Mary- other children

[John1717]

Church Militant:

I refuted this misinformation of yours…why didn’t you answer my statement that Luther removed 4 books from the NT? You can’t… because it’s a historical FACT.

The DCs were already in the OT canon from the get-go and your statement that they were added after the reformation is totally wrong and can simply be proved by a check of any unbiased church history. If someone told you we did then you need to ask them why they lied to you. You can double check that by looking it up. It’s church history.http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/AN878.gif

No, Luther is the first one to formalize the Apocrypha not being in a printed Bible, but those books had previously been demonstrated to have been false many centuries before Luther.
The Apocryphal books:

1. are not historical. They contain Geographical references which do not exist, and write events in history which are known to have not occured.

2. they have teachings which contradict the rest of the 66 books

3. Those books were never quoted by the apostles in the Bible nor were they referred to as authentic (with the possible exception of 1 verse of Jude which an apocryphal books borrows)

3b Several of those books are attributed to authors…about whom we know did not write those books. Therefore the statements of those books are false, therefore they were Not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore they should be disregarded.

4. Many lists exist of the books of the New Testament at the beginning of Christianity. Almost all of them Only mention in common, the 27 books found today in the New Testament. Though a few may have thought that some apocryphal books might have been inspired, this was not at all a consensus opinion.

5. It was not the Roman Catholic Church that gave us the canon. The Canon was established by the Apostles and Disciples of Christ that established – through the Holy Spirit – which books of the Bible should be In the Bible. That is why you can find some letters of Paul mentioned in the New Testament but not included.

God did not get lost. It is just that some of those letters (of the Apostles that were not included in the Bible) were not to be considered part of scripture. The last living Disciple was John, who lived to around 90-95 A.D. By then the New Testament books Had been written. He and those who had come before him, were the ones who communicated to the Churches established by the Disciples…which books should be included and which ones should not.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist until after it was financially sponsored by the Roman Empire, sometime after the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. Up until that time, Christianity was directed by those who were local pastors, in churches that the disciples had personally established. The Roman Catholic Church is a "Johnny come lately"

The teachings of Christianity pre-date the Roman Catholic church by almost 400 years (the first 400 years of Christianity). Further, the RCC is kind of like the Jehovah’s Witness in their change of doctrines. What a Roman Catholic believed in the 400s (400 A.D) and what a Roman Catholic is taught to believe today…are two entirely Different sets of teachings.

**Until the 1500s, the Apocryphal books had never been canonized by Anyone. Even the Roman Catholic Church had never pretended that they were part of Holy Scripture. But when Luther and Calvin began asking questions to find out just why the Roman Catholic Cardinals were making money from indulgences, why was the Pope persecuting Christians (through the Inquisition), and why were these leaders not held accountable by the Local Church [which is what the Bible plainly says], the Roman Catholic leaders knew that they had been caught, and they also knew that they were dealing with very knowledgeable people. Luther was director of a university system that included Ten universities under the Wittenberg University system. **

**I hope this answers your question. **

 

[John1717]

Malachi4U:

John1717,

There’s an old saying that you comment brings to mind,“Sometimes there are people who we think are ignorent. When they open their mouth and speak they confirm this.”

God bless,

There is a quotation of Jesus that seems an appropriate response to you:
"Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

---

 

[John1717]

hlgomez:

John 1717,

Who has the authority to say that the Deuterocanonical books contain errors?

Who has the authority also that the rest of the Books of the Bible contains no error? Was it Luther and Calvin? By what authority do they proclaim that?

Pio

Though received by the **apostate **church of Rome (1546) as on a par with Scripture, the Apocrypha certainly do not form part of the biblical canon. This is evident, for:

1. The Apocryphal books contain historical and geographical errors, as well as anachronisms. What is more serious, they teach doctrine that contradicts Scripture (see, for instance, Sirach 3:3,30, in contrast with Galatians 2:15-21; 3:10-14); Tobit 12:9 contradicts 1 John 1:7; Hebrews 9:14; Titus 2:14; Wisdom 8:19,20 contradicts Romans 3:9-20).
2. They encourage practices that do not conform to Scripture (Sirach 12:4-7 not agreeing with Luke 6:27-38 and Matthew 5:43-48).
3. They are completely destitute of distinctive elements of Scripture, such as prophecy.
4. The author of Sirach (the best among the Apocryphal writers), in his introduction begs pardon from his readers for all inexactitudes, something that an inspired writer certainly would never dream of doing (see also 2 Maccabees 2:23,28, in contrast with Luke 1:1-4 and 1 Corinthians 14:37, how both Luke and Paul were conscious of the divine authority their writings contain).
5. Above all, the Jews, who were definitely and specifically entrusted with the oracles of God (Romans 3:1,2; 9:1-5), never recognized the Apocrypha as canonical. Josephus states as a matter of fact that the Jews considered as of divine origin only 22 books (equivalent in content to our 39 books, since some of them - such as the minor prophets - were counted as one book.)

