BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, I didn't. We do not do what you say. We have been answering your questions for a month. CokeBear has answered everything in your language. I have provided links. All of which you don't accept, which is no surprise. So, great. Don't.

Yet, you keep on. So, I have to wonder your motivation. You really need to look in the mirror. There is something wrong that you obsess over this so much. So, tell us why? Why come to a Catholic thread and do this? We are telling you the answers, yet you say no... Why? Is it as simple as ego?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, I didn't. We do not do what you say. We have been answering your questions for a month. CokeBear has answered everything in your language. I have provided links. All of which you don't accept, which is no surprise. So, great. Don't.

Yet, you keep on. So, I have to wonder your motivation. You really need to look in the mirror. There is something wrong that you obsess over this so much. So, tell us why? Why come to a Catholic thread and do this? We are telling you the answers, yet you say no... Why? Is it as simple as ego?

---

Yes, you did, and you dodged the question again.

Do you honestly think people will be fooled? You've been called out, and you've been exposed.

The clock's ticking.... what's your answer?

Oops. Double post during editing.

Mea Culpa!

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us).

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything but your belief. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. 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".

---

Heggesipus - you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point.

Heggesipus uses the same language of the bible (James, the brother of the Lord). He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture.

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, I didn't. We do not do what you say. We have been answering your questions for a month. CokeBear has answered everything in your language. I have provided links. All of which you don't accept, which is no surprise. So, great. Don't.

Yet, you keep on. So, I have to wonder your motivation. You really need to look in the mirror. There is something wrong that you obsess over this so much. So, tell us why? Why come to a Catholic thread and do this? We are telling you the answers, yet you say no... Why? Is it as simple as ego?

---

Yes, you did, and you dodged the question again.

Do you honestly think people will be fooled? You've been called out, and you've been exposed.

The clock's ticking.... what's your answer?

---

Called out? Clock Ticking?

Are you 12? Want to arm wrestle? Maybe meet in the playground and settle this by merry-go-around?

You are, aren't you? You are some undergrad or kid that just got his "How to attack Catholics Book." Your a kid. Geez.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old. ---> Yes, but it also could mean she had other children. What you still don't have is POSITIVE evidence in scripture that Mary was a virgin her whole life. You can not conclude that just because "firstborn" can mean the first and only child, it positively means Mary had no other children.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too. ---> your link doesn't work. Just paste the relevant text in a response. Jerome, Origen, Augustine, etc. are all fallible men. They're not writing Scripture. Not everything they say is necessarily correct or true. Only Scripture is infallible. Jerome was writing THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus. Before his time, there is NO EVIDENCE of it in the early church. The earliest sources are from GNOSTIC texts. The tradition grew from there. The early church fathers were not immune to believing in extra-biblical tradition. That was their flaw. The fact remains that their belief DID NOT COME FROM ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

**** Do you remember how Jerome agreed that the Church must compromise with pagan worship??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us). ---> Not necessarily. Earlier in his ministry Jesus said, "Who are my mother and brothers? Everyone who does the will of God is my brother and my mother." (paraphrased) Jesus established a new form of "family" relationship - his spiritual brother was John. Blood relationships weren't important to Jesus, the spiritual family is what only mattered to him. Remember, Jesus NEVER called Mary his mother in the Bible. It's important to note that none of Jesus' siblings believed in him until after his resurrection. And also, none of them were there at his crucifixion. So Jesus wanted to entrust his mother's care to a believer at the time, and who better than John, who he had declared was his brother anyways. This would most certainly NOT be violating the 4th commandment to honor thy mother, because who better than John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", to entrust the care of his mother to? What better way to honor his mother than that?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written. ---> Again, you are associating "until" with a positive directive (I will love her). In that sense, the meaning naturally implies that you will continue to love her even after that "until" arrives. However, the meaning is different when "until" is used with a negative directive: "I did NOT hug my wife until I got home" doesn't mean that you continued to NOT hug her when you got home. The natural implication is that a change occurred when the "until" arrived - you DID hug her.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. ---> ZERO biblical evidence of that.

