Differentiating Catholicism and Christianity

[Rawb]

NewPerspective, your user name is so wearily ironic.

All of the ideas you’re giving have been brought up (and argued much more thouroughly and logically then you’re doing now) in other threads.

 

[thomasf]

NewPerspective, your user name is so wearily ironic.

All of the ideas you’re giving have been brought up (and argued much more thouroughly and logically then you’re doing now) in other threads.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[exoflare]

Its a simple contrast really. Christianity is the whole-hearted belief in and following of The Infallible Word of God and the being lead by the Holy Spirit in everything you do and not letting ritual and tradition dictate anything. To be a Christian is to follow Christ no matter where He takes us. We are His fellow laborers and have to be willing to go where He wants to take us and not be held down by the regulation and burden brought on by repetitive ritual and misunderstood Biblical principle like that making up much the catholic doctrine. God Bless
When we choose to sincerely commit our lives to Christ, we also become joint heirs with Him as it says in scripture, ultimately blatantly showing that we are here for more than “Mass” and charity. We are here to win a generation to Christ through the spreading of the Gospel of The ONLY Mediator between God and man, The One pierced for our iniquities, bruised for our transgressions, and who chose to save rebellious beings like us to redeem and save from eternal separation from our Father in Heaven. Bottom line, God wants a personal and intimate relationship with each and everybody, and you KNOW if you have that and arguing doctrine is not worth it. Im just spreading the ABSOLUTE TRUTH inspired by the reading of The Word of God. HE knows your heart. I dont. You dictate whether or not God is real in your life or if tedious and repetitive ritual and the praying to a false mediator is all you need.
God Bless You

It may be a good idea to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you try criticizing it.

 

[St_Violet]

Dosdog/St Violet

Be more humble, i would thnks God for giving us the bible via CC.
And not thks the CC…do get it right

you are tottally right, I will continue to Thank GOD for he has given us a bible through the Catholic Church.

 

[zcharry]

There would be No Bible without Catholicism

Sorry to just jump in here in the middle, but this just strikes a nerve with me as I have seen this statement in other threads. That a pretty big statement to say that we would not have a Bible if it was not for the Catholic Church (ie universal church).
NO, we should not thank the church, but thank God for giving those men in the early church his power to make sure His scripture was put together right for us. God just used the church as his tool to bring together His words, just as he used Mary to bring Christ into this world and used the disciples to spread his word. If not the church God would of use a different route or tool to make sure we have his word. Does all powerful ring a bell. There are examples all over the Bible of God using people and institutions for His works. We should praise them for their service to God, but it ends there
No you should be thanking God for the Bible, not the Catholic Church.
God Bless

 

[St_Violet]

Sorry to just jump in here in the middle, but this just strikes a nerve with me as I have seen this statement in other threads. That a pretty big statement to say that we would not have a Bible if it was not for the Catholic Church (ie universal church).
NO, we should not thank the church, but thank God for giving those men in the early church his power to make sure His scripture was put together right for us. God just used the church as his tool to bring together His words, just as he used Mary to bring Christ into this world and used the disciples to spread his word. If not the church God would of use a different route or tool to make sure we have his word. Does all powerful ring a bell. There are examples all over the Bible of God using people and institutions for His works. We should praise them for their service to God, but it ends there
No you should be thanking God for the Bible, not the Catholic Church.
God Bless

so you agree with me then, we both thank GOD he gave us a bible Through the Catholic Church

 

[BelFarfalla]

It may be a good idea to learn what the Catholic Church actually teaches before you try criticizing it.

Where’s the fun in that? :banghead:

 

[Rocky]

Sorry to just jump in here in the middle, but this just strikes a nerve with me as I have seen this statement in other threads. That a pretty big statement to say that we would not have a Bible if it was not for the Catholic Church (ie universal church).
NO, we should not thank the church, but thank God for giving those men in the early church his power to make sure His scripture was put together right for us. God just used the church as his tool to bring together His words, just as he used Mary to bring Christ into this world and used the disciples to spread his word. If not the church God would of use a different route or tool to make sure we have his word. Does all powerful ring a bell. There are examples all over the Bible of God using people and institutions for His works. We should praise them for their service to God, but it ends there
No you should be thanking God for the Bible, not the Catholic Church.
God Bless

Ever since I learned at a young age in science class that a woman produces only one egg in her cycle and a man produces countless sperm and only that one sperm is allowed to inseminate the one egg, I have believed that God must have chosen me instead of any number of other possible children. So I guess God “used” my mother to make me. But still even though he just “used” her, I think not only my mother but God also expects me to thank her for giving me to the world.

 

[Ignatius]

Its a simple contrast really. Christianity is the whole-hearted belief in and following of The Infallible Word of God and the being lead by the Holy Spirit in everything you do and not letting ritual and tradition dictate anything. To be a Christian is to follow Christ no matter where He takes us. We are His fellow laborers and have to be willing to go where He wants to take us and not be held down by the regulation and burden brought on by repetitive ritual and misunderstood Biblical principle like that making up much the catholic doctrine. God Bless
When we choose to sincerely commit our lives to Christ, we also become joint heirs with Him as it says in scripture, ultimately blatantly showing that we are here for more than “Mass” and charity. We are here to win a generation to Christ through the spreading of the Gospel of The ONLY Mediator between God and man, The One pierced for our iniquities, bruised for our transgressions, and who chose to save rebellious beings like us to redeem and save from eternal separation from our Father in Heaven. Bottom line, God wants a personal and intimate relationship with each and everybody, and you KNOW if you have that and arguing doctrine is not worth it. Im just spreading the ABSOLUTE TRUTH inspired by the reading of The Word of God. HE knows your heart. I dont. You dictate whether or not God is real in your life or if tedious and repetitive ritual and the praying to a false mediator is all you need.
God Bless You

Welcome to Catholic Forums my friend. You really should do at least a little scholarship about the Catholic Church before positing. For example, for the first 16 centuries after Christ, the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church. Here is a little more information on the subject:

Do you have any idea when your church was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:
If you are of the Catholic faith, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.
If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.
If you are Anabaptist, your religion was founded by Nicholas Storch and Thomas Munzer in Germany in 1521.
If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.
If you belong to the Mennonites, your church was started in 1536 by Menno Simons in Switzerland.
If you are a Calvinist, Jon Calvin started your belief system in 1555 in Switzerland.
If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.
If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.
If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.
If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.
If you are Dutch Reformed, Michaelis Jones founded your church in New York in 1628.
If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.
If you are an Episcopalian, your church came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.
If you are a Campellite Christian Church, your religion was started by Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone at a revival held at Bushy Creek around 1836.
If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.
If you are Seventh Day Adventist, your religion was founded by Ellen Whitein 1844 in Washington, New Hampshire.
If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.
If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.
If you’re Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the Topeka, Kansas in 1901 by Charles F. Parkham
If you are Assemblies of God your church grew out of Pentecostalism in 1914 in Hot Springs, Az.
If you are a member of Four-square Gospel, your church was started by Aimee Semple McPherson in L.A. in 1917.
If your Church of Christ, your church broke of from the Campellites in 1906.
If you are Calvary Chapel, Chuck Smith founded your church in Costa Mesa, Ca, 1965
If your organization is “evangelical nondenominational Christian” your group started in the 1970s by protestant evangelists.

May the peace of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[zcharry]

Ever since I learned at a young age in science class that a woman produces only one egg in her cycle and a man produces countless sperm and only that one sperm is allowed to inseminate the one egg, I have believed that God must have chosen me instead of any number of other possible children. So I guess God “used” my mother to make me. But still even though he just “used” her, I think not only my mother but God also expects me to thank her for giving me to the world.

Your statement is worded elegantly.
If the statement as to the Bible was worded that way I would not have a problem with it. However it was not.
As I stated, they should be praised, and you should thank your mother as I.I think they have a day for that now? But your parents are not the reason for your existence and salvation, we all know who is, and all praise be to Him

God Bless you and your Mother

 

[Goth_Catholic]

Its a simple contrast really. Christianity is the whole-hearted belief in and following of The Infallible Word of God and the being lead by the Holy Spirit in everything you do and not letting ritual and tradition dictate anything. To be a Christian is to follow Christ no matter where He takes us. We are His fellow laborers and have to be willing to go where He wants to take us and not be held down by the regulation and burden brought on by repetitive ritual and misunderstood Biblical principle like that making up much the catholic doctrine. God Bless
When we choose to sincerely commit our lives to Christ, we also become joint heirs with Him as it says in scripture, ultimately blatantly showing that we are here for more than “Mass” and charity. We are here to win a generation to Christ through the spreading of the Gospel of The ONLY Mediator between God and man, The One pierced for our iniquities, bruised for our transgressions, and who chose to save rebellious beings like us to redeem and save from eternal separation from our Father in Heaven. Bottom line, God wants a personal and intimate relationship with each and everybody, and you KNOW if you have that and arguing doctrine is not worth it. Im just spreading the ABSOLUTE TRUTH inspired by the reading of The Word of God. HE knows your heart. I dont. You dictate whether or not God is real in your life or if tedious and repetitive ritual and the praying to a false mediator is all you need.
God Bless You

Mother of God I wonder what you will say when you go before the throne of our most holy father (if you indeed make it that far) and he asks you why you did not belong to his church. Will you plead ignorence dispite the millions of catholic voices crying out the name of the trinity? Or will you argue the holy father himself, saying that his church was not his church and that you found peace elsewhere? When he tells you that it is false peace and that true you sought in the bible was not the absolute truth as you claim. When he tells you that his power, and his son were not limited to the words of mere mortals? When he points to the Lady standing near his son, crowned with twelve stars, clothed in sun, and he asks you about her, what will you say? When he shows you all of time, the things we cannot comprehend with mortal minds, what will you say? You will fall prostrate in front of him and confess his name, his son’s name, the name of the holy spirt, the name of Mary, and the power of the Catholic Church.

Until that day comes, my rosary will be said for you and for all that do not heed my words.

In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Santi

 

[WyomingBob]

Hi again everyone! I will keep this short because pretty much all has been said. “New Prespective” did not come here to dialogue or try and convert anyone, as the hasty departure shows. NP simply came to sow fustration and anger. Nothing ‘he’ wrote is new , as was pointed out earlier, and notice nothing was backed up by citations of ANY kind. Sad to say but NP is another victum of the “fundalmentalist” teachings. I would guess some off shoot of the AOG. Notice also that no thought was actually thought out or even logical. Everything is suppossedly based on a ‘personal relationship’ with Christ Jesus. But even this is not defined. Nor is this concept taken to itslogical conclusion; if one believes in Christ, has a relationship with him then that person would be anxious to know and follow ALL of Jesus’s teachings. words and example. Not leave the person with a smug superiority that the person alone knows the heart and mind of God.
But I shall pray for NP and all those that believe the same way. NP has been taught probably from the teenage years to believe only what the pastor taught and not to think independently. Independent thought especially inquestitive thought is STRONGLY discouraged. I know bcause I was where NP is for about 15 years until I converted 30 years ago (Thank Father, Son and Holy Spirit and the love of Mother Mary). And I am still working on my fundamentalist preacher brother.

 

[NewPerspective]

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

 

[exoflare]

NewPerspective,

With every additional post, you prove how little you actually know about what Catholics believe. If you expect people to take you seriously on here, then start addressing something other than your own strawman version of Catholicism.

 

[dosdog]

Sorry to just jump in here in the middle, but this just strikes a nerve with me

God Bless

Good - Truth Hurts - It is called The Deposit of Faith

It is a foundation of our faith to believe that God gave Moses an oral explanation of the Torah along with the written text. This oral tradition is now essentially preserved in the Talmud and Midrashim. Just as we depend on tradition for the accepted text, vocalization, and translation of the Torah, so must we depend on tradition for its interpretation. The Written Torah cannot be understood without the oral tradition. Hence, if anything, the Oral Torah is the more important of the two. Since the Written Torah appears largely defective unless supplemented by the oral tradition, a denial of the Oral Torah necessarily leads to the denial of the divine origin of the written text as well…

Scripture
I. The Word of God is Transferred Orally
Mark 13:31 - heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus’ Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit.
Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach the Gospel to every creature. But Jesus did not want this preaching to stop after the apostles died, and yet the Bible was not compiled until four centuries later. The word of God was transferred orally.

II. Learning through Oral Apostolic Tradition
1 Thess. 4:2 – Paul again refers the Thessalonians to the instructions they already had received, which is the oral apostolic tradition.
2 Thess. 2:5 – Paul yet again refers the Thessalonians to the previous teachings they received from Paul when he taught them orally. These oral teachings are no less significant than the written teachings.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul clearly commands us in this verse to obey oral apostolic tradition. He says stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, either by word of mouth or letter. This verse proves that for apostolic authority, oral and written communications are on par with each other. Protestants must find a verse that voids this commandment to obey oral tradition elsewhere in the Bible, or they are not abiding by the teachings of Scripture.

III. Examples of Jesus’ and the Apostles’ Reliance on Oral Tradition
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses’ seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael’s dispute with satan over Moses’ body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch’s prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.
scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
aish.com/literacy/concepts/The_Oral_Tradition.asp

one thing you can never find—anywhere in the Protestant Old Testament, from front to back, from Genesis to Malachi—is someone being tortured and refusing to accept release for the sake of a better resurrection. If you want to find that, you have to look in the Catholic Old Testament—in the deuterocanonical books Martin Luther cut out of his Bible.The story is found in 2 Maccabees 7, where we read that during the Maccabean persecution.

The Maccabean Revolt began in 168-167 B.C. when the Romans expelled Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt, a man who began to vent his rage upon the Jews. He massacred vast numbers of Jews on their Sabbath day, took many captive, erected a fortress on Mt. Zion, and attempted to abolish all vestiges of Jewish worship and practice. The Temple was dedicated to the false god Zeus, and upon the newly erected altar a pig was sacrificed! (The apocryphal book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel 11:31, calls this act the “abomination of desolation.”) heraldmag.org/2002/02so_7.htm

 

[Milliardo]

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.

Actually it teaches that. Where did you get the idea that it doesn’t?

Jesus is the end of the law and the ultimate sacrifice and negates Old Testament sacraments.

Actually, what He said was that He is the fulfillment of the Law; Paul later in Romans would echo it somewhat when he writes, love is the fulfillment of the Law. Neither Jesus nor Paul explicitly stated that the Law is totally negated, or else the Ten Commandments, which is part of the Law, would need not be followed then.

Not spreading the premise of Old Testament principle and sacraments that have been negated by the Blood of The Lamb.

Actually, if you again took the time, you will realize that the Sacraments in the Church are connected to this blood of Christ. As often said, nothing is apart from Christ, so the Sacraments are not apart from Him, but is actually part of this same blood of Christ. From this sacrifice of Christ flows forth the graces which is in every Sacrament. Again, in of themselves the Sacraments are nothing without Christ. It is always Jesus in every aspect of the Church.

Salvation is not comprised of charity, observation of sacraments, and being baptized as a baby.

Ah, if you will read every passage regarding Judgment, what does it say? What would be God’s basis for Judgment?

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).

Mary’s holiness has been mentioned in the Bible; even most mainline Protestants, who may not see Mary the same way as Catholics do, at least agree that nowhere is it shown that Mary was unfaithful to her Son. As for Mary as ever-virgin, you can go and search this board for topics regarding it, as it has been discussed here many times.

Jesus had brothers kiddo.

That has never been proven, dear.

You have to understand guys that its not about the vain repetition of Hail Marys, which i dont understand in the first place

As I always say, don’t knock that which you cannot understand, or else you’ll only get burned in the end. Simply put, first try to understand.

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)

Ah, but nowhere is it taught in the Catholic Church that if you confess to a priest, you can do anything you want. Precisely that if you confess, then you should turn away from sin and lead a new life in Christ. That is what confession is all about.

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.

Jesus Himself said that no one knows the day nor the hour in which Judgment will come, and that would also mean that only God knows what His Judgment will be for each one of us, so how come you know better than Christ Himself then?

God wants a personal relationship with you, one that is possible because of what Jesus did that day on Calvary.

 

[Mannyfit75]

That has never been proven, dear.

You are right Jesus did not have brothers and sisters. Consider the following.

In the Bible we read the following passage:

“Where did this man get this wisdom and these deeds of power? Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this? And they took offence at him” (St. Matt. 13, 54-57).

According to Fundamentalists, it appears clear from this passage that Jesus Christ had brothers and sisters, and that the Virgin Mary did not remain a virgin all Her life. Yet, the Catholic Church asserts that the Virgin Mary was a virgin before, during, and perpetually after the birth of Christ (Ante partum, in partu, post partum), a belief re-asserted during the first decades of the Protestant reformation:

" This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity."9

The Catholic answer to this apparent contradiction is long and detailed, but decisive. There existed no special word in Hebrew or Aramaic for “cousin.” The word “brother” is used in these languages generically, and does not necessarily imply children of the same parent. There are many examples in the Old Testament when the word brother was applied to any kind of relations: nephew (Gen. 12, 5), uncle (Gen. 29, 15); husband (Songs. 4, 9); a member of the same tribe (2 Kgs. 9, 13); of the same people (Exod. 2, 21); an ally (Amos 1, 9); a friend (2 Kgs. 1, 26); one of the same office (1 Sam. 9, 13).10

A number of distinguished Catholic commentators, including St. Thomas Aquinas11, actually hold that the Virgin Mary had made a formal vow of perpetual virginity together with St. Joseph. A vow of virginity would help explain why the Virgin Mary was so perplexed after the Angel Gabriel announced to Her that She was about to bear the Messiah. According to contemporary Jewish custom, marriage was in two stages. The first stage, or betrothal, was when the marriage was effectively made. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph had concluded this stage. Sexual relationships after this point were not considered as fornication. However, we know that nothing of this kind had yet taken place between the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph (“How can this be, since I am a virgin?” [St. Luke 1, 34]). The second stage of marriage was the social formality of the public celebration. The Virgin Mary and St. Joseph in all probability had to forego this second stage due to their flight to Egypt, nevertheless, this fact did not impugn the validity of their marriage.12

A further Protestant objection is founded on St. Matthew 1, 25 which states that St. Joseph “had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.” It is argued that this passage implies that the Virgin Mary had other children by St. Joseph after giving birth to Jesus. It would be well here to reproduce the footnote commentary on St. Matthew 1, 25 from the Douai-Rheims version of the New Testament:

Source: theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm#Perpetual%20Virginity

 

[Mannyfit75]

In addition,

“St. Jerome shows, by divers examples, that this expression of the Evangelist was a manner of speaking usual among the Hebrews, to denote by the word until, only what is done, without any regard to the future. Thus it is said, Genesis 8, 6 and 7, that Noe sent forth a raven, which went forth, and did not return till the waters were dried up on the earth. That is, did not return anymore. Also Isaias 46, 4, God says: I am till you grow old. Who dare infer that God should then cease to be?..God saith to his divine Son: Sit on my right till I make thy enemies thy footstool. Shall he sit no longer after his enemies are subdued?”

Further, according to the Jewish Law a child was designated as “first-born” irrespective of whether there were yet, or ever to be, subsequent children born to the same mother. This is gathered from Exodus 13, 2, which required that “every first-born that openeth the womb among the children of Israel” be consecrated to God forty days after their birth.

Who, then, exactly were the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ?

It is best to start by looking at St. John 19, 25. There it is evident that the Virgin Mary had an older sister whose name was also Mary: “Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.”

Turning next to the Gospel of St. Mark 15, 40, speaking on the same point: “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger (Less) and of Joses (Joseph), and Salome.” Who is this “Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses?” Of the Marys mentioned in St. John 19, 25 it must be Mary the wife of Clopas, not Mary the “mother of Jesus,” as the Virgin Mary is never mentioned by any other title except as “mother of Jesus.” Further, we know that the father of James the younger was Clopas, the husband of Mary of Clopas (St. Mark 3, 18), making Mary of Clopas James’ mother. As for Jude, he was also a son of Clopas and the Virgin Mary’s sister as Scripture speaks of him as a brother of James the younger: “James son of Alphaeus (Clopas), and Simon the Zealot, and Judas the brother of James” (Acts 1, 13 [Douai]). Consequently, Our Lord had cousins by the names of James, Joseph and Jude.13

One can safely state then that the “brothers” of Our Lord as mentioned in St. Matt. 13, 54 -57 being James, Joseph, Jude etc. are in fact the same James, Joseph and Jude just determined to be His cousins. This was St. Jerome’s assertion in the early fourth century:

"Suppose that the Brethren of the Lord were Joseph’s sons by another wife. But we understand the Brethren of the Lord to be not the sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, his mother’s sister."14

St. Augustine was no less strident in his defence of the Virgin Mary’s perpetual virginity:

"It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this -‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this - ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth."15

It would be forcing credibility to believe that the Virgin Mary and Her older “sister” both had the same names and also had children with the same names. One can expect, also, that after St. Joseph died the Virgin Mary would have gone with Our Lord to live with or nearby Her older “sister,” explaining why She was travelling with those mentioned in St. Matt. 12, 46. It is a clear example of the word “brother” being used to refer to a first or second cousin.

It is also important to examine closely three major events in Our Lord’s life referred to in the Gospels: (i) the return of the Holy Family from Egypt to Nazareth after the death of Herod; (ii) the finding of the Child Jesus in the Temple of Jerusalem after being lost for three days; (iii) Our Lord giving His Mother to the care of St. John at His crucifixion. Our Lord, according to tradition, was 10, 12 and 33 years of age respectively when these events occurred. Yet, never is there any mention of brothers or sisters of His being present, which one would naturally expect if they had actually existed.16

theworkofgod.org/LIBRARY/Apologtc/R_Haddad/4dgmMary.htm#Perpetual%20Virginity

Conclusion: The brothers and sisters of Jesus are his second cousins.

 

[zcharry]

gmMary.htm#Perpetual%20Virginity

Conclusion: The brothers and sisters of Jesus are his second cousins.

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.

God Bless

 

[manualman]

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.

Lets face it, when it comes to doctrine, older is better.
(Going back as far a Jesus himself, that it is!)