Differentiating Catholicism and Christianity

[Goth_Catholic]

Goth Catholic. Sweety, you need to look past the indoctrination and pressure to observe sacraments that your parents and or priest has pushed on you since an early age. The Catholic church is not the Body of Christ nor does it teach of the New Covenant or the end of the law brought on by the sending of Jesus by His Father in Heaven. Jesus is the end of the law and the ultimate sacrifice and negates Old Testament sacraments. They do not apply to us. We are called to believe in The Lord Jesus Christ and to walk in faith, bearing the fruits of the Spirit after accepting Jesus into your life and walking with God in every aspect of your life, putting your trust in Him, and spreading The Gospel of Jesus Christ to all the earth. Not spreading the premise of Old Testament principle and sacraments that have been negated by the Blood of The Lamb. Bottom line is you know if God is real in your life and im not here to condemn. Jesus is ALIVE and living in those that choose to surrender to Him and invite Him into their lives as the Lord and Savior of their lives. Salvation is not comprised of charity, observation of sacraments, and being baptized as a baby. Show me in scripture where it even mentions the catholic church or the Holiness of Mary (who was not a virgin after she begot Jesus). Jesus had brothers kiddo. You have to understand guys that its not about the vain repetition of Hail Marys, which i dont understand in the first place, but by the belief in Jesus Christ and the confessing repentance of our sins ( which doesnt mean you can do what you want and then just tell your priest about it and be forgiven, it means to turn away from sin and live a life in pursuit of righteousness that you might fulfill the things of the spirit)
P.S. Please dont worry about what I will have to answer for on Judgment Day, for I know what Book my name will be found in. I dont want to condemn or discourage please just understand that it is my heart that you understand these things. They are not my opinion or my rhetoric that i am pushing on others, they are absolute fact and scripturally noted. God wants a personal relationship with you, one that is possible because of what Jesus did that day on Calvary.
God Bless You and I Love and Care about you all
Sincerely
NP
God Bless

Your ignorence is flabergasting. Before you try to do battle with me, educate yourself in the truth of the church.

My dad is a catholic convert, my mom a cradle catholic. Until about 8 months ago we never really attended church regularly. Now we go every sunday, and my mother says the rosary with me and prayers just as much I do. I was the religious one in my family. And because we didn’t go to church regularly until last year, I have never had a “regular” priest, the way some do. So belive me, I am not catholic because my parents or my priest have installed it upon me. I am Catholic by my own choosing and the grace of God who has reviled many things unto me.

The church is the bride of Christ. The pope is his Vicar. And did Jesus not say “I have not come to destroy the law” ?

Jesus having brothers has nothing to do with them being Mary’s children. Even historians will tell you that Joseph was much older then Mary, and that the names of at least half of Jesus’s brothers point to them being Mary’s step-sons.

“What is this to me that the mother of my lord shall come unto me?”

“All generations shall call me blessed”

“Yah, your own heart shall be pierced with a sword.”

“And there came a woman clothed in sun, with the moon at her feet and upon her head a crown of twelve stars”

“When you do unto others, it is as though you’ve done unto me”

“If you love me, feed my lambs”

“Faith is dead without works”

And Mary said

“One day through the rosary and the scapular I will save the world.”

To know the Mother is to know the Son. For one that comes unto the Mother cometh unto the Son also.

That Book may contain your name, but that does not mean you are right in this world. God will set you straight. As I have said before, you shall prostrate yourself in front of his throne, confessing the names of the trinity, the name of Mary, and the power of the Catholic Church.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This reponse was given to me by a Pastor on this very subject and I think it speaks volumes to this issue.

The point is that Scripture does not make clear that Mary had other children (they could be cousins or Joseph’s children by a previous marriage) nor does it make clear that she remained a virgin (she could have done so by choice). The point is that one can make a good argument for her remaining a virgin, or one can make a good argument that she had other children.