But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple. --->So? That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple. ---> What evidence is that??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. 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". Heggesipus you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point. ---> and yet, you have NONE who say that "brother" didn't mean actual brother.

He uses the same language of the bible. He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point. ---> I'm not forcing anything. I'm letting "brother" mean actual "brother". The one who is forcing things is the one who takes "brother" as meaning something else, like "cousin", when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this in Scripture.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin? ---> Because it isn't in scripture. They were believing in a tradition that DID NOT COME FROM SCRIPTURE, and thus, it was not infallible. *** Do you remember the historical reference I gave which showed Jerome and Augustine agreed that Christianity should compromise with pagan Rome?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century. ---> Her perpetual virginity is a false claim, made up in Gnostic texts (can't get any more false than a heresy), and it carried over into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole. ---> a very dangerous view - that allegory and typology shaped the way I want is to be considered scripture, and therefore it should be believed as Scripture. I can make anything into an allegory or type and tell you to believe it or you're not believing Scripture. That kind of manipulation is what cult's do.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture. ---> it is absent in Scripture.

---

---

---

Responses in bold.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, I didn't. We do not do what you say. We have been answering your questions for a month. CokeBear has answered everything in your language. I have provided links. All of which you don't accept, which is no surprise. So, great. Don't.

Yet, you keep on. So, I have to wonder your motivation. You really need to look in the mirror. There is something wrong that you obsess over this so much. So, tell us why? Why come to a Catholic thread and do this? We are telling you the answers, yet you say no... Why? Is it as simple as ego?

---

Yes, you did, and you dodged the question again.

Do you honestly think people will be fooled? You've been called out, and you've been exposed.

The clock's ticking.... what's your answer?

---

Called out? Clock Ticking?

Are you 12? Want to arm wrestle? Maybe meet in the playground and settle this by merry-go-around?

You are, aren't you? You are some undergrad or kid that just got his "How to attack Catholics Book." Your a kid. Geez.

---

Still dodging. We're waiting.

Do you believe the Church should accept and support same sex marriage?

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old. ---> Yes, but it also could mean she had other children. What you still don't have is POSITIVE evidence in scripture that Mary was a virgin her whole life. You can not conclude that just because "firstborn" can mean the first and only child, it positively means Mary had no other children.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too. ---> your link doesn't work. Just paste the relevant text in a response. Jerome, Origen, Augustine, etc. are all fallible men. They're not writing Scripture. Not everything they say is necessarily correct or true. Only Scripture is infallible. Jerome was writing THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus. Before his time, there is NO EVIDENCE of it in the early church. The earliest sources are from GNOSTIC texts. The tradition grew from there. The early church fathers were not immune to believing in extra-biblical tradition. That was their flaw. The fact remains that their belief DID NOT COME FROM ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

**** Do you remember how Jerome agreed that the Church must compromise with pagan worship??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us). ---> Not necessarily. Earlier in his ministry Jesus said, "Who are my mother and brothers? Everyone who does the will of God is my brother and my mother." (paraphrased) Jesus established a new form of "family" relationship - his spiritual brother was John. Blood relationships weren't important to Jesus, the spiritual family is what only mattered to him. Remember, Jesus NEVER called Mary his mother in the Bible. It's important to note that none of Jesus' siblings believed in him until after his resurrection. And also, none of them were there at his crucifixion. So Jesus wanted to entrust his mother's care to a believer at the time, and who better than John, who he had declared was his brother anyways. This would most certainly NOT be violating the 4th commandment to honor thy mother, because who better than John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", to entrust the care of his mother to? What better way to honor his mother than that?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written. ---> Again, you are associating "until" with a positive directive (I will love her). In that sense, the meaning naturally implies that you will continue to love her even after that "until" arrives. However, the meaning is different when "until" is used with a negative directive: "I did NOT hug my wife until I got home" doesn't mean that you continued to NOT hug her when you got home. The natural implication is that a change occurred when the "until" arrived - you DID hug her.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. ---> ZERO biblical evidence of that.

But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple. --->So? That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple. ---> What evidence is that??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. 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". Heggesipus you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point. ---> and yet, you have NONE who say that "brother" didn't mean actual brother.

He uses the same language of the bible. He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point. ---> I'm not forcing anything. I'm letting "brother" mean actual "brother". The one who is forcing things is the one who takes "brother" as meaning something else, like "cousin", when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this in Scripture.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin? ---> Because it isn't in scripture. They were believing in a tradition that DID NOT COME FROM SCRIPTURE, and thus, it was not infallible. *** Do you remember the historical reference I gave which showed Jerome and Augustine agreed that Christianity should compromise with pagan Rome?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century. ---> Her perpetual virginity is a false claim, made up in Gnostic texts (can't get any more false than a heresy), and it carried over into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole. ---> a very dangerous view - that allegory and typology shaped the way I want is to be considered scripture, and therefore it should be believed as Scripture. I can make anything into an allegory or type and tell you to believe it or you're not believing Scripture. That kind of manipulation is what cult's do.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture. ---> it is absent in Scripture.

---

---

---

Responses in bold.

---

Your whole argument is still based on false and unbiblical belief of sola scriptura. You are content to believe in something that was made up in the 16th century. You have cited ONE person before the 1500's that used biblical language that never said Mary was his mother as YOUR evidence.

Other than Helvidius, the outright rejection of the perpetual virginity didn't happen again until after Luther.

You seem hell-bent in rejecting the man who translated the bible and used those words, even though it would create controversy.

I have attached link, again, to Against Helvidius.
[url=https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/fb5.htm#h][/url]
Against Helvidius - Link 2

PS. I've tested the links, they work.

Please see in section 6 as Jerome refutes your "unitl" assertion.
Sections 11&12 reject your "firstborn" theory as well.

Finally, by accepting the dogma, you are only more fully believing what the bible says when you read it properly.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

---

You should know. Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

---

You should know. Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

There you go.


CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.


The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

Now your turn, why do you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church? You are obsessed, much more than is natural. Either you are a troll or you have some problems you should talk to your Pastor about. It is not healthy. The Catholics on here have responded to every question, answering your questions. Yet, here we are again. So, what is it troll or obsessed?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

I hope that you don't mind if I answer.

NO, the Church should NOT accept NOR support same-sex marriage.

AND, she NEVER will.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Dodging - I'll take your word for it. You certain used the Red Herring fallacy, but I digress ...


Did bibles exist prior the Council of Trent that contained the Deuterocanonical books?

---

You obviously don't know what a red herring fallacy is, either. In fact, the sheer irony of it all is that you are the one using the red herring, by steering the discussion towards this irrelevant point about what Catholics have in their bibles, and when the apocryphal books were added. Yes, early Catholic bibles contained the apocryphal books, but the question is one of canonicity, not what was bound together in a book - the presence of the apocrypha in early Catholic bibles has no bearing on the fact that from the time of Jesus to Jerome, and then from Jerome until the 1500's, the apocryphal books were NOT considered part of canon by the majority of even Roman Catholic fathers, theologians, and scholars, and that the apocryphal books were officially added to Roman Catholic canon in the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The prevailing attitude in Jerome's time, and subsequent to Jerome, was the same attitude of the Jews during Jesus' time - the apocryphal books were considered very important, and useful for reading and learning from... but they were NOT considered canon. The Roman Catholic church officially added the apocryphal books to their canon in the 1500's. This is just a fact.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old. ---> Yes, but it also could mean she had other children. What you still don't have is POSITIVE evidence in scripture that Mary was a virgin her whole life. You can not conclude that just because "firstborn" can mean the first and only child, it positively means Mary had no other children.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too. ---> your link doesn't work. Just paste the relevant text in a response. Jerome, Origen, Augustine, etc. are all fallible men. They're not writing Scripture. Not everything they say is necessarily correct or true. Only Scripture is infallible. Jerome was writing THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus. Before his time, there is NO EVIDENCE of it in the early church. The earliest sources are from GNOSTIC texts. The tradition grew from there. The early church fathers were not immune to believing in extra-biblical tradition. That was their flaw. The fact remains that their belief DID NOT COME FROM ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

