Hey, is there anybody here at CAF, who believes that Jesus Christ had biological brothers and can you prove it?

[rinnie]

The Catholic church is in error about Jesus not having brothers through Mary. There are a number of passages that demonstrate this.

Im sorry JFA4 but it is you who are in error. There is not one place in the bible that refers to Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ having other children. It may say Jesus brother, sister, etc. but it always separates when it comes to the Blessed Mother it always and Mary the Mother of Jesus. Never has it said and Mary the Mother of Jesus and her other children, or her other Sons or daughters it just does not. She is always Mary Jesus Mother. then it may say Jesus brothers, but i have never seen it. But if i missed it i would be love to see it.

 

[Matariel]

Hey Rinnie:

I’ll “consider” becoming Catholic the day elephants can fly

I have every confidence in the right teachings of Protestant churches – overall we (conservative protestant denominations) are in accord in all necessary matters of faith. Paul told us not to bicker about the nuances.

Don’t you know that St. Paul condemned divisions and schisms? Our Lord wanted us all to be One. Protestantism is a perrenial blight and embarassment to all of Christendom. No offense.

Also, if the Catholic Church got it wrong on all these things, then how do you know we got the Trinity right (and that Arianism was wrong?) or the canon of holy Scripture (which Protestant now truncate) or that we were right in condemning Nestorianism, etc.?

If you’re a Protestant, I guess you just pick and choose what you believe?

Besides, you say all conservative Protestants are in agreement on “necessary matters of faith”. Who, then decides what is a necessary matter of faith? The Church? Oops! Oh yeah, you guys don’t believe in a Church which Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, because according to Protestants the gates did prevail over it!

And they are not united in matters necessary to faith. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (for example) believes that baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are matters necessary to faith. But a lot of other conservative Protestant denominations would disagree with this. This is just one of a billion examples.

 

[justasking4]

Im sorry JFA4 but it is you who are in error. There is not one place in the bible that refers to Mary the Mother of Jesus Christ having other children. It may say Jesus brother, sister, etc. but it always separates when it comes to the Blessed Mother it always and Mary the Mother of Jesus. Never has it said and Mary the Mother of Jesus and her other children, or her other Sons or daughters it just does not. She is always Mary Jesus Mother. then it may say Jesus brothers, but i have never seen it. But if i missed it i would be love to see it.

Here are some reasons that Mary was not a perpetual virgin and had children of her own:

1. No mention of it in the Scripture. She nor do any writers claim she was a perpetual virgin.
2. The passage in Luke 1:48 in which Mary says she is a virgin does not mean she took a vow of perpetual virginity. It is only that she is a virgin up to this point in time.
3. The idea that a person who is about to be married is taking or has taken a vow of perpetual virginity is unheard of Biblically. There is no indication from the OT or NT that it would be acceptable to be married and yet chose to be a perpetual virgin. Married Jewish couples were to be fruitful and multiply. This is OT teaching.
4. When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32 and Mark 6:3; John 2:12
5. In the previous passages noted the best way to understand these relationships “brothers-sisters” is that these are siblings of Jesus by blood.
6. There is no hint in Scripture that Joseph was previously married and had children.
7. Paul refers to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Galatians 1:19.
8. There are Greek words for cousin—anepsios as in Colossians 4:10 or kinsman = sungenis which is used in Luke 1:36

 

[scipio337]

The Catholic church is in error about Jesus not having brothers through Mary. There are a number of passages that demonstrate this.

Got Greek?

 

[sola_scriptura]

Don’t you know that St. Paul condemned divisions and schisms? Our Lord wanted us all to be One. Protestantism is a perrenial blight and embarassment to all of Christendom. No offense.

Also, if the Catholic Church got it wrong on all these things, then how do you know we got the Trinity right (and that Arianism was wrong?) or the canon of holy Scripture (which Protestant now truncate) or that we were right in condemning Nestorianism, etc.?

I see it the other way around!

If you’re a Protestant, I guess you just pick and choose what you believe?

If it’s in the Bible I believe it, if it can sufficiently reconciled with Biblical revelation (even if it doesn’t enjoy explicit support from Scripture) I won’t oppose it, if it contravenes Holy Scripture then I know it’s wrong & will reject it and refute it at every opportunity.

Besides, you say all conservative Protestants are in agreement on “necessary matters of faith”. Who, then decides what is a necessary matter of faith? The Church? Oops! Oh yeah, you guys don’t believe in a Church which Christ promised the gates of hell would not prevail against, because according to Protestants the gates did prevail over it!

Since we don’t view the RCC as the exclusive church of Christ we don’t believe the gates of hell have prevailed over the church.

And they are not united in matters necessary to faith. Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (for example) believes that baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence are matters necessary to faith. But a lot of other conservative Protestant denominations would disagree with this. This is just one of a billion examples.

At this point denominations that reject “real presence” stand in a very small minority (even many reformed churches have come around on this issue). However, most protestant denominations do not share the Lutheran view. I would not say there’s anything wrong with the Baptist view for example simply because I have some disagreements with it. I believe they are just as Christian as I am & just as saved (as long as they have sincere faith that is).

You asked who decides what our doctrines are? My answer – God decides and they’re all contained in His plain, clear, and unambiguous revelations to man contained in Holy Scripture. I don’t need a priest or bishop to help me read simple English. Perhaps you think the Bible is too complex to understand? That’s not my problem nor is it something that will hinder my understanding. My suggestion – hooked on phonics!

 

[sola_scriptura]

Yes SS but all the Catholic Churchs teachings are right. And remember you never know. And i have heard Pink Elephants can fly.

Only after you eat the funny mushrooms

My Protestant friend really did tell me that. So be nice SS. Besides Protestants Love me too!

I’m being nice – doesn’t mean I will capitulate!

 

[Matariel]

I see it the other way around!

The Catholic Church defined all those beliefs, before the Protestants even existed! You’re being illogical! :whacky:

Jesus build one Church, on St. Peter. Please refer to Matthew.

At one time it was the only Church, though. So the Church was enthralled by Satan and the Protestants had to rise up, right?

You asked who decides what our doctrines are? My answer – God decides and they’re all contained in His plain, clear, and unambiguous revelations to man contained in Holy Scripture.

Then where do we find that abortion is wrong, when life begins, the just war doctrine, masturbation is wrong, etc, etc, in the Bible? Who decides these things? You’re reasoning is: “Because Protestants interpret it this way, this must be the correct way.”

That’s…um, foolish.

I don’t need a priest or bishop to help me read simple English.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Bible’s in Greek…

Perhaps you think the Bible is too complex to understand? That’s not my problem nor is it something that will hinder my understanding. My suggestion – hooked on phonics!

I had no idea that your conversation would become so uncharitable. To this I can only reply with the words:

I’ve had enough insults. G’bye. :tiphat:

[/QUOTE]

 

[Matariel]

I see it the other way around!

The Catholic Church defined all those beliefs, before the Protestants even existed! You’re being illogical! :whacky:

Since we don’t view the RCC as the exclusive church of Christ we don’t believe the gates of hell have prevailed over the church.

Jesus only built one Church, on St. Peter. Please refer to Matthew. Not a bunch of squabbling, daily-splintering sects.

At one time it was the only Church, though. So the Church was enthralled by Satan and the Protestants had to rise up, right?

You asked who decides what our doctrines are? My answer – God decides and they’re all contained in His plain, clear, and unambiguous revelations to man contained in Holy Scripture.

Then where do we find that abortion is wrong, when life begins, the just war doctrine, masturbation is wrong, etc, etc, in the Bible? Who decides these things? You’re reasoning is: “Because Protestants interpret it this way, this must be the correct way.”

That’s…um, foolish.

I don’t need a priest or bishop to help me read simple English.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Bible’s in Greek…

Perhaps you think the Bible is too complex to understand? That’s not my problem nor is it something that will hinder my understanding. My suggestion – hooked on phonics!

I had no idea that your conversation would become so uncharitable. To this I can only reply with the words:

I’ve had enough insults. G’bye. :tiphat:

 

[rinnie]

JFA4 you said there was proof in the bible that says she had other children. You showed me no proof. Where is my proof, my proof is in the bible.

It says to listen to the Church, to stay away from false teachers of the doctrine who try to twist it around and confuse people.

The Early Church was the Catholic Church and they have Oral and Tradition and also written.

Now my authority is the Church, thats who told me, now why would the Church lie to me about Oral and Tradition, and then turn around and just tell you the Truth in the Bible then.

You either believe them or you dont.

And it was the Early Church that agreed on scripture. ALL OF IT.

So where is your authority. And please dont say the bible because the Church is who wrote the First Bible. It was the Catholic Bible.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4158771]JFA4 you said there was proof in the bible that says she had other children. You showed me no proof.

Maybe you missed my post at #415. Here are some “proofs” that Mary did indeed have her own childred:
When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32 and Mark 6:3; John 2:12

Where is my proof, my proof is in the bible.

Good. That is exactly where i have built my case from.

It says to listen to the Church, to stay away from false teachers of the doctrine who try to twist it around and confuse people.

Both churches have to deal with false teachers from within and without. No amount a church authority can change what the Scriptures say on this matter. Its quite clear Mary had her own chidlren.

The Early Church was the Catholic Church and they have Oral and Tradition and also written.

I’m familar with these claims. If you Oral or Traditions say Mary did not have her own children they are not basing that on the Scriptures.

Now my authority is the Church, thats who told me, now why would the Church lie to me about Oral and Tradition, and then turn around and just tell you the Truth in the Bible then.

Somebody evidently got it wrong in your church then. What are examples of “Oral and Traditions”?

You either believe them or you dont.

You should only believe if you know they have the truth. You must test what they say by the Scriptures and if it does not line up with the Scriptures then you don’t have it based on the Scriptures and it could well be false depending on what it is.

And it was the Early Church that agreed on scripture. ALL OF IT.

i don’t know about this. Have you studied all the fathers on this issue?

So where is your authority. And please dont say the bible because the Church is who wrote the First Bible. It was the Catholic Bible.

In matters of faith, doctrine and practice i look first to the Scriptures which have their source not in the church but in God Himself.
Keep in mind that the church had nothing to do with writing of the OT. The OT predates the church.

 

[rinnie]

Maybe you missed my post at #415. Here are some “proofs” that Mary did indeed have her own childred:
When brothers and sisters are used in connection with father or mother then it does not mean cousins but actual blood brothers and sisters. See Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 3:31-32 and Mark 6:3; John 2:12

Good. That is exactly where i have built my case from.

Both churches have to deal with false teachers from within and without. No amount a church authority can change what the Scriptures say on this matter. Its quite clear Mary had her own chidlren.

I’m familar with these claims. If you Oral or Traditions say Mary did not have her own children they are not basing that on the Scriptures.

Somebody evidently got it wrong in your church then. What are examples of “Oral and Traditions”?

You should only believe if you know they have the truth. You must test what they say by the Scriptures and if it does not line up with the Scriptures then you don’t have it based on the Scriptures and it could well be false depending on what it is.

i don’t know about this. Have you studied all the fathers on this issue?

In matters of faith, doctrine and practice i look first to the Scriptures which have their source not in the church but in God Himself.
Keep in mind that the church had nothing to do with writing of the OT. The OT predates the church.

Well ironically its the bible that says that you must hold true to you Tradition and Oral Scripture. It says that we must do exactly the opposite of what you are saying. IT say to go to the Church and not to do what you are doing. And as far as the OT goes, as much as it is the Truth, Jesus fullfilled the OT and now we are told to go by the NT. If you read in the NT its also the Early Jews who also dont go by the Church and also deny Jesus as the Savior. As I agree that the Church did not have anything to do with the OT which how could it. It was Christ who started the first Church, And put Peter in Charge as the First Pope who we still follow today. So what does the OT have to do with the Church. Your words again make no sense to me. Of course there was no Church back then, but what does that matter. We go by Jesus Christ and he said follow the Church. That is what he left us, Jesus and his Church cannot be separated. That is why the Church is the bride and Christ is the bride groom. That is in the bible. How can you say you look to scripture and not the Church when Jesus said they are one.

 

[sola_scriptura]

For the last time – Sola Scriptura does value tradition and history. However, we recognize no tradition can trump the word of God – simple.

To say otherwise is to call the authors of Scripture liars. It is to say the Apostles and prophets were not divinely inspired but rather were prone to error.

Hence when I see an RCC doctrine that clearly abrogates scripture I can know with absolute certainty it is in error. Frankly, it’s more challenging to find doctrines the RCC is right about (besides the basics expressed in the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds) then to expose her errors.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4159303]Well ironically its the bible that says that you must hold true to you Tradition and Oral Scripture. It says that we must do exactly the opposite of what you are saying.

What specific Tradition or Oral Scripture are you referring to here? Where can i find it?

IT say to go to the Church and not to do what you are doing.

If you are referring to Matthew 18:17 that is a reference to church discipline and not about determining which doctrines are true or false.

And as far as the OT goes, as much as it is the Truth, Jesus fullfilled the OT and now we are told to go by the NT. If you read in the NT its also the Early Jews who also dont go by the Church and also deny Jesus as the Savior. As I agree that the Church did not have anything to do with the OT which how could it.

Good. Then we can dispense with the claim the Scriptures came from the church.

It was Christ who started the first Church, And put Peter in Charge as the First Pope who we still follow today. So what does the OT have to do with the Church.

What does your church say about the OT for the church today?

Your words again make no sense to me. Of course there was no Church back then, but what does that matter.

I was referring to the OT being in place before the church was born and these Scriptures were known to be Scripture without any help from the church.

We go by Jesus Christ and he said follow the Church.

i don’t know of any phrase like this. We are to follow Christ but i know of no saying that we are to follow the church. That would lead to all kinds of problems.

That is what he left us, Jesus and his Church cannot be separated.

Of course they can and must be in some manner. Otherwise you find Christ a partner in evil.

That is why the Church is the bride and Christ is the bride groom. That is in the bible. How can you say you look to scripture and not the Church when Jesus said they are one.

The primary reason is that the church is composed of men who and erred. Secondly we are warned in Scripture about false teachers coming into the church itself and decieving many.

 

[rinnie]

2Thes 2:15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Tradtions which ye have been taught whether by WORD OR EPISTLE. This is saying handed down by word of MOUTH from generation to generation. (Just blew you Bible Only theory right out of the water)

Jesus taught orally the SPOKEN WORD. He did not write a book. The bible was written long after he was gone. TRADITION played a huge role here.

Read about Saul, he was persecuting the Church. What did Jesus say Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. Saul was persecuting the Church proof Jesus and his Church are one.

Now again where did the Tradition come from the Catholic Church, How could the bible be written without Oral Tradition form the Church.

Now you tell me where did the bible come from. If not from the Church and The Spoken Word of Christ. What is the Spoken Word of Christ the Gospel, Why does the Church only have all of it. Why does your Church not have Tradition?

 

[rinnie]

What specific Tradition or Oral Scripture are you referring to here? Where can i find it?

If you are referring to Matthew 18:17 that is a reference to church discipline and not about determining which doctrines are true or false.

Good. Then we can dispense with the claim the Scriptures came from the church.

What does your church say about the OT for the church today?

I was referring to the OT being in place before the church was born and these Scriptures were known to be Scripture without any help from the church.

i don’t know of any phrase like this. We are to follow Christ but i know of no saying that we are to follow the church. That would lead to all kinds of problems.

Of course they can and must be in some manner. Otherwise you find Christ a partner in evil.

The primary reason is that the church is composed of men who and erred. Secondly we are warned in Scripture about false teachers coming into the church itself and decieving many.

Again you are disputing the words of Christ, The Church is composed of Christ and Christ alone you can not separate them

I never get a protestant response on this one Ive said it many of time maybe you could reply to it.

ST AUGUSTINE MARTIN LUTHERS GUIDE AND MENTOR SAID THIS ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA HE SAID BUT NOT FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH I WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Now tell me how can rely on the authority of the Church for the gospel, and then turn around and say the church lies. And Christ does not say false teachers will come into his Church. Unless you are saying the gate of hell prevailed. Jesus said his Church will be here until the end. He said yes there will be trials. he never said False teachers. that is not true. The Church has never changed scripture in 2000 years and never will. It will not change untill like the OT Jesus comes back and changes things. If you say the Church changed it, you are very mistaken. And you saying Jesus lied, He promised us his church would stay, and he left us Peter to be in charge, and the Pope is the Peter of our day. I am sorry you dont believe that, but that is what the bible says, so i cant see how even you can fight that one. He told us to stay true to our Church and not follow false teachers, You better go back and read it again.

 

[rinnie]

And also in the OT they had the Temple. Jesus destroyed the Temple and rebuilt it in 3 days, With his Body, ANd his Spiritual Body is in the Church, the Catholic Church we receive it everyday in the Eucharist. Again you cannot say Jesus did not say that at the Last Supper.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4159547]2Thes 2:15 Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the Tradtions which ye have been taught whether by WORD OR EPISTLE. This is saying handed down by word of MOUTH from generation to generation. (Just blew you Bible Only theory right out of the water)

What specific “tradition” was Paul referring to?

Where does it say in this verse that it was handed by word of MOUTH from generation to generation?

Jesus taught orally the SPOKEN WORD. He did not write a book. The bible was written long after he was gone. TRADITION played a huge role here.

Keep in mind that Jesus did rely on the written word when He either read from or quoted the OT. Secondly, just because Jesus did not write anything down does not mean the people did not write down what he wrote. The Jews were a people in whom the prophets were sent and they would write down in some form what the prophets said. This is why we have a written OT. The same would apply to Jesus. He was regarded by many to be a prophet (although He far more).
Thirdly it does seem that the NT church did deem it important to write down what Jesus said and did otherwise there would have been no written gospels. The same could be said of the lettters. in Revelation 1:11 John is commanded by Christ to “write down” what he is about to see and hear.

Read about Saul, he was persecuting the Church. What did Jesus say Saul Saul why are you persecuting me. Saul was persecuting the Church proof Jesus and his Church are one.

The are just to many problems with this. If there is a direct correlation between Christ and His church then we have some major problems on our hands.

Now again where did the Tradition come from the Catholic Church, How could the bible be written without Oral Tradition form the Church.

If you want to call the oral teachings that were evenually written into the NT then i can accept something like that. If you say there are other “Traditions” not recorded in the NT then you are going to need to show what this is specifically. Can you do that?

Now you tell me where did the bible come from. If not from the Church and The Spoken Word of Christ.

The Scriptures have their source in Christ in which He used the church as a tool to define what the canon of the NT should be.

What is the Spoken Word of Christ the Gospel, Why does the Church only have all of it.

Not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Why does your Church not have Tradition?

Depends what you mean by Tradition.

 

[justasking4]

rinnie;4159578]Again you are disputing the words of Christ, The Church is composed of Christ and Christ alone you can not separate them

I didn’t want to get into this but you insist. What of the evil done by the Catholic church? The inquisitions and the priest scandal come to mind. I would think all the leaders of the church who were involved in this would consider themselves part of Christ and yet are we to believe this was the work of Christ to?

Its this kind of claim that leads to such evil. I don’t know any catholic who would want to say Christ was involved in any way.

I never get a protestant response on this one Ive said it many of time maybe you could reply to it.

ST AUGUSTINE MARTIN LUTHERS GUIDE AND MENTOR SAID THIS ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA HE SAID BUT NOT FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH I WOULD NOT BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Now tell me how can rely on the authority of the Church for the gospel, and then turn around and say the church lies. And Christ does not say false teachers will come into his Church. Unless you are saying the gate of hell prevailed. Jesus said his Church will be here until the end. He said yes there will be trials. he never said False teachers. that is not true.

Here is one of a few passages that refer to false teachers coming into the church. Its found in 2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

There are a few other passages that teach essentially the same thing.

The Church has never changed scripture in 2000 years and never will. It will not change untill like the OT Jesus comes back and changes things. If you say the Church changed it, you are very mistaken.

Not so. Just look at some of the doctrines and practices of the church today and compare with the NT. You don’t see any devotion to Mary in the NT for example. You don’t see anyone being exhorted to pray to dead saints for help. What we do see in the church today is both of these and more.

And you saying Jesus lied, He promised us his church would stay, and he left us Peter to be in charge, and the Pope is the Peter of our day. I am sorry you dont believe that, but that is what the bible says, so i cant see how even you can fight that one. He told us to stay true to our Church and not follow false teachers, You better go back and read it again.

I’d encourage you to read the NT from cover to cover. As you do, look for the support for what you believe and see if its there. i think you will be suprised by what you find…

 

[Jeremiah333]

The Church has never changed scripture in 2000 years and never will. It will not change untill like the OT Jesus comes back and changes things.

Why has the Church changed traditions? The Bible says that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. God does not change. But your ‘rules’ have changed many times, why is that?

He promised us his church would stay, and he left us Peter to be in charge, and the Pope is the Peter of our day.

That is one example of what your church changed. Why don’t you allow the Pope to marry now?

 

[Matariel]

Why has the Church changed traditions? The Bible says that God is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. God does not change. But your ‘rules’ have changed many times, why is that?

Ha. The Magisterium (teaching Tradition) has never changed since the beginning.

That is one example of what your church changed. Why don’t you allow the Pope to marry now?

Everyone knows that’s a discipline, not a dogma. That can change. The Eastern-Rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry.

Is that the best you got?

Oh wait, this is off-topic.