The perpetual virginity of Mary is really a question about the age of Joseph when they got married. If, as preserved in the Orthodox church tradition and iconoraphy, Joseph was an older widower with children from a previous marriage who married Mary and died leaving Mary a widow her perpetual virginity is almost a historical certainty.

This older age of Joseph is supported by the fact that the last time we hear of him is Luke 2:41:51 when Jesus is teaching in the temple, well before the start of his public ministry. It is also supported by John 19:26-27 when, at the time of the crucifixion Christ tells Saint John to look after his mother, something that would not have been necessary were Joseph still alive or if she had other natural born children (the Protesant view).

"For even His brothers did not believe in Him." (John 7:5) also points in the direction of step-brothers rejecting the ministry of their step-sibling.

While it is true that in eastern cultures cousins are often considered "like brothers" this requirement of the young Joseph model in Roman Catholicism promoted by Jerome and Fulton Sheen isn't compatible with the chronology of Joseph's life and other facts cited above. Nor is it compatible with scripture such as 1st Corinthians 7.

Only the Old Joseph view really accounts for all the circumstantial evidence.

As far as the importance of Mary, consider this. We know that Christ has two natures, divine and human. From whom did his human nature come? He was not simply installed in her womb like an iOS update. Of all the people who ever lived on earth, it is the Theotokos whose DNA and human nature God chose to use. Hopefully this gives readers a fuller understanding of Gabriel's greeting in Luke 1:28: "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you: blessed are you among women!"

Greater than Moses? Yeah, by a lot.

Realitybites said:

---

The perpetual virginity of Mary is really a question about the age of Joseph when they got married. If, as preserved in the Orthodox church tradition and iconoraphy, Joseph was an older widower with children from a previous marriage who married Mary and died leaving Mary a widow her perpetual virginity is almost a historical certainty.

This older age of Joseph is supported by the fact that the last time we hear of him is Luke 2:41:51 when Jesus is teaching in the temple, well before the start of his public ministry. It is also supported by John 19:26-27 when, at the time of the crucifixion Christ tells Saint John to look after his mother, something that would not have been necessary were Joseph still alive or if she had other natural born children (the Protesant view).

"For even His brothers did not believe in Him." (John 7:5) also points in the direction of step-brothers rejecting the ministry of their step-sibling.

While it is true that in eastern cultures cousins are often considered "like brothers" this requirement of the young Joseph model in Roman Catholicism promoted by Jerome and Fulton Sheen isn't compatible with the chronology of Joseph's life and other facts cited above. Nor is it compatible with scripture such as 1st Corinthians 7.

Only the Old Joseph view really accounts for all the circumstantial evidence.

---

I put this under an interesting buy really doesnt impact my day to day life. Sort of under the Mary's sex life after Jesus birth. More of a discussion for academics. Church says it was perpetual, ok. If the Church said it wasn't, ok. This is one of those traps that take our eye off the message.

But, people like BusyTarp have invested a lot of time on it. To each his own.

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

Realitybites said:

---

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

---

Yeah, I can see how the "artistic" side of Christmas can cause issue, such as white Jesus and Apostles.
I get that.

I have more of an issue with people making faith and believe decisions based on advertising and/or brow beating. We have that going on right now on this thread. BusyTarp is "academic" bullying to get his believes across, no different than any other form of manipulation or abuse. How many just follow because he is playing the citation and authority game?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

---

I have more of an issue with people making faith and believe decisions based on advertising and/or brow beating. We have that going on right now on this thread. BusyTarp is "academic" bullying to get his believes across, no different than any other form of manipulation or abuse. How many just follow because he is playing the citation and authority game?

---

You have an issue with those who can show you biblically, historically, factually, and logically that what you believe is not from God, and is therefore false.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

---

I have more of an issue with people making faith and believe decisions based on advertising and/or brow beating. We have that going on right now on this thread. BusyTarp is "academic" bullying to get his believes across, no different than any other form of manipulation or abuse. How many just follow because he is playing the citation and authority game?

---

You have an issue with those who can show you biblically, historically, factually, and logically that what you believe is not from God, and is therefore false.

---

No. I don't. I am very comfortable with the Church's answers, which come with much more authority than you. I have spoken with Priest MUCH more qualified to answer these questions than you.

Do you really think people are going to say that their believes are wrong because some internet chat room guy named BusyTarp says his cherry picked information is right? That you have better information than the Vatican??? If so, you do think highly of yourself.

Or is it the Holy Spirit? The same one that only works to support what you say the Holy Spirit influenced?

Well.... all i can say is that I am very sad for you Catholics.

It is obvious that all of these conflicts boil down to one major issue... Catholics believe in the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and they will not give that up.

It is truly sad that you guys are willing to put so much faith in a group that has time & again proven to be wrong. There are so many examples of the Catholic leadership doing terrible things and having to correct past mistakes... and yet you guys always lean on the words & decisions of these obviously fallible men.

I wish there was a way for you to see the truth, but so long as you continue to put your faith in the catechisms or some other doctrine that does not originate from scripture... there isn't much hope there.

I hope some day you guys will see the light, before it is too late. I've tried, but I'm going to have to shake the dust from my sandals now.

Good bye.

ShooterTX said:

---

Well.... all i can say is that I am very sad for you Catholics.

It is obvious that all of these conflicts boil down to one major issue... Catholics believe in the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church, and they will not give that up.

It is truly sad that you guys are willing to put so much faith in a group that has time & again proven to be wrong. There are so many examples of the Catholic leadership doing terrible things and having to correct past mistakes... and yet you guys always lean on the words & decisions of these obviously fallible men.

I wish there was a way for you to see the truth, but so long as you continue to put your faith in the catechisms or some other doctrine that does not originate from scripture... there isn't much hope there.

I hope some day you guys will see the light, before it is too late. I've tried, but I'm going to have to shake the dust from my sandals now.

Good bye.

---

Sounds good. You believe your way, I will my way. I pass no judgement on yours. I would like the same courtesy, especially in a Pope Leo thread. No Catholic in here came looking for a fight.. That honor falls on BudyTarp...

ShooterTX said:

---

Well.... all i can say is that I am very sad for you Catholics.

---

Interesting..... as I love being Catholic.

The traditions, history, accomplishments.

Especially take joy in the charity work the Church conducts world wide. No other non governmental organization even comes close to the money Catholics donate to the poor, sick and homeless.

And we aid ALL people. Not just Catholics.


Have said this before , however believe its worth repeating.
Have NEVER heard any Catholic insult or put down ANY other religion ( and I am almost 70 years old ).

Honestly think this comes from confidence.

We have been the largest , most influential Christian Faith for almost two THOUSAND years.

God must be liking something !

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

---

I have more of an issue with people making faith and believe decisions based on advertising and/or brow beating. We have that going on right now on this thread. BusyTarp is "academic" bullying to get his believes across, no different than any other form of manipulation or abuse. How many just follow because he is playing the citation and authority game?

---

You have an issue with those who can show you biblically, historically, factually, and logically that what you believe is not from God, and is therefore false.

---

No. I don't. I am very comfortable with the Church's answers, which come with much more authority than you. I have spoken with Priest MUCH more qualified to answer these questions than you.

Do you really think people are going to say that their believes are wrong because some internet chat room guy named BusyTarp says his cherry picked information is right? That you have better information than the Vatican??? If so, you do think highly of yourself.

Or is it the Holy Spirit? The same one that only works to support what you say the Holy Spirit influenced?

---

The authority that you rest on has been shown to be false. They have made claims of infallibility, yet they have made false claims that contradict historical fact. God says that this is a sign of false prophets, and He commands that you not obey them. Yet you still do. That's going to be on YOU.

Your leadership has also given their full endorsement of rank heresy and idolatry. In fact, they're the ones who led you there. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. You've been shown the fruits of mariology. You have to be completely dense spiritually, or deceived beyond help to not see it for what it is. If you rest on what your leadership says, that it's all okay, then you are in a cult and your mind is trapped. And it means you don't have the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit frees your mind to be able to see such things. I'm afraid that this means you aren't saved. You Roman Catholics need to repent and turn from all this.

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Another thread with Catholics looking to extra-scriptural sources and "tradition" in support of beliefs which contradict the holy scriptures and inspired word of God.

Same song, millionth verse.

---

Another post with a protestant who believes in the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

Prove it, if you can.

And you can begin by answering this: is it ok for traditions to contradict the inerrant holy scriptures?

---

Where is it found in the bible?

What traditions "contradict the inerrant holy scriptures"?

Prove it, if you can.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Agree about it not affecting day to day life. But you can see how someone might see a typical manger scene at Christmas time, make unconscious assumptions about Joseph's age, and go on to misunderstand Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7.

---

I have more of an issue with people making faith and believe decisions based on advertising and/or brow beating. We have that going on right now on this thread. BusyTarp is "academic" bullying to get his believes across, no different than any other form of manipulation or abuse. How many just follow because he is playing the citation and authority game?

---

You have an issue with those who can show you biblically, historically, factually, and logically that what you believe is not from God, and is therefore false.

---

No. I don't. I am very comfortable with the Church's answers, which come with much more authority than you. I have spoken with Priest MUCH more qualified to answer these questions than you.

Do you really think people are going to say that their believes are wrong because some internet chat room guy named BusyTarp says his cherry picked information is right? That you have better information than the Vatican??? If so, you do think highly of yourself.

Or is it the Holy Spirit? The same one that only works to support what you say the Holy Spirit influenced?

---

The authority that you rest on has been shown to be false. They have made claims of infallibility, yet they have made false claims that contradict historical fact. God says that this is a sign of false prophets, and He commands that you not obey them. Yet you still do. That's going to be on YOU.

Your leadership has also given their full endorsement of rank heresy and idolatry. In fact, they're the ones who led you there. Jesus said you will know them by their fruits. You've been shown the fruits of mariology. You have to be completely dense spiritually, or deceived beyond help to not see it for what it is. If you rest on what your leadership says, that it's all okay, then you are in a cult and your mind is trapped. And it means you don't have the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit frees your mind to be able to see such things. I'm afraid that this means you aren't saved. You Roman Catholics need to repent and turn from all this.

---

Funny, I believe what you are saying is a heresy. You really need to come back to the Church. But, you persist in your heresy, so I must wipe the dust from my sandals.

ShooterTX said:

---

That is an absolute lie. The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary was NEVER a universally believed concept. It was invented, by the leadership in Rome, many hundreds of years after Jesus left the earth.
This is even more obvious by the fact that the Roman Catholics themselves didn't make it official doctrine until long after they had secured political control over the majority of churches. If they had attempted to bring up this heresy back at Nicea, they would have been excommunicated along with Nestorius and others.
The early church believed the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles, and there is NO evidence to support that any of them were teaching the heresies that Mary was a perpetual virgin or a perfectly sinless person.

---

First, Nestorianism (Nestorius) was refuted at the Council of Ephesius. BTW, it's somewhat ironic that you bring up Nestorius, because it was at that Council (Ephesus) that it became settled doctrine that Mary is the "Theotokos" (Mother of God).

Also, Athanasius, who was the literal hero of the Nicaea Council, was one of the earliest Church fathers to explicitly affirm the perpetual virginity of Mary.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The proof that they didn't use the apocrypha.... is that they didn't use the apocrypha.

---

I've already stated that that isn't a valid test for canonicity. NT does not reference several other books in the OT. You can't throw them (Deuterocanon) for that reason.

The NT does reference themes from the Deuterocanon as well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't need to specify a point in time to prove that something was added. You only need to show that something is there that previously wasn't. And besides, you've already provided that specific point, so why are you asking me? It's completely irrelevant.

---

What logic is that? You claim that Catholics ADDED the Deuterocanon. Provide as date as to when the Church added those 7 books. If they were never there, then you should be able to find a point when they were added.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- the natural reading of "adelphos" is natural brothers and sisters

---

No, it a A reading, but certainly not the most common reading or understanding.
Lot is called Abraham's "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother (Gen. 11:2628), he was actually Abraham's nephew.

Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

I've already demonstrated that Jerome laughed at this argument because he didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to believe it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-Luke 2:7 says that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son", a term which implies she had others.

---

This is from Jimmy Akin, an apologist: "In ancient Jewish culture, the term "firstborn son" did not imply that other sons came later."
"The first male child to be born to a woman was regarded as her first-born, regardless of whether she had other children. The firstborn son had a special role that applied as soon as he was born. It was not a role he assumed when later children were born."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-Matthew 1:25 says Joseph didn't consummate his marriage to Mary "until she gave birth to a son", implying he did afterwards. It does not say that Joseph "never" consummated their marriage, something the Bible would say if that were what God wanted to tell us.

---

Once again, you misunderstand the nature of the Greek word ""heos". It does not necessarily imply a change in state after the specified point.

In 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child "until" her death, meaning she never had children.

Matthew 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age." - Is Jesus going to leave everyone one at the end of the age? No, of course not.

1 Tim 4:13 "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." So should they stop attending when he returns? No.

Luke 1:80 "And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his manifestation to Israel."

All of these passages use the "heos." To state that Matt 1:25 ONLY means that he consummated it afterward, is intellectually dishonest.

One last comment about that original passage, Joseph and Mary were legally married at their betrothal. There was nothing stopping them from engaging in the marital embrace.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-The historian Hegesippus (mid-second century) identifies James the Just as the real half-brother of Jesus.

---

He never explicitly stated that he is his half-brother.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There just isn't any positive evidence in the Bible that Mary was a perpetual virgin, simply put. That's why Roman Catholicism had to draw it from Gnostic sources, and let the tradition build from there.

---

Actually, OT typology has a reference to this in Ezekial 44:1-2

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut."

Mary is the gate that shall remain shut because Jesus has entered by it.

This isn't a recent Catholic accretion. St Ambrose of Milan, that man that brough Augustine to the faith, and other Church fathers considered this passage an allegory for her perpetual virginity.

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Another thread with Catholics looking to extra-scriptural sources and "tradition" in support of beliefs which contradict the holy scriptures and inspired word of God.

Same song, millionth verse.

---

Another post with a protestant who believes in the false and unbiblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

---

Prove it, if you can.

And you can begin by answering this: is it ok for traditions to contradict the inerrant holy scriptures?

---

Where is it found in the bible?

What traditions "contradict the inerrant holy scriptures"?

Prove it, if you can.

---

Where to begin...

1) Salvation through religious works;
2) Baptism required for salvation.
3) Referring to priests as Father;
4) Praying to non-Gods;
5) Praying in repetition;
6) Worship of idols and graven images;
7) Perpetual virginity of Mary;

Now show me the verses that downplay the importance of scripture; or put tradition on par with same.

I'll hang up and listen.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

The proof that they didn't use the apocrypha.... is that they didn't use the apocrypha.

---

I've already stated that that isn't a valid test for canonicity. NT does not reference several other books in the OT. You can't throw them (Deuterocanon) for that reason.

The NT does reference themes from the Deuterocanon as well.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

You don't need to specify a point in time to prove that something was added. You only need to show that something is there that previously wasn't. And besides, you've already provided that specific point, so why are you asking me? It's completely irrelevant.

---

What logic is that? You claim that Catholics ADDED the Deuterocanon. Provide as date as to when the Church added those 7 books. If they were never there, then you should be able to find a point when they were added.

---

But Jesus verified the entire Tanakh when he referred to the Law, Prophets, and Writiings. That is a positive affirmation of canon. Jesus never positively affirmed anything from the apocryphal books. The themes the NT references are from the Hebrew Tanakh. The apocrypha references those same themes from the Tanakh. This doesn't mean the NT is referencing the apocrypha. That is a logical fallacy. I believe it is called the fallacy of the undistributed middle. It'd be like arguing that since the NT talks about God's justice, and Trump's foreword in the Trump bible also talks about God's justice, it means the NT referenced Trump's foreword.

And I've already told you that Roman Catholicism added the apocryphal books in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. You're chasing a point that really isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter when they were added, the fact is that they were added.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- the natural reading of "adelphos" is natural brothers and sisters

---

No, it a A reading, but certainly not the most common reading or understanding.
Lot is called Abraham's "brother" (Gen. 14:14), even though, being the son of Haran, Abraham's brother (Gen. 11:2628), he was actually Abraham's nephew.

Similarly, Jacob is called the "brother" of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15).

I've already demonstrated that Jerome laughed at this argument because he didn't think anyone would be dumb enough to believe it. ---> Yes, it is the most common reading and understanding. That's what the word means. If you're saying it's an alternative use of the word, then you have to give positive evidence that it was used in a way other than it's common meaning (like "cousin"). Given the other evidence in the bible (Joseph didn't consummate UNTIL Mary gave birth, Mary's "firstborn son") and the historical evidence that the understanding of the time was that Mary did actually have other children (Heggesipus), the natural, common meaning of "adelphos" makes the most sense.

Cite where Jerome "laughed at the argument" that "adelphos" means natural brothers and sisters.

Quote:

---

-Luke 2:7 says that Jesus was Mary's "firstborn son", a term which implies she had others.

---

This is from Jimmy Akin, an apologist: "In ancient Jewish culture, the term "firstborn son" did not imply that other sons came later."
"The first male child to be born to a woman was regarded as her first-born, regardless of whether she had other children. The firstborn son had a special role that applied as soon as he was born. It was not a role he assumed when later children were born." ---> but it could. You still have no POSITIVE evidence that she remained a virgin her whole life. There isn't any direct statement to that fact anywhere in the Bible, or anywhere in church history. It started as a Gnostic belief. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES that belief or be anathema.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-Matthew 1:25 says Joseph didn't consummate his marriage to Mary "until she gave birth to a son", implying he did afterwards. It does not say that Joseph "never" consummated their marriage, something the Bible would say if that were what God wanted to tell us.

---

Once again, you misunderstand the nature of the Greek word ""heos". It does not necessarily imply a change in state after the specified point.

In 2 Samuel 6:23, Michal had no child "until" her death, meaning she never had children. --->

Matthew 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age." - Is Jesus going to leave everyone one at the end of the age? No, of course not.

1 Tim 4:13 "Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching." So should they stop attending when he returns? No.

Luke 1:80 "And the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day of his manifestation to Israel."

All of these passages use the "heos." To state that Matt 1:25 ONLY means that he consummated it afterward, is intellectually dishonest. ---> I didn't say "only", I said it "implies". And all your examples are different than the Mary and Joseph example, because they have a positive directive, not a negative one. In other words, saying "until" with a negative directive would imply that an action NOT be done "until" a certain point in time, when thereafter it CAN be done. For example, "we didn't eat dinner UNTIL dad came home" - this means that during the time that dad wasn't there, they did NOT eat. The naturaly meaning is that when the dad finally did come home, they began eating. It doesn't mean that they continued to NOT eat even when dad arrived. Now change that to a POSITIVE directive - "Dad told us TO eat dinner until he gets home" - the natural meaning is to do nothing else but eat until Dad gets home, after which he can tell you whether to keep eating or stop. See the difference?

One last comment about that original passage, Joseph and Mary were legally married at their betrothal. There was nothing stopping them from engaging in the marital embrace. ---> Though they were legally married, the custom was likely that consummation did not take place until after the wedding ceremony and they cohabitate in the same house. Regardless, yours is a moot point. Whether they could have or not during the betrothal period doesn't really make a difference. They didn't.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

-The historian Hegesippus (mid-second century) identifies James the Just as the real half-brother of Jesus.

---

He never explicitly stated that he is his half-brother. ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. Heggesippus used the word "cousins" when referring to those who were actual cousins to Jesus, so the point here was that his use of the word "brother" (half-brother in actuality) to describe James does not mean "cousin".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There just isn't any positive evidence in the Bible that Mary was a perpetual virgin, simply put. That's why Roman Catholicism had to draw it from Gnostic sources, and let the tradition build from there.

---

Actually, OT typology has a reference to this in Ezekial 44:1-2

Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut."

Mary is the gate that shall remain shut because Jesus has entered by it.

This isn't a recent Catholic accretion. St Ambrose of Milan, that man that brough Augustine to the faith, and other Church fathers considered this passage an allegory for her perpetual virginity.

---> allegory and typology are NOT positive evidence.

---

william said:

---

---

Don't tell me, the Bible says he should not sign a baseball. Or worse, Jesus a Cubs fan?

Roman Catholics -

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." - Revelation 3:20

Direct words to all of us, from Jesus himself. He personally is knocking, and will come in to meet with you, and fellowship with you. You do not need to go through a priest, the pope, Mary, the saints, or even the Church to get to him. He is inviting you to have a personal relationship with him. The Roman Catholic Church is only putting up roadblocks and a maze to make you go through them to get to Jesus, in order to give themselves power and control over you, so they can get you to believe in a false gospel and to deify another in whom you can go to for your salvation other than Jesus. Who do you think is behind all that? Open your eyes and mind, and heart.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics -

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." - Revelation 3:20

Direct words to all of us, from Jesus himself. He personally is knocking, and will come in to meet with you, and fellowship with you. You do not need to go through a priest, the pope, Mary, the saints, or even the Church to get to him. He is inviting you to have a personal relationship with him. The Roman Catholic Church is only putting up roadblocks and a maze to make you go through them to get to Jesus, in order to give themselves power and control over you, so they can get you to believe in a false gospel and to deify another in whom you can go to for your salvation other than Jesus. Who do you think is behind all that? Open your eyes and mind, and heart.

---

That is what you get from that? Hmmm. I get it is God telling us to constantly renew our faith and to do it through Holy Communion. It is a call to come to the Church and take part in the sacraments that will help you be closer to God.

But you keep hating. It must be hard seeing so much negativity in what should be an uplifting and rewarding experience. Does everything you read go to the Catholic Church is evil and wrong? You really should get some therapy, this obsession with the Catholic Church is not healthy. Maybe if you focus on YOUR relationship with God you will find peace.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And I've already told you that Roman Catholicism added the apocryphal books in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. You're chasing a point that really isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter when they were added, the fact is that they were added.

---

Are you really saying that before the Council of Trent, no bible contained the Deuterocanon?

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

---

Don't tell me, the Bible says he should not sign a baseball. Or worse, Jesus a Cubs fan?

---

he's a Sox fan.............

- KKM

D!

william said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

---

Don't tell me, the Bible says he should not sign a baseball. Or worse, Jesus a Cubs fan?

---

he's a Sox fan.............

- KKM

D!

---

That was the joke...

Mothra said:

---

1) Salvation through religious works;

---

The Church speaks about initial salvation in terms of the grace that God freely offers us through Jesus Christ.
CCC (1989) "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man."

Mothra said:

---

2) Baptism required for salvation.

---

Mark 16:16 - "He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned."
1 Pet 3:15 "…baptism that now saves you -- not the washing of dirt from the body, but the promise made to God from a good conscience."

Mothra said:

---

3) Referring to priests as Father;

---

Jesus called Abraham father in Matt 3:9

St Paul also called Abraham father in Rom. 4:16-17

St Paul also called himself father in 1 Cor. 4:14-15

Mothra said:

---

4) Praying to non-Gods;

---

"To Pray" means "to ask", not worship.

Mothra said:

---

5) Praying in repetition;

---

Matt 26:44 "Jesus prayed again for the 3rd time, saying, the same thing again."

Rev. 4:8 the angels "repeat, 'Holy, Holy, Holy.'"

Mothra said:

---

6) Worship of idols and graven images;

---

Catholics don't do this. Worship is reserved for God alone.

Mothra said:

---

7) Perpetual virginity of Mary;

---

Luke 1:34 "How will the be, since I am a virgin?" Mary was set to live a consecrated life to the Temple.

Ezekial 44:2 " The Lord said to me, "This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter through it. It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered through it." This is typological refence to Mary as the "gate" that will remain shut because the Jesus has entered thru it. This was affirmed by Ambrose of Milan, the same man that led St Agustine to the faith.

Mothra said:

---

Now show me the verses that downplay the importance of scripture; or put tradition on par with same.

---

I've NEVER downplayed the importance of scripture. It is God-breathed.

Please note that God gave us more than scriptures. He gave us the Church and the Magisterium.

Remember the Church came decades before the writing of first letters and centuries before the first official canon.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 - "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."

If you would like to honestly discuss any (or all) of these, please choose ONE at a time to discuss.

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

---

Don't tell me, the Bible says he should not sign a baseball. Or worse, Jesus a Cubs fan?

---

he's a Sox fan.............

- KKM

D!

---

That was the joke...

---

ahhhhh...

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics -

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." - Revelation 3:20

Direct words to all of us, from Jesus himself. He personally is knocking, and will come in to meet with you, and fellowship with you. You do not need to go through a priest, the pope, Mary, the saints, or even the Church to get to him. He is inviting you to have a personal relationship with him. The Roman Catholic Church is only putting up roadblocks and a maze to make you go through them to get to Jesus, in order to give themselves power and control over you, so they can get you to believe in a false gospel and to deify another in whom you can go to for your salvation other than Jesus. Who do you think is behind all that? Open your eyes and mind, and heart.

---

That is what you get from that? Hmmm. I get it is God telling us to constantly renew our faith and to do it through Holy Communion. It is a call to come to the Church and take part in the sacraments that will help you be closer to God.

But you keep hating. It must be hard seeing so much negativity in what should be an uplifting and rewarding experience. Does everything you read go to the Catholic Church is evil and wrong? You really should get some therapy, this obsession with the Catholic Church is not healthy. Maybe if you focus on YOUR relationship with God you will find peace.

---

If you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest, or the Church, or through performative rituals, or through any intermediary rather than directly going to Jesus, then you are hopelessly lost in a cult mindset, and perhaps not even Jesus himself appearing directly to you and telling you the same thing would change a thing.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And I've already told you that Roman Catholicism added the apocryphal books in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. You're chasing a point that really isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter when they were added, the fact is that they were added.

---

Are you really saying that before the Council of Trent, no bible contained the Deuterocanon?

---

Yea I don't think BusyTarp is accurate about that

Looks like the Catholic Church was already using those books in their Bible….and simply reaffirmed the validity of their use for Catholics at the council of Trent (it did not add them in at that time since they were already in use)


[The Council of Trent (1545-1563) did not add the apocryphal books to the Bible, but rather it declared that they were to be considered canonical Scripture. According to The Gospel Coalition. This was done as a counter-Reformation measure, in response to Protestant reformers excluding these books from their Bibles. The Council reaffirmed the existing Catholic canon, which included the apocryphal books]

[The Council of Trent did not create the inclusion of these books in the canon; rather, it affirmed the existing tradition of including them]

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And I've already told you that Roman Catholicism added the apocryphal books in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. You're chasing a point that really isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter when they were added, the fact is that they were added.

---

Are you really saying that before the Council of Trent, no bible contained the Deuterocanon?

---

No, I'm saying that's when Roman Catholicism officially added those books to the canon. And you're still chasing a meaningless point, while ignoring all the relevant ones. Got any comment about the Roman Catholic Church's Infallible declaration of something about church history that was explicitly and demonstrably untrue? Or the Fatima message and Pope Francis' homily about Mary being the "bridge joining us to God" and the "road which God travelled to reach us", two crystal clear examples of idolatry and heresy where Mary is usurping Jesus?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And I've already told you that Roman Catholicism added the apocryphal books in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. You're chasing a point that really isn't going to help you. It doesn't matter when they were added, the fact is that they were added.

---

Are you really saying that before the Council of Trent, no bible contained the Deuterocanon?

---

Yea I don't think BusyTarp is accurate about that

Looks like the Catholic Church was already using those books in their Bible….and simply reaffirmed the validity of their use for Catholics at the council of Trent (it did not add them in at that time since they were already in use)


[The Council of Trent (1545-1563) did not add the apocryphal books to the Bible, but rather it declared that they were to be considered canonical Scripture. According to The Gospel Coalition. This was done as a counter-Reformation measure, in response to Protestant reformers excluding these books from their Bibles. The Council reaffirmed the existing Catholic canon, which included the apocryphal books]

[The Council of Trent did not create the inclusion of these books in the canon; rather, it affirmed the existing tradition of including them]

---

It's added when it is officially declared, hence I'm accurate. De facto vs. de jure. If Roman Catholics won't accept that their Church charged money for people to get out of purgatory (de facto) because it was never officially declared doctrine (de jure), then they don't get to have it both ways here.

This thread reminds me how Martin Luther once published a paper wondering if it was a sin NOT to kill a Jew.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics -

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." - Revelation 3:20

Direct words to all of us, from Jesus himself. He personally is knocking, and will come in to meet with you, and fellowship with you. You do not need to go through a priest, the pope, Mary, the saints, or even the Church to get to him. He is inviting you to have a personal relationship with him. The Roman Catholic Church is only putting up roadblocks and a maze to make you go through them to get to Jesus, in order to give themselves power and control over you, so they can get you to believe in a false gospel and to deify another in whom you can go to for your salvation other than Jesus. Who do you think is behind all that? Open your eyes and mind, and heart.

---

That is what you get from that? Hmmm. I get it is God telling us to constantly renew our faith and to do it through Holy Communion. It is a call to come to the Church and take part in the sacraments that will help you be closer to God.

But you keep hating. It must be hard seeing so much negativity in what should be an uplifting and rewarding experience. Does everything you read go to the Catholic Church is evil and wrong? You really should get some therapy, this obsession with the Catholic Church is not healthy. Maybe if you focus on YOUR relationship with God you will find peace.

---

If you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest, or the Church, or through performative rituals, or through any intermediary rather than directly going to Jesus, then you are hopelessly lost in a cult mindset, and perhaps not even Jesus himself appearing directly to you and telling you the same thing would change a thing.

---

Why do you keep doing this? He is risen, that is supposed to bring joy. Rejoice! For you, it seems to only bring negative accusations attacking people's Christianity. The same ones over and over. You really are starting to fit the definition of a false prophet. Why are you trying to undermine people's faith? You may need to pray more, I fear Satan is infiltrating your thoughts and using you.

Nobody attacks people that are saying they are Christians like this trying to answer their questions with direct attacks to undermine their faith consistently. Twisting scripture, quoting various academics, and not believing the answers being told that they know better. You ask questions, we (multiple people) give answers and you start another trail of how to say their answer is wrong. True Christians don't undermine people's faith.

You show some real danger signs. If you were Catholic, I would tell you to go and talk to a priest and embrace the Sacraments to heal. You need to get back to God and not this journey to destroy other's believes. I just hope there was no one so weak they would listen to you.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Roman Catholics -

"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me." - Revelation 3:20

Direct words to all of us, from Jesus himself. He personally is knocking, and will come in to meet with you, and fellowship with you. You do not need to go through a priest, the pope, Mary, the saints, or even the Church to get to him. He is inviting you to have a personal relationship with him. The Roman Catholic Church is only putting up roadblocks and a maze to make you go through them to get to Jesus, in order to give themselves power and control over you, so they can get you to believe in a false gospel and to deify another in whom you can go to for your salvation other than Jesus. Who do you think is behind all that? Open your eyes and mind, and heart.

---

That is what you get from that? Hmmm. I get it is God telling us to constantly renew our faith and to do it through Holy Communion. It is a call to come to the Church and take part in the sacraments that will help you be closer to God.

But you keep hating. It must be hard seeing so much negativity in what should be an uplifting and rewarding experience. Does everything you read go to the Catholic Church is evil and wrong? You really should get some therapy, this obsession with the Catholic Church is not healthy. Maybe if you focus on YOUR relationship with God you will find peace.

---

If you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest, or the Church, or through performative rituals, or through any intermediary rather than directly going to Jesus, then you are hopelessly lost in a cult mindset, and perhaps not even Jesus himself appearing directly to you and telling you the same thing would change a thing.

---

Why do you keep doing this? He is risen, that is supposed to bring joy. Rejoice! For you, it seems to only bring negative accusations attacking people's Christianity. The same ones over and over. You really are starting to fit the definition of a false prophet. Why are you trying to undermine people's faith? You may need to pray more, I fear Satan is infiltrating your thoughts and using you.

Nobody attacks people that are saying they are Christians like this trying to answer their questions with direct attacks to undermine their faith consistently. Twisting scripture, quoting various academics, and not believing the answers being told that they know better. You ask questions, we (multiple people) give answers and you start another trail of how to say their answer is wrong. True Christians don't undermine people's faith.

You show some real danger signs. If you were Catholic, I would tell you to go and talk to a priest and embrace the Sacraments to heal. You need to get back to God and not this journey to destroy other's believes. I just hope there was no one so weak they would listen to you.

---

None of your personal attacks invalidates anything I've said. As far as you "answering" my questions, other than actually providing non-answers, you avoided several of them. So I'll ask again: tell us - do you believe the Church should support same sex marriage? Is homosexuality a sin?

You completely avoided this question for a reason. I think it will expose everything we need to know about you - the "truth" that you follow, and the spirit behind your beliefs.

ShooterTX said:

---

so long as you continue to put your faith in the catechisms or some other doctrine that does not originate from scripture... there isn't much hope there.

---

A catechism is merely a way of conveniently organizing Christian doctrine using a subject matter based approach. Many churches have them.

The distinctly evangelical Got Questions website is an online catechism.