It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

[epostle1]

Hi Mary,
I do want to say this to you...
Many times I've said that Christianity was changed with the reformation in 1,500 AD.

Christianity was re-invented in 1500 AD.

I say that when it is changed for the INCORRECT and unbiblical reason.
For instance, double predestination. THIS was never taught by the early church.

That's true. It was invented by a reformer, John Calvin.

As far as the PV of Mary, we can say that PERHAPS the original church as teaching something incorrect? Like indulgences, for instance.

The PVofM was a development of kernel scriptural truths over time, it didn't pop up out of thin air like sola scriptura.

Indulgences were not biblical and were not accepted by the reformed church.

I've yet to meet a hostile anti-Catholic that understood what an indulgence is.

No where in the bible can we find that Mary and Joseph did not have a normal relationship after marriage.
Mathew 1:25

No where in the Bible do we find that Jesus or Paul lost/retained their virginity. The Bible is about Jesus, not about the sex life, or lack thereof, of any secondary character. You are raising the bar to absurd heights. A Protestant Defense of Mary’s Perpetual Virginity

So relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years, in this case, is not applicable.

It's very applicable. The memories and beliefs of the early church is what formed the Bible, the Bible didn't produce a church. And if you think everything Jesus taught could fit into a book, you're deluding yourself.

Also, I've asked for something written that the early fathers believed.
No one here has been able to come up with something. Except the Prot. of James, which is very suspect.

The Prot. of James is not official Church teaching, but that does not mean it is worthless. It is a valuable historical document. Protestantism is compelled to ignore or dispense with church history because there is nothing Protestant about it.

ECF on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary:
Jerome: New Advent Encyclopedia
Tertullian, On Monogamy, 8 (A.D. 213).
Origen, Commentary on John, I:6 (A.D. 232).
Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).
John Chrysostom, Gospel of Matthew, V:5 (A.D. 370).
Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity, 13 (A.D. 371).
Epiphanius, Well Anchored Man, 120 (A.D. 374).
Basil, Homily In Sanctum Christi generationem, 5 (ante A.D. 379).
Jerome, The Perpetual Virginity of Mary Against Helvedius, 21 (A.D. 383).
Ambrose, To the Christian at Vercellae, Letter 63:111 (A.D. 396).

IOW, JUST BECAUSE something was taught for a long time, does not make it correct.

A Biblical Basis For Mary's Perpetual Virginity?

Indulgences was not a correct teaching.

Being taught for a long time is not the point. Being in the deposit of faith is the point. And you need to stop barking Protestant myths about indulgences, trying to discredit the Church with a straw man fallacy.
The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Primer on Indulgences
Myths about Indulgences

Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Violence??
A desperate accusation from a desperate poster . . .

About time for your nap, isn't it?

 

[GodsGrace]

Fair enough GG.

I do not feel I was being sarcastic. I am not TRYING to be sarcastic. I am asking legitimate questions.

Are you saying if they weren't sarcastic, they WOULD be legitimate?

Can you please quote one question that I asked that was sarcastic so that I may re-evaluate HOW I am wording my questions? Please?

Respectfully, Mary

Well, for instance, you tell Ozspen to do his homework.
He already HAS DONE his homework. !!
You could not agree with him because of a POV, but you can't tell him to do his homework!

Other stuff like this and not only to him.
Just keep it simple, I say...

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

I don't understand how "relying on what the early church MIGHT have taught for 1,500 years.....is not applicable" BUT 1,000 years from now (when the Protestant churches will be 1,500 years old) their teachings will be applicable at that time.

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) you are saying 1,500 years of Catholic Church teaching is not applicable HOWEVER 1,500 years of Protestant teaching is applicable. I don't get it.

You have me confused. Can you justify your statement?

Mary

Misunderstanding!
But it's probably my fault.
I'm finding that we're talking about doctrine that is not too important to me, so I might not be expressing myself properly anymore and adding different thoughts.

I like the ECF. I don't like Augustine.
Things from what the early church fathers taught have been changed with time. Like confession for instance.

What the early church taught for 1,500 plus years is mostly all correct.
Protestantism is also teaching incorrect doctrine.

Mary, we'll find out the REAL TRUTH when we get to heaven!!
Let's stick to a specific topic or we'll be all over the place...

 

[Marymog]

Well, for instance, you tell Ozspen to do his homework.
He already HAS DONE his homework. !!
You could not agree with him because of a POV, but you can't tell him to do his homework!

