Bible lesson #2: Catholic Mary was ever virgin. Jewish mother of Jesus had many children

The Pope in Rome claims Mary lived a life without having sex with her husband. The Bible says the Mother of Jesus was a virgin when she gave birth of Jesus, but later had many children.

 

050814-rosaryforPeace233

 

Why not a Bible school on this blogg. You are welcome as a free student. Freely I have received, and freely I will give. The first topic will be:

Was the Jewish mother of Jesus forever virgin?

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Paragraph 510

«0 Mary “remained a virgin in conceiving her Son, a virgin in giving birth to him, a virgin in carrying him, a virgin in nursing him at her breast, always a virgin».

In every Catholic mass the faithful says: «Mary, ever virgin».

But the Bible explains this is simply not the truth. The Word of God tells that the Jewish Mother of Jesus had many children. At least five sons and two daughters.

Matthew 13:55-56 (New King James version)
“Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?”

In this verse his brothers are even mentioned by their names. Also Indirectly in the scripture, the many children of Mary are proven:

Luke 2:44 (New International version)
Thinking he was in their company, they traveled on for a day. Then they began looking for him among their relatives and friends.

A lady with only one child, would never have traveled on for a full day without knowing that her only child was lost or not. If so, this woman would have been the most irresponsible mother of all Jewish mothers.

But a Jewish mother with seven or eight children could easily have lost the overview, and only during a head count have discovered that one of her children were missing.

The Jewish mother of Jesus might have looked like this
The Jewish mother of Jesus might have looked like this

The last example of a mother with many children is the use of the word «firstborn».

Luke 2:7
and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Jesus was the firstborn, not the only child. If he was the only child, the gospel writers would have told us so. Just like in this verse:

Luke 9:38
A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.

The Pope of Rome is not telling us the truth about the Jewish Mother of Jesus. The Bible is the truth.

174 thoughts on “Bible lesson #2: Catholic Mary was ever virgin. Jewish mother of Jesus had many children

  1. I agree that mary had other children according to the Bible. She did have other children, I do believe that she was a virgin when Jesus was born, the bible tells us so.

    1. Dear Yvonne.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site. I agree. Not only because you said so, but because the Bible says so. It will be my verdict in any debates on faith. Blessings.

  2. The Bible does not say Mary had other children. The people named in the passages are also named in other places proofing they were not the children of Mary the mother of Jesus.

    Luke 1

    31 Behold you shall conceive in your womb and shall bring forth a son:…. 34 And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?

    Mary was to be in marriage with Joseph, so why would she question she would have a child? She wasn’t told she IS with child, but that she WILL be with child. If you were to tell an engaged woman today that she will concieve a child, she would say, “ok, your probably right for I will be married soon”. Thats what married couples do, right? Well she asked how shall it be done because she knew she was to remain a virgin and she didn’t understand how she would concieve a child if she was not to ever have relations with Joseph. ]

    Old Testament

    In Hebrew there was no word for Brethren, Brothers, Sisters, Cousins, Uncle, etc,… “brother” or “sister” was used.

    Genesis 14:14

    14 Which when Abram had heard, to wit, that his brother Lot was taken, he numbered of the servants born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, well appointed: and pursued them to Dan.

    [Lot wasn’t Abram’s brother, he was his nefew as we see in Genesis 11:27. Lot is son of Aran, and Aran is the brother of Abram]

    New Testament

    [I state the name “Joses”, some Bibles say “Joses” and some say “Joseph”]

    Mark 3:31-32

    31 And his mother and his brethren came; and standing without, sent unto him, calling him. 32 And the multitude sat about him; and they say to him: Behold your mother and your brethren without seek for you.

    [James and Joses are concidered “brethren”, or by some “brothers”, but the bible says they are sons of another Mary. This confirms atleast these two men are not blood brothers, and because they are grouped with other people, it is almost certain that non of the group are blood relatives. And history supports this by identifying each person listed.]

    Matthew 13:55-56

    55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother called Mary, and his brethren James [the Less], and Joses, and Simon, and Jude [of James]: 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?

    Mark 5:40-41

    40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary [wife of Cleophas] the mother of James the Less and of Joses and Salome [daugter of Herod Philip and Herodias], 41 who also when he was in Galilee followed him and ministered to him, and many other women that came up with him to Jerusalem.

    John 19:25

    25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen

    Matthew 27:55

    55 And there were there many women afar off, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto him: 56 Among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Joses and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

    Mark 15:47

    47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joses, beheld where he was laid.

    [All the people mentioned can be identified to other mothers and families. You must put each one in context. When doing so you can see how they were not birth children of Mary the mother of Jesus.]

    [Lastly…]

    Acts 1:14-15

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

    [11 apostles + women (maybe 3ish, but lets say 20) + Blessed Mother = 32. So Jesus has 88 brothers and sisters? I doubt it. She would be the “ever mother in labor” if that were the case.]

    [In conclusion, the Bible does not say Mary the mother of Jesus was not a every virgin because we can identify every name mentioned. And yes, the Bible does not directly say she was from the service of scripture. But throughout history she has been said to have been an ever virgin. Without Biblical evidence, we can’t say this view is incorrect.]

    One last Old Testament prophesy on Mary’s ever virginity…

    Ezekiel 44:1-3

    1 And he brought me back to the way of the gate of the outward sanctuary, which looked towards the east: and it was shut. 2 And the Lord said to me: This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it: because the Lord the God of Israel has entered in by it, and it shall be shut 3 for the prince. The prince himself shall sit in it, to eat bread before the Lord: he shall enter in by the way of the porch of the gate, and shall go out by the same way.

    “Who is this gate (Ezekiel 44:1-4), if not Mary? Is it not closed because she is a virgin? Mary is the gate through which Christ entered this world, when He was brought forth in the virginal birth and the manner of His birth did not break the seals of virginity.” – Saint Ambrose of Milan (ca AD 390)

    “It is written (Ezekiel 44, 2): ‘This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it. Because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it…’ What means this closed gate in the house of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that ‘no man shall pass through it,’ save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this – ‘The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it,’ except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of Angels shall be born of her? And what means this – ‘It shall be shut for evermore,’ but that Mary is a Virgin before His birth, a Virgin in His birth, and a Virgin after His birth.” – Saint Augustine (ca AD 430)

    1. Your first pargraph is false. These names were simply common. The names listed are also the names of the Apostles. As i said, they are common names of Jews. Second, the word “brother” in that scripture is not a spiritual meaning, it is a literal meaning of a blood relative from the same parent.

      Problem solved.

  3. Kevin said that there is no Hebrew word for cousin. What does that have to do with Luke, which was written in Greek?

    There is a Greek word for cousin, which is suggenes, as in,

    Luk 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin (suggenes) Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

    When he quotes Acts the original Greek doesn’t agree with what he says. It says Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, not brethren.

    Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
    Act 1:15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

    This looks like a Catholic took offense at the article.

    Jer 50:38 …….for it is the land of graven images, and they are mad upon their idols.

    Keep up the good work ivarfjeld, Shalom

  4. No offense taken, that just shows that your interpretation of me is as good as your interpretation of the Bible. But minus the hebrew and latin, everybody is spoken for. But thank you for your comment about the greek, I will hold that to my research, for I am always seeking truth. It is good to get other people’s view, because truths will come out of anywhere God wills. But at least the seeds have been planted that all of Jesus’ “brothers and sisters” are spoken for and there is no evidence of Mary having other children. Praise to you Lord, Jesus Christ!

    if the Bible said it was raining cats and dogs, would you think cats and dogs were falling from the sky?

    1. Dear Kevin.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site to express your views:

      You wrote:

      if the Bible said it was raining cats and dogs, would you think cats and dogs were falling from the sky?

      My comment:

      If the Bible says Jesus was crucified on a cross, do you think God died on a cross, or may be he fell of a horse?

      Its pointless to debate the Roman Catholic relativism in regards to the Word of God. The truth is that the scripture clearly mention that Jesus had siblings. If you refuse to accept this, you make the gospel writers fools and liars. Its your choice.

      1. Praise God.

        I just wanted to add that in Scriptural reference to Jesus having siblings:
        Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren(GR- ADELPHOS), James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

        Adelphos in this passage holds the meaning “male children of the same mother” (also in 1 Cor 9:5, Gal 1:19)

        I hold to the Scripture that says,”…let God be true, but every man a liar…” when it comes to disagreeing with His Word.

        God bless.

  5. The Holy Scripture is interpreted by the HOLY SPIRIT.
    It’s not our interpretation it’s the Holy Spririt whom teaches us. You should not listen to man but Him who teaches. I was a Catholic and the Word revealed to me that Mary had other children…..thank you for listening

    1. Dear Sandy.

      Shalom, my dear sister. Thanks for this comment. Keep on telling the truth to people around you, and be blessed. In the name of Jesus. Amen.

  6. Actually, Scripture clearly states that the ‘brothers of Jesus’ are not Mary’s sons.

    Brothers of Jesus, Not Sons of Mary

    Many non-Catholics deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary by referring to passages of scripture that mention the “brothers” of Jesus. A rigorous analysis of scripture, however, proves their position is false. Consider the following:

    1. Jesus had a “brother” named James.

    “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?”(Matthew 13:55)

    2. James, the Lord’s “brother”, is an apostle.

    “Then, after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)

    3. There are two apostles named James.

    “When morning came, he called his disciples to him and chose twelve of them, whom he also designated apostles: Simon (whom he named Peter), his brother Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.”(Luke 6:13-16)

    4. One James (the brother of John) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Zebedee.

    “James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder)” (Mark 3:17)

    5. The other apostle named James is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his father is Alpheus.

    “And when it was day, he called his disciples, and chose from them twelve, whom he called apostles: Simon, whom he named Peter and Andrew his brother, and James and John and Philip and Bartholomew, and Matthew and James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who was called the Zealot, and Judas the son of James and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.” (Luke 6:13-16)

    6. Therefore, neither apostle named James was a uterine brother of Jesus.

    7. The man named Joseph (or Joses) is not the uterine brother of Jesus; his mother is Mary and his brother is James. Therefore, this Mary is the wife of Alphaeus.

    “Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.” (Matthew 27:55-56)

    8. Judas is not a uterine brother of Jesus because he is the son of James.

    “When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.” (Acts 1:13)

    9. While Matthew 15:35 declares James, Joseph and Judas to be the “brothers” of Jesus, it has been demonstrated from scripture that they are NOT uterine brothers of the Lord. From this, it is apparent that scripture must be using the term “brothers” to mean relatives other than sons of Mary.

    1. Dear Adrian.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      Good News, Bible version (Roman Catholic)

      Matthew 1: 24:25

      So when Joseph woke up, he married Mary, as the angel of the Lord had told him to. But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to a son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

      Imprimatur by Cardinal Basil Hume, Archbishop of Westminister 25th of July 1979.

      My take on this Catholic Bible version:

      The word before means exactly: «before». Her husband had not had sex with her before Jesus war born. The Jewish ten-ager Miriam was a virgin. But «after» the birth of Jesus, husband and wife surely had sex. And that is exactly what adult people, who are not living in celibacy, are suppose to do.

      Wedded couple do not live in celibacy. They have sex, with God of the Bibles blessings and permission.

      If Joseph and Miriam was able to live a full married life without having sex, they would be abnormal. And not human. To claim that these two Jews did not have sex is not only silly. It rejects the humanity of the Earthly family of Jesus the Messiah.

      If Jesus did not have human parents, than his humanity is also rejected. And that is done by the spirit of antichrist.

      1. Ivarfjeld,

        I’m glad to see someone take an objective look at Catholicism. It’s rare to find someone with the fair and fact-based view that doesn’t require calling someone names to feel superior.

        That being said:

        Would you then deny that Mary was prophesized several times early in the bible, and she was described as a special individual of the lord?

        i.e:
        Gen. 3:15

        And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

        [That she is in God’s grace]
        Luke 1:28

        And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

        [That she is blessed above women, as Jesus is]
        Luke 1:42

        “And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”

        Even if you ignored this, as you have ignored the arguments above, you should see the problem with you’re own argument:
        “Matthew 1: 24:25

        So when Joseph woke up, he married Mary, as the angel of the Lord had told him to. But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to a son. And Joseph named him Jesus.”

        Let’s look at the actual word used here when you look at “before.” This came from the Greek word “heos” which means “until or before.” However, the use of this word in Greek or Semitic context doesn’t imply that anything happened after a son was born. You may ask me why use “until” or “before” if that implication wasn’t intended. Well the answer is simple: it proves that Jesus could not possibly have been conceived via Joseph because he had no sexual relations with Mary. Therefore, until/before reiterates the immaculate birth.

        Now, you could ignore these facts or conveniently state that the Bible’s word is meant to be spoken the way <> say it should and that my use of liguistics and facts are the work of the “antichrist.” Or you can have an objective argument without bullying others by accusing them of being inspired by satan.

        Seeing your interpretation being called incorrect, especially when based on facts that you fail to refute, is not grounds for you to be an insulting bully.

        I will pray for you to see what is true and to change your ways.

        God Bless

      2. Dear Joshua.

        Shalom, and welcome to this site.

        You wrote:

        Gen. 3:15
        And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
        [That she is in God’s grace]

        My comment:

        There are two women in the book of revelation. One is Israel, and the other is the great prostitute. Gen 3.15 does not describe the great prostitute, a goddess, the Queen of Heaven. So here you are quoting the Bible incorrectly. This is a prophecy about the Jewish nation, that will bring us the Messiah.

        You wrote:

        Luke 1:28

        And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

        [That she is blessed above women, as Jesus is]

        My comment:

        Here you bluntly twist the gospel in a bid to make it fit into a false papal doctrine. There is a huge difference to be blessed AMONG women, and to be blessed ABOVE woman. Miriam (Mary) was a Torah observant Jewish virgin, that was blessed among women. Not a Goddess, not the Queen of Heaven, and absolutely not to elevated to a pagan “mother of god”.

      3. Dear Joshua

        Shalom.

        You wrote:

        Or you can have an objective argument without bullying others by accusing them of being inspired by satan.

        My reply:

        The virgin birth of Miriam (Mary) is not in question by any Bible believing Christian. Where we refuse to follow the Pope, is related to his false claim that the Jewish virgin being a sinless goddess. If you claim that Jesus has the Holy Spirit as Father, and a divine goddess as mother, you deny the humanity of the Son of Man. Jesus in only divine, and simply not at all human.

        Such a claim comes from the very spirit of antichrist, who present to us a different “Jesus”, who is not Jesus of Nazareth. My Master was a Jew, a complete human. Given flesh from a Jewish lady. The papal “Jesus” is a fiction, a false Messiah.

      4. Joshua,

        I once heard a testimony from a woman, who had a vision of Mary in heaven, looking out of the window. Jesus was standing next to her, and she turned to him with tears in her eyes, and said: “Who do they praise me? I am not God. I am not you. I was human, a sinner in the flesh like everyone else.”

        The Catholics have leveled Mary into a fake God.

        “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…” -Exodus 20:4,5

        Also you say: Or you can have an objective argument without bullying others by accusing them of being inspired by satan.

        My Comment: I have never seen a post where Ivar was not objective or bullying.

        The Bible says: 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

        That describes Ivar perfectly. The Wod of God must be taught, and corrected if others twist it to suit their own needs.

        God Bless.

      5. Ivan,

        Thanks for your reply. I would like to direct you to this portion of the Nicene Creed, a Catholic declaration of what we believe:

        “For us and for our salvation
        he came down from heaven,
        was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
        and became truly human.”

        This creed, one said every Sunday in mass by Catholics, clearly states our belief that Jesus was human.

        Furthermore, we do NOT worship Mary. This has been a result of poor information that we Catholics have to deal with frequently.

        We honor Mary in prayer and song, but we do not worship her. We do the same for saints, yet we do not worship them. Many to most religions believe that because we honor someone, we must worship them. This is false.

        We do acknowledge that Mary was prophesized early in the Bible. We know she was protected by God’s grace and held in great favor (“Blessed among women”) with God. She was human, but she was held in high regard with God from birth. Would you argue that Moses wasn’t human since he was aided by God in Exodus? Would you say he was not human when he spoke with God?

        God Bless

      6. Dear Joshua.

        The Pope do not tell us the truth. He claims Miriam (Mary) was born without sin, never sinned, was ever virgin, and was taken up in Heaven sinless. The Pope and the Roman Catholic Church has made this Jewish girl a goddess.

        The Bible says:

        Romans 3:23
        for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

        (end of scripture).

        When Miriam gave birth to Jesus, she went to the Temple and offered a sin offering. She was a sinner, just like me and you.

        Since the Pope is a false teacher, you should not have him as your pastor. Please leave Rome, and find your self a good fellowship of Bible believing Christians.

      7. Ivan,

        What about 2 Thess. 2:15?
        “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

        Here, Paul says to hold fast to both oral and written tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was ascended to heaven.

        Furthermore, Mary was not the only human to be assumed into heaven.

        Additionally,The salutation given to Mary by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28 is “Hail, Full of Grace…”. In Greek the word used for grace is kecharitomene.” We can say through the writings of Luke that Mary was the fullness of grace (sinless). How? “Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

        No one can be full of grace if there is any trace of sin in that person. In addition, Grabriel gives Mary a new name calling her “Full of Grace”. He says “Rejoice” (Hail!) “Full of Grace”.No where in Scripture is there another address like this.

        The Church teaches that “In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.

        The Council of Trent declared: No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.

        Mary’s sinlessness was not due to any inherent perfection she had apart from God; her very sinlessness was purely a gift from God her Savior (cf. Luke 1:46-48)

        I would appreciate, and find it more fruitful, if you would counter my arguments rather than bring up new ones. While I can just keep refuting your arguments, I just keep building more of my own. If you could do this, I believe this conversation would mean more for me.

        God Bless

      8. Joshua,

        About Mary not having sex her whole married life after the birth of Jesus…

        Joseph and Mary were promised to each other to get married, and this planned marriage was before Mary and Joseph knew that Mary was carrying the Son of God.
        If Mary had plans to marry a man…surely she had in mind to have a marriage bed.

        Mary having, or not having, sexual relations with her husband, after the birth of Jesus, has no effect on our salvation. But what does hurt one’s salvation is making up, and, or believing in things that aren’t God’s Word.

      9. Victoria,

        I agree, so please, for your sake, accept that Mary was forever a virgin.

        I you’re going to count on tradition supporting your argument, then you will see Jesus grievously insult his “brothers” here:

        John 19:26-27
        When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home.

        If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother. Furthermore, why don’t you believe that the disciple John was Mary’s son? It clearly says this here does it not? But you don’t make that argument because you know better. Just as I know better with all the other references you have made.

      10. Joshua,

        Jesus didn’t come to earth to get married, to have children, nor to be Mary’s son. Jesus came to earth to save us.
        And, the scripture where Jesus tells Mary .. “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”
        This clearly shows that Jesus didn’t come to earth to be Mary’s son.
        You don’t know how it is when you believe the Truth…the personal relationship with Jesus, being reconcilled to God… is more than I can tell you about…
        Believe and obey the Truth. I pray God opens the eyes of your heart.

    2. Victoria,

      You talk about a personal relationship with Jesus and a reconciliation with God; you tell me of how you came from a family of devote Catholics. You talk to me about Truth.

      Truth, it would seem comes from different places with you an me. You claim that you “know” the truth. You essentially tell me you know exactly what God wanted to say. You, then, must claim to speak with God.

      Think of this analogy:

      What if everyone interpreted the Law the same way you interpret God’s word? Well, I believe that there would be a lot less people in Jail. There would be no accountability, no evidence, just that they interpret the Law to say what they believe it should say.

      It’s a convenient process, when you can do what you want just by interpreting the Law how you wish.

      I, on the other hand, recognize that I could interpret scripture incorrectly just to suit my own means (as you are claiming I am). And yet, brilliant scholars back up my interpretation, over a thousand years of tradition, discretion, and interpretation backs up my view.

      When you have an authority that is well versed in scripture, you won’t interpret the Bible to suit your own purposes.

      But, you tell me that you’re right and I’m wrong. Your last post had no scripture back up, no context back up, nothing. You simply said:

      “And, the scripture where Jesus tells Mary .. “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”
      This clearly shows that Jesus didn’t come to earth to be Mary’s son.”

      I would say it’s a little less clear than you speak, I would ask for some evidence.

      You tell me I don’t know what it’s like to believe the truth. I can only claim that I do, and you do not.

      1. Joshua,

        You said: “It’s a convenient process, when you can do what you want just by interpreting the Law how you wish.
        I, on the other hand, recognize that I could interpret scripture incorrectly just to suit my own means (as you are claiming I am). And yet, brilliant scholars back up my interpretation, over a thousand years of tradition, discretion, and interpretation backs up my view.
        When you have an authority that is well versed in scripture, you won’t interpret the Bible to suit your own purposes.”

        You are in too much awe of the so-called authority of the Catholics.
        Jesus said it was not the wise and learned that God revealed the truth too, but to little children.

        Just read the Bible and believe. It’s all there.

        You said:

        “But, you tell me that you’re right and I’m wrong. Your last post had no scripture back up, no context back up, nothing. You simply said “And, the scripture where Jesus tells Mary .. “Dear woman, here is your son,” and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”
        This clearly shows that Jesus didn’t come to earth to be Mary’s son.”
        I would say it’s a little less clear than you speak, I would ask for some evidence.”

        Jesus calls his mother “woman.” You don’t want to believe it is plain, you’d rather believe it means that Mary never had sex with her husband after Jesus was born. And that all the brothers and sisters were from Joseph’s former marriage.
        Now you tell me who is adding to the scriptures. You add a whole story and then some.

      2. Excuse me for jumping in real quick, but Joshua you tell Victoria:

        **You essentially tell me you know exactly what God wanted to say. You, then, must claim to speak with God**

        **Do you think speaking with God is impossible? The bible tell us: Acts 2:17 ‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

        And even before then, many have spoken to Christ, and Christ has answered the prayers of many. That is one of the great things he does, when we believe and trust in him completely.

    3. Adrian,

      I don’t believe that Jesus’ brother James was an apostle. Though, I do believe Jesus’ brother James was much with Jesus and the other apostles, as mentioned in the scriptures.

      It looks as though the main argument that James, the brother of Jesus, was also an apostle, is this scripture:

      Galatians 1:18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

      Though argued that Paul saying…”I saw none of the other apostles-only James, the Lord’s brother” means that this brother of Jesus was an apostle, but it does not necessarily mean that. Paul saw none of the other apostles (besides Peter, with whom Paul stayed with for 15 days to get aquainted).
      It’s clear what is said, that Paul did not see any of the other apostles (besides Peter), but that Paul did see James, the Lord’s brother.

      So, I believe you are correct in showing that none of the apostles named “James” were Jesus’ brother from Mary. But you are disregarding the scriptures that do say Jesus had brothers, and one of them being named “James.”

      John 2:12 [ Jesus Clears the Temple ] After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days.

      John 7:3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.

      John 7:5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

      Matthew 12:46[ Jesus’ Mother and Brothers ] While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him.

      Matthew 12:48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”

      Matthew 12:49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers.

      Matthew 13:55 “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?

  7. I am sad at how many people do not believe the Word of God, and use their own interpretation as the truth.

    2 Timothy 3:16
    All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

    Notice the first few words: ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD That alone says much. God is 100% correct in anyting. Having you won view on God’s words, is not believing in him at all.

    1. Gloria,

      Could it not be that you interpret the Bible your own way?

      You argued with me about how the word of God is 100% true. That may be, but when you put your faith in what others claim to have heard or seen from God, you are saying that what Jesus said in the Bible is null and void because my friend’s friend’s friend had a dream that said otherwise.

      You can’t argue against the Bible with “visions” from others because you can’t confirm their origin.

      Furthermore, you claim that Catholics worship Mary. This is something Catholics are consistently accused of, but they are accusations based on ignorance of our tradition, our dogma, and our beliefs.

      We honor Mary in prayer and song, but we do not worship her. We do the same for saints, yet we do not worship them. Many to most religions believe that because we honor someone, we must worship them. This is false.

      We do acknowledge that Mary was prophesized early in the Bible. We know she was protected by God’s grace and held in great favor (“Blessed among women”) with God. She was human, but she was held in high regard with God from birth.

      Additionally,The salutation given to Mary by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28 is “Hail, Full of Grace…”. In Greek the word used for grace is kecharitomene.” We can say through the writings of Luke that Mary was the fullness of grace (sinless). How? “Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

      No one can be full of grace if there is any trace of sin in that person. In addition, Grabriel gives Mary a new name calling her “Full of Grace”. He says “Rejoice” (Hail!) “Full of Grace”.No where in Scripture is there another address like this.

      The Church teaches that “In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.

      The Council of Trent declared: No justified person can for his whole life avoid all sins, even venial sins, except on the ground of a special privilege from God such as the Church holds was given to the Blessed Virgin.

      Mary’s sinlessness was not due to any inherent perfection she had apart from God; her very sinlessness was purely a gift from God her Savior (cf. Luke 1:46-48)

      As you can see, just translating the Bible can lead to different words from God. Which Bible do you find to be true? How do you know THAT version of the Bible is true verses another? You talk about accepting interpretations and you think that we’re trying to go against God’s word. You didn’t accept the fact that we have proof, at least as much as you do, if not more.

      Every argument you can bring to me with Biblical references of Jesus having supposed brothers and sisters, I can give you Biblical reasons why they are false. So, who’s right? Am I just fighting for my interpretation? Am I trying to fight God’s word? Or are you?

      God Bless

      1. Joshua,

        There is no such command in the Bible as “Apostolic Succession.” None.
        That is a man-made belief by the Catholics.

        Do you want to worship God in the spirit and truth? Or do you want to follow the Catholic teachings?

        The Bible says the foundation was laid by the Apostles, and the Prophets, and Jesus Christ as the chief cornerstone. (See Ephesians 2:20)
        No Pope or Bishops can add to God’s word. The foundation has be laid.

        When the Apostles taught the Gospel… God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. (See Hebrews 2:4; Galatians 3:4-6; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Romans 15:19; Acts 19:11; Acts 8:13; Acts 2:22)

        When the Popes add doctrines to the Christian beliefs that aren’t there…there are no signs and miracles.
        The oral Tradition of the Catholics is not biblical, and it is against the Word of God.

        Peter and the other apostles said: “We must obey God rather than men! (See Acts 5:29)

        See what Jesus say about tradition from men.
        Matthew 15:3
        Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?

        Matthew 15:6
        he is not to ‘honor his father ‘ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.

        Mark 7:8
        You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

        Mark 7:9
        And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

        Mark 7:13
        Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

        Do you know what venerate means? A synonym for venerate is ‘worship’. The Catholics are suppose to venerate Mary, and saints, even pictures and statues, and the dead remains of saints. These are things God tells us not to do.

        Stop doing what God tells us not to. Do what God wants us to do.

      2. Victoria,

        Thank you for providing ample Biblical support for your points.
        I would like to direct your attention to these lines of scripture:

        2 Thess. 2:15
        “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.”

        (2 Tim. 3:14–15)
        “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus”

        2 Thess. 3:6, “Now I command you, brethren, our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep the margin of every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition you received from us.”

        1 Cor. 11:2, “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I gave you.”

        You know what happened before there was a New testament? The first Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching” [Acts 2:42] The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: “It is more blessed to give than to receive” [Acts 20:35].

        1 Thessalonians 4:1-2
        “Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in fact you are living. Now we ask you and urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more and more. For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. ”

        To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

        Our attempt to make clear the difference between the honor due to God and that due to humans has been to use the words adore and adoration to describe the total, consuming reverence due to God and the terms venerate, veneration, and honor to refer to the respect due humans. Thus, Catholics sometimes say, “We adore God but we honor his saints.”

        Unfortunately, you non-Catholics have been so schooled in hostility toward the Church that they appear unable or unwilling to recognize these distinctions. you confidently (let’s be honest, arrogantly) assert that Catholics “worship” Mary and the saints, and, in so doing, commit idolatry. This is patently false, of course, but the education in anti-Catholic prejudice is so strong that we must patiently explain that Catholics do not worship anyone but God—at least given the contemporary use of the term. The Church is very strict about the fact that latria, adoration—what contemporary English speakers call “worship”—is to be given only to God.

      3. Joshua,

        Didn’t you read what I posted? There is no “Apostolic Succession.”

        And, there are no signs, wonders, and miracles from God to testify to what the Catholic Popes and Bishops add to the Christian doctrine.

        Your posting about what Paul said to Timothy doesn’t mean the Catholic Popes and Bishops can add unbiblical doctrines.

        You are wrong what you say to me about my feelings for Catholics. My family for generations were devout Catholics. I want to help people to know God’s Truth.
        None of your rude comments can stop me from speaking what Jesus revealed to me. I wish my parents were still alive for me to tell them the Truth.

      4. Victoria,

        Is it any less rude for you to simply say that I am wrong, that I am not doing what God wants me to do? You’ve essentially damned me after your argument, and you call me the rude one?

        And you’ve claimed to be from a “devote” Catholic family. And yet, you did not understand the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary. I would expect a less erroneous conclusions if you really knew what Catholics believed.

        I get it, you believe you’re right. I understand that. The difference is that I don’t believe you will burn in hell because you disagree with me. I believe in having fact-based arguments without concluding that I know exactly what God wants.

        However, I want to ask, how did Jesus reveal these facts to you? You’ve stopped using scripture, and you have not given any evidence of “Unbiblical” doctrine the Catholic church has made. I can just as easily tell you Jesus has revealed these facts to me, and I know in my heart for them to be true. Will you just accept that? I doubt it. You would push your interpretation on me, believing that Jesus could not possibly mislead you, it must be me.

        I’m trying to bring facts here, not pass judgement.

      5. Joshua,

        I did not tell anyone they were going to hell. And you failed to see that I only speak to you about the Truth out of love, and instead you accused me of false motives and things I did not say.

        You also said that I did not use scripture to prove the Catholics go against the Word of God. That you can’t see that I use scripture is astonishing.

      6. Joshua,

        You said:

        “And you’ve claimed to be from a “devote” Catholic family. And yet, you did not understand the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary. I would expect a less erroneous conclusions if you really knew what Catholics believed.”

        When I was a devout Catholic…I would argue to people too, that we do not worship Mary.
        Put it all together, and maybe you will admit that Catholics do worship Mary.
        Catholics make pictures and statues of Mary, they bow to them. They kneel and pray to Mary. If this is not worship…then what is?
        As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.” (See Acts 10:25-26.

        Please read the scriptures and consider them carefully…
        “Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them. (Acts 14:15)

      7. Victoria,

        Then what do you say about intercession? I assume you understand the difference between worship and praying for intercession; what do you have to say about that?

        God Bless

      8. Joshua,

        You said:
        “Then what do you say about intercession? I assume you understand the difference between worship and praying for intercession; what do you have to say about that?
        God Bless”

        I have a lot to say about that. We can ASK others to pray FOR us. But Catholics pray TO Mary and saints, they pray TO them and ask them to go to Jesus for them.
        That is not biblical, and it is against the Word of God.

        God bless you, Joshua.

      9. Victoria,

        Do you not see the analog of asking Mary or the saints for their intercession? It’s essentially asking them to pray for you, to help you in their place of honor.

        Tell me, where in the Bible does it say this is wrong?

        God Bless

      10. Joshua,

        Catholics PRAY to Mary and ask her to go to Jesus with their request. They also do this with the Catholic saints.

        When a person is saved…they have Jesus living inside them. They are reconciled to God.
        Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need. Hebrews 4:16

        In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence. Ephesians 3:12

        Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died–more than that, who was raised to life–is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Romans 8:34

        And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will.
        Romans 8:27

        Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.
        Hebrews 7:25

        For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
        1 Timothy 2:5

        I hope you really do carefully consider these scriptures.

      11. Dear Victoria.

        Shalom.

        Thanks for ministering on this blog, and leading Joshua towards faith in Jesus. I feel you are doing a good job.

        Joshua:

        When Jesus says we shall pray to the Father in His name. there is no need to go somewere else. When we go to others, and pray in other names than the name of Jesus, we sin. That is why the Catholic religion is wrong. There are thousands of Catholics saints and madonnas, and there is no end to this paganism presented as “Christianity”.

        What about me asking Victoria, to pray for me and whatever problems I do have?

        That is not wrong. Victoria is a living saint, and she will pray in the name of Jesus only. The Catholic saints are dead a gone, and many of them have been deleared saints hundred of years after they passed away. While Victoria is still around, and can pray for me, I do not have any idea if some of these Catholic sains are really men and women of God. Since the Pope is a man of lawlessness, I guess his saints are sailing on the same ship.

        And by the way. I do not have to ask Victoria to pray for me. I can pray to Jesus my self, and do not have to pray in any other name. Jesus do listen to all who pray to Him, using His name.

        When Victoria has departed, I can no longer send her an email and asks for her prayer. That would be to consult the dead, a grave sin.

        I fail to understand, why Catholics wold like me to consult the departed Victoria, when there will be other living saints I can have fellwoship with.

        Why shall we not consult the dead?

        When we consult the dead, we act like God, knowing for sure they have departed for Heaven. And if the departed person was a fake, we end up being entertained by demons. The Catholic Church is a house of Demons, where piests summon and consult the dead.

        Something to reflect on.

      12. Joshua,

        You wrote: You argued with me about how the word of God is 100% true. That may be, but when you put your faith in what others claim to have heard or seen from God, you are saying that what Jesus said in the Bible is null and void because my friend’s friend’s friend had a dream that said otherwise.

        My Comment: Read Acts 2:17. Okay, let’s forgot a moment about the vision this preacher had of Christ. What about me Joshua? I give all Glory and Honor to Jesus Christ, because I have been in his presence, and I have witnessed many things in his name. With my own two eyes Joshua, I have been in GOD’S presence. What can you say about that now? Is my word null and void, because Christ even said that he will use even more believers in the last days, to get his message across.

        Your Comment: Furthermore, you claim that Catholics worship Mary.

        My Comment: Have the Catholics not built statues of Mary? Have many other religions built statues and bow and pray to them? When the Holy Word of God says this is wrong.

        Your Comment: Mary’s sinlessness was not due to any inherent perfection she had apart from God; her very sinlessness was purely a gift from God her Savior.

        My Comment: The Bible says: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,(end.) REREAD IT JOSHUA. ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God. The Bible does not add exceptions like Mary into God’s Word.

        Your Comment: Every argument you can bring to me with Biblical references of Jesus having supposed brothers and sisters, I can give you Biblical reasons why they are false. So, who’s right? Am I just fighting for my interpretation? Am I trying to fight God’s word? Or are you?

        My Comment: Joshua, I pray to Christ that he touches your heart, and that you do open your eyes. The Word of God is straight forward, and its meanings are direct. I ask you this Joshua, if I had my own false interpretation of the word, would I have ever been in the presence of God?

        I am a sinner, and I’m ashamed of the things I have done in my life. I will never be worthy enough to be in God’s presence. But thank you Jesus, because he has forgiven me for all of my mistakes. Thank you Jesus for allowing me to be in his presence. Perfection and Love is a hard thing to describe, but that is what I felt, and that is exactly where I want to be for eternity.

        God Bless you Joshua. (I have a 10 year old son with the same name-and I think it is a strong biblical one 🙂

      13. Gloria,

        My parents named me and my brothers with Biblical names, I’m proud to have it. 🙂

        You said:
        “The Bible says: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,(end.) REREAD IT JOSHUA. ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God. The Bible does not add exceptions like Mary into God’s Word.”

        By making this argument, you claim that Jesus himself has sinned. To say otherwise is to claim that Jesus was not man. I believe Ivan referenced the antichrist last time someone claimed that here.
        The exception “For all have fallen but Jesus” goes without saying, but you’re thoughts that the words are straight forward imply that Jesus has fallen as well. I would read closely.

        You said:
        “Okay, let’s forgot a moment about the vision this preacher had of Christ. What about me Joshua? I give all Glory and Honor to Jesus Christ, because I have been in his presence, and I have witnessed many things in his name. With my own two eyes Joshua, I have been in GOD’S presence. What can you say about that now? Is my word null and void, because Christ even said that he will use even more believers in the last days, to get his message across.”

        Christ also spoke here:
        Matthew 24:5
        Matthew 24:11
        Matthew 24:24
        Mark 13:6; Mark 13:21-23
        Luke 21:8
        1 Timothy 4:1

        The gist of which is:
        “Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.”

        I am weary to trust anyone who claims to be as wise as God and have “visions” that conveniently deconstruct the very Church Jesus ask Peter to establish. How can I know that your source is true, how can you even know? What we both know is the BIBLE is true, and any extension beyond that ends our common ground. I could tell you that our tradition extends from the tradition of generations as mentioned in Timothy, but you will argue that’s not what was “meant.” If the word is as straight forward as you say it is, then it is exactly what was intended.

        You said:
        “Have the Catholics not built statues of Mary? Have many other religions built statues and bow and pray to them? When the Holy Word of God says this is wrong.”

        Will you then, tear down the Lincoln memorial? We obviously worship Lincoln, because we have a statue of him. OR it was made to honor him. Furthermore, I want you to reflect on your relationship with God.

        When you love a person, do you say “I love you so much. I love you so much that I want to spend all my time with you. I never want to talk to your mother. I never want to see your family or friends. I want you to banish them when they come around, I just want to spend my whole life with you and love you.”

        Would you deny Jesus’ family and friends because you believe that they would not help you as your friends help you here on earth.

        Do you not believe in intercession, which pleases the Lord? (Tim. 2:1-4)

        Christ has touched my life, it is why I was confirmed as a Catholic. It is why I’ve saved both physical and spiritual lives. I don’t say this to boast, I say this to tell you that I am not just some child arguing on the internet; I am not an uneducated or nonspiritual individual who has not seen the light. On the contrary, I sit here before you with both knowledge and experience. I’m simply trying to help you see the truth.

        God Bless (and God bless your son :))

    2. Joshua,

      My parents named me and my brothers with Biblical names, I’m proud to have it.

      My Comment: We have something in common then. I am the middle of 5 siblings, and both of my sisters and brothers have biblical names.

      Your Comment: “The Bible says: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,(end.) By making this argument, you claim that Jesus himself has sinned.

      My Comment: Jesus is holy, sinless, blameless, our King, is the Son of God, and so much more. I would never ever claim that Jesus himself has sinned. He died on the cross for our sins, so we can be saved. To claim, otherwise would be really wrong.

      Your Comment: I am weary to trust anyone who claims to be as wise as God and have “visions” that conveniently deconstruct the very Church Jesus ask Peter to establish. How can I know that your source is true, how can you even know?

      My Comment: If you reread, my first comment you can see that I said I would NEVER be worthy to be in the presence of Christ. I would never consider myself worthy enough to be in Christ’s holy presence. And if I do not consider myself worthy enough, why would I ever say that I’m as wise as God? That is also something that would NEVER come out of my mind, and something I would ever think. God is all knowing, holy, the creator of all things. No one on earth, nor below, nor the heavens above is as wise as God.

      Your Comment: Will you then, tear down the Lincoln memorial? We obviously worship Lincoln, because we have a statue of him. OR it was made to honor him. Furthermore, I want you to reflect on your relationship with God.

      My Comment: I don’t believe in statues period. I have never understood the purpose of building one, especially when Christ is alive and coming soon.

      Your Comment: I don’t say this to boast, I say this to tell you that I am not just some child arguing on the internet; I am not an uneducated or nonspiritual individual who has not seen the light. On the contrary, I sit here before you with both knowledge and experience. I’m simply trying to help you see the truth.

      My comment: Arguing is a harsh word. Debate is more like it. I have seen the truth Joshua. And I thank Jesus Christ everyday for showing me the truth. For being in my life. I only pray that you see the huge differences between the Catholic church, and a beliver in Christ. As Ivar has posted many articles on his blog, their are many differences, and the Catholic church has alot to answer for.

      God Bless.

    3. Joshua,

      Why don’t you still not understand about intercession?
      You can ask your mother to pray for you, but you don’t get on your knees and say a prayer made just for your mother and ask her to ask Jesus for something.
      All those who believe and obey Jesus are called saints. And the Bible does not tell us to worship, nor venerate anyone but God.
      Did not the scripture of what Peter said to Cornelius have any affect on you?
      Did not the scripture I gave about what the angel said to John have any affect on you?

      And why do you bring up a statue of Lincoln? Do people bow down and pray in front the statue to Lincoln?
      Do you not know that the Catholics are supposed bow to the “Holy Images” images of what they say Jesus and Mary look like.

      I really want you to answer these questions to you that I ask.
      Why don’t you love God’s Word and obey what Jesus commands?

      1. Sorry to interpret,
        victoria would you please stop all these words? You told josuah that you were a devout catholic isn’t?poor fellow you never knew anything about catholism.and above all I will never tollerate if someone speak against my loving mother.
        god bless

      2. Dear rosemary zou

        Shalom, and love in Jesus of the Bible.

        You wrote:

        I will never tollerate if someone speak against my loving mother.

        My reply:

        I did not know, that you lived 2.000 years ago? Miriam was a Jewess. She was the mother of Jesus the Messiah, and had a lot of children. If you are one of them, she can at least not be EVER VIRGIN……Just spend some time reflecting on this.

  8. The reason the Catholic church goes to great lengths to oppose the idea of Jesus having brothers and sisters is because of the doctrine of their sinless, ever virgin queen of heaven. If the text of the Bible referred to anyone else there would be no problem understanding the plain meaning of the words. Also, if the queen of heaven were such an important doctrine there would seem to be some mention of it in the New Testament. The only place the Bible speaks of a “queen of heaven” is in Jeremiah Chapters 7 and 44.

    Jeremiah 7:17 Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem?
    Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

    They did it in Egypt also, Jeremiah 44:15-28

    The Catholic church has painted itself into a corner with this and other doctrines and there is no way out, except through repentance and acknowledging of the truth. I don’t see that happening, on a church wide scale, but on an individual level the Lord does lead people out of that place. Paul knew what would happen after he was gone.

    Act 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
    Act 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.
    Act 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
    Act 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
    Act 20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
    Act 20:31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

    When you look at the Catholic church you are staring this in the face. Remember too that Paul declared unto us “all the counsel of God”. We don’t need Catholic or Mormon or Islamic or any other additions.

  9. Not putting a lot of effort into this one. Arguing with Catholics is like arguing with stupid. And, you can’t fix stupid. Proverbs 12:1 “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates correction is stupid.” And Catholics will not be corrected neither by the 10 commandments or the testimony of Jesus, as Jesus says men should be. They exalt themselves, their priests and their pope above the word of God in every way imagineable, and still working on ways not yet imagined.

    What’s so hard to figure out about things like “thou shalt not make graven images” or calling the Pope “holy father”, or just seeing the plain and simple truth like Ivar here tries to expose. Most times when he isn’t totally biased into saying things to defend Isreal.

    But anyway, something to add to this arguement. It says in scripture the sins of the father are passed down to the 3rd and 4th generation. Since Jesus’ father was the holy spirit (correct?) he would have been born at least with a whole lot less sin than most or sinless depending on whats inherited by the mother.

    1. Good Morning Ed,

      You said: Not putting a lot of effort into this one. Arguing with Catholics is like arguing with stupid.

      My Comment: We must speak the Word of God with respect to others. Calling names isn’t going to get anyone to see the truth of Christ. The bible says in 2 Timothy 2:24 The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged,

      Jesus Christ has told us the way we should treat those who do not believe. You quote Proverbs 12:1 BUT the bible does not tell us to call someone stupid, if we are to correct them. In 2 Timothy 2:24: the bible does say how we should treat others.

      God Bless you Ed.

    2. Ed,
      Even as a young child of about 12, from what I read of the Bible, it was obvious to me that the Catholic Church was not doing right by calling the priests “Father” and making statues, let alone bowing to the “Holy Images.”
      People just seem to want to ignore the truth. Maybe they think there is a good explanation; yet there is none. There is no good reason to do what God says not to, even when it seems the people mean well.

      As for what you wonder about Jesus, Jesus was without sin.
      In John chapter 8:45-46 Jesus said, “Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? He who belongs to God hears what God says. . .”
      1 John 3:5 says, “. . . And in him is no sin.”

      1 Peter 2:22 says, “He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

      Jesus could be without sin because he is the Son of God.

      If you want to say that Jesus was without sin because also of Mary was without sin…then you would have to say her mother, and her grandmother, and so on were without sin. And the most important part is—that’s not biblical. Let’s stay with God’s word, and not wander off to the left or right, nor beyond what is written.

      1. Here is another scripture that I would like to share about Jesus being without sin.

        Hebrews 4:15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.

      2. Victoria,

        I must ask you, why do you turn yourself from the truth. Why do you fight it like a dog who grips a rag in it’s jaws? Why do you not just accept that I’ve given you both scripture proof and common sense?

        I’ve given you scripture about Mary already,
        counter that before we can move on.

        Furthermore, I was not claiming Jesus had sinned, I was claiming that to make a broad statement off of the scripture line given was completely false if you believed Jesus was sinless.

        God Bless

      3. Joshua,

        I guess if they call Jesus bad names…then I should expect you to call me a dog.

        And, that post I gave about Jesus being sinless, that post was directed to Ed.

        I see you have trouble following along.

        God bless.

    3. Ed,

      It’s true, protestants do love making up their own rules to suit their needs. Why’d you fraction off in to other “churches” in the first place? Because being Catholic is hard and following the truth is hard.

      It’s easy to call us stupid because you’ve been brainwashed by the Protestant hate machine. You have been given false information, and you arrogantly tout it as fact.

      It’s like if I pointed to a man stealing and said: “This is a bad man, he is stealing, and therefore, he’s fallen from God’s grace.” The superficial view I’ve seen again and again would say: “Yes, this man is stealing and that is bad.” But, if I were to say, that man is stealing food or medicine for his starving or sick kids, and therefore putting himself at risk to help his poor family, you would say I’m looking to far into the situation, like we Catholics do.

      I know I’m going to get a bunch of “LALALALA CAN’T HEAR YOU.” from you, so I’ll make this quick:

      “Catholics worship statues”
      “And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be” (Ex. 25:18–20).

      “for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan” (1 Chr. 28:18–19)

      “On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim.” Ezekiel 41:17–18

      “make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live” (Num. 21:8–9)

      Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.
      If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these “graven” images, they would be practicing the “idolatry” of which they accuse Catholics.

      It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named “Nehushtan”), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4)

      “B-b-b-…you BOW to your statues.” We’ve been through this many times, what you call “worship” we call “honor.” We don’t worship images, simple as that. You can accept this because all Catholics have, or you can accept the hate that’s been taught to you to turn you from the truth.

      You may claim we “hide” the ten commandments. But we do no more than anyone else does. There were 14 statements for the ten commandments (Exodus 20:2–17) and some of them have been combined so that we may remember them. Jews and other denominations have done the same.

      Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, “I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

      Peter followed the same custom, referring to Mark as his son: “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13). The apostles sometimes referred to entire churches under their care as their children. Paul writes, “Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you; for children ought not to lay up for their parents, but parents for their children” (2 Cor. 12:14); and, “My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you!” (Gal. 4:19).

      Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men” (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.

      He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

      Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

      Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

      Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

      As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

      Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.

      This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.
      He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

      John said, “My little children, I am writing this to you so that you may not sin; but if any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1); “No greater joy can I have than this, to hear that my children follow the truth” (3 John 4). In fact, John also addresses men in his congregations as “fathers” (1 John 2:13–14).

      I would attempt at reading the Bible before you enter these discussions, Ed.

      1. Joshua,

        Paul was of the first Apostles, and he was older.
        But no where does Paul tell anyone to call him “Father.” No where.
        The believers called each other “brother” and “sister.” There are many scriptures I can show you this.
        In fact, we are told not to call any one “Father,” let alone “Holy Father”!

        You quoted scripture of God telling how to make the gold cheribum in the temple… God did not tell Catholics to make statutes of Jesus, Mary, and other saints and Popes. That is man-made decision.
        We must obey God, and not man.

        What don’t you get about it being wrong to bow to statues and pictures of Jesus, and Mary, etc?
        What don’t you get about it being wrong when the current Pope crowns the statue of baby Jesus and Mary, calling it the “highest honor”?

        Why is it okay for the priest to bow profoundly to the images at the altar, and also incensing them…yet, the bronze snake that Moses made was destroyed because the Israelites burned incense to it?

        Why did Peter make Cornelius stand up when he fell at his feet in reverence? Yet, the Catholic Pope accepts, and expects people to bow down and kiss his feet?

        Please answer these questions of why you belong to a church that goes against the Word of God?

        Here is some things for you to read from the Catholic site the NewAdvent.org.

        In both East and West the reverence we pay to images has crystallized into formal ritual. In the Latin Rite the priest is commanded to bow to the cross in the sacristy before he leaves it to say Mass (“Ritus servandus” in the Missal, II, 1); he bows again profoundly “to the altar or the image of the crucifix placed upon it” when he begins Mass (ibid., II, 2); he begins incensing the altar by incensing the crucifix on it (IV, 4), and bows to it every time he passes it (ibid.); he also incenses any relics or images of saints that may be on the altar (ibid.). In the same way many such commands throughout our rubrics show that always a reverence is to be paid to the cross or images of saints whenever we approach them.

        Here is more:

        Symbolism and manner of incensing
        Incense, with its sweet-smelling perfume and high-ascending smoke, is typical of the good Christian’s prayer, which, enkindled in the heart by the fire of God’s love and exhaling the odour of Christ, rises up a pleasing offering in His sight (cf. Amalarius, “De eccles. officiis” in P.L., CV). Incensing is the act of imparting the odour of incense. The censer is held in the right hand at the height of the breast, and grasped by the chain near the cover; the left hand, holding the top of the chain, is placed on the breast.

        The censer is then raised upwards to the height of the eyes, given an outward motion and slightly ascending towards the object to be incensed, and at once brought back to the starting point. This constitutes a single swing. For a double swing the outward motion should be repeated, the second movement being more pronounced than the first. The dignity of the person or thing will determine whether the swing is to be single or double, and also whether one swing or more are to be given. The incense-boat is the vessel containing the incense for immediate use. It is so called from its shape. It is generally carried by the thurifer in the disengaged hand.

        Please, Joshua, tell me why you do what God does not like?

  10. Joshua,

    Do you realize that the Catholic religion is full of idols? Here are more things for you to consider carefully.

    Ho 4:16 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee,…

    Check this out—

    The traditional Roman house would have a pool of water called an Impluvium which would be used as a baptismal font.

    About idols to God? Check on this…Ezekiel 20:32 and 20:40

    No longer bow down to the work of your hands (see Micah 5:13)

    Hosea 14:8. Isaiah 44:9. No idols.

    1 Corinthians 10:14-17 (Idol Feasts and the Lord’s Supper.)

    1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourself form idols.

    1 Thessalonians 1:9 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.

    1. In the above post I made, I started to talk about infant baptism, but forgot to delete the sentence since the topic of baptism is probably too much right now in this discussion. The practice of infant baptism is important, though. Hopefully we can discuss this further with Joshua.

      (Ivar, it would be nice if we had an edit button.lol)

      1. Dear Victoria.

        Shalom.

        I have been traveling, and have not been active commenting for the last days. But I have to say you are one of my sisters who impress me with your wisdom and knowledge. You are a blessing to Joshua, by guiding him, loving him, and telling him the truth about Jesus.

  11. I’ve found in the Bible that there is just one scripture, if believed and obeyed, could stop some false religions and some false doctrine from even beginning. Thank You God, Father in heaven, for Your Powerful Word, Jesus Christ. Amen.

    Here is a scripture that should expose the Catholic Religion.

    Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.

    Catholics have a Pope. Pope means ‘father’. And the Catholics even call their Pope ‘Holy Father’. ‘Holy Father’ is a name only to be said to God. Not only do the Catholic parishioners call the Pope and priests ‘father,’ the Pope and priests call each other ‘father’. Jesus said not to call any one on earth ‘father’ and that they are all brothers. There are many other false doctrines in the Catholic religion, but starting from the top of their religion— the Pope, that should be enough to stop there with that religion.

    Here are more easy scriptures to refute the Catholic teachings:

    Here is a passage to show why NOT to make statues. Deuteronomy 4:15-17.
    Here is one scripture to show NOT to call Mary a “Mediatrix”. 1 Timothy 2:5.
    Here are scriptures to show why not to say Mary was sinless. Romans 3:23.
    Here are scriptures to show that their isn’t real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64.
    Here is a scripture to show that we don’t pray to priests in confessionals. Matthew 27:51.
    Here is a scripture to show that infant baptism isn’t biblical. Acts 2:38.
    Here is a scripture that shows not to venerate relics. 1 Corinthians 10:14.

    1. Everyone,

      I can’t say I can be more clear to you all. You put words in my mouth, you tell me what I believe, and you don’t accept the scripture support I give you. I’ve come to the point where I’m basically forced to copy and paste old arguments so they be re-read by you.

      I mention that we don’t commit Idolatry by having statues around, just like you don’t worship public figures’ statues when you walk by them. Victoria doesn’t even see the relevance. She finds it foreign for me to find a link between a statue of a public figure and a religious statue. This is because she doesn’t (initially) believe that the presence of a statue is a problem. Then, as though she’s “seen the light” she starts quoting scripture out of context to talk against statues.

      This is all so you can prove that we commit idolatry, you are telling ME what I believe. What do I have to do to prove this is false? Do I have to quote Popes? Do I have to quote our doctrine? Both prohibit what you claim we support. I will not humor this ignorance further.

      Victoria, you said:
      “Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”

      To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.”

      In fact, to forbid it would rob the address “Father” of its meaning when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of earthly fatherhood.

      But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those with whom we have a special relationship.

      For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: “So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8).

      Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: “I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know” (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: “In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah” (Is. 22:20–21).

      This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).

      Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love “the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men” (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their g.asping after marks of status and prestige.

      He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.

      Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

      Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is saying.

      Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

      As the apostolic example shows, some individuals genuinely do have a spiritual fatherhood, meaning that they can be referred to as spiritual fathers. What must not be done is to confuse their form of spiritual paternity with that of God. Ultimately, God is our supreme protector, provider, and instructor. Correspondingly, it is wrong to view any individual other than God as having these roles.

      Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.

      This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

      He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

      The New Testament is filled with examples of and references to spiritual father-son and father-child relationships. Many people are not aware just how common these are, so it is worth quoting some of them here.

      Paul regularly referred to Timothy as his child: “Therefore I sent to you Timothy, my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ” (1 Cor. 4:17); “To Timothy, my true child in the faith: grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (1 Tim. 1:2); “To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord” (2 Tim. 1:2).

      He also referred to Timothy as his son: “This charge I commit to you, Timothy, my son, in accordance with the prophetic utterances which pointed to you, that inspired by them you may wage the good warfare” (1 Tim 1:18); “You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 2:1); “But Timothy’s worth you know, how as a son with a father he has served with me in the gospel” (Phil. 2:22).

      Paul also referred to other of his converts in this way: “To Titus, my true child in a common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior” (Titus 1:4); “I appeal to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become in my imprisonment” (Philem. 10). None of these men were Paul’s literal, biological sons. Rather, Paul is emphasizing his spiritual fatherhood with them.

      (There, repeating old arguments)

      “Here is one scripture to show NOT to call Mary a “Mediatrix”. 1 Timothy 2:5.”

      The idea that Jesus alone can mediate grace actually contradicts Scripture: Ephesians 4:29 tells us that you and I are to “impart grace” to others by our words. As members of the body of Christ, we are called to “impart” (or mediate) grace in a variety of ways, including ministries of healing, teaching, and prayer.

      The key to a correct understanding of 1 Timothy 2:5 is to see that the one mediator stands “between God and men.” Only Jesus Christ can stand for us before God and gain our salvation and all grace. But what he has gained can be distributed from man to man among the members of his body. What he gives to me, I can, by his power, share with you, and vice versa. In fact, we experience this on a daily basis.

      In calling Mary the Mediatrix of all graces, the Church does not mean that she is a rival for Jesus’ unique place. Vatican II clarified the Church’s position on 1 Timothy 2:5–6:
      The maternal duty of Mary toward men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ but rather shows its power. For all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on men originate not from some inner necessity but from the divine pleasure. They flow from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rest on his mediation, depend entirely on it, and draw all their power from it. In no way do they impede the immediate union of the faithful with Christ. Rather, they foster this union. (LG 60)

      Christ makes it possible for Mary to mediate grace and desires her to do so because he has planned it that way.

      “Here are scriptures to show why not to say Mary was sinless. Romans 3:23.”

      This has already been attempted, Victoria. By claiming the literal translation of this scripture, you are claiming Jesus sinned. Otherwise you are claiming he is not human.

      Vic:”Here are scriptures to show that their isn’t real presence in the bread and wine. John 6:60-64.”

      “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52)

      His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56)

      Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

      Vic:”Here is a scripture to show that we don’t pray to priests in confessionals. Matthew 27:51.”

      “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

      Minor or venial sins can be confessed directly to God, but for grave or mortal sins, which crush the spiritual life out of the soul, God has instituted a different means for obtaining forgiveness—the sacrament known popularly as confession, penance, or reconciliation.

      This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8; note the plural “men”). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–23).

      Vic:”Here is a scripture to show that infant baptism isn’t biblical. Acts 2:38″

      Nothing in the scripture says infant baptism is wrong. Furthermore, you can’t talk to a Catholic about infant Baptism without talking about Confirmation. Confirmation is the completion of Catholic Babtism, the point where we accept our place in the Church and confirm our beliefs in Jesus, God, and all the teachings that follow. Protestants may analog this to “being saved.”

      For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39). We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between baptism and salvation, a
      connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21: “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

      Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

      Vic:”Here is a scripture that shows not to venerate relics. 1 Corinthians 10:14.”

      Again, this talks of Idolatry (not relics specifically), something I mentioned before that I will not humor anymore because y’all have that false understanding in your minds and will not be swayed by scripture or doctrine I show you.

      I would, however, like to say that I am learning quite a bit. I’m learning a lot about the misconceptions everyone is taught about Catholics and I am enjoying leading you all back to the one true Church Jesus established. I think there are few greater purposes.

      God Bless all!

      1. Joshua,

        We do not have to go to a priest to confess our sins—the curtain was torn (see Matthew 27:51). The Jewish people would go to confess their sins to a priest, and they could not go beyond the curtain, where the priest was. Now see Matthew 27:50-51…

        50And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

        51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.

        We don’t have to go to a Catholic priest in a confessional or otherwise. We go to Jesus.

        You can’t seem to understand that the Catholic priests and Popes are not Apostles. They did not lay the foundation. The foundation is laid by the Apostles and Prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. And what they preached—God also testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.
        We have the word of God in the Holy Bible.
        The Catholic Popes and Bishops cannot add to the word of God. They teach and practice many false beliefs and doctrines that came from their own minds. They hinder people from being saved.

        Jesus tells his disciples not to call anyone “father.”
        The Catholic’s call all their priests and Popes “father.” Not only do the Catholics call them “father,” the priests call each other “father.” Jesus says that they are “brothers.”
        It is plain, but you do not see it.

        And you put up with it well enough for the Pope to be called “Holy Father,” a name only to be said of God.

        Also, more again about Paul refering to himself as a father figure… Paul did NOT tell anyone to call him “father.”
        Paul is an Apostle, and he was older than Timothy and Titus (see scriptures you quoted Paul).
        The Catholic priests are not Apostles; also, they do not care if the Catholic priest is older or younger…all are “father.”

        In 1 Corinthians 1:15, Paul says to the believers in Corinth that they do not have many fathers in Christ….

        15Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.

        But we can see how this is opposite of the Catholic religion. The Catholic religion calls all their priests “father.” There must be tens of thousands of fathers in the Catholic religion. This is yet another scripture that shows the Catholic religion goes against the Word of God.

        And you don’t seem bothered at all that in your religion it is commanded to bow to the statues and pictures of Jesus, Mary, and Catholic saints.
        You even compare the statues to the statue of Lincoln, to whom no one is commanded to bow to.
        Let’s see what Isaiah says about those who defend statues, as you do…

        Isaiah 44

        9 All who make idols are nothing,
        and the things they treasure are worthless.
        Those who would speak up for them are blind;
        they are ignorant, to their own shame.

        10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
        which can profit him nothing?

        11 He and his kind will be put to shame;
        craftsmen are nothing but men.
        Let them all come together and take their stand;
        they will be brought down to terror and infamy.

        You deny that the Catholic religion is full of idols. You even venerate relics, and refuse to admit that venerating relics makes for an idol.
        Please go back to the scriptures I gave about keeping ourselves from idols.

        It seems you only want to repeat the same thing over and over. But I still give you more time with these same topics. But now I am done talking to you about this. I would like come back later and talk to you about baptism, and then about the bread and wine.

      2. Victoria,

        I’m glad to see you’ve accepted that we do not commit idolatry and that our images are no more harmful than the ones commanded by God like I mentioned. Thank you for accepting the truth, that’s all I was asking.

        You did, however mention you disagree regarding the priests being referred to as Father. I would invite you to read what I wrote above. I know it’s long, but you should read. If you have read, I’ll bring up points that you have remade here and I have refuted:

        “Jesus tells his disciples not to call anyone “father.”
        The Catholic’s call all their priests and Popes “father.” Not only do the Catholics call them “father,” the priests call each other “father.” Jesus says that they are “brothers.”
        It is plain, but you do not see it.”

        I said: “Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word ‘father.’…This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, “My father, my father!” to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).”

        I find it convienient that you (supposedly) refute one of my scripture lines, yet you ignore all the others. How many examples did I give? Five?

        I also find it interesting that you have misquoted the Bible. Where?

        Here’s what 1 Corinthians 1:15 says: “so no one can say that you were baptized into my name.”

        What you claim it says:”even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.”

        Maybe you mean 1 Cor 4:15-16, which ironically proves my point:”Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. Therefore I urge you to imitate me.”

        Verse 15 defines the relationship Paul considers himself to have with the Corinthians. He is their spiritual father, not their guardian. The word translated “guardians” here was used of slaves whose job it was to take the master’s children to and from school. This person was responsible to protect the child from evil influences and associates and from physical and moral harm. He was to see to it that the child arrived at school and later at home on time. These responsibilities are all concerns of a father, but for the guardian it was a job. Guardians could come and go. A person could have dozens of them while growing up. To make his point Paul exaggerated – a person could have myriads (the Greek word for ten thousand) of guardians. In contrast, however, a person has only one father. There is one for whom care, protection, and nurture are not a job, but the heartbeat. We could easily consider either father or mother or both fulfilling the description, but since Paul was referring to his own relationship to the Corinthians he used the term, father.

        Furthermore, he asked for them to imitate him. Sound a lot like he wants more spiritual fathers and less guardians does it not? This was a time when the Church was starting and there was a problem in Corinth, Paul was referring to the fact that there are not many spiritual fathers, or people of significant leadership currently and they need to fix that.

        Context, Victoria, is important.

        God Bless

      3. Joshua,

        You said:

        “I’m glad to see you’ve accepted that we do not commit idolatry and that our images are no more harmful than the ones commanded by God like I mentioned. Thank you for accepting the truth, that’s all I was asking.”

        Are you really that confused? Or are you just trying to throw other readers into confusion?
        Let me say it more direct then…
        The Catholic religion commits idolatry with images and relics, they do that and other harmful things.

      4. Dear Victoria.

        Shalom.

        For a billion Roman Catholics it is a every day puzzle what Jesus meant, when He said we should not call anyone “father” on Earth, but have only one father in Heaven. The Catholic Church is so puzzled with this, that they raises the possibility that three billion Children sin every day, by calling their biological father for “father”. But calling their priests for “father” is ok.

        You really have to be spiritual blind not being able to understand what Jesus is trying to tell.

        The Pope is a man of lawlessness. He preaches like the serpent in the garden, leading people into sin with a simple smoke screen: – Has God really said?

      5. Victoria,

        I must have misunderstood you, or you me when I said that I would not humor these lies further. Again, you have lost your basis for your idolatry argument when your scripture verses were refuted and you refused to bring any more evidence. I assumed since you stopped this conversation, you must have accepted that you were wrong.

        May I ask what denomination of perfection you hail from? I’ll admit that you have quite a bit to say about the church, what of your views? I’m predicting non-denominational, which, to me, is a way of saying “I like interpreting the bible in whatever way makes my life convenient.”

        I understand, it’s hard to accept the truth that I’ve shown you, and I know you struggle with the fact that Catholics don’t do the terrible things you want to believe we do. I hope you see the truth in these matters.

        God Bless

      6. Joshua you write: I understand, it’s hard to accept the truth that I’ve shown you, and I know you struggle with the fact that Catholics don’t do the terrible things you want to believe we do. I hope you see the truth in these matters.

        My Comment: Apparently you haven’t searched this blog. There are articles which show exactly what catholics do.
        and one of them is promoting witchcraft.

        https://ivarfjeld.wordpress.com/2010/10/10/bible-lesson-7-catholic-bible-promotes-witchcraft-holy-bible-exludes-seven-catholic-books/

      7. Gloria,

        I read the article, here are some problems with it:

        Ivan refers to our “church fathers” not approving Tobias. How about the Council of Carthage that declared it canonical in 397 A.D?

        And the witchcraft he talks about? How about by his argument Mark 6:13, 2 Kings 2:21,2 Kings 5:10, Mark 8:23, John 9:6 and Luke 10:34 are all witchcraft.

        You may say that it was Gods power in those scriptures.

        Get this, Tobit 12:14
        “And now the Lord hath sent me to heal thee, and to deliver Sara thy son’s wife from the devil.”

        It was the Lord’s power, not magic that the book referred to.

        Far from presenting an exercise in magic, Tobit presents the ancient Christological symbol of the fish (who is, in Tobit 6:3, literally a catcher of men) salted and roasted on coals (as Christ was scourged and roasted in the sun on the cross) in order to destroy the power of a murderous demon and drive him away from a virginal bride. The fish is used to heal a blind man (cf. John 9) by making things like scales fall from his eyes (cf. Acts 10:18).

        Furthermore, he does not add a citation for his “False” messiah.

        God Bless

      8. Joshua,

        Are you kidding me? You compare the falseness of Stuff like this in the Tobit: 6:17-18: «When you enter the bridal chamber, take some of the fish’s liver and heart, and put them on the embers of the incense. An odor will be given off; the demon will smell it and flee, and will never be seen near her any more».

        You compare it to God Holy Word Mark 6:

        Jesus Sends Out the Twelve

        Then Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evilb spirits.

        8These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

        12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

        Now you really are spiritually blind, if you think that something like Tobit and it’s fish advice could drive out demons.

        I take it you have never seen someone possessed? Yeah, yeah…you don’t want to hear about my experiences. But guess what? Only Jesus Christ, only his power, his authority, and his name can drive our demons.

        Ephesians 6:12-18

        12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

        13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

        14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

        15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

        16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

        17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

        18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

        Now, I have gave you enough time. I do hope you at least think on what I have said, and search God for the truth.

        I have some work to do, before I tend to my kids, and it is getting late.

        God Bless Joshua.

      9. Gloria,

        Then you deny that an Angel of God can not drive out demons? Are you so blinded by the hate you’ve been taught that you must take offense when Ivan refers to Jesus’s works as witchcraft?

        You didn’t even talk about the other scriptures when Men used similar techniques to heal others. You say I am blind, but you don’t even see what I say.

        It’s hard to change, I know. It’s hard to hear that the definition of witchcraft is supernatural powers granted by Satan, and yet here is an Angel doing these things. You can now teach your children the Raphael, an archangel, is a tool of the devil.

        God Bless

      10. Joshua,

        Your Comment: Then you deny that an Angel of God can not drive out demons? Are you so blinded by the hate you’ve been taught that you must take offense when Ivan refers to Jesus’s works as witchcraft?

        My Comment: An Angel of God can drive out demons by the AUTHORITY OF CHRIST. A believer of Christ can drive out demons BY THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST. Do you understand what that means? AUTHORITY OF CHRIST? You cannot drive out demons, by any other authority because they will simply laugh at your face. The bible says even the demons believe and tremble.

        Your Comment: You can now teach your children the Raphael, an archangel, is a tool of the devil.

        My Comment: Joshua, since your now veering off the subject completely by spouting nonsense, I will no longer comment to any of your responses. What I teach my children is that JESUS CHRIST shed his blood, so that those who believe in him, their sins are forgiven, and will not perish. That is what I teach my children.

        You on the otherhand will continue to be spiritually blind. I believe I’ve never met such a hard headed person before. You are the first.

        In any case, I wish you the best. And whether you continue to spout your nonsense or not, Christ does love you. Christ wants to forgive you. All you have to do is believe.

        I leave you with this:

        Matthew 7:21-23
        “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

      11. Joshua,

        You said:

        “Nothing in the scripture says infant baptism is wrong. Furthermore, you can’t talk to a Catholic about infant Baptism without talking about Confirmation. Confirmation is the completion of Catholic Babtism, the point where we accept our place in the Church and confirm our beliefs in Jesus, God, and all the teachings that follow.”

        Infant baptism isn’t biblical, neither is the Catholic’s “confirmation.”

        You quoted this scripture from Acts as support for the Catholic’s false doctrine of infant baptism…

        For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him” (2:39).

        So how many infants do you know who can call on the Lord?

        You also falsely claim that baptism replaces circumcision.
        Circumcision was an outward sign separating a nation unto God.
        Now we are separated to God by faith in his Son.

        You say:
        “We also read: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to adults.”

        So I ask you, how does the infant rise to be baptized?

      12. Joshua, and any Catholics who might be reading;

        Many Catholics try to use Matthew 19:13-14 to support their false doctrine of infant baptism.

        13Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them.
        14Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there.

        If the disciples were baptizing infants, as the Catholics claim, why do you think the disciples rebuked the people who brought the little children?
        And, why did Jesus place his hands on them but not baptize them?

        You see, infant baptism is not biblical. Infact, infant baptism goes against the Word of God.

        Peter says that baptism is a pledge of a “good conscience toward God.”
        Isn’t that plain enough for you? Baptism is a pledge of a good conscience toward God.
        Infants and little children can’t make a pledge of a good conscience toward God.

        1 Peter 3:21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

        See Romans 6:4…
        Romans 6:4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

        We can see from Romans 6:4…when believers are baptized it illustrates death, and burial, and resurrection.

        Our old nature is to “die” and we are to be “buried with Him through baptism into death” and raised to live a “new life.” So we do not just try to be a better person, we bury the “old person” in the water and become a new person through our acceptance of Christ. It is like a new birth and a new beginning.

        Infants in the Catholic Church do not make this decision to be baptized, to “die” to their old self, to be “buried with Him through baptism into death.” Infants don’t even know about this “new life.”
        Catholic baptisms are not even normally by immersion.

        Infant baptism confuses many people and hinders their salvation. Some people never hear the Truth, but rather believe they are saved by their Catholic infant baptism.

      13. Dear Joshua

        Shalom.

        It is pretty obvious that its meaningless to have a debate about the truth found in the Bible, with someone who believe that the truth in the Bible is so hidden and deep that only Catholic priests can understand it.

        And they are the same person’s who make the Bible null and void, by demanding the only true “Christians” in the Catholic Church shall address them as “father”, a name Jesus has banned us from using on our priests. That the High Priest of Rome equalize him self with God, demanding to be called “The Holy Father” is a blunt blasphemy against the Word of God. It its the most brilliant example of falsehood beyond the possibility of repair and repentance.

    1. Gloria,

      I wanted to make a special post for you.

      Biblical Literalism is not a habit you want to develop. It’s a habit used by the lazy, the ignorant, and the stubborn. It is a technique developed so that people don’t need to research the bible, so they can have their own interpretation with no back up, and so they can refuse change. You don’t seem to fit any of these cases.

      Let me give you an example of the dangers of Biblical Literalism:

      Let us review the various versions of Colossians 1: 24 and compare them with its true translation:

      It makes me happy to be suffering for you now, and in my own body to make up all the hardships that still have to be undergone by Christ for the sake of His body, the Church – The New Jerusalem Bible

      Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church. – The Douay-Rheims Version

      Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church – The New American Bible

      It makes me happy to suffer for you, as I am suffering now, and in my own body to do what I can to make up all that has still be undergone by Christ for the sake of his body, the Church – Daily Roman Missal – English Edition prepared by Rev. James Socias, a devotee of Jose María Escrivá and his work.

      Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church: – King James Version

      The overall impression is that Christ’s suffering was incomplete. His passion, crucifixion and death just was not sufficient suffering – just “did not quite make it” – and Paul has now to “make up the difference.” This concept/translation is somewhere between blasphemy and heresy. However, in the most accurate translation of the original texts that we have found found we read:

      Now I enjoy the sufferings I endure because of you, and the suffering of Christ, which are still lacking in my flesh, are being fulfilled in favor of His Body, which is the Church. – Translated from the original Greek text by Msgr. Dr. Juan Straubinger

      As the reader can easily see, the suffering that was lacking was not Christ’s suffering but His suffering manifested in Paul’s flesh for the benefit of Christ’s Body, the Church. This is a tremendous difference from all other man centered versions.

      1. Joshua,

        For some reason in your words, I detect a note of annoyance or anger. Correct me if I’m wrong. No one here is not trying to listen to what you have to say. In essence, Ivar and the rest are trying to show you that Christ is the only way.

        You write: Biblical Literalism is not a habit you want to develop. It’s a habit used by the lazy, the ignorant, and the stubborn. It is a technique developed so that people don’t need to research the bible, so they can have their own interpretation with no back up, and so they can refuse change. You don’t seem to fit any of these cases.

        My comment: Where did you see me write anywhere that the Word of God is supposed to ALL of his words be taken in this literalism sense. Where? Because I said 1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourself form idols. is straight foward and to the point, does not mean that other verses of the bible would not require further studying of it’s meaning. To this day, I am reading the Word of God, still studying.

        I don’t have the right words to describe your long post to ‘everyone’.

        But here you say: “Victoria, you said:
        “Matthew 23:9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.” To understand why the charge does not work, one must first understand the use of the word “father” in reference to our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word “father.”

        My Comment: Your explanation is long, but I do think Victoria meant how catholics call the pope ‘father’ when there is only one father in heaven God. I do not think she meant calling a father figure Dad. I think it’s more how catholics elevate the word ‘father’ to the pope, in other words comparing him to the Holy Father (Christ), when there is no comparison at all. Because as you know there is only one God.

        All in all Joshua, we have given you the reasons as to why Jesus Christ is the only one you should believe in, and the only one who can save.

        We all have to make our own decisions, in chooosing who we serve. The choice we make reflects where we will spend eternity. It is a choice that should not be taken lightly. I have known about Christ my entire life, and Jesus has proven to me time and time again, how much he loves me, and how he forgives me for all I have done.

        I hope you find the truth, and I mean that in the sincerest way.

        God Bless you Joshua.

      2. Gloria,

        The only annoyance I have is the false claims that are getting made. Previously, you would say: “The Bible says X, Catholics do Y which contradicts X.” I would then tell you why either X or Y is misinterpreted. This has now generated down to “Catholics do Y, Y is bad, stop doing it.” This has no support anymore and I grow tired of telling others that their wrong only have them accuse me rather than make a case to me.

        You said:”Where did you see me write anywhere that the Word of God is supposed to ALL of his words be taken in this literalism sense.”

        Bilbical Literalism recognizes that some parts of the bible are either metaphorical or for parables, but that the great brunt of the word is literal and translated perfectly.

        You said in previous posts:”Notice the first few words: ALL SCRIPTURE IS BREATHED OUT BY GOD That alone says much. God is 100% correct in anyting. Having you won view on God’s words, is not believing in him at all.”

        “The Bible says: Romans 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,(end.) REREAD IT JOSHUA. ALL HAVE SINNED and fall short of the glory of God. The Bible does not add exceptions like Mary into God’s Word.”

        “1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourself form idols.

        Straight forward and to the point. That is God’s word.”

        These all Literalist views you’ve taken. You say there can be no context or translation that can sway this meaning. I refuted your first two points. I can concede to your last one if you admit that Catholics do not worship idols.

        Another danger of literalistic belief:
        1 John 5:19
        “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.”

        I could be told that this referred to the Catholic Church. A Literalistic aproach would prove them right. But there’s a problem, this scripture pre-dates the Catholic church. It is not prophetical, it is a statement separate from this time. Literalists would argue that I was looking “too far into it” that there is “no need for context” that “history doesn’t matter for the Bible.” This is ignorant and stubborn.

        As for what I mentioned to Victoria, I was actually counteracting her litteralist argument that when the Bible says “call no one Father,” by her argument, we could not call our own biological fathers “Father.” This is absurd to you, Victoria, and I because we all know better. However, that’s the very argument that is being made. I continue by mentioning spiritual fathers and how they are mentioned throughout the Bible.

        By your “Holy father” argument,Why do many Protestants call their ministers “Reverend,” an adjective that means “revered”? On the basis of your argument, shouldn’t the only one worthy of reverence be God himself? Why do many Protestants impart on their seminary students the title “Master of Divinity” to denote that this person has completed a step many Protestants deem necessary to being ordained to the clergy? How can any man master the Divine?

        This is, again, a term of respect for his calling to guide the Church.

        You said:”All in all Joshua, we have given you the reasons as to why Jesus Christ is the only one you should believe in, and the only one who can save.”

        I’ll give you the secret to “saving me:” Do what I have been doing. Prove that my proof is wrong before you start adding more. I have taken all of your scripture and proven why it is erroneous and I have provided scripture proof for my points. I feel like you are drained of your proof and you are now pleading for me to see your way when I have a foundation for my beliefs and I keep seeing yours dwindle.

        I will not be turned by pleas because I will not be begged from the path that I know is right. I will not be turned by your experience because my experience counters it. I will not be turned by your friends experiences because, again, my experience counters it.

        Your only tool with me is scripture and facts. Not emotion, not status, facts. If you believe you are absolutely correct, I should never be able to corner you; I should never be able to leave you without proof; I should wrestle with the futility of my claims because your base is too powerful to resist. If this is not happening, then it is not I who should be questioning what I believe.

        God Bless

      3. Dear Joshua.

        Shalom.

        You write long theological explanations on simple issues.

        Let me be brief:

        You wrote:

        By your “Holy father” argument, Why do many Protestants call their ministers “Reverend,” an adjective that means “revered”? On the basis of your argument, shouldn’t the only one worthy of reverence be God himself?

        My reply:

        It is useless to argue with people, who answer questions by issuing new questions. It is like talking to windmills. Please stop all this non sense, and take your paganism with you and go to another site. Even a six year old Child can read the Gospel, and understand that calling a priest for “father” is making Jesus of the Bible a liar.

        It is as simple as ABC.

      4. Ivan,

        I’m afraid I have to make long arguments when you all can’t look past the surface and see the depths of God’s word.

        I know it is useless to argue with me, because you have lost the basis for any argument. You’re clearly out matched since I have referenced scripture to back up every single one of my points. I write a lot because I have a lot going for me.

        I have so much proof in scripture that I can fill pages and pages with explanations, just because you cannot boast the same spiritual foundation does not put you in the position to liken my well founded interpretations to that of a child’s superficial view.

        I have proven with example upon example upon example, and I have refuted again and again your claims, especially about those involving calling priests “Father” and your last resort is to send me away because you know you have been out matched.

        Would you deny this? I’m sure you may, and I would be even less surprised to see you delete my posts or ban me from this site so that you may erase my arguments and you may blind those who may read your words.

        I would encourage this discussion. Those who are wavering in their faith can come here and see that your attempt to tear down the Church Jesus founded has no basis. They can see how your readers deviate from the word of God with their false interpretations and their lack of research. The can come and see that the truth is in the Catholic church.

        And your retort: I am but a child, with no understanding.

        Tsk Tsk.

      5. Dear Joshua.

        Shalom.

        We both have better things to do, than to continue to waist our time?

        You wrote:

        I’m afraid I have to make long arguments when you all can’t look past the surface and see the depths of God’s word.

        My reply:

        This is the clue. The Gospel is so easy to understand, that a fool shall not be able to perish. You just have to read it as a child, and believe what is written. ABC.

      6. Joshua,

        The only thing I can say to you is Jesus is the only one who can save anyone from their sins.

        Whether you believe it or not is up to you. Whether you choose to believe in Mary, the Pope is up to you. Again, we each have to make a choice on who we serve.

        You said: “1 John 5:21 Dear children, keep yourself form idols.

        Straight forward and to the point. That is God’s word.”

        These all Literalist views you’ve taken.

        My Comment: You can all it what you want, but the truth is the truth. No matter what you believe, God is the alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. There is no one else.

        Your Comment: I will not be turned by pleas because I will not be begged from the path that I know is right. I will not be turned by your experience because my experience counters it. I will not be turned by your friends experiences because, again, my experience counters it.

        My Comment: I am not drained at all, nor will I ever be, because I have been in the presense of Christ. And nothing in this world, nor below can match that experience. Not even yours.

        FYI: I am not Protestant. But calling someone Reverend isn’t the same as calling someone Holy Father, because you and me both know that the Pope, is a sinner like us all. And there is one who will forever be holy: Jesus Christ.

        God Bless you Joshua.

      7. Ivan,

        Then you do not see me as someone who is rejecting God’s word? I wouldn’t consider it a waste of time to try and bring someone to the truth.

        I do understand how weary you must be, I would find it difficult myself to argue with someone who is so well grounded in his faith and with knowledge that is a relentless pursuit of truth.

        I would encourage you to look into this though:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

        God Bless

      8. Gloria,

        Is the argument that we believe the Pope is without sin? I did not make this argument, nor is it in Catholic belief. I’m sure you will find a way to “read between the lines” with that though.

        I believe you are a good person Gloria, don’t think I doubt that. What are you if not protestant though, part of the eastern churches?

        God bless

      9. Joshua,

        You ask what I am?

        I believe in God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit (trinity) I believe that Christ died for my sins, and because of his great sacrifice, through the blood he shed, we can have eternal life in him. I believe that Christ is coming soon…very soon from the signs of the end times he has given us.

        I attend a church that believes in God’s word in the new and old testament. I attend a church that preaches Christ is coming soon.

      10. Joshua,

        You said: Fair enough, can you show me in the Bible where it mentions the trinity?

        My Comment: The bible does not mention the exact word the trinity. But the trinity (I use that word) is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The scripture does however support that they are three.

        Matthew Chapter 3: verse 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

        17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

        John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

        Acts 5:3,4 “… you have lied to the Holy Spirit … you have not lied to men, but to God.”

        If you need more verses, let me know.

        God Bless.

      11. I wanted to make a point, Gloria.

        Nowhere in the Bible does it specifically mention the Trinity, but it is widely accepted (not totally, by any means). The Trinity is man-made, yet you believe it and you have scripture to support it. This is a tradition you support, not unlike those of Catholics.

      12. Joshua,

        You make no point, because I backed up my words, with the Word of Christ. You say the trinity is man made? Do you not believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one. They will always be one, all you need to do is pick up the bible and believe.

      13. Gloria,

        Then you see my predicament? I give YOU Biblical proof and you claim that it’s only man made because “that’s not what was intended.” Because “nowhere in the bible can you find apostolic succession.” I give you proof and you tell me it’s not enough.

        You fall to a Christian tradition, yet you say it’s in the Bible. It’s not explicit, or how you say “literal.” Yet you and I believe it.

  12. Joshua,
    You said to Gloria:
    “Your only tool with me is scripture and facts. Not emotion, not status, facts. If you believe you are absolutely correct, I should never be able to corner you; I should never be able to leave you without proof; I should wrestle with the futility of my claims because your base is too powerful to resist. If this is not happening, then it is not I who should be questioning what I believe.”

    What kind of case is this for you? Did all believe Jesus? Did all believe the Apostles?

  13. Dear Ivarfjeld,

    thank u for this wonderful topic. I had always had fights with my girlfriend regarding this. My only point is…. Perpetual virgin or not… how does it matter to us? What difference does it make to us when the only thing we should be bothered about is Jesus? And I do not like the idea of praying to Mother Mary. Agreed she was the mother of God. But why do we need a medium to pray to God when he is directly accessible? Why do you have so many “Hail Marys” in the rosary than the prayer to Jesus? I do not get this at all. Coz it is clearly written that Mary was a special Human Being!! But we love her and respect her as Jesus’ mother. But thats just that.. Y give her this extra elevated status?

    1. Dear David.

      Shalom, and welcome to this site.

      You wrote:

      Agreed she was the mother of God.

      My reply:

      Can you please tell me the name of the grandmother of god?

    2. Hail Marys….Not only praying to the wrong person but also..

      Matthew 6:7 (KJV ver.)But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen [do]: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

      (New international ver.)

      “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.”

      1. You know will not find the word “Pope” in the Bible or the word “Trinity,” or the word “Incarnation” in the Bible. Yet, most protestants believe in both the term Trinity and the Incarnation.

        Just because a particular word is not found in the Bible, does not mean that we should not use that word or that the theology implied by that word is somehow unbiblical. The word “Bible” is not found in the Bible, so does that mean we should not believe in the Bible? Of course not.

        The fact of the matter is, even though the word “Pope” is not found directly in the Bible, the underlying meaning of that word is. The word “Pope” is derived from the Greek word, “pappas,” which means, “father” (Latinized as “papa”). In Isaiah 22, verses 19-24, we see God telling Shebna, who was the chief minister of the House of David, that he will be replaced in his office by Eliakim, and that Eliakim will have authority and will be a “father” [papa; pope] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah.

        Also in this passage, God says that Eliakim will have the key of the House of David and that he “shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open.”

        This passage from Isaiah was obviously on the Lord’s mind when he said to Peter, in Matthew 16:18-19, “And I tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church…I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

        Eliakim was the chief minister in the House of David. What is the new House of David? The Church. Who is the chief minister in the Church? Peter, and his successors – the Popes. Eliakim was given the key of the kingdom. Peter is given the keys of the kingdom. Eliakim had the authority to shut and to open. Peter had the authority to bind and loose. Eliakim was a father to the those in the House of David, just so Peter is a father to those in the new House of David – the Church.

        So, since Peter is a “father” to those in the Church, just as Eliakim was a “father” to those in the House of David; and the word “Pope” means “father;” then we can say that the underlying meaning of the word “Pope” is actually found in the Bible – right there in Isaiah 22. And, we can further say, that Catholic belief regarding the role of the Pope is also found right there in Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16, as well as in other parts of Scripture

  14. What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible? Did Mary have other children besides Jesus?

    The answer is No!! The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Yet, as you mention, the Bible does indeed mention the “brothers” of Jesus. Mark 6:3, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and the brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon…”

    The “brothers” of Jesus are clearly mentioned, and named, in the Bible. So, Mary must have had other children and the Catholic Church is wrong when it dogmatically teaches that she was a perpetual virgin, right? Well, not so fast.

    First of all, let’s look at Matthew 27:55-56. Here we see named some of the women who were at the Crucifixion. “There were also many women there, looking on from afar…among whom were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joses…” It seems that the James and Joses identified in Mark 6:3 as the “brothers” of Jesus, indeed had a mother named Mary, but it was not the same Mary who was the mother of Jesus.

    Furthermore, let’s look at Galatians 1:19. Paul is talking about when he went to Jerusalem to consult with the chief of the Apostles, Peter, and while there, “I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother.”

    So, we have James, the “brother” of Jesus as mentioned in Mark 6:3, and James, the “Lord’s brother,” as mentioned in Gal 1:19. And this time James, the Lord’s brother, is identified as an apostle. So, if I’m a Bible-only believer – in other words, if the Bible is my sole rule of faith when it comes to all things related to the Christian Faith – then I have to admit that the James in Mark 6:3 and the James in Gal 1:19 are the same James; after all, how many brothers named “James” would Jesus have?

    But there’s a problem for those who would say this James is the son of Mary, the mother of Jesus. You see, this James is clearly identified as an apostle. Yet, of the two apostles named James that we find in the list of the twelve apostles (e.g., Matthew 10:1-4), one of them had a father named Zebedee and the other had a father named Alphaeus – neither one of them had a father named Joseph! Which means, neither one of them was Jesus’ sibling. Neither one of them had the same mother as Jesus. So, the James mentioned in Mark 6:3 and Gal 1:19 as a “brother” of Jesus, is a brother in a broader sense of the word, he was not a brother in the sense of having the same parents.

    Now, Catholic tradition (small “t” tradition), often identifies the James in Galatians 1:19 as someone who was not one of the twelve apostles. However, someone who goes by the Bible alone and who does not put any stock in “tradition” cannot use the argument from tradition, because they only accept the Bible as the authority in matters Christian. So, using the Bible alone, one cannot argue that the James in Gal 1:19 is a “third” James who had at some point been named an apostle because the Bible nowhere mentions such a thing.

    So, when we look at the “brothers” of Jesus in the broader context of Scripture, rather than just focusing on Mark 6:3, we see that the argument against the perpetual virginity of Mary has no foundation in the Bible.

    1. Dear Henry.

      Shalom.

      You wrote:

      What is this about the “brothers” of Jesus in the Bible? Did Mary have other children besides Jesus? The Church teaches that Mary was a perpetual virgin….

      My comment:

      The Catholic Church claims to be smarter than God, and the Pope is the “god” of the Roman Catholics. The Church claim the Pope is infallible when he sit in his papal chair, and make statements on moral issues, and how to understand the scripture. Like the serpent in the garden, who confused Eve to sin, the Pope is the man of sin. A lawless man, who put him self above God. The Pope and his followers claims the Bible can only be understood by the Pope.

      Since the Bible plainly tell that Jewish Miriam had many children, you need to make a chose: Is God of the Bible your master, or is the Pope your ‘god”. Because one of them is a liar.

      The Pope has many times tried to act like ‘god”, and deceived man to believe in him. Like when the Roman Catholic Church claimed the Earth to be flat, and scientists who exposed the Pope to be a liar were arrested and put in prison.

      Only fools can believe in the papacy. And those who are spiritual blinded, and joins the truth-mockers. Miriam is not to “be hailed”. She was human, completely human. A sinner, and a mother of many children. This is the truth.

      1. OK?!?!…….

        The English name Mary is the transliteration of the Greek name Maria or Mariam, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew name Miriam.

        Couldn’t you just say Mary in English Dude!!!

        And you claim the Catholic Church is smarter than God, and the Pope is the “god” of the Roman Catholics….how you say such things?? Yes I know the Pope is Man and a sinner and so are you and myself.

        The dogma of the Immaculate Conception says this:

        “The Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved and exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privelege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race.”

        Mary was preserved by God through the merits of Christ Jesus her Son.

        Consider Psalm 51:5:

        Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.

        Was Christ then conceived in sin?

        So, if Mary is preserved from sin for Christ’s conception, then she violates Romans 3:23. If she isn’t, then she violates Psalm 51:5. What a conundrum!

        The Roman Catholic answer is that Mary is the same as you and i – just that at the moment of her conception God preserved her through Christ’s future work, and she was saved through Him just as you and I are. I still don’t see the blasphemy. I understand if you don’t believe it, but I can’t see blasphemy at all.

        You will never find a Catholic who worships the Pope. To say that God prevents the Pope from teaching error under certain conditions is not the same thing as saying the Pope is God and should be worshiped.

        In fact, I hope every good Christian Pastor prays that God will prevent him from teaching error. We might have a whole lot less opinion-mongering in our pulpits if that were to take place.

        My grounds for believing this is a false doctrine are manifold. They are historical, They are a matter of binding Christians to a Gospel not preached by the Apostles. My reasons are non-emotional. They are reasonable. They relate directly to what is Catholic doctrine.

        I believe it is counter productive to take a stand on any topic without knowledge of the state of that topic.

        Let us run as men with a purpose, not aimlessly as Paul said, “So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.”

        I make a lot of chess analogies. Here’s one more. In the middle-game tactics must serve a plan. If not you may make agressive looking moves that lose the game. Better to weigh the imbalances on the board and play the position you have as it is, using tactics toward an end.

        There are Catholics here who easily dismantle strawman argumentation. Arguing that way will disempower you.

  15. There existed no special word in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic for “cousin.” The word “brother” is used in these languages generically, and does not necessarily imply children of the same parent. There are many examples in the Old Testament when the word brother was applied to any kind of relations: nephew (Gen. 12, 5), uncle (Gen. 29, 15); husband (Songs. 4, 9); a member of the same tribe (2 Kgs. 9, 13); of the same people (Exod. 2, 21); an ally (Amos 1, 9); a friend (2 Kgs. 1, 26); one of the same office (1 Sam. 9, 13).10

    “But Matthew 1:25 states that Joseph had no relations with Mary until she bore a son. Wouldn’t that imply that he knew her afterward?”

    Before you move on to this objection, notice that the verse in question has changed. You have presented scriptural and historical evidence to support the Church’s interpretation. If the person that you are speaking with leaves Matthew 13:55 to rest, it may be a sign that he sees the incompleteness of the “brethren of the Lord” argument. This is a good sign, so follow his lead—so long as the conversation stays on topic. Zealous Protestants will have any number of objections to the faith, and, if you hope to make any progress, take only one topic at a time.

    Now, does Matthew’s use of “until” mean what your friend says it does? Not necessarily. The Greek word for “until” (heos) does not imply that Mary had marital relations after the birth of Christ. In 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child “until” the day of her death. (Rest assured that she didn’t have any children after that day, either.) Hebrews 1:13 and 1 Timothy 4:13 are similar examples.

    When we interpret any passage, we must consider what the author was trying to say. Matthew’s intent here is not to explain what happened after the birth of Christ. He is only concerned with the fact that Joseph and Mary had no relations before then. It is the virgin birth, not later siblings, that Matthew is concerned with.

    Mary had no other children. The “brother of the Lord” are cousins or relatives. We know for sure who the mother of at least two of them are. Matthew 13 mentions four of the “brothers”: James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

    According to the Bible, the Virgin Mary’s “sister” (actually her cousin) is the mother of two of these “brothers of the Lord”. If you turn to Matthew, chapter 27, vs. 56, we read that “Mary, the mother of James and Joseph” was present. If you compare this with the parallel Gospel accounts, you will find that this “Mary” is reported to be the Blessed Mother’s sister – “Mary wife of Cleophas”. So we know that James and Joseph are relatives of Jesus, but not sons of Jesus’ mother.

    The word “brother” that is used does not necessarily mean blood brother, but can also mean cousin, or kinsman. That is how it is used with the brothers of the Lord

    The first person to claim that Mary had other children was Helvidius the heretic, who used the same arguments of the Protestants today. St. Jerome wrote a letter agains him, which can be read here.

  16. In Jewish law, if you don’t consummate the marriage it is NOT A VALID MARRIAGE. This is also true for Christian marriage. Are you telling me Mary disobeyed God by not consummating the marriage and Joseph was to be sexless for life and pretend his wife was an angel without a body? Fairytale.
    Mary is not a goddess. She was an observant Jewish girl who obeyed Jewish law, bringing sin offerings. If she was sinless she wouldn’t offer a sin offering.
    Like I said all fairytales.

  17. Mary had planned to get married before the angel appeared to her and told her she was with child. Mary intended to be a wife to Joseph, a wife in every sense of the word.

  18. I don’t think Mary remaining a virgin is meant to denigrate the marital act or imply that it’s a preferred state over marriage, although throughout history some have taken that position.

    I think her perpetual virginity is meant to reinforce in our minds the uniqueness of her son Jesus and for one remove doubt from detractors that would conclude that it was possible Jesus’ birth was natural if she had other children.

    Also, much like our sacred vessels at Mass today where the paten and chalice can’t be used for ordinary purposes would it have been right for her womb to used for an “ordinary” purpose once it had contained the Son of God? The early Fathers stressed her virginity because it proved Christ’s divine origin.

    Further, one cannot isolate the Incarnation of Christ from other factors (i.e., His being born a Jew; His being born of a particular woman; that particular woman being a virgin before His birth and remaining a virgin after; that particular woman remaining virginal in the midst of a marriage). Marital intimacy is a beautiful affirmation of the covenant of marriage, but it would be a desecration to impregnate in the ordinary way for ordinary purposes a womb consecrated to God. Especially in Mary’s case God Himself consecrates her womb (as opposed to a human man consecrating a virgin to God). So the desecration violating what is holy would be unjust to God’s honor, to say the least. Contemplating the mystery of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary reveals not so much her prerogatives and her glorious role in Salvation History, but more reveals Who it is Who was born to such a mother.

  19. Henry,

    You are still ignoring the fact that Mary would be in sin not to give herself to her husband and that Joseph and Mary would not be in a valid marriage.

  20. Dear Henry,

    You say Mary was too holy to be ‘desecrated.’ Therefore, she must be sinless and a perpetual virgin.

    How is it you believe that if Jesus was in her womb, she had to be without sin and a Virgin. Yet, you believe Jesus is in the flesh in the Eucharist..you eat it and you still are a sinner and I presume married, and if not, can marry and consummate that marriage and still take communion in the catholic church.

    With your logic you should be perfect to receive Jesus inside your body, without sin. And we know this is not true. Yet, this is what the RCC said Mary had to be.

    Mary was a Jewish woman, obeying the scripture and Jewish law, bringing sin offerings..because all sinners need a Savior.

  21. How can i be illogical when you are saying “How is it you believe that if Jesus was in her womb, she had to be without sin and a Virgin….”

    A person who is a sinner gives birth a sinner and not a sinner give birth the Son of God which is illogical!!! How can a vessel of sin hold the Son of God?? You are not making any sense Sueliz1?

    Well if May was sinless, why did she need a redeemer in her son, Christ?

    The teaching is that not only did Mary need Christ as her redeemer – she needed him MORE than anyone else, because Mary was PRESERVED from being stained with original sin by a “retroactive” application of Christ’s passion, rather than contracting original sin and then being immediately forgiven of it before her birth.

    Duns Scotus explained as follows: When a person receives an abundance of forgiveness through the act of a mediator, that person is all the more in debt towards that mediator and owes to him any privilege that he or she acquires. Now this is the case of the Virgin Mary, who needed Christ more than all the other human beings. Mary needed Christ more than other human beings because she was being PRESERVED from original sin through the merits of the passion of Christ. Mary was, therefore, redeemed in a nobler manner. Above all, “it is more noble to forgive one’s guilt by preserving that person from it, than by permitting that same person to fall into guilt and than to remit that person’s guilt.”

    Here is an example: A man sins mortally only once and then God not only forgives him, but also preserves him from committing any more mortal sins. Then, we have another man who sins mortally, but does so more than once, and yet God forgives him every time he asks for forgiveness. Now who of the two receives the more perfect forgiveness? Scotus says that it is the first one, in the sense that God not only has forgiven him in a more noble way, but has also preserved him from falling into sin in the future. Thus he is more indebted to God. The same is true in the case of the Virgin Mary being preserved from all sin, and thus being in “debt” to Christ as her redeemer more than any of us.

    For our human, simple minds, it appears at first as a conundrum: how can a person preserved from original sin be in debt to her redeemer more so than you or me? It is because the redemption was applied to Mary in such a way that original sin never stained her, whereas with us, although we achieve sanctification by repeatedly repenting and being forgiven if we truly repent, original sin stained us, baptism washed it away, but we needed Christ’s redemption and we need to continually repent because we continually sin.

    You may get a response along the lines of, “that is a bunch of hogwash or mumbo jumbo”, but my way of shutting those types of people up is:

    “God can do anything, and as such, he can apply Christ’s Passion, which had obviously not yet occurred at the time Mary was conceived, to Mary’s conception retroactively. To say this could not be done is to limit God – are you prepared to put a limitation on God?”

  22. Now not to get off topic of Mary, but talking about the Eucharist. Jesus is fully man and fully God. Since the very nature of God has no time everything is present to Him eternally. Theologians refer to this as the “eternal now”. The chronological events pertaining to His suffering, death, and resurrection corresponds to our understanding of time and had to occur in time. Jesus’ passion transcends time and so He could hold His sacrificed Body and Blood “before” His actual crucifixion and that would be a valid presence in the bread and the wine. His words were, ” this is my body which will be given up for you”. Jesus maintains our understanding of time with these words even though in reality the Last Supper was the institution of HIs perpetual Sacrifice accomplished by Jesus on the cross.

    I am not sure who it is who says that this is evidence of a symbolic communion. When you read the writings of the Early Church Fathers you will see an overwhelming understanding of the Real Presence. Even St. Paul recalls that participate in the Body and Blood of Christ when we receive Communion. ( 1 Cor 10:16 and 1 Cor 11:23-34)

    Nothing is impossible for God and I would be very hesitant to place such boundaries on what it is that He can do. Anyone doing a typological study of the Passover meal and the institution of the Eucharist will see the transformation of the saving power of God in the exodus to the saving power of God in the Eucharist. Just as the Israelites were not brought to the promised land by a symbolic journey we cannot be brought to our promised land by a symbolic communion.

    The answer to that question is contained in the Bible. You see, we accept that Jesus meant exactly what he said, when he stated, “This is my body”.

    He did not say, “This represents my body”, or “This is to commemorate my body”.

    He made a simple, very clear, declarative sentence: “This IS my body”.

    He then took the cup, and stated, “This is the cup of my blood”. Once again, he did not say, OR imply, that this was in any way symbolic. He stated very affirmatively that this was His Body and this was His Blood”

    He then commanded the Apostles to, “Do this in memory of me.”

    He did not command them, “Do this as a reminder that i was once here”, or “Do this so others will remember me”. He told them very clearly, very simply and without any reservations at all, “Do this in memory of me”.

    Now, it essentially comes down to this. Either you believe that Jesus meant exactly what he said, or you do not.

    Roman Catholics believe that he meant exactly what he said, and that he gave the power to do the same exact thing to his Apostles, who passed that power on to their disciples, and so on.

  23. Henry.

    You said:
    Mary was PRESERVED from being stained with original sin by a “retroactive” application of Christ’s passion, rather than contracting original sin and then being immediately forgiven of it before her birth.

    My comment:
    There is nothing about this in Scripture. God can do anything. But He doesn’t contradict His Word. Ever. And I advise you not to pray to the “Queen of Heaven.”

    Jeremiah 7:18 (New International Version)

    18 The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes to offer to the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to arouse my anger.

  24. Why are you using Sola Scriptura???? Its not in the BIBLE????

    Sola scriptura is simply an assertion, a stipulation, a postulate. An unproven assumption. It cannot be proven, it can only be accepted as an unproven axiom. When the reformers rejected the authority of the Catholic Church, they cast about for some other source of authority, and seized upon scripture. Of course, they didn’t think of the fact that the only reason they believed in the authority of scripture to begin with was because of the authority of the Church! This illogic the reformers ignored. Of course, sola scriptura advocates have never been accused of being logical.

    Actually, modern liberal protestants have realized that illogic, and that is why they no longer believe in scripture, because they know that belief in scripture is just one more of those nasty Catholic traditions to get rid of!

    Sola Scriptura is not even in the Bible, so that alone negates their theory/doctrine of the bible alone.

    The Good News was proclaimed (spoken aloud by mouth) just as Christ commanded, and this spoken word is still how the gospels are shared every day in the Catholic Mass. Before the written word there was the oral teachings, and in the Catholic faith they go hand-in-hand.

    It is a shame the Protestants don’t really even uphold their Sola Scriptura, for in the Bible it teaches that disagreements are taken to the Church as the final word. It also says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

    1. You do not have to use the words sola scriptura. Who cares about sola scriptura? Use the Bible, the word of God. How can you not love the words of God? How can you not love God’s Word! You are being a coward! You are hiding behind your Pope, you are too afraid to read the words of God for yourself and obey. What kind of evil is it that will not come out of the darkness into the light? Why will not people listen?

      1. For your information! I am not Roman Catholic! I am Byzantine Catholic!

        I use term sola scriptura because you use the Bible too literally! Well, if you break away from Catholicism, there’s not much left for you except the Bible as a means to understanding Christ. But if you look closely an any “sola scriptura” claiming denomination; you’ll see that, while they have staunchly thrown out our Traditions, they have replaced them with their own… strange inventions!

        Also, protestants like Sola Scriptura because by definition, negates the need for any church or any teaching authority. It leads to the completely illogical (which most prominent modern protestant biblical scholars admit) position that the bible is “self interpreting”. And we know how ridiculous that claim is – a book cannot authenticate itself, because when you finally go to the “first” of the books that supposedly starting the authentication process of all the other books, who or what authenticated that first book? We had a HUGE debate on this very issue several weeks ago and that very question was never answered. The the reason why is simple: there IS NO ANSWER.

        Jesus founded His Church and empowered fallible men to take care of His Church. One sees the transformation in the Apostles at Pentecost. If you believe Jesus to be divine as well as human then you must know that Jesus can do anything. He went to a lot of trouble for us by dying on the Cross. He founded the Church and gave instructions to the Apostles. He promised to be with us always and that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church.

        The Church is perfect and its teachings are infallible. Yes he gave instructions to fallible men. Peter had denied him 3 times despite KNOWING Jesus was divine (he had witnessed the Transfiguration remember). Jesus knew what he was doing.

        So my friend like it or not the Pope and the Magisterium are protected from error WHEN DECLARING AN ARTICLE OF FAITH AND REGARDING MORALS. Other than that we have the tares among the wheat just like any man made religion.

  25. That’s a lame argument, Henry. Anyone can see it is better to obey God’s Word (written by the Holy Spirit) than a man who claims to be infallible (which is an attribute of God alone)
    I was a Catholic for many years, Henry. But it was evident to me that Sacred “Tradition” and Scripture are not one as the RCC says. That’s like saying you love your wife and equally love your secretary.

    The bible says we should not go outside of scripture. Jesus said “Thy Word is Truth” and “Scripture Shall Not be broken.”
    If Peter saw the Pope sitting on a big throne (claiming to be in the throne of Peter) dressed in gold and jewels running a political nation-state, calling for world government and calling Muslims his ‘brothers’, he would about pass out. If Peter knew the Vatican was calling for a divided Israel and a Palestinian state, backing the plans of the UN and Obama, he would sharply rebuke him. If he knew the Vatican said that the RCC replaces the Jews as the Chosen People and that God has forfeited His promises to them (replacement theology)that would be the end of it.

  26. Dear Henry:

    Just wanted to make sure you knew that there was a a church before the RCC and it was JEWISH. Messianic believers! They did not bow before statues as the 1st commandment says do not make graven images.
    Constantine is the one who started appointing ‘popes’. There have been 3 popes at once. There have been popes that were as young as 11 years old. And many popes were in sexual relationships.
    What’s horrible is that the pope takes the title
    “Holy Father” which is the title Jesus gives His Father. That is a big NO-NO.
    Here is a little list of when certain rituals/practices came into being in the RCC:

    Year

    431 Proclamation that infant baptism regenerates the soul.
    500 The Mass instituted as re-sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sin
    593 Declaration that sin need to be purged, established by Pope Gregory I
    600 Prayers directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels.
    786 Worship of cross, images, and relics authorized.
    995 Canonization of dead people as saints initiated by Pope John XV.
    1000 Attendance at Mass made mandatory under the penalty of mortal sin.
    1079 Celibacy of priesthood, decreed by Pope Gregory VII.
    1090 Rosary, repetitious praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit.
    1184 The Inquisitions, instituted by the Council of Verona.
    1190 The sale of Indulgences established to reduce time in Purgatory.
    1215 Transubstantiation, proclaimed by Pope Innocent III.
    1215 Confession of sin to priests, instituted by Pope Innocent III.
    1229 Bible placed on Index of Forbidden Books in Toulouse.
    1438 Purgatory elevated from doctrine to dogma by Council of Florence.
    1545 Tradition claimed equal in authority with the Bible by the Council of Trent.
    1546 Apocryphal Books declared canon by Council of Trent.
    1854 Immaculate Conception of Mary, proclaimed by Pope Pius IX.
    1870 Infallibility of the Pope, proclaimed by Vatican Council.
    1922 Virgin Mary proclaimed co-redeemer with Jesus by Pope Benedict XV.
    1950 Assumption of Virgin Mary into heaven, proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

    (source Pro-gospel, Mike Gendron)

    1. Like I am going to listen to Mike Gendron, who is very Anti-Catholic preacher and he does not know his Christianity history like the back of his hand and ignore the fact the first 1500 years of European history is Catholic before Luther’s Protestant Reformation in 1517 AD! How wrong are you going to get?!?

      The list is also wrong! For instance the Clerical Celibacy issue in 1079 decreed by Pope Gregory VII. That was a reaffirming of the old law during a time of trouble for clerics. The first clerical celibacy was in the Fourth Century.

      Check out 306 AD. The Council of Elvira, Spain, decree #43: a priest who sleeps with his wife the night before Mass will lose his office and violate his sacred duty.
      325 AD. The Council of Nicea: decreed that after ordination a priest could not marry. Also Proclaimed the Nicene Creed.

      Or infant baptism in 431??? Its in the Bible!! Acts 16:29-34 The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

      31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. 33 At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. 34 The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household.

      The Jailers wife, children, and slaves!!!

      Those Protestant groups which reject infant baptism give a number of reasons:

      1. There are no explicit examples of anyone other than adult believers being baptised in the New Testament. Even in the baptisms of ‘whole households’ there is no mention of small children or infants being present, so that the case for baptism of infants is conjectural only and never explicitly authorized or practiced.

      2. There are only late New Testament references drawing parallels between baptism and the OT proactice of circumcision, and these are not so explicit that we can assume that the NT writiers intended for baptism to be a precise parallel with circumcision.

      3. Protestants generally do not feel that Original Sin brings any condemnation upon a person. Only actual sin brings us under the condmenation of God, and actual sin can only occur with full knowledge and consent of the will. Protestants therefore speak of baptism as being unnecesary until children reach the ‘age of discretion’ the age at which they are truly accountable for their actions, usually understood to be somewhere around the age of eight to twelve.

      4. Most Protestants feel the Catholic stress on baptism as a saving act makes salvation conditional upon a ‘work’. Protestants stress that salvation is based on grace through faith, a faith not of human origin but which is a gift of God. Baptism, therefore, is seen as an act of obedience and of gratitude undertaken AFTER a person has received saving faith.

  27. Dear Henry.

    Lady Gaga, Hitler and Madonna were baptized as infants. I guess that means they’re all born again christians according to Rome.
    scripture does not say that infants were in the jailer’s home. That is pure conjecture.
    You can’t use circumcision as a parallel because girls were not cirhcumcised… surely they were welcome to God’s covenant.
    Since you believe the pope infallible I guess you’ll believe it when they make a fifth marian dogma…Mary -Co-redemptrix and Mediatrix of all Graces.

  28. St. Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ” and “the circumcision made without hands.” Of course, usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. Yes, I know that women were not circumised.

    The Point of the matter is St. Paul meant to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel for baptism.

    This comparison between who could receive baptism and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised. In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith in which they will be raised. Besides the Old Testament is the foreshadowing of Christ fulfillment to the people. Yes, I know that Lady Gaga, Hitler, or Madonna were baptisted Catholic, but they did not live a Christian life and thats their fault and who bloody cares??? Their life….not ours!!! So, quite using such stupid examples!

    The pattern is the same: If one is an adult, one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis of Paul’s reference to baptism as “the circumcision of Christ”—that is, the Christian equivalent of circumcision.

    1. Henry,
      In the bible times, people publicly confess their sins, then they were water baptized, so, would you be willing to tell us if you repented and stopped any sin since being a Catholic? Is there any sin you stopped doing for God, in the name of Jesus? If you are honest, I believe there is not one sin you stopped.. You were water baptized as an infant, and you do not know what it is to repent and be water baptized.

    2. Dear Henry.

      Shalom.

      Can an infant believe and obey?

      Colossians 2:11-12 
      In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

      (end of scripture).

      What does it means to be “circumcised by Christ”?

      What does it mean to be buried with him is baptism?

      “Circumcised by Christ” was the day he cut your heart, and you became born again. You were buried the day, you decided to follow Him in your baptism. This can happen on the same day, like at the day of Pentecost.

      Only Jewish boys are circumcised. If this Jewish ritual exclusively has to do with being a child of God, than all Jewish girls are excluded from the Kingdom.

      Genesis 17:24
      Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised.

      Abraham was an old man, knowing what he was doing. Unlike baby Jesus and baby Paul.

      Jesus was circumcised as an infant. Still he was baptized as an adult.. Paul was circumcised as a child, still he did not know God at all. Paul was baptized as an adult, after he was “Circumcised by Christ”.

      So these two rituals are not the same, not comparable. They are different. You are not buried with Christ when you are circumcised.

      You are buried with Him, when you believe in Him and obey him, also being Baptized. People who are not baptized with the same baptism as Jesus, live in disobedience.

  29. For those who believe the RCC //

    For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, AND MOTHER.
    (MAT 12-50)

    WHOSOEVER (women old enought) that do the will of the Father can be the mother of Jesus !
    …..not enought clear ?

    Not surprising that the RCC deny that… (they have so many problems with “women”, and with sex)

    So read, read , and read again, and again.. every text written by the apostle John
    (-why John : because John should know if “Mary” was -so special or not , John should know if she had a -part to play ” to bring us to Christ” , i remind you -that she had lived with him, as “” mother and son -“”..!!!
    -imagine where that can lead :John is declared son of -Mary by ..Christ himself … Fantastic !!! got to think about it)

    You will find nothing/nada/niente/rien…
    Of course if you don’t even believe Christ, you won’t believe better John or the other apostles…

    Did they kept secret the way to be saved ?
    Did they lied to us ?
    If so , then the whole Bible is a lie…and there’s nothing left (for the RCC too…. ! funny, isn’t it!)
    The Prophets, Christ, the Apostles …did they all
    forgotten to tell us about (Catholic)”Mary”
    “the mother of — *” (*I can not write that thing,no i can’t)

    And never forget …the only 1 in Heaven or on Earth able to open the Book is the Lamb of God…the Root of… David… (no mention of the “virgin Mary”)

    2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?
    3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.
    4 And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.
    5 And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. (Rev of jesus Christ)
    ——-
    Keep the commandments of YHWH ,
    not the commandments of men or of an angel of light or of the Queen of Heaven

    Remember when Satan tempted Lord Yeshoua in the desert: (Mat 4) How Our Lord reacted
    1)He answered and said, It is written…,
    2)It is written again…
    3)Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written…..

    Please it is really serious…

    1. So Helene you are saying that the Catholic Church is sexist against women in high places is the oldest and stupid subject to pull up!

      Catholic Church respects and values women (and has traditionally done so) because of all the adoration and respect the Church hierarchy and ordinary Catholics have towards the Virgin Mary.

      But why would one necessarily equal the other?

      Their are plenty of misogynistic men who despise women in general yet nevertheless appear to love their mothers.

      Moreover, there doesn’t appear to be anything about Marian devotion that requires more concern, compassion, or respect for common (e.g. not the Mother of God) women.

      Respect for Mary does not, in every case, mean respect for women generally.

      Understanding why she is often brought up means understanding the different questions surrounding the issue. If we are discussing why women cannot be priests, it is common for people to say that the teaching amounts to disrespect. We disagree. Women hold many roles in the Church, but father is cannot be one of them. Mary is an easy example. In fact, perhaps, the most obvious. She is our Mother.

      Men and women are different, though equally deserving of respect. Insisting that each has appropriate roles is not, contrary to contemporary belief, disrespectful. It can lead to disrespect. The idea that a woman belongs ‘barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen’ is disrespectful; it does not acknowledge individuality.

      It is a puzzle to me why some think that certain rules or roles are disrespectful. We do not say that all men must be priests (which would be stupid and disrespectful.) We say that only a man can become a priest. We do not say that all women must be mothers. We say that only a woman can fulfill that role.

      A person, or organization, can certainly respect Mary and belittle women. I am sure we can think of examples. The Church does not disrespect or belittle women. She (the Church) upholds the dignity of women as unique and holds Mary as an example of revered femininity.

      The Church does not disrespect women. That accusation, most commonly, is an assault on our teaching regarding the priesthood. That is why Mary is commonly brought up.

      The Catholic Church teaches respect for all human life. The fact that Mary is a woman does not negate the fact that both men and women deserve the respect that we would give to Christ. Obviously since Mary is the highest of God’s creation we honor her with the highest veneration due to any of God’s creatures.

      Now, how any Christian can show a devout respect for Mary and disrespect women in general prompts a problematic situation. Mary would want us to respect all of humankind so to say that I respect Mary but disrespect her wishes is contradictory. I cannot respect my wife knowing her wishes all while going against those very wishes.

      So, in closing, I would just note that one can only love Jesus as much as the person they love the least and one can respect Mary only as much as the person they respect the least.

      Now to deal with the temptation in the desert?? Satan used Scripture to tempt Jesus, and Jesus in turn used Scripture to rebuke Satan. Therefore, this shows that Satan’s understanding and application of Scripture was erroneous. Jesus also rebuked Satan with non-Scriptural words, such as Matthew 16:23. Moreover, if Jesus actually believed in Sola Scriptura why didn’t he simply teach it Helene?????

      And for your information the Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura.
      Proof: At the time of Jesus, the majority of the Jews used the Traditions of the Elders to interpret the Torah, and this fact is addressed in the gospels. This fact plus the existence of the Talmud demonstrates that the Jews never practiced Sola Scriptura.

      Incidentally, I visited the Judaism 101 and came up with several Sola Scriptura oriented terms to plug into its search engine (“Sola Scriptura”, “Scripture Alone”, “Torah Alone,” Scripture Only,” “Bible Alone”, etc.). Each entry resulted in zero hits.

  30. Where does Jesus tell His apostles to pray to Mary? By the way there was no heirarchy in the early church. They addressed one another as brother and sister. It was constantine who transferred a military like heirarchy to the church.

    1. Do you not research history of the early or the Early Church Fathers?????????

      The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the Apostolic Succession of the claimants.

      Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

      The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

      The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

      Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

      For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).

      Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be “profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field” (ibid., 41).

      What about the writings of the Early Church Fathers claim?????

      Cyprian of Carthage

      “The Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way” (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

      Jerome (Writer of the Vulgate Bible)

      “Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

      Augustine of Hippo

      “[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397])…..ect

      Now for praying to Mary is not in scripture, but again scripture is not totally sole authority!!! Scripture is God’s revelation to us in Jesus and the prophets. When Jesus gave his teachings they were done by example and by the spoken word. After he ascended to heaven some got written down and some was kept up by the early Church fathers and protected which is now considered Sacred Tradition

      1. Dear Henry

        Shalom.

        You wrote:

        All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations.

        My comment:

        This is another falsification of history.

        First: The first followers of Jesus were Jews. Not Italians. The Roman Catholic Church was formed after 325 AD, with an Italian Pope as the head.

        Second: The Roman Catholic Bishops rejects the Apostolic baptism with full immersion. They can never be the successor of the first Jewish Baptist Christians.

        Third: In the New Testament all followers of Jesus are called to be priests, a Holy priesthood. Anyone who elevate them selves to the Old Testament office of “priest”, or “Bishop” takes the role of the Holy Spirit. The leader of the flock on Earth is the Holy Spirit, and we are all brothers and sisters, equal in the Church. Those who are called to be shepherds shall be servant of them all. The Papal system of priest and bishops has nothing to do with New Testament Christianity.

        There has always existed a true Church of baptists besides the pagan Roman “Church”. True Baptist Christians have never recognized pagan Rome as anything but the center of a false religion, with a copy of “Jesus” as one of its idols.

  31. Greetings in the name of Christ…

    My only question…..What is it about mother Mary that we are discussing?….. she was a virgin, not a virgin, had kids, didnt have kids.. whatever…but how does this matter? does it change the fact that Jesus died for our sins and is God? NO!!!! Mother Mary was an instrument used by God to redeem the world, maybe like the prophets and the kings… just an instrument.and thats that.. I do not think it is even fair to worship her or even talk of her divinity…. coz only God is divine…So let us lay aside this issue…. and as Jesus said render unto Jesus what is Jesus’ and unto Mother Mary what is Mother Mary’s…

    Peace

    1. David

      Catholics knows Mary is not divine, a god, but she is the first person and only person or human being close to the Son of God and given special privilege. All Christians believe Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, a divine nature and his human nature complete and undivided in one Person.

      If denying that Mary is the Mother of God or in Greek Theotokos or God-Bearer, then they also must deny Christ’s full humanity and his full divinity, and therefore are no longer Christian!! Its very Logical!!!

      Not only Catholics but most other Christians believe Mary is the Mother of God, obviously not of God before Jesus was born but of Jesus the incarnate Son of God. She is the mother of Jesus in his humanity not His divinity. She is not the mother of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit but the mother of the man who was born in Bethlehem.

      We believe Jesus is the Son of God because that is what He claimed to be. Otherwise the noblest moral teaching the world has known would have come from the lips of a liar or a lunatic!

      Obviously, Mary, as a human being, can not be the mother of the infinite, ever-existing God. God exists in and from Himself only. Jesus Christ, as God made man, did however have an earthly mother. So it follows that if God was man, and had a mother, the mother of God would be…the Mother of God.
      Protestant denomination don’t agree, and think that title is an oxymoron, and can’t put two and two together, or try and make 5 because they believe that we mean she if the Mother of the Trinity, the Godhead, not just the Mother of the second person of the blessed Trinity.

      To put it simply:

      Mary is the mother of Jesus (we all acknowledge that).
      Jesus is God (all Christians believe this).
      Therefore, Mary is the mother of God (insofar as Jesus, her son, is God). Which makes her the closest human person to God in the Second person in the Trinity!!!

      1. Dear Henry.

        Shalom:

        To put it simply:

        Mary is the mother of Jesus (we all acknowledge that).
        Jesus is God (all Christians believe this).
        Therefore, Mary is the mother of God (insofar as Jesus, her son, is God). Which makes her the closest human person to God in the Second person in the Trinity!!!

        My reply:

        Catholic Mary was born without sin, never sinned. The Bible says Jewish mother of Jesus was as sinner, offered sin offering in the Temple.

        Catholic Mary is the “Queen of Heaven”. The Bible says Jewish mother of Jesus was a human being, and the Queen of Heaven a pagan goddess.

        Catholic Mary was ever virgin. The Bible says Jewish mother of Jesus had many children.

        Who do you think you are fooling?

        Catholic Mary and the Jewish mother of Jesus are not the same person. Catholic Mary is a fiction, pure blasphemy against the Word of God.

  32. ivarfjeld, you are using sole scriptura!! First, the Bible never teaches that all we need to know is explicit in the Bible. For example, where does it say in the bible that 27 books belong in the New Tesament? Where does it say public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle? Where does it say that we should refer to God as a “Trinity”? Most Protestants believe these, but not on Scripture. The Church (Matthew 18:17) settled the matter.

    The salutation given to Mary by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28 is “Hail, Full of Grace…”. In Greek the word used for grace is kecharitomene.” We can say through the writings of Luke that Mary was the fullness of grace (sinless). How? “Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

    From our human standpoint it seems impossible for anyone to be sinless but with God Nothing is impossible!!!

    From a human perspective,
    If we believe tha Jesus the Christ is both human and Divine, (and if you are God) would you permit Jesus to be formed in the womb of a “woman with sin” or a “spotless womb”, ?

    Gn 3:15 (RSV)
    I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel

    If Mary was a sinner, then Christ would have inherited original sin from her…is that simple explanation!!!

    Did Mary have any other children after Jesus…NO! Jesus was her only first born!! First born can mean that this is the first of the births to follow. It can also mean that Mary had no children BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus. There is no evidence in Sacred Scripture or in Sacred Tradition that she had other children. It is quite significant that as Jesus hung on the cross, he gave his mother to the care of the to a friend and not relative. If Mary had had other children, there is no doubt that she would have been given to their care. It is not possible for a woman to remain a virgin her whole life? Who are we to place limits on God? It is no different than denial Mary was born without original sin.

    Scpriture does not support Mary having other children.

    SO WHO WERE THESE “BROTHERS OF JESUS?”
    A. While James and Joses are mentioned as Jesus’s brothers in Matthew 13:55, it is made clear in Mathew 27:56 and Mark 15:40 that their mother was another Mary.
    Matthew 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.
    This “other Mary” at the Cross, is revealed in John 19:25 to be the wife of Cleophas. Mary of Cleophas is therefore revealed as the mother of two of Jesus’s so-called “brothers”, James and Joses.
    B. In John 19:25, the original Greek states. “But by he cross of Jesus were the Mother of Him AND the sister of the Mother of Him, Mary the wife of Cleopas AND Mary the Magdalene.” The precise positioning of the ANDs in the original Greek makes it clear that Mary the Wife of Cleopas, is also referred to as the Virgin Mary’s sister. Since we know no-one has two daughters and calls them BOTH Mary, we know that sister here does not mean sister. The same would apply to “brother” with reference to Jesus.
    C. In the introduction to the Book of Jude, Jude introduces himself as: Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ, and a brother of James. If Jude/Judas were truly the brother of Jesus, why wouldn’t he say so? He identifies himself in his letter as brother of James, but significantly not as a brother of Jesus, only as a servant. To have identified himself as Jesus’s blood brother would have added enormous weight to his epistle, but Jude doesn’t so identify himself here. We know the reason, because James and Joseph have already been revealed to be sons of the other Mary in Matthew 27 and Mark 15. Judas then must also be a son of this other Mary. Mary wife of Cleophas. So another of Jesus’s so-called “brothers” is eliminated.
    D. James “Brother of Jesus” is referred to as one of the APOSTLES by Paul in Galatians 1:19. . We know from Matthew 10:2-4 that neither of the Apostles named James was actually a Son of Mary. So James, “brother of Jesus” cannot be a Son of Mary. He is actually James, Son of Alphaeus (thought to be another form of Cleophas)! James is a kinsman of Jesus, but not a sibling.
    A few more points:
    In Luke 2:41-51, the twelve-year-old Jesus goes missing on a trip to Jerusalem, and is only found three days later in the temple. Yet in all this time no mention at all is made of any other children, even though the entire family made the journey together. If all the people mentioned in Matthew were actually surviving children of Mary, she would have had at least seven children younger than Jesus to look after! In fact both Mary and Joseph race back to Jerusalem to find him, through country filled with bandits, something they could not have done if there had been babies and other young children in need of care!
    The people of Nazareth refer to Jesus as “the son of Mary” (Mark 6:3), not as “a son of Mary”
    Finally, if James and Joseph, Simon and Jude, were children of Mary, and if Jesus had even more brothers and sisters, why did Jesus commit His Mother to the care of St. John at His death?

    Mk 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters”: #1, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic – the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister”. An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother.
    Another point to consider. If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, would the last thing that Jesus did on earth be to grievously offend his surviving brothers? In Jn 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been an incredible slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother!
    Also, we see from Mt. 27:55-56, that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus, are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15, “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. Let’s see there were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women, probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! Do you think Mary had 80 or 90 children? She would have been in perpetual labor! No, Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

    1. Dear Henry.

      Shalom.

      You wrote:

      From our human standpoint it seems impossible for anyone to be sinless but with God Nothing is impossible!!!

      My reply:

      It is IMPOSSIBLE for God to lie. And if God goes against the scripture, He is a liar.

      Hebrews 6:18
      God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope set before us may be greatly encouraged.

      (end of scripture)

      John 1 plainly explains to us that the WORD was God. God can not lie. God can not break His promises. The Bible is the Word of God.

      John 1:1
      In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

      The Pope is like the Serpent in the Garden. He makes Eve doubt that the Word of God can be understood and trusted. It has to be “interpreted in context”. The serpent in the garden of Eden is the perfect example for all Roman Catholic Priests. They all say: “Do never claim that anyone but the Pope can understand what God said”.

      Only truth mockers and spiritual blind people still buy such a satanic message.

  33. Dear Henry.

    You contradict scripture left and right. And since God’s word is not an authority with you, you will continue to submit to Rome’s authority even when what they say contradicts scripture.

    Everything you said about Mary being sinless is all conjecture. You refuse to acknowledge Mary going to the temple to give SIN OFFERINGS. Sinners need to offer sin offerings.

    You keep saying Jesus can not live in a womb that was not sinless, yet every week you believe the SAME flesh that was in Mary goes into your stomach via the eucharist. Yet you are not sinless. With your reasoning, you should be sinless since you “eat” Jesus.

    Jesus’s brothers were not believers when He was crucified. He gave Mary to John because John was a believer. Later on, after the crucifixion, his brothers then believed.

    John 7
    Jesus Goes to the Festival of Tabernacles
    1 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him

  34. Mary was presented at the temple that that meant she was sinful??? It was not about but a custom!! Read the story of Samuel. It was definitely a custom.

    I Samuel 1

    19
    Early the next morning they worshiped before the LORD, and then returned to their home in Ramah. When Elkanah had relations with his wife Hannah, the LORD remembered her.
    20
    She conceived, and at the end of her term bore a son whom she called Samuel, since she had asked 2 the LORD for him.
    21
    The next time her husband Elkanah was going up with the rest of his household to offer the customary sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vows,
    22
    Hannah did not go, explaining to her husband, “Once the child is weaned, I will take him to appear before the LORD and to remain there forever; I will offer him as a perpetual nazirite.”
    23
    Her husband Elkanah answered her: “Do what you think best; wait until you have weaned him. Only, may the LORD bring your resolve to fulfillment!” And so she remained at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.
    24
    3 Once he was weaned, she brought him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine, and presented him at the temple of the LORD in Shiloh.
    25
    After the boy’s father had sacrificed the young bull, Hannah, his mother, approached Eli
    26
    and said: “Pardon, my lord! As you live my lord, I am the woman who stood near you here, praying to the LORD.
    27
    I prayed for this child, and the LORD granted my request.
    28
    Now I, in turn, give him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he shall be dedicated to the LORD.” She left him there;

    For Jewish women in ancient times it was common for them to present themselves in the Temple after a certain period of time after childbirth. I have no clue how someone can make the jump that this has anything to do with Mary being a sinner, that’s a new one on me. Despite the fact that Jesus was virgin born, Mary was still obedient to Jewish custom. No, that does not mean she was sinful. Every child was presented in the temple as far as I know. Plus, get this. Jesus was presented in the temple and we know that He was not sinful.

    Well, ordinary people have original sin from the moment of their conception. That said, we know that Mary was not an ordinary person and that she was saved from sin from the moment of her conception.

    ivarfjeld, I have know idea why you are quoting John 1:1
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    I recall “the Word” (Logos in Greek) as meaning “the reason” or “the purpose”. With that concept, I can understand this inital statement of St. John as there was a reason, an intention, a purpose to creation. I believe this is at least part of the intent of the beginning of John’s Gospel.

    In the beginning there was the “Logos or Word” and He was with (as in face to face and with the same intention…) God, and He was God. The Logos was God who became flesh! Flesh through a woman concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a Virgin!

    Jesus is God; His Word is pronounced and all of Creation came to Be; His Word sustains Creation; His Word gives Life; in His Word we Hope and we Live and we Move (Spiritual existence); His Word is Jugment; His Word is the Kingdom of Heaven…

    Interestingly enough, in Apocalypse we find that though He has Risen some of the old titles are applied: the pierced one, the Lion, the Lamb, one like a Son of man… why would the Risen Christ still be called by these titles? …well… he is the Beginning and the End, the Alpha and the Omega, God Almighty and in Him there’s no change!

    When I look back at the book of Genesis the very begining like chapter one verse one….what do you see?

    Genesis 1 (King James Version)

    1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

    we see God the Father

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    we see the Holy Spirit

    3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

    we see the “word” of God before He came in the Flesh.

    It is no accident that the Book of John and the Book of Genesis both begin the same it’s a clue! Everytime God speaks something happens! The word of God is powerful! We know that because we couldn’t pay the price for the sins of our first parents (Adam and Eve) that God promised us a redeemer. Well that old saying is “If you want something done right you gotta do it yourself” So God came in the flesh to pay the ultimate sacrifice for our sins. And if you keep reading….

    26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    we see the Blessed Trinity.

    Go back to the Book of John and what do we read?

    John 1 (New American Standard Bible)

    1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    coincidence? I don’t think so.

    2 He was in the beginning with God.

    interesting the word “with” does this mean “next to” or “in” or “coming from”?

    3All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

    4In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.

    interesting even more in Genesis the word of God gives us light……Here the Word of God is the Light.

    5The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    God never wanted us to be in the dark did He? He gave us the sun,moon, and the stars and then Jesus!

    keep reading the Book of John….

    14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

    It gets even more interesting when you think about the Ark of the Covenant and what it held inside.

    The written word of God — The Ten Commandments

    The bread that fell from heaven —-the manna that God fed His people with

    The staff of Aaron, a high priest.

    The Church calls Mary the Ark of the new Covenant for within her was

    The Word of God that became flesh

    The Bread that fell from heaven

    The High Priest

    Jesus

    1. Dear Henry.

      Shalom.

      You wrote:

      Well, ordinary people have original sin from the moment of their conception. That said, we know that Mary was not an ordinary person and that she was saved from sin from the moment of her conception.

      My comment:
      A lie is still a lie, even if a Roman Catholic have told it a million times.

      Romans 3:23
      for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

      Romans 5:12
      [ Death Through Adam, Life Through Christ ] Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.

      Since you do not believe the Word of God, why are you on News That Matters? What do you want to achieve?

      1. Oh thats a really good way to find a Biblical answer by looking through YAHOO answer site…..that is totally LAME and STUPID!!!! Anybody can answer about sin offering, but would it be scholarly and right……absolutely NO WAY!!!

        As I understand it, the offering required of new mothers under the old Mosaic Law was not for personal sin but for ritual impurity which was incurred by the mere fact of giving birth. There were many action causing ritual impurity which did not involve sin, but did require ritual purification.

        This is the correct understanding of the sin offering. Under the Jewish Law there was a ritual offering that had to be made at a certain time after the birth of a son. Mary was making the ritual offering according to the Jewish Law. If she did not make the offering then you could correctly say that she had sinned because she would have disobeyed one of the Jewish precepts.

        In Luke 2:24, Mary makes the sin-offering commanded in Leviticus 12:6-8. (The context is verses 1-8.) She did this, not because she was guilty of moral failing in having conceived and borne a child, but because she and Joseph were faithful observers of the Mosaic Law (Luke 2:23,24,39). They did what the Law commanded.

        Temple sin-offerings never implied moral guilt, but were sacrifices made to expunge legal and ritual uncleanness. This is very evident, not only from Leviticus 12:1-8, but even more from Leviticus 15, where involuntary emissions, menstruation, hemorrhaging, and sexual intercourse produce ritual uncleanness, some of which requires the making of sin-offerings.

        Leviticus clearly distinguishes *sin-offerings (which did not imply moral guilt) from *guilt offerings (which did imply actual sinfulness). The former are discussed in 6:17-23, the latter in 7:1-6. The distinction is reaffirmed in 7:7 and in Ezekiel 40:39.

        In Ezekiel 43:18-27, directions are given for purifying the altar and making atonement for it. Verses 19, 21, 22 and 25 call for sin-offerings on behalf of the altar. Of course, *an altar can be ritually unclean, but it cannot be guilty of moral guilt. Yet “sin” offering was made for it!

        An example of **guilt-offering being made to atone for actual moral failures is found in Ezra 10:10,19. The people’s sin was in taking foreign wives in violation of the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 7:3). For this, they were truly guilty.
        Often people try to impose the customs of today onto the Jews of 2000 years ago. No! You have go back and look at the customs of their time.

        Also think about, if Jesus did came out of the birth canal of Mary, he would be unclean since his body is covered in his mother’s blood. Any Bodily fluid indicts in the Mosaic Law as being unclean.

        Check this out!!!!
        “And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledoves for sin offering, and he shall offer it before the Lord, and a atonement for her; then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her, who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atone for her, and she shall be clean.” Leviticus 12:6-8

  35. My comment:???
    A lie is still a lie, even if a Roman Catholic have told it a million times. How sure can you be when you are ignorant of certain scripture passages!

    I support Henry’s claim!

    To claim that all doctrines must be clearly spelled out in Scripture is a Protestant invention without the slightest biblical basis. I am pointing out to you that even you accept things that are not in the Bible.

    My question to you is do you accept that 27 books belong in the New Testament. That is a Catholic Tradition.

    Do you believe in the “Trinity”, but know that it is an unbiblical word. The Bible never teaches that all we need to know is explicit in the Bible!! You know better than that!!!

    “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30)

    “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

    The salutation given to Mary by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:28 is “Hail, Full of Grace…”. In Greek the word used for grace is kecharitomene.” We can say through the writings of Luke that Mary was the fullness of grace (sinless). How? “Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning “to fill or endow with grace.” Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates a perfection of grace that is both intensive and extensive. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit, and was only as “full” or strong or complete as possible at any given time, but it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence to have been called “full of grace.”

    Reread Luke 1:28-35!!!!

    Luke 1:28-35 (New King James Version)

    28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”[a]
    29 But when she saw him,[b] she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
    34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
    35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

    No one can be “””Full of Grace””” if there is any trace of sin in that person. In addition, Grabriel gives Mary a new name calling her “Full of Grace”. He says “Rejoice” (Hail!) “Full of Grace”.No where in Scripture is there another address like this???

    1. Taylor,
      Jesus denounced tradition as keeping man from the reality of the truth:
      Matthew 15:6-9 “… Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”

      We displease God when we follow tradition or church laws or any human standard as the source of authority for the church (Matt. 15:1-14; Col. 2:8; Gal. 1:6-9; Prov. 14:12; 2 John 9-11; Jeremiah 10:23).

      The Catholics did not give us the Bible. The original apostles received all the truth we need to guide us to eternal life, and they wrote this down in the Scriptures (John 16:13; 2 Pet. 1:3; Acts 20:20,27; Matt. 28:20; I Cor. 14:37; 2 Tim. 3:16,17).

      The teachings of these inspired writers can be understood by the common people. We do not need official interpreters to understand the word, but we should use the word to check out the teachers! (Mark 7:14; 2 Timothy 3:15, 16,17; John 20:30,31; Acts 17:11; Psalm 119:105)

      You bring up scriptures that tell that Jesus did more things not written down for us. However, that does not mean we can make up things we think would be approved teaching of God.
      We are exhorted to check out teaching against Scripture (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11.)
      Deuteronomy 4:2; 5:32, Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 warn against adding to or detracting from Scripture.

      I do not believe Mary was some sinning young girl. I think she probably was very mindful of God. However, she was still human and no one is perfect until the revealing of the Truth, no matter how righteous they were before Jesus (see Hebrews 12:23).

      1. Jesus denounced tradition as keeping man from the reality of the truth??? How in the Hell is that possible! Scripture IS tradition!!!! Catholic did give the Bible…so do your research!

        The Word of God was Orally passed on “mouth to mouth” before it became ink and paper!! You are still missing the point! Nowhere does the Bible state what books are to be included in it, or which are inspired. That was a part of unwritten-Tradition–the canon and authenticity of scriptures being guaranteed by the Catholic Church. Check your History!!!

        Apostolic traditions do bring us closer to God. God doesn’t condemn all traditions. He condemns the traditions of men that negate His word. Remember what St. Paul says in 2 Thess 2:15 “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.”

        or how about

        1 Tim 3:15: “If I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

        Nowhere does any book of the Bible list all the other books and claim that, all together, they contain the whole revelation. Nowhere does the Bible establish an equation: God’s Word = the written word of Scripture. The notion that Scripture Alone contains all of revelation was a 16th century innovation. The Bible itself does not teach it, and until we decently bury it, we can never be united. Both Scripture and Sacred Tradition preach Christ, but only in the Church, the Body of Christ (Eph. 5), the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Christ assured his appointed teachers, “He that hears you, hears me,” and he assured them of the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit, who would remind them of every thing He taught and guide them to all truth.

        I respect (while rejecting) your observation that “tradition has … degenerated to ‘we’ve always done it this way.'” But you will forgive me if I prefer Paul’s command to his Thessalonians: “Stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours” (2nd Thess 2:15). His command is inspired by God (2nd Tim. 3:16), and therefore “is useful … for training in righteousness”, and could never lead to Jesus’ being ignored.

        And since Jesus is the standard, as you so well say, then we must be conformed to the image of Christ. And the only way we can be sure that we are so conformed is actually to belong in faith and obedience to the Body of Christ, which is the Church (Col. 1:24).

      2. As for tradition, you are fighting against the words of God. The apostles orally taught, what the hearers heard is not contradictory to what is written. We are to go by the written Word of God. The traditions of the Catholics all contradict the written Word.

        The need for official canonization of the New Testament scriptures only came about because of certain heresies that spread throughout the church starting in the med to late second century. For instance, Marcion created his own religion by only teaching from ten of Paul’s letters and certain portions of Luke. In addition, the Gnostic’s, especially in Alexandria, were introducing the new “secrets” to the standard Christian doctrine, and including new Gospel accounts altogether.
        The canon of the New Testament was not the result of any pronouncement by any official of the church or any organizational body. Rather, the determination of the canon was by the authoritative use of these books right from the start by the rapidly expanding Church of the first and second centuries.
        In 1 Timothy 5:18 Paul joins a New Testament scripture (Luke 10:7) to an Old Testament scripture (Deuteronomy 25:4) and calls them both scripture. In addition, we can see in 2 Peter 3:15-16 Peter recognizes Paul writings as scripture.

  36. Ah dude I think you are missing the point that scripture is saying as Taylor mentioned!

    Scripture itself claims in 1 Timothy 3:15, “…if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which acts as the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” St. Paul points to the Church as “pillar and bulwark [or safeguard] of the truth,” that is a guide for Christians.

    I mean that is a clear statement by Paul’s writing…..can you explain this particular verse by the Apostle????

    It is historical fact that man communicated orally before he wrote things down. Whether one puts the beginning of mankind at 5000 B.C. or 5,000,000 B.C., there is no archeological evidence of any written communication earlier than 4000 B.C.

    The outside date any Scripture scholars are willing to give for the beginning of the writing down of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, is approximately 1450 B.C. Yet the Torah conveys facts relating to God’s creating the universe and events that happened as far back as circa 1850 B.C., when God brought Abram “from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan” (Gen. 11:31). Obviously, unless we were to dismiss the validity of the entire Bible, we must admit the Jews had an accurate oral tradition (from the Latin traditio, meaning “handed or passed down”) centuries prior to its being recorded in writing.

    The life of a human being works similarly. Once born, it learns to speak long before it can write. It learns what is right and wrong from what its parents say and do. Only after years of upbringing does a child can learn to read and write. And so the life of a human being parallels that of Sacred Scripture: Oral tradition necessarily precedes the act of writing.

    The same is true for the New Testament. Jesus spoke to his disciples long before the things he taught were written down. While tradition means a “handing down,” Sacred Tradition means the handing down of divine revelation from one generation of believers to the next, as preserved under the divine guidance of the Catholic Church established by Christ.

    But where did the Bible come from? It came from the Church, not vice versa. In apostolic times most people were illiterate. So what Christ said and did was passed on orally. Christ instructed the apostles were to “go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). How could Our Lord order them to “preach the gospel” at a time when the gospels themselves did not exist in written form? Unless one is to accuse our Lord of being unreasonable, the only answer is that the gospel (“good news”) already existed in oral form as a part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church, “handed on . . . from the lips of Christ”

    1. What are you talking about? The New Testament is the written Word of God. Furthermore, great portions of the New Testament are letters written by Paul. The letters are Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. The church is the body of Christ, which is made of true believers; it is not a religion, a denomination, nor a building. The church was taught by the letters from Paul.

      1. Your still miss the point!!

        The “Word” in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

        “For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’” (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

        This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases “word of God” or “word of the Lord” appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

        “When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13).

        If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

        “Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).

        Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

        a. The reference to “He shall be called a Nazarene” cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was “spoken by the prophets” (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be “God’s word,” was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

        b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based “on Moses’ seat,” but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of “teaching succession” from Moses on down.

        c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

        d. “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

        Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura!

        To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

        a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

        b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

        So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

      2. The Popes not only claim things that are not the word of God, but they proclaim doctrine that goes against the word of God.

  37. Man you do not research???

    Several of the letters are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic, that is, not actually written by Paul of Tarsus even if attributed to him within the letters themselves, or, arguably, even forgeries intended to justify certain later beliefs. Details of the arguments regarding this issue are addressed more specifically in the articles about each epistle.

    These are the 7 letters (with consensus dates) considered genuine by most scholars. Authorship of the Pauline epistles: section The undisputed epistles or letters):
    First Thessalonians (ca. 51 AD)
    Philippians (ca. 52-54 AD)
    Philemon (ca. 52-54 AD)
    First Corinthians (ca. 53-54 AD)
    Galatians (ca. 55 AD)
    Second Corinthians (ca. 55-56 AD)
    Romans (ca. 55-58 AD)

    The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by the majority of modern scholars include:
    Pastoral epistles First Timothy
    Second Timothy
    Titus

    The letters on which modern scholars are about evenly divided are:
    Ephesians
    Colossians
    Second Thessalonians

    An anonymous text that nearly all modern scholars agree was probably not written by Paul is:
    Hebrews

    You should read “Apostle of the Crucified Lord: A Theological Introduction to Paul and His Letters” By Michael Gorman, Baptist Minister and Sacred Scripture Sholar.

    1. It is an awful thing for you to try to through suspicion about the written word of God in the New Testament.
      Those with the Holy Spirit, those with the Spirit of wisdom and revelation know that the New Testament is the word of God.
      What have you repented of since becoming a follower of Jesus Christ? Do you know that repent means stopping sin and not just confessing and having a contrite heart? I know what it is to be Catholic. Furthermore, I know what it is to be a true believer and to repent and turn from sin.
      I hope that you will be honest with yourself. More importantly, I hope that you are honest with God.

      1. If Peter was not the first pope, and the Bible does not record a papal hierarchy, the question arises: When and how did the papacy originate??? Give me your explanation??? Try proving me that there ws no hierarchy in the early Church?

        Primacy of Peter
        Mt 16:18 – upon this rock (Peter) I will build my church
        Mt 16;19 – give you keys of the kingdom; power to bind & loose
        Lk 22:32 – Peter’s faith will strengthen his brethren
        Jn 21:17 – given Christ’s flock as chief shepherd
        Mk 16:7 – angel sent to announce Resurrection to Peter
        Lk 24:34 – risen Jesus first appeared to Peter
        Acts 1:13-26 – headed meeting which elected Matthias
        Acts 2:14 – led Apostles in preaching on Pentecost
        Acts 2:41 – received first converts
        Acts 3:6-7 – performed first miracle after Pentecost
        Acts 5:1-11 – inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
        Acts 8:21 – excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
        Acts 10:44-46 – received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
        Acts 15:7 – led first council in Jerusalem
        Acts 15:19 – pronounces first dogmatic decision
        Gal 1:18 – after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
        *Gal 2:11-14 – I opposed Cephas to his face for his hypocrisy
        Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
        “Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
        Spoke for Apostles – Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69
        Peter’s name occurs 195 times, more than all the rest put together

        A statement of Proof by one of the Early Church Fathers in the Early Second Century talking about the Bishop of Rome!

        St. Irenaeus of Lyon
        But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that Church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition
        (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

        No, the Pope is Pope and is not God. Never has there been a Pope that claims to be God!! There is proof and you all can never prove that!

        As for the authority of the Pope, I’d put it to a simple test. It’s the same test C.S. Lewis suggested for the authority of Christ:
        The Pope claims to be the vicar of Christ. This does NOT mean that he IS Christ, it means that he is Christ’s ambassador on earth, the one who speaks on Christ’s behalf in the name of the whole Church. Either:
        a) he is right about that;
        b) he is extremely deluded, and not to be listened to;
        c) he is, as you say, a megalomaniac, and in fact, the anti-Christ, because he is taking for himself an authority which only belongs to the Holy Spirit.

        Christ instituted a Church. When He ascended to Heaven, Peter was in charge. Peter was also the head of all the other Apostles. I don’t see either where in Scripture or in the Church’s Sacred Tradition where it stipulates that anyone filling the office of Peter is a god. Maybe you are confusing this with the Roman emperors (Pontifex) who mandated that they were gods to be worshipped. But this has absolutely nothing to do with popes. The pope is a pastoral shepherd who leads the Church. When the pope dies, another one is elected in his place, to the office of Peter.

        I like to think of the bishop who sits in the Chair of Peter to the Old Testament Davidic Kingdom. While the King is away, a prime minister sits in his place to make the decisions and guide the Kingdom. This is what the pope does, where the kingdom on earth, in this sense, is the Church.

        A pope is not “God on earth” – never was, never will be!!! And you don’t hear or face this TRUTH!!! There is no need of repentence for the TRUTH I have been arguing for!

      2. Pope means father. Jesus says not to call anyone father, they are all brothers. Peter is not the first Pope; Peter would not even allow himself the name Pope. The apostles were brothers. As apostles, they could do things that most did not. Jesus breathed on them and gave them the power to forgive sins and bind. The New Testament is of very special times, to say the least. Salvation is given to us by God through Jesus Christ, that God testified to it by signs, wonders and various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will (Hebrew 2:1-4). The foundation has been laid by the apostles, prophets, and Jesus Christ as Chief cornerstone. The Popes cannot add to the foundation. Furthermore, God has not testified to what the Popes do add.
        You might be afraid to go on without your leader the Pope, but I hope you get the courage, read, and obey the written word of God.

      3. JamesLesser,
        You have given many scriptures to try to prove that Peter was the first Pope, but you are mistaken in how you understand those scriptures. Please consider these scriptures when you try to separate Peter as father before all the other apostles:
        1 Corinthians 1
        12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
        13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
        The Church and Its Leaders
        1 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
        5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task.

  38. Dear Henry.

    I am done debating with you. You are argumentative and rude and acting self-righteous. If you came here to argue and be “right” you are at the wrong blog.
    Debating with kindness and civility I am open to but when you start name calling “stupid” I am no longer interested.

  39. Not that it matters to you, but the reason I used Yahoo was because I was writing from my cell phone and looking for the scripture. It was the easiest to just post it from Yahoo.
    I am bowing out of this conversation. Maybe Ivar would be willing to debate you.

  40. Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as “father or the Pope” they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus forbade: “Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven” (Matt. 23:9).

    Scripture passage “Call no man your father?” (Mat 23:9-10) as a reason not to call priests “father.” Yet in the same sentence Jesus says “Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Messiah.” Using this passage to claim that we cannot call a priest “father” would mean that we could not call professors at an Evangelical Bible college “instructors.” If we were to take this passage literally, it would mean that I could not call my earthly dad “father” either.

    Catholics don’t believe Jesus was forbidding the use of “father” in that passage. There are plenty of examples in the Bible where that the word “Father” applies to humans, and the Bible links the priesthood to fatherhood.

    Catholics believe the fulcrum of Mat 23:9-10 is “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Mat 23:11). That is the job of the priest, to be a servant. To serve the congregation. Jesus was condemning their hypocrisy, not their office.

    Catholics don’t think Jesus was against priests, he was against hypocritical priests. Jesus was condemning the hypocrisy of unholy men who were in office at the time, rather than their office. I believe that’s how God felt 2000 years ago and that is how he feels today. There have always been some bad priests. Judas was the first bad priest in the Christian tradition, but the other disciples were good men. Jesus makes it very clear that he is not condemning the office of scribes and Pharisees’. He was not saying that we should throw out the idea of an organized clergy. He had a great respect for their office.

    “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it” (Mat 23:2).

    So we believe Jesus was saying, honour the office of the priesthood. God honoured the office and gave the high priest the gift of prophesy (Jn 11:51) God instituted the priesthood with the Levites. Jesus was not against the priesthood, he honoured and respected it, and I believe he is inviting us to do the same. God gave the high priest the gift of prophesy (Jn 11:51). Fr. Mateo writes:

    In Judges 17:10, the Ephraimite Micah asks a transient Levite, “Stay with me; be father and priest to me.” Later (Judges 18:19), a Danite war party persuades the same Levite to leave Micah, saying: “Come with us and be our father and priest.” Indeed, the Bible finds priesthood and fatherhood inseparably united.

    St. Paul says he is the father of his Christian converts (1st Thess. 2:10-11). Acts calls Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David fathers (4:25, 7:2, 8, 14). Paul says Timothy is his son, and he (Paul) is Timothy’s father (Philip. 2:22). Reading Hebrews 12:9 reminds us of those spankings we used to get from our fathers! 1st John 2:13, 14 twice calls certain members of the congregation fathers.

    Every Catholic priest is ordained in Christ to say, “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the Gospel” (1st Cor. 4:15). A priest is sent “to deal with us as a father deals with his children, encouraging, comforting, and urging us to live lives worthy of God” (1st Thess. 2:11-12).

    1. JamesLesser,
      You are arguing against the Word of God, and I am finished discussing with you. You compare calling your dad “father” with Jesus speaking Spiritually. Call no man your father is Spiritual. Only God is our Spiritual Father, not the Pope, nor any religion’s leader.
      Since you cannot even understand that much about Spiritual truths, then there is no need for now to continue discussing with you.
      I hope one day that you will come to the Truth.

  41. Quote “Call no man your father is Spiritual. Only God is our Spiritual Father, not the Pope, nor any religion’s leader.”

    Boy you give up so easily! It should be noted that there are 1,511 references to father, fathers. etc. in the King James version of Sacred Scripture. However, Most of these do not refer to God the Father.

    The use of the word “father,” in regards to priests, only means that a priest acts as a spiritual guide under the authority of God the Father. No one in their right mind thinks that each priest is God the Father or that any human being is their creator. Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value. This type of message is called a metaphor. It is figurative language used as a method of teaching and not meant to be taken literally. It is a way of getting across a message.

    Matthew 23:9 Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven.
    Sacred Scripture uses the phrase, “your father,” a total of 120 times. The New Testament alone has the following passages where the term “your father” is not used not in reference to God the Father. Most of these references are made by Jesus Himself, although one is made by His mother, Mary, and one by Saint Paul.

    Matthew 15:4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’

    Matthew 19:19 honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”

    Mark 7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’

    Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’ ”

    Luke 2:48 When his parents saw him, they were astonished, and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you done this to us? Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety.” (Obviously it is not God the Father who is hereby referred to as God. The Father in Heaven always new the exact location of Jesus.)

    Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts of people “doctor,” for example, medical doctors, as well as professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates). What they fail to realize is that “doctor” is simply the Latin word for “teacher.” Even “Mister” (Mr.) and “Mistress” (“Mrs.”) are forms of the word “master,” also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23 were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as guilty for using the word “teacher” and “doctor” and “mister” as Catholics for saying “father.”

    Here is one more example:

    Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell” (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We are all subject to “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16).

    Jesus is not forbidding us to call men “fathers” who actually are such—either literally or spiritually. To refer to such people as fathers is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

    Throughout the world, some people have been tempted to look upon religious leaders who are mere mortals as if they were an individual’s supreme source of spiritual instruction, nourishment, and protection. The tendency to turn mere men into “gurus” is worldwide.

    This was also a temptation in the Jewish world of Jesus’ day, when famous rabbinical leaders, especially those who founded important schools, such as Hillel and Shammai, were highly exalted by their disciples. It is this elevation of an individual man—the formation of a “cult of personality” around him—of which Jesus is speaking when he warns against attributing to someone an undue role as master, father, or teacher.

    He is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us that.

    1. No, I do not give up easily. I guess you want me to continue to try to persuade you of the truth. Okay, I will discuss a little bit more with you.
      Why would you bring up how many references the Bible has to the word father? None of those references nullifies Jesus’ command.
      You give the reason for Jesus’ command not to call anyone father “Jesus made this statement to help us focus on our true origins and upon that which has lasting value.” You admit Jesus gave the command, and you believe you understand why Jesus gave the command, how is it that you spend all this time trying to justify why you disobey Jesus?
      We are supposed to take Jesus’ commands literally. You dismiss the Creator’s commands by calling them metaphors, hyperboles, and figures of speech.
      You should obey God’s commands, even if you do not understand why God makes certain commands. Do you think you know better than God does? You try to find all sorts of excuses why you do not obey. Jesus commands us not to call anyone father, but you said, “He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood.” Therefore, you call people father anyway because you believe you are correctly attributing fatherhood!
      What does the words honor your father has to do with you disobeying Jesus about call no man father? They are brothers! True believers are brothers and sisters, not father!
      Why do you continue to argue the same earthly arguments with me? I told you that not calling your dad father is an earthly argument, yet you continue in this line of discussion.
      So you think that Jesus was not speaking truth when he said, “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell”? So you think that if your right eye is causing you to sin, and you don’t stop sinning, you believe your won’t go to hell?

  42. Wow! What a temper tantrum and un-Christian! Since most of you here are using scripture references…so why can’t I use them!?!?

    Protestants, of course, are interpreting “father” in this Scripture to mean, “spiritual father”. Therefore, they refuse to call a clergy or especially a Catholic clergymen “father”, preferring instead such titles as “pastor”, “reverend”, or perhaps even “brother”. At the outset, therefore, let me point out that “spiritual father” is an interpretation of the Lord’s statement rather than what He actually said. Mind you, I am not denying the need for interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I am pointing out that the Lord said “father”, not “spiritual father”. What is at issue here? Simply this: taken at face value, Jesus’ warning against calling any man “father” would not only seem to rule out calling a clergyman “father” , it would also keep us from using that title for earthly fathers and grandfathers, ancient Church fathers, or even city fathers, would it not? For in reality, the Lord’s statement, as it appears in the text, is that only one Person is ever to be called “father”, namely, our Father who is in heaven. But is Christ’s saying to be taken at face value? If so, several other passages in the Bible are immediately in conflict, including some statements by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. To the church at Corinth he wrote, “For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel”.2 Does not Paul claim to be the spiritual father of the Corinthians–“Father Paul”, if you please? Furthermore, he boldly refers to his spiritual ancestry as “our fathers”.3 And he did address earthly fathers in Colosse in this way: “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged”.4 It would appear the Apostle Paul certainly did not interpret the Lord Jesus Christ’s words to mean only One was to be called “father”, that is, the heavenly Father. In addition to this, when the rich man saw Abraham in heaven with Lazarus in his bosom, and addressed him as “Father Abraham”, Abraham’s response was not, “Do you not realize that only God the Father is to be called `father?” Rather, he replied, “Son, remember..”.5 Instances like the above could be multiplied from Scripture to show that a great many people are acknowledged to be “fathers”. The problem of the way you explain it is still using “Sola Scriptura”

    The Holy Scriptures tell us to:
    “Test everything. Hold on to the good.”
    1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

    Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible and only the Bible is the SOLE infallible rule of Faith and that everything necessary for salvation is contained within its pages. While the salvational message is contained in the Holy Bible, it does not contain the whole of the Christian Faith and it says so explicitly in many places.
    Here are but two examples:

    “And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book” (John 20:30)

    “But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

    Although the Gospel of Christ is contained in the Bible, or it is at least materially sufficient, many times it is not formally present or formally sufficient.

    1. Your comment:
      Sola Scriptura teaches that the Bible and only the Bible is the SOLE infallible rule of Faith and that everything necessary for salvation is contained within its pages.

      My Comment:
      It is not faith in the Bible that brings salvation, but Jesus Christ alone. You quote John:20-1, but let me ask you, don’t you think if the other signs from Jesus were as necessary, that they would be included in God’s infallible Word? For me, Christ is more than sufficient, he is my all.

      1. So, what is Faith According to the Bible? Most of us have faith in friends and family members who are always available in times of need. There are certain people we have come to trust by virtue of their loyalty and dependability. Faith is also one of the central themes of the Bible. This faith is similar to the above mentioned faith; however, this faith is on a much grander scale. When faith is discussed in the Bible, it is almost always in relationship or it is shown in works that brings salvation through Jesus Christ.

        Furthermore, it goes beyond the standard question posed by Fundamentalists: “Have you been saved?” What the question also means is: “Don’t you wish you had the assurance of salvation?” Evangelicals and Fundamentalists think they do have such an absolute assurance.

        Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, “He who endures to the end will be saved” (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.

        For many Fundamentalists and Evangelicals it makes no difference—as far as salvation is concerned—how you live or end your life. You can heed the altar call at church, announce that you’ve accepted Jesus as your personal Savior, and, so long as you really believe it, you’re set. From that point on there is nothing you can do, no sin you can commit, no matter how heinous, that will forfeit your salvation. You can’t undo your salvation, even if you wanted to.

        But as the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5-8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9-10, 1 Cor. 3:12-15). Like the apostle Paul, I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11-13).

        Finally, we catholics are justified initially by faith which should lead into works that produce sanctification. Since sanctification and justification go hand in hand, once we are sanctified and completely free from sin, we are also justified.
        Sanctification is by faith working through works of love.

        Works are necessary because we need to keep away from sin/become sanctified and grow in love of God and our neighbour.
        Justification is actual, in the sense that we are truly free from a sin nature and thereby justified.
        It is a process because sanctification produces justification and we are not sanctified instantly.
        We can lose justification by defiling our souls i.e. committing mortal sin.
        Of course, all by the merits of Christs death and resurrection.

