False Teaching: Mary died a virgin. Biblical Proof Mary had children.

[Sigma]

@Sigma says: "In other words, it just means Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary during prior to Jesus's birth, just as in 2 Sam. 6:23 it's saying Michal didn't have other children prior to her death. The word "till" in itself doesn't indicate what occurred or didn't occur after a certain point."

VERY SILLY kindergarten material

What's silly is what you said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic,

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

That logic is silly, and yet you cling to it, because you'd rather abandon reason than admit being wrong about this, especially to Catholics. And, that's silly too, because we're not going to make you feel bad for it.

 

[Sigma]

I do not care.

You don't care that arguing Matt. 1:25 means Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth is to insert a word in the verse that wasn't originally there, and thereby changes the context of it??

 

[Taken]

This is what bothers me the most. The rapid way everyone prays this ... as if it is a run on sentence.

Hail Mary fullofgracetheLordiswiththee. Blessed art thouamongstwomenand blessedisthefruitofthywombJesus.

when IMO it should be prayed slowly with emphasis on Jesus... such as

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb (slight [pause)vJesus.................... at minimum

But if it were I praying this... dont worry, I wont..... I would pray it this way

Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed is Jesus, the fruit of thy womb.

Any repeated Prayer spoken as if they are practicing to be an auctioneer is insincere not reverence and implies it is an intrusion on their time.
Typically reveals immaturity.

 

[David in NJ]

Any repeated Prayer spoken as if they are practicing to be an auctioneer is insincere not reverence and implies it is an intrusion on their time.
Typically reveals immaturity.

repetitious praying is a sure sign of a lack of faith through ignorance

 

[Zao is life]

@Sigma says: "In other words, it just means Joseph didn't have sexual intercourse with Mary during prior to Jesus's birth, just as in 2 Sam. 6:23 it's saying Michal didn't have other children prior to her death. The word "till" in itself doesn't indicate what occurred or didn't occur after a certain point."

VERY SILLY kindergarten material

I agree. It's absolutely ridiculous. It beggars belief that someone could even say what he said and still expect to be taken seriously.

 

[Zao is life]

repetitious praying is a sure sign of a lack of faith through ignorance

Matthew 6:7

 

[Taken]

You don't care that arguing Matt. 1:25 means Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth is to insert a word in the verse that wasn't originally there, and thereby changes the context of it??

No word is required to be inserted into Matt 1:25 properly, scripturally understand.

Matt 1:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It is not confounded…

Knew…is scriptural knowledge for having a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. KNEW is a past tense revealing.
Knew in this case is having a sexual relation with her husband … AFTER Jesus’ birth…and according to the LAW!

not till…is revealing the Knowing would not happen BEFORE the expected birth of her child, BUT…AFTER according to Scripture.

Brought forth….reveals the expected birth is the arrival TIME.

Firstborn….reveals she has no other children.

Son….reveals the expected birth shall be a male babe.

According to Scripture…
A husband and wife ARE to engage IN sexual intercourse (KNOWING), for the purpose of MULTIPLYING….and replenishing the earth.

Nothing new…or obscure…
Gen 1:
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…

Nothing new…or obscure…
WHEN till (After) the birth of Jesus would it be SCRIPTURALLY sound for Joseph to KNOW his wife.

1) AFTER…they were WED

Joseph and Mary “married” (expoused wife) went to Bethlehem to be taxed.

Luke 2:
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


2) ALSO (Joseph NOT Knowing Mary TILL AFTER…the DAYS, according to her blood issue and the Birth of a MALE child.

Lev. 12:
[1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[2] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
[3] And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
[4] And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
[5] But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
[6] And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
[7] Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
[8] And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

There NO reason to Believe Mary rejected submission to her husband and withheld sexual relations from her husband AFTER delivering her first born and waiting the number of LAWFUL days….

If she HAD, she would have been ACTING AGAINST Gods Word.
Nothing in Scripture reveals MARY a very young maiden (perhaps 14 years old) in any way, shape or form Stood Against Gods Word OR the Law.

It was wholly unnecessary to repeat to your satisfaction, what TILL, KNEW (PAST TENSE), MULTIPLY, LAWS REGARDING ENGAGING IN MARITAL SEX AFTER A BIRTH, BLOOD ISSUES, CLEANSING, DAYS PASSING UNTIL CLEAN AND WOMEN SUBMITTING TO THEIR HUSBANDS…. Means.