**** Do you remember how Jerome agreed that the Church must compromise with pagan worship??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us). ---> Not necessarily. Earlier in his ministry Jesus said, "Who are my mother and brothers? Everyone who does the will of God is my brother and my mother." (paraphrased) Jesus established a new form of "family" relationship - his spiritual brother was John. Blood relationships weren't important to Jesus, the spiritual family is what only mattered to him. Remember, Jesus NEVER called Mary his mother in the Bible. It's important to note that none of Jesus' siblings believed in him until after his resurrection. And also, none of them were there at his crucifixion. So Jesus wanted to entrust his mother's care to a believer at the time, and who better than John, who he had declared was his brother anyways. This would most certainly NOT be violating the 4th commandment to honor thy mother, because who better than John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", to entrust the care of his mother to? What better way to honor his mother than that?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written. ---> Again, you are associating "until" with a positive directive (I will love her). In that sense, the meaning naturally implies that you will continue to love her even after that "until" arrives. However, the meaning is different when "until" is used with a negative directive: "I did NOT hug my wife until I got home" doesn't mean that you continued to NOT hug her when you got home. The natural implication is that a change occurred when the "until" arrived - you DID hug her.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. ---> ZERO biblical evidence of that.

But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple. --->So? That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple. ---> What evidence is that??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. 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". Heggesipus you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point. ---> and yet, you have NONE who say that "brother" didn't mean actual brother.

He uses the same language of the bible. He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point. ---> I'm not forcing anything. I'm letting "brother" mean actual "brother". The one who is forcing things is the one who takes "brother" as meaning something else, like "cousin", when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this in Scripture.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin? ---> Because it isn't in scripture. They were believing in a tradition that DID NOT COME FROM SCRIPTURE, and thus, it was not infallible. *** Do you remember the historical reference I gave which showed Jerome and Augustine agreed that Christianity should compromise with pagan Rome?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century. ---> Her perpetual virginity is a false claim, made up in Gnostic texts (can't get any more false than a heresy), and it carried over into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole. ---> a very dangerous view - that allegory and typology shaped the way I want is to be considered scripture, and therefore it should be believed as Scripture. I can make anything into an allegory or type and tell you to believe it or you're not believing Scripture. That kind of manipulation is what cult's do.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture. ---> it is absent in Scripture.

---

---

---

Responses in bold.

---

Your whole argument is still based on false and unbiblical belief of sola scriptura. You are content to believe in something that was made up in the 16th century. You have cited ONE person before the 1500's that used biblical language that never said Mary was his mother as YOUR evidence.

Other than Helvidius, the outright rejection of the perpetual virginity didn't happen again until after Luther.

---

Your claim that it was "made up in the 16th century" is wholly without evidence, and it defies basic reason and common sense. Given that NONE of the books of the New Testament say that Mary was a perpetual virgin, and they even say that Jesus had "adelphos", the natural meaning of which suggests Jesus had actual siblings, it is FAR from unlikely that the early Christians took scripture to mean what it naturally suggests - that Mary had other children. Given that there is NO evidence whatsoever in the early church that Christians believed Mary was a virgin throughout her whole life, and that the only time it really appears is THREE CENTURIES later in the Church, the idea that the belief that Mary was NOT perpetually a virgin was "invented" 1600 years later, completely out of the blue, never even before believed much less thought of, is not based in reality. In fact, given that the tradition of Mary's lifelong virginity first appeared in Gnostic texts, it is much more likely that the early Christians rejected the notion, given that it originated in a heresy.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

I've already explained that everyone first born (son or animal) was called "Firstborn" in the Jewish culture regardless of whether they had other children or not. You are applying a modern-day (and protestant) standard to language more than 2000 years old. ---> Yes, but it also could mean she had other children. What you still don't have is POSITIVE evidence in scripture that Mary was a virgin her whole life. You can not conclude that just because "firstborn" can mean the first and only child, it positively means Mary had no other children.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

"I know not whether to grieve or laugh." St Jerome in Against Helvidius.