      2. JamesLesser,

        Ephesians 2:8-10

        For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

        James 2:20-24

        You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is uselessd? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”e and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

        Salvation is a gift of God’s mercy, accepted through faith alone. Works are but an outward expression of one’s inner faith. As such, if the actions of a person do not reflect those of a saved person, it is then that one must ask if they have really been saved at all.

    2. JamesLesser,
      You judge the sound of my post incorrectly. I am not having a temper tantrum, and I am not unchristian. I have a very gentle disposition. Too bad you think the worst about someone who is just trying to help you. I do understand though why you want to say such things to me. You do not want anyone to speak against what you are doing. I really only wanted to help.

      1. To Steve

        Indispensable things is found in Letter to James 2:26 – “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”

        We are not saved by faith alone. We are saved by GRACE. Faith is a work just as giving alms to the poor is a work. It is by God’s GRACE that we have faith and works. Protestants want to separate faith from works just as they want to separate water from Spirit in John 3. It is faith and works together not faith or works. One more thing, when you bandy about words like justification be sure you define the word as justification to protestants is a whole lot different than justification to Catholics. To protestants justification means to declare or pronounce one to be righteous or holy before God. But to Catholics it is different. Catholic definition of justificartion denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God’s preventing and helping grace. It also denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace.

        In short, to protestants, it is once and done. But to Catholics justification requires that one continue in the state of justification which is sanctifying grace. In protestantism one is still justified even though that person commits mortal sins. In Catholicism sin [mortal sin] must be remitted before one regains justification. Protestantism has no way to deal with sin and therefore ignores it or sweeps it under the rug where, supposedly, God doesn’t see it. Thus the analogy of Luther comparing a justified man to a manure pile covered in new pure white snow. God only sees the snow and not the manure pile underneath and reckons the man to be justified. But to Catholics the justified man is free of his sins and therefore is no longer that manure pile but is transformed by God’s grace into something pleasing to God.

        Why is this important? In the story about Judgment Day, (Matthew 25:31-46) where Jesus separates the sheep from the goats, the only questions that Jesus asks the multitude concern works:

        1. Did you feed the hungry?

        2. Did you clothe the naked?

        3. Did you give a drink to the thirsty, etc.

        Jesus is asking about one’s works…isn’t he???

        If they answered “no” to these works in Matthew 25, then Jesus said that they were going to hell. Nowhere does Jesus ask, “Did you accept me as your personal Lord and Savior?” So, you can infer from all of this that just confessing with your lips that Jesus is your personal Lord and Savior is NOT ENOUGH (deathbed conversions are a different standard), although it is a great start on your salvation journey!! The Book of James, in the Bible, says that your faith must be justified by works (James 2:24), which is much different from what Paul says in Galatians 2:16 about “We may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law (In the former, James refers to faith being justified by works; In the latter, Paul says that we are justified by faith. So, once you have the faith and are justified by it, then your faith in turn must then be justified by works).”

      2. Dear James Lesser.

        Shalom.

        The NTM team have decided to spam people who are not on this site to debate with us, and do not answer direct questions. So please attend my questions:

        You wrote:

        To protestants justification means to declare or pronounce one to be righteous or holy before God. But to Catholics it is different. Catholic definition of justificartion denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God.

        My comment:

        Justification by faith alone, is faith in the finished work of Jesus. I can only be justified by the blood of the lamb of God, and not a single deed. Those who struggle to be justified by good works, live in bondage to the Pope who demands penance for the papacy and Church. It is the Church that will eventually save the Catholics, by her holiness and prayer for the departed souls in purgatory.

        All who are justified by faith alone, rejects the Papacy.

        All who are justified by faith alone, do good work because they love Jesus. They want to honor him. There is no account of such good works. Such good works become a natural part of our live, 24X7. This is the process of Holiness. Each man will get different gifts of the Holy Spirit, each man a unique calling. The Holy Spirit will lead and guide us, into all the truth. The Holy Spirit will always honor Jesus.

        When Jesus returns no believer in Him will be judged. We will be gathered to His throne, and get the reward He will grant us. Those who have been deceived into the bondage of the Pope, and think they can work their justification by the filthy rags of Vatican approved work, will face judgment. Together with the man of lawlessness, they will spend eternity in Hell.

        Now let me ask you three questions: If you fail to reply, your next message will be spammed:

        1. Is the Pope “The Holy Father”?

        2. Was Mary ever virgin, never had sex with her husband?

        3. Is the World of God infallible, or does it needs to be filtered by Roman Catholic priests?

  43. Just got back from vacation!

    1. Is the Pope “The Holy Father”? Its a title!!!!

    In the Bible, spiritual leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even the Apostle Paul, are called fathers in a spiritual sense.
    “Holy” refers to the fact that the pope has been given a job to do by God, and set apart (which is what holy means) for this purpose.
    Jesus’ prohibition on using the terms “father” and “teacher” refer to a matter of pride, not a prohibition on the use of certain words. Otherwise the Bible wouldn’t use the terms for humans, and we couldn’t call our male parent “father”.

    To help your friend better understand this term, show her examples in the bible where it speaks of the apostles as spiritual fathers (1 Cor 4:17, 1 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 1:2, 2 Tim 2:1, Phi 2:22, Titus 1:4, Philem. 10).

    Now for Mary #2

    This question comes up here every so often. To begin with, the word “until” is used in more than one way. We can say that he gave up eating candy UNTIL Easter Sunday. This implies that on Easter Sunday he fed his sweet tooth. But we can also say He was faithful to his wife UNTIL she died. This does not mean that he was then unfaithful to her once he became a widower. This latter use of the word is how we understand it regarding Mary’s virginity after she gave birth to Jesus. Joseph had no relations with Mary UNTIL Jesus was born. This need not imply that after she gave birth, he did. Relationship is a very broad term!!!

    First born can mean that this is the first of the births to follow. It can also mean that Mary had no children BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus. There is no evidence in Sacred Scripture or in Sacred Tradition that she had other children. It is quite significant that as Jesus hung on the cross, he gave his mother to the care of the apostle John. If Mary had had other children, there is no doubt that she would have been given to their care.

    The “… October 2002 Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR) announced that a first century stone ossuary had been discovered that is believed to have held the bones of St. James, the brother of Jesus, also known as “James the Just.” The ossuary carries an inscription that says, in Aramaic, “James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

    “Some non-Catholics were quick to tout the box as evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this does not follow. The ossuary identifies its James as the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, it does not identify him as the son-much less the biological son-of Mary. The only point that Catholic doctrine has defined regarding the “brethren of the Lord” is that they are not biological children of Mary.

    What relationship they did have with her is a matter of speculation. They may have been Jesus’ adoptive brothers, stepbrothers through Joseph, or-according to one popular theory-cousins.

    As has often been pointed out, Aramaic had no word for “cousin,” so the word for brother was used in its place. This inscription is in Aramaic, and so there would be little surprise if it were being used in that way. In fact, that’s what you’d expect.

    While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James “the brother of the Lord” were Jesus’ cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.

    The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James’ death (A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.

    The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord’s public ministry began.

    #3
    the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone,” which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed. By this doctrine, which is one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism, a Protestant denies that there is any other source of religious authority or divine Revelation to humanity.

    The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as “Tradition.” The teaching authority or “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith

    Obviously these two views on what constitutes the Christian’s rule of faith are opposed to each other, and anyone who sincerely seeks to follow Christ must be sure that he follows the one that is true.

    The doctrine of Sola Scriptura originated with Martin Luther, the 16th-century German monk who broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and started the Protestant “Reformation.” (1) in response to some abuses that had been occurring within the Catholic Church, Luther became a vocal opponent of certain practices. As far as these abuses were concerned, they were real and Luther was justified in reacting. However, as a series of confrontations between him and the Church hierarchy developed, the issues became more centered on the question of Church authority and – from Luther’s perspective – whether or not the teaching of the Catholic Church was a legitimate rule of faith for Christians.

    As the confrontations between Luther and the Church’s hierarchy ensued and tensions mounted, Luther accused the Catholic Church of having corrupted Christian doctrine and having distorted Biblical truths, and he more and more came to believe that the Bible, as interpreted by the individual believer, was the only true religious authority for a Christian. He eventually rejected Tradition as well as the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (with the Pope at its head) as having legitimate religious authority.

    An honest inquirer must ask, then, whether Luther’s doctrine of “Scripture alone” was a genuine restoration of a Biblical truth or rather the promulgation of an individual’s personal views on Christian authority. Luther was clearly passionate about his beliefs, and he was successful in spreading them, but these facts in and of themselves do not guarantee that what he taught was correct. Since one’s spiritual well-being, and even one’s eternal destiny, is at stake, the Christian believer needs to be absolutely sure in this matter. Some points why to reject sola scriptura!!

    Protestants often point to verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 or The Apocalypse (Revelation)22:18-19 in defense of Sola Scriptura, but close examination of these two passages easily demonstrates that they do not support the doctrine at all.

    In 2 Timothy 3:16-17 we read, “All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.” There are five considerations which undermine the Sola Scriptura interpretation of this passage:

    1) The Greek word ophelimos (“profitable”) used in verse 16 means “useful” not “sufficient.” An example of this difference would be to say that water is useful for our existence – even necessary – but it is not sufficient; that is, it is not the only thing we need to survive. We also need food, clothing, shelter, etc. Likewise, Scripture is useful in the life of the believer, but it was never meant to be the only source of Christian teaching, the only thing needed for believers.

    2) The Greek word pasa, which is often rendered as “all,” actually means “every,” and it has the sense of referring to each and every one of the class denoted by the noun connected with it. (2) In other words, the Greek reads in a way which indicates that each and every “Scripture” is profitable. If the doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then based on Greek verse 16, each and every book of the Bible could stand on its own as the sole rule of faith, a position which is obviously absurd.

    3) The “Scripture” that St. Paul is referring to here is the Old Testament, a fact which is made plain by his reference to the Scripture’s being known by Timothy from “infancy” (verse 15). The New Testament as we know it did not yet exist, or at best it was incomplete, so it simply could not have included in St. Paul’s understanding of what was meant by the term “scripture.” If we take St. Paul’s words at face value, Sola Scriptura would therefore mean that the Old Testament is the Christian’s sole rule of faith. This is a premise that all Christians would reject.

    The importance of Catholic Priest is the mass and sacraments!!! At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of his Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the centuries until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us” (Sacrosanctum Concilium 47).

    Even a modestly informed Catholic can set an inquirer right and direct him to biblical accounts of Jesus’ final night with his disciples. Turning to the text, we read, “And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me’” (Luke 22:19).

    The Greek here and in the parallel Gospel passages (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22) reads: Touto estin to soma mou. Paul’s version differs slightly: Touto mou estin to soma (1 Cor. 11:24). They all translate as “This is my body.” The verb estin is the equivalent of the English “is” and can mean “is really” or “is figuratively.” The usual meaning of estin is the former (check any Greek grammar book), just as, in English, the verb “is” usually is taken literally.

    Fundamentalists insist that when Christ says, “This is my body,” he is speaking figuratively. But this interpretation is precluded by Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11:23–29 and by the whole tenor of John 6, the chapter where the Eucharist is promised. The Greek word for “body” in John 6:54 is sarx, which means physical flesh, and the word for “eats” (trogon) translates as “gnawing” or “chewing.” This is certainly not the language of metaphor.

    No “figurative presence”

    The literal meaning can’t be avoided except through violence to the text—and through the rejection of the universal understanding of the early Christian centuries. The writings of Paul and John reflect belief in the Real Presence. There is no basis for forcing anything else out of the lines, and no writer tried to do so until the early Middle Ages. Christ did not institute a Figurative Presence. Some Fundamentalists say the word “is” is used because Aramaic, the language Christ spoke, had no word for “represents.” Those who make this feeble claim are behind the times, since, as Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman showed a century ago, Aramaic has about three dozen words that can mean “represents.”

    The Catholic position

    The Church teaches that the Mass is the re-presentation of the sacrifice of Calvary, which also is invariably misunderstood by anti-Catholics. The Catholic Church does not teach that the Mass is a re-crucifixion of Christ, who does not suffer and die again in the Mass.

    Yet, it is more than just a memorial service. John A. O’Brien, writing in The Faith of Millions, said, “The manner in which the sacrifices are offered is alone different: On the cross Christ really shed his blood and was really slain; in the Mass, however, there is no real shedding of blood, no real death; but the separate consecration of the bread and of the wine symbolizes the separation of the body and blood of Christ and thus symbolizes his death upon the cross. The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls. All the efficacy of the Mass is derived, therefore, from the sacrifice of Calvary” (306).

    “Once for all”

    The Catholic Church specifically says Christ does not die again—his death is once for all. It would be something else if the Church were to claim he does die again, but it doesn’t make that claim. Through his intercessory ministry in heaven and through the Mass, Jesus continues to offer himself to his Father as a living sacrifice, and he does so in what the Church specifically states is “an unbloody manner”—one that does not involve a new crucifixion.

    1. Dear James Lesser.

      You wrote:

      1. Is the Pope “The Holy Father”? Its a title!!!!

      My reply:

      If I call my self “god”, would it be just a title?

      Jesus never told anyone to call a human “Holy Father”. Only His Father in Heaven was addressed this way by Him. Jesus WARNED us not to call any priest “father”, still all Roman Catholics do this.

      Now its your choice if you want to call people “anti-Catholic” for being faithful to the Word of God.

      2. Mary:

      You wrote:

      First born can mean that this is the first of the births to follow. It can also mean that Mary had no children BEFORE she gave birth to Jesus.

      My reply:

      “First born” means the one who came before the second. The New Testament writers wrote down the New Testament after 30 A.D. Than Miriam, the mother of Jesus, was at least 43 years old. At that time, her children were adults. It was possible to count them, and name them in the Bible. They are named in the Bible.

      The Bible explains that there were people who HAD only one child. Lone children do not have siblings.

      Luke 9:38
      A man in the crowd called out, “Teacher, I beg you to look at my son, for he is my only child.

      Now its you choice to brand people who understand this to be “anti-Catholic”. For others, even non-Christians this truth about the mother of Jesus is plain ABC. It should also be plan language, for all who do not twist the scriptures, and make a mockery out of the truth.

      To call God of the Bible a liar. That is your choice. It does not make any difference if your explanations are very long or short.

      1. I write such topics long is to explain it well!!! There is no way to explain a topic in short detail or other wise, it is useless to explain something well!

        First of all, I will explain to you the Biblical meaning of the “brothers of Jesus” since you still ignore the ancient Hebrew Language! In today’s society, as it was in the days of Jesus, the word “brother” had another meaning other than being a “biological brother.” The Natives of North America call each other “brothers”, although in most cases, they are not related. When watching television, we notice how the black people call each other “brothers,” although they are not related. The muslims in Canada often called each other “brothers” although they are not related. Prisoners call each other “bro” or “brothers” although they are not related. Members of religious groups call each other “brothers.” Even those who are involved in illegal drug activities, they call each other “brothers.” Yet none of these groups are really blood related to each other.

        Why do these groups of people call each other “brothers?” It is because the word “brother” in these cases has a totally different meaning. The usage of the word “brother” in these cases has to do with association by culture, peers, race or religion. Some people like to emphasize that they belong to the same race. Equally, some like to emphasize that they belong to the same culture, a particular peer group or the same Church.

        All of us, sometime in life, will experience being introduced as a “brother” or “sister” to someone. It might be because of the friendship between two persons or the manner in which one is introduced to a certain group. At the same time, one knows that truly, he is not the “brother” or “sister” of the other person.

        It was the same in the Jewish culture. The Jewish people, not belonging to the gentile nations, made reference to each other as “brothers” and “sisters.” When introduced, this identified them as “one of them,” as a Jewish person. When something was written about the Jewish people, they were referred to as “brothers” as a means of saying they were Jewish.

        To complicate the matter, the Hebrew language did not contain a word that meant “cousin.” Instead, the word “brother” was used for both, the words “brother” and “cousin.” When the Jewish scholars translated the early Church writings from Hebrew to Greek, they literally translated the word “brother” as “brother.” Since they were accustomed to the word that could mean either “brother” or “cousin,” they did not believe that it was necessary to define when it means “brother” or when it means “cousin.” Therefore, in instance where a reference might be made to a cousin of Jesus, the word “brother” was applied. While this person may have been a blood relative, he was not a biological brother.

        Now in Sacred Scripture, let us review the claim that James was the brother of Jesus. In Mark 15:40, we read, “There were also women looking on from a distance; among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.” It is clear from this verse that Mary, the mother of James and Joses was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Bible makes reference to more than one Mary.

        To conclude, I want to present some Logical facts that clearly indicate that Jesus could not have had brothers. Which you don’t pay any attention! These are:

        1) If Jesus had brothers or sisters, does common sense not state that the Descendants from Jesus’s mother would be proud of it? And accordingly, would these descendants not be claiming their rightful place as Descendants of Mary? Yet, this has never happened!

        2) The Early Church has always proclaimed that Mary was ever-virgin. If such was not true, why has her alleged other children and possibly descendants ever publicly renounce the virginity of Mary as a lie? It is because there are no other children or descendants of Mary.

        3) If Mary would have had other children, Jesus would not have been as popular as He was. Jesus was popular because He was recognized as the promised Messiah, the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testament. Jesus fulfilled the words found in the Gospel of Matthew where it states, “All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophoet: ‘Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means, ‘God is with us.'” [Mt. 1:22-23] If Mary would have had other children, the prophecy regarding the virginity of Mary in the Gospel of Matthew would not have been fulfilled. And Jesus would not have been recognized as being the Messiah.

        4) In the Gospel of John, we read, “When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, here is your son.’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.” [Jn. 19:26-27]

        If Jesus would have had any brothers, according to the Jewish custom, they would have been obligated to take care of Mary after Jesus died. But this was not the case. Jesus placed the care of His mother, Mary, into the hands of the Apostle John.

        5) In the Gospel of Luke, we read how Jesus was conceived. “The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.'” [Lk. 1: 35] The conception of Jesus resulted from a union between the Holy Spirit and Mary. This union, a marriage blessed by God, placed Mary in a position where she was obligated to maintain a vow of perpetual virginity after the birth of Jesus. If Mary would have had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, this would have been viewed as an adulterous affair.

        6) In Mark 6:3, we read, “‘Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they were offense at him.” Notice here that there is only one reference to “the son of Mary,” that being Jesus. The others are not called the sons of Mary but rather the brothers of Jesus. If they would have been the brothers of Jesus, logically, they too would have been referred to as the sons of Mary.

        Knowing that Jesus had no biological brothers, we can speculate regarding the status of his brothers. They could have members of Jesus’ religious group. The could have been cousins. They could have been adopted by Joseph and Mary. Or, if Joseph had fathered children from a previous marriage and was a widower, then the brothers would actually be half-brothers of Jesus. While all of these speculations are possible, they do not contradict the fact that Jesus had no biological brothers who shared Mary and Joseph as parents. Those who claim otherwise, they have failed to thoroughly study the facts that are found in the Holy Bible.

  44. Just to quote something earlier!!

    Matthew 28:19-20

    19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

    And yet Jesus passes his sole authority and command to his disciples!! Jesus is sole authority and pass on to those on earth who are his disciples and led by Peter as head of the disciples! Plus your comment still does not explain how the Bible is a sole authority since the Bible was not a book until 5th century. Before that was just word of mouth or orally passed on…..which TRADITION!! Explain that……..

  45. The Catholic church has painted itself into a corner with many of it’s doctrines. There is no way out except to admitting itself wrong, which it is unable to do, over things like Mary being ever virgin. So, it will go to any length to defend itself and has a large group of zealous apologists.

    A lot of the doctrines were developed at a time when the Bible was not widely read and Catholicism, and it’s popes, were influential in the world. Mankind has, since that time, had the light of the Bible shine on it and expose the Roman cult, and its doctrines, for what it actually is.

    It’s painfully obvious to the brothers and sisters in Christ that something is wrong in Rome and it’s equally obvious that the average Catholic is completely unaware. This is where mercy comes in. Prayers and testimonies have helped many get saved and leave that place and will help many more in the future.

    Here is a link to “Testimonies from ex-Roman Catholic Priests”

    http://carm.org/testimonies-ex-roman-catholic-priests

  46. The reason Catholics venerate ( or synonyms, worship – revere – respect – honor – esteem ) Mary is because the popes tells them things like this. Pope Pius IX, from Encyclical Ubi Primum

    Quote,

    “For, God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary.”

    End quote.

    If stuff like this is drilled into your head from childhood then it’s no wonder they have so much Mary worship, oops, I mean veneration.

  47. Peace be to all !

    Ah! my heart is so troubled. Why do we argue so much by staying within the adobe of Jesus the Lord? Catholics or Protestants, your intent and purity og heart is all God is going to look at. I’m both Protestant and a catholic. I ma Christian. I call Mary Blessed and consider her the first true disciple of Christ and there lies my personal relationship with her in the way I know. I don’t need anyone else to instigate me or guide me. The Spirit of God leads me. I don’t give opinions nor do I lecture someone. Rather I try and live the life Jesus wanted me to. Life Mary tried and lived. Life the disciples lived. at those times, I bet you its so hard even to imagine what it is to stand by Jesus in His ministry… how dare we get into the sexual details of Jesus’ holy family – lovingly chosen by God. Many will say many. Wont your spirit of Truth guide you to listen to the inner voice… truth will not change.

    Why waste so much time in arguments using Scripture and calling each other’s names? You may think you are doing it out of Love. But cant you see who is getting entertained and who is sobbing? Lets get out and spread love. Do it in name of Jesus. The relationships you personally want to maintain with God and his ‘people’ both human and divine are totally up to you. Respect the scriptures and traditions. Harken to the Spirit of God to let you follow the LIGHT. Let the Spirit guide you to that. But lets not try to teach each other… for the danger exists that it is from here the false teachers arise even without their own knowledge. We know so little… we are so ignorant. We could not even go to another galaxy yet. Why are we getting into the bedrooms of Mary? Are we more powerful than God who planned Salvation? More knowledgeable and wise?

    I’d urge you my dear brothers and sisters, live in peace and love. Smile and live in humility. Spread joy. With the thought of Jesus, my entire being trembles in joy for He walked on this earth and died for me, saved me and went back to father to make a place for me. My head bows in adoration for the people who followed Jesus and made way for all of us to get to know Him better. Mother Mary is blessed of all…in ways we cant even imagine. God himself, His Spirit and the angels are the witnesses to it. Scriptures are your evidence. Lets not comment about her anymore than this. Lets not commit any blasphemy against the will and plan of God. we are humans. we are weak. we can easily fall and fail Him.

    I pray, lets be steadfast in LOVE and spreading Love of God to all. Lets Live like Christians. When the messiah arrives second time, what case, creed, denomination, race you belonged will be dust. the matter of your soul and the purity of your life is all that gets out. God bless you all.

    Praise be to the FATHER alone through Jesus.

  48. You don’t think Jesus is worthy of praise?

    Psalm 113:1 Praise the LORD. Praise the LORD, you his servants; praise the name of the LORD.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s