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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brooke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh yes? Well that is a little short for an answer… I’d say no… The word brother (ah-thel-PHOS) is never used for cousin because there is another Greek word for cousin (ksaTHElfia). The word for cousin however is used (for cousin that is).

The New Testament is written in Greek. In Greek there are two distinct words for brother (αδερφός - ah-thel-PHOS) and cousin (ξαδέλφια - ksaTHElfia) and both are used in the New Testament. We know for example that Elisabeth was Mary’s cousin (Luke 1:36) We also know that Mark and Barnabas were cousins (Colossians 4:10).
The Greek word for brother is used in other verses when it comes to Jesus’ brothers.
Luke used the word for cousin in Luke 1:36 and he used the word for brother in Luke 8:19-20 and Acts 1:14.
Jesus’ earthly siblings are also referred to in 1 Corinthians 9:5 and Galatians 1:19. These authors knew the difference between these words, they used the right terms, and their words were inspired by God Himself.

The word for brother is frequently used when it comes to the Lord’s siblings:
Matthew 12:46-47; Mark 3:31-32; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19-20; John 2:12; John 7:3; John 7:5; John 7:10; 1 Corinthians 9:5; Galatians 1:19.
Five authors; Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, precisely referenced Jesus’ siblings. The Biblical evidence alone that Jesus had earthly siblings is overwhelming.

Matthew 1:25 is no different in this context.
Looking at all the other evidence it is just logical to assume that Joseph and Mary had sexual relations after the birth of Jesus and that Jesus was born to Jewish parents who lived otherwise normal lives.

I believe the Bible and I do not hate Mary. On the contrary: She is the perfect example of how God can use everyday people to accomplish tremendous things. God is jealous (Joshua 24:19) and forbids man from venerating anyone or anything other than Himself (Deuteronomy 5:6-10). We are not supposed to venerate Mary and I won’t do it… Call it venerate or even worship (as one poster did): I will not do it as long as this veneration is not directed towards God. God alone is worthy… Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.
Very well put Janet. Its amazing that with all the evidence you have given that there are some who still disagree. Its mostly because of tradition or they heard it from the church. They try to come up with some silly answers but the fact is mary had other sons and daughters. No way around it. I really enjoy reading answers from someone like yourself who have studied God’s Word. God Bless
 
Very well put Janet. Its amazing that with all the evidence you have given that there are some who still disagree. Its mostly because of tradition or they heard it from the church. They try to come up with some silly answers but the fact is mary had other sons and daughters. No way around it. I really enjoy reading answers from someone like yourself who have studied God’s Word. God Bless
Yes and perhaps you will address the geneologies that clearly show other parents for these so called siblings since Janet chooses to not to …

No it is not a fact that Mary has other children and I - too - have studied God’s Word …

Unless you can show a scriptural passage that [as ya’ll like to say] clearly states that Mary is the is the bioloical Mother of James [et all] the Mary could be their aunt, their step-mom, their cousin, their adoptive mom etc … she could just be the Mother of the Messiah, and as such the spiritual mother of the Apostles, disciple, the Church and all of the followers of her Son, Jesus …

You have provide no reason for why 1800 or so years had to pass before any serious biblical scholarship departed from the traditional interpretations of passages and the constant teachings of the Christian community … this “Mary had lots of children” is an innovation …

Now you an assert that you are all smarter, more intellegent, better readers, more learned, have better translations, less superstitious, more sophisticated … and then provide analysis of the earlier Christians writings on the subject and illustrate support for whatever arguement you take … but will you?

Why did Luther Zwingli and Calvin not get the same understanding that you have today? …

Why did it take another 300 years or so plus the sexualization of the culture for this idea to gain popular acceptance?
 
When we read the Gospels in Greek we have to remember that Jesus and the disciples didn’t speak in Greek. So we have a translation straight away from the Aramaic cultural speech and view.

We know Jesus and his contempories spoke Aramaic and we know at the time that in Aramaic there was the same word for brother, brother-in-law, cousin, nephew, uncle etc.