The link is above. Please read the whole document.

PS - Read section 6 - Jerome also addresses the "until" argument.

Why do you argue with Jerome who wrote an entire treatise about her perpetual virginity? You like his canon. Too. ---> your link doesn't work. Just paste the relevant text in a response. Jerome, Origen, Augustine, etc. are all fallible men. They're not writing Scripture. Not everything they say is necessarily correct or true. Only Scripture is infallible. Jerome was writing THREE HUNDRED YEARS after Jesus. Before his time, there is NO EVIDENCE of it in the early church. The earliest sources are from GNOSTIC texts. The tradition grew from there. The early church fathers were not immune to believing in extra-biblical tradition. That was their flaw. The fact remains that their belief DID NOT COME FROM ORIGINAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION.

**** Do you remember how Jerome agreed that the Church must compromise with pagan worship??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.

---

John 19:26 - "Woman, behold your son"

For Jesus to give his mother to ANYONE other than one of his "brothers" would have been a violation of the 4th commandment to Honor thy Father and Mother. Those "brothers" of Jesus would have had the responsibility of caring for Mary until she dies.

He didn't have brothers, so he gave her to John (and all of us). ---> Not necessarily. Earlier in his ministry Jesus said, "Who are my mother and brothers? Everyone who does the will of God is my brother and my mother." (paraphrased) Jesus established a new form of "family" relationship - his spiritual brother was John. Blood relationships weren't important to Jesus, the spiritual family is what only mattered to him. Remember, Jesus NEVER called Mary his mother in the Bible. It's important to note that none of Jesus' siblings believed in him until after his resurrection. And also, none of them were there at his crucifixion. So Jesus wanted to entrust his mother's care to a believer at the time, and who better than John, who he had declared was his brother anyways. This would most certainly NOT be violating the 4th commandment to honor thy mother, because who better than John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved", to entrust the care of his mother to? What better way to honor his mother than that?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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?

---

you are inferring your belief into the word until (heos). I've shown biblically that it has other meanings. Your statement does not confirm anything. I can tell my wife that I will "love her until the end of time". It doesn't mean that I will stop loving her at that point. You are demonstrating your inability to understand the Greek that in which the bible was written. ---> Again, you are associating "until" with a positive directive (I will love her). In that sense, the meaning naturally implies that you will continue to love her even after that "until" arrives. However, the meaning is different when "until" is used with a negative directive: "I did NOT hug my wife until I got home" doesn't mean that you continued to NOT hug her when you got home. The natural implication is that a change occurred when the "until" arrived - you DID hug her.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

---> 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.Of course they didn't consummate the marriage. They never did. ---> ZERO biblical evidence of that.

But often, betrothed couples would consummate before the marriage. The betrothal was a legal and binding contract. They were married. As you said, they didn't live together until the husband was able to provide a home for the couple. --->So? That is completely irrelevant to the question of whether Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage.

The evidence in Luke shows that Mary had planned on remaining a virgin dedicated to the Temple. ---> What evidence is that??

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

- ---> he stated he is his "brother" which means half-brother because Jesus didn't come from Joseph. 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". Heggesipus you have found ONE obscure person with an ambiguous reference to prove your point. ---> and yet, you have NONE who say that "brother" didn't mean actual brother.