Not only the church of the Old dispensation, but more significantly, the Lord Jesus and His apostles never referred to the Apocrypha and never quoted from them, whereas they often quote or allude to most books of the Old Testament.

Though the Apocrypha forms an interesting literature in many respects, we are not to consider them anything except books written by mere fallible men.

:yup:

 

[michaelp]

john ennis:

Help me. I was wondering if this interpreting of Scripture is infallible. Maybe I’d be more convinced if someone could quote me two or three of the early Fathers who didn’t believe the Eucharist was the Body and Blood of Christ, just as a counterbalance against the myriad who did.

Really, just any evidence from anywhere in the, oh, first fourteen centuries.

“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

 

[michaelp]

“For when Christ says, ‘I am the true vine.’ the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord…For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?..Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.’ He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted…To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, ‘He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.’ But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?..The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink…In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup…the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated…But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Cyprian, Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

 

[michaelp]

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:40)

 

[michaelp]

That was three. But this is really off topic.

 

[John1717]

RSiscoe:

If you would have lived during the days of Jesus would you really have believe in Him. Here’s a test that may help to determine it.

Read John, Chapter six, starting around verse 29, or so. All of these people claimed to believe in Jesus. But then, when He gave them a “hard” teachimg, almost all of them left Him “and walked to more with Him”. Do you believe in that hard teaching of Jesus? Or are you like those who left Jesus over this teaching?

Many people claim to believe in Jesus but is their belief mere intellectual assent or are they true believers? Does the daily pattern of their life show that they truly believe in Him or do they live differently on days other than Sunday? Do they trust in Jesus Alone as their all sufficient Savior or do they believe that something else is necessary to have eternal life? Do they trust in Mary, the Saints, sacraments, the Church or their good works to get to heaven? Do they trust that Jesus’s one time offering on Calvary’s cross was sufficient or do they believe that the sacrifice of the Mass is necessary?

**Please ask yourself these questions and then I would like you to answer a question for me–“How do you intend to get to heaven?” **

 

[dennisknapp]

“But what need is there to speak of bodies not allotted to be the food of any animal, and destined only for a burial in the earth in honour of nature, since the Maker of the world has not alloted any animal whatsoever as food to those of the same kind, although some others of a different kind serve for food according to nature? If, indeed, they are able to show that the flesh of men was alloted to men for food, there will be nothing to hinder its being according to nature that they should eat one another, just like anything else that is allowed by nature, and nothing to prohibit those who dare to say such things from regaling themselves with the bodies of their dearest friends as delicacies, as being especially suited to them, and to entertain their living friends with the same fare. But if it be unlawful even to speak of this, and if for men to partake of the flesh of men is a thing most hateful and abominable, and more detestable than any other unlawful and unnatural food or act; and if what is against nature can never pass into nourishment for the limbs and parts requiring it, and what does not pass into nourishment can never become united with that which it is not adapted to nourish,-then can the bodies of men never combine with bodies like themselves, to which this nourishment would be against nature, even though it were to pass many times through their stomach, owing to some most bitter mischance” (Athenagoras On the Resurrection of the Dead, 8)

Come on Michael, this is speaking of cannibalism, not the Eucharist.

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Come on Michael, this is speaking of cannibalism, not the Eucharist.

Peace

Hey Dennis,
Athenagoras denies that anybody can cite “any” example of God telling us to eat human flesh. He repeatedly uses the word “never”, without making any exemptions.

How likely is it that all of these fathers believed in transubstantiation, yet repeatedly denied that they consume human flesh and blood, in numerous ways in numerous contexts, without ever making any exemption for the eucharist?