So the question is when written in the Greek, would the writers use the Greek way of expressing relationships or would they stick with the original Aramiac cultural view of relationships ?

When we look at the translation of the old Testament from Aramaic to Greek 200 years earlier we see the Jewish scribes decided to stick with the Aramaic cultural view. For example we know that Lot was Abraham’s nephew and yet he is referred to as Abraham’s brother in the Greek. Even though there are perfectly good words for nephew and uncle in the Greek. I think there are 7 or 8 other examples when we know two people are referred to as brothers but given the geneology we know they are not.

As opposed to that we never hear of Jesus and James taking their mother to Jerusalem, or Mary taking her children to the temple etc etc.
We never have any early Christian traditions from Alexandria, Rome, Jerusalem, Ethiopia, the seven churches, Armenia etc that have Mary having more than one child.
We have lots of writings in the early church argueing for different things but never following the blood-line of Jesus family after his death. This would be a natural arguement to make as it was in Islam after Muhammad’s departure.
We also have lots of Gnostic writers from the later 2nd century and early 3rd Century who wrote in pseudonym such as the Gospel of Eve and the Apocalypse of Adam. These people had no direct connection to the Christian apostolic fathers but tried very hard to claim they did. Witness the ‘secret’ words spoken to Thomas gospel. If there was the idea that Jesus had brothers and sisters, this is another example of where we would expect to find claims of special following or knowledge from Jesus’ inner family. We find nothing though.
Also, with all the philosophy in early Christian writing regarding Jesus as incarnation of God and how that is possible, nobody mentions in comparison Jesus’ brothers or sisters’ and how they are not incarnated or as Paul says - greater than the angels. No-one mentions the ‘ordinariness’ of Jesus’ brothers’ and sisters’ births as compared to Jesus’ supernatural birth.
Also with the young Saint John being asked to take care of Mary from Jesus on the cross, this would be highly insulting to any surviving brothers and sisters which would not play well with Jewish people as Jesus last actions before ressurrection.
Also, the word ‘brother’ is used throughout the New Testament in ways that obviously do not refer to the way the Greek and English speak about relationships. Peter for example in Acts was said to have stood and addressed 500 brothers. Also, in the Gospel at the Ressurrection, Jesus told Mary Magdeline to tell his ‘brothers’ to meet Him in Gallilee. The text then goes on to say that Mary went and told his ‘disciples’ what Jesus had said, and they went to Gallilee in obediance to Jesus’ words.

In short, there is no good reason to accept that Jesus had brothers or sisters. It seems to be a very latter day idea by reading back languages and cultures 2000 years ago out of context and against all historical record.
 
No there isn’t. I already pointed out the misinterpretation of Protestants about their erroneous belief that Mary had other sons and daughters.

They were believers and had expecttions of that Jesus is the promised Messiah. They hide because they didn’t want to ridiculed by the religious authorities of the Pharisees and they were afraid. You claimed that they were not believers is a very illogical statement. Do you mean, that if brother of Jesus do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, you as a Jew lost all rights to care for the elderly (in this case Blessed Virgin Mary)? Jesus would be going against his own commandments. It is the very fact that during the time, Jesus lived, he blasted the Pharisees and the Sadducee for the sin of hypocrisy. They would tell Jews to do this, but they themselves do not practice it.

It is Jewish custom that sons and daughters have a responsibility to take care of their parents when they are old. Jesus gave John his mother, Mary because He had no other siblings. Like I said before, in the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus was 12 yrs old, Mary and Joseph, only found Jesus in the Temple. There were no other siblings. Luke’s Gospel show kinsmen which means cousins.
Keep it up Manny. You are right. Protestants are just wrong - about almost everything. The only things they get right are what they borrowed from the Catholic Church, which includes our Bible (the New Testament anyway; they choose to butcher the Old Testament).👍:)😃
 
Very well put Janet. Its amazing that with all the evidence you have given that there are some who still disagree. Its mostly because of tradition or they heard it from the church. They try to come up with some silly answers but the fact is mary had other sons and daughters. No way around it. I really enjoy reading answers from someone like yourself who have studied God’s Word. God Bless
Thank you for your kind support. I am doing my best as far as possible… I know however that only God can make a seed grow.
 
** Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus. **
This is an interesting notion, and one that is not necessarily void of scriptural merit. Yet when the verse is viewed in greater context, “Then he brought me back the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary which looketh toward the east; and it was shut. Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut. It is for the prince; the prince, he shall sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.” (Ez. 44:1-3), it appears that there is an exception made for the prince— which would have been Joseph’s ancestor(s). Yet the concept holds true that no one is allowed to enter thru the same gate because the prince is apparently only allowed to sit at, or near, the gate.

And also we must remember that in the preceding chapter of Ezekiel the notion that the vision Ezekiel was receiving was intended to be the eventual plans for a building are made clear, (Ez. 43:10-11):
“Thou son of man, shew the house to the house of Israel, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done, shew them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, and the goings out thereof, and the comings in thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the ordinances thereof, and do them.”

Nevertheless, in the apocryphal book of 4 Ezra, (a.k.a. 2 Esdras), Zion is revealed to the observer first as a woman.

4 Ezra 9:38-47, 10:1-48:
"…] I looked back with mine eyes, and upon the right side I saw a woman, and, behold, she mourned and wept with a loud voice, and was much grieved in heart, and her clothes were rent, and she had ashes upon her head. Then let I my thoughts go that I was in, and turned me unto her, And said unto her, Wherefore weepest thou? why art thou so grieved in thy mind? And she said unto me, Sir, let me alone, that I may bewail myself, and add unto my sorrow, for I am sore vexed in my mind, and brought very low. And I said unto her, What aileth thee? tell me. She said unto me, I thy servant have been barren, and had no child, though I had an husband thirty years, And those thirty years I did nothing else day and night, and every hour, but make my, prayer to the Highest. After thirty years God heard me thine handmaid, looked upon my misery, considered my trouble, and gave me a son: and I was very glad of him, so was my husband also, and all my neighbours: and we gave great honour unto the Almighty. And I nourished him with great travail. So when he grew up, and came to the time that he should have a wife, I made a feast.

And it so came to pass, that when my son was entered into his wedding chamber, he fell down, and died. Then we all overthrew the lights, and all my neighbours rose up to comfort me: so I took my rest unto the second day at night. And it came to pass, when they had all left off to comfort me, to the end I might be quiet; then rose I up by night and fled, and came hither into this field, as thou seest. And I do now purpose not to return into the city, but here to stay, and neither to eat nor drink, but continually to mourn and to fast until I die. …] I will not go into the city, but here will I die. So I proceeded to speak further unto her, and said, Do not so, but be counselled. by me: for how many are the adversities of Sion? be comforted in regard of the sorrow of Jerusalem. For thou seest that our sanctuary is laid waste, our altar broken down, our temple destroyed; Our psaltery is laid on the ground, our song is put to silence, our rejoicing is at an end, the light of our candlestick is put out, the ark of our covenant is spoiled, our holy things are defiled, and the name that is called upon us is almost profaned: our children are put to shame, our priests are burnt, our Levites are gone into captivity, our virgins are defiled, and our wives ravished; our righteous men carried away, our little ones destroyed, our young men are brought in bondage, and our strong men are become weak; And, which is the greatest of all, the seal of Sion hath now lost her honour; for she is delivered into the hands of them that hate us. And therefore shake off thy great heaviness, and put away the multitude of sorrows, that the Mighty may be merciful unto thee again, and the Highest shall give thee rest and ease from thy labour. And it came to pass while I was talking with her, behold, her face upon a sudden shined exceedingly, and her countenance glistered, so that I was afraid of her, and mused what it might be. And, behold, suddenly she made a great cry very fearful: so that the earth shook at the noise of the woman. And I looked, and, behold, the woman appeared unto me no more, but there was a city builded, and a large place shewed itself from the foundations: then was I afraid, and cried with a loud voice, and said, Where is Uriel the angel, who came unto me at the first? for he hath caused me to fall into many trances, and mine end is turned into corruption, and my prayer to rebuke. And as I was speaking these words behold, he came unto me, and looked upon me. …] And he said unto me, Stand up manfully, and I will advise thee. Then said I, Speak on, my lord, in me; only forsake me not, lest I die frustrate of my hope. For I have seen that I knew not, and hear that I do not know. …] He answered me then, and said, …] This therefore is the meaning of the vision which thou lately sawest: Thou sawest a woman mourning, and thou begannest to comfort her: But now seest thou the likeness of the woman no more, but there appeared unto thee a city builded. And whereas she told thee of the death of her son, this is the solution: This woman, whom thou sawest is Sion: and whereas she said unto thee, even she whom thou seest as a city builded, Whereas, I say, she said unto thee, that she hath been thirty years barren: those are the thirty years wherein there was no offering made in her. But after thirty years Solomon builded the city and offered offerings: and then bare the barren a son. And whereas she told thee that she nourished him with labour: that was the dwelling in Jerusalem. But whereas she said unto thee, That my son coming into his marriage chamber happened to have a fail, and died: this was the destruction that came to Jerusalem."
 