Since Scripture does not speak cleary on this matter, one cannot make either possibility an article of faith. To insist that one or the other is the only possible choice is going beyond what Scripture says. So it is not a matter of interpreting Scripture, but a matter of human opinion. When Scripture does not speak cleary on a matter, it is wrong for either side to insist that others must accept one of the two possibilities.

She didn’t have any other children. In fact if she did, then where are they when Joseph, Mary, and Jesus at age 12 went to Jerusalem for the past over feast? No where.

Luke 2:41-43.

2:41. And his parents went every year to Jerusalem, at the solemn day of the pasch.

2:42. And when he was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast,

2:43. And having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem. And his parents knew it not

.

The brothers and sisters of the Lord are his second cousins. Even Martin Luther acknowledge that she remained a virgin.

Joseph and Mary during their time together never had sex nor had other children. They only had one, Jesus Christ, who conceived by the Holy Spirit by overshadowing Mary.

 

[zcharry]

She didn’t have any other children. In fact if she did, then where are they when Joseph, Mary, and Jesus at age 12 went to Jerusalem for the past over feast? No where.

Luke 2:41-43.

.

The brothers and sisters of the Lord are his second cousins. Even Martin Luther acknowledge that she remained a virgin.

Joseph and Mary during their time together never had sex nor had other children. They only had one, Jesus Christ, who conceived by the Holy Spirit by overshadowing Mary.

I will not argue this point as I have gave you my feeling on this issue.

However, I will say that you make huge assumptions when you make statements that Joseph and Mary never had sex. You have no knowledge of this, only your beliefs. It is not found anywhere in Scripture. It is only an assumption and just because Martin Luther said it, does not mean anything to this Lutheran. The Lutheran faith (WELS) is based on Gods Word not mans.It was his opinion and it was not backed by scripture.

God Bless you and your Church

 

[Milliardo]

However, I will say that you make huge assumptions when you make statements that Joseph and Mary never had sex. You have no knowledge of this, only your beliefs. It is not found anywhere in Scripture.

Nowhere is it stated either that they had relations after Jesus was born. However, consider what David Currie reflected on regarding this issue: would you want anything else when you have the Lord Himself in your household? Or to put it in a better way, Mary and Joseph have this incredible grace of having the Lord Himself as their son; what more can one ask for, then? So it is not impossible to see that they are so fulfilled with this mere presence of the Lord in their household that one would not want or ask for anything else. It’s not impossible as well to realize that there are couples who do not have any relations even in their married lives.

 

[zcharry]

Nowhere is it stated either that they had relations after Jesus was born. However, consider what David Currie reflected on regarding this issue: would you want anything else when you have the Lord Himself in your household? Or to put it in a better way, Mary and Joseph have this incredible grace of having the Lord Himself as their son; what more can one ask for, then? So it is not impossible to see that they are so fulfilled with this mere presence of the Lord in their household that one would not want or ask for anything else. It’s not impossible as well to realize that there are couples who do not have any relations even in their married lives.

I agree with you as I said in my prior post. Mary could have stay a virgin and then again maybe not.
That was not what was said. It was said that Mary did not have sex with anyone.
If you can prove either way please tell me because I would love to
have the truth.
We just do not know and to say otherwise is just untrue!
Your Brother in Christ.

 

[Milliardo]

That was not what was said. It was said that Mary did not have sex with anyone.

If it’s said she didn’t have relations with anyone, then we have nothing to debate about.

If you can prove either way please tell me because I would love to have the truth.

The best proof is one that is logical: where is the bloodline of Jesus now? It is incredible that, for someone who has such a great impact on the world, that He has no descendants, not even brothers and sisters. The closest we can have are cousins. Some say that His brothers were named; but that again could not be proven. Mainline Protestants can’t prove that He had brothers and sisters. So what is the truth then? It’s plain and simple: if Jesus had brothers and sisters, it would’ve been written not only in the Bible, but even in other documents. It’s not easy to hide such things (no matter what Da Vinci Code believers might choose to think), since there had been many witnesses in the past for Christianity; surely there would’ve been mention of that somewhere. The fact that there’s none, anywhere, only bolsters Catholic claims.