He uses the same language of the bible. He NEVER clams that Mary is his Mother. You are trying really hard to force your point. ---> I'm not forcing anything. I'm letting "brother" mean actual "brother". The one who is forcing things is the one who takes "brother" as meaning something else, like "cousin", when there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this in Scripture.

Why not listen to Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Origen, Athanasius (you trust his list of the canon), Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine who believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin? ---> Because it isn't in scripture. They were believing in a tradition that DID NOT COME FROM SCRIPTURE, and thus, it was not infallible. *** Do you remember the historical reference I gave which showed Jerome and Augustine agreed that Christianity should compromise with pagan Rome?

Claiming that she was not a perpetual virgin was a false claim made up in the 16th century. ---> Her perpetual virginity is a false claim, made up in Gnostic texts (can't get any more false than a heresy), and it carried over into the Roman Catholic Church in the 4th century.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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

---

It is evidence that your view does not understand the full revelation of the bible. It's not to be used to cherry-pick verses to form theology. All of sacred scripture should be used in whole. ---> a very dangerous view - that allegory and typology shaped the way I want is to be considered scripture, and therefore it should be believed as Scripture. I can make anything into an allegory or type and tell you to believe it or you're not believing Scripture. That kind of manipulation is what cult's do.

Finally, believing in Mary's perpetual virginity doesn't mean that you have to abandon your sola scriptura belief. It only means that you have a better understanding of scripture. ---> it is absent in Scripture.

---

---

---

Responses in bold.

---

I have attached link, again, to Against Helvidius.
[url=https://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/fb5.htm#h][/url]
Against Helvidius - Link 2

PS. I've tested the links, they work.

Please see in section 6 as Jerome refutes your "unitl" assertion.
Sections 11&12 reject your "firstborn" theory as well.

Finally, by accepting the dogma, you are only more fully believing what the bible says when you read it properly.

---

Jerome is offering NO positive evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity. His argument, like yours, is entirely based on the fact that "it can not be ruled out". You can not support a positive claim with negative evidence.

His argument about the "until" falls short because he does not address the difference in the natural implication of a phrase containing "until" between one that makes postive directives, and one that makes a negative one, as I have repeatedly demonstrated.

"Firstborn" can mean only child, yes, but together with the fact that Scripture cites and even names Jesus' "brothers", the natural meaning of these terms suggests Mary had other children and Jesus had real, actual siblings, not "cousins" or "brothers" of different mothers.

You keep saying it's in the Bible. It's NOWHERE in the Bible. You can craft whatever allegory or symbolism using scripture, but that will never be positive evidence. Any belief can be constructed using this method. And the kicker here, is that the Roman Catholic Church REQUIRES this belief for salvation essentially, even if it is nowhere in Scripture. You would think that one's eternal fate should be tied to something a LOT more explicit in Scripture rather than to the understanding of arcane puzzles: "Oh, you believed in me, and trusted in me for your salvation", says Jesus, "but you didn't believe in Mary's perpetual virginity? Didn't you see it? Right there, where it says I entered through the gate and then closed it, so that no one else may enter! Wasn't that obvious? Tsk, Tsk. Well, sorry, to Hell you go!"

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

I hope that you don't mind if I answer.

NO, the Church should NOT accept NOR support same-sex marriage.

AND, she NEVER will.

---

Why do you think FlBear won't answer, even after repeated attempts at asking?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

---

You should know. Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

There you go.


CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.


The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

Now your turn, why do you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church? You are obsessed, much more than is natural. Either you are a troll or you have some problems you should talk to your Pastor about. It is not healthy. The Catholics on here have responded to every question, answering your questions. Yet, here we are again. So, what is it troll or obsessed?

---

Hold on, you're still not answering the question. I didn't ask what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church was. I asked do YOU believe the Church should accept and support same sex marriage?

Why do you let other Catholics answer for you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

---

You should know. Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

There you go.


CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.


