James, Brother of Jesus?

[Tanner9188]

**Polyvalent **symbolism (multiple symbols in one instance) - runs rampant throughout the Scriptures and Protestants will accept this fact - EXCEPT when it comes to Mary.
The Woman in Rev. 12 has multiple meanings:.
1. Mary
2. Eve
3. Israel
4. The Church

It doesn’t take a biblical scholar to see this.

Oh, I almost forgot. Ummm . . . LOL.

See post #394 and please learn from it.

 

[Tanner9188]

The Jewish forefathers canonized the books of the bible not the catholic church. now i read that Rev 12 has multiple meanings. Its amazing how many people can take the word of God out of Context. The woman in this scripture is the nation of Israel. The same nation that is pictured as the wife of God (Is 54:5,6 Jer 3:6-8 31:32, Ezk 16:32, Hos 2:16)
God Bless

See post #394 - i believe you will agree.

 

[elvisman]

Let’s look, first of all, at the woman. He looks up and, in this very large vision, he sees a woman. Now, there are several symbolic women in the book of Revelation. There is a woman in chapter 2 who is called Jezebel. She’s given that symbolic name, because she represents pagan immorality. There is also, in the 17th chapter of Revelation, a prostitute, a whore, a scarlet woman who represents the apostate church, the corrupt church, the church that has abandoned its fidelity to God and gone awhoring after idols. And there is also another woman in the 19th chapter who is the bride, the true church, who is the bride of the lamb. And then there is this woman, the fourth of the symbolic women is Israel.

If you consider a traditional Catholic interpretation, this woman is Mary. And so you will see Mary sometimes depicted in art as clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head are 12 stars. This cannot be Mary. Others have said, this is the church. The church is the one who brings forth the child? This cannot refer to the church. The church is never in the New Testament called a woman. The church is never a wife. The church is never pregnant. The church never gives birth to anything. The church is always viewed as a bride waiting to get married. The married supper of the lamb doesn’t occur till the 19th chapter of Revelation when we all get to Heaven. We are the chosen bride. We are betrothed, and we are to be a chaste virgin. We are not a pregnant wife.

Roman Catholic church sees Mary here, traditional covenant reformed theology sees the church here. Neither of those is possible. We are, as a church, a chaste virgin, a bride waiting for the marriage that hasn’t yet happened. There is one and only one real possibility. The woman is Israel. Israel is often called the wife of God. Sometimes a widow, even a divorced woman, according to Hosea. You find the same in Isaiah 47 and Isaiah chapter 50. Israel is depicted as a disloyal, unfaithful, adulterous wife who finally, in the end, will become faithful. Israel, all throughout the Old Testament, is the erstwhile wife of God. This has to be Israel.

And we know that the Messiah came out of Israel. We also know that we’re in the book of Revelation, and we’re getting close now in the chronology of Revelation to the time when the Messiah comes to establish His Kingdom. It’s not surprising then that Israel is being referred to. The salvation of Israel is near. The promised kingdom of Israel is near. Israel is becoming the focal point again in God’s redemptive plan, because the Messiah will come and establish the Kingdom.

This woman is exalted above everybody else. This woman is exalted and associated with the 12 tribes of Israel. So, clearly, the imagery here is of the nation that is more than the tribes. The nation that is above all other nations. This is imagery that is literally taken from 37th chapter of Genesis. Clothed, in this case, with the sun, showing brilliance and reflecting its light as the glorious nation that God has chosen. The imagery here is just to show you that this is connected to the purposes of God with Israel, and it takes a little liberty with changing the imagery a bit from Genesis 37, but the parallel is very, very obvious. There’s no other parallel such as that anywhere in Scripture.

Hope this helps and again I apologize for offending you and may the God of all creation bless you!

Tanner

Well - besides the fact that you copied and pasted this from an extreme anti-Catholic’s website John MacArthur - it’s a very shallow attempt to interpret this passage.

It denies polyvalent symbolism that is not only used many times in Revelation but throughout Scripture.

Now - I’m going to paste something from Jimmy akin’s article in This Rock Magazine (1997):

**The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents: **
Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

Finally, the Woman is Mary because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Now THAT makes it mush clearer than anti-Catholic MacArthur’s bent and smashes his theory to bits.

 

[elvisman]

Only in the Catholic eye…right?

Show me WHERE these doctrines are supported by the CONTEXT of Scripture and I will becomo a Protestant today.

As I said; Jesus works through the individual, not a religious organization; thanks for putting this verse in there Elvis. The real teacher is the Holy Spirit indwelt in true believers.

WWWHHHHAAATTT???
That’s NOT what Jesus says (Acts 9:4-5, John 16:12-16)

Who taught you that? Men or God?

I suppose the “Church” gave the OT? Also; the “Church” gave us the Holy Spirit, the author of Scripture? The “Church” inspired the Holy Spirit to use Catholic men to bring it to the world? Perhaps you have it all backwards…do ya think it is a possibility…just asking?

There are only 2 types of revelation God gave us, but this common knowledge and common sense, so not everyone can get it. The first is general revelation as presented in God’s creation form the stars in heaven to a flower blooming in the desert. The second is special revelation reveled directly from God to man and written down by the writers of the OT and NT. The question is therefore; is this special revelation enough for salvation because what more is their to obtain in this life?
Why, then are there so many Protestant denominations? Did the Holy Spirit "inspire" John Mac Arthur to see the truth one way and James White another and Norman Geisler another and Joel Osteen another and Frederick Price, Oral Roberts, Ellen G. White, R.C. Sproul and on and on and on??

There is only ONE truth - and that is found in the ONLY Church established by Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church.
Also - HISTORY tells us that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. The New Testament was written by Catholics and the books were compiled and declared canon by the Catholic Church.

New interpretation skills Elvis? Lack of information to affirm a positive; especially where there is sufficient information to conclude that He had brothers.

Here is the real issue you and other religious people or organizations must face; if He had real brothers and sisters, then this would be a serious error in a religious theology, which would kill the credibility on that precept and most likely other precepts, then on a religion as a whole could be in question. For example the JW’s, the Mormons, Muslims etc
Again - you have yet to show proof that Jesus had uterine siblings. JimmyB, I and others have debunked this myth over and over and over . . .

 

[elvisman]

The Jewish forefathers canonized the books of the bible not the catholic church. now i read that Rev 12 has multiple meanings. Its amazing how many people can take the word of God out of Context. The woman in this scripture is the nation of Israel. The same nation that is pictured as the wife of God (Is 54:5,6 Jer 3:6-8 31:32, Ezk 16:32, Hos 2:16)
God Bless

The Jewish forefathers canonized the books of the bible???
They canonized the New Testament??? Please provide PROOF. If you can’t, then you should bow out of the debate gracefully.

**I understand that you are having a difficult time understanding the polyvalent symbolisms that are displayed throughout the Scriptures. That’s why you’re a Protestant.
**You’ve had a really difficult time following all of the posts on this thread . . .

 

[Tanner9188]

Show me WHERE these doctrines are supported by the CONTEXT of Scripture and I will becomo a Protestant today.

WWWHHHHAAATTT???
That’s NOT what Jesus says (Acts 9:4-5, John 16:12-16)

Why, then are there so many Protestant denominations? Did the Holy Spirit "inspire" John Mac Arthur to see the truth one way and James White another and Norman Geisler another and Joel Osteen another and Frederick Price, Oral Roberts, Ellen G. White, R.C. Sproul and on and on and on??

There is only ONE truth - and that is found in the ONLY Church established by Jesus Christ - the Catholic Church.
Also - HISTORY tells us that the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. The New Testament was written by Catholics and the books were compiled and declared canon by the Catholic Church.

Again - you have yet to show proof that Jesus had uterine siblings. JimmyB, I and others have debunked this myth over and over and over . . .

**You or Jimmy B or any other have yet to debunk anything because you are unable from Scripture because it is not in Scripture; the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception I speak of. All of us “so-called” protestants are still waiting for the contextual proof, as you put it. We also know we won’t get it because it does not exist in Scripture only in your dogma about 3 to 400 years later.

As usual you put Acts and John out of its context to support your own preconceived notions.

When you are ready to get serious about the plain word of God by supporting your position from Scripture, then we will have more profitable dialogue.

God bless you Elvis!**

 

[Tanner9188]

I understand that you are having a difficult time understanding the polyvalent symbolisms that are displayed throughout the Scriptures. That’s why you’re a Protestant.
You’ve had a really difficult time following all of the posts on this thread . . .

**Perhaps you should consider bowing out since you are unable to answer a question; throw out insults and generally uncharitable. At least we are willing to receive correction and admit when we make a mistake.

Elvis, I would heed the warning of James, the brother of Jesus.
James 3:1
“My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” A teacher is anyone who presents the word of God; something I hope no one takes lightly. **

 

[Tanner9188]

Well - besides the fact that you copied and pasted this from an extreme anti-Catholic’s website John MacArthur - it’s a very shallow attempt to interpret this passage.

It denies polyvalent symbolism that is not only used many times in Revelation but throughout Scripture.

Now - I’m going to paste something from Jimmy akin’s article in This Rock Magazine (1997):

The Woman in Revelation 12 is part of the fusion imagery/polyvalent symbolism that is found in the book. She has four referents:
Israel, the Church, Eve, and Mary.

She is Israel because she is associated with the sun, the moon, and twelve stars. These symbols are drawn from Genesis 37:9–11, in which the patriarch Joseph has a dream of the sun and moon (symbolizing his father and mother) and stars (representing his brothers), which bow down to him. Taken together, the sun, moon, and twelve stars symbolize the people of Israel.

The Woman is the Church because, as 12:17 tells us, “the rest of her offspring” are those who bear witness to Jesus, making them Christians.

The Woman is Eve because she is part of the three-way conflict also involving her Seed and the Dragon, who is identified with the ancient serpent (the one from Eden) in 20:2. This mirrors the conflict in Genesis 3:15 between Eve, the serpent, and her unborn seed—which in turn is a symbol of the conflict between Mary, Satan, and Jesus.

**Finally, the Woman is Mary **because she is the mother of Jesus, the child who will rule the nations with a rod of iron (19:11–16).

Now THAT makes it mush clearer than anti-Catholic MacArthur’s bent and smashes his theory to bits.

www.biblebb.com - FYI

 

[elvisman]

Perhaps you should consider bowing out since you are unable to answer a question; throw out insults and generally uncharitable. At least we are willing to receive correction and admit when we make a mistake.

Elvis, I would heed the warning of James, the brother of Jesus.
James 3:1
**“My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.” A teacher is anyone who presents the word of God; something I hope no one takes lightly. **

Mistakes? You’ve made them because you’re going on your own understanding and interpretations. There are tens of thousands of those in the Protestant denominations. Not so in Jesus’ Church (Catholic Church), which is the Pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Also - I suggest you heed the words of St. Peter, the first leader (pope) of the Universal Christian Church (Matt. 16:15-18):
2 Pet. 3:16
". . . there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

 

[elvisman]

www.biblebb.com - FYI

Thanks, but I already know of many other heretical Protestant sources . . .

 

[elvisman]

You or Jimmy B or any other have yet to debunk anything because you are unable from Scripture because it is not in Scripture; the perpetual virginity and the immaculate conception I speak of. All of us “so-called” protestants are still waiting for the contextual proof, as you put it. We also know we won’t get it because it does not exist in Scripture only in your dogma about 3 to 400 years later.

Ummm . . . The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 150 - NOT 3-400 years after Christ. Only a little more than 100 - and about 50 years after the Apostle John.

Iranaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) wrote about Mary around the year A.D. 175. Again - WAAAAY before the dates you give.

They wrote (along with most of the Early Church Fathers) about the Traditions concerning Mary as these are the Traditions of Christ’s ONLY Church.
As for Dogmas - they only needed to be declared by his Church throughout history when the beliefs were challenged by heretics.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You overlooked Galatians 1:18-19; can’t get anymore clearer than this…in the eyes of a believer can it? I look forward to you and others explaining this one away as well; in light of the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and the lack of any evidence to the perpetual virginity theory or immaculate conception theory.

18 "Then three years later I went up to Jerusalem to become acquainted with Cephas, and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."

Look I understand that if you admit the Scripture is right, then it presents a problem. I don’t know what to say past that; you and others have been presented this many times I’m sure. It is difficult to defend, so you must drawl your own conclusions based on the evidence or lack of evidence. I chose on the side of the overwhelming evidence and believe God would not tell Joseph to take Mary as his wife, then make Joseph not fully commit to the marriage covenant; we see no example where God told someone to marry, then not fulfill His design for marriage. Just a thought.

May God bless you this day!

Hello again Tanner,

I’m afraid you’re spinning your wheels here….The Bible doesn’t present a problem for me, I’m Catholic and the Bible is a Catholic book. However, it does seem to present a problem for non-Catholic, Protestant Christians in general. If it doesn’t present a problem and is not the cause for so much division in the Protestant church, then what is? It all goes back to the errant belief, which allows for “personal interpretation” of the Bible. This is why there are 36,000+ different non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations…All of whom disagree with something that you believe in. Protestants have more disagreements among themselves then they have with the Catholic Church.

Galatians 1:19
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

This James is the same James, who is the Apostle, and head of the Church in Jerusalem, (See: Galatians, Chapter 2.).

This is not a “third James” and he is not the biological “brother of the Lord”, here “brother” means cousin or other close relative but not biological brother of Jesus. The argument regarding the actual Greek word used here has been addressed on this thread and elsewhere here at CAF.

Why is it so important to you that James be the Biological brother of Jesus?

Are you afraid that you’ll discover that your previously held views were wrong? Or, maybe it’s because you have a problem with Mary the Mother of God??? Is that what this is all about?

Can you say, “I Love Mary”? Catholics can, we don’t have a problem with Jesus’ mother.

There are many non-Catholic Christians here who will say, “Their focus is entirely on Jesus” and yet, we see a lot a wasted time and wasted “focus” on trying to “debunk” a Catholic belief.

Now, why is that? I will tell you why, it is because… built into Protestantism….Is the “PROTEST”…the protest of the Catholic Church.

Many times, I wonder if some of the Protestants here are more worried about their Salvation, or “proving that the Catholic Church was wrong about this or that. Where is your focus… really? Do you have a problem with Mary; is that what this is all about? I think it might be.

You can bring up any verse you would like, there does not exist a single verse in the Bible, when understood and viewed in context that does not support Catholic Doctrine. The Bible is a Catholic Book, collected, translated and put together by Catholics and approved by Catholic Popes, well before you existed and well before your denomination or belief system, existed.

Do you honestly believe that the Church missed this one….for two thousand years? Come on, The belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary for example, goes back to the early Church, back before the completed Bible and well over a thousands years before Protestantism.

The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. It is referred to “The Early Church” when Protestants like something from Early Christian (Catholic) History and called the Catholic Church whenever Protestants don’t like or agree with something from Early Christian (Catholic) History….Am I right?

Protestantism is “having Christianity on your own terms” and not on Gods terms.

First came Jesus (New Testament era), then His Catholic Church, then 3-500 years later came the Bible……Then a thousand years later, came Protestantism and “personal interpretation of the Bible”…to today, where there exist over 36,000 non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations and subdivisions.

The only thing that all of the Protestant denominations really have in common with each other is that they are all, in one way or another still protesting the Catholic Church.

Mary ever Virgin, did not have any children before or after Jesus. This whole discussion is just another way for Protestant denominations to confuse and deceive people about Catholicism.

God bless you and good luck on your journey.

 

[Tanner9188]

Hello again Tanner,
I’m afraid you’re spinning your wheels here….The Bible doesn’t present a problem for me, I’m Catholic and the Bible is a Catholic book. However, it does seem to present a problem for non-Catholic, Protestant Christians in general. If it doesn’t present a problem and is not the cause for so much division in the Protestant church, then what is? It all goes back to the errant belief, which allows for “personal interpretation” of the Bible. This is why there are 36,000+ different non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations…All of whom disagree with something that you believe in. Protestants have more disagreements among themselves then they have with the Catholic Church. Galatians 1:19
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.
This is not a “third James” and he is not the biological “brother of the Lord”, here “brother” means cousin or other close relative but not biological brother of Jesus. The argument regarding the actual Greek word used here has been addressed on this thread and elsewhere here at CAF.
Why is it so important to you that James be the Biological brother of Jesus?
Are you afraid that you’ll discover that your previously held views were wrong? Or, maybe it’s because you have a problem with Mary the Mother of God??? Is that what this is all about?
Can you say, “I Love Mary”? Catholics can, we don’t have a problem with Jesus’ mother.

Oh how I wish it were the same Mary; but you have invented and glorified another Mary; that is the real problem I and others have.

There are many non-Catholic Christians here who will say, “Their focus is entirely on Jesus” and yet, we see a lot a wasted time and wasted “focus” on trying to “debunk” a Catholic belief.

Now, why is that? I will tell you why, it is because… built into Protestantism….Is the “PROTEST”…the protest of the Catholic Church.
. Where is your focus… really? Do you have a problem with Mary; is that what this is all about? I think it might be.

You can bring up any verse you would like, there does not exist a single verse in the Bible, when understood and viewed in context that does not support Catholic Doctrine. The Bible is a Catholic Book, collected, translated and put together by Catholics and approved by Catholic Popes, well before you existed and well before your denomination or belief system, existed.

Do you honestly believe that the Church missed this one….for two thousand years? Come on, The belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary for example, goes back to the early Church, back before the completed Bible and well over a thousands years before Protestantism.

We both know the veneration , perpetual virginity & immaculate conception came much later.

The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. It is referred to “The Early Church” when Protestants like something from Early Christian (Catholic) History and called the Catholic Church whenever Protestants don’t like or agree with something from Early Christian (Catholic) History….Am I right?
Protestantism is “having Christianity on your own terms” and not on Gods terms.
First came Jesus (New Testament era), then His Catholic Church, then 3-500 years later came the Bible……Then a thousand years later, came Protestantism and “personal interpretation of the Bible”…to today, where there exist over 36,000 non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations and subdivisions.

The only thing that all of the Protestant denominations really have in common with each other is that they are all, in one way or another still protesting the Catholic Church.

Mary ever Virgin, did not have any children before or after Jesus. This whole discussion is just another way for Protestant denominations to confuse and deceive people about Catholicism.

God bless you and good luck on your journey.

I think you fall into the problem of dwelling on religion and denominations; as do many of your Catholic brothers and sisters. God does not care for either; He looks at the heart. It is not a Catholic or Protestant issue, but you try make it into one. The Word of God should be your focus, not a religion or denomination; these things will only separate one from the love of God. Listen to the heart of Jesus in these passages towards His children.

John 14:15-17 15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.”

John 14 cont -
“Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, **and We will come to him and make Our home with him. **

Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, dwells in the individual, not a religion or denomination; it has been that way since man was first created and God extended His mercy. Most people that call themselves Christians, never understand this most basic truth because most people that call themselves Christians are not. It is a sad fact and I wish everyone was saved, but this is and will always be God’s choice.

May God bless you friend!

 

[freedomwriter]

Hello again Tanner,

I’m afraid you’re spinning your wheels here….The Bible doesn’t present a problem for me, I’m Catholic and the Bible is a Catholic book. However, it does seem to present a problem for non-Catholic, Protestant Christians in general. If it doesn’t present a problem and is not the cause for so much division in the Protestant church, then what is? It all goes back to the errant belief, which allows for “personal interpretation” of the Bible. This is why there are 36,000+ different non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations…All of whom disagree with something that you believe in. Protestants have more disagreements among themselves then they have with the Catholic Church.

Galatians 1:19
19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.

This James is the same James, who is the Apostle, and head of the Church in Jerusalem, (See: Galatians, Chapter 2.).

This is not a “third James” and he is not the biological “brother of the Lord”, here “brother” means cousin or other close relative but not biological brother of Jesus. The argument regarding the actual Greek word used here has been addressed on this thread and elsewhere here at CAF.

Why is it so important to you that James be the Biological brother of Jesus?

Are you afraid that you’ll discover that your previously held views were wrong? Or, maybe it’s because you have a problem with Mary the Mother of God??? Is that what this is all about?

Can you say, “I Love Mary”? Catholics can, we don’t have a problem with Jesus’ mother.

There are many non-Catholic Christians here who will say, “Their focus is entirely on Jesus” and yet, we see a lot a wasted time and wasted “focus” on trying to “debunk” a Catholic belief.

Now, why is that? I will tell you why, it is because… built into Protestantism….Is the “PROTEST”…the protest of the Catholic Church.

Many times, I wonder if some of the Protestants here are more worried about their Salvation, or “proving that the Catholic Church was wrong about this or that. Where is your focus… really? Do you have a problem with Mary; is that what this is all about? I think it might be.

You can bring up any verse you would like, there does not exist a single verse in the Bible, when understood and viewed in context that does not support Catholic Doctrine. The Bible is a Catholic Book, collected, translated and put together by Catholics and approved by Catholic Popes, well before you existed and well before your denomination or belief system, existed.

Do you honestly believe that the Church missed this one….for two thousand years? Come on, The belief in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary for example, goes back to the early Church, back before the completed Bible and well over a thousands years before Protestantism.

The Catholic Church was there from the beginning. It is referred to “The Early Church” when Protestants like something from Early Christian (Catholic) History and called the Catholic Church whenever Protestants don’t like or agree with something from Early Christian (Catholic) History….Am I right?

Protestantism is “having Christianity on your own terms” and not on Gods terms.

First came Jesus (New Testament era), then His Catholic Church, then 3-500 years later came the Bible……Then a thousand years later, came Protestantism and “personal interpretation of the Bible”…to today, where there exist over 36,000 non-Catholic, Protestant, Christian denominations and subdivisions.

The only thing that all of the Protestant denominations really have in common with each other is that they are all, in one way or another still protesting the Catholic Church.

Mary ever Virgin, did not have any children before or after Jesus. This whole discussion is just another way for Protestant denominations to confuse and deceive people about Catholicism.

God bless you and good luck on your journey.

The bible is not a Catholic book. Look at who wrote the Gospels and to whom they wrote them too. I also see that there is division amongst the Catholic church. See how many types of catholics there are now days. Why do you think this is happening. We have over 50% ex catholics at the prostestant church i attend. Hmmm wonder why that is happening. James is also the brother of Christ and Mary did have other children with Joseph. There is no debate about what the scriptures say. If you want to debate someone take it up with the Lord. You are right in one thing and that this is not really an issue that needs to take much time in debating. Like Salvation

 

[Tanner9188]

Ummm . . . The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 150 - NOT 3-400 years after Christ. Only a little more than 100 - and about 50 years after the Apostle John.

Iranaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) wrote about Mary around the year A.D. 175. Again - WAAAAY before the dates you give.

They wrote (along with most of the Early Church Fathers) about the Traditions concerning Mary as these are the Traditions of Christ’s ONLY Church.
As for Dogmas - they only needed to be declared by his Church throughout history when the beliefs were challenged by heretics.

**Writing about someone and making it dogma are two entirely different things; as though you don’t already know; and there is no way to know if they were true Christians or Apostates…is there?

It also proves you have to go outside of Scripture to an uninspired revelation to make an invalid point or argument. Don’t you think that is problematic?**

 

[Tanner9188]

**Thanks, but I already know of many other heretical **Protestant sources . . .

Perhaps you could share some of them with me; I’m always seeking good heretical and apostate sources. The more you dislike them; then the more interested I would be in them…I’m serious - send me a PM with your list. Thanks and God bless you!

 

[Tanner9188]

**Mistakes? You’ve **made them because you’re going on your own understanding and interpretations. There are tens of thousands of those in the Protestant denominations. Not so in Jesus’ Church (Catholic Church), which is the Pillar and foundation of truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

Also - I suggest you heed the words of St. Peter, the first leader (pope) of the Universal Christian Church (Matt. 16:15-18):
2 Pet. 3:16
". . . there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures."

My own understanding is based on the promise of Jesus; what about yours; the Church?

“Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?” 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and **We will come to him and make Our home with him. **

15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever-- 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, **for He dwells with you and will be in you. **

This is about individuals, not religion or denominations; unfortunately “only a few find it” - Matt 7:14

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Ummm . . . The Protoevangelium of James was written around A.D. 150 - NOT 3-400 years after Christ. Only a little more than 100 - and about 50 years after the Apostle John.

Iranaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum (Lyons) wrote about Mary around the year A.D. 175. Again - WAAAAY before the dates you give.

They wrote (along with most of the Early Church Fathers) about the Traditions concerning Mary as these are the Traditions of Christ’s ONLY Church.
As for Dogmas - they only needed to be declared by his Church throughout history when the beliefs were challenged by heretics.

that is true … the so called gospel of James was probably written in 150 AD & did discuss the veneration of Mary, perpetual virginity, and depicted her as the “new Eve” (as Irenaeus also did, several years later). What does this mean though?

We know the protoevangelium of James wasn’t written by the Jewish James who signed the document as its author. Does that necessarily mean it’s a fake? It’s hard to tell (since it could have been handed down folklore that became diluted and significantly altered by the time it was put on paper) – but remember Rome didn’t canonize the book for a reason.

Of course the actual truth is – it’s all handed down folklore and mythology; but anyways

 

[josie_L]

The bible is not a Catholic book. Look at who wrote the Gospels and to whom they wrote them too. I also see that there is division amongst the Catholic church. See how many types of catholics there are now days. Why do you think this is happening. We have over 50% ex catholics at the prostestant church i attend. Hmmm wonder why that is happening. James is also the brother of Christ and Mary did have other children with Joseph. There is no debate about what the scriptures say. If you want to debate someone take it up with the Lord. You are right in one thing and that this is not really an issue that needs to take much time in debating. Like Salvation

What do ex-Catholics at a Protestant Church have anything to do with Truth? Are we quantifying veracity through observations such as these? Furthermore, divisions have always existed to some extent in the Church, and guess what, we’re still around to speak of it.

P.S. I love the fact that you’re hijacking the term “Catholic”. And you’ve been here before I recognize something in your manner of speech and the words you’ve used. It’s the second time I see someone write “over 50% ex catholics at the protestant church i attend”.

 

[Hesychios]

Of course the actual truth is – it’s all handed down folklore and mythology; but anyways

There is actually no way to know whether it was all honest legend dutifully recorded, or if it was pious fiction manipulated by a single author.

To be clear, I identify books like the “Left Behind” series by Lahaye (and the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich) as pious fiction. In other words they are Christian themed literature. People should not learn their theology from fiction.

On the other hand, the “Left Behind” series presupposes and utilizes essential theology embraced by the Christian Fundamentalist variety. If scholars 2000 years from now wanted to learn something about 21st century Christian Fundamentalism and had precious few other sources, they could learn something about the Rapture and stuff like that. But they would not automatically assume that the main characters were real people or the main events portrayed were always real.

Anyway, Hagiography from the first few centuries followed a few general patterns and there were some standard themes that seemed necessary to report in most accounts. Much can be learned from that about what early Christians were thinking, what qualities were valued by them, how they viewed themselves in relation to God and their notions of the cosmological order.

These were not sermons or scholarly treatises so we cannot give them the creedence of Patristic literature.

So was it all folklore and mythology? Well, quite a bit. But studying early myths can teach us much about our predecessors and what they thought.