A Simple Yet Irrefutable Reason The Catholic church Is Not Rooted In Christ's Church

[atpollard]

Joseph may have had children before marriage with Mary who knows.

They would share neither the same Father nor Mother as Jesus … calling them “brothers” (in English translations) is inaccurate and unnecessary when other terms (in English) are available.
Why would scripture provide so many details … and completely forget to mention that Joseph had a prior wife and children from that wife and never took Mary as his wife (while implying that Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to take Mary as his wife)?

It smacks of conspiracy theory logic.

 

[atpollard]

That is an idiotically ignorant argument – and it’s painfully obvious that you know NOTHING about languages.

Just to set the record straight, I am not ignorant of languages … I just do not want to chase you down that particular rabbit hole.

It does not apply to the verses you requested … then I presented … and which you have completely ignored. They said “mother and brothers” because, based on the context, that is exactly what they meant. They MAY have been “cousins” … but it is NOTHING like the group of 200 people in the Book of Acts. So chase that rabbit down the hole alone, Alice.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I understand … you have it correct and every Greek Scholar that translated any Bible into English was unfamiliar with the English word “cousin” … I just do not believe you.

As I already showed you – the comparative verses about the women standing near the cross at the Crucifixion (Matt. 27:56, Mark 15:40, John 19:25) names Mary’s “ADELPHE” as the mother of the “named brethren: of Jesus. It does NOT say that she is Mary’s unterine sibling – and probably NOT, since her name is also “Mary”.

By the liberal use of the terms “Adelphe/oi” in the NT and the Septuagint – she could have been a very DISTANT relation or relation by marriage - even a neighbor or fellow believer.
NOBODY is saying that they are “cousins” of Jesus.

 

[BeyondET]

They would share neither the same Father nor Mother as Jesus … calling them “brothers” (in English translations) is inaccurate and unnecessary when other terms (in English) are available.
Why would scripture provide so many details … and completely forget to mention that Joseph had a prior wife and children from that wife and never took Mary as his wife (while implying that Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to take Mary as his wife)?

It smacks of conspiracy theory logic.

Well they could of have children after Jesus was born, no ones knows for sure it is really just a guess scripture is silent on it. But since it does mention His bothers and sisters it's likely Joseph and Mary had children after Jesus was born.

About bothers and sisters Jesus considered many to be his bothers and sisters that wasn't much of issue with him.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just to set the record straight, I am not ignorant of languages … I just do not want to chase you down that particular rabbit hole.

It does not apply to the verses you requested … then I presented … and which you have completely ignored. They said “mother and brothers” because, based on the context, that is exactly what they meant. They MAY have been “cousins” … but it is NOTHING like the group of 200 people in the Book of Acts. So chase that rabbit down the hole alone, Alice.

Your argument is moot – as I have AMPLY shown.
I gave you several examples, including these THREE from the Septuagint:
In Gen. 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s "brother" (adelphos), even though he was his nephew (Gen. 11:26–28).

In Gen. 29:15, Jacob is referred to as the "brother" (adelphos), of his uncle Laban.

Brothers Kish and Eleazar were the sons of Mahli. Kish had sons of his own, but Eleazar’s daughters married their "brothers" (adelphoi), the sons of Kish - who were actually their cousins (1 Chr. 23:21–22).

You've LOST this particular argument . . .

 

[Phoneman777]

Right to Speak on Behalf of the Lord God, according to His Word. Yes.
Right to Disagree with what others claim. Yes.
Obligation to make others listen or hear. No.

Some people take issue with you, some with Catholics, some with Protestants, some with Muslims, some with Hindus’ etc. etc.

And even within those “groups” are umpteen individuals with individual views and beliefs.

So happens, Muslims, Hindu’s, Catholics, Some Protestants...
Have a BIG mission statement (so to speak), A huge billboard (so to speak)...
Glaring Laundry list of requirements to be “acceptably labeled”...under their Religious “identifier NAME”.

Which is where (IMO), the outside of Scripture is Promoted and Festers and Expands as men take turns being the Appointed Spokesman for ...That Religious Organization ... and seemingly DRIFTS into the Congregations mind-set of being “Scripturally Required”...but really isn’t.
SO unappealing to me. And SO obvious, the crux of numerous debates.

Have to say, the Catholics, (while boasting longevity of their Organization), also have the most bizarre outside of Scriptures, teachings and rituals, that seemingly are requirements to be “acceptably labeled” under their Religious “identifier NAME”.

Glory to God,
Taken

Yes, when we contend for the truth, there will always be those that take issue with us. One might even criticize you as seemingly unwilling to "earnestly contend for the truth once delivered to the saints". As my favorite preacher once said, "We are not called to make the truth POPULAR...but to preach it with POWER". The truth may be comforting, disquieting, irritating, even enraging, but...but one thing it will never be is popular.

 

[BeyondET]

Here is where its interesting and how he feels who is his mother, brother or sister.

i think it clearly shows what catholic are doing wrong.

Mathew 12
48But Jesus replied, “Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?” 49Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers. 50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Alfredthefifth]

WRONG.

Marlk 7 doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with SACRED Tradition. It has to do with menial, secondary traditions that the Pharisees places as much importance on as the SACRED Traditions and Written Word.
Your grasp of CONTEXT is as warped as your understanding of Christ.

No problem – just as soon as YOU show me where the Catholic Church’s “many traditions that support the RCC as total authority that are little more than human traditions.”

Your claims are stupid and unfounded – so you’re HARDLY in a position to demand anything from me until you prove them.

When I use whole chapters to prove a verse of scripture you call me stupid and ignorant.
Saying that my claims are unfounded.

Your insistence on your perfect faith rest on personal attacks, contradictory statements, contradicting your own statements and Baffling with BS and personal attacks, quite the perfect church I would say. This done Not just against myself but anyone that questions the RCC.

And you think that only protestants see these things? But a large number of unchurched see these things also. Many of the unchurched know the bible as well as you claim to and see, know and react to one verse run overs more negatively then anyone here.

But go ahead flail away.


Alfredthefifth

 

[BeyondET]

Jesus has many mothers not just one.

Mathew 12
50For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”

 

[Brakelite]

NEUTHER of those are official titles for Mary or considered Apostolic Tradition

No one is 'required' to venerate Mary and the Saints. Although I would argue it is right and just that we do so.

St. Alphonsus di Liguori lived in the 17th century. 22 volumes of his work have been published. He was canonized as a saint by Pope Gregory XIV in 1839 and was declared a doctor of the church by Pope Pius IX. He is one of the 32 doctors of the church whose writings are especially trustworthy and of authority. The Glories of Mary is one of these. Lest you think that this volume contains one man’s opinion, I would mention that it is actually a collection of the patristic wisdom of the Roman Catholic Church from the Early Church Fathers till his day. Thus the book does not present his view or interpretation but what has been taught by Roman Catholic theologians, doctors and saints throughout the course of the centuries. Liguori himself expresses the reason for preparing his book: “I endeavored to collect, from as many authors as I could lay my hands on, the choicest passages, extracted from Fathers and theologians, and those which seemed to me to be the most to the point, and have put them together in this book, in order that the devout may with little trouble and expense be able to inflame themselves with the love of Mary, and more particularly to furnish the priests with matter for their sermons, wherewith to excite others to devotion towards this divine Mother.” The Glories of Mary , p. 30.
The work consists of several chapters. In each, Lioguori seeks to prove a certain point about Mary. At the end of each chapter, he gives an illustration of the point and ends with a prayer to Mary based on the content of the chapter. The edition herein being used was published by the Redemptorist Fathers in 1931 and bears the imprimatur by Patrick (Cardinal) Hayes on April 16, 1931.

Full of Grace
Father Contenson quotes Jesus as saying: “My wounds are ever-flowing fountains of grace; but their streams will reach no one but by the channel of Mary. In vain will he invoke me as a Father who has not venerated Mary as a Mother.” (Liguori, p. 155)
“As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice.” (Liguori, p. 159, 160)
Words of St. Bernardine: “. . . from the moment that this Virgin Mother conceived the divine Word in her womb, she acquired a special jurisdiction, so to say, over all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so that no creature has since received any grace from God otherwise than through the hands of Mary.” (Liguori, p. 161)

Jesus Christ says, that no one can find him unless the Eternal Father first draws him by the means of divine grace: No one comes to me unless my Father draws him. Thus also does Jesus address his Mother, says Richard of St. Laurence: ‘No one comes to me unless my Mother first of all draws him by her prayers.’” (Liguori, p. 167)

The door
(Liguori, p. 43) “And St. Laurence Justinian asks, ‘How can she be otherwise than full of grace, who has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatress between God and man?’” (Liguori, p. 153) “St. Bonaventure says that Mary is called ‘the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.” (Liguori, p. 160) Words of St. Ambrose: “’Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its keys. ‘Nay more, the Church says, that ‘thou art its gate.’” Liguori, p. 239 Mary supposedly appeared to St. Bridget and said: “I am the Queen of heaven and the Mother of Mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the door through which sinners are brought to God.” Liguori, p. 43

“The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name after that of thy Son above every other name, that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” Liguori, p. 260

You've LOST this particular argument .

In other words, "I shouted louder and longer than you until such time as you got tired and bored with my evasiveness and refusal to actually face the challenges set before me, and you retired from the argument".

 

[Taken]

[Mat 12:46 NASB95] 46 While He was still speaking to the crowds, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him.
[Luk 8:19 NASB95] 19 And His mother and brothers came to Him, and they were unable to get to Him because of the crowd.

Scripture clearly reveals, Gods Word came forth out of Gods Mouth in Heaven, with a body God prepared and was sent to earth, to a specific Jewish Woman’s Womb (a virgin woman, betrothed to a man of the House of David...ie the highlight of Choosing Mary.)

The Woman was informed her first born would be a son, and would be called the Son of God.
The woman delivers the son. The son is Legally (by mans law) the woman’s son and her husbands son, Legally of the House of David)...
(Thus legally entitled to : Abraham’s promised land AND kingship to sit on king David’s everlasting Thorne....(how handy will that be for the millennial reign!)

The son, 30 years later begins his ministry, and is Baptized by John the Baptist, and then is fulfilled the Prophecy, he would be called the Son of God.
Mary delivered as her first born, the Word of God that was sent to her womb.
Mary did not deliver, the Son of God. The Son of God was revealed 30 years later.
Mary did not deliver, the Christ Messiah. The Christ Messiah was revealed 30 years later.
Mary did NOT deliver, God. God in the Flesh appeared at the Son of God, 30 years later.

Mary was a willing Servant just like humans long before Mary who faithfully Served God for particular tasks.
Nowhere does Scripture call Mary the mother of God, a Queen, an intercessory, sinless, a forever virgin, blah, blah, blah.

Mary was a human of dust, corrupt like all humans. She lived, she served the Lord, she died, her flesh and bones returning to dust.

As far as “brothers”, the context of the Scripture itself reveals intent.
For example, Jesus was preaching to his “brothers (males) and sisters female, followers, believers “...and on the outside stood Mary and Jesus’ brothers. IF Mary and Jesus’ brother WITH Mary, were followers and believers, why were they on the outside? Why not enter, join, listen?

Outside appears significant throughout Scripture. When Mary gathered with the Apostles (after Jesus returned to Heaven) and received Salvation, no mention of her other children doing the same at that time.

 

[atpollard]

Your issue seems more with assenting to the Marian dogmas.. Would you prefer if they were not defined?
The Orthodox also honour and venerate the Saints, of whom Mary is the greatest, they have valid sacraments, do you reject them as well?
What 2000 year old apostilic community believes as you do?
Can one just take our sacred texts and declare themselves 'church' and the apostolic communities 'false' and be believed?