The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

Now your turn, why do you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church? You are obsessed, much more than is natural. Either you are a troll or you have some problems you should talk to your Pastor about. It is not healthy. The Catholics on here have responded to every question, answering your questions. Yet, here we are again. So, what is it troll or obsessed?

---

Hold on, you're still not answering the question. I didn't ask what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church was. I asked do YOU believe the Church should accept and support same sex marriage?

Why do you let other Catholics answer for you?

---

Because you don't set the agenda. You hijacked a Pope Leo thread for your own personal twisted kangaroo court. So, no. You don't get answers. You get the Catholic Church official position. My personal answers and discussion are for people operating in good faith, something you have no idea about. If someone I respect asks, I send them a response. You, no this is a game to you. To keep Catholics on the line for as long as you can.

So, read the Vatican position and go back to your perverted view of Christianity.

Quote:

---

f you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest...

---

You don't go to Christ through them. You go to Christ with them.

"Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints." (Ephesians 6:18)

"pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (James 5:16)

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 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?

---

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?

---

You are doing your defensive "dodge the honest question" and Red Herring tactic again.

I'll rephrase the question -

Did Catholic bibles exist before the 6th century that contain the Deuterocanonical books?

---

I'm not dodging anything. I answered your question directly. Do you know what "dodging" means?

---

Nice Dodge. Did it?

---

You should know. Should the Church accept and support same sex marriage?

---

There you go.


CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.


The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

Now your turn, why do you have such a hard on for the Catholic Church? You are obsessed, much more than is natural. Either you are a troll or you have some problems you should talk to your Pastor about. It is not healthy. The Catholics on here have responded to every question, answering your questions. Yet, here we are again. So, what is it troll or obsessed?

---

Hold on, you're still not answering the question. I didn't ask what the stance of the Roman Catholic Church was. I asked do YOU believe the Church should accept and support same sex marriage?

Why do you let other Catholics answer for you?

---

Because you don't set the agenda. You hijacked a Pope Leo thread for your own personal twisted kangaroo court. So, no. You don't get answers. You get the Catholic Church official position. My personal answers and discussion are for people operating in good faith, something you have no idea about. If someone I respect asks, I send them a response. You, no this is a game to you. To keep Catholics on the line for as long as you can.

So, read the Vatican position and go back to your perverted view of Christianity.

---

Give it up. Everyone knows you're dodging, and they know why.

You've been exposed.

Here's the actual perversion of Christianity: "Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him." - Pope Francis.

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

f you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest...

---

You don't go to Christ through them. You go to Christ with them.

"Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints." (Ephesians 6:18)

"pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (James 5:16)

---

No, it's definitely through them:

"Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him." - Pope Francis

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

f you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest...

---

You don't go to Christ through them. You go to Christ with them.

"Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints." (Ephesians 6:18)

"pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (James 5:16)

---

No, it's definitely through them:

"Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him." - Pope Francis

---

While she may have been the road God traveled to reach us, her Son is the road we must travel to reach Him. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6). Yet another "Yea, hath God said?" moment.

Pope Francis was a herertic whose own statements on a variety of subjects were lies. His lack of understanding of the great cloud of witnesses, the church triumphant's relationship with the church militant, and the Theotokos is what you would expect from a communist from Argentina steeped in liberation theology.

The life lesson from him is "don't do that."

Intercessory prayer happens. Living without it a form of self imposed spiritual poverty. It is like disowning family.

"Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jeremiah 15:1)

We go to God *with* those who pray for us, not *through* them.

Realitybites said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Quote:

---

f you read those inviting words from Jesus, and you STILL think you need to go through Mary or the saints, a priest...

---

You don't go to Christ through them. You go to Christ with them.

"Praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints." (Ephesians 6:18)

"pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working." (James 5:16)

---

No, it's definitely through them:

"Mary is not only the bridge joining us to God; she is more. She is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel in order to reach him." - Pope Francis

---

While she may have been the road God traveled to reach us, her Son is the road we must travel to reach Him. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6). Yet another "Yea, hath God said?" moment.