Yes and perhaps you will address the geneologies that clearly show other parents for these so called siblings since Janet chooses to not to …

No it is not a fact that Mary has other children and I - too - have studied God’s Word …

Unless you can show a scriptural passage that [as ya’ll like to say] clearly states that Mary is the is the bioloical Mother of James [et all] the Mary could be their aunt, their step-mom, their cousin, their adoptive mom etc … she could just be the Mother of the Messiah, and as such the spiritual mother of the Apostles, disciple, the Church and all of the followers of her Son, Jesus …

You have provide no reason for why 1800 or so years had to pass before any serious biblical scholarship departed from the traditional interpretations of passages and the constant teachings of the Christian community … this “Mary had lots of children” is an innovation …

Now you an assert that you are all smarter, more intellegent, better readers, more learned, have better translations, less superstitious, more sophisticated … and then provide analysis of the earlier Christians writings on the subject and illustrate support for whatever arguement you take … but will you?

Why did Luther Zwingli and Calvin not get the same understanding that you have today? …

Why did it take another 300 years or so plus the sexualization of the culture for this idea to gain popular acceptance?
How many times do we have to show you yada. We have given you the Greek word for brothers in the NT and you still want to argue the point. The debate is not with us its with God and His Word. If you want to argue with Him thats up to you. Like I said there’s no getting around the point. Mary had other children with Joseph. All the evidence in scripture points to that. Mary being their aunt, their step-mom, their cousin, their adoptive mom is just plain foolishness.
 
Keep it up Manny. You are right. Protestants are just wrong - about almost everything. The only things they get right are what they borrowed from the Catholic Church, which includes our Bible (the New Testament anyway; they choose to butcher the Old Testament).👍:)😃
Here we go another bible scholar. Yes we borrowed everything from the catholics walker lol. Thats exactly what scripture says. Peter is the rock lol the first pope and thats where the catholic church started. BALONEY boo jah.
 
Here we go another bible scholar. Yes we borrowed everything from the catholics walker lol. Thats exactly what scripture says. Peter is the rock lol the first pope and thats where the catholic church started. BALONEY boo jah.
Did you ever stop and see when your church got started remember Jesus only started ONE church and it was called My Way and then called Unversal and then Called CATHLOIC
 
All of the passages you quoted (calling “father”, repetitive prayer, and the two men in the temple making offerings) were actually referring to the disposition in one’s heart. NO ONE should be venerated as Father in Heaven as God is, it is useless to pray prayers over and over (even the Lord’s Prayer) if you do not mean it in your heart. Offerings of any kind are useless if they are not done sincerely. Catholics adhere to all of it.
The proceeding argument is taken from a previous reply of mine (~#173), and was, in part, directed at the preceeding reply to another one of my posts earlier (~#148). I am referencing a reply of mine below (~#173) and will add more to it for clarification.

{[John] 6:47-49,
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.”

Here Christ is referring to Himself in comparison to Moses which would reference also another scripture, Deut. 18:18-19:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.”

This is perhaps why I have had a difficult time consenting to or understanding the justifications to some of my previous arguments pertaining to the trespassing of-- what to me had become— Christ’s orders, (which would inherently superede Moses’).
[Visit reply #148 or follow above link in quote to reply #150 for clarification.]

And also because of what Christ said to Peter in Matthew 16:13-23,
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

I also would like to include John 6:63-69,

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

I hope this reply might prove helpful in understanding my views and interpretations.}

Also, John 5:42-47 is pertinent to my argument and interpretation.
“But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
 
Since many of the replies have focused on the differences between Catholic and Protestant theology, and since I have argued in favor of a Catholic authority, I find it imperative to investigate on what grounds Protestants are basing their faith, or-- what may be considered by some as-- rebellion.

If the audience and editor(s) are willing let us review the consecration of Peter:
Matthew 16:13-23,
“When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”

Now let us consider also an Old Testament Scripture pertaining to the validity of covenants, Jeremiah 18:1-10:
"The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words. Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels. And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it. Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel. At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them."


And to show the correlation between the two I will reference John 5:19-30,
Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.
…verses 24-29…]
I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

I am not sure if it is according to this, or some other doctrine, that Protestants have, from what I understand, separated from the Catholic Church and formed their own doctrinologies.

Perhaps an argument may include references to some other scriptures pertaining to the shortcomings of Peter, or yet perhaps to, what could be perceived as, sins of the Catholic Church.

I am not sure if this argument/scenario/inquisition constitutes another thread, or that if elaborated upon and explored here, would violate site policy.
 
Did you ever stop and see when your church got started remember Jesus only started ONE church and it was called My Way and then called Unversal and then Called CATHOLIC
People mistakenly think that there is an earthly organization that is the one true church. The true church is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers. The true church consists of those who are regenerate; that is, it consists of those who are the true Christians. That is the church that Jesus Christ founded…
 
WHAT ONE OF THE cHURCH fATHER HAS TO SAY;;;

Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock (petra) through the building up of that original Rock , and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build My Church ,’ who is there who dare assail such impregnable strength, unless he be either antichrist or the devil, who, abiding unconverted in his wickedness, is anxious to sow lies by the vessels of wrath which are suited to his treachery, whilst under the false name of diligence he pretends to be in search of the Truth." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Leo Augustus, Epistle 156:2 (ante A.D. 461).

Janet Do you ever read any thing about are Church Father
 
WHAT ONE OF THE cHURCH fATHER HAS TO SAY;;;

Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock (petra) through the building up of that original Rock , and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build My Church ,’ who is there who dare assail such impregnable strength, unless he be either antichrist or the devil, who, abiding unconverted in his wickedness, is anxious to sow lies by the vessels of wrath which are suited to his treachery, whilst under the false name of diligence he pretends to be in search of the Truth." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Leo Augustus, Epistle 156:2 (ante A.D. 461).

Janet Do you ever read any thing about are Church Father
Church fathers? Some I did and I disagree… The church is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers.
 
WHAT ONE OF THE cHURCH fATHER HAS TO SAY;;;

Since, therefore, the universal Church has become a rock (petra) through the building up of that original Rock , and the first of the Apostles, the most blessed Peter, heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petra) I will build My Church ,’ who is there who dare assail such impregnable strength, unless he be either antichrist or the devil, who, abiding unconverted in his wickedness, is anxious to sow lies by the vessels of wrath which are suited to his treachery, whilst under the false name of diligence he pretends to be in search of the Truth." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D. 440-461], To Leo Augustus, Epistle 156:2 (ante A.D. 461).

Janet Do you ever read any thing about are Church Father
Perhaps I should mention that my continued devotion to and support of the Catholic Church may have less to do with the righteousness of Peter, the integrity of any doctrine, or the absence of sin in the modern Church, than the preservation of successive authority, seemingly irrespective of merit, which is inherent in the Papacy.
For an example, we have as witness, the continued progression of the Davidic
successors-- in spite of trespass-- which ultimately leads to Joseph. Also, we have Christ’s testimony that, “alvation is of the Jews.” and His rebuke of Samaritan theology. In my opinion, these would indicate a justification for the tolerance that was demonstrated in preserving the Davidic genealogy thru such men as Manasseh.

For reference, 2 Kings 21: All,
“Manasseh was twelve years old when he began to reign, and reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Hephzi-bah. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, after the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out before the children of Israel. For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served them. And he built altars in the house of the LORD, of which the LORD said, In Jerusalem will I put my name. And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD. And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger. And he set a graven image of the grove that he had made in the house, of which the LORD said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever: Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them. But they hearkened not: and Manasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the nations whom the LORD destroyed before the children of Israel. And the LORD spake by his servants the prophets, saying, Because Manasseh king of Judah hath done these abominations, and hath done wickedly above all that the Amorites did, which were before him, and hath made Judah also to sin with his idols: Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such evil upon Jerusalem and Judah, that whosoever heareth of it, both his ears shall tingle. And I will stretch over Jerusalem the line of Samaria, and the plummet of the house of Ahab: and I will wipe Jerusalem as a man wipeth a dish, wiping it, and turning it upside down. And I will forsake the remnant of mine inheritance, and deliver them into the hand of their enemies; and they shall become a prey and a spoil to all their enemies; Because they have done that which was evil in my sight,and have provoked me to anger, since the day their fathers came forth out of Egypt, even unto this day. Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD. Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And Manasseh slept with his fathers, and was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of Uzza: and Amon his son reigned in his stead. Amon was twenty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Meshullemeth, the daughter of Haruz of Jotbah. And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, as his father Manasseh did. And he walked in all the way that his father walked in, and served the idols that his father served, and worshipped them: And he forsook the LORD God of his fathers, and walked not in the way of the LORD. And the servants of Amon conspired against him, and slew the king in his own house. And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead. Now the rest of the acts of Amon which he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? And he was buried in his sepulchre in the garden of Uzza: and Josiah his son reigned in his stead.”

In other words, my argument in support of Catholic authority may be based on the principle: [that] when perfection is lacking, patience is necessary.

Also, there is an apocryphal book/letter called “The Prayer of Manasseh” that depicts Manasseh’s repentance and attainment of humility.
 
Church fathers? Some I did and I disagree… The church is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers.
In my opinion, what you are saying is, in essence, a universally Christian concept-- even as Christ Himself declares in John 4:23-24, “…] the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

However, for example, some Christian churches may advocate or proclaim another authority than the Pope. In Mormonism, from what I understand of it, there is a man whom they claim has the ‘authority of Moses.’ So, it apparently is not that Protestants are proclaiming that no one should have the authority that the Pope has, but-- at least sometimes-- that, someone else should have that/other/equal and/or greater authority.

And for reference of the perils of similar behavior we have the illustration presented in Numbers chapter 16 of the rebellion of Korah, which is also referred to in the Gospel/Letter of Jude.
 
In my opinion, what you are saying is, in essence, a universally Christian concept-- even as Christ Himself declares in John 4:23-24, “…] the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

However, for example, some Christian churches may advocate or proclaim another authority than the Pope. In Mormonism, from what I understand of it, there is a man whom they claim has the ‘authority of Moses.’ So, it apparently is not that Protestants are proclaiming that no one should have the authority that the Pope has, but-- at least sometimes-- that, someone else should have that/other/equal and/or greater authority.

And for reference of the perils of similar behavior we have the illustration presented in Numbers chapter 16 of the rebellion of Korah, which is also referred to in the Gospel/Letter of Jude.
Mormons aren’t a very good example… the Mormon Jesus and the Jesus of the Bible are not the same. (according to one of their Presidents).
I don’t have a problem if other churches do not accept the authority of the pope… I don’t do it either.
 
People mistakenly think that there is an earthly organization that is the one true church. The true church is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers. The true church consists of those who are regenerate; that is, it consists of those who are the true Christians. That is the church that Jesus Christ founded…
This article diagnoses quite well the difficulty you have vis-a-vis the true identity of the Church and all that relates to that identity (including your difficulties with Mary):

bringyou.to/apologetics/a129.htm

An excerpt:
Catholicism not only believes but practices spiritual unity in the visible Communion of the Church. Protestantism tries to have such a spiritual unity without that visible communion as the necessary place where it is incarnated. Protestantism is content to have it introvertedly in the interior consciousness to such a degree that the visible is only the inferior externalization of what’s already in the personal consciousness. This is why we are not one: Because the Traditional Catholic-Orthodox understanding of the Incarnation of Spirit into visible matter is set aside by Protestantism as not really that important. This means at root that Christ’s Incarnation is really understood primarily in utilitarian terms: e.g., Mary was needed for the Incarnation and that’s pretty much all, so she can be effectively discarded after she plays her temporary useful function. Likewise, Christ’s death on the Cross is the means of reconciliation and is over; it is not prolonged in the Church as the Mystery of the Eucharist which makes it available visibly to the visible body of the Church. Invisible faith in that once-for-all (as meaning only once in time) event is all that is needed.
The retreat of fundamentalist or most evangelical Protestantism into the invisible as into the “purer” is a semi-Gnostic devaluing of matter. In the Protestant mentality it seems to be related to the introverted psychology of Northern peoples. As such it is a corruption of Christianity by an unbalanced humanity, which the Reformers certainly can be noted to have had.
 
sonof monica:Still trying to digest your diatribe on marital sex; scratching my head with my free hand:confused: Was sex created by God, and given to man and woman? Did He bless and ordain sexual relations between husband and wife, within the bounds of the marriage(adultery is a sin, of course!) Did He say that any particular form of sex was forbidden(some would suggest,sodomy, oral sex,bestiality, same sex, sex, and of course incest). And the belief that catholics cannot have oral sex, to the point of ejaculation(what about the female?), is that based on the story of Onan, who was commanded to sleep with his brother’s wife, to give her a child, but “finished” outside? Would this be a sin of disobedience, or sexual immorality? And is it really important how, or how often couples have sex, whether it is one position only, with the lights out, only in the bedroom; or whenever the mood hits them(discreetly, of course), in places other than the bedroom. Is this an attempt to justify Joseph, POSSIBLY, not having sex with his wife, Mary? Matthew does say, that he waited until after Jesus was born to have sexual relations with her(could have been a year or more later!) I have to agree with the poster, who said, that this issue has nothing to do with our salvation, or eternity, but it is fun to debate it;)
Apologize for not checking the thread and missing this. I didn’t mean for my post to be a diatribe about anything. It was not intended to be a criticism of anyone, or to have a sarcastic tone. In fact I specifically stated that I was not criticizing Protestant views of married sexuality, and that I was not inviting criticism of the Catholic view of married sexuality. I was merely trying to create a bridge of understanding.

The thrust of the thread was intended to be that Catholics are coming from a point of view that celibacy is a function of marriage sometimes, and Protestants are not. Therefore, when the two camps are interpreting scripture, they can reach different conclusions about what must logically flow from what scripture does say.

I’m sorry, but as a married man, I’m not interested in debating sexuality in marriage with you, and for me the Church’s moral stances are not up for debate. If you enjoy debating things about ejaculation and oral sex and such, best of luck to you. But I’m only interested in fostering understanding about the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. I’m not going to debate anyone about it, because I could never prove it one way or another. Just here to explain Catholic doctrine about why we believe she was.
 
Church fathers? Some I did and I disagree… The church is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers.
The Catholic Church agrees with you that the church is the body of true believers, and goes so far as to identify herself as that body of true believers. If you do not believe that the Catholic Church is that body, then you are not a true believer. So I’m not sure sure what your point is–no Catholic claims that the church is a series of buildings or a mere human organization. If the body of Christ includes people of different beliefs then how could your definition ever be tenable? I would say that if there is a subsection of people who are “true believers” then they all must believe the same thing, otherwise some of them are believing something false. Some will get some things right, others will get some things wrong. But there is only one complete truth. Good luck on your journey.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top