Scripture and Mary

[EphelDuath]

It pains me that Protestants attack the Church because they claim to be “Bible believers,” yet I cannot find a single Protestant who can simultaneously rectify Matthew 16:18, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 28:20 and John 14:16-18 with their “great apostasy” theory.

“Hell shall not prevail against it” doesn’t mean “the Church will be heretical and pagan for 1500 years until a disgruntled anti-Semite accidentally discovers the truth by reading the Bible.”

 

[epostle]

***As these writings have been studied more and more through 1500 years or more, it is becoming more common to believe that Irenæus wrote them all.

Irenæus got this directly from Scripture. The Scriptures refer several times to “James, the Lord’s brother.” It is not something someone made up. The Scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters and names most of them.

You are correct in that since James came from the same womb, it is not too amazing that he would look so much like his brother. Many try to explain away the Scriptures, calling Jesus’ brothers “cousins” but the fact remains, several times the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned in the Bible. Why would it be so hard to believe the Bible is true?

It was hundreds of years later that the RCC did not want Jesus to have brothers and sisters. See if you can find any early church fathers writing about them being cousins for the first couple of hundred years. That concept did not fit the false doctrines about Mary, so the “cousins” thing had to come up. It all boils down to what you believe—I believe the Bible.***

Acts 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about one hundred and twenty)

OldScholar, do you expect me to believe Mary had about 120 brethren, making her pregnant for some 90 consecutive years?
It’s your “true scriptures” isn’t it?

 

[Old_Scholar]

Acts 1:14 All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren. 15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about one hundred and twenty)

OldScholar, do you expect me to believe Mary had about 120 brethren, making her pregnant for some 90 consecutive years?
It’s your “true scriptures” isn’t it?

***Just read your own posting. Are you saying “brethren” here means “brothers?” Brethren usually means brothers in Christ to a Protestant, unless there is notably a family connection. That is a different use of brother. And the first meaning of Adelphos in Greek is brother, not cousin, as used in Matthew 13:55. I believe here however, that it was Jesus’ brothers and maybe even His sisters, who were not named.

Those who were well known were named but many were not. There were about 120 there and it was not doubt, an entire congregation, not just those named. In some instances such as this, the women who were not prominent were never named. I don’t see how you could believe all there were named.

---

 

[epostle]

Just read your own posting. Are you saying “brethren” here means “brothers?”

No, you are.

Brethren usually means brothers in Christ to a Protestant, unless there is notably a family connection. That is a different use of brother.

So you admit there is more than one meaning for the word “Adelpho”, but restrict it to one meaning when it suits you? I am not referring the “usual meaning of brothers in Christ”, I am referring to the factual meaning of the word brethren, which you take to mean only biological brothers when it suits you.

And the first meaning of Adelphos in Greek is brother, not cousin, as used in Matthew 13:55.

Great. But you can’t find the Aramaic or Hebrew word for “cousin”, because there is no such word. They translated Aramaic and Hebrew to the Greek “adelpho” and is used interchangeably throughout the Bible to describe both. This is what you deny. “First meaning” does not exclude other meanings, which you do to support post –reformist agendas. But you are correct, brethren means spiritual relationship, not necessarily family relations, which is my point. But you show rigid selectivity in your interpretation of “brethren”, doing violence to the scriptures. One example:

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.
scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-V

Matthew 13
[54] and coming to his own country he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished, and said, “Where did this man get this wisdom and these mighty works?
[55] Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
[56] And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this?”
[57] And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country and in his own house.”
[58] And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief.

First, the focus is not on the members of Jesus’ extended family, or John the Baptist would have been mentioned. Why did Jesus give his mother over to the care of John while dying, and not “his brothers "James and Joseph and Simon and Judas” in violation of tradition? Are you going to argue that John was Jesus’ biological brother too? The focus of Mt. 13: 54-58 is their unbelief, that a mere human could perform signs and wonders. It is the same unbelief that denigrates Jesus’ mother to a bigamist. If Mary is not the Spouse of the Holy Spirit, then God committed adultery by impregnating another man’s wife. You say Mary is just a rent-a-womb for God who lets her be passed around to other men. That is one reason why I call this post-reformist invention a doctrine of demons. It blasphemes God, and denies Mary’s purity as the Ark of the New Covenant, which further demands more pretzel theology of the Ark of the Old Covenant.

