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

[choy]

So I am going to ask this question of all who think they have the right answers. When Protestants pray or myself as a CATHOLIC who doen’t agree with some posters does God here and answer their prayers, I know without a shadow of doubt tha Jesus has answered all my prayers, sometimes no but I have always gotten an answer. I praise Jesus for all He has done for me!!!

i agree, God listens to all who call upon Him. it doesn’t matter what religion they are in

 

[KurutaJT]

I know this had been answered here but I would like to post what I’ve got from other site. It’s just similar on previous post.

There are several gospel references to Jesus having “brothers and sisters”. This is the most specific:

Matthew 13:55. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us?”

One traditional response is that these may have been children of Joseph from an earlier marriage. Joseph is traditionally held to be much older than Mary.

Another important factor here is that the language used in the Palestine of Jesus’s time was Aramaic. In the Aramaic language used at that time, there was no word in existence to denote cousin. The Jews therefore had to use the word brother where they meant to describe any close male relative. This is so even today in many languages and cultures, particularly where there is an extended family system. The loose term “brother” or “sister” is used to cover the children of ones uncles and aunts as well as those of ones own parents.

WHAT PROOF IS THERE OF THIS?

Gen 14:14 “And when Abram heard that his Brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.”

The “brother” referred to here is Lot. Lot was the son of Aran, Abram’s own dead brother (Gen 11:26-28). He was therefore Abram’s Nephew, even though the text refers to him as a “brother”.

BUT THE NEW TESTAMENT WAS WRITTEN IN GREEK, WHICH DOES HAVE A WORD FOR COUSIN.

This is a bit of a red-herring for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence from the Early Church Fathers that the Book of Matthew, at least, was originally written in Aramaic, and so was translated into Greek. Secondly, we know that the people of Palestine in Jesus’s time spoke in Aramaic, and it is therefore in Aramaic in which the oral stories which were later written down to form the Gospels, were transmitted. So it is likely that the Aramaic word “brother”, meaning not only sibling, but any kinsman, was translated into the Greek word “brother”, which has the tighter meaning of sibling only. This is clearly what has happened in Genesis 14.14 above.

SO WHO WERE THESE “BROTHERS OF JESUS?”

A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.

This “other Mary” at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus’s so-called “brothers”, James and Joses.

B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. “But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.” The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary’s sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to “brother” with reference to Jesus.

C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn’t he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus’s blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn’t so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus’s so-called “brothers” is eliminated.

D. James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, “brother of Jesus” cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.

A few more points:

* In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!

* The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as "the son of Mary" (Mark 6:3), not as "a son of Mary"

*Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

 

[SonofMonica]

So I am going to ask this question of all who think they have the right answers. When Protestants pray or myself as a CATHOLIC who doen’t agree with some posters does God here and answer their prayers, I know without a shadow of doubt tha Jesus has answered all my prayers, sometimes no but I have always gotten an answer. I praise Jesus for all He has done for me!!!

This is not relevant to the discussion of Mary’s perpetual Virginity. I think I’m going to start calling out anyone who changes the subject like this. It seems to be a favorite “argument” of protestants to say something like “Are you saying I’m going to hell?” or “Are you saying Jesus doesn’t hear my prayers?” or “Are you saying Jesus doesn’t love me?” whenever the topic at hand is doctrinal in nature, such as the perpetual Virginity of Mary. Throwing up your hands and saying “Well, it doesn’t matter what the right answer is, but I just know Jesus loves me!” is not a valid point to the conversational topic, nor does it help anyone achieve the correct answer. Mary’s Virginity may be perpetual regardless of whether your prayers are answered or whether you consider yourself to be a Catholic.

 

[tweetymom]

i agree, God listens to all who call upon Him. it doesn’t matter what religion they are in

Thank you Choy for your answer. The only reason I asked is beause of the posts here at least some and that some think that only Catholis are accetable.

 

[tweetymom]

This is not relevant to the discussion of Mary’s perpetual Virginity. I think I’m going to start calling out anyone who changes the subject like this. It seems to be a favorite “argument” of protestants to say something like “Are you saying I’m going to hell?” or “Are you saying Jesus doesn’t hear my prayers?” or “Are you saying Jesus doesn’t love me?” whenever the topic at hand is doctrinal in nature, such as the perpetual Virginity of Mary. Throwing up your hands and saying “Well, it doesn’t matter what the right answer is, but I just know Jesus loves me!” is not a valid point to the conversational topic, nor does it help anyone achieve the correct answer. Mary’s Virginity may be perpetual regardless of whether your prayers are answered or whether you consider yourself to be a Catholic.

Maybe you should read some of the other post in this thread and they haven’t all been on the subject at hand. But I do thank you for your most gracios post to me! I was talking to guanophore and maybe you should read before you react!. You are such a kind person and God Bless you on your journey with Christ and may you always respond in His Love

 

[SonofMonica]

Maybe you should read some of the other post in this thread and they haven’t all been on the subject at hand. But I do thank youfor your most gracios post to me! I was talking to guanophore and maybe you should reag before you. You are a very kind person and God Bless you on your journey with Christ and may you always respond in His Love

Yes, I contributed much earlier on in the thread before it got off topic. Please do not confuse my plea for intellectual honesty and staying on track with the subject of the conversation for ungraciousness. God indeed loves you, and gave you his Catholic Church to guide you whenever people question His unshakable truths such as Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

 

[tweetymom]

Yes, I contributed much earlier on in the thread before it got off topic. Please do not confuse my plea for intellectual honesty and staying on track with the subject of the conversation for ungraciousness. God indeed loves you, and gave you his Catholic Church to guide you whenever people question His unshakable truths such as Mary’s perpetual Virginity.

Thank you for your answer, And God Bless

 

[1beleevr]

guan: It is not a matter of believing or not believing what the apostles said, or wrote; rather it is dealing with a number of arrogant, venom-spewing catholics(not on this forum per se), who try to bully you with “their” interpretation. It is one of the main reasons that I would never entertain the notion of converting! Christ offers more freedom than your church is willing to allow, and I think it is quite disingenuous of you to suggest that I have followed a “weak” Saviour for 42 years. But, I still love arguing with you!:thumbsup:And I have read all of the apostles’ words many times, believe them, and know that these words also apply to me, as a Christian!

 

[Arandur]

Thats odd Jesus never once, not once, said His mother was a virgin if it was so important and He was a single child I would think Jesus would have mentioned that. He is perfect, flawless and the Son that precludes Him not including necessary details to His perfection. Unless your saying the Son of God intentionally left things out of His message so vital?

I will say this if Jesus didn’t make this an issue and in fact never mentioned it then its not an issue for Him, and shouldn’t be for us.

John 21:25 “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.”

This approach of yours is un-Biblical and makes no sense.

Would you say there was anything Jesus said or did that was not important, was not useful for us to get to know Him better? Would you not cherish anything the Lord did or said in your presence, even if it was just a joke or Him asking you at His table to “please pass the salt?” Would not even those things be precious to you, help you to know Him and love Him more?

Then why would you dismiss the many things Jesus said and did that were not recorded on paper? Recording them was not easy in those times. And even those things that were recorded were things passed down orally, by Tradition. There is much in Tradition, then, that was not recorded, but is still passed down, inerrantly in the same manner as that which the permitted the NT to be written inerrantly.

I was not the one that made the claim that knowing about Mary’s perpetual virginity was vital to salvation. That was your “reformers,” and some of the ECFs. I pointed out that knowing things about the Kingdom, about the people and heroes within it, and about how God chose to do things, are helpful to our understanding and deepen our connection in love with Him and all His Kingdom. They may not be absolutely necessary, but they are helpful. And so it is with Mary’s perpetual virginity.

I think that many who strove to defend the honor of Mary against her assailants did not believe that such beliefs were essential to salvation, but since they WERE truth, and related to our adoptive spiritual Mother, to deny these things, to speak against them, was a terrible thing. It was rejecting truth and slandering God and His handmaiden.

 

[Arandur]

Ok, let me get this straight. God appears to Joseph in a dream, and tells Joseph not to be afraid to marry her, and you think Joseph ignored the angel? You think when Scirpture says Joseph took her into his home, it meant…what?

'when the angel warned Joseph to take the child and go to Egypt, they did not go as a married couple? I think you underestimate the scandal of the culture. Even today, in countries that have these practices, single women are not permitted to travel without a male relative. that is one reason that the brethren of Jesus went with His mother to find Him. She was not to travel alone.

I think you misunderstood me or didn’t read my summary of the links I posted. First, I said I’m not sure about the Orthodox claim that Mary and Joseph never married but remained in a culturally-acceptable state of betrothal, by which arrangements were made for men to look after women, particularly virgins/Temple Virgins like Mary. I haven’t fully investigated it. It seems plausible, however, and part of the basis of the Orthodox claim is that the word you quote as “wife” here is, in Greek, also used more generically for “woman.” “Wife” seems a closer interpretation as it demonstrates closeness and covenant, the way a Betrothed state of guardianship would be, but which Greek lacked that term for. This ends up being much like the “brother” word situation, though with fewer other references outside that passage to verify its meaning.

This Orthodox position, though, DOES recognize the “scandal of the culture;” neither the Orthodox, nor I in accepting the possibility, “underestimate” this. Rather, the Betrothed state is a position of guardianship that a man takes over a woman, even a woman other than his wife, for the very purpose of protecting her and providing for her. Joseph could have even had a living wife, for this situation would not even be polygamy. After all, in that time, with men still dying off more quickly than women like they do today from illness and, perhaps especially, from conflict, there would be more women to care for than there were men. Men must therefore have a covenantal means of bringing more than one woman who was of age into their households, making them a part of their house. Thus how a brother could take the wife of his dead brother into his house, and the many similar arrangements under the law. And thus how Joseph could have taken Mary, a temple virgin, into his home, under his guardianship, through betrothal, but not marriage.

eastern-orthodoxy.com/Mary.htm
See the section on “Betrothal vs. Marriage,” and that just before it, a third of the way down the page.

Most of them don’t know that Matt was written first in Aramaic, then translated to Gk, or that there is not word for “cousin” in Aramiac, or even half brother.

Most of who don’t know? I was agreeing with you here. The instances of “brother” we see in the Bible most often mean “kinsman.”

I can’t see how you get that Truth is not important to salvation. when you start making concessions on one part of the truth, the whole weaving begins to unravel.

You misunderstood me again. I think I explained my position in more detail in my last post. Knowing about Mary’s perpetual virginity and her Immaculate Conception are not essential things to know in order to be saved. But they are very helpful things that deepen our understanding of God, our spiritual adoptive Mother, our brother and King Jesus, and the Kingdom itself. Rejecting these truths is dangerous error. But one does not, indeed cannot, know all truth, so knowing all truth is not essential to salvation. Rejecting truth–not just “not being sure about it,” but actively rejecting truth–is rejecting God, however.

Matthew 13:55. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers, James, Joses, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us?”

This passage was merely an exclamation from the people that they thought they knew Jesus and His family (“family” meant extended family in those times, not just nuclear), and that they were of just humble origin. It was like saying, “Hey, having we lived with this guy as our neighbor for 30 years? How’d he get to be so special?” The reference point back then was not so much “I grew up with this guy,” or “We knew him since he was a kid,” but “We know him and his family.”

It was just like it is in small towns and among some types of families (particularly of some cultural backgrounds) people are very interested in making familial connections, finding out how many people of the family they know. Family is the reference point. You know someone by knowing their family, who they are related to. That’s all this statement was saying. It does not in any way rely on or make a specific statement that Jesus had direct brothers and sisters from His mother Mary.

 

[1beleevr]

It is very curious how much effort is put forth, trying to “prove” that Joseph and Mary, did not marry If this were not a serious subject, it would border on comical; the many different(who’s right?) interpretations, assumptions, and speculative ideas about “cousin”, “wife,” or “woman”. When it comes down to that glorious day when we see Jesus face-to-face, is any of this going to matter? What harm exactly does it do to anything, or anybody? I mean, wasn’t Peter married? I would like to believe in the possibility that these two did marry and enjoy sexual relations; even if you use Ezekiel 44:2 to rebuke those who disagree

 

[1beleevr]

tweetymom: Maybe we should all agree, that we all, at one time or another, have ventured off topic, not just the non-catholics! And I agree, that sometimes it can be a bit distracting, but then again, sometimes you get some very lively discussions, off topic

 

[tweetymom]

tweetymom: Maybe we should all agree, that we all, at one time or another, have ventured off topic, not just the non-catholics! And I agree, that sometimes it can be a bit distracting, but then again, sometimes you get some very lively discussions, off topic

yes we have all ventured off subject. I asked the question to make a point, but badly put. If only Catholics will make it to Heaven, does God answer and listen to everyones prayers, and if so how can it be said only Catholics have the right to heaven? Hope the point is a little clearer.

 

[Arandur]

It is very curious how much effort is put forth, trying to “prove” that Joseph and Mary, did not marry If this were not a serious subject, it would border on comical; the many different(who’s right?) interpretations, assumptions, and speculative ideas about “cousin”, “wife,” or “woman”. When it comes down to that glorious day when we see Jesus face-to-face, is any of this going to matter? What harm exactly does it do to anything, or anybody? I mean, wasn’t Peter married? I would like to believe in the possibility that these two did marry and enjoy sexual relations; even if you use Ezekiel 44:2 to rebuke those who disagree

Think what you will, but don’t you think it’s important to know truth, or at least not to reject it?

I have explained how Mary’s perpetual virginity is important, how knowing more about God and His works, and about our brothers and sisters in Christ, helps us to grow in love and build the Kingdom. You cannot satisfy yourself with the “essentials,” for how is it in any way expressive of your love for God, your brothers and sisters, and the Kingdom to just remain complacent in a few bare facts and not care about knowing any of them any deeper? That is not love. That is the absence of love. That is self-serving indifference.

Also, what has been put forward on the meanings of the words you cite is not merely speculative. It either is or isn’t truth. The “brother/cousin” issue is really extremely clear, and to believe that the use of the term “brother” can only mean “brother” in the modern English sense is complete denial of truth. And since Jesus IS Truth, that’s a dangerous thing to toy with.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: One thing that is consistent with you, is that your arrogance is always front and center; never subtle or masked And the way you play God in determining that others are less Christians than yourself, you presume to know what;s in their hearts! I’m not really sure what you guys are afraid of by constantly saying that Mary and Joseph were never married, or had marital relations And to say that we do not know the Truth, is to mock God, and deny His grace to anyone who is not catholic Do you really believe that Jesus is going to ask you if you believed that His mother was married or not, or had sex or not? Is that going to prevent any of us from going to Heaven? He may be more likely to ask you something from Matthew 25:31-40. You know, like “when I was hungry, did you feed me; when I was sick, did you comfort Me?” Or maybe,id you witness to the lost about Me? Mary was an extremely important part of God’s plan to redeem US; but in no text, is she mentioned as being essential for salvation:thumbsup: And brace yourself, because us noncatholics are going to be in Heaven right alongside you ornery, stubborn catholics, who believe otherwise! There will be no more titles, or denominations in Heaven; just saints of al kinds worshipping God all day! But I know that bashing noncatholics is part of your exclusivist nature, so please continue, knowing that your ignorant rants are not deterring our walk with the Truth! He has forgiven and rescued the “rest” of us too!

 

[1beleevr]

tweetymom: I know you asked the question in good conscience, and you meant no harm or disrespect. I believe God answers ALL prayers, just not always the way we would like! As far as catholics being the only ones to go to Heaven, that is presumptuos at best! God does not say anywhere, that only one religion or another will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven It seems to me that the JW’s believe that they are the 144,000 who will go first with Christ Doesn’t God offer Christ to ALL humans, and extend His grace to every one who will accept it? But these are things we deal with, while we are wearing flesh! Sad, but true, that the children of God quarrel and bicker, about things that are irrelevant and trivial

 

[Arandur]

arandur: One thing that is consistent with you, is that your arrogance is always front and center; never subtle or masked

Oh? Where’s the arrogance? I’m simply stating what I believe to be truth. As are you.

And the way you play God in determining that others are less Christians than yourself, you presume to know what;s in their hearts!

Where did I ever claim to know what was in someone’s heart, or to play God? Just a few posts back I was explaining how we Catholics ***do not think ***you must be a totally-orthodox Catholic in order to be Christian, or that non-Catholics don’t go to heaven. You seem to have trouble reading what I actually write and like to attribute things to me that contradict what I’ve clearly stated. Who’s being judgmental now?

I’m not really sure what you guys are afraid of by constantly saying that Mary and Joseph were never married, or had marital relations

We’re just defending Truth. To not defend and teach Truth is to defy God in favor of the Adversary. These Truths in particular are glorious and to be treasured. To see them mocked or despoiled is to fail to treasure Truth.

And to say that we do not know the Truth, is to mock God, and deny His grace to anyone who is not catholic

Oh? You’re saying Catholics don’t know Truth; are you mocking God or denying His grace to Catholics? Who’s being judgmental now?
I never said you lacked all truth. You’re attacking one particular truth in this thread, though. It is not one essential to our salvation (as I have said many times), but it is one that helps us to grow closer to God in various ways. And to deny truth is never good. How do those statements constitute “mocking” God or “denying His grace to anyone who is not Catholic?”

Do you really believe that Jesus is going to ask you if you believed that His mother was married or not, or had sex or not? Is that going to prevent any of us from going to Heaven?

Did you even read my last post? If so, please respond to it. One thing I’ve observed in you is a pattern of completely ignoring points that were made, not bothering to respond to them at all or attempt to refute them if you disagree. That’s not honest intellectual discussion.

He may be more likely to ask you something from Matthew 25:31-40. You know, like “when I was hungry, did you feed me; when I was sick, did you comfort Me?” Or maybe,id you witness to the lost about Me?

Of course He will. Don’t you think Christ, who surely followed the commandment to honor His father and mother, and whom we are told in Scripture to imitate in all things, would care about us also honoring and loving His mother? Particularly if He gave her to us all as an adoptive spiritual mother (in which case we’re honoring our own mother and recognizing His work and the order He established in His Kingdom)?

Mary was an extremely important part of God’s plan to redeem US; but in no text, is she mentioned as being essential for salvation:thumbsup:

As I’ve said many times. I find it increasingly disrespectful of you to so clearly ignore what I have written and attribute things to me that run quite contrary to what I’ve consistently stated.

And brace yourself, because us noncatholics are going to be in Heaven right alongside you ornery, stubborn catholics, who believe otherwise!

Again, where have I ever said anything resembling the belief that you wouldn’t? You are beginning to seem not just prejudiced against Catholics with your mistaken ideas about us, but bigoted. How else am I to interpret it when you assume the opposite of what I (or others on here) clearly state? Seems you are blinded to reality by prejudice or bigotry.

There will be no more titles, or denominations in Heaven; just saints of al kinds worshipping God all day!

But I know that bashing noncatholics is part of your exclusivist nature, so please continue, knowing that your ignorant rants are not deterring our walk with the Truth! He has forgiven and rescued the “rest” of us too!

The only one doing any bashing is you. Seriously. I am truly offended by how you have ignored or grossly mischaracterized my posts. I am far from “exclusivist.” Heck, my WIFE isn’t Catholic. She’s not even a close mainline Protestant! You presume far too much in your prejudice or bigotry against Catholics.

As for being ignorant, you have not attempted to present any educated response or any direct response or refutation at all to what I and others have presented. Clear that beam from your own eye first. I and others have presented plenty of well-researched evidence and clear, logical explanations for our beliefs. You have chosen to blindly reject them without providing any attempted refutation whatsoever, which demonstrates irrationality.

If you disagree with what we have presented, then explain why. Challenge a premise or a conclusion, or challenge the logic to get from one to the other. Offer some rational explanation as to why you think the original language does not mean what we have shown it to mean, or why you do not think the customs of the time were as we present. That you refuse to do these things reflects very poorly on your basis (or lack thereof) for rejection of these ideas. Your ad hominem responses or simply unrelated responses suggest instead that you are afraid, that you cannot refute what we have presented as truth, that you may indeed see the truth of it, but you do not want to accept it anyway, based not on truth but your own personal preference or insecurities.

 

[Arandur]

tweetymom: I know you asked the question in good conscience, and you meant no harm or disrespect. I believe God answers ALL prayers, just not always the way we would like! As far as catholics being the only ones to go to Heaven, that is presumptuos at best! God does not say anywhere, that only one religion or another will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven It seems to me that the JW’s believe that they are the 144,000 who will go first with Christ Doesn’t God offer Christ to ALL humans, and extend His grace to every one who will accept it? But these are things we deal with, while we are wearing flesh! Sad, but true, that the children of God quarrel and bicker, about things that are irrelevant and trivial

Where do you get this stuff? What Catholic here ever said Tweety’s questions were not in good conscience or disrespectful? What Catholic here ever said that God doesn’t answer the prayers of non-Catholics? What Catholic here ever said that Catholics were the only ones going to heaven?

Lacking any provocation, I see in this post only your own blind prejudice or even outright anti-Catholic bigotry.

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: Perhaps I was a bit harsh in responding to your previous post, and I am sorry! In 1Thessalonians 5:21, Paul exhorts US to challenge everything, and hold fast to that which is good. The biggest difference between catholics, and the "rest of us, is interpretation. In John 20:20-23, catholics tell us that this is justification for confessing to a priest(among other scriptures). I have never been able to extract that “fact” from this or any other verse, that Jesus told us to visit a priest on aweekly basis for confession. Besides, man cannot forgive sins, only God And using Ezkiel 44:2, to bolster the argument that Mary was a perpetual virgin, once again, is a matter of interpretation. When I read that verse, I read,"the east gate will remain closed, because that is where God entered the Temple. And to not believe that Mary was a perpetual virgin, is NOT disrespectful to her or anyone else. And if you were to read some past posts from catholics, you would understand my, and other’s aversion to conversion; as “some” catholics have advanced the notion that everyone in Heaven will be catholic, when this cannot be proven Intellectualoism is something that is debatable, and is sometimes subjective, rather than objective. In this forum, of course, ideas are presnted from a catholic point of view. Some of us noncatholics, are here to learn more about why catholics believe the way they believ, and others are her for a myriad of other reasons. And trust me, some do come acros as being exclusive of any one who is not catholic. I have read your posts, and many of them do project a bias against noncatholics. You can deny it all you want, but catholics are as guilty as anyone of judgement. Bottom line is, a Christian, is a Christian is a Christian! All are able to be saved!! And a deeper knowledge of the truth, is not a catholic domain, it is by the power of the Holy Spirit, that we are brought into Truth(John 15:26) Looking forward to more battle with you

 

[1beleevr]

arandur: Why did tweetymom offer her post, in a apologetic way? She has received some “tongue lashng” from catholics, for her Protestant mindset, while claiming to be catholic! And if you would care to read posts from other threads, you would see that some of your “comrades”, have advanced the notion that no one outside the catholic church can be saved and that all in Heaven will be catholic. Don’t they get it? Who of us humans can say what will happen in Heaven, or who will be there or who won’t? I believe that a lot of “good” people may not make it to Heaven, mostly because they don’t know Jesus! We could argue ad nauseum, about everything spiritual, and still walk away, believing what we did when we started! I am no better than you, nor are you better than me. And neither one of us can say that the other is a “better” Christian than the other. You are catholic, and I am not; and will never be! Accept it; I have, but sometimes we both get a little sideways, and our pride gets in the way, and we say things that can be construed as hurtful or judgemental. I have read all of the apostles writings, and am especially fond of Paul, who by many accounts, was the greatest missionary, and visionary for Christ, bar none! But, even in my zeal, I must find love in my heart for my brothers and sisters in Christ!