Husband and Wives were NEVER forbidden from engaging is (KNOWING/sex) during the wifes’ pregnancy….EXCEPT…WHEN…
The Holy Spirit Himself placed the Lord Himself in the VIRGIN Womb of A Faithful Human Jewish Woman.

Come on, REALLY? You don’t see the HOLY Significance of Virgin Mary Remaining a Virgin During her pregnancy?
And thereafter, that very Placenta in which the Lord was IN MARY, for the purpose of Keeping a growing babe separated from the Females womb…and such Placenta is expelled and becomes WASTE, having fulfilled it’s purpose?
Thereafter MARY being the Wife of Joseph was to NOT submit to her husband?

Hogwash. You have been fooled.
:-(

 

[Zao is life]

silly

Ridiculously so.

 

[Sigma]

I agree. It's absolutely ridiculous. It beggars belief that someone could even say what he said and still expect to be taken seriously.

Your friend @David in NJ said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to hi logic,

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You take his logic seriously???

 

[Sigma]

No word is required to be inserted into Matt 1:25 properly, scripturally understand

In Matthew 1:25 it doesnt say "till after" in the original language Koine Greek, nor in English. So, to read it as if it is is to insert a word that wasnt originally there, which is "after," and thus change the context of the verse.

 

[David in NJ]

Your friend @David in NJ said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to hi logic,

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You take his logic seriously???

This is your silly logic = which is quite amusing

 

[David in NJ]

No word is required to be inserted into Matt 1:25 properly, scripturally understand.

Matt 1:
[25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

It is not confounded…

Knew…is scriptural knowledge for having a sexual relationship between a man and a woman. KNEW is a past tense revealing.
Knew in this case is having a sexual relation with her husband … AFTER Jesus’ birth…and according to the LAW!

not till…is revealing the Knowing would not happen BEFORE the expected birth of her child, BUT…AFTER according to Scripture.

Brought forth….reveals the expected birth is the arrival TIME.

Firstborn….reveals she has no other children.

Son….reveals the expected birth shall be a male babe.

According to Scripture…
A husband and wife ARE to engage IN sexual intercourse (KNOWING), for the purpose of MULTIPLYING….and replenishing the earth.

Nothing new…or obscure…
Gen 1:
[28] And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth…

Nothing new…or obscure…
WHEN till (After) the birth of Jesus would it be SCRIPTURALLY sound for Joseph to KNOW his wife.

1) AFTER…they were WED

Joseph and Mary “married” (expoused wife) went to Bethlehem to be taxed.

Luke 2:
[5] To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.


2) ALSO (Joseph NOT Knowing Mary TILL AFTER…the DAYS, according to her blood issue and the Birth of a MALE child.

Lev. 12:
[1] And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
[2] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
[3] And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
[4] And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
[5] But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
[6] And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest:
[7] Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
[8] And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

There NO reason to Believe Mary rejected submission to her husband and withheld sexual relations from her husband AFTER delivering her first born and waiting the number of LAWFUL days….

If she HAD, she would have been ACTING AGAINST Gods Word.
Nothing in Scripture reveals MARY a very young maiden (perhaps 14 years old) in any way, shape or form Stood Against Gods Word OR the Law.

It was wholly unnecessary to repeat to your satisfaction, what TILL, KNEW (PAST TENSE), MULTIPLY, LAWS REGARDING ENGAGING IN MARITAL SEX AFTER A BIRTH, BLOOD ISSUES, CLEANSING, DAYS PASSING UNTIL CLEAN AND WOMEN SUBMITTING TO THEIR HUSBANDS…. Means.

Husband and Wives were NEVER forbidden from engaging is (KNOWING/sex) during the wifes’ pregnancy….EXCEPT…WHEN…
The Holy Spirit Himself placed the Lord Himself in the VIRGIN Womb of A Faithful Human Jewish Woman.

Come on, REALLY? You don’t see the HOLY Significance of Virgin Mary Remaining a Virgin During her pregnancy?
And thereafter, that very Placenta in which the Lord was IN MARY, for the purpose of Keeping a growing babe separated from the Females womb…and such Placenta is expelled and becomes WASTE, having fulfilled it’s purpose?
Thereafter MARY being the Wife of Joseph was to NOT submit to her husband?

