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

[Angelo_Michael]

…]And when He speaks, He does it through the Church…]

Seems to me you have worked on your English well and have a long life ahead of you and that you want to be in good standing with America. Yet don’t forget the words of Christ,

“But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” (Matthew 12:6-7)

and God,

“And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.”
(Luke 9:33-35)

 

[Janet1983]

Peter lied before Jesus Crucifixion, before the Resurrection, before Pentecost; he lied three times and three times only. He didn’t lie again.

Sure… he was absolutely sincere when he did proclaim heresy and had to be confronted by Paul.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…] Do you know that Luke left 5 icons (paintings) of Mary and not of Jesus? Why of Mary and not of Jesus, the Master? You can find them in several Orthodox Churches. Check it here and here. …]

**I always wondered why Luke’s genealogical record was so different from Matthew’s. Maybe his mind was elsewhere or deranged from his idolatry and/or adultery?

Consider Isaiah chapter 44:**

“1: Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:
2: Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen.
3: For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
4: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the water courses.
5: One shall say, I am the LORD’s; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.
6: Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
7: And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them.
8: Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
9: They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
10: Who hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
11: Behold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
12: The smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
13: The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
14: He heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
15: Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
16: He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
17: And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
18: They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
19: And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
20: He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
21: Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.
22: I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins: return unto me; for I have redeemed thee.
23: Sing, O ye heavens; for the LORD hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the LORD hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.
24: Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;
25: That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish;
26: That confirmeth the word of his servant, and performeth the counsel of his messengers; that saith to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be inhabited; and to the cities of Judah, Ye shall be built, and I will raise up the decayed places thereof:
27: That saith to the deep, Be dry, and I will dry up thy rivers:
28: That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.”

and Matthew 5:27-28,

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

Thanks for the insight.

Here’s a link about the genealogies:

marshallgenealogy.org/bible/matthew-luke.htm

 

[1beleevr]

We certainly hope that Peter only lied three times(I suppose you mean, after he met Jesus) And, are we to accept that Peter was a widower? Or did he divorce? And some say that when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, this was when He changed his name. But in John 1:42, Jesus called him Cephas, which means Peter! In Matthew 4:18, he was called Simon Peter, brother of Andrew. So then some have said that Petra, which I suppose means “rock” in Latin Or Greek, is what Christ meant when He said,“Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my church.” He of course was not speaking of a building, but a movement, a Body of Believers:thumbsup:, of which all who believed, repented of their sins, were forgiven and baptized could be a part of! What does this have to do with whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin? About as much as her not being one has with our salvation I wonder… if perhaps, Jesus was talking about Himself, when He said, “Upon this Rock…”.

 

[1beleevr]

After watching “THe Nativity Story,” and reading more about Joseph, I gained a whole new measure of respect for this awesome, humble servant of God:thumbsup:Not only did he marry Mary, even though she was with child, but he waited until after Jesus was born to have sexual relations with her(Matthew 1:25)

 

[Don_Hepler]

So, what exactly does everyone believe these verses mean: John 15:26,John 14:16-17,John 14:26? Can we deduce that Jesus is promising that the Father will send an Advocate to us, who will lead us into Spirit and Truth? Does it mean that if we aren’t catholic, or other religions, who believe similarly, we are shut out from the Advocate; or that what He says or directs us to, is wrong? And do you really, honestly believe that, on that Judgement Day, God is going to ask us,"Why did you believe/not believe that Mary was. was not a perpetual virgin?

In my Father house are many mansions were it not so, I would of told you, I Go to prepare a place for you. I believe that we will not be judge by our title (church) but by what we do. How we lived our lives, and what we did to become perfect, in overcoming, living as Jesus did, doing what he did. And being Baptized with the true authority from which is hard to find. since that authority can’t come from Man’s college. (THIS IS MY BELIEF) It will come from messingers an ELIAS that will restore all things.

 

[Don_Hepler]

I understand this argument and I am glad you have elucidated it. Nonetheless, it is still not ethical, from my point of view, to justify the calling of Peter or his succesor(s), “Holy Father.” And, in the context of this situation, one is left to question if there are attenuating motives attached to the devotion to Mary. Also, if it (the devotion) is rebelliously – i.e. via repetitive prayer – verbal, one must then also question the authenticity of that devotion and the ends to which one is intending the behavior. Is it to justify the title of the Pope? Is then the doctrine of perpetual virginity intended to excuse the Pope from any malediction associated with the title? For, otherwise, it would appear as though Mary, the Queen of Heaven, has many husbands because those claiming to be, or allowing themselves to be addressed as, “[Holy] Father,” would therefore be [like] her husband. And this would lead to an inference associated with the trespassing against Dinah that was avenged by Simeon and Levi, who justified that act by saying, “…] Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot? (Gen. 34:31)]” So, the innocence of the Church is lost in it’s trespassing the Covenant; and other inferences could be made if the Church has partaken in authorizing divorce for less than the required sin(s). For, it was in a question posed to Christ, that a woman having many husbands is fabricated, and therefore, the perpetual virginity of Mary may have also been toward this aim – to disguise the trespasses of not adhering to Christ’s teachings or accepting His authority. Nonetheless, the re-enactment of the following scriptural scenario seems inherent in an assumption of the title, “Holy Father.”

Matthew Chapter 22:

“23: The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24: Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
25: Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
26: Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
27: And last of all the woman died also.
28: Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29: Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30: For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
31: But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
32: I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

Oh boy another argument, Tell me… I pray thee, what is Queen Mary going to do in heaven???/

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Sure… he was absolutely sincere when he did proclaim heresy and had to be confronted by Paul.

I’d like to write a little something in relation to this because it seems that people are thinking that I am blaming Peter, but Paul is more to blame – I want to make that clear. Paul cannot seem to justify circumcision but he can justify murder. Paul talks all about the futility of the law but when he speaks of his persecutions he is righteous in them. Remember that Christ is circumcised and that no slave – no matter how hypocritical, lawless, and/or arrogant – is greater than Him. Even if Peter did need to be corrected, the one imposing the correction wouldn’t necessarily be exempt from punishment. Remember what happened to Babylon after being used to correct Judah. Hasn’t anyone heard of the parable of the beam and the speck?.. The importance of being maimed to prolong life? Surely Paul is more to blame for the failures of the modern church than Peter. Poor Peter, it’s almost like Christ toyed with and traumatized him. And Paul was of no comfort, but took advantage of and manipulated him for his own gain. People value Paul’s opinion so much but do they really think I’m gonna agree with him? It’s more important to avenge the blood of Stephen with a rebuke that would put Paul in his place.

For reference, Galatians chapter 2 contains an incident of a confrontation initiated by Paul.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

I’d like to write a little something in relation to this because it seems that people are thinking that I am blaming Peter, but Paul is more to blame – I want to make that clear. Paul cannot seem to justify circumcision but he can justify murder. Paul talks all about the futility of the law but when he speaks of his persecutions he is righteous in them. Remember that Christ is circumcised and that no slave – no matter how hypocritical, lawless, and/or arrogant – is greater than Him. Even if Peter did need to be corrected, the one imposing the correction wouldn’t necessarily be exempt from punishment. Remember what happened to Babylon after being used to correct Judah. Hasn’t anyone heard of the parable of the beam and the speck?.. The importance of being maimed to prolong life? Surely Paul is more to blame for the failures of the modern church than Peter. Poor Peter, it’s almost like Christ toyed with and traumatized him. And Paul was of no comfort, but took advantage of and manipulated him for his own gain. People value Paul’s opinion so much but do they really think I’m gonna agree with him? It’s more important to avenge the blood of Stephen with a rebuke that would put Paul in his place.

For reference, Galatians chapter 2 contains an incident of a confrontation initiated by Paul.

For further reference consider the mischief of Shimei (also a Benjaminite like Paul) toward David (who is similar to Peter) in 2 Samuel 16:5-13,

“And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he came forth, and cursed still as he came. And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: The LORD hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and the LORD hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man. Then said Abishai the son of Zeruiah unto the king, Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king? let me go over, I pray thee, and take off his head. And the king said, What have I to do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah? so let him curse, because the LORD hath said unto him, Curse David. Who shall then say, Wherefore hast thou done so? And David said to Abishai, and to all his servants, Behold, my son, which came forth of my bowels, seeketh my life: how much more now may this Benjamite do it? let him alone, and let him curse; for the LORD hath bidden him. It may be that the LORD will look on mine affliction, and that the LORD will requite me good for his cursing this day. And as David and his men went by the way, Shimei went along on the hill’s side over against him, and cursed as he went, and threw stones at him, and cast dust.”

Sometimes I think Peter was wise and considerate and just went along with Paul for Paul’s benefit. That he turned the other cheek. Circumcision is appropriate and Paul is just insubordinate but what were they going to do to someone who doesn’t want to learn but get his own way? Let him have it. I still don’t know if Mary had other children or not but, is it just me, or is Paul like the first Protestant? I guess my point is that most of Paul’s work seems to be a justification for his actions and philosophy and Peter may have been cultivating tolerance. When Peter needed to be truly chastised, when he persecuted the widow Sapphira, there was Stephen being the shepherd, laying down his life for the sheep and not the hired hand that cares not. Paul is just like a thief, he is just come to steal, kill, and destroy. And he succeeded in taking the Church down a road that leads it against me. I get the feeling I’ll find out soon enough the truth of this matter. All I can say more is that I wouldn’t feel right to bother God about it in prayer. Remember what God said to Moses in Deuteronomy 3:26,

“But the LORD was wroth with me for your sakes, and would not hear me: and the LORD said unto me, Let it suffice thee; speak no more unto me of this matter.”

So I will rest in the knowledge of my own ignorance.

 

[1beleevr]

Wasn’t Paul trying to teach Peter, that circumcision was no longer required, because with Christ’s death on the Cross, a new covenant was established, thus abolishing the old one, of which circumcision of the Jews was a major component? Jesus was born a Jew, and had to participate in Jewish customs, as part of His upbringing.In the new covenant, our hearts are circumcised, instead; in fact why do we in the 21st century circumcise? For health reasons, or for religious reasons! Peter was rebuked for making it seem like the Jewish converts still had to be circumcised to be saved And are you using the stoning of Stephen to say that Paul justified murder? Wasn’t this before his conversion?

 

[Prieldedi]

Mostly, I can’t trust the Church because of recent circumstances, which, I hope and/or pray, Peter would disapprove of. Nevertheless, I’ve already addressed the validity of covenants in conjunction to the pertinent scripture. Also, by your argument, you must then needs be justifying the persecution of Sapphira, and making invalid the warnings of Christ. For, if the covenant could not be disanulled, if the branches could not fall, then why say so?

You mention Luke, and I would like you to consider Luke 11:21-22,
“When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.”

and Matthew 10:32-33,
“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.”

and also Deut. 28:13-14,
“And the LORD shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which I command thee this day, to observe and to do them: And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.”

I don’t have Peter as the ‘head’ but rather John. To me, Peter is like the neck, and Paul is the tail – even one that could be cut off. [How did he not know to dash his foot against the stone?] Also, remember that what Christ said to John happened after Peter’s denial – that Saul was king before David.

I suppose Christ was concerned for Peter because He knew Satan desired to “have him” and maybe wanted to address him about his lying, which he did when he asked him 3 times if he loved Him. But Peter grew intolerant, and may have spoken harshly, indicating a light-heartedness about his sin. I don’t suppose I could take that so well myself.

Are you disappointed because I told you, “I do not know,” or because I am not educated enough [in your opinion]?

I’m not dissapointed at you, there is no reason I should be. I’m just expressing what I have been taught about the Catholic Church, just quoting the passages that indicate what the Church has taught for 2000 years. I believe in the Church. That’s all.

What are the recent circumstances that make you feel you can’t trust the Church?
If I were to see as “recent circumstances” Judas’ treason, Peter’s denial, Thomas’ incredulity, the rest of the Apostles cowardice and Paul’s persecution, why believe in any of them at all in the first place?

What do the sins of Church’s members have to do with the Institution itself? God’s law prohibits adultery, has man stopped committing adultery? The Bible say in Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are concerned for your souls and are accountable for them…” Have Church members stopped rebelling against the Church? The answer to both questions is no. We should not blame the Institution for the sins of individuals.

In Luke 11 Jesus has just driven out a demon and some believed He did it “by the power of Beelzebul” (Luke 11:14-15). The strong man that keeps his palace is Satan. The stronger one that overcomes the first is Jesus, God.
He says in Luke 11:18 “If Satan also is divided, his empire is coming to an end. How can you say that I drive out demons by calling upon Beelzebul?”, and continues in Luke 11:24, “When the evil spirit goes out of a person, it wanders through dry lands looking for a resting place…’” God has “taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.” Jesus is not talking about the Pope or the Church.

You say “But Peter grew intolerant”. I see him speaking with dignity, in submission, actually assuring his Lord that he would do what is necessary “to feed His lambs, to look after His sheep.”

You can find here 50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy and the Papacy. Please check them out.

I’d like to call your attention to what happened to John and Peter the day of the Resurrection, from John 20:

1 Now, on the first day after the sabbath, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark and she saw that the stone blocking the tomb had been moved away.
2 She ran to Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. And she said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they have laid him.”
3 Peter then set out with the other disciple to go to the tomb.
4 They ran together but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5 He bent down and saw the linen cloths lying flat, but he did not enter.
6 Then Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb; he, too, saw the linen cloths lying flat.
7 The napkin, which had been around his head was not lying flat like the other linen cloths but lay rolled up in its place.
8 Then the other disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in; he saw and believed.

“The other disciple” is John. He outran Peter, yet he waited until Peter got there, let him enter the tomb first before he, “the other disciple”, went inside.
Nothing that’s said in the Bible is meaningless. The actions by John tell us that he knew, and accepted, that he was second to Peter. That’s why he stopped and waited for him.

God bless you

 

[Angelo_Michael]

I’m not dissapointed at you, there is no reason I should be. I’m just expressing what I have been taught about the Catholic Church, just quoting the passages that indicate what the Church has taught for 2000 years. I believe in the Church. That’s all.

What are the recent circumstances that make you feel you can’t trust the Church?
If I were to see as “recent circumstances” Judas’ treason, Peter’s denial, Thomas’ incredulity, the rest of the Apostles cowardice and Paul’s persecution, why believe in any of them at all in the first place?

What do the sins of Church’s members have to do with the Institution itself? God’s law prohibits adultery, has man stopped committing adultery? The Bible say in Hebrews 13:17, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are concerned for your souls and are accountable for them…” Have Church members stopped rebelling against the Church? The answer to both questions is no. We should not blame the Institution for the sins of individuals.

In Luke 11 Jesus has just driven out a demon and some believed He did it “by the power of Beelzebul” (Luke 11:14-15). The strong man that keeps his palace is Satan. The stronger one that overcomes the first is Jesus, God.
He says in Luke 11:18 “If Satan also is divided, his empire is coming to an end. How can you say that I drive out demons by calling upon Beelzebul?”, and continues in Luke 11:24, “When the evil spirit goes out of a person, it wanders through dry lands looking for a resting place…’” God has “taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils.” Jesus is not talking about the Pope or the Church.

You say “But Peter grew intolerant”. I see him speaking with dignity, in submission, actually assuring his Lord that he would do what is necessary “to feed His lambs, to look after His sheep.”

You can find here 50 New Testament Proofs for Peter’s Primacy and the Papacy. Please check them out.

I’d like to call your attention to what happened to John and Peter the day of the Resurrection, from John 20:

1 Now, on the first day after the sabbath, Mary of Magdala came to the tomb early in the morning, while it was still dark and she saw that the stone blocking the tomb had been moved away.
2 She ran to Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. And she said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb and we don’t know where they have laid him.”
3 Peter then set out with the other disciple to go to the tomb.
4 They ran together but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.
5 He bent down and saw the linen cloths lying flat, but he did not enter.
6 Then Simon Peter came following him and entered the tomb; he, too, saw the linen cloths lying flat.
7 The napkin, which had been around his head was not lying flat like the other linen cloths but lay rolled up in its place.
8 Then the other disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in; he saw and believed.

“The other disciple” is John. He outran Peter, yet he waited until Peter got there, let him enter the tomb first before he, “the other disciple”, went inside.
Nothing that’s said in the Bible is meaningless. The actions by John tell us that he knew, and accepted, that he was second to Peter. That’s why he stopped and waited for him.

God bless you

You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear; to the end that you and/or the Church are right and I am wrong – until I don’t exist. Nothing I have done that I have not revealed here could make somebody to know the answer. If you believe in the Church so much why don’t you ask them about me and what I have done? Isn’t it because you know they’d lie to you and that you’d be as a trouble maker. If you wanna try and address some of the issues on the topic here in relation to my arguments, feel free to do so. But if you’re trying to break me down personally and irrelevantly I’d advise you to keep your peace until you can understand the facts or, at least, understand that you won’t be able to understand them because someone else won’t let you. Remember, impudence and pride doesn’t make someone right, neither does corruption, nor does assertiveness. And there is more to life than being right. If this were about the declaration of facts from the Church any number of events could be held to account for the fact that it, the Church, does not do so – even if human life is at stake. If you and/or the Church are right that Mary had no other children it wouldn’t bring back the people it has conspired against. It wouldn’t make being called, “Father,” O.K., and it wouldn’t make me agree with Paul either. I don’t know, and I don’t trust the Church because of the blood that is on its hands. I don’t care if you’re protestant or Catholic, your leaders have led you away from the truth and this is just some technicality that I am agreeing to learn from God about when it is time. God knows me, and all of everything that I have done and said. If He were displeased with me then I would be upset, but it’s not the same to be taunted by someone who has no respect for you or to be told off by someone that doesn’t know anything about you.

 

[Prieldedi]

We certainly hope that Peter only lied three times(I suppose you mean, after he met Jesus) And, are we to accept that Peter was a widower? Or did he divorce? And some say that when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, this was when He changed his name. But in John 1:42, Jesus called him Cephas, which means Peter! In Matthew 4:18, he was called Simon Peter, brother of Andrew. So then some have said that Petra, which I suppose means “rock” in Latin Or Greek, is what Christ meant when He said,“Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock, I will build my church.” He of course was not speaking of a building, but a movement, a Body of Believers:thumbsup:, of which all who believed, repented of their sins, were forgiven and baptized could be a part of! What does this have to do with whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin? About as much as her not being one has with our salvation I wonder… if perhaps, Jesus was talking about Himself, when He said, “Upon this Rock…”.

Let’s go back to the early times of Christianity. For the first 400 years of Christianity there was no Bible as we know it today. There was no printing industry; it would take up to 20 years to copy a Bible, by hand, by Catholic priests, until the printing press was invented around 1450.

There are numerous writings besides the ones in the Bible that present, from a historical point of view, how the Church was in those days. They are the writings of the Church Fathers. Some of them received the Gospel from the Apostles. Some of them even died before the last of the Apostles. Read them and you’ll see that the Church has always been Catholic.

When John the Apostle died the Church was on Her fifth Pope. John had ample opportunity to denounce it if it was against the Lord’s teachings and wishes. But he didn’t. On the other hand, he could have claimed for himself to be the head of the Church (as he was an Apostle who knew the Lord), starting as early as the year 64~67 when Peter and Paul died in Rome. John died around the year 95~100, so he could have been the head of the Church for some 30 years… but he didn’t because someone else was chosen, and he approved it. Here are the names of those Popes:

St. Peter (32-67), Matthew 16:18
St. Linus (67-76), 2 Timothy 4:21
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97), Philippians 4:3
St. Evaristus (97-105)

I would like to quote Cardinal John Newman, a convert from Anglicanism who said it best in regards to historical documents: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle.
“Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the other Apostles combined are only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “Life of Christ”, page 106.

God bless you

 

[Prieldedi]

You see what you want to see, you hear what you want to hear; to the end that you and/or the Church are right and I am wrong – until I don’t exist. Nothing I have done that I have not revealed here could make somebody to know the answer. If you believe in the Church so much why don’t you ask them about me and what I have done? Isn’t it because you know they’d lie to you and that you’d be as a trouble maker. If you wanna try and address some of the issues on the topic here in relation to my arguments, feel free to do so. But if you’re trying to break me down personally and irrelevantly I’d advise you to keep your peace until you can understand the facts or, at least, understand that you won’t be able to understand them because someone else won’t let you. Remember, impudence and pride doesn’t make someone right, neither does corruption, nor does assertiveness. And there is more to life than being right. If this were about the declaration of facts from the Church any number of events could be held to account for the fact that it, the Church, does not do so – even if human life is at stake. If you and/or the Church are right that Mary had no other children it wouldn’t bring back the people it has conspired against. It wouldn’t make being called, “Father,” O.K., and it wouldn’t make me agree with Paul either. I don’t know, and I don’t trust the Church because of the blood that is on its hands. I don’t care if you’re protestant or Catholic, your leaders have led you away from the truth and this is just some technicality that I am agreeing to learn from God about when it is time. God knows me, and all of everything that I have done and said. If He were displeased with me then I would be upset, but it’s not the same to be taunted by someone who has no respect for you or to be told off by someone that doesn’t know anything about you.

I think that it’s better for me not to reply to your posts anymore. I don’t want to break you down. Be free to believe what you want. I’m posting here what the Church teaches. I believe Her, you don’t. That’s fine with me.

If you feel that I have personally attacked you, I have to say I’m sorry, I truly am. That’s the farthest from my intention.

God bless you

 

[Janet1983]

I’d like to write a little something in relation to this because it seems that people are thinking that I am blaming Peter, but Paul is more to blame – I want to make that clear. Paul cannot seem to justify circumcision but he can justify murder. Paul talks all about the futility of the law but when he speaks of his persecutions he is righteous in them. Remember that Christ is circumcised and that no slave – no matter how hypocritical, lawless, and/or arrogant – is greater than Him. Even if Peter did need to be corrected, the one imposing the correction wouldn’t necessarily be exempt from punishment. Remember what happened to Babylon after being used to correct Judah. Hasn’t anyone heard of the parable of the beam and the speck?.. The importance of being maimed to prolong life? Surely Paul is more to blame for the failures of the modern church than Peter. Poor Peter, it’s almost like Christ toyed with and traumatized him. And Paul was of no comfort, but took advantage of and manipulated him for his own gain. People value Paul’s opinion so much but do they really think I’m gonna agree with him? It’s more important to avenge the blood of Stephen with a rebuke that would put Paul in his place.

For reference, Galatians chapter 2 contains an incident of a confrontation initiated by Paul.

You do however realize that all that Paul did was before his conversion? He had every right to rebuke Peter in that he was proclaiming a fallacy.
We do not have to keep all of the Law to be saved. If we had to we would be under the law and the grace of God would not apply to us. We are however dead to the Law because Jesus Christ took the punishment upon Himself and died for our sins.

Galatians 2:11
11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

Acts 15:1-12

1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Wasn’t Paul trying to teach Peter, that circumcision was no longer required,

No, Peter already understood this.

Peter was rebuked for making it seem like the Jewish converts still had to be circumcised to be saved.

No, Peter was rebuked for teaching (correctly) one thing and doing (incorrectly) another.

Peter never taught error.

 

[Randy_Carson]

After watching “THe Nativity Story,” and reading more about Joseph, I gained a whole new measure of respect for this awesome, humble servant of God:thumbsup:Not only did he marry Mary, even though she was with child, but he waited until after Jesus was born to have sexual relations with her(Matthew 1:25)

Matthew 1:24-25: Until she brought forth a son

Matthew 1:24-25
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

The word *until *here just says what happened up to the time of Christ’s birth. It doesn’t imply anything about what happened after that, although our modern use of the word until seems to imply that. For an example of this, look at 2 Samuel 6:23, which says, “Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” We’re obviously not supposed to assume that she had children after she died.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sure… he was absolutely sincere when he did proclaim heresy and had to be confronted by Paul.

This is incorrect; perhaps you can quote the verse in which Peter proclaims a heresy.

While you’re looking for that non-existent verse, you might consider the following:

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

---

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.****

---

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: “You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.” 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why? Because we claim different authorities…
The magisterium of the
cChurch? The Authority of the church entrusted by Christ Himself to His apostles with Peter at the head? (Apart from the fact that Jesus Christ is the head of His Church…)
I prefer the authority of the Bible over the “magisterium” or the pope…
That is the main reason why I disagree. I tend to go the direct route to the Word of God to find what is true and right. I do not need a “magisterium” to tell me what I read when I read it…

You suggest a dichotomy where none exists. It is not EITHER the Bible OR the Church; in fact, it is the Bible AND the Church AND Sacred Tradition.

Further, it is obvious from the fragmentation among non-Catholic denominations (all teaching conflicting doctrines while claiming to be led by the Spirit) that going directly to the Word of God results in theological chaos. From this sad experiment, we can understand why God never intended us to go to the Bible Alone, and why He established the Magisterium of His Church.

 

[Janet1983]

You suggest a dichotomy where none exists. It is not EITHER the Bible OR the Church; in fact, it is the Bible AND the Church AND Sacred Tradition.

Further, it is obvious from the fragmentation among non-Catholic denominations (all teaching conflicting doctrines while claiming to be led by the Spirit) that going directly to the Word of God results in theological chaos. From this sad experiment, we can understand why God never intended us to go to the Bible Alone, and why He established the Magisterium of His Church.

Experiment? How do you know by the way that the HS is leading the CC? Just because they claim it? Come on! You cannot tell me that you do not put the same standards to your religion… I certainly do not apply this at all…
I would not claim that any one institution called church is THE Church of Jesus Christ. The ones who are the true Christians are the body of Christ and these can be found within and without the CC…