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

[Angelo_Michael]

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.

It was late last night when I made those arguments, I stand by them today. I went off topic for a little while but it brought me to a greater understanding and I shared that with the group and was able to clarify some misconceptions. Remember that Paul tried [successfully] to silence women even after his so called, “conversion,” and Peter followed suit in requesting or implying that women address their husbands as, “Lord.” This silencing [of women] and rebellion against Christ does not lend credo to the notion that the Church’s doctrines are infallible, in my opinion. If this is about doubting, then the apostles doubted the message that the women brought them from the Lord. If this is about Paul’s version of Christianity, I have a right to my own opinion, ("…] he shall testify of me. [John 15:26]") and was only sharing that here so that others might understand my viewpoint. If it is about honesty, then, from what I understand, some people aren’t being honest and that is affecting my perception of them. If it is about innocence, then I would expect that to be associated with the following of Christ’s commandments. If this is about me, I don’t expect people to accept my theology any more than I expect them to believe in me, but at least I’d like to make a public record of it and provide the opportunity.

P.S.: Considering the “yoke” of the Law perhaps Jeremiah chapter 28 will prove helpful in understanding my views. Moreover, the world today is a different place with anti-semitism again on the rise. I do what I do to create a workable solution between believers, to bridge the gap between faiths, and to elucidate the oppression of the faithful.

Note to the reader(s):
I am deciding to try to make this my last post at this thread. Also, I have a disclaimer available at the private message board.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Experiment?

Would “Tragedy” be a better choice?

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…

This is a complex question, but for your Protestant sensibilities, I will say that the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit is leading the Chuch that is built by Jesus upon Peter, the rock, and that He has promised to remain with His Church until the end of the age.

Redefining what the Church is has been central to the Protestant Rebellion since the 16th century, of course.

I would not claim that any one institution called church is THE Church of Jesus Christ.

Of course you wouldn’t since your own “ecclesial community” has no legitimate claim to being the one, true Church. This would offend your “co-religionists” who attend services under the governance of other denominational bodies.

Additionally, you would not make this claim because admitting that the Church is a visible, hierarchical institution with an earthly head would be an admission that you are (no longer) a practicing member of the only Church that has existed from the beginning.

The ones who are the true Christians are the body of Christ and these can be found within and without the CC…

Yes, just as varying shades of gray exist along a spectrum.

 

[Janet1983]

Would “Tragedy” be a better choice?

Do you really want an honest answer to this or are you just starting an attempt to ridicule me?

This is a complex question, but for your Protestant sensibilities, I will say that the Bible teaches us that the Holy Spirit is leading the Chuch that is built by Jesus upon Peter, the rock, and that He has promised to remain with His Church until the end of the age.

And He is with His Church… This does not mean however that He is bound by a human institution obeying human terms.

Redefining what the Church is has been central to the Protestant Rebellion since the 16th century, of course.

Redefining? That’s not the job of the Protestant churches…

Of course you wouldn’t since your own “ecclesial community” has no legitimate claim to being the one, true Church. This would offend your “co-religionists” who attend services under the governance of other denominational bodies.

True Christians do not have a religion. We have a relationship (but why am I telling you that, you should know).

Additionally, you would not make this claim because admitting that the Church is a visible, hierarchical institution with an earthly head would be an admission that you are (no longer) a practicing member of the only Church that has existed from the beginning.

Who would need an earthly ruler and head of state when there is Jesus Christ to be the head of His church and the guidance through the Holy Spirit? We as Christians are separated from the world and we do not have to depend upon a worldly ruler to tell us what to believe, be it even the “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City” or the episcopacy led by the “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City”… We have God’s Word in the Bible… There are no shades… either Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour or He is not. Do you think He would save someone He cannot command?

Because of this I guess we will still not come to a conclusion of the question whether or not Jesus had any brothers and sisters. The authority concerning that obviously seems to be in question. I do and will not believe what the CC has to say about this as I do not accept its authority.

 

[Prieldedi]

Who would need an earthly ruler and head of state when there is Jesus Christ to be the head of His church and the guidance through the Holy Spirit? We as Christians are separated from the world and we do not have to depend upon a worldly ruler to tell us what to believe, be it even the “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City” or the episcopacy led by the “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City”… We have God’s Word in the Bible… There are no shades… either Jesus Christ is your Lord and Saviour or He is not. Do you think He would save someone He cannot command?

If the simplest of human institutions, the family, has a “visible head” (the father/husband), why would Jesus leave us with a decapitated body?

Look carefully at your Bible: why was there Abraham, and Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezequiel? Do you find a time when God allowed men to be on their own in religious matters? Why then “earthly” rulers (the Prophets) if God could talk to all?

In opposing authority (and the Catholic Church), the Protestant movement has tried for 5 centuries to make it sound logic what’s not logic. The truth is that your pastors are “little Popes”, they have authority over their church members, don’t they? They interpret the Bible to them.

Besides, your movement is divided. Even among yourselves there is no unity. There are 39,000+ evangelical denominations with about two or three being born each week, just in the USA. Each of them reads the same Bible, yet all of them come up with different interpretations on many issues. Does this sound “heavenly” or does it sound “earthly”?

It’s a matter of time before the sons and daughters of Christian families would claim for themselves also that they need no earthly ruler (their parents), when there is Jesus to be the head of the family and guidance through the Holy Spirit. It’s coming soon to a church near you!

To answer your question: we ALL need a visible head of the Church. Having a visible head of the Church doesn’t negate our Spiritual (invisible) Head, Jesus.

God bless you

 

[1beleevr]

Hey Randy, did you realize that we ALL are being led by the Holy Spirit? Jesus promised to send US an Advocate, who is the HS, to lead US into truth!

 

[Janet1983]

If the simplest of human institutions, the family, has a “visible head” (the father/husband), why would Jesus leave us with a decapitated body?

Ephesians 5:23
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…”

Decapitated? Jesus Christ is the head of His Church! Christians are being transformed by Him…

Romans 12:2
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Our spiritual guide through all of this is the Holy Spirit…

John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;”

John 14:26
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

John 16:13
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…”

1 Corinthians 2:11-13
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

 

[Prieldedi]

Ephesians 5:23
“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church…”

Decapitated? Jesus Christ is the head of His Church! Christians are being transformed by Him…

Romans 12:2
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”

Yes, it would have been decapitated, if not for Peter.

***** Who called for a replacement for Judas?
Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).

***** Who instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church?
Peter (Acts 11:5-17).

***** Who presided over and opened the first Council of Christianity, and laid down principles afterwards accepted by it?
Peter (Acts 15:7-11).

***** Who is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus?
Peter (Acts 8:14-24).

***** Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times.

***** Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (cf. Mt 4:19).

***** Taken from Dave Armstrong **here **. Visit this site and read the “50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy” by Dave Armstrong, a converted Catholic, author of more than 15 books.

Our spiritual guide through all of this is the Holy Spirit…

John 14:16
“And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;”

John 14:26
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

John 16:13
“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth…”

In all these passages from John, from chapter 13 on, Jesus speaks to Peter and the other Apostles. He is telling Peter and the others that the Holy Spirit will be with them, He is preparing them and assures them that they will not be alone for the task ahead: to go to the world and preach the Gospel.

These men, a handful, will start the greatest change in the history of mankind, so great that they will be considered dangerous and put to death, except for John. For that undertaking they need the Comforter, who would teach THEM all things…

1 Corinthians 2:11-13
“For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

Same thing as above. Paul says that he has received the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus told Peter and the Apostols in the passages above. That’s why he says “Now we have received… the spirit which is of God… that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak… which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

God bless you

 

[Zundrah]

Actually, God did walk the Earth, in the body of Christ!!

 

[1beleevr]

Zundrah: I suppose that the BIG smile means that you agree with my post I am non-denominational, and my soul belongs to Christ, not the catholic church(I can almost hear those catholics typing their answers already)

 

[Eric_Olsen]

Well, I’ve heard that one before, but the passages I think are the most common are the ones that mention Jesus’ “brothers and sisters,” especially when the word “brothers” occurs in the same sentence as the word “mother.”

Someone explained to me that in Aramaic there is no word for “cousin”. Christ had other cousins in his family and at that time people referred to their cousins as “brother”.

 

[1beleevr]

Seems to be a lot of speculation, and suppositions have been raised by this topic One side adamant that Mary had no other children, the other side saying,“It’s possible, that Mary had other children; but neither side can prove their theories with certainty!” And while it is an intriguing and interesting subject, in the long run, it is really irrelevant as to whether we get to Heaven or not, based on whether she did or did not have additional children The one that is swept aside here, and given little or no consideration, is Joseph, who risking humiliation, and rejection from his peers, took Mary as his bride, in obedience to God. Who are we to say, that he and Mary did not enjoy the fruits of marital sex, AFTER Jesus was born, regardless if it resulted in the birth of other children!

 

[Prieldedi]

Seems to be a lot of speculation, and suppositions have been raised by this topic One side adamant that Mary had no other children, the other side saying,“It’s possible, that Mary had other children; but neither side can prove their theories with certainty!” And while it is an intriguing and interesting subject, in the long run, it is really irrelevant as to whether we get to Heaven or not, based on whether she did or did not have additional children The one that is swept aside here, and given little or no consideration, is Joseph, who risking humiliation, and rejection from his peers, took Mary as his bride, in obedience to God. Who are we to say, that he and Mary did not enjoy the fruits of marital sex, AFTER Jesus was born, regardless if it resulted in the birth of other children!

Our side can prove it. We have the Church Fathers’ writings.

They lived closer in time to Jesus, Mary, Peter, John, Paul, Luke, than those who deny Mary’s Perpetual Virginity. When did these first deniers live? 1500, 1600, 1700 years after the Church Fathers. Who would you believe, and why?

Can your side produce a document from the early centuries that corroborates your position? Anything that proves that the early Christians did not believe in Mary’s Perpetual Virginity? What’s the earliest document your side has on this subject?

If you really want to know the truth in this matter you have to put aside, at least for a moment, your “Bible alone” man-made doctrine. Believe us, with that doctrine you wont find the whole truth.

About Saint Joseph, contrary to your statement, I’ll give you this from Bob Stanley:

“Knowing full well that Mary had given birth to the Word Incarnate, and that her Son was the second person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of GOD, he must have been awestruck by the event. He knew that just by her being the one chosen (Luke 1:27-33), and by an act of GOD, in protecting her virginity (Luke 1:34-38), that she was special, and by the special graces given to her, elevated her far above any other woman. After all what could possibly follow the honor and graces given her by the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is her spouse and St. Joseph knew it when he was informed by the Angel in a dream (Matthew 1:20). Would any sane man be so vain as to father mere human children with her? The idea of the spouse of the Holy Spirit becoming a mother to one not by the Holy Spirit, would have been repulsive, and would have had all the ingredients of sacrilege to him.”

Put together that with this from Matthew 1:19 “Then Joseph, her husband, made plans to divorce her in all secrecy. He was an upright man, and in no way did he want to discredit her.”

Not wanting to discredit Her, being obedient to God as you mentioned, knowing that the Son of God was born from Mary… these are reasons enough to believe that he was a man not like the rest of us. Just as Mary was special, so was Joseph.

God bless you

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah: I suppose that the BIG smile means that you agree with my post I am non-denominational, and my soul belongs to Christ, not the catholic church(I can almost hear those catholics typing their answers already)

Yes, I like your post!

And yes, the catholics wont like you for typing that last post!

 

[FCEGM]

Yes, I like your post!

And yes, the catholics wont like you for typing that last post!

It’s nothing we haven’t heard before, Jennifer. It’s always sad to see such demonstrations of a soul not informed by the truth of the Church; especially in regard to this topic it exhibits a lack of depth in understanding the Incarnation.

 

[Zundrah]

It’s nothing we haven’t heard before, Jennifer. It’s always sad to see such demonstrations of a soul not informed by the truth of the Church; especially in regard to this topic it exhibits a lack of depth in understanding the Incarnation.

FCEGM,

It is sad, I know. But why does the catholic church believe that Mary did not have children?

 

[1beleevr]

Zundrah: Well, that’s really cool; that your side can prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin I mean In some ways, that statement is divisive, sort of like us versus them! So someone long ago believed that Mary remained a virgin, and so today, the catholics can believe in it too! We are talking theories and possibilities, not cold, hard facts! I know that all things are possible with God, so I can’t totally reject the idea that Joseph never had relations with her, or that as a result of this union, she did not bear additional children! And I’m certain that Mr. Stanley is a competent, well-schooled individual; however, he like countless others, has fostered an opinion, or viewpoint, which I’m sure has met with much opposition

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah: Well, that’s really cool; that your side can prove that Mary was a perpetual virgin I mean In some ways, that statement is divisive, sort of like us versus them! So someone long ago believed that Mary remained a virgin, and so today, the catholics can believe in it too! We are talking theories and possibilities, not cold, hard facts! I know that all things are possible with God, so I can’t totally reject the idea that Joseph never had relations with her, or that as a result of this union, she did not bear additional children! And I’m certain that Mr. Stanley is a competent, well-schooled individual; however, he like countless others, has fostered an opinion, or viewpoint, which I’m sure has met with much opposition

It’s difficult to talk about this isn’t it? Catholics love their Mary, so sometimes it’s hard to ask them questions about her. You can’t question things without getting bitten a few times!

 

[FCEGM]

FCEGM,

It is sad, I know. But why does the catholic church believe that Mary did not have children?

For all the reasons already presented in this discussion thread, Jennifer. E.G., I posted these to you a while ago:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5583478&postcount=333

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5583379&postcount=331

For further reading on the subject:

bringyou.to/apologetics/a27.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/num27.htm

catholic-legate.com/articles/ohbrother.html

catholic-legate.com/articles/maryvirgin.html

 

[FCEGM]

It’s difficult to talk about this isn’t it? Catholics love their Mary, so sometimes it’s hard to ask them questions about her. You can’t question things without getting bitten a few times!

Your signature line suggests that she’s your Mary, too, Jennifer. It’s not difficult to ask us questions about her - especially if they are asked respectfully.

 

[Zundrah]

Your signature line suggests that she’s your Mary, too, Jennifer. It’s not difficult to ask us questions about her - especially if they are asked respectfully.

You just keep making me more and more mushy, don’t you?

Sorry if I have been quite cold in the past but I will try to be more thoughtful from now on.