Hogwash. You have been fooled.
:-(

Simple Truth that a child can understand = and maybe that is the whole point!

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

You don't care that arguing Matt. 1:25 means Joseph had sexual intercourse with Mary after Jesus's birth is to insert a word in the verse that wasn't originally there, and thereby changes the context of it??

That should bother me why?

In light of my reply #379 copied here.... I'll ask you if it bothers you that

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture.

QUESTION

Is the perpetual virginity of Mary biblical?


ANSWER

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture. Further, even if Mary did occupy such an exalted position, her having sexual intercourse would not have prevented her from gaining such a position. Sex in marriage is not sinful. Mary would have in no way defiled herself by having sexual relations with Joseph her husband. The entire concept of the perpetual virginity of Mary is based on an unbiblical teaching, Mary as Queen of Heaven, and on an unbiblical understanding of sex.

So, what does the Bible say about the perpetual virginity of Mary? Using the New American Bible, which is a Catholic translation, we can see that the perpetual virginity of Mary is not taught in the Bible. Matthew 1:25 NAB tells us, "He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus." He, Joseph, did not have sexual relations with her, Mary, UNTIL after she bore a son, Jesus." The meaning of this Scripture is abundantly clear. Joseph and Mary did not have sexual relations until after Jesus was born. Matthew 13:55-56 NAB declares, "Is He not the carpenter’s son? Is not his mother named Mary and his brothers James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas? Are not His sisters all with us?" Catholics claim, correctly, that the Greek terms for "brothers" and "sisters" in these verses could also refer to male and female relatives, not necessarily literal brothers and sisters. However, the intended meaning is clear, they thought Jesus to be Joseph’s son, the son of Mary, and the brother of James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas, and the brother of the unnamed and unnumbered sisters. Father, mother, brother, sister. It is straining the meaning of the text to interpret “brothers” and “sisters” as "cousins" or "relatives" with the mentioning of Jesus’ mother and father.

Matthew 12:46 NAB tells us, "While He was still speaking to the crowds, His mother and His brothers appeared outside, wishing to speak with Him." See also Mark 3:31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 2:12; and Acts 1:14. All mention Jesus’ mother with His brothers. If they were His cousins, or the sons of Joseph from a previous marriage, why were they mentioned with Mary so often? The idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary cannot be drawn from Scripture. It must be forced on Scripture, in contradiction to what the Scriptures clearly state.

AND I want your proof these translations are not accurate.



Christian Standard Bible
but did not have sexual relations with her until she gave birth to a son. And he named him Jesus.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
but did not know her intimately until she gave birth to a son. And he named Him Jesus.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
And he did not know her sexually until she delivered her firstborn son, and she called his name Yeshua.

Contemporary English Version
But they did not sleep together before her baby was born. Then Joseph named him Jesus.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
He did not have marital relations with her before she gave birth to a son. Joseph named the child Jesus.

Good News Translation
But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.

International Standard Version
He did not have marital relations with her until she had given birth to a son; and he named him Jesus.

Majority Standard Bible
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to her firstborn Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.

NET Bible
but did not have marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son, whom he named Jesus.

New Revised Standard Version
but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.

New Heart English Bible
and had no marital relations with her until she had brought forth a son; and he named him Jesus.

Weymouth New Testament
but did not live with her until she had given birth to a son. The child's name he called JESUS.

World English Bible
and didn’t know her sexually until she had given birth to her firstborn son. He named him Jesus.

 

[Sigma]

That should bother me why?

I just told you why and you just said you dont care your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 changes the context of that verse. Wow.

 

[Sigma]

This is your silly logic = which is quite amusing

Its not mine. Youre the one who said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, the following is true,

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You admit its silly, but youd rather abandon reason, persist in pride (a sin), and believe silly things, than admit being wrong to a Catholic.

 

[David in NJ]

Its not mine. Youre the one who said,

"And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son..." (Matt. 1:25)
"That little word "till" implies Joseph certainly did know her after Christ was born."

Therefore, according to your logic, the following is true,

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

You admit its silly, but youd rather abandon reason, persist in pride (a sin), and believe silly things, than admit being wrong to a Catholic.