Other stuff like this and not only to him.
Just keep it simple, I say...

Fair enough.

I said your homework for tonight is to find the contradictions in scripture.

He is alleging there are contradictions in Protoevangelium of James and those contradictions discredits it.

My simple point is EVERYONE knows there are contradictions in scripture however we don't automatically discredit scripture. Do we?

I appreciate your advise.

Mary

 

[BreadOfLife]

About time for your nap, isn't it?

Another non answer from our ill-prepared anti-Catholic friend . . .

 

[Marymog]

Misunderstanding!
But it's probably my fault.
I'm finding that we're talking about doctrine that is not too important to me, so I might not be expressing myself properly anymore and adding different thoughts.

I like the ECF. I don't like Augustine.
Things from what the early church fathers taught have been changed with time. Like confession for instance.

What the early church taught for 1,500 plus years is mostly all correct.
Protestantism is also teaching incorrect doctrine.

Mary, we'll find out the REAL TRUTH when we get to heaven!!
Let's stick to a specific topic or we'll be all over the place...

Will do?

What is the specific topic?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GG,

What is the subject we are supposed to be discussing? I guess I lost track.

Mary

LOL
The PV of Mary.
I have to get off this thread!

I'm not the other side of pro-catholics!!
I'm NEUTRAL.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

LOL
The PV of Mary.
I have to get off this thread!

I'm not the other side of pro-catholics!!
I'm NEUTRAL.

Washing your hands again, just like Pontius Pilate.

 

[GodsGrace]

No - you ARE an enemy of the Catholic Church because you resort to telling outright LIES to promote your ideas.
This is the definition of what an "anti-Catholic" is - and there are MANY of you on this forum.

One point you just made was that the Church charged people money for the forgiveness of sins. This is a total crock of manure.
At NO time in history did the Church ever teach that sions could be forgiven by paying money for them.

Another lie is that Constantine perverted the Church and veered it off course. This is a classic, albeit, completely unsubstantiated anti-Catholic charge. I defy you to produce ONE single "un-Christian" teaching that came from Constantine's involvement.

Almost every time you post about the Catholic Church - you are dead-wrong - and it's easily provable.
Do your homework before posting so you won't have to be publicly exposed again . . .

Whatever BoL
Be happy.
Be a good example for the CC.
Stop calling everyone anti-catholic, that just let's them be anti-catholic.
Stop telling people they don't know what they're talking about when they clearly post proof of what they're saying - which you do not accept.

YOU are not the only one who knows catholic doctrine or the CCC or what the CC teaches about it's doctrine.

Have a little respect for everyone here.
It would be nice...

 

[Marymog]

Mary,
"Leaning" does not make a statement true.
There must be hard and fast evidence.

If the Prot of James could be proven authentic, it would say a lot.
But there are so many doubts by those who should know.

Even the CC says that Jesus might have had brothers but that they would have been children of Joseph. He did die, probably, before Jesus' ministry. He might have been up to 20 yrs the elder of Mary.

It seems to me we go from one extreme to the other with Mary.
The CC wants to make her into an almost co-redemptrix, and some language makes her to be one already. Protestants, OTOH, give her very little respect and tend to treat her as just another person.

IMHO, both views are incorrect.
This is not something I'm willing to argue ad infinitum.
I do know from Catholic belief that Mary also did not suffer any birth pains and remained virgin even after childbirth. God can do anything He wants, but I fail to see the necessity of this and the bible does not make it clear to me that she did not have a normal married life.

There's not much more to say.

Both views are incorrect?

You have knowledge that others don't have? Some were his brothers and others his step brothers? Is that what you are saying?

I can respect that point of view(if that's what you are saying). What evidence is there to back up that view?

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Washing your hands again, just like Pontius Pilate.

How's that?
I've been here too long.
I'm not an enemy of the CC but I don't believe all their doctrine.
I love all my Christian brothers,
some make it difficult, however...
And BoL is one of them.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

How's that?
I've been here too long.
I'm not an enemy of the CC but I don't believe all their doctrine.
I love all my Christian brothers,
some make it difficult, however...
And BoL is one of them.

Pontius Pilate...

 

[GodsGrace]

Both views are incorrect?

You have knowledge that others don't have? Some were his brothers and others his step brothers? Is that what you are saying?