 

[dennisknapp]

“For when Christ says, ‘I am the true vine.’ the blood of Christ is assuredly not water, but wine; neither can His blood by which we are redeemed and quickened appear to be in the cup, when in the cup there is no wine whereby the blood of Christ is shown forth, which is declared by the sacrament and testimony of all the Scriptures. For we find in Genesis also, in respect of the sacrament in Noe, this same thing was to them a precursor and figure of the Lord’s passion; that he drank wine; that he was drunken; that he was made naked in his household; that he was lying down with his thighs naked and exposed; that the nakedness of the father was observed by his second son, and was told abroad, but was covered by two, the eldest and the youngest; and other matters which it is not necessary to follow out, since this is enough for us to embrace alone, that Noe, setting forth a type of the future truth, did not drink water, but wine, and thus expressed the figure of the passion of the Lord…For who is more a priest of the most high God than our Lord Jesus Christ, who offered a sacrifice to God the Father, and offered that very same thing which Melchizedek had offered, that is, bread and wine, to wit, His body and blood?..Moreover the Holy Spirit by Solomon shows before the type of the Lord’s sacrifice, making mention of the immolated victim, and of the bread and wine, and, moreover, of the altar and of the apostles, and says, ‘Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath underlaid her seven pillars; she hath killed her victims; she hath mingled her wine in the chalice; she hath also furnished her table: and she hath sent forth her servants, calling together with a lofty announcement to her cup, saying, Whoso is simple, let him turn to me; and to those that want understanding she hath said, Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you.’ He declares the wine mingled, that is, he foretells with prophetic voice the cup of the Lord mingled with water and wine, that it may appear that that was done in our Lord’s passion which had been before predicted…To which things divine Scripture adds, and says, ‘He shall wash His garment in wine, and His clothing in the blood of the grape.’ But when the blood of the grape is mentioned, what else is set forth than the wine of the cup of the blood of the Lord?..The treading also, and pressure of the wine-press, is repeatedly dwelt on; because just as the drinking of wine cannot be attained to unless the bunch of grapes be first trodden and pressed, so neither could we drink the blood of Christ unless Christ had first been trampled upon and pressed, and had first drunk the cup of which He should also give believers to drink…In which portion we find that the cup which the Lord offered was mixed, and that that was wine which He called His blood. Whence it appears that the blood of Christ is not offered if there be no wine in the cup…the divine Scripture in the Apocalypse declares that the waters signify the people, saying, ‘The waters which thou sawest, upon which the whore sitteth, are peoples and multitudes, and nations of the Gentiles, and tongues,’ which we evidently see to be contained also in the sacrament of the cup. For because Christ bore us all, in that He also bore our sins, we see that in the water is understood the people, but in the wine is showed the blood of Christ. But when the water is mingled in the cup with wine, the people is made one with Christ, and the assembly of believers is associated and conjoined with Him on whom it believes; which association and conjunction of water and wine is so mingled in the Lord’s cup, that that mixture cannot any more be separated…But the discipline of all religion and truth is overturned, unless what is spiritually prescribed be faithfully observed; unless indeed any one should fear in the morning sacrifices, lest by the taste of wine he should be redolent of the blood of Christ.” (Cyprian, Letter 62:2-7, 62:9, 62:12-13, 62:15)

Really, then how do you justify this comment?

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Wow, this is actually two Sacraments, confession and the Eucharist, cool!

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

“Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is my body,’ that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure…In order, however, that you may discover how anciently wine is used as a figure for blood, turn to Isaiah, who asks, ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, from Bosor with garments dyed in red, so glorious in His apparel, in the greatness of his might? Why are thy garments red, and thy raiment as his who cometh from the treading of the full winepress?’ The prophetic Spirit contemplates the Lord as if He were already on His way to His passion, clad in His fleshly nature; and as He was to suffer therein, He represents the bleeding condition of His flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red, as if reddened in the treading and crushing process of the wine-press, from which the labourers descend reddened with the wine-juice, like men stained in blood. Much more clearly still does the book of Genesis foretell this, when (in the blessing of Judah, out of whose tribe Christ was to come according to the flesh) it even then delineated Christ in the person of that patriarch, saying, ‘He washed His garments in wine, and His clothes in the blood of grapes’ -in His garments and clothes the prophecy pointed out his flesh, and His blood in the wine. Thus did He now consecrate His blood in wine, who then (by the patriarch) used the figure of wine to describe His blood.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:40)

What does Tertullian mean when he says,

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Peace

 

[rlg94086]

Michael and Dennis,

Mary did not have any other children whose Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in the Eucharist.

Would one of you start another thread. I don’t have anything to add yet, but I think it’s a good discussion.