The Mosaic penalty for having children by a man other than her husband is stoning to death, making Mary a serious violator of the Commandments, a point that bible-twisters chronically ignore, and Catholics fail to point out. Mary did not have an average relationship with Joseph because she did not have an average child. It’s not rocket science.

I believe here however, that it was Jesus’ brothers and maybe even His sisters, who were not named.

Don’t you find it odd that only one woman is mentioned by name? Why her? Why are the Eleven were named first, if Mary is the Queen? What is the significance of 12 X 10? I believe you can think for yourself instead of regurgitating garbage from hate sites.

Those who were well known were named but many were not. There were about 120 there and it was not doubt, an entire congregation, not just those named. In some instances such as this, the women who were not prominent were never named. I don’t see how you could believe all there were named.

I’m relieved that you see Mary as being a prominent member of the congregation in Acts 1. But arguing over satanic utterances vexes my spirit. Mary is not a slut that fragmented 17th century Protestant Helvidian cults have made her out to be.

I urge you to humbly seek the truth from God, and repent of your blasphemies.

Mary » Perpetual Virginity » The “Brothers” and “Sisters” of Jesus
phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/100

 

[epostle]

*The idea that Mary had other children first surfaced from a guy named Helvidius around 380 A.D. and it caused quite a stir cause no one held that belief at the time. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. Jerome had access to much documentation from the early Church and he cited earlier well known Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply. His theory died and lay dormant for over 1500 years until it recently resurfaced among modern Evangelicals. * (a man-made tradition, a doctrine of demons)
davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

 

[Old_Scholar]

No, you are.

So you admit there is more than one meaning for the word “Adelpho”, but restrict it to one meaning when it suits you?

It is necessary to take the verse in context as well. Many translators have attempted to do just that. It is easy to try and change a meaning but if you take it out of context, then you distort it.

In most cases, brother and brethren are used in order to distinguish between a real “brother” and a spiritual brother, but it depends on the translators. I believe they did an excellent job of translating and in most cases they used the right word. It is unfortunate there is only one Greek word for brother and brethren.
epostle;3149770:

Great. But you can’t find the Aramaic or Hebrew word for “cousin”, because there is no such word. One example:

(Sorry but in order to answer this, I have to eliminate some of your quotes. I haven’t learned how to get by the 5,000 character thing yet.)

Gen. 11:26-28 - Lot is Abraham’s nephew (“anepsios”) / Gen. 13:8; 14:14,16 - Lot is still called Abraham’s brother (adelphos") . This proves that, although a Greek word for cousin is “anepsios,” Scripture also uses “adelphos” to describe a cousin.

You are overlooking Gen 14:12 where it plainly states that Lot is the son of Abram’s brother. Again, take it in context. Abram was so excited about Lot’s capture that he wanted to rescue him even though Lot had mistreated and disrespected Abram. It was the family thing to do and in doing so, Abram thought of Lot as his son, even though we know he was his Nephew.

And the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, the language of the times, not Greek, so it doesn’t matter what the Greek word for brother means in the Old Testament. The Hebrew is awkh.

Matthew 13:54-58.

In context, this is very clear. I can’t imagine why you want to take it so far out of context. They are talking of Jesus’ brothers and sisters, nothing is said about cousins.

First, the focus is not on the members of Jesus’ extended family, or John the Baptist would have been mentioned. Why did Jesus give his mother over to the care of John while dying, and not “his brothers.

I can’t even believe your comments here—saying Mary was not a “rent-a-womb”, etc. Scripture is quite plain here. Joseph and Mary were betrothed(engaged) and were going to be married. When Mary was impregnated with Christ, then they were married according to the Scriptures. There was no illegitimate child born here. The Scriptures are also quite clear when they say Joseph “knew her not until after Christ was born.” That makes it a virgin birth, just as God planned it. To deny that Joseph and Mary did not then have a normal Jewish marriage is ridiculous. The early church fathers certainly did not believe she remained a virgin. That is a much later invention—not based on Scripture.

And none of Jesus’ brothers were at the Crucifixion. John was the disciple “who Jesus loved” and it would have been natural to give her care over to him. James was not converted until Christ’s death.

Don’t you find it odd that only one woman is mentioned by name? Why her? Why are the Eleven were named first, if Mary is the Queen? What is the significance of 12 X 10? I believe you can think for yourself instead of regurgitating garbage from hate sites.

