Posted on 06/11/2017 10:27:59 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
She never acknowledges when she is proven wrong ... she can’t afford to, she’s claiming role of teacher to us.
>> “My pastor says there will be Catholics, Baptists, Lutherans, Greek Orthodox, Methodists, etc. in Heaven.” <<
But what does Matthew 7:21-23 say?
—
My pastor cites that often.
It’s about a relationship and doing the will of God. It’s more about relationship than religion. I believe you can be Catholic or any denomination as long as you’re a believer and follower of Christ.
I even know a Mormon or two who I expect to see ‘in the clouds’. They were Christians before falling for Moronism.
I have both, two step-sisters and a half-brother in my family.
I would sincerely hope, that the brothers and sisters of Jesus, in addition to James and Jude, and the the other natural born children of Mary, conceived by, dare I say it, by SEX, between Mary and Joseph, also came to faith in Jesus. The scriptures are silent on it, so we do not know for sure, but I hope they did. 😇
I’ve got to draw the line somewhere ....
I am just kidding. I think I’ll leave this up to some that are more knowledgeable on the subject. I just don’t know that much about Mormonism.
The gospel speaks of the virginity of Mary, only until the period of the Savior's birth; everything has reference to Jesus Christ.
I know you have issued this challenge on other threads but either you missed the evidence provided to you or you ignored it/rejected it. I saved the link from before, so here it is once again:
The Catholics of Rome and even many of the Protestant Reformers have believed in the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Notice:
The French reformer John Calvin (1509-1564) was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther, but he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was “Holy Virgin.”
The Swiss reformer, Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531), wrote, on the perpetual virginity of Mary: “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin.” Elsewhere Zwingli affirmed: “I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary; Christ was born of a most undefiled Virgin.” (Bacchiocchi S. “MARIOLOGY”. ENDTIME ISSUES NEWSLETTER No. 191, 2007).
But where did this come from?
Well, it did not come from the Bible. Here is some of what two Catholic-translations of scripture teach about Mary and her family:
55…Is not his mother the woman called Mary, and his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Jude? 56 His sisters, too, are they not all here with us? (Matthew 13:55b-56a, NJB).
3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon? Are not also his sisters here with us? (Mark 6:3a, DRB)
So, perpetual virginity for Mary is not explicitly part of sacred scripture. Since Jesus was Mary’s first born son—the implication, which is confirmed in scripture, is that she had other sons.
While some have argued that the term for brothers in Matthew 13:55 may mean cousins, the Greek expressions for brothers (adephos) and sisters (adelphe) are what is in the Greek texts. The Greek terms in those verses do not mean cousins (Danker FW, ed. A Greek-Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, p. 18 ). The Greek terms that better convey "cousin" are suggenh/suggenes/anepsios (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.). And those terms are the only ones that are translated as "cousin" in the Rheims New Testament (Luke 1:36 DRB; Colossians 4:10 DRB). Mark 6:3 also uses the Greek expression for sisters (adelphe), and does not use the one that convey more distant kin like cousins. Thus, even Catholic translators seemingly admit that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that cousin comes from different words. If the terms in koine Greek clearly was understood to have meant cousins, then most of those who professed Christ and lived in the first century or so after His incarnation would have realized that. But that was not their position.
Furthermore, notice the following:
The above clearly states that Mary was the mother of James and Joseph. And this is the Mary, mother of Jesus (Mark 6:3; John 2:1)--the Greek term for mother, meéteer, is the same as the one in John 2:1 where Mary is referred to as Jesus' mother). James and Joseph were not Jesus' half-brothers from a sometimes claimed prior marriage for Joseph, Mary's husband. This is not just my opinion. Notice what Catholic Priest and scholar Bagatti has published: Of the relatives of the Lord mention is made in the Gospels; four are called "brothers of Jesus", namely James, Joseph (Josuah), Simon and Jude. The first two have Mary as their mother Matt. 27, 56). (Bagatti, Bellarmino. Translated by Eugene Hoade. The Church from the Circumcision. Nihil obstat: Marcus Adinolfi. Imprimi potest: Herminius Roncari. Imprimatur: +Albertus Gori, die 26 Junii 1970. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem, p.52) Hence, since the Bible does not say Mary would remain a virgin and it shows that Mary was the mother of at least two of Jesus' brothers, there is no biblical reason to accept the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity (but many still do).
Basically, scripture only says that she was a virgin UNTIL Jesus was born. All real Christians believe that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived inside of her by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) and that she remained a virgin until some time after Jesus was born (Matthew 1:25; 13:55-56). Apparently, the earliest claim as to Mary's so-called perpetual virginity comes from a false document known as the Protoevangelium of James (McNally, p. 73). Why is it false?
