Did Mother Mary have other children?

[Teneas]

You can’t have it both ways by saying one must be a formal member of the Catholic church to be saved

Was reading over this. Did someone actually say “formal member” of the Catholic Church?

 

[rev_kevin]

Using it as an illustration but I’ll be glad to discuss the above then instead.

I like mumbo jumbo.

If you don’t think its a good book unless you know its true, then so be it. That don’t mean everyone eles who is a non-believer thinks that way. How many people read a book or watch a movie and start to pattern themselves in the same way? Reading the Bible may have the same affect on them even if they don’t believe it to be inspired by God. You know as well as I that the Bible is a good book to pattern your life after. But you have to make more complicated then what it is by put in all this, I like the word, mumbo jumbo.

So you say that Peter started the Catholic Church correct. But the true church is Christ and his teachings which Peter didn’t start he started a religion. The CC is a religion which Christ didn’t start. So Peter started a religion that was later called Catholic.

 

[rev_kevin]

Was reading over this. Did someone actually say “formal member” of the Catholic Church?

Yep, Randy Carson, look at post 396 last line of his quote.

 

[Justy90]

CS Lewis made the case that Jesus was either a lunatic, a liar or Lord.

 

[TEPO]

I don’t think we were talking about Jesus being a liar. I answered your question on what would I do. Do you not agree that the Bible is a good message for all to live by?

.

I agree that the Bible is a good message to live by ----- just like the Catholic Church.

I guarantee that following the Church faithfully for all ones life -is a sure path to heaven. Tell me I’m wrong…

 

[Randy_Carson]

What does this have to do with the yes or no question?
What does this have to do with my answer?

At this point, you’ll have to remind me what it was. My apologies.

I must disagree with you, no matter if they believe its true or not its still a good book to live by.

Not if it’s all about a lunatic who thought he was god and deceived a lot of people.

I’m not Catholic so I don’t speak of the “infallible” church which I don’t believe it is.

Right. Which is why you asked me to prove that the Church is infallible. This is just one proof: The argument from history.

Just because I don’t believe the all the teachings of the CC don’t mean that I’m the same as a non-believer.

Not exactly, no. But you share the characteristic of unbelief of divinely revealed truth…you just reject less of it than an atheist.

You can’t have it both ways by saying one must be a formal member of the Catholic church to be saved, then you say however its not a absolute requirement.

I said normatively. I even put a little asterisk next to it and explained the use of the term.

Don’t you think that will confuse them. How are you offending a slightly larger group?

You offend non-believers by telling them that they must believe in Christ to be saved. I offend non-believers and non-Catholics by telling them that they must (normatively) be Catholic to be saved. So, I’m offending a larger population than you are.

What do you need to be saved?

That is the question, isn’t it? But not the subject of this thread.

So, I have demonstrated from a historical perspective why the Catholic Church is infallible.

However, YOU have not explained how you will convince a non-believer (or even yourself for that matter) how you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

 

[Justy90]

Argument
But what about Matthew 1:24-25, and the claim Jesus was Mary’s “firstborn son” and that Joseph “knew her not until” Christ was born? Does Matthew here teach that Mary had other children?

Answer
Exodus 13:1-2 reveals something very important about the firstborn in Israel: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Consecrate to me all the firstborn; whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and beast, is mine.’”

The “firstborn” were not given the title because there was a “second-born.” They were called “firstborn” at birth. Jesus being “firstborn” does not require that more siblings be born after him.

So are we trying to disprove Scripture by attempting to create reasonable doubt? This has become like Perry Mason, how humiliating.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just for the record, C.S. Lewis was Anglican, not Roman Catholic.

So were John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton and Ronald Knox…before they converted, of course.

Folks have speculated that Lewis might have converted if he had lived longer, but I’ve heard others who disagreed. Either way, he was a very fine Christian apologist.

 

[Justy90]

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

Other Examples of “Until” That Do Not Require Cessation of Action

Genesis 8:7
The raven “did not return TILL the waters were dried up…” Did the raven ever return?

Deuteronomy 34:6 (Knox)
No one knew the location of his grave “until this present day” But we know that no one has known it since that day either.

1 Maccabees 5:54
“…not one of them was slain TILL they had returned in peace.” Were Judas Maccabeus and his troops killed when they returned?

Luke 1:80
“And the child grew and became strong in spirit; and he lived in the desert until he appeared publicly to Israel.” The Greek word translated “until” in this passage is heos, the same word used in Matthew 1:25. The child spoken of is John the Baptist who, after as well as before he appeared in public, resided in the desert (cf. Matt. 3:1, Mark 1:3,4; Luke 3:2).

Romans 8:22
“…the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together UNTIL now.” Is it still groaning?

1 Corinthians 15:25
“For He must reign TILL He has put all enemies under His feet.” After all enemies are put away, will Christ be reigning?