 

[stadre]

I will not argue this point as I have gave you my feeling on this issue.

However, I will say that you make huge assumptions when you make statements that Joseph and Mary never had sex. You have no knowledge of this, only your beliefs. It is not found anywhere in Scripture. It is only an assumption and just because Martin Luther said it, does not mean anything to this Lutheran. The Lutheran faith (WELS) is based on Gods Word not mans.It was his opinion and it was not backed by scripture.

God Bless you and your Church

I don’t know if this perspective helps. If your wife conceived God, the Son, in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit; carried Him for nine months; delivered Him, nursed Him, etc., could you then have marital relations with her? God Himself, lived in her and passed out of her body. Could you really go there yourself?

Maybe I see this from a female perspective. I cannot imagine being with anyone but my husband. I wouldn’t want any child other than his living in my womb. (I even get offended at the infertility docs who suggest that “they” are trying to get my pregnant. Excuse me?) If I feel that strongly about my human husband and child, I cannot imagine how strongly I would feel if that Husband and Child were God.

 

[zcharry]

If it’s said she didn’t have relations with anyone, then we have nothing to debate about.

The best proof is one that is logical: where is the bloodline of Jesus now? It is incredible that, for someone who has such a great impact on the world, that He has no descendants, not even brothers and sisters. The closest we can have are cousins. Some say that His brothers were named; but that again could not be proven. Mainline Protestants can’t prove that He had brothers and sisters. So what is the truth then? It’s plain and simple: if Jesus had brothers and sisters, it would’ve been written not only in the Bible, but even in other documents. It’s not easy to hide such things (no matter what Da Vinci Code believers might choose to think), since there had been many witnesses in the past for Christianity; surely there would’ve been mention of that somewhere. The fact that there’s none, anywhere, only bolsters Catholic claims.

It is not said in the Bible that she did not have sex or does it say she did.
We do not know and to say anything either way is pure specluation.
As to brother and sister the same goes it is only speculation either way.
All the things you state in your post are all vaild points but it gets us no closer to the truth. It is all speculation.
No one has any proof either way and the only one who knows is God. You can ask God the truth when you reach heaven. if it even matters at that point!
For me it has nothing to do with my Salvation so whether it was or was not means nothing to me in the big picture of my relationship with God.

In Christ

 

[Milliardo]

It is not said in the Bible that she did not have sex or does it say she did.
We do not know and to say anything either way is pure specluation.

Like I said, the best way to look at it is to see if early Christians have anything to say about it, since they’re the closest to our Lord. Also, since He is more than just a hero to them, then it would only be reasonable to see that anyone even remotely connected to Him would be held in the same high regard as He is, right? This is merely logical; now, you might say it is speculation, but common sense would say that if He had any brothers and sisters and/or children, then such people would be highly regarded in the early Christian community the same way the Apostles and early followers of His were. The fact that there’s none, then shows us that this stand by the Church is true. Again, it’s merely common sense.

For me it has nothing to do with my Salvation so whether it was or was not means nothing to me in the big picture of my relationship with God.

Well, it might not have much to do with salvation; but after all, we are after the truth, and for the sake of that truth we must be willing to answer even such things as this.

 

[zcharry]

Like I said, the best way to look at it is to see if early Christians have anything to say about it, since they’re the closest to our Lord. Also, since He is more than just a hero to them, then it would only be reasonable to see that anyone even remotely connected to Him would be held in the same high regard as He is, right? This is merely logical; now, you might say it is speculation, but common sense would say that if He had any brothers and sisters and/or children, then such people would be highly regarded in the early Christian community the same way the Apostles and early followers of His were. The fact that there’s none, then shows us that this stand by the Church is true. Again, it’s merely common sense.

Well, it might not have much to do with salvation; but after all, we are after the truth, and for the sake of that truth we must be willing to answer even such things as this.

If you believe in oral tradition and common sense as you state then read the words
1Corinthians 7: 3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Then common sense would be that Jesus would have taught his parents his teachings and would have brought this up. It is merely common sense that Jesus would want his parents to have his teaching so they would have eternal life and keep in the His good graces by respecting his will.
So if we are going by common sense then since we have a Bible verse that cleary states that we are to submit to our spouse, then the more common sense opinion is that she did not remain a virgin.

There is no proof either way and common sense does not even make sense in this matter

 

[dosdog]

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
by Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
web.archive.org/web/20030810025622/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

 

[Milliardo]

Then common sense would be that Jesus would have taught his parents his teachings and would have brought this up. It is merely common sense that Jesus would want his parents to have his teaching so they would have eternal life and keep in the His good graces by respecting his will.
So if we are going by common sense then since we have a Bible verse that cleary states that we are to submit to our spouse, then the more common sense opinion is that she did not remain a virgin.

Ah, but you forgot to note:

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

As you can see, then, did Mary and Joseph then had no relations by mutual consent? By inference, we can see that they did. Did they not devote themselves to prayer? Again, having the Lord Himself in their midst, then surely they did. Seeing how this grace of the Lord Himself in their care, wouldn’t it be reasonable then to remain as virgins for the sake of the Lord, devoted to prayer, since He is in their midst, each day, living with them? It is reasonable, the same way the Apostles and other followers of Jesus devoted themselves to prayer everyday after He ascended. We can see then that Mary and Joseph, by virtue of the Son of God with them, lived chaste lives that was devoted fully to prayer. So you can see that they perfectly lived this injunction from Paul.

 

[zcharry]

PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY
by Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D.
cin.org/users/james/files/talmud.htm
ewtn.com/faith/teachings/maryc2.htm

Luther indeed was quite devoted to Our Lady, and retained most of the traditional Marian doctrines which were held then and now by the Catholic Church.
Along with virtually all important Protestant Founders (e.g., Calvin, Zwingli, Cranmer), Luther accepted the traditional belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Jesus had no blood brothers), and her status as the Theotokos (Mother of God):
web.archive.org/web/20030810025622/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ95.HTM

I would expect there to be different views since God has left this question unanswered. Luther is like any other human to hold an opinion of an unanswered question and I in good faith can not say he is wrong. In good faith the other view can not be held wrong. I do not have a view personnally because the question is unanswered in Scripture. You can hold a view but that is all it is your view.
If I was put on the spot my first reaction would be no she did not stay a virgin. If I sit and ponder it I can justify a reason for her to stay a virgin.
There are good reasons on both sides of the debate as to whether or not, but one will never know. To say one side is wrong in this matter is just plain wrong.

 

[Johenz]

If I was Joseph, I know that I’d be hesitant to have relations with the spouse of the Holy Spirit, that’s for darn skippy.

 

[zcharry]

Ah, but you forgot to note:

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

As you can see, then, did Mary and Joseph then had no relations by mutual consent? By inference, we can see that they did. Did they not devote themselves to prayer? Again, having the Lord Himself in their midst, then surely they did. Seeing how this grace of the Lord Himself in their care, wouldn’t it be reasonable then to remain as virgins for the sake of the Lord, devoted to prayer, since He is in their midst, each day, living with them? It is reasonable, the same way the Apostles and other followers of Jesus devoted themselves to prayer everyday after He ascended. We can see then that Mary and Joseph, by virtue of the Son of God with them, lived chaste lives that was devoted fully to prayer. So you can see that they perfectly lived this injunction from Paul.

Sorry on this one but you are taken this verse out of context. No it is not reasonable. History and Scripture state that all but one of the Apostles were married. Did they all stay a virgin. If you statement was true then all of us are in the present of God and we should all stay virgins.
Might help traffic on the freeway, in that case I might have to consider your position more closely, as it might cut down on my commute time.
God Bless and good nite

 

[Milliardo]

Sorry on this one but you are taken this verse out of context. No it is not reasonable. History and Scripture state that all but one of the Apostles were married.

All of them also virtually left home and family to follow Christ.

 

[dosdog]

I would expect there to be different views since God has left this question unanswered. Luther is like any other human to hold an opinion of an unanswered question and I in good faith can not say he is wrong. In good faith the other view can not be held wrong. I do not have a view personnally because the question is unanswered in Scripture. You can hold a view but that is all it is your view.
If I was put on the spot my first reaction would be no she did not stay a virgin. If I sit and ponder it I can justify a reason for her to stay a virgin.
There are good reasons on both sides of the debate as to whether or not, but one will never know. To say one side is wrong in this matter is just plain wrong.

(Text from ANF, vol. 8.)The Account of St. John the Theologian of the Dormition of the Holy Mother of God

And while we were all praying, there appeared innumerable multitudes of angels, and the Lord mounted upon cherubim in great power; and, behold, a stream of light coming to the holy virgin, And the Lord remained beside her, saying: Behold, from the present time thy precious body will be transferred to paradise, and thy holy soul to the heavens to the treasures of my Father in exceeding brightness, where there is peace and joy of the holy angels,-and other things besides. And when she had thus prayed, the Lord said to His mother: Let thy heart rejoice and be glad; for every favour and every gift has been given to thee from my Father in heaven, and from me, and from the Holy Spirit: every soul that calls upon thy name shall not be ashamed, but shall find mercy, and comfort, and support, and confidence, both in the world that now is, and in that which is to come, in the presence of my Father in the heavenswith the departure of her blameless soul the place was filled with perfume and ineffable light; and, behold, a voice out of the heaven was heard, saying: Blessed art thou among women Holy Mary, who broughtest forth Christ who is God, have mercy upon me. And Peter turned and said to him: In the name of Him who was born of her, thy hands which have been taken away from thee, will be fixed on again. And immediately, at the word of Peter, the hands hanging by the couch of the Lady came, and were fixed on Jephonias. And he believed, and glorified Christ, God who had been born of her. .We apostles, therefore, having beheld the sudden precious translation of her holy body, glorified God
198.62.75.5/www1/ofm/san/TSmarymn.html

 

[zcharry]

All of them also virtually left home and family to follow Christ.

That is not true; [1 Cor. 9:5] indicates that Peter did much traveling for the sake of the Gospel and that on his travels he was accompanied by his wife.
Not all left family. If I not mistaken, Peter was the one the Catholic church states as the first pope. It is clear that Peter was married and most likey was married until his death. If following God will was not a virgin

 

[Milliardo]

That is not true; [1 Cor. 9:5] indicates that Peter did much traveling for the sake of the Gospel and that on his travels he was accompanied by his wife.

There is little indication there of that passage that Peter had his wife along with him; it could very well mean that Peter was only married, and that Paul is asking if he and the others had this right, why not him and Barnabas then? It was a rhetorical question, as you can see (read the verses before it to see that Paul is asking in a rhetorical sense)…

It is clear that Peter was married and most likey was married until his death. If following God will was not a virgin

Again, the burden of proof lies on those trying to disprove that he left family and home. No other writing indicates that Peter had his family or even wife along with him; Paul’s position in your indicated passage was a rhetorical in nature. It should not be construed that Peter did take his wife along with him, and like I already said there is no indication from any other extant writing that his wife went along with him. From all indications though, he and the other Apostles went alone in their journeys.

 

[exoflare]

I think “New Perspective” is VERY well named. After all, his perspective on christianity is only 500 years old! Any christians before that time would have looked at him like he had two heads if he made a speech like the one he did here.

heh, true enough…