Pope Francis was a herertic whose own statements on a variety of subjects were lies. His lack of understanding of the great cloud of witnesses, the church triumphant's relationship with the church militant, and the Theotokos is what you would expect from a communist from Argentina steeped in liberation theology.

The life lesson from him is "don't do that."

Intercessory prayer happens. Living without it a form of self imposed spiritual poverty. It is like disowning family.

"Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!" (Jeremiah 15:1)

We go to God *with* those who pray for us, not *through* them.

---

Mary wasn't the road, she was part of the road (a big part, for sure) but it was GOD who made the road. Calling her the "road" that God traveled implies that God's plan was subject to Mary, when Mary was the one subject to God's plan. The better statement would be "God paved the road to reach man, and he used Mary as the biggest brick".

If Pope Francis was a heretic, then Roman Catholicism as a whole is a heresy. Because his belief is the endorsed belief of Roman Catholicism. Prayers to Mary which state that call Mary "peacemaker between sinners and God", "Mediatrix", "the hands in whom we place our salvation", and that ask her to "grant that we have have salvation", prayers which are fully endorsed by the Roman Catholic Magisterium, are fully in line with Pope Francis' statement. Francis isn't even the only pope to elevate Mary in such an idolatrous way. Pope John Paul II's motto was "I am all yours, Mary". When he was shot, he was heard calling not for Jesus, but repeatedly for Mary. When he was buried, there was a big "M" on his casket.

Your view on intercessory prayer suffers from the same problem as the claims of Roman Catholics regarding their excessive devotion to Mary - it's just not based on Scripture. There just isn't any explicit, positive evidence in Scripture, so it must be cobbled together using vague scripture references that can be interpretated any way one wants to, as well as from extra-biblical and even Gnostic (heretical) sources. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught: 1) that saints have the omnipresence and omniscience to receive everyone's prayer all around the world, 2) that saints even hold the "office" they've been assigned to by the Church (that's a spillover from when Christianity allowed Roman pagan worship practices to seep into the Church), 3) that we even know if the saint is even in heaven to begin with, and not in "purgatory" or Hell, 4) that we even should be praying to them at all, given that nowhere in Scripture does Jesus tell us to pray to anyone or anything other than God (and himself), and nowhere is there a disciple, apostle, or believer in the early church who taught it or did it.

Praying to saints for intercession likely came about as a result of the Church compromising with the worship practices of pagan Rome for their pantheon of gods. Their pantheon was merely transitioned into the saints. Their mother goddess was transistioned into Mary. Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of Church History from Yale University, in his book "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries":

"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first century or two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described, a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother" while what he himself would teach them was "the father". They must choose, or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Yawn...

Exposed? Cut the dramatics. The only one exposed is you, what is your obsession with Catholicism? You won't leave a Catholic thread on Pope Leo.

---

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement?

---

That all individual people deserve God's blessing if they ask. Yes. Then go and sin no more.

Do you believe TV Evangelist and megachurches are consistent with Jesus message?

---

Wrong statement. Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road God traveled to reach us, and she is the road we must travel to get to God?

It depends on what TV evangelist and megachurch you're referring to, and what message they preach. You're not being specific.

---

That is one sentence in a plethora of writings.

Do I agree Mary is the model of obedience and how we should live, Yes.

---

Let me try again:

Do you agree with Pope Francis' statement that Mary is the road that God travelled to reach us, and the road that we must travel to get to God?

---

I am not commenting on a fragment. It is part of a larger homily.

Do you agree with this statement by Martin Luther the Father of the Reformation?

"First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools ..."

That is all you can comment on, no context, no follow up.

---

You're not commenting, because you know it is dead wrong. Why can't you just be honest instead of evasive? And what does it say about your church if you have to dodge something that was said by your highest leader?

Your comparison to Luther's quote is laughable. It's not even a complete sentence.

The point of "until she gave birth" is to show that Joseph couldn't have been the father. It has no necessary implication beyond that.