YOUR SILLY BLOGIC =

that same little word "till" implies Michal certainly did have children after she died:
“Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death.” (2 Sam. 6:23)

 

[Augustin56]

Your wrong.

Jesus established it with the apostles.. It did not take almost 5 centuries for hm to complete the church or the word.

The reason many say it is 4th century is because that is when the church was pagan i zed, and stopped being the church Jesus created

The Church founded by Christ is a teaching/preaching Church. The fullness of Divine Revelation was given to the Apostles orally, and passed on to their successors orally for the first few centuries. Remember, the vast majority of people were illiterate for about the first 19 centuries. SOME of what was taught orally was eventually written down, but not all. And it wasn't decided to be Scripture until the late 4th century. The vast, vast majority of early Christians weren't going around reading and interpreting Scripture. They were listening to the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, teach orally about Jesus and His message.

 

[Augustin56]

From my RCC family members I know not even all of them had a copy of their Holy Bible... and the one who recently died at 96, still did not.

They and she relied on what the priests preached on and their interpretations. (You know... many of those upstanding men who gave extra benefits to their alter boys)

And you are going to say that it was not theirs but what ultimately came down from Rome....

For the buck in the RCC stops at the POPE....

And it is your belief that the Catholic church is unified where the Protestants are not....

THEN WHY, if your church was the one that was originally started did the Orthodox split in the Great Schism of 1054.

Have you done a deep dive into this?

Have you discovered why they believe your side is in error in a great many things?

Why for the Schism???
Causes: Ecclesiastical, theological, political, cultural, jurisdictional, and language differences. Result: Permanent separation between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches. Recent relations between East and West have improved, but to date, the churches remain divided.

One of the many religious disagreements between the western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) branches of the church had to do with whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread for the sacrament of communion.

Seriously?.... yeah, this is certainly a true divider.....

You mention about thousands of man-made Protestant churches.....

How about all the Orthodox that came about when they split from you....

It should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Church constitutes a separate tradition from the churches of the so-called Oriental Orthodox Communion, now including the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Partriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and the Malankara Orthodox Church of India.

Especially

From the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the late 20th century, the Oriental Orthodox churches were out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church and later the Eastern Orthodox Church because of a perceived difference in doctrine regarding the divine and human natures of Jesus.

BUT HERE IS THE BIGGIE:

Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.

The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).

HERE IS A BIT OF TRIVIA FOR ALL ( from the above article)

Referring to Ignatius of Antioch,[1] Carlton says



It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument.

OKAY... I will stop with the references.

I only posted these to show that while the RCC church claims to be the original church... for reasons , some of listed here, the Orthodox Spilt... and they also had branches....

This is very like the Protestants.... People are not going to agree. I dont think we are supposed to.

NOW: this is a very interesting read I just came upon.

5 facts about how the Catholic and Orthodox churches became divided

Almost 1,000 years have passed since Western and Eastern Christianity divided. What were the reasons for this split?

www.rbth.com

Read point #3.... just for information.....NOT for discussion

That's a really long post, with lots of addressable things. Let me start one piece at a time, okay?

At every Mass, the congregation is read from the Bible, and the priest has a homily to explain what that reading means. If you go to Mass just on Sunday's, you hear the majority of the Bible read and explained to you. If you do daily, you get most of it in one year. The readings are organized in such a way. Personally having a Bible isn't necessary. Keep in mind that previous to the last century, the vast, vast majority of humanity was illiterate anyway! What good would a system based on personal interpretation of Scriptures do anyway? See 2 Peter 1:20-21, where St. Peter warns against personal interpretation of Scripture. And look at what that approach has produced! Literally thousands of man-made, doctrinally contradicting denominations in the last 500 years (since Protestant was started.) That cannot be the grounding for the fullness of Christ's truth, because the truth cannot contradict itself.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

I just told you why and you just said you dont care your interpretation of Matt. 1:25 changes the context of that verse. Wow.

Well , I asked you if it bothered you that

"It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Jesus’ mother Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. Is this concept biblical? Before we look at specific Scriptures, it is important to understand why the Roman Catholic Church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The Roman Catholic Church views Mary as "the Mother of God" and "Queen of Heaven." Catholics believe Mary to have an exalted place in Heaven, with the closest access to Jesus and God the Father. Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture."

Such a concept is nowhere taught in Scripture.