I went looking for Truth and found a BIBLE that says one thing and a CHURCH that says another thing.
I had to accept one and reject the other.
I, PERSONALLY, found the BIBLE more trustworthy a witness of Truth than the Priests (the de facto point of contact with the CHURCH).
So I based my choice upon my own, empirical evidence. My conscience would allow me to do no other.

Your "Sacred Tradition" is unverifiable and your ECFs believed much that is orthodox and some that is heretical. I cannot build a faith on such a Foundation of Sand. The BIBLE can be verified to within a few words back to the Third Century with pieces even older and parallel translations predating that. One can argue forever about what the words MEAN, but we can know with almost perfect certainty what the words SAID. I cannot bend the clear words for a fuzzy tradition ... that is simply not how God has wired me.

If a man in the Third Century opposed the union of State and Church as contrary to Apostolic Teaching and Tradition ... How would he and his followers have survived the State Church of the Middle Ages to preserve a not corrupted First Century Church into the 16th Century? They would have been burned as heretics at one of the Church historic low points. Thus your question about needing a 2000 year unbroken tradition is fundamentally flawed.

I read the same God-breathed words that transformed hearts and lives in the First Century. When did the Word of God loose its power?
In the OT, a King discovered the Scrolls that Israel had forgotten (as a nation) and read them. From those scrolls, the covenant was REBORN or REIGNITED or RESTORED and the people returned to the God that the Priests had forgotten. I would posit that the REFORMATION was such a reawakening of a sleeping Church. I cannot speak for the EOC history, but even ROME awoke and reformed itself (as it is doing again - to its credit). However I see CHRIST as the only HEAD of His Church, so only Christ can determine who belongs to Him and how He will call and use them. Even the Disciples were incredulous that Jesus had followers that were not part of the 12 and did not answer to the Apostles ... they were acting on instructions directly from the Lord.

The more things change, the more they remain the same, Peter.

 

[atpollard]

I gave you several examples, including these THREE from the Septuagint:

When you use a Greek translation of a Hebrew concept to prove a point of an English translation of a Greek concept ... you forfeit any credibility as a Linguist. Now I doubt YOUR credibility ... you do not even properly understand what you are cutting and pasting.

 

[BreadOfLife]

St. Alphonsus di Liguori lived in the 17th century. 22 volumes of his work have been published. He was canonized as a saint by Pope Gregory XIV in 1839 and was declared a doctor of the church by Pope Pius IX. He is one of the 32 doctors of the church whose writings are especially trustworthy and of authority. The Glories of Mary is one of these. Lest you think that this volume contains one man’s opinion, I would mention that it is actually a collection of the patristic wisdom of the Roman Catholic Church from the Early Church Fathers till his day. Thus the book does not present his view or interpretation but what has been taught by Roman Catholic theologians, doctors and saints throughout the course of the centuries. Liguori himself expresses the reason for preparing his book: “I endeavored to collect, from as many authors as I could lay my hands on, the choicest passages, extracted from Fathers and theologians, and those which seemed to me to be the most to the point, and have put them together in this book, in order that the devout may with little trouble and expense be able to inflame themselves with the love of Mary, and more particularly to furnish the priests with matter for their sermons, wherewith to excite others to devotion towards this divine Mother.” The Glories of Mary , p. 30.
The work consists of several chapters. In each, Lioguori seeks to prove a certain point about Mary. At the end of each chapter, he gives an illustration of the point and ends with a prayer to Mary based on the content of the chapter. The edition herein being used was published by the Redemptorist Fathers in 1931 and bears the imprimatur by Patrick (Cardinal) Hayes on April 16, 1931.

Full of Grace
Father Contenson quotes Jesus as saying: “My wounds are ever-flowing fountains of grace; but their streams will reach no one but by the channel of Mary. In vain will he invoke me as a Father who has not venerated Mary as a Mