Jesus was an only son.. Mary did not have more children!!

[Good_Fella]

Where are you getting the idea that we get the so-called “essentials” for Salvation from Peter and/or Paul? Just because they wrote about salvation, doesn’t mean they intended to limit the concept to what they were saying at the time. Nor does it mean they are the source of how we know about salvation. Catholic bishops chose recognize Peter and Paul’s works as being in the canon of scripture because they contain true doctrine, not because they are the only source of doctrine.

True. The only texts that were considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, even centuries before the Council of Rome in 382 A.D., were those that completely affirmed Apostolic Tradition. Meanwhile the so-called essentials for salvation originate from Jesus Christ. They are all contained in his life and in his teachings. One can only find salvation by emulating our Lord in his sacred humanity and keeping his word.

The Blessed Virgin Mary modelled her life in perfect conformity to the life of her divine Son. Full of grace, and by having been overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, the Most High God, she couldn’t have done otherwise. Her act of faith in love at the Annunciation is the greatest and most fruitful spiritual work of mercy by grace ever done in the history of salvation among all of God’s creatures. Our Blessed Mother merited for us the grace of our salvation in congruo proprie by consenting to conceive and bear the Messiah, and thereby she made satisfaction for our sins by willingly suffering over the cruelty and ingratitude of sinful men towards her Son.

Mary suffered spiritually not for herself, but for Him. She would have suffered immeasurably far less if she had herself experienced the physical pain of a crucifixion, because her suffering was the result of her love for her Son. When Jesus sweated drops of blood in the garden of Gethsemane at the height of his agony, which occurred there, not on Golgotha, it was because of our sins and our ingratitude, indifference, and hatred towards him. Jesus did not agonize over the thought of impending physical pain and death. He knew he would rise again in glory. Mary shared that knowledge with him as she stood at the foot of the cross amidst all the mocking and jeering of malicious and ungrateful people. She offered God the perfect immolation of her only firstborn Son at the altar of the holocaust in fulfillment of Abraham’s great act of faith in love. But unlike Abraham, who was prepared to sacrifice his only firstborn son Isaac, Mary wasn’t spared the agony of witnessing the sacrifice of her offspring. Her immolation of the One whom she consecrated to God in the temple eight days after his birth would have been imperfect if she had stood at the foot of the cross with a divided love.

Mary couldn’t have had other children in light of her maternal dignity in the divine order of redemption, or else God would have been untrue to himself. He alone was the object of Mary’s love as she made perfect satisfaction for our sins by the merits of her Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in condigno through her meritorious act of faith in love.

Mary was predestined to collaborate with the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation. Having a share in the merits of her divne Son, she would have rendered the redemptive sacrifice of our Lord imperfect in the divine plan if she hadn’t a love reserved entirely for him alone. Abraham’s willingness to immolate his only beloved son couldn’t have been fulfilled in Mary’s act of consecration to God.

“And your own soul a sword will pierce, so that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Luke 2, 35

In my afflictions I make up for what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.
Colossians 1, 24

Pax Christu

 

[Prieldedi]

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

Hi 1beleevr … It’s been some time since my last post and I see you are still in square one.

Let’s look at Luke 1:
30 But the angel said, “Do not fear, Mary, for God has looked kindly on you.
31 You shall conceive and bear a son and you shall call him Jesus.
32 He will be great and shall rightly be called Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the kingdom of David, his ancestor; he will rule over the people of Jacob for-ever
33 and his reign shall have no end.”
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be if I am a virgin?”

Think for a moment of this conversation. You have the angel telling Mary she will conceive and bear a son. Any woman whose life is for marriage wouldn’t be surprised if she was told that she will conceive and bear a son. In fact her answer would have been more like “Who is going to be my husband? When am I getting married? When will my son be born?” But not Mary. Instead She asks “How can this be if I am a virgin?”

What She is actually saying is: “I’m a virgin for life! I will devote my life to God, I’ll remain single for life dedicating my life to God. I’M A VIRGIN! How can this be?”

No woman prepared for marriage would’ve given that answer. In all likelihood, Mary had taken the personal vows to be a Virgin in the Temple, a very normal decision for many young Jewish girls of the time. This also reinforces Luke 1:28, «The angel came to her and said, “Rejoice, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”» You see, Mary was not like your regular teenager girl, dreaming of charming blue prince, she was like thousands of young girls throughout Christianity that have decided to remain VIRGIN, many of whom became nuns and never wanted anything else but to serve God. Family life was not their call, nor was it Mary’s if not for God’s request that She be His Son’s Mother. Thus “How can this be if I am a Virgin?”

Look also to this from John Martignoni (biblechristiansociety.com/home.php):

Genesis 3:14-15: "“The Lord said to the serpent…I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

This is a clear reference here in Genesis to Jesus Christ conquering Satan, bruising Satan’s head - dealing a death blow to Satan. And Jesus is the seed of what woman? This is the only place in Scripture that I know of where it mentions the woman’s seed, and not the man’s seed. We normally associate the seed with the man, not the woman. And, of course we know why it says “her seed” here in Genesis, because Mary conceived Jesus of the Holy Spirit – not of man. The Virgin Birth.

Again, the seed of “the woman” is described as bruising the head of the serpent - Satan. All Christians know that this verse is referring to Jesus Christ. Genesis 3:15 is often referred to as the proto-evangelium - the first good news - a promise of One to come Who will defeat the power of Satan. So, if “her seed” refers to Jesus, then who does “her” refer to? Obviously, “the woman” spoken of here in Gen 3:15 is Mary.

What else do we see in Gen 3:15? God Himself tells Satan that He, God, will put enmity between Satan and the woman, Mary. Enmity, in my dictionary, is defined as “hostility between enemies”. That is an amazing thing! God Himself tells Satan that He, God, will put hostility between Satan and Mary. That He, God, will make Satan and Mary enemies. If you have sin in you, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan? If one is conceived in sin, or if one sins by willfully disobeying God and His commandments, then are you not in both cases on the side of Satan? If you are a sinner, aren’t you actually on Satan’s side, at least until such time as you repent and confess of your sin? So, the question is: If God Himself put enmity between Satan and Mary, how can anyone say that she was conceived in sin, or that she ever committed a personal sin? Did God not do what He said He would do? Or, was it that God put enmity between Satan and Mary, but Satan was stronger than God and occasionally overcame what God had done?

To those protestants that think that Jesus was underestimating Mary by calling Her “woman”, think again. Woman in this passage is not the “feminine gender”, but a real person, Jesus’ Mother. God calls Jesus’ Mother “woman” in Gen 31:15 and Jesus was doing likewise when He called Her “woman” in some NT passages. In fact, Jesus was quoting God from Gen 3:15!

So, after all these explanations, and they have been countless of explanations from many of us Catholics posters in this thread, showing time and time again the passages in Scriptures and their TRUE meaning, in which we have also proven that from early Christianity Mary was known to be a Virgin for life… what do protestants have besides their personal interpretation? Mary has God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, the Apostles, the Early Church Fathers, the Bible, all the Saints of the Church, millions and millions of Catholics throughout the 2000 years of existence of the Church to attest for Her and Her Virginity… against what? a personal interpretation? This is no contest. No one gets the TRUTH by personal interpretation. God has REVEALED it to His Church.

It’s your decision to remain in square one.

God bless you

 

[Arandur]

How come in the Old Testament,“he knew his wife, and she conceived,” means they had sex, but in the New Testament, it means something else? Can we REALLY, without any shadow of a doubt, say that Joseph and Mary did NOT have sexual relations?

Where in the New Testament does it say “Joseph knew his wife, Mary, and she conceived?” If it says that, then you might have a point. Since this is nowhere to be found, I fail to see any relevance to this statement.

sonofmonica:Hate to disagree with youse, but I can’t find any evidence that believing that Mary was or wasn’t a virgin her whole life, is not something that Paul or Peter list as being essential for salvation!

Are you really only concerned with what is “essential for salvation,” 1beleevr? What would that list look like for you? From your talk, it sounds like you’re one who would condense it to a sentence, paragraph, or page. How shallow! How can you really love God if you care so little about Him that you don’t wish to know more about Him, His works, His Kingdom, His–YOUR–Family?

Just as faith without works is dead, I am sure you would say that faith without relationship is dead. Yet how can you have relationship if you do not seek to know more about the other? To know and love more deeply? Yet you seem to say that anything beyond a shallow knowledge of our infinite God is unimportant. I wish to convict you that this thinking is contrary to a true love for God.

As for changing minds/remaining in belief…

I sure hope not. If people remain stubbornly set in their ways in their own preconceived notions and prideful in their own personal interpretations, placing their own authority above God’s, then how can we ever expect to spread Truth, to convince people of the Good News? How can we ever expect to sow seeds for the Spirit to work conversions?

If you’re here intending only to hold fast to what you’ve already decided you believe with no openness to God’s Truth, then you do everyone a disservice. There should be no reason for fatalism that people will merely remain in their belief no matter what. Especially when such a truly vast body of evidence from Scripture, Tradition, and theology, with nothing clearly to the contrary, supports a particular truth.

I do see a stubbornness and close-mindedness (hard-heartedness?), though, when most of those explanations are not met with counter-arguments, but with non-sequiturs or simply by being ignored.

Good Fella, thanks for your explanation of the theology. I would add that Paul gives an assurance to that explanation when he tells us it is preferable to remain virgins (if we are called to it) so that we can focus all our attention on serving God, not on serving a spouse or children; and when Jesus tells us that some are called to be virgins for the Lord. If these are true, how could Mary NOT be sworn to virginity?

Prieldedi, thank you as well. I had not seen such an interesting view of the proto-evangelium as evidence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. Quite fitting for the New Eve.

 

[Good_Fella]

Where in the New Testament does it say “Joseph knew his wife, Mary, and she conceived?” If it says that, then you might have a point. Since this is nowhere to be found, I fail to see any relevance to this statement.

If some Protestants would only start looking at the New Testament in light of the Old. Then perhaps they would see by the grace of the Holy Spirit that Mary is the personification of daughter Zion, Israel in the spirit and the virgin bride of God. St. Luke draws our attention to this allusion in the Annunciation narrative.

Are you really only concerned with what is “essential for salvation,” 1beleevr? What would that list look like for you? From your talk, it sounds like you’re one who would condense it to a sentence, paragraph, or page. How shallow! How can you really love God if you care so little about Him that you don’t wish to know more about Him, His works, His Kingdom, His–YOUR–Family?

St. John writes in his epistle that to know God is to love him and to love him is to obey his commandments and observe his will. God became incarnate not only to redeem us, but to exemplify what we must do to be saved and become adopted children of God. Mary is the first to be counted among the children of God by adoption in the order of grace because she gave herself entirely to God in faith working through love, as St. Paul would see it. St. Peter acknowledges the merits of Our Lady by grace in seeing that she gave her body as a living sacrifice pleasing to God.

Good Fella, thanks for your explanation of the theology. I would add that Paul gives an assurance to that explanation when he tells us it is preferable to remain virgins (if we are called to it) so that we can focus all our attention on serving God, not on serving a spouse or children; and when Jesus tells us that some are called to be virgins for the Lord. If these are true, how could Mary NOT be sworn to virginity?

You’re welcome. Anything for our Queen Mother.

Mary would have been an unworthy mother of our Lord if she had given birth to other children by Joseph. Like Mary, the sister of Martha, Our Lady chose the better part.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Prieldedi]

Prieldedi, thank you as well. I had not seen such an interesting view of the proto-evangelium as evidence of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. Quite fitting for the New Eve.

You’re welcome.

 

[Janet1983]

And as far as I know, Mary’s virginity is not an element of our salvation!

Well her virginity before giving birth to Christ is something we just do believe, but her staying a virgin afterwards? Yes I agree that this is not essential in any way towards our salvation. We are to embrace Jesus Christ, not Mary.
Her life as either a virgin or a faithful spouse to her husband Joseph do not change the Gospel in any way.
Jesus Christ is our one and only Saviour and to Him we should cling.

 

[Good_Fella]

Well her virginity before giving birth to Christ is something we just do believe, but her staying a virgin afterwards? Yes I agree that this is not essential in any way towards our salvation. We are to embrace Jesus Christ, not Mary.
Her life as either a virgin or a faithful spouse to her husband Joseph do not change the Gospel in any way.
Jesus Christ is our one and only Saviour and to Him we should cling.

Still Mary’s virginity during and after the birth of Jesus lends confirmation to our belief in his divinity. We would have less reason to believe in the divinty of Christ if Mary had lived an ordinary marital life after his birth. According to Judaic tradition, Moses remained continent in his marriage after his encounter with the living God on Mt. Sinai, which lends credence to the veracity of his claims. Mary’s continence, meanwhile, assures us that she fully knew her Son was divine and that she was constantly standing in the holy presence of the living God. Her family home was holy ground. Not even the priests engaged in conjugal relations at home during the periods they were serving in the temple. It was considered sacrilegious to do so at the time when ministering in God’s presence. As a devout Jew, Mary must have shared their pious religious sensibilities.

Mary’s life of purity and chastity embodied the highest ideals set forth in the Gospel. She renounced everything a common Jewish maiden sought to procure for her happiness for the sake of the kingdom, including an ordinary family life. Mary exemplified how we are to embrace her Son and cling to him in the fullest measure of grace by self-denial for the love of God. And she wished to be more like her divine Son than other women in her relation with God.

Pax Christu :harp:

 

[Prieldedi]

Well her virginity before giving birth to Christ is something we just do believe, but her staying a virgin afterwards? Yes I agree that this is not essential in any way towards our salvation. We are to embrace Jesus Christ, not Mary.
Her life as either a virgin or a faithful spouse to her husband Joseph do not change the Gospel in any way.
Jesus Christ is our one and only Saviour and to Him we should cling.

What most Protestants, and even some Catholics, don’t seem to understand is that when Mary mentioned the words “How can this be if I am a Virgin?”, She was not referring to the “physical” aspect of it by any means (read my previous post #740). Her life WAS NOT to be that of a married woman. Is this so difficult to accept? She was to devote her life to God. But God had other plans. St. Joseph knew that he had to protect Her and God’s Son from the rest of the people, because people used to “eat alive” a pregnant unmarried woman. Is this so hard to understand too?

It’s until recent times (last 2 or 3 centuries) that Her Virginity became an issue among some Christians, all due to the “personal interpretation” of some Pastors who, in their willingness to reject Catholicism saw it fit to attack, not Catholicism, but Mary, the Mother of their Savior.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) said: "“Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, that, unless we love the truth, we cannot know it.”

You and others say that Her Virginity “is not essential in any way towards our salvation”. Is that reason enough to reject TRUTH?

If the only reason to refuse to believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity is because of what your Protestant forefathers expressed 200, 300, 400 years ago to fight Catholicism, I urge you to go back in time. Keep going back and read the writings of the first 14 centuries of Christianity regarding Mary, and keep going back until you find the earliest writings about Mary, read what those who were closer in time to Jesus and the Apostles say about Her.

For the sake of TRUTH all Christians should believe in Her Perpetual Virginity. We have shown all the Bible passages that point directly to this TRUTH, that the only thing left to say is (what we say here in my country), “there is no one more blind than that one who doesn’t want to see.”

…a few more interesting quotes from Pascal and others:

“In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don’t.” (Blaise Pascal)

“Reason is the slow and torturous method by which those who do not know the truth discover it.” (Blaise Pascal)

“The first reaction to truth is hatred.” (Tertullian)

“I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies.” (Pietro Aretino)

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Hello, yourself; nice to hear from you! I really hope that the catholic message to Christians of other faiths, is not,"If you don’t believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, you are not sved

 

[1beleevr]

guan: Never said that there was a “list” of essentials; that would show ignorance on your part , to extract that from my statement! Christians know what is necessary to be saved, and when I witness to someone, who does not know the Lord, I do nit tell them that they have to believe that Mary, mother of Jesus was perpetual virgin, in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven! I keep forgetting how literal catholics are, and that if you don’t make yourself clear, they jump all over your words! “Ignorant is as ignorant says!”

 

[1beleevr]

sonofmonica: What I’m saying is, that when the apostles/disciples preached the Good News, they told people what they had to do to be saved, based on what they learned from our Saviour. And I am saying that i can’t believe that He, or they told new believers to believe in Mary’s virginity in order to be saved! Is she standing at the throne with her Son?

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: Hello, yourself; nice to hear from you! I really hope that the catholic message to Christians of other faiths, is not,"If you don’t believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, you are not sved

No, it’s not.

My message would be what I have said before: go back in time to the early Christians and read what they believed, what they taught, what they said they received from the Apostles themselves.

The number of Pastors that have become Catholics, while trying to prove that early Christians were not Catholics, is growing. They wanted to show, once and for all, that Catholicism is an invention of the 4th or later centuries, only to discover that they were wrong. Some that come to my mind are Scott Hahn (“Rome Home Sweet”) and Stephen Ray (“Crossing the Tiber”). Another one is Fernando Casanova, a Puerto Rican Pastor that hated the Catholic Church. When confronted with Truth, these men had to embrace it. Casanova said that Mary was his biggest obstacle. His mind was against accepting the Catholic teachings about Her. It took him time to finally see from his heart what his mind was refusing to see. These Pastors had rejected the Pope’s Authority, the Eucharist, confession, the “other” Sacraments, the Saints, prayer to the Saints, the Rosary… they were against all that with all their hearts!

You might have examples of Catholics leaving the Church. The difference is that the best Protestants (Pastors) are becoming Catholics, while bad Catholics are becoming Protestants. You know our “reputation”: we are not at the same level with Protestants. Protestants read the Bible, not us.

These Pastors were staunch defenders of the Reformation, they knew their teachings inside out, they were to prove Catholicism wrong. They had no doubts about their faith and about Catholicism errors. They were superior to any Catholic priest. After all, they spent years at the best Evangelical Bible universities. Why did they fall into their enemies hands? What happened to these Pastors? Be curious, see what they say! Google them!

On the other hand, most of the Catholics I know that have become Protestants were not Protestant haters, nor were they trying to prove that Protestants are wrong. They were mostly what we call “cold” Catholics.

And yes, there are Priests among those who have left the Church, but the majority of them left it for disciplinary practices, not for the Church teachings. In other words, they were men who had better stayed out of priesthood, get married and have a family. They fell in love, and that “calling” was stronger than the vows they had taken years before. Others just abandoned the habits, got married, but never left the Church. Some in this group were my teachers in school and the university.

God bless you.

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Whew! You said a lot; trying to figure out what I agree with and what I don’t! And I’m not exactly sure where square one is(at least from a catholic perspective). I have the utmost respect for you, as I do for ALL people; I just don’t always agree with them. Some times, in certain people’s eyes, I am ademonizer, ignorant, stubborn, or you name it But rest assured, that I believe I am every bit as much a Christian as you are. I believe that Christ was born of a virgin(not so sure of her conception, or virginity after Jesus),as it was prophesied! I believe in the deity and divinity of Christ, and that He was and is God, although He also became incarnate, and walked among His Creation. And I am painfully aware of the MEGA importance put on Mary, by catholics; which in and of itself does not mean that belief in her virginity, or in the POSSIBILITY that she had relations, and/or other children, in no way secures or denies your salvation. If you can show something else, other than apostolic succession(or the opinions of some priests who believed in such an idea), you may persuade me to believe tha I have to believe in her virginity to see the Kingdom of God:thumbsup: And in my Bible, Genesis 3:15 is a bit vague as to whom God is referring to when speaking to the serpentBut hey, nice hearing from you

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your arrogance:thumbsup: I was merely trying to point out the different references to sexual relations in the Bible; you know:“He slept with his wifw, he knew his wife, he did not have sexual relations with her until after the birth of her son!” And to suggest that I have a shallow knowledge, and relationship with my God is disingenuous at best, disrespectful at worst. It seems that Paul and James were at odds concerning the importance of works! Paul says that is not by works that we are saved, while James says that faith without works is dead. I don’t believe that works increase your faith or produce it; however, I am inclined to believe that because of faith, we are inspired to do good works. God saved us for the works He planned for us. We are not judged by our works; rather by the work of Christ and who we are in Him. And yes I believe in relationships, it is the heart of the triune(Father, Son, Holy Spirit And I do believe that faith is a big part of everything:thumbsup:As you are aware, Hebrews 11:6 says,"For without faith, it is impossible to please God. But two other things are true:1) God desires obedience over sacrifice, 2) He resists the proud, and gives mercy to the humble,. And there is an equal amount of stubbornesss, and hard heartedness from your side of the fence. So, put the stone down before you hurt yourself, and remove the plank from your eye! God loves all His children. And yes, Mary was an incredible, humble and willing servant! Born sinless; not too sure, since she was born the conventional way, from a union of sperm and eg, both parents bearing sin natures!

 

[guanophore]

Well her virginity before giving birth to Christ is something we just do believe, but her staying a virgin afterwards? Yes I agree that this is not essential in any way towards our salvation.

This is an interesting statement. On what basis, or by what standard do you decide what is “not essential towards our salvation”?

We are to embrace Jesus Christ, not Mary.

Here is the distortion that causes part of our separation. One cannot embrace Christ without embracing His mother. Not only that, we cannot fully embrace Christ while refusing to embrace one another. This separating and dividing is fruit of the Reformation.
How is it she was good enough for Jesus to embrace, but not for you?

Her life as either a virgin or a faithful spouse to her husband Joseph do not change the Gospel in any way.

Actually, it does. Once we begin to jettison part of the gospel we have received from the Apostles, all of it becomes at risk. It is not up to us to separate and divide the full truth that was committed to the Church. Once a person can dispense with this part, other parts can also be dispensed, and each and every person with a belly button can become their own standard of what is “essential” to salvation.

No, it is all, or nothing. Either we receive the whole truth, or we are missing Truth.

Jesus did not do things that were not “essential”. He prepared Mary to receive Him, the HS overshadowed her, and she bore the eternal Son of God in her womb. He found this “essential”.

Jesus Christ is our one and only Saviour and to Him we should cling.

Yes, to Him we should cling. However, we are all members one of another, and the notion that we can cling to Him in isolation of one another is a fallacy. To say you can cling to Him “and not” His mother is the same as saying “I have no need of a womb” in the Body of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

I really hope that the catholic message to Christians of other faiths, is not,"If you don’t believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, you are not sved

Catholics are Christians, 1beleevr, and we find it a form of insult that you imply otherwise.

There is only One Faith. Either a person is a Christian, or not. Catholic is not one faith, and Christian another.

Catholics receive the Apostolic Teachings. One of those is that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Another is that it is not up to us to judge the state of another’s soul. We are not at liberty to tell people whether they are saved, or not. It is improper to judge before the time, and inappropriate to take the judgement seat of God. The Apostles taught that we are not even to judge whether we are saved ourselves.

 

[guanophore]

guan: Never said that there was a “list” of essentials; that would show ignorance on your part , to extract that from my statement!

Ok. Must be some other list?

Christians know what is necessary to be saved, and when I witness to someone, who does not know the Lord, I do nit tell them that they have to believe that Mary, mother of Jesus was perpetual virgin, in order to see the Kingdom of Heaven!

You are suffering from a deficient understanding of salvation.

Of course one has to be born again to see the kingdom. One does not just stop there! If you look at what the 3000 did after they were baptized at Pentecost, you will see that they devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching.

What you are promoting is some kind of condensed Readers Digest version of the gospel. Why is it necessary to truncate it? Don;t you ever tell your converts that the sinners prayer is just a beginning?

I keep forgetting how literal catholics are, and that if you don’t make yourself clear, they jump all over your words! “Ignorant is as ignorant says!”

I am still waiting for the literal “essentials for salvation”. you say that “Christians know what they are”, another back handed insult toward Catholics, since we don;t agree with your list, we must not be in the ‘know" and therefore, not “real” Christians. If we were "Christians’ we would know what the “essentials” are.

You are right, I am ignorant on this point. We did not receive from the Apostles any boiled down condensed version of “essentials” by which one can pray a quick prayer, and be bound to heaven. Such a concept is never found in Apostolic teaching.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not exactly sure where square one is(at least from a catholic perspective).

Jesus is square one from a Catholic perspective. He is the image of the invisible God. For Him, By Him, and in Him were all things created, and it is by His mighty power that all things hold together.

It is through Him, by His blood that we have obtained forgiveness for our sins, and an inheritance of eternal life reserved for us in Heaven.

Don’t let the fact that we don’t believe salvation resides in the sinners prayer fool you.

I have the utmost respect for you, as I do for ALL people; I just don’t always agree with them. Some times, in certain people’s eyes, I am ademonizer, ignorant, stubborn, or you name it

You claim respect, but your thinly veiled disdain is not lost on us.

I believe that Christ was born of a virgin(not so sure of her conception, or virginity after Jesus),as it was prophesied! I believe in the deity and divinity of Christ, and that He was and is God, although He also became incarnate, and walked among His Creation.

How do you believe these things? Only through the Catholic Church. Yet, you reject doctrines that came before where these were founded. On what basis do you pick and choose which of the Apostolic faith you will reject?

And I am painfully aware of the MEGA importance put on Mary, by catholics; which in and of itself does not mean that belief in her virginity, or in the POSSIBILITY that she had relations, and/or other children, in no way secures or denies your salvation.

Catholics believe what the Apostles taught about salvation, which is different from what you believe.

Catholics have accepted the Apostolic commandment to receive the WHOLE gospel. We don’t jettison parts of it that dont’ seem to make sense, or don’t fit with our perceptions.

If you can show something else, other than apostolic succession(or the opinions of some priests who believed in such an idea), you may persuade me to believe tha I have to believe in her virginity to see the Kingdom of God:thumbsup:

No. But then, if you are satisfied with what you see now, and that is sufficient for you, then there is no reason to pursuade you of anything.

And in my Bible, Genesis 3:15 is a bit vague as to whom God is referring to when speaking to the serpentBut hey, nice hearing from you

The Apostles taught that it is a reference to Mary and Jesus.

But then, they also taught that Mary remained a virgin, so there is no reason you would want to accept that. Some people can’t even accept Christ from the Catholic Church.

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: Whew! You said a lot; trying to figure out what I agree with and what I don’t! And I’m not exactly sure where square one is(at least from a catholic perspective). I have the utmost respect for you, as I do for ALL people; I just don’t always agree with them. Some times, in certain people’s eyes, I am ademonizer, ignorant, stubborn, or you name it But rest assured, that I believe I am every bit as much a Christian as you are. I believe that Christ was born of a virgin(not so sure of her conception, or virginity after Jesus),as it was prophesied! I believe in the deity and divinity of Christ, and that He was and is God, although He also became incarnate, and walked among His Creation. And I am painfully aware of the MEGA importance put on Mary, by catholics; which in and of itself does not mean that belief in her virginity, or in the POSSIBILITY that she had relations, and/or other children, in no way secures or denies your salvation. If you can show something else, other than apostolic succession(or the opinions of some priests who believed in such an idea), you may persuade me to believe tha I have to believe in her virginity to see the Kingdom of God:thumbsup: And in my Bible, Genesis 3:15 is a bit vague as to whom God is referring to when speaking to the serpentBut hey, nice hearing from you

Did you read my post # 529 on page 36 in my reply to Zundrah?

If not, let me repeat part of it now:

**««**Galatians 1:19 “But I did not see any other apostle except James, the Lord’s brother.”

Paul is telling us that he went up to Jerusalem to meet Cephas (Peter) and stayed with him 15 days, and that he (Paul) did not see any other Apostle … EXCEPT … James. In other words, what Paul is saying is that, besides CEPHAS (PETER), he saw JUST ONE MORE Apostle, “James, the Lord’s brother.”

We know there are two Apostles named James:

James (the Greater) son of Zebedee and Salome, brother of John.
James (the Lesser) son of Cleophas and (the other) Mary, brother of Joseph (Joses) and Jude.

There IS NOT a third Apostle named James, and the James in this passage is identified as being an Apostle. We know that (the other) Mary is the wife of Cleophas (also known as Alpheus), and she is also the sister of the Blessed Virgin Mary (John 19.25), and we know that (the other) Mary and Cleophas (Alpheus) are the parents of James the Lesser. That would make James the Lesser the COUSIN of Jesus. For lack of that word (cousin) in Aramaic/Hebrew back then, the only word to describe the relationship between these two men was … BROTHER!

Being this the case, JOSEPH (JOSES) and JUDE, brothers of James the Lesser, would also be COUSINS of Jesus. As demonstrated, these are not sons of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then SIMON is not either. SIMON is the Canaanite (Mark 3:18), also called the ‘Zealot’ (Lk. 6:15). He is seen in Acts 1:13 “On entering the city they went to the room upstairs where they were staying. Present there were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James, son of Alpheus; Simon the Zealot and Judas son of James.”»»

Is this Apostolic succession? Now, can you show me that these men are really sons of Mary? Forget about them being brothers of the Lord. Show me the passage that states that they are the “sons of Mary”. If you believe it, it must be in the Bible! Show me!

Please, get on your helicopter, elevate yourself and see the big picture. Get out of the woods if you want to see the forest. You must take the whole Bible to put together all the pieces of the puzzle. St Augustine said it best: “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old. The Old Testament is revealed in the New.” So you see, it’s not an easy task for your regular Joe to read and understand the Bible. Most will be anchored to earth and never take that helicopter ride.

Mary’s virginity is just one of the many teachings from the times of the Apostles that Protestants reject. The problem is how all those things that Protestants reject are seen in light of Luke 10:16, “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me.”

You means the Apostles and their successors, and the he who rejects me does not necessarily refers only to non Christians. Are Protestants listening or rejecting the you mentioned by Jesus? That should concern you.

The MEGA importance put on Mary that you mention was started by God, not men. Remember, He chose Her.

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

guanophore: I don’t believe that I have ever implied that catholics were not Christians Some posters on this forum, however, have made statements such as,“Christ can only be found in the catholic church,” “All catholics are Christians, but not all Christians are catholic,” and “If you aren’t catholic, you aren’t really saved.” Please don’t ask me to quote each individual one, as that would take too long! Give me the benefirt of the doubt; but be assured that I myself, at least find it equally insulting when someone, mostly catholics imply that I am less of a Christian, beecause I am outside of the cc. And besides, you can’t put Jesus in a box; He can be found anywhere and everywhere! And don’t be so facetious; you know there is no list, I was using metaphors. And just because the apostles MAY have taught Mary’s perpetual virginity, does not make it a part of the plan of salvation. It is perfectly acceptable for you to accept it, but give those of us who don’t(believe that her virginity is part of salvation, that is) the respect that you expect. I have a lot of respect for you, guan, and love you, though I don’t know you! This is the second greatest Commandment! And give me a bit more credit than that; I do not tell converts, that a sinner’s prayer is all they need, and they’re in! Of course, I tell them this is only the beginning! And as we progress, we discuss baptism, service, faith, teaching and bible studies! I know that catholics defend each other, and you are not inclined to believe that any of your friends or felow catholics would make any of the above statements, but believe me, they did! God bless you, my sister:thumbsup: