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

[FdeS2]

fdes2: Nice post, very nice; but…

1beleevr, thank you for saying so, but I would like to know what your thoughts were after that “but…” I look forward to hearing them!

Well back then it was definitely not Catholic in the modern sense…
A bishop’s conference (wow, no pope!) who voted on which book was to be included… (Hebrews by the way was really getting close to be excluded.)
The CC does get it wrong concerning the Bible however… how many books are in the Bible again?

Janet1983, PRmerger is definitely correct about Pope Damasus and his role in the formulation of the canon of the Bible, which was indeed accepted by nearly all Christians for the first 1500+ years after Jesus. As can be ascertained by study of early Church history, there were numerous heresies throughout the history of the Church, some of which are being re-hashed today.

Martin Luther and the other Protestant reformers sided with a group of Jewish scholars who maintained that, if they could not find texts of Scriptural books written in Hebrew, then those books would not be included in their Scriptures. Luther took that Jewish canon as his and tweaked it a bit. The interesting thing is that the Dead Sea Scrolls (you’ve probably heard of them) contain the very same books that those ancient Jewish scholars couldn’t find, written over one to two centuries before Jesus came about. The most amazing point? They were written in Hebrew, which effectively nullified Luther’s idea for rejecting the Roman Catholic Church’s canon!

You mentioned that a bishop’s conference was responsible for the formulation of the canon, but you seem to have forgotten that the Pope is actually the Bishop of Rome. He would have been involved in the bishop’s conference, without a doubt!

As for the early Church’s similarity to Catholicism, I think you would change your mind if you began reading the early Church members’ writings. Take, for example, St. Ignatius of Antioch, the second bishop of Antioch (after Peter left to become Bishop of Rome). He is about as close an author to Jesus’ time as you will find, aside from Scripture. What does St. Ignatius of Antioch have to say about the Church?

“I am God’s wheat and shall be ground by the teeth of wild animals. I am writing to all the churches to let it be known that I will gladly die for God if only you do not stand in my way. I plead with you: show me no untimely kindness. Let me be food for the wild beasts, for they are my way to God. I am God’s wheat and shall be ground by their teeth so that I may become Christ’s pure bread. Pray to Christ for me that the animals will be the means of making me a sacrificial victim for God. No earthly pleasures, no kingdoms of this world can benefit me in any way. I prefer death in Christ Jesus to power over the farthest limits of the earth. He who died in place of us is the one object of my quest. He who rose for our sakes is my one desire."

Here, St. Ignatius puts forth Eucharistic imagery, proclaiming a desire to become a sacrificial victim in order to imitate Christ. If these words are not enough, here are some more from the end of his letter to the Romans, written in the early 100s:

“I no longer take pleasure in perishable food or in the delights of this world. I want only God’s bread, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, formed of the seed of David, and for drink I crave his blood, which is love that cannot perish.”

He also speaks about the hierarchy of the church, and the importance of the bishops in another letter:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

In any event, this is a bit off topic, no matter how enjoyable. I want to hear your thoughts on my previous two posts (#947 & #948), Janet1983.*

 

[Arandur]

Arandur, I have been given the same excuses before. It’s called Apologetics - the science of pulling the Scriptures out of hot coals. Words do not mean the same, that’s not what was meant etc. etc. Sorry friend, same word, same meaning, for David, Saul, God and the Devil. Nice try though

Perhaps if the entire Bible were composed originally in modern American English of the last decade or two, you might have a point. Seeing how it is not, you only show laughable ignorance and unfortunate close-minded obstinance. You apparently lack any logical rebuttal.

If you wish to truly explore these issues, you ought to learn at least a tiny little bit about the evolution of language and culture; a bit about translation across languages; and something about the culture and geography of the times the Bible was written in. A quick introduction to each of these, such as you might find on Wikipedia, should be enough to help you realize just what I mean when I apply “laughable” to your objection.

 

[1beleevr]

Someone said that we could look at Ezekiel 44:2, two(2) ways; as a symbol of Mary’s perpetual virginity, or as the Gate is sealed because it is the gate the Lord God entered the Temple through, and no one else may enter It is intriguing, however, to use this as a metaphor to describe Mary’s womb! I like the God came through that Gate view!

 

[1beleevr]

prieldedi: Feel free to include Mary’s perpetual virginity to the Gospel, but you can’t expect everyone to accept that this is what was passed down from Jesus, to His disciples, and so on, and so on! Judas was not “used” like we use people. We tend to use people for our own benefit, whereas God uses people(all through the Bible) for our benefit. Judas was part of the equation, albeit a negative part. The results are positive though:thumbsup:Where would we be, if Christ had not died on the Cross? Wandering, lost in our sin; bound by the law, which Paul tells us is not the essence of salvation!

 

[1beleevr]

elvisman:W-R-O-N-G! The early church fathers used a symbol(which when applied to communion, you abhor it), which was believed only by a certain religion! I still believe that it means "The Lord God entered the Temple through that Gate! If we say that Ezekiel was hundreds of years before Christ, can we then surmise that the Gate was closed before He was born; not o be openend until His return? Sorry, pal, no dice this time

 

[PRmerger]

Someone said that we could look at Ezekiel 44:2, two(2) ways; as a symbol of Mary’s perpetual virginity,** or** as the Gate is sealed because it is the gate the Lord God entered the Temple through, and no one else may enter It is intriguing, however, to use this as a metaphor to describe Mary’s womb! I like the God came through that Gate view!

Why the “or” 1beleevr (emphasis mine)? I clearly said the Catholic Answer is both/and!

 

[1beleevr]

fdes2: It is evident that you are well schooled in things spiritual and historical:thumbsup: And there are so many aspects about the Jewish religion that we westerners either know nothing about, or are ignorant of. This can abd has led to the formation of all types of theories concerning all aspects of things Biblical What I would hope does not happen, is that someone reads this thread, and believes that Mary’s virginity is as important as the divinity and Deity of Christ I can appreciate your devotion to Mary, but still cannot believe that(nor wil I witness to others that it is true) belief in her perpetual virginity is a part of the Gospel, or salvation

 

[PRmerger]

The early church fathers used a symbol(which when applied to communion, you abhor it),

Well, yes, if something is heresy, we abhor it. Just like you, too, believe in symbols but would abhor it if an atheist told you, “the Bible is only a symbol–it’s not really God’s word.”

If we say that Ezekiel was hundreds of years before Christ, can we then surmise that the Gate was closed before He was born; not o be openend until His return?

Old Testament symbolism is archetypal, and the NT reality perfects it. Thus, Adam is the archetype for Jesus, and Jesus perfected or “improved” the archetype of Adam. The Gate was indeed closed centuries before Christ, but the “new” Gate–Mary, perfected and “improved” this Gate.

If you don’t believe that this Gate is the archetype for Mary, then what reality in the NT is the Gate the archetype for?

BTW, do you think God would have been pleased if the Israelites had put in some pretty stones into the Ark of the Covenant, which once housed the Word of God?

 

[PRmerger]

fdes2: It is evident that you are well schooled in things spiritual and historical:thumbsup: And there are so many aspects about the Jewish religion that we westerners either know nothing about, or are ignorant of. This can abd has led to the formation of all types of theories concerning all aspects of things Biblical What I would hope does not happen, is that someone reads this thread, and believes that Mary’s virginity is as important as the divinity and Deity of Christ I can appreciate your devotion to Mary, but still cannot believe that(nor wil I witness to others that it is true) belief in her perpetual virginity is a part of the Gospel, or salvation

I appreciate your honesty and openness, 1beleevr.

But what parts of the Gospel do you consider to be necessary for salvation? And how do you know this? (Again, you have no Scripture verses that tell you what’s an essential belief.)

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: Two reasons I can think of:1) that pesky thing called free will(which by the way, gives the choice of believing both), and 2) In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul tells US to,“Test everything that is said!”

 

[1beleevr]

fdes2: Neither can I find scripture that shows belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity to be essential for salvation As far as I can surmise, it is an apostolic teaching, and not necessarily"written in stone!"

 

[1beleevr]

prmerger: Why must there be an archetype for the East Gate? Can’t we just say that no one(not necessarily no man) will enter the Temple through said Gate?

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: Why must there be an archetype for the East Gate? Can’t we just say that no one(not necessarily no man) will enter the Temple through said Gate?

Fair enough.

Why the eye rolling? I think your question was a valid one–no need to have added the eye rolling, in my opinion, in a reasoned discussion like this.

 

[elvisman]

elvisman:W-R-O-N-G! The early church fathers used a symbol(which when applied to communion, you abhor it), which was believed only by a certain religion! I still believe that it means "The Lord God entered the Temple through that Gate! If we say that Ezekiel was hundreds of years before Christ, can we then surmise that the Gate was closed before He was born; not o be openend until His return? Sorry, pal, no dice this time

**Can you please clarify what you wrote.
I read it 5 times and still can’t figure out what you’re trying to say.
**At the very least, I try to explain my position, whereas you give short and vague, yet snide responses.
**I’ll explain it one more time for your benefit:

**When Ezekiel had his vision, the Glory of the Lord entered the house by the East Gate (Ezekiel 43:4). Ezekiel wrote down what he was told, "This gate shall be shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it, for the Lord God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall be shut" (Ezekiel 44:2). **

**(This means that it was shut AFTER he entered it - and nobody else gets to pass through it AFTER him).

**When was the East Gate permanently shut? There is absolutely **no record the actual Eastern Gate was ever shut during or shortly after the time of Christ. It is not likely that “the Glory of the Lord” is referring to anybody else.

 

[Prieldedi]

prieldedi: … you can’t expect everyone to accept that this is what was passed down from Jesus, to His disciples, and so on, and so on! …

1beleevr, but that’s precisely what Jesus expects, too bad you refuse to see it.
You reject His Church, you reject Him.

God bless you

 

[PRmerger]

prmerger: Two reasons I can think of:1) that pesky thing called free will(which by the way, gives the choice of believing both), and 2) In 1 Thessalonians 5:17, Paul tells US to,“Test everything that is said!”

To what post are you responding, 1beleevr?

It would help greatly if you could use the quote feature.

You need to use this feature:

at the beginning of the quotation you want to respond to, and this feature: [/quoteA] to end the quotation, and then you can type after that. (HOWEVER, just type / quote] to end the quote. I had to add the “A” to [/quoteA] so that the program would not read it as a quote function.)

Confusing, I know, but can anybody else explain it better? I am not computer savvy at all!

 

[guanophore]

Feel free to include Mary’s perpetual virginity to the Gospel,

Why, thank you!

It is very generous of you to give us permission to follow the commandments of the Apostles.

but you can’t expect everyone to accept that this is what was passed down from Jesus, to His disciples, and so on, and so on!

Why should we not expect that? Why should we expect that modern persons, posessed of their own hubris, should start carving up and separating the One Deposit of Faith which we were commanded to preserve intact?

Why should we expect people to exercise the cafeteria model, picking and choosing which portions of the gospel that was committed to us they wish to espouse?

It seems to me that this is a perfectly appropriate expectation.

 

[Good_Fella]

To what post are you responding, 1beleevr?

It would help greatly if you could use the quote feature.

You need to use this feature:

at the beginning of the quotation you want to respond to, and this feature: [/quoteA] to end the quotation, and then you can type after that. (HOWEVER, just type / quote] to end the quote. I had to add the “A” to [/quoteA] so that the program would not read it as a quote function.)

 

[Janet1983]

Hmmm, you can’t trust Jerome - a Father of the Church.
Do you trust Luther, Calvin or Zwingli?

No.

 

[PRmerger]

No.

Yet you trust Luther’s removal of the deuterocanon??

(Unless you can provide documentation that they were not part of the original canon defined at the Councils of Rome, Carthage and Hippo)