Mary was special, no doubt about it, the virgin mother of Jesus. The custom was not to name women then but it would seem natural to name Mary. She was no Queen however…

I’m relieved that you see Mary as being a prominent member of the congregation in Acts 1. But arguing over satanic utterances vexes my spirit. Mary is not a slut that fragmented 17th century Protestant Helvidian cults have made her out to be.

I urge you to humbly seek the truth from God, and repent of your blasphemies.

Mary » Perpetual Virginity » The “Brothers” and “Sisters” of Jesus
phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/100

You seem to have many names names to call Mary. I resent your inference. She was special and blessed and you should not comment that way about her.

You still can’t list any early church fathers, first and second century, who believed as you do about Mary. It was a much later invention of Romans who wanted it to be that way.

 

[Old_Scholar]

The idea that Mary had other children first surfaced from a guy named Helvidius around 380 A.D. and it caused quite a stir cause no one held that belief at the time. Jerome, responded with a treatise called On the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Mary. Jerome had access to much documentation from the early Church and he cited earlier well known Christian writers such as Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr. Helvidius was unable to come up with a reply. His theory died and lay dormant for over 1500 years until it recently resurfaced among modern Evangelicals. (a man-made tradition, a doctrine of demons)
davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

Actually it was the idea that Mary *did not *have other children that surfaced in the 4th century. I don’t believe you can find any credible evidence of this belief until then. This is in the same category of claiming primacy of Peter—no Biblical support but instead what someone hundreds of years later wanted to believe. It came with the Romans taking over the Christian Church.

Jerome had no access that is not available today. Jerome wrote in the 4th century and most Catholics don’t put much faith in what he had to say. He certainly wrote a great deal but his refutation of Scripture doesn’t hold true. His story is the same as all others who do not want to believe Scripture.

Since you say Jerome cited Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and even Irenæus, please list the citations, as I can’t find them in Jerome’s writing. Perhaps I overlooked them.

I would be more apt to believe Mary remained a virgin and did not bear Jesus’ brothers and sisters if the earlier church fathers wrote of it.

 

[EphelDuath]

Actually it was the idea that Mary did not have other children that surfaced in the 4th century.

That’s impossible, as there are people who mention her perpetual virginity in the 3rd century.

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

 

[Old_Scholar]

That’s impossible, as there are people who mention her perpetual virginity in the 3rd century.

“And indeed it was a virgin, about to marry once for all after her delivery, who gave birth to Christ, in order that each title of sanctity might be fulfilled in Christ’s parentage, by means of a mother who was both virgin, and wife of one husband. Again, when He is presented as an infant in the temple, who is it who receives Him into his hands? Who is the first to recognize Him in spirit? A man just and circumspect,’ and of course no digamist, (which is plain) even (from this consideration), lest (otherwise) Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church. Such eye-witnesses the Lord in infancy found; no different ones had He in adult age." Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).

There is certainly nothing here to indicate Mary remained a virgin. Instead Tertullian says they were married before the birth of Jesus and says Mary only had one husband. Doesn’t say anything about other children at all. You have to read something into it that isn’t there.

“For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus, and yet Jesus says to His mother, Woman, behold thy son,’ and not Behold you have this son also,’ then He virtually said to her, Lo, this is Jesus, whom thou didst bear.’ Is it not the case that every one who is perfect lives himself no longer, but Christ lives in him; and if Christ lives in him, then it is said of him to Mary, Behold thy son Christ.’ What a mind, then, must we have to enable us to interpret in a worthy manner this work, though it be committed to the earthly treasure-house of common speech, of writing which any passer-by can read, and which can be heard when read aloud by any one who lends to it his bodily ears?” Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).

Again, Origen doesn’t make the claim that Mary had no other children. He even gets the Scripture wrong. Christ is referring to John when He says Woman, behold your son, He isn’t referring to Himself. He is saying He wants Mary to treat John as her son and John to treat Mary as his mother. This is a very good example of how some were beginning to change things. This was done in the third century and is not anything written in the first 200 years of Christ’s life. What did those early fathers think? Ever wonder why they didn’t think the same way?

Surely if it is true, there must be something by the ones who lived during the apostle’s time or soon thereafter who thought so. Isn’t it strange that John or even Mary never wrote about it? We do have letters from Mary you know.

Go back farther and see what you can find. I can’t find anything about it at all early.

 

[EphelDuath]

There is certainly nothing here to indicate Mary remained a virgin.

Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church.

Again, Origen doesn’t make the claim that Mary had no other children.

For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus

He even gets the Scripture wrong. Christ is referring to John when He says Woman, behold your son, He isn’t referring to Himself.

Yes he is. John wasn’t born of Mary, he was born of Zebedee. That wouldn’t make sense if he, on the cross while John was doing nothing, told Mary to behold John.

He is saying He wants Mary to treat John as her son and John to treat Mary as his mother.

John focused more on Christology than on parental relations. It’s more likely he’s calling Mary the New Eve.

This is a very good example of how some were beginning to change things. This was done in the third century and is not anything written in the first 200 years of Christ’s life. What did those early fathers think? Ever wonder why they didn’t think the same way?

All of the ECF believed in the perpetual virginity. Few mentioned it because they thought it was obvious, until somebody challenged the notion.

Surely if it is true, there must be something by the ones who lived during the apostle’s time or soon thereafter who thought so. Isn’t it strange that John or even Mary never wrote about it?

The Gospels hint at it many times, yet you don’t acknowledge this.

We do have letters from Mary you know.

No we don’t.

 

[Pwrlftr]

It is my understanding that Tertullian rejected the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The article at newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm seems to indicate this as well. Just adding my 2 cents.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Christ should presently be more worthily preached by a woman, an aged widow, and the wife of one man;’ who, living devoted to the temple, was (already) giving in her own person a sufficient token what sort of persons ought to be the adherents to the spiritual temple,–that is, the Church.

That’s really “reaching” isn’t it? It doesn’t say what you want it to.

For if Mary, as those declare who with sound mind extol her, had no other son but Jesus

This is using a hypothetical.

Yes he is. John wasn’t born of Mary, he was born of Zebedee. That wouldn’t make sense if he, on the cross while John was doing nothing, told Mary to behold John.

Maybe you need to read it a little more carefully.

John focused more on Christology than on parental relations. It’s more likely he’s calling Mary the New Eve.

I love it when you use terms like, “more likely”…Do you suppose they really wanted us to have to guess what they meant?

All of the ECF believed in the perpetual virginity. Few mentioned it because they thought it was obvious, until somebody challenged the notion.

Then I guess you won’t have any problems giving quotes from the ECFs…saying that Mary remained a virgin…and why would they think it was obvious? Scripture says otherwise. Don’t you think they believed Scripture?

The Gospels hint at it many times, yet you don’t acknowledge this.

Then again, you won’t have any problems listing the hints.

No we don’t.

How about the letter from Mary to Ignatius? Is that one being discounted because it doesn’t say Mary is the Mother of God?

As a Catholic, though not a Roman Catholic, it seems strange to hear such phrases as: Probably means, hints at, no doubt means, really means, could be, kinda points to, and other such phrases that try to change Scripture, because it seems an attempt to make things someone wishes it was and not what it really is.

Take Peter’s primacy, for example, you have to really bend things a great deal to make Matthew 16:18 say what the Roman Catholics want it to say. The term Pope wasn’t even used until about the 4th or 5th century and no one until then gave any credence to “one man rule.” The Early Church Fathers never tells us about peter being the first pope or him having authority over anyone else, nor did the apostles. No one in those days mentioned anything about Mary remaining a virgin and certainly no one ever even thought of an immaculate conception or assumption. Purgatory is not a Biblical belief. Indulgences came much later.

Makes us wonder why God gave us the Bible at all. Do we really need it, or could we just take what the bishops say as Gospel…

 

[EphelDuath]

That’s really “reaching” isn’t it? It doesn’t say what you want it to.

She devoted her life to the Temple and the Church. Only virgins were allowed to do that.

This is using a hypothetical.

That response made no sense whatsoever. Origen clearly says Jesus had no brothers, in what world are you seeing this as a hypothetical?

Maybe you need to read it a little more carefully.

Are you saying John was not the son of Zebedee?

I love it when you use terms like, “more likely”…Do you suppose they really wanted us to have to guess what they meant?

I say “more likely” because your interpretation still makes sense, just about a quarter as much as the doctrine of New Eve. Thinking that Jesus is talking about something completely irrelevant would mean that John is introducing a new idea out of the blue and then never speaking of it again. Your interpretation is more guesswork than any other I’ve seen.