This "gospel" falsely claims to have been written by James in Jerusalem and in the first century (The Protoevangelium of James. Translated by Alexander Walker. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 8. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. ).
It states that a midwife checked, and found, intact proof of Mary's viginity shortly after Jesus was born. The claims of its authorship and date of writing are both being claims scholars realize are false (The Infancy Gospel Of James; Alternate title: The Protovangelion. Geoff Trowbridge's Introduction. http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/infjames.htm viewed 08/13/11; Kirby, Peter. "Infancy Gospel of James." Early Christian Writings. 2011. 13 Aug. 2011 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/infancyjames.html; Reid, George. "Apocrypha." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. 17 Aug. 2011 ).
Thus, this perpetual virginity teaching seems to have started from false sources.
It may be of interest to understand that the idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin was denounced once it started to become popular. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes:
That last article in The Catholic Encyclopedia also teaches that "St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours" held positions similar to the Antidicomarianites. Furthermore, another article in The Catholic Encyclopedia states, "writers like Tertullian, Hevidius, and possibly Hegesippus disputed the perpetual virginity of Mary." Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma adds that the perpetual virginity of Mary was also denied in the “Early Church” by Eunomius, Jovian, Helvidus, and Bishop Bonosus of Sardica as well as Christians with practices some considered to be Jewish (Ott, p. 204).
The Greco-Roman "Saint Basil the Great" in the fourth century wrote:
Therefore, the idea that from the beginning all believed that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" simply is without real merit.
It, however, seemed to become formalized in the sixth and seventh centuries:
This dogma originated from a false source (a "gospel" that Saint James did not write). It was opposed after it started to become popular. Catholic saints scholars, and others opposed it. There is simply no evidence that it was taught by the apostles.
The dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is an innovation that is not from sacred scripture nor the true earliest traditions of the Christian church. http://www.cogwriter.com/saint-mary-dogmas.htm
It's a pernicious, spurious cult. They DO have a good rap, but they engage in cult speak. The use the same terms that born again believers use, but their terms mean something entirely different.
They say they use the Bible, in so far as it is correctly translated. I usually ask them where it is incorrectly translated? That usually causes problems with them. 🙃😊🙂😫😩😱
Mary conceived "without any detriment to her virginity, which remained inviolate even after his birth" (Council of the Lateran, 649). Although never explicated in detail, the Catholic Church holds as dogma that Mary was and is Virgin before, in and after Christ's birth. (The Four Marian Dogmas. Catholic News Agency, http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=424 viewed 08/26/11)
They have a LOT riding on it. Defending it, as with all such declared dogmas, is seen as a major responsibility especially for those tasked with teaching the religion to others. To allow doubt or disbelief is to them a grave sin and their eternal life is held for ransom. That is why some will continue to argue forcefully even in the face of disputing facts and Scripture.
I also can't help but think growing up with Jesus in the house and His example of holiness all the time might have made an impact, too. He loved them and would have told them of why He was there. Now, there may have been some rivalry and jealousy with them and they did think he was out of his mind one time when he was preaching close to home, but I cannot imagine people that close to him for as long as they were with him wouldn't have believed in him and been saved.
Which avails you nothing as a polemic for submitting to Rome, since
1. if being the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture means such are the infallible authorities who must be submitted to then you invalidate the NT church.
2. The church that wrote and gave us the Scriptures stands in contrast to that of Rome, being contrary to it as regards Cath distinctives.
2) You have neglected to distinguish between different kinds of tradition.
Which is what Catholics typically do in charging us with rejecting tradition.
The kind called Sacred Tradition has exactly the same origin (the teaching of Our Lord and of His Apostles) whether it is conveyed by preaching , or teaching, or example, or the texts of letters and Gospels. 3) St Paul taught exactly that: that Sacred Tradition has the same authority whether oral or written: (2 These 2:15) “Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, whether by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Which also avails you nothing as a polemic that what Paul referred to was a vast body of the oral word of God that was never written, but out of which Rome can enjoin obedience, even to something 1700+ years after it allegedly occurred.
And which was so lacking in support from early tradition - where it ought to be manifest - that Rome's own scholars opposed it being declared apostolic doctrine.
For the reality is that,
1. SS preachers themselves enjoin obedience to oral preaching under the condition that it is Scriptural.
2. The apostles sometimes could speaks and write as wholly inspired of God, including in passing on truths found in tradition as well as new public revelation, and as wholly inspired of God we know it is true and the word of God.