And you ignored that.

So... a little pot calling kettle isn't it.

Of course you can go to confession for this sin and say your Our Fathers and Hail Marys that are doled out to you for your absolution.....

I will be relying on my Jesus' blood for mine

 

[Augustin56]

From my RCC family members I know not even all of them had a copy of their Holy Bible... and the one who recently died at 96, still did not.

They and she relied on what the priests preached on and their interpretations. (You know... many of those upstanding men who gave extra benefits to their alter boys)

And you are going to say that it was not theirs but what ultimately came down from Rome....

For the buck in the RCC stops at the POPE....

And it is your belief that the Catholic church is unified where the Protestants are not....

THEN WHY, if your church was the one that was originally started did the Orthodox split in the Great Schism of 1054.

Have you done a deep dive into this?

Have you discovered why they believe your side is in error in a great many things?

Why for the Schism???
Causes: Ecclesiastical, theological, political, cultural, jurisdictional, and language differences. Result: Permanent separation between the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, and Russian Orthodox Churches. Recent relations between East and West have improved, but to date, the churches remain divided.

One of the many religious disagreements between the western (Roman) and eastern (Byzantine) branches of the church had to do with whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread for the sacrament of communion.

Seriously?.... yeah, this is certainly a true divider.....

You mention about thousands of man-made Protestant churches.....

How about all the Orthodox that came about when they split from you....

It should also be noted that the Eastern Orthodox Church constitutes a separate tradition from the churches of the so-called Oriental Orthodox Communion, now including the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Eritrean Tewahedo Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syriac Orthodox Partriarchate of Antioch and All the East, and the Malankara Orthodox Church of India.

Especially

From the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the late 20th century, the Oriental Orthodox churches were out of communion with the Roman Catholic Church and later the Eastern Orthodox Church because of a perceived difference in doctrine regarding the divine and human natures of Jesus.

BUT HERE IS THE BIGGIE:

Eastern Orthodox opposition to papal supremacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Eastern Orthodox Church is opposed to the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal supremacy.

The test of authentic catholicity is adherence to the authority of the Church's Holy Tradition, and then to the witness of Sacred "Scripture", which is itself a product of the Church's aforementioned Holy Tradition. It is not defined by adherence to any particular see. It is the position of the Eastern Orthodox Church that it has never accepted the pope as de jure leader of the entire church. All bishops are equal "as Peter", therefore every church under every bishop (consecrated in apostolic succession) is fully complete (the original meaning of catholic).

HERE IS A BIT OF TRIVIA FOR ALL ( from the above article)

Referring to Ignatius of Antioch,[1] Carlton says



It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that Roman Catholic arguments in support of the teaching have relied on proofs from Fathers that have either been misinterpreted or so taken out of context as to misrepresent their true intent. It is the position of Orthodox Christianity that a closer examination of those supposed supports would have the effect of either not supporting the argument or have the opposite effect of supporting the counter-argument.

OKAY... I will stop with the references.

I only posted these to show that while the RCC church claims to be the original church... for reasons , some of listed here, the Orthodox Spilt... and they also had branches....

This is very like the Protestants.... People are not going to agree. I dont think we are supposed to.

NOW: this is a very interesting read I just came upon.

5 facts about how the Catholic and Orthodox churches became divided

Almost 1,000 years have passed since Western and Eastern Christianity divided. What were the reasons for this split?

www.rbth.com

Read point #3.... just for information.....NOT for discussion

With regard to the office of Pope, that was established by Christ Himself in Matt. 16:18-19, especially 19, which says, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The "keys" refer to authority. In Jesus' time, kings had second-in-commands (royal stewards) who ruled the kingdom in the king's absence (off to war, visiting other kingdoms, ill, etc.). Whatever this second-in-command ruled in the king's place, was upheld by the king upon his return. The symbol of this second-in-command was a large key or two (2-3 ft. long) that he carried over his shoulder as a symbol of his authority. See Isaiah 22:22 for an example of this key and authority.

Authority is always "given" not "taken." Power is "taken." No one authorized anyone to found a Church apart from the one Christ founded.

To learn about the Orthodox, and why they left the Church, etc., watch this short, informative video:

Rella, quick question. Are you Orthodox? Or do you belong to one of the thousands of Protestant sects? Just curious.