God Bless,

Robert.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Hey Dennis,
Athenagoras denies that anybody can cite “any” example of God telling us to eat human flesh. He repeatedly uses the word “never”, without making any exemptions.

How likely is it that all of these fathers believed in transubstantiation, yet repeatedly denied that they consume human flesh and blood, in numerous ways in numerous contexts, without ever making any exemption for the eucharist?

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Oh, and John 6.

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Really, then how do you justify this comment?

“He [Paul] threatens, moreover, the stubborn and forward, and denounces them, saying, ‘Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27]. All these warnings being scorned and contemned—[lapsed Christians will often take Communion] before their sin is expiated, before confession has been made of their crime, before their conscience has been purged by sacrifice and by the hand of the priest, before the offense of an angry and threatening Lord has been appeased, [and so] violence is done to his body and blood; and they sin now against their Lord more with their hand and mouth than when they denied their Lord” (*The Lapsed *15–16 [A.D. 251]).

Wow, this is actually two Sacraments, confession and the Eucharist, cool!

Peace

I would agree with this statement since I think that “violence” can be done against the the body and blood being sybolically represented in the eucharist.

The question is, what do you do about his quote I placed above?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

What does Tertullian mean when he says,

“[T]here is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed [in baptism], in order that the soul may be cleansed . . . the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands [in confirmation], that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds [in the Eucharist] on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may be filled with God” (*The Resurrection of the Dead *8 [A.D. 210]).

Peace

I have no problem with this either. You can make such statements and believe that the eucharist is symbolic, can’t you? Obviously you can since the quote that I provided shows that he truly believed it was a symbol.

Michael

 

[John1717]

glow8worm:

How exactly can I convince a non Catholic that Mary was a virgen her whole life? My friend insists Mary couldn’t have possibly lived her whole life as a virgen, and be married to Joseph.

My friend also insists that Mary had other children. He is convinced of this because of the passages in the Bible that refer to Jesus’ brothers and sisters. Where are the passages that the word in hebrew is the same for brothers and cousins? And which passages does Jesus refer to all human kind as His brothers and sisters?

**Matthew 12:46-50 **

“While He was still speaking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You. But He answered the one who was telling Him and said, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers? And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, “Behold, My mother and My brothers!” For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.” Here Jesus is distinguishing between blood brothers versus brothers of faith. Remember it was someone else who called them “mother and brothers” not Jesus. If the brothers are not literal, then neither is the mother. They cannot simply be cousins because Colossians 4:10 uses a separate Greek word (anepsios). John 1:41 uses the same term of Peter and his brother (adelphos).

**Matthew 13:55-56 **

***“Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and ***His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us?” Where then did this man get all these things?” And they took offense at Him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his home town, and in his own household.” Notice that it is implied that these brothers and sisters are members of His own household!

You have a difficult task because Mary DID have other children!

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Irenaeus

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

Clement of Alexandria

“’Eat my flesh,’ [Jesus] says, ‘and drink my blood.’ The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients, he delivers over his flesh and pours out his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of his children” (*The Instructor of Children *1:6:43:3 [A.D. 191]).

Aphraahat the Persian Sage

“After having spoken thus [at the Last Supper], the Lord rose up from the place where he had made the Passover and had given his body as food and his blood as drink, and he went with his disciples to the place where he was to be arrested. But he ate of his own body and drank of his own blood, while he was pondering on the dead. With his own hands the Lord presented his own body to be eaten, and before he was crucified he gave his blood as drink” (Treatises 12:6 [A.D. 340]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ” (*Catechetical Lectures *19:7 [A.D. 350]).

“Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul” (ibid., 22:6, 9).

Oh, and John 6.

Peace

Hey Dennis, I was just responding to the guys honest request for evidence for the eucharist not being transubstantiation. He asked for three, and I gave him three.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

I would agree with this statement since I think that “violence” can be done against the the body and blood being sybolically represented in the eucharist.

The question is, what do you do about his quote I placed above?

Michael

What again is the problem with your Cyprian quote? I don’t see how it teaches against the Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Peace

 

[michaelp]

rlg94086:

Michael and Dennis,

Mary did not have any other children whose Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity are present in the Eucharist.

Would one of you start another thread. I don’t have anything to add yet, but I think it’s a good discussion.

God Bless,

Robert.

Sorry, I was just passing through. I did not mean to steal the thread. Enough from me.

Michael