In contrast, the so-called apostolic successors of Rome do not speak as wholly inspired of God - which is far more powerful then statements that are simply true (Heb. 4:12) do not speak as wholly inspired of God, while their claim that their office is perpetually protected from error (infallible) is a novel unScriptural presumption which no magisterial office in Scripture was ever promised.
Nor do they claim to provide new public revelation. Thus apostles enjoining obedience to wholly inspired preaching is not the same thing as what Rome imagines it is doing, and cannot even claim to be equal with Scripture. .
4. The veracity of Scripture was never subject to testing by oral preaching, but instead the opposite is exampled and affirmed by the Holy Spirit. (Acts 17:11) Thus Scripture has the supreme authority.
5. Writing is God's manifest means of preservation, as shown in a post here by the grace of God. It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, nor how the Lord rebuked the devil and errant leadership, and established His prophetic mission to the disciples, and opened their minds to, and told Timothy was the instrumental means of being equipped, but the wholly inspired-of-God written word. The very doctrine Paul told Timothy to hold to was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, thanks be to God.
6. As is abundantly evidenced, as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
7. There is no proof that the oral preaching of the apostles was not subsequently written down. whereas it is evidenced that anything called the word of God/the Lord usually was, directly or subsequently.
Therefore, in making what uninspired men of Rome say to be equal with the wholly inspired oral preaching of men as the apostles, and Scripture, and as including such unScriptural traditions as praying to saints etc., then either you or the apostle Paul, must be very much mistaken. Take your pick carefully.
From the likes of you with your pasted polemical propaganda links compelling Scripture to support mere traditions of men which were manifestly not seen in the only wholly inspired record of the NT church.
For the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 4:4; 19:4-5; 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) in dissent from the historical magisterial stewards of Divine revelation of the body “unto whom were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) but who wrongly supposed lineage made them correct, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:33) and thus the authenticity of Truth claims and oral preaching of the word must be subject to the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, the Scriptures. (Matthew 4:4; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28)
In the light of which, what the NT church in Scripture (as seen in Acts onward, which shows how the NT church understood the gospels) did NOT profess/teach practice were such things as:
• Praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly unseen in Scripture despite prayer being so basic a practice that the Holy Spirit inspired the recording of approx. 200 prayers by believers, with none being addressed to anyone else but God, who alone is shown able to hear all such from Heaven. Only pagans prayed to invisible heavenly beings than God, as the Spirit is faithful to record.
• Kneeling before a statue and praising the entity it represented in the unseen world, beseeching such for Heavenly help, and making offerings to them, and giving glory and titles and ascribing attributes to such which are never given in Scripture to created beings (except to false gods. Only pagans burned incense unto the queen of heaven: Jeremiah 44:16-17), including having the uniquely Divine power glory to hear and respond to virtually infinite numbers of prayers individually addressed to them
Which manner of adulation would constitute worship in Scripture, yet Catholics imagine that by playing word games then they can avoid crossing the invisible line between mere "veneration" and worship.
• That the act of baptism itself renders souls formally justified by their own holiness so that they would directly enter Heaven if they died at the time of the baptism, but which thus means that the same (due to the outworking of their remaining sinful nature) usually have to later endure postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough (and atone for venial sins) to enter Heaven.
• Nor were novenas made to obtain indulgences to escape RC purgatory, as instead by effectual faith true believers are already accepted in the Beloved, and positionally seated together with Him in Heaven, and have boldness to enter into the holy of holies, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6; Heb. 10:19; cf. Phil. 3:21) and will go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. . (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul, who expressed he would go to be with the Lord at death, yet was not already perfect. (Phil. 3:10f)
And with the only suffering for believers that is manifestly taught as after this life being that of the judgment seat of Christ, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
• That believers were separated into two classes, one formally called "saints," the latter being the only believers who directly go to Heaven at death, contrary to Scripture.
• That the Catholic Eucharist was the paramount, supreme central practice in the life of the church, the "source and summit of the Christian life," in which "our redemption is accomplished," around which all else basically revolved. For instead it is only manifestly described in one epistle (besides "feast of charity" in Jude 1:12) and in which the Catholic Eucharist is not evident, but the church is the focus as the "one bread" and the body of Christ, purchased with the sinless shed blood of Christ, whose death, and the love behind it, the church is supposed to declare by sharing food in that communal meal. (1 Corinthians 11:17-34) More , by God's grace.
• Ordaining a separate class of believers distinctively titled "priests" whose primary active function was conducting the Lord's supper and offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin. Neither presbuteros or episkopos are even called “hiereus," the distinctive word translated "priest," which conflation is the result of ecclesiastical evolution, and NT pastors are nowhere even described as officiating at the Lord's supper and dispensing the elements, much less offering them as a sacrifice for sins.