Why don’t we just try to define the word “it” while we are at it, if it is possible of course.

 

[Justy90]

So were John Henry Newman, GK Chesterton and Ronald Knox…before they converted, of course.

Folks have speculated that Lewis might have converted if he had lived longer, but I’ve heard others who disagreed. Either way, he was a very fine Christian apologist.

C.S. Lewis was presented with converting many times during his life but would not. The fact remains that he was always a very good Anglican and never a part of Rome regardless of what empty rumors circulated.

 

[Randy_Carson]

So are we trying to disprove Scripture by attempting to create reasonable doubt? This has become like Perry Mason, how humiliating.

No, we’re trying to get folks to see that “firstborn” does not require a “secondborn” and that calling Jesus Mary’s “firstborn” cannot be used to disprove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by any stretch of the imagination.

In other words, I’m defending Holy Scripture by explaining what it ACTUALLY means to those who seek to twist it into a proof-text to suit their own theology.

 

[Justy90]

No, we’re trying to get folks to see that “firstborn” does not require a “secondborn” and that calling Jesus Mary’s “firstborn” cannot be used to disprove the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by any stretch of the imagination.

In other words, I’m defending Holy Scripture by explaining what it ACTUALLY means to those who seek to twist it into a proof-text to suit their own theology.

But that’s your interpretation of Scripture. Doesn’t St. Paul warn about private interpretation?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why don’t we just try to define the word “it” while we are at it, if it is possible of course.

Should I assume from this response that you have nothing better?

 

[Randy_Carson]

C.S. Lewis was presented with converting many times during his life but would not. The fact remains that he was always a very good Anglican and never a part of Rome regardless of what empty rumors circulated.

Nor did I suggest otherwise.

However, in the light of the recent ordinations of women and active homosexuals, one wonders if he would have remained long in the increasingly fragmented Anglican “Communion”.

 

[rev_kevin]

At this point, you’ll have to remind me what it was. My apologies.

Not if it’s all about a lunatic who thought he was god and deceived a lot of people.

Right. Which is why you asked me to prove that the Church is infallible. This is just one proof: The argument from history.

Not exactly, no. But you share the characteristic of unbelief of divinely revealed truth…you just reject less of it than an atheist.

I said normatively. I even put a little asterisk next to it and explained the use of the term.

You offend non-believers by telling them that they must believe in Christ to be saved. I offend non-believers and non-Catholics by telling them that they must (normatively) be Catholic to be saved. So, I’m offending a larger population than you are.

That is the question, isn’t it? But not the subject of this thread.

So, I have demonstrated from a historical perspective why the Catholic Church is infallible.

However, YOU have not explained how you will convince a non-believer (or even yourself for that matter) how you know the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

When you start to compare me to a atheist because I don’t believe the same thing you believe. I must say have a good day sir, it was nice talking to you. End of converstation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

But that’s your interpretation of Scripture. Doesn’t St. Paul warn about private interpretation?

Since scripture contains evidence of the term “firstborn” being applied to an “only” child, this is hardly a matter of my personal interpretation.

However, I should think that you, as a Protestant, would be defending my right to private interpretation.

 

[Randy_Carson]

When you start to compare me to a atheist because I don’t believe the same thing you believe. I must say have a good day sir, it was nice talking to you. End of converstation.

I did not say that you are an atheist, and you take umbrage simply because you either do not understand or cannot refute my argument.

Fine.

Cya.

 

[Justy90]

Nor did I suggest otherwise.

However, in the light of the recent ordinations of women and active homosexuals, one wonders if he would have remained long in the increasingly fragmented Anglican “Communion”.

When did the Anglican Communion Worldwide begin to accept active homosexual clergy and same sex unions as church practice? I don’t know of any accept the Episcopalians who are one single province amongst 38 and soon to be 39 others.

I think Mr. Lewis would be proud to know that Anglicans in African and South American diocese were growing by leaps and bounds and standing up strong for the Gospels. He’d be proud to be an Anglican today in the midst of all that is going on in the world today such as minor children being sexually abused by folks that they should trust the most without reasonable recourse. I can’t think of anything more evil and of the evil one himself.

 

[rev_kevin]

I agree that the Bible is a good message to live by ----- just like the Catholic Church.

I guarantee that following the Church faithfully for all ones life -is a sure path to heaven. Tell me I’m wrong…

Just like those who believe in God and not just a religion.

Read your Bible. It does not say you need to follow a church or religion for a sure path to heaven. I am the way the truth and the life, he who believes in me will not parish but have eternal life. So who is this way truth and life? Its not the CC its Christ. So ya your wrong.

 

[Justy90]

Since scripture contains evidence of the term “firstborn” being applied to an “only” child, this is hardly a matter of my personal interpretation.

However, I should think that you, as a Protestant, would be defending my right to private interpretation.

Your church practices private interpretation.