Then I guess you won’t have any problems giving quotes from the ECFs…saying that Mary remained a virgin…and why would they think it was obvious?

They all spoke Koine Greek fluently and had no issues with mistranslating “adelphoi” to only mean biological brothers, never Jesus’ kinsmen and/or step-brothers.

Scripture says otherwise. Don’t you think they believed Scripture?

Scripture says that the only two people ever called Jesus’ brothers are actually the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas (cf. Matthew 27:56/Mark 15:47)

Then again, you won’t have any problems listing the hints.

Certainly. First, you have the Old Testament foreshadowing of Mary.

Ezekiel 44:2
And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it, and it shall be shut.

Protestants like to weasel out of this by saying that it’s not an explicit reference to Mary, but that’s malarkey. What gates did the Lord pass through besides Mary? Verse five specifically labels the subject here as the SON OF MAN, so it clearly means Jesus.

Next, you have the New Testament notes regarding her perpetual virginity.

Mark 6:9
Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary…?

Referred to as the single son of Mary (later in this sentence are James and John mentioned as his brothers, but we’ve already established that their father is Clopas). In Luke 2:41-51, Mary and Joseph search the Temple for Jesus, but no mention of any other sibling is ever made. And the most obvious one is Luke 1:31-34, where Mary asks how she could become pregnant since she knows no man – if she were intended to sleep with Joseph, this question would’ve been obvious. It’s indicative of her making a vow of chastity, as many Palestinian women did in her time.

How about the letter from Mary to Ignatius? Is that one being discounted because it doesn’t say Mary is the Mother of God?

Yeah, do you know how common the name “Mary” was in that time? You’re assuming it’s from Mary the mother of Jesus, which is a big no-no in scholarship (and something you’re about to attempt to nail me on, ironically).

As a Catholic, though not a Roman Catholic, it seems strange to hear such phrases as: Probably means, hints at, no doubt means, really means, could be, kinda points to, and other such phrases that try to change Scripture, because it seems an attempt to make things someone wishes it was and not what it really is.

I’ve never used those phrases before. I don’t know what kind of negative image you’re trying to paint me with, but if you’re sincerely looking for scriptural proof, you should cut out the libel and try to actually debate.

Take Peter’s primacy, for example, you have to really bend things a great deal to make Matthew 16:18 say what the Roman Catholics want it to say.

Yeah, how ridiculous for us to assume that Jesus wasn’t kidding when he said he’d give Peter the authority of heaven. But you’re right: the Protestant interpretation makes much more sense, the one where Peter then replies “thank you Lord for giving me this pretend authority that actually doesn’t mean anything; the Bible we’ll write in 40 years will be the only authority in your Church!”

Wait, that didn’t happen.

 

[EphelDuath]

The term Pope wasn’t even used until about the 4th or 5th century and no one until then gave any credence to “one man rule.”

The term “Pope” is irrelevant. What we call the vicar of Peter is irrelevant, because we know Peter was the bishop of Rome and head of the early Church.

The word “Pope” means father. The office of Peter was prophecized in Isaiah 22:21-22.

Isaiah 22:21-22
And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The Early Church Fathers never tells us about peter being the first pope

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

“By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established.” Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235).

or him having authority over anyone else, nor did the apostles.

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

So the Church in Rome (governed by the Bishop of Rome [Pope]) is sojourned directly by God for the authority of the other churches… huh.

Purgatory is not a Biblical belief.

Oops, wrong.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15
According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus. Now, if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: Every man’s work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

Purification after death by fire? Sounds like purgatory to me.

Indulgences are an application of purgatory and not a really significant Church teaching.

Makes us wonder why God gave us the Bible at all. Do we really need it, or could we just take what the bishops say as Gospel…

The Catholic Church wrote the Bible to document some of its apostolic traditions. But it was never meant to be the sole authority. Else you would see more Gospel stories about the apostles writing the Bible and less about Peter getting the authority to govern the Church.

1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Look at that. The CHURCH is the Pillar of Truth. NOT the Bible. And you think the Church is capable of heresy and error? When can truth do that?

But now that we’re talking about the Church, let me mention a few other verses…

Matthew 16:18
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Matthew 28:20
…And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

John 14:16-8.
And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete [the Holy Spirit], that he may abide with you for ever: The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him. But you shall know him; because he shall abide with you and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans: I will come to you.

Hey, it looks like Christ’s church doesn’t apostatize and you’re wrong.

I have no patience for you. You actually know what you’re talking about but you’re intentionally misleading people from the truth using dishonesty. If at any point you wish to accept Jesus, his Church is still waiting for you, standing since the day it was built.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EphelDuath

Quote:
Take Peter’s primacy, for example, you have to really bend things a great deal to make Matthew 16:18 say what the Roman Catholics want it to say.

Yeah, how ridiculous for us to assume that Jesus wasn’t kidding when he said he’d give Peter the authority of heaven. But you’re right: the Protestant interpretation makes much more sense, the one where Peter then replies “thank you Lord for giving me this pretend authority that actually doesn’t mean anything; the Bible we’ll write in 40 years will be the only authority in your Church!”

Wait, that didn’t happen.

Well when the disciples asked Jesus in Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24who was the greatest among them, wouldn’t you think Christ would have let them in on the secret that Peter was the leader? Instead he said nothing about it. In fact the entire Scriptures say nothing about Peter having any more authority than the other disciples.

In Matthew 18:18-19, Christ made certain all the disciples knew they had the same power you say He gave to Peter alone. I disagree with your interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the following verses seem to prove me correct. Almost immediately after you say Peter was given this great authority, Christ called Peter Satan and rebuked him.

Do you also deny that the same authority was given to the rest of the twelve? If so, then you don’t believe Scripture. One certainly can’t mis-interpret that.

Quote:
The Early Church Fathers never tells us about peter being the first pope

“Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven…’” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200).

“And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail…” Origen, Commentary on John, 5:3 (A.D. 232).

I see you are quoting two who the Roman Catholics believe were not very truthful. In fact, Origen was not a theologian but instead was a philosopher and in fact taught that in his *De Principiis *(the most daring and speculative of his works) that he is merely making plausible suggestions, and that his reader is free to take what he finds valuable, and to reject what he finds offensive or useless. Origen also taught that Plato was born of a virgin, just as Christ was.

Origen had some firm ideas of the soul. According to Origen, the soul of humans pre-existed with God and became bored and fell away from God and grew cold. This is how he explained the presence of a soul in a material body. I am sure you are familiar with his eschatological theory that all soul will achieve salvation, including the devil himself. He absolutely denied the soul’s free will concept as well.

You also quote Tertullian, who was considered a heretic by the Roman Catholics because of his passionate Montanism.

However, Origen and Tertullian explained what they meant by Peter and the Rock elsewhere and it was on the “faith” of Peter that the church was to be founded. Not on Peter. So if you believe them, then you must believe what they actually thought.

Your quote of Hippolytus could be saying also that Christ was the Rock the church was established on, particularly since Scripture also tells us that.

Let’s look at another early church father and what he thought about Peter and the rock.

Ambrose: “Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.” (Expos. in Luc.)

Others who explained it the same way were: Augustine, Cyprian, John Chrysostom, Origen, and Ephanius.

Augustine in his later years retracted what he at first believed - the interpretation of the Roman Church that Peter was the Rock. He says. “I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the ‘Rock’; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be ‘the Son of the Living God.’ Peter so named after this ‘Rock’ represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, ‘thou art Petra,’ but ‘thou art Petros,’ and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter.”

It would be impossible for Christ to have given such power to Peter alone and not told anyone about it. It is simply a fable.

 

[elvisman]

EphelDuath

Well when the disciples asked Jesus in Luke 9:46 and Luke 22:24who was the greatest among them, wouldn’t you think Christ would have let them in on the secret that Peter was the leader? Instead he said nothing about it. In fact the entire Scriptures say nothing about Peter having any more authority than the other disciples.

In Matthew 18:18-19, Christ made certain all the disciples knew they had the same power you say He gave to Peter alone. I disagree with your interpretation of Matt 16:18 and the following verses seem to prove me correct. Almost immediately after you say Peter was given this great authority, Christ called Peter Satan and rebuked him.

Do you also deny that the same authority was given to the rest of the twelve? If so, then you don’t believe Scripture. One certainly

Let’s look at another early church father and what he thought about Peter and the rock.

Ambrose: “Christ is the Rock, ‘For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.” (Expos. in Luc.)

Others who explained it the same way were: Augustine, Cyprian, John Chrysostom, Origen, and Ephanius.

Augustine in his later years retracted what he at first believed - the interpretation of the Roman Church that Peter was the Rock. He says. “I have said somewhere of St. Peter that the Church is built on him as the ‘Rock’; but I have since said that the Word of the Lord. ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this Petra I will build my church,’ must be understood of Him [Jesus] whom Peter confesses to be ‘the Son of the Living God.’ Peter so named after this ‘Rock’ represents the person of the Church, and has received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. It was not said of him, ‘thou art Petra,’ but ‘thou art Petros,’ and the Rock was Christ; through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter.”

It would be impossible for Christ to have given such power to Peter alone and not told anyone about it. It is simply a fable.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies." (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [AD 415])

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (AD 393, p. 250)

"For, if the order of the succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement … To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius." (St. Augustine, Epistle 53)

Gosh, Old “Scholar” - shall I go on?

 

[Old_Scholar]

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies." (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [AD 415])

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (AD 393, p. 250)

"For, if the order of the succession of bishops is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter, to whom the Lord said: 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." For to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement … To Julius Liberius, to Liberius Damasus, to Damasus Sircius, to Sircius Anastasius." (St. Augustine, Epistle 53)

Gosh, Old “Scholar” - shall I go on?

Yes you should go on. You are only listing the opinions of men who lived hundreds of years later and have nothing to base their opinion on, except wishful thinking. Show us some proof, such as Scripture or writings from the early church fathers dating back to the first or second century.

How about something from Polycarp, or Barnabas, or Clement or Ignatius. They lived with the apostles and knew all about them. Don’t quote someone from hundreds of years later and you could be believed.

 

[Old_Scholar]

EphelDuath

I have no patience for you. You actually know what you’re talking about but you’re intentionally misleading people from the truth using dishonesty. If at any point you wish to accept Jesus, his Church is still waiting for you, standing since the day it was built.

Thank you but I am already a member of the Church Christ built and I will be glad to extend the same invitation to you. I have found the truth and am still seeking more and better ways to serve Him. Jesus is my saviour, not my church. The church simply couldn’t save me but Jesus can. That is His promise to us. I will continue to persevere.

 

[Chellow]

EphelDuath

Thank you but I am already a member of the Church Christ built and I will be glad to extend the same invitation to you. I have found the truth and am still seeking more and better ways to serve Him. Jesus is my saviour, not my church. The church simply couldn’t save me but Jesus can. That is His promise to us. I will continue to persevere.

I see you and elvisman have a disagreement about scriptures let’s do what the bible prescribes to do, (Mt 18:17) and take your disagreement to the Church, since your Church did not exist at that early date lets go to the original church the Holy Catholic Church since the (Mt 16:18-19) gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it to settle this issue.

 

[zmyr88]

did she have children or not?

these verses imply she did.mathew 1:24-25
from three diffrent bibles!

Holy bible NRSV catholic edition : 24 when Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. other ancient
authorites read her firstborn son*

Holy bible NIV YouthWalktm devotional bible
by walk thru the bible ministries Atlanta georgia
24 When joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25 but he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name of jesus.

THe king james bible verion 1611 translation:

**{1:24}Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel
of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
{1:25} And knew her not till she had brought forth her
firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
**

knew in English meant to have sex. dictionary.com 7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.

true that marriage is bound by intercourse, but it would have been stated at least in one of th bibles that the marrige was complete, rather than this. the closest is the NIV, and even that can refer to sex, union dictionary.com 8. the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage or sexual intercourse: an ideal union; an illicit union.

next we have her offspring?

in mathew 13:55-13:66 this is stated (all the bibles are the same just referred to in a different order)

KJV bible first

{13:55} Is not this the carpenter’s son? is
not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and
Joses{sic}, and Simon, and Judas? {13:56} And his sisters, are
they not all with us? Whence then hath this [man] all these
things?

youthwalk bible second

"Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Arent all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?"

Catholic bible NRSV.
55 "is not this the carpenter’s son? iIs not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? 56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all this ?"

Are these the disciples or brothers, if so , why not refer to them as his followers, and the sisters, i am not familiar with any woman following him around insomuch as to be referenced as followers like the disciples?