• Nor is this Catholic function taught as being a primary or unique function of the clergy, who instead are exhorted to preach the word, (2 Timothy 4:2) feeding the flock (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2) with the word of God, which is what is called spiritual "milk" and "meat" (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:13; 1 Peter 2:2) by which souls obtain spiritual life within themselves, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9; Ephesians 1:13) and then by which they are "nourished" (1Timothy 4:6) and built up. (Acts 20:32)
• That presbuteros (senior/elder) and episkopos (superintendent/overseer) denoted two separate classes.
• That celibacy was a requirement for clergy. Instead both apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5) and NT clergy were normatively married with children, which evidenced his qualifications for the pastorate, (1 Timothy 3;1-7) and with celibacy being a gift that not all have, ((1 Corinthians 7:7) and it is only wrongly presumed that all or almost all clergy do.
• Directing the church to look to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible popes reigning over the churches from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), whom they were especially enjoined to honor and obey.
• Choosing more apostolic successors (or preparations for it) as was done for Judas (in order to maintain the original number of 12: Rv. 21:14) by casting lots, thus no politics. (Acts 1:15ff; cf. Prov. 16:33; Leviticus 16:5,8,9-10,15-16,29-30) despite the vacancy left by the martyrdom of the apostle James. (Acts 12:1,2)
• That the magisterial office possessed ensured magisterial infallibility (thereby infallibly declaring that she is infallible), enabling them to even claim to essentially "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.
More to see by God's grace.
But the issue is that Scripture is the only wholly inspired substantive source, to which all else is subject to examination by, even apostolic preaching. And and in the light of which we see that the NT church did not teach or example RC distinctives of "Sacred Tradition."
Luther did not cut books out of the Bible. He included them.
The canon he recognized was the canon the Catholic church recognized until they changed it to INCLUDE books at the Council of Trent.
And if you want to talk about breaking vows of celibacy, how's the church doing cleaning up its homosexual child molesting priests who are still allowed to administer sacraments as long as their intent is *pure*.
And these guys and their many illegitimate children.
Top 10 Most Wicked Popes
http://listverse.com/2007/08/17/top-10-most-wicked-popes/
1. Liberius, reigned 352-66 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
2. Honorius I, reigned 625-638 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
3. Stephen VI, reigned 896-89 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
4. John XII, reigned 955-964 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
5. Benedict IX, reigned 1032-1048 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
6. Boniface VIII, reigned 1294-1303 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
7. Urban VI, reigned 1378-1389 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
8. Alexander VI, reigned 1492-1503 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
9. Leo X, reigned 1513-1521 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
10. Clement VII, reigned 1523-1524 [Catholic Encyclopaedia]
Top 10 Worst Popes in History
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-worst-popes-in-history.php
1. Pope Alexander VI (1431 – 1503)
2. Pope John XII (c. 937 – 964)
3. Pope Benedict IX (c. 1012 – 1065/85)
4. Pope Sergius III (? – 911)
5. Pope Stephen VI (? – 897)
6. Pope Julius III (1487 – 1555)
7. Pope Urban II (ca. 1035 – 1099)
8. Pope Clement VI (1291 – 1352)
9. Pope Leo X (1475 – 1521)
10. Pope Boniface VIII (c. 1235 – 1303)
Prove that Luther WANTED to break his vows.
If it’s in the Bible, the Holy Spirit inspired it.
Indeed, and thus the problem is that we know Holy Spirit inspired Scripture - writings of which was established as such before there was a church which presumed it was essential for this - and God made the written word His chosen means of preservation, and the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims.
In contrast, the veracity of what Rome claims is the word of God as oral tradition is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
We read the Bible to see how ancient Christians prayed.
And there's nothing special about their prayers over ours.
God answers all of them.
It never dawned on me (a lot of things don't dawn on me 🙃) till today, that the other children of Mary and Joseph, the half brothers and sisters of Jesus, may very well have been among the 500 that Jesus appeared to, after his resurrection. They may have all gotten saved at the same time, and later, James, the half brother of Jesus, became the first pope 😁 and headed up the Jerusalem church.
So many folks have tried to insert THEIR chosen religious organization INTO these various contracts that many a poor schlep now doesn't know WHO to believe!
Which at best would send him to your schismatic brethren (who see you as the same), where Pelikan ended up, while honestly having found that,
"Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity..." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46),
“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.
“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. (Pelikan, pp. 46-47). "Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable" (Pelikan 48-49).
“In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (Pelikan 51-52).
Yes, Pelikan has some things worth reading!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.