Why do non catholics dislike Mother Mary?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

Let’s approach the above scripture using a little bit of logic. If Mary had intended on having relations, would she have asked, “How shall this be done…?” Wouldn’t she have assumed, well my first born will be the Son of God as foretold by the Angel of the Lord?

Just as it’s being demanded to show where scriptures explicitly states, “Mary remained a virgin…”, scriptures do not tell us, “Joseph knew Mary”, nor do scriptures give us the lineage of “brothers and sisters”. Where does it say Mary begat anyone?

Let me ask this, if Joseph had children prior to his marriage to Mary, what would those children have been considered in their relationship to Jesus? Wouldn’t they have been his “brothers and sisters”?

When you speak of the Church of Ephesus, do you not realize as the Church grew, certain things only became doctrine when the teaching became endangered? Some teachings were taken for granted by the early Church fathers, because everyone believed. There was not a New Testament in the beginning of the Church, in fact the canon of the New Testament was not defined until the 400s.

I have shown you, from scriptures, the law of Moses and how it pertained to a woman taking a vow of abstinence and when it had to be honored by her father and even her husband. Joseph had considered, quietly, putting Mary away, or divorcing her, because he was not willing to publically expose her. The Angel of the Lord appeared to him and told him who the child was.

As for the semantics of the word “until”. Have you ever told your children to behave until they got home, or until company had left? Did this mean your children were invited to misbehave once they got home, or once company had left?

We believe in the authoritative Church and all she teaches. It’s called faith…

Why is it so important to you to prove Mary otherwise? Does believing her to be ever virgin have some impact on someone’s salvation in your opinion?

 

[rev_kevin]

I don’t see any Scripture in the Bible that states that “Scripture alone” defines and/or restricts our Christian faith traditions so why do you believe it?

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

John 21:25
And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

You didn’t answer the question.

 

[rev_kevin]

Luke 1:34.

How can this be since I know not man?

Remember, the Blessed Mary is betrothed–i.e. married but not living with Joseph. An angel appears to her and tells her she’s going to conceive a child.

If she’s planning to engage in marital relations, then she answers: Awesome! When?

If she’s planning to remain a virgin all of her life she asks the question she asks in Luke 1:34.

Otherwise, why does she ask the question of an angel that tells her, an engaged/betrothed/married woman she’s ***going to ***conceive a child? The question is an important one, indeed!

1. Yes she said that. Does that mean she will remain a virgin.the rest of her life. No
2. Yes and he tells her by the Holy Spirit.
3. Possibly after Jesus was born she might have said that.
4. Because at that time she was a virgin and she has not had “relations” with a man ie sex.
5. Because she has not had “relations” ie sex with a man so it would be logical to ask that question.

 

[SHW]

Show me where in the Bible where is says they took a vow or dicided to remain lifelong virgins. Give me a site where I can find out if this was the practice and acceptable in ancient Jewish culture. Please.

Since the Jewish temple was destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish temple rituals and practices have been discontinued and so references to them are few now about 1900 years later and I cannot find specific articles online about the virgins who served God in the Jewish temple.

We do see that Anna was a widow and a prophetess and that she lived and served in the temple when Jesus was presented there in Luke 2:36-37. But, this is the only Scriptural reference that I know of which gives details of women serving in the temple.

Luke 2:36-37
Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized this fact as the teaching of the Bible.

Some thoughts on Mary’s perpetual virginity:
davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

 

[rev_kevin]

And here’s another one:

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–Ezekiel 44:2

This has nothing to do with Mary being closed.

It about a real gate, the east gate was to remain closed.

If you start at v.1 it says “Then the man brought me back to the east gate in the outer wall, but it was closed. {then v.2 which you have already} v.3 Only the prince himself may sit inside this gateway to feast in the Lord’s presence. But he may cone and go only through the gateway’s foyer.”

How in the world do you get Mary being closed when it specificily mentions a real gate. Come on this is too much.

 

[rev_kevin]

Since the Jewish temple was destroyed in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jewish temple rituals and practices have been discontinued and so references to them are few now about 1900 years later and I cannot find specific articles online about the virgins who served God in the Jewish temple.

We do see that Anna was a widow and a prophetess and that she lived and served in the temple when Jesus was presented there in Luke 2:36-37. But, this is the only Scriptural reference that I know of which gives details of women serving in the temple.

Luke 2:36-37
Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli all honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized this fact as the teaching of the Bible.

Some thoughts on Mary’s perpetual virginity:
davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_perpetual_virgin.htm

thanks for trying, I really mean it.

Luke 2:36-37 Anna, a prophet, was also there in the temple. She was the daughter of Phanue, of the tribe of Asher, and was very old. She was a widow, for her husband had died when the had been married only seven years. She was now eighty four years old. She never left the temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer.

I don’t see “from her virginity” in my Bible.

 

[SHW]

Try context; it does help give correct meaning. You should have read further and whatever Jesus prays for does, has, and will come to pass.
17 "Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth. 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. 19 "For their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth.

These were Jesus’ chosen followers. These same men were commissioned by Him to be the leaders of His Church. He did not say this to anyone except these chosen men.

20 ***"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21 that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. ***—Plus the church did not exist at this point as well.

See answer above.

Anyone can impose on Scripture as you did. There is one truth in any given passage, but it can have and often does have more than one application, as is the case the the person who gives the gospel and rejects it; did they reject the messenger or the message? Do you see the point. I can give you the gospel and you will either accept it or reject it; the power is always in the message, the messenger is the chosen vessel and all Christians are called to be able to give an account of the hope that is in them.

It depends on who this “messenger” is and what “message” he is sharing. Your message to me is that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one and that mine is not. I see your point very clearly. However, I don’t agree with you.

----1 Co is addressed to the church in Corinth, the entire church. So is 2 Thessalonians, to all the faithful Christians at Thessalonian. You impose and add or change Scripture to fit your belief system; the story of man and religion.

See answer above.

He gave us deacons and elders, that it. the Elders are to protect and feed the flock, feeding is preaching and teaching. The Deacons or servants are to assist the congregation and help the Elders fulfill their responsibilities, but beyond that nothing and it is always at the local level as we can easily discern from Scripture.

Bishops were priests. Elders were priests. Presbyters were priests. Elders and Presbyters are the same thing, it just depends on the translation. The shortened form of Greek “presbyter” is English “priest.” Paul was a bishop and he oversees these local Churches along with other bishops.

Philippians 1:1
Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

Sorry, but that is a real imposition to the point of perverting the Word of God, which we are “commanded” to rightly divide the word of God if we are going to be teaching.

Paul is writing this to Timothy, a fellow bishop, personally. He is instructing/reminding Timothy of his duties as a bishop. Paul is not speaking directly to you or to me.

Why do so many buy into the private interpretation of men? The Bible says that interpretation is the work of the Holy Spirit. This is why several times He is referred to as the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Promise - He is the same Spirit and when He takes up residence in a person, which is a Christian, His job is to interpret Scripture, which means He leads and teaches the Truth to each to whom He indwells and it is all over the Scripture. We are commanded to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. How can this be accomplished by men? Can it be done by the Holy Spirit working in and through a Christian?

Yes, why are **you **buying into the private interpretation of men? Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture? I do not find this in the Bible.

Jesus gave His Church hierarchy the authority to interpret Scripture. He did not give it to individual members.

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

He told His personally chosen Church hierarchy to go and make disciples of all the nations and to teach them to observe all things that He had commanded them to teach. He gave these chosen persons His authority and He personally taught them what they were to teach. He does not ever give His authority to persons who simply pick up a Bible and who then decide to personally interpret it.

Want proof? Jesus is truth. The Holy Spirit is definitely not telling one Protestant one “truth” and then also telling another Protestant another conflicting “truth” so that they can both form their own churches based on their own conflicting personal truths. Persons may think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them individually, but He never promised to guide each individual person. He only promised to guide His one Church hierarchy.

 

[SHW]

I ask you to show me different. Show me where I’m wrong. I have read your dogmas on Mary and they don’t say they were inspired from God It says "this dogma was declared by the church of Ephesus in the year 431. The concil of Ephesus with more than 200 Bishops presided over by St, Cyril or Alexandia Representing Pope Celestin 1. defended the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the mother of God {theotokos} Against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople.
I just see a some men who say this is what it is going to be.But its your dogma and I expect you to believe what they tell you to.

The Church hierarchy (successors of the apostles) has Jesus’ authority in the NC in the same manner as Moses and his successors, the scribes and Pharisees, had God’s authority in the OC. What they say about Mary is truth because the Holy Spirit made it known to them and He cannot lie.

Matthew 23:1-3
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, 2 saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Jesus told them to obey the scribes and Pharisees commands because they had been given God’s authority and therefore they must be obeyed, but He also told them to not imitate their personal lifestyles because they were hypocrites and they did not practice what they preached.

 

[SHW]

thanks for trying, I really mean it.

Luke 2:36-37 Anna, a prophet, was also there in the temple. She was the daughter of Phanue, of the tribe of Asher, and was very old. She was a widow, for her husband had died when the had been married only seven years. She was now eighty four years old. She never left the temple but stayed there day and night, worshiping God with fasting and prayer.

I don’t see “from her virginity” in my Bible.

παρθενία in Greek means virginity. Your translation does not translate this verse accurately.

 

[nguirado]

It seems to me that Protestants wanted to “purify” the Church and saw diminishing reverence for Mary as part of that process. Another example is that Protestants at one time outlawed Christmas.

Catholics may exaggerate, if such a thing is possible, devotion to Mary to distinguish themselves.

Atheists do that too. I know one guy at work who wears an atom symbol.

Why? Well, to distinguish himself. People are like that.

 

[jen_fla]

I recommend using Gods word rather than the words of men. In this thread we have words of men parcing the word “worship” . Their final conclusion to this procces is

that its ok to worship Mary, so long as you dont worship Mary. If we stick with what God’s Word says there is a much clearer possiosion, worship ONLY God. The adoration of Mary on this thread has even been minimised by comparing it to the love of icecream, yet we dont see statues of a carton of B&J’s being carried on the shoulders of believers and people dont pray to their haagen-dazs bars!

that book was written by an intelligent Franciscan Capuchin Priest and is of great value to this discussion.

i will admit i only read the first few pages of this thread. could you please show me what Catholic or Orthodox member claims it’s ok “to worship Mary, so long as you don’t worship Mary” as i think you misunderstood what was trying to be communicated. surely you know the CC and OC do not worship her. love and worship are not the same thing.

i see you just joined, (welcome btw ) but i don’t know how much you have read already on CAF. hopefully you’ll get some time to read through some of the threads on sola scriptura and how our Holy Bible came to be.

peace and merry Christmas.

 

[peary1]

Originally Posted by **rev kevin **

1. I don’t think it was the norm for a teenager to be pregnant and unmarried.

It probably happened more often than not, even in the time of Christ (and before…and after).

If they knew that she was pregnant she would have been stoned to death.

Maybe, maybe not.

Is it alright for a unmarried person to be pregnant?

According to Catholic teaching, the best scenario is for the parents to be married when the child comes into the world. It’s more stable, and there is a spiritual element associated with this.

Doesn’t that go against everything the Catholics stand for?

Human weakness is human weakness. What do you want to do? Throw both mother and baby to the dogs? What type of love and charity is THAT?

1. I can’t tell you what to believe. Just because I don’t doesn’t mean you don’t. See I’m not like that. I don’t say you have to believe what I believe because I say so. But that is what is being said to us.

Catholic Christians believe (or should believe) what the Church teaches. There is no way getting around THAT.

 

[GraceDK]

Me it was the opposite. I was Catholic and couldn’t reason why they believe the things they do. Like how can you not think that Mary had other children and that she remained a virgin the rest of her life. If you were Joseph and your wife wouldn’t have relations with you and you were married would it be a good marriage? Wouldn’t that seem strange to you no matter what? How many married couples never had relations with eachother. It just don’t stand to reason. They are married its condoned by God. Its ok.

Dear **Rev Kevin **and **Izoid **.

Having grown up without any mention of Mary, I was only made aware of this controversy about the “Perpetual Virginity” after I had already been saved by Christ in the Catholic Church.
Let me share with you a short testimony.

One day, some years ago, I was reading a debate on the net, not unlike this one, where Evangelicals were arguing that Mary did not remain virgin. They backed up their stance with the Precious Word of God, quoting its passages about the “brothers of Jesus”.

I remember that summer day vividly. I was upset and I went outside to pray. Everything was in full bloom and the sun was shining. I said to God with all my heart: “You know Father, it seems these Protestants are right. And You and I both know, that if they are right, then the Catholic Church is wrong. And if the Church is wrong then She is not the Church she claims to be. Father… you know I only want to be where You want me to be. I want to be in the Truth. I’ll be a Baptist tomorrow, or whatever You want. Just tell me…”

After a moment of silence a word fell out of the sky as it seemed. I dont know how to describe it. It was like a flash of sudden clarity. There was John and Mary at the foot of the Cross and Jesus says to Mary: “There is your son, and to John: There is your mother”.
Totally simultaneously God gave me to know with 100 percent certainly that if Mary had had other Children, Jesus - especially being Jewish Messiah - would never have taken away the duty and honour of any biological brothers, by giving his mother to a non-relative for him to take care of her.
It was ever so evident. Not only was it logical, and culturally evident… but I know without doubt that this “light of the intellect” did not come from myself. I have never doubted since then, that Jesus was the only son of Mary, and that Mary had no other sons to look after her when Jesus went back to the Father.

The question in itself mattered little to me, to be honest. I just wanted to know the truth, in order to know whether I was in the wrong Church, and if I had maybe misunderstood the Lord who brought me there. Apparently it mattered greatly to Him that I remained where I was, so He put the milk on a spoon and fed this child who asked in sincerely and willingness to follow Him alone.

Maybe you can use it. Or maybe you cannot not. Until now, I am always nervous to share the testimony with people, because I am afraid that the gifts of the Holy Spirit will be treated with contempt, and then I would be at fault because I told someone who would not listen. But until now, it never happend that anyone disagreed with the point. Its somehow so evident… right there in front of us in the Holy Word of God.

Peace to you both.

 

[GraceDK]

That is incorrect, Grace. The CC does not teach that the Bible is sufficient for our salvation. Firstly, because Scripture does not ever say that. It says, in fact, the opposite.

What is sufficient for our salvation is the Word of God, that is. Jesus, the Word Made Flesh.

Dear brother.
You are right to imply I should be more precise.
Of course neither the Bible nor the Church *in themselves */apart from Christ are sufficient for our salvation.

Christ alone Saves.
And He is greater than either. But He uses both Church and Bible wonderfully, and if one uses either of these as much and as humbly as he can and in the way which it was intended to be used - namely merely *to lead him to the Saviour * and grow in Him - he cannot exhaust the richness in it and will certainly be saved.

This is what I actually meant to say : "The Bible is sufficient to give the “wisdom that leads to salvation” and to enable the godly person to be “adequate, equipped for every good work”.
This is what the Chuch has stated.

Peace and thanks again. The one who can always speak clearly is really blessed.

 

[izoid]

How do you get other children mentioned explicitly, were they all conceived by the holy Spirit?

This too has already been discussed, read the thread. Since there is no word for cousin in the NT it is very conceivable that any reference to brothers or sisters were cousins. It is also very likely due to the living situations of the time when extended families often lived together.

Let me ask you a question. Do you ever call your fellow believers brother? Are they in fact you biological brother?

 

[izoid]

The WW2 thing they were married and he died hense, they are widows, Its not like they were never married.

Now the again part.
If there is nothing objectively wrong about being pregnant and unmarried than why does the Catholic church look down on it and call it a sin?

So is the church now condoning unmarried pregnancy?

Are they now saying its ok to be pregnant and not married?

When did this change?

Dishonest attempts to twist and discredit will get you nowhere. In fact, you will loose all credibility.

 

[izoid]

Dear **Rev Kevin **and **Izoid **.

Having grown up without any mention of Mary, I was only made aware of this controversy about the “Perpetual Virginity” after I had already been saved by Christ in the Catholic Church.
Let me share with you a short testimony.

One day, some years ago, I was reading a debate on the net, not unlike this one, where Evangelicals were arguing that Mary did not remain virgin. They backed up their stance with the Precious Word of God, quoting its passages about the “brothers of Jesus”.

I remember that summer day vividly. I was upset and I went outside to pray. Everything was in full bloom and the sun was shining. I said to God with all my heart: “You know Father, it seems these Protestants are right. And You and I both know, that if they are right, then the Catholic Church is wrong. And if the Church is wrong then She is not the Church she claims to be. Father… you know I only want to be where You want me to be. I want to be in the Truth. I’ll be a Baptist tomorrow, or whatever You want. Just tell me…”

After a moment of silence a word fell out of the sky as it seemed. I dont know how to describe it. It was like a flash of sudden clarity. There was John and Mary at the foot of the Cross and Jesus says to Mary: “There is your son, and to John: There is your mother”.
Totally simultaneously God gave me to know with 100 percent certainly that if Mary had had other Children, Jesus - especially being Jewish Messiah - would never have taken away the duty and honour of any biological brothers, by giving his mother to a non-relative for him to take care of her.
It was ever so evident. Not only was it logical, and culturally evident… but I know without doubt that this “light of the intellect” did not come from myself. I have never doubted since then, that Jesus was the only son of Mary, and that Mary had no other sons to look after her when Jesus went back to the Father.

The question in itself mattered little to me, to be honest. I just wanted to know the truth, in order to know whether I was in the wrong Church, and if I had maybe misunderstood the Lord who brought me there. Apparently it mattered greatly to Him that I remained where I was, so He put the milk on a spoon and fed this child who asked in sincerely and willingness to follow Him alone.

Maybe you can use it. Or maybe you cannot not. Until now, I am always nervous to share the testimony with people, because I am afraid that the gifts of the Holy Spirit will be treated with contempt, and then I would be at fault because I told someone who would not listen. But until now, it never happend that anyone disagreed with the point. Its somehow so evident… right there in front of us in the Holy Word of God.

Peace to you both.

I agree with you 100%. I think this is one of the clearest proofs in all of Scripture and I have mentioned it in several of my posts. It is unfortunate that those who do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity will not even address it. The skip right over the fact like it is irrelevant.

Thank you for sharing and God bless you.

 

[peary1]

Me it was the opposite. I was Catholic and couldn’t reason why they believe the things they do. Like how can you not think that Mary had other children and that she remained a virgin the rest of her life. If you were Joseph and your wife wouldn’t have relations with you and you were married would it be a good marriage? Wouldn’t that seem strange to you no matter what? How many married couples never had relations with eachother. It just don’t stand to reason. They are married its condoned by God. Its ok.

Bad catechetics. You had weak teachers of the Faith - IF you were Catholic (so many on here say they are or were and it’s quite apparent that they never were). There is an entire spiritual dimension of selfless love with God at the center in marriage, where both husband and wife can actually say TO God “Be it done according to Your Word.” When the two are either self-centered or centered only on each other is where problems begin. God is left out. Most Catholics I know who have left the Church have done so either because they do not agree with one or more Church teachings, or they practice a behavior that is not condoned by the Church (i.e., practicing artificial contraception negating children, or divorce). If Joseph died while Jesus was a teen (and we know from Scripture that Joseph was still in Jesus’s life when he was 12), then that would have made Mary a widow quite early in their marriage. If they had other children, it would have been explicit not only in Scripture but also in the Church’s tradition. It isn’t in either accounts.

But protestants are sex-obsessed, and you reflect that. I’m not putting you down for it; I’m just saying that it is protestantism that is sex saturated in their views of Mary, not Catholics. According to protestants, she HAD to have sex. Her and her husband HAD to engage in intercourse, she HAD to have sinned. In other words, many protestants have to drag Mary down to their level of sin and incompetence when it comes to one’s sexual life. And, to me, that is the greater sin, and shows a complete ignorance of the sacredness of holy matrimony in the eyes of God. And, of course, as a Catholic Christian, I have to reject your views because of this.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

These were Jesus’ chosen followers. These same men were commissioned by Him to be the leaders of His Church. He did not say this to anyone except these chosen men.

The truth still remains unchanged.

It depends on who this “messenger” is and what “message” he is sharing. Your message to me is that your interpretation of Scripture is the correct one and that mine is not. I see your point very clearly. However, I don’t agree with you.

I know you don’t agree with me, but it is most likely due to a lack of confidence in God in the reading and understanding of the Word of God. My confidence does not come from myself; I have no confidence in myself, but I have full confidence in Christ and His promises, one of which is the Holt Spirit revealing the truth of His Word to each individual.

Bishops were priests. Elders were priests. Presbyters were priests. Elders and Presbyters are the same thing, it just depends on the translation. The shortened form of Greek “presbyter” is English “priest.” Paul was a bishop and he oversees these local Churches along with other bishops.

Again, you are imposing a position or title, whatever you consider it, onto Scripture. One needs only do a simple Word search in Scripture to debunk the notion that a priest is a Bishop or Elder according to the Word of God. Without the Holy Spirit of Truth, then no one will not be able to understand and things like I said abouve about the priest not being an Bishop nor overseer, seems foolish, just as other things I have said are foolishness to many.

1 Co. 2 - "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." – If you follow the remaining verses after this above, then look at what “appraised” means, you might see it is too each via the HS.

Ask yourself; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t reside in each believer and lead to understanding, then how can the statement above (1 Co 2) be true; or is this just to the Apostles, Elders and Deacons?

Just some charitable advise; look carefully at 2 Peter 1:1-15 and see how He is speaking to all of us and notice the words grow and knowledge as you read.

Yes, why are **you **buying into the private interpretation of men? Who gave you the authority to interpret Scripture? I do not find this in the Bible.

Jesus gave His Church hierarchy the authority to interpret Scripture. He did not give it to individual members.

2Peter 1
1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ: 2 **Grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 3 seeing that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence. **

Can you argue this is to Elders and Deacons?

Matthew 28:18-20
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Who are the “others” and how do you know?

Want proof? Jesus is truth. The Holy Spirit is definitely not telling one Protestant one “truth” and then also telling another Protestant another conflicting “truth” so that they can both form their own churches based on their own conflicting personal truths. Persons may think that the Holy Spirit is guiding them individually, but He never promised to guide each individual person. He only promised to guide His one Church hierarchy.

We can say the same about Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, et al
Yes He did promise, He has several missions and one is to teach, lead and guide EACH individual into the grace and knowledge of His Word. That is the only way a will grow and understand. As you said, not from man and a personal interpretation.

Think of it this way. A teacher of the Bible could be in a classroom and be lecturing on the meaning of Hebrews 7,8 & 9; some students will understand the truth and some students will not? Why? Some have the Living Interpreter, which allows them to understand the truth and reject which is false and some do not and cannot. So who is it that actually interprets that which was said? Not the person, but the Holy Spirit in the person manifesting the truth to the Christian.

 

[Timothy_Piper]

Dear **Rev Kevin **and **Izoid **.

Having grown up without any mention of Mary, I was only made aware of this controversy about the “Perpetual Virginity” after I had already been saved by Christ in the Catholic Church.
Let me share with you a short testimony.

One day, some years ago, I was reading a debate on the net, not unlike this one, where Evangelicals were arguing that Mary did not remain virgin. They backed up their stance with the Precious Word of God, quoting its passages about the “brothers of Jesus”.

I remember that summer day vividly. I was upset and I went outside to pray. Everything was in full bloom and the sun was shining. I said to God with all my heart: “You know Father, it seems these Protestants are right. And You and I both know, that if they are right, then the Catholic Church is wrong. And if the Church is wrong then She is not the Church she claims to be. Father… you know I only want to be where You want me to be. I want to be in the Truth. I’ll be a Baptist tomorrow, or whatever You want. Just tell me…”

After a moment of silence a word fell out of the sky as it seemed. I dont know how to describe it. It was like a flash of sudden clarity. There was John and Mary at the foot of the Cross and Jesus says to Mary: “There is your son, and to John: There is your mother”.
Totally simultaneously God gave me to know with 100 percent certainly that if Mary had had other Children, Jesus - especially being Jewish Messiah - would never have taken away the duty and honour of any biological brothers, by giving his mother to a non-relative for him to take care of her.
It was ever so evident. Not only was it logical, and culturally evident… but I know without doubt that this “light of the intellect” did not come from myself. I have never doubted since then, that Jesus was the only son of Mary, and that Mary had no other sons to look after her when Jesus went back to the Father.

The question in itself mattered little to me, to be honest. I just wanted to know the truth, in order to know whether I was in the wrong Church, and if I had maybe misunderstood the Lord who brought me there. Apparently it mattered greatly to Him that I remained where I was, so He put the milk on a spoon and fed this child who asked in sincerely and willingness to follow Him alone.

Maybe you can use it. Or maybe you cannot not. Until now, I am always nervous to share the testimony with people, because I am afraid that the gifts of the Holy Spirit will be treated with contempt, and then I would be at fault because I told someone who would not listen. But until now, it never happend that anyone disagreed with the point. Its somehow so evident… right there in front of us in the Holy Word of God.

Peace to you both.

Two things, in your prayer you said the protestants seemed right and asked God for help and that you would be a baptist or what ever denomination, rather than asking to be more like his Son in knowledge and wisdom or become a Christian. Just the first thing i noticed.

The second and more important; you took a something you believe came from God and made it your own; you said Jesus did not give a relative to Mary; yet Jesus clearly said who was His brother, sister mother and He was speaking of believers, not non-believers. At that scene you describe, Jesus had no believing biological brothers; therefore consistent with his word He gave His spiritual and true brother in Christ, John, to take care of His mother, which fulfills the Jewish tradition in spirit and truth. So whatever came and gave you assurance was based on misunderstanding and therefore not from God.