I can respect that point of view(if that's what you are saying). What evidence is there to back up that view?

Mary

No. That's not what I'm saying.
What I believe, and after some studying on this topic some years ago when I learned that this whole question of what brother means in Greek is much more difficult that first appears...
Is this:

From just reading scripture, it DOES appear that Jesus had brothers AND sisters, based, if nothing else on Mathew 13:55.

It IS possible that the other children belonged only to Joseph from a previous marriage. However, this is not written anywhere - the first hypothesis would seem more feasible.

I fail to understand what one's belief about this has to do with their salvation...and those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss.

I can't even believe I'm still here on this thread...

 

[Marymog]

LOL
The PV of Mary.
I have to get off this thread!

I'm not the other side of pro-catholics!!
I'm NEUTRAL.

I agree. The subject at hand is PV. And that is what I am talking about. The Proto. of James backs up my assertion of PV.

Is Mary being the co-redemtrix the subject? I am still trying to figure out who brought that up. ;)

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Paul taught something wrong?? The Church doesn't teach that we are God's Co-workers??
You don't know what you're talking about.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
306 God is the sovereign master of his plan. But to carry it out he also makes use of his creatures' co-operation. This use is not a sign of weakness, but rather a token of almighty God's greatness and goodness. For God grants his creatures not only their existence, but also the dignity of acting on their own, of being causes and principles for each other, and thus of CO-OPERATING in the accomplishment of his plan.

307 To human beings God even gives the power of freely sharing in his providence by entrusting them with the responsibility of "subduing" the earth and having dominion over it.168 God thus enables men to be intelligent and free causes in order to complete the work of creation, to perfect its harmony for their own good and that of their neighbors. Though often unconscious collaborators with God's will, they can also enter deliberately into the divine plan by their actions, their prayers and their sufferings.169 They then fully become "God's fellow workers" and co-workers for his kingdom.170

Not sure why you would have a problem that we are ALL called to be "co-redemptors" to a certain extent. We are CO-WORKERS (Sunergos) with God (1 Cor. 3:9, 2 Cor. 6:1).

As I showed you earlier - Paul boldly states his role in Col. 1:24 -
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ'safflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church."

As for your problems with Paragraphs 964, 968, 973 and 773 of the Catechism - can you explain?
Not sure why you have a problem there, either.

Great tactic.
I post paragraphs to show what the CC teaches about Mary being a co-savior and you post back different paragraphs.

That's intellectual honesty??

 

[Marymog]

No. That's not what I'm saying.
What I believe, and after some studying on this topic some years ago when I learned that this whole question of what brother means in Greek is much more difficult that first appears...
Is this:

From just reading scripture, it DOES appear that Jesus had brothers AND sisters, based, if nothing else on Mathew 13:55.

It IS possible that the other children belonged only to Joseph from a previous marriage. However, this is not written anywhere - the first hypothesis would seem more feasible.

I fail to understand what one's belief about this has to do with their salvation...and those are the only topics I'm willing to discuss.

I can't even believe I'm still here on this thread...

The belief is written of Joseph having children from another marriage IS written. The Proto. of James and it meshes with scripture.

From just reading James "brother" can mean a step brother.

It has nothing to do with salvation. It is just one example of what divides us Christians.

Thanks for hanging around.

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Really??
Give me a few examples.

The Immaculate Conception
The Assumption

 

[Marymog]

The Immaculate Conception
The Assumption

Are we getting of the PV topic now?

If so, I'm ready to jump in, as long as I don't get chastised for getting off topic

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

"How can this be? I know not a man." is NOT very clear. We need exegetics and hermenuetics especially when a sola scripturist comes along with a new heresey, like the JW's and the SDA, and every heretic in the history of the world. You have no business imposing a 21st century American Protestant world view onto 1st century Jewish beliefs and customs.

Of course, but not in the 21st century American/Italian evangelical/Protestant sense of the term.

Which ones? All Catholic doctrines are primarily derived directly or indirectly from the Bible. We see what happens wen the Bible is ripped from the Tradition and Teaching Authority that the Bible flows from. Chaos.
"whose foundation cannot be biblically supported" is a rule that is not in the Bible. "all doctrines, devotions and practices must be explicitly found in the Bible to be valid" IS NOT IN THE BIBLE!! It's a false man made Protestant tradition!!!

​

The Trinity is not found in the bible either.