answer is no and yes. To help me share more understandable answers, please consider the following questions:
How do you define brother?
Why do you not consider John as one of Jesus’ brothers? Revelation 1:9
Does Heaven (where the physical resurrected body of Jesus is) physically exist?
Is being a spiritual brother of Jesus, the same as being a physical brother of Jesus?
Is God, the Father, only the spiritual father of all of us, or is He also the physical father of all of us?
How do you believe the Holy Spirit is different from the Son?
How many husbands do you believe Mary had? How many wives do you believe Joseph had?

 

[Erich]

‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’

Your problem is, you have yet to prove any of your claims with Scripture.

 

[JustaServant]

Once a Catholic always a Catholic. It does not matter what you think or feel or do or if you turn your back on the Church.
There is no such thing as a former Catholic. There are only two types of Catholic.Those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.

You know what’s frightening?
That was me at 33 (his age in his bio).
I was like the teen-ager who knoooooows everything.
All because some huckster preacher who got a “degree” from a “Bible College” told him so. Now he’s ON FIRE!!
Hopefully he’ll grow wiser with age, calm down, read Church history, the Bible properly interpreted through 2000 years of history, not what some big-haired dude on TV with the zillion dollar suit says it means.
Right now he’s like a reckless puppy dog playing in the street.
Don’t worry, BARN, we’ll remember you in our Rosaries.
You’ll return to the Church someday.
And when you do, you’ll thank God we did.
I know I did.

 

[adrift]

So, using the Word of the Lord (the Bible), which cannot be wrong, & comparing it to church tradition (which ‘can’ be wrong), the most correct understanding of Jesus’ ‘brothers & sisters’ in Matthew 13:54-57 is that they were his LITERAL half-brothers & sisters. Therefore, Joseph kept Mary a virgin UNTIL she gave birth to Jesus (Matthew 1:24-25), & then had at least 6 children together (4 sons & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ daughters).

Until by definition only means a period of time before something happens. It does not mean that a change happens after. I hope you weren’t trying to say that because it says until that it meant that they had relations after because that is not what scripture says.

 

[adrift]

Your problem is, you have yet to prove any of your claims with Scripture.

So true.

 

[Erich]

purgatory, which doesn’t even exist (1 Corinthians 15 does NOT teach purgatory, BTW).

Romans 3:23 tells us that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and Revelation 21:27 tells us that nothing unclean will enter [Heaven]. So even though we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins. There has to be some way to get from ‘all have sinned’ to the state of cleanliness required for Heaven.

In 2 Tim 1:16-18, we see that Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day” [referring to Judgement Day]. Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. So where is Onesiphorus? He has to be in purgatory. While the word “purgatory” may not be in scripture, that does not disprove its existence, or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words “Trinity” and “Incarnation” aren’t there either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it.

The Bible does not speak only of heaven and hell. It also speaks plainly of a third condition, commonly called the limbo of the Fathers, where the just who had died before the redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them. After his death and before his resurrection, Christ visited those experiencing the limbo of the Fathers and preached to them the good news that heaven would now be opened to them (1 Pet. 3:19). These people thus were not in heaven, but neither were they experiencing the torments of hell.

Some have speculated that the limbo of the Fathers is the same as purgatory. This may or may not be the case. However, even if the limbo of the Fathers is not purgatory, its existence shows that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture. Look at it this way. If the limbo of the Fathers was purgatory, then this one verse directly teaches the existence of purgatory. If the limbo of the Fathers was a different temporary state, then the Bible at least says such a state can exist. It proves there can be more than just heaven and hell.

 

[Erich]

quote=BornAgainRN;9374671]Please read my original post with the Bible passages provided, make a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, & you’ll see that Scripture supports that Mary & Joseph had children after the birth of Jesus. Try it!

Despite being shown – from Scripture – that there are no brothers of Jesus who are sons of Mary and Joseph, you persist in your unbelief. Consider the following, from another thread:

Tantum_ergo:

Also, consider that Jesus is the Son of God. He is the legitimate Son of God.

Did God stop being the Father of Jesus? No. Since God is the legitimate father and Mary the legitimate mother, the only way for Mary to take ‘another’ husband without commiting adultery would be if God wasn’t really the legitimate Father or that He ‘divorced’ Mary.

OR, if Mary had REALLY been planning to marry and consummate the marriage with Joseph, what does that make God? It makes God the kind of God who like the Greek and Roman gods beds human women, has ‘half-human/half God’ offspring and then casts the woman aside as not ‘good’ enough for Olympus. It makes God into the kind of God who takes Mary to be the mother of HIS child and CUCKOLDING Joseph.

Is it FAIR of God to take a woman who was promised and intended to marry another man, impregnate her, and then say to Joseph, “OK, I’ve used her the way I want, NOW you can have her after me?” Is it fair to the relationship of a man and woman who planned to have ‘regular’ sexual relations to have the woman raising (as the man’s) the child of ANOTHER man and expect their lives to ‘go on as planned?’

Is it fair of God to play around with the love of a man and woman, which is what it would have been if Mary had planned to have a ‘sexual’ marriage with Joseph?

Is it fair to JESUS for God to use His mother as an ‘incubator’ and then leave Jesus as a huge reminder to Joseph, always feeling ‘apart’ from the ‘other kids’ who would be both Mary’s and Joseph’s? To put Joseph in the shoes of having to raise "the son of God’ and have that child (who was not Joseph’s ‘own’) always be considered as the oldest son, the heir, while the younger boys who ‘were’ Joseph’s ‘own’ would not have their true rights as the REAL ‘sons’ of Joseph?? How do you think those children would feel about their brother? Would they even really believe He was the son of God, and not some ‘lie’ foisted by Mary onto their father? How would they view their mother --as somebody who tried to lie and cheat and raise some ‘bastard’ above them and take their legal rights and status, take all the attention?

NOT exactly the kind of family you would think that God would want for any child, let alone that by your thinking God would have PLANNED to cuckold Joseph, rob Joseph’s ‘own’ children of their legal rights, and put them in the position of being party to what would have been lies (Jesus was NOT ‘the son of the carpenter’ or the ‘oldest child’, Mary would have been viewed as a slut, the children’s status even when the truth ‘came out’ would have been even WORSE than before). . .

Whereas by the grace of God and the testimony and the grace accorded by the Holy Spirit who LEADS US TO ALL TRUTH – the understanding of the truth --that God did NOT cuckold Joseph, that there were no ‘other children’ who would be robbed of their rights and would be made miserable–we have a situation where Joseph is shown to be a righteous, chaste, and WORTHY foster father to the ONE child for whom he freely takes on responsibility ‘on earth’. . .we have Mary’s love not divided between ‘God’ and ‘earthly’ but fully given to God and SUPPORTED by Joseph–we have Jesus not overshadowing and robbing his brothers and sisters or being unfairly elevated, but living with a father and mother who could devote themselves to GOD and His Son without anything coming between.

It’s so much more reasonable a picture–and it’s also the picture that has been presented through Christianity over the last 2000 years and endorsed by greater thinkers than any of us here –

in fact, the idea that Joseph and Mary were sexually ‘intimate’ was not even a concept which the first PROTESTANTS believed as is shown by the fact that Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is very much a ‘modern’ idea based on the hypersexualization of our culture along with the often unconscious desire to try to make Mary (and Joseph, and even Jesus) into more ‘human’ people, i.e., people ‘just like us’. . .and to dismiss as ‘absurd’ ideas such as perpetual virginity, continence, and giving ‘all’ to God instead of living a ‘normal’ life and giving Him anything ‘left over’ when and if it suits us too. . .

As I said earlier, the Bible is an excellent TOOL but it is not self-interpreting nor is it our AUTHORITY. There is a lot the Bible never tells us (what did Jesus do between the ages of 12 and 30, for example), and that’s because it doesn’t HAVE to. The Church has the authority to teach (and the Church’s teachings will not CONTRADICT Scripture and in fact the perpetual virginity does NOT contradict Scripture in any way). . .but it doesn’t HAVE to tell us WHY, WHEN, WHERE and HOW as if it were discussing a movie of the week about Mary’s perpetual virginity, complete with touching backstory and ‘guaranteed proof from eyewitness reports’. The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual Virgin, it’s in the catechism, it’s in the teachings spread back over the centuries because that’s the way the Holy Spirit wanted to have us taught.

Are you still going to try to “prove” that Mary and Joseph had other children besides Jesus?

 

[adrift]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

Which means. I can’t defent my positions so I will run away before facts get in my way

I don’t go on other sites because I have learned here that when you try to defend the faith with facts you are met with ristrictions and banned.

 

[maltmom]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

All forums have rules. I’ve visited other Christian forums and they too will ban anyone who doesn’t respect the rules.

I’m an ex-Baptist and recent convert to Catholicism. I would never go to a Baptist or any Protestant forum and try to argue with them. You may feel that you’ve proved some sort of point to yourself, but you haven’t to us.

God Bless

 

[Erich]

This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word.

It’s one thing for Steve to come here and ask why it is that Catholics believe X, it’s quite another thing for “Pope Steve” to come here and tell Catholics they’re wrong for believing X.

Just for grins, defend the Catholic position of something – anything – on CARM and let us know how long you’re allowed to stay

 

[po18guy]

I guess that old Catholic kitchen is pretty darned hot!

 

[snarflemike]

Could someone tell me the significance of this fact/non-fact? If Jesus had cousins or half-brothers, I guess I don’t see it as a problem. What am I’m missing?

It’s significant because God says it’s significant. He says it’s significant by revealing it to the Apostles and thus to the Church. So now we are left with trying to understand why it is significant.

 

[tabycat]

If you read my original post, Jesus compares His disciples (His ‘believing’ brothers & sisters & mother) on the INSIDE, to His mother, Mary, & His ‘unbelieving’ brothers on the OUTSIDE (Matthew 12:46-50; see also John 7:3-5 & Psalm 69:8, which is a Messianic prophecy of not only Who the Messiah would be, but also Who His mother would be, which states she would have CHILDREN -plural). Also, Matthew 13:54-57 names Jesus’ half-brothers as James, Joseph (named after Mary’s husband, Joseph), Simon, & Judas (Jude), & at least 2 ‘unnamed’ half-sisters. If you reread my original post & compare them ‘TO’ the Scripture verses provided, & write out a ‘family tree’ of Jesus, you’ll find who all the "James’, Joseph’s, & Mary’s actually are. Give it a try! Hope that answered your question. God bless you in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

Are you saying that in Matthew 12:46~50 that Jesus’s comparing of two woman (one believing,one unbelieving) that He had two mothers? Did He at this point, or did He not say that Mary was the birth mother of the ‘unbelieving brothers and sisters’? Does the Bible, anyplace, say James (Joseph, Simon, Jude) son of Mary? Only Jesus was ever named the Son of Mary.

 

[po18guy]

OK, Steve, if you are still reading, and to bible literalists and private interpreters, let’s actually read the bible:

Luke 1:30
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
30 And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God.

How can this be, since God is not a respecter of man? (Romans 2:11, Acts 10:34) What could an unknown teenager have done in her short and anonymous life, to find grace with God - the grace to bear His only Son? Unless she was created by God specifically for the singular purpose of giving flesh to the Son of Man, that is.

Luke 1:31
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
31 Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus.

'A Son" Singular.

Mary, betrothed to Joseph at the time of the annunciation listened to Gabriel explain just how great and world-changing this Son of hers was to be - the Son of God Himself! Just imagine. Yet, while being in the presence of an angel from heaven, and hearing this utterly amazing news, there was just one thing that she could not get her head around: “how shall this be done, because I know not man?” (Luke 1:34) Let’s ask ourselves here: why would a young woman who was about to be married be so shocked at hearing that she would bear a Son - especially since she knew that children were produced by knowledge of man? Hint: she was not planning to have a child.

What did Mary then declare to Gabriel? “Behold the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). The NASB(!) has it as “bond slave of the Lord” How much freedom does a bond slave have? We know from Elizabeth’s Spirit-driven words that Mary is “the mother of my Lord” (Luke 1:43). Mary has declared herself to be the bond slave of her own Son. She knows that she will conceive by the Holy Spirit and that the Child entrusted to her will be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).

How short-sighted and utterly earthly to think that this “woman” (John 2:4, John 19:26), created by God and chosen to bear His Son, would then violate her vow to be the servant of her own Son - the Son of God! Why would God allow her to conceive if He knew that she would later break that same vow? Illogical, and an example of thinking as man does and not as God does (Matthew 16:23).

Following are the verses in which the “children of Mary”, the “other children”, the “daughter(s) of Mary”, or “sons of Mary” are listed:

(insert sound of crickets chirping)

From an article regarding exorcisms, we know that the devil fears to attack Mary. What is the liar and father of lies to do? He dupes well-meaning, yet mislead Christians to do it for him. From the article regarding exorcisms:

“At the end, the priest says to the demon, “Go away! Disappear!” The demon usually answers, “No, I don´t want to.” It rebels and revolts. Sometimes it says “You have no power over me. You are nothing to me.” But after a while, its resistance weakens. This usually happens after the invocation of the Holy Mother, she´s very important for that. No demon ever dares to insult her during an exorcism. Never.”

Q: “Does he have more respect for Mary than for God himself?”

A: “Apparently. Otherwise no holds are barred, and everyone is insulted: the priests, everyone present, the bishops, the Pope, even Jesus Christ. But never the Virgin Mary. It´s an enigma.”

There is much more, but this should help establish a prima facia case for Mary’s perpetual virginity - that is, if you do not trust Martin Luther, Jean Calvin or Huldrych Zwingli. Since the founders of protestantism all held to Mary’s perpetual virginity, I must ask: what has the demon done to the movement in the past 495 years?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Those denominations are Protestant denominations, but Catholicism is still a denomination of Christianity. Remember, believers were first called Christians in the Bible - not Catholics. The term Catholic didn’t even appear until the early 2nd Century, after the Bible was completed. Prior to that, the ‘true’ Church was called Christians, which is what I am. Roman Catholicism is still just a denomination, just not a Protestant one obviously.

“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” St. Ignatius. Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107. St. Ignatius was mentored by St. John, who died about seven years before this was written. Ignatius probably learned the term from the Apostles. He also knew Sts. Peter and Paul.

What we know as the New Testament had been written but not identified when Ignatius described the Church as Catholic (universal). The name stuck. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33. To use the date most often cited by Protestant scholars, in A.D. 397, when the Church was 364 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the Books – the Bible.

The Church canonized only those writings which comported with her teachings. As we (but perhaps not you) know, the Church has taught the perpetual virginity of Mary since Christianity began. The other ancient Churches – the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox who were once part of the undivided Catholic Church – also teach it. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli taught it. Only some come-lately Protestant sects have taught differently. You’ve been misled by your new teachers.

Denominate - to give a name (Webster). The Catholic Church is the nomination (the named entity), from which all Protestant denominations ultimately broke away and gave themselves a different name.

BTW, all baptized Christians have been “born again.”

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[thistle]

“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” St. Ignatius. Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107. St. Ignatius was mentored by St. John, who died about seven years before this was written. Ignatius probably learned the term from the Apostles. He also knew Sts. Peter and Paul.

What we know as the New Testament had been written but not identified when Ignatius described the Church as Catholic (universal). The name stuck. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33. To use the date most often cited by Protestant scholars, in A.D. 397, when the Church was 364 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the Books – the Bible.

The Church canonized only those writings which comported with her teachings. As we (but perhaps not you) know, the Church has taught the perpetual virginity of Mary since Christianity began. The other ancient Churches – the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox who were once part of the undivided Catholic Church – also teach it. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli taught it. Only some come-lately Protestant sects have taught differently. You’ve been misled by your new teachers.

Denominate - to give a name (Webster). The Catholic Church is the nomination (the named entity), from which all Protestant denominations ultimately broke away and gave themselves a different name.

BTW, all baptized Christians have been "born again."

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

That’s correct. We can be born only twice. First time from our mother and the second time by baptism as a Christian. There is no third birth.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sorry, but the Bible is not the only source for accurate Christian information and it is not and never was intended to be a Math text, a Science text, a History text, a Medical text, or an all inclusive text to be used as some kind of ultimate authority as to everything that Christians believe and practice, and you cannot supply a single verse or passage that anywhere even hints to lay claim to such authority. I’ve read the Word of God many times over and continue to do so, and no such verse or passage exists, so your whole basis for your position is founded upon a belief that is, itself unscriptural.

The fact is that there are many places in the New Testament that plainly show that although Jesus had step siblings, He was indeed the first born and only child of Mary.

if you really want to see evidence of the Catholic position, I suggest that you take the time to carefully study the following Bible article on my blog. The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[BornAgainRN]

“Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” St. Ignatius. Bishop of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107. St. Ignatius was mentored by St. John, who died about seven years before this was written. Ignatius probably learned the term from the Apostles. He also knew Sts. Peter and Paul.

What we know as the New Testament had been written but not identified when Ignatius described the Church as Catholic (universal). The name stuck. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ in A.D. 33. To use the date most often cited by Protestant scholars, in A.D. 397, when the Church was 364 years old, she selected 27 of her own writings, canonized them, and named them the New Testament. At the same time, she canonized 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint that she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named tá Biblia – the Books – the Bible.

The Church canonized only those writings which comported with her teachings. As we (but perhaps not you) know, the Church has taught the perpetual virginity of Mary since Christianity began. The other ancient Churches – the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox who were once part of the undivided Catholic Church – also teach it. Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli taught it. Only some come-lately Protestant sects have taught differently. You’ve been misled by your new teachers.

Denominate - to give a name (Webster). The Catholic Church is the nomination (the named entity), from which all Protestant denominations ultimately broke away and gave themselves a different name.

BTW, all baptized Christians have been “born again.”

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Using quotes from early Catholic fathers to support Catholic faith is really ‘circular reasoning.’ It’s like saying ‘the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is true, because the Catholic church says they are.’ Not very objective. Also, if baptized Christians are ‘born-again,’ based on John 3:3,5, then that would mean that EVERYONE would have to be baptized, or they’d end up in Hell. (Replace the word ‘born’ with ‘baptize’ in John 3:5 & you’ll see what I mean). And as far as the ‘baptized by desire’ & ‘invincible ignorance’ argument goes, all that does is makes an exception clause to Jesus’ exception clause about how to get into Heaven. A person is ‘born again’ when they have believed in Jesus as the ‘true living water’ that cleanses them (refer to John 4) - NOT baptism.

 

[JustaServant]

Using quotes from early Catholic fathers to support Catholic faith is really ‘circular reasoning.’ It’s like saying ‘the Catholic interpretation of Scripture is true, because the Catholic church says they are.’ Not very objective. Also, if baptized Christians are ‘born-again,’ based on John 3:3,5, then that would mean that EVERYONE would have to be baptized, or they’d end up in Hell. (Replace the word ‘born’ with ‘baptize’ in John 3:5 & you’ll see what I mean). And as far as the ‘baptized by desire’ & ‘invincible ignorance’ argument goes, all that does is makes an exception clause to Jesus’ exception clause about how to get into Heaven. A person is ‘born again’ when they have believed in Jesus as the ‘true living water’ that cleanses them (refer to John 4) - NOT baptism.

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And I will **make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee **in their generations **for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; **Every man child among you shall be circumcised. **
11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made **to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

These are just a few. I don’t have time to post more verses. Now, unless you have been infected with the theology of dispensationalism, these are understood in the terms of a Covenant. Baptism is the New Testament circumcision of the New Covenant (Jer.31). Even if you ignore the word ‘household’, I can’t see how anyone can get past Colossians.

 

[JustaServant]

Then based on your first statement, then I’ll just remain quite, as I have come to learn what I have suspected. This is why I tend to stay on Christian forums, that don’t have these ‘particular’ restrictions, which if you think about it, says a mouthful for the confidence (or lack thereof) of forums like this, that challenging the views of the Catholic church are met with restrictions, or else banishment, even if those views are challenged by God’s Holy Word. Sounds like the threat of excommunication - ‘believe us or else, even if you can prove your claims with Scripture!’ That is one of the many reasons I left. Good day, & God bless in Jesus’ Name, Steve.

So the criteria you set in the OP is perfectly reasonable, but the criteria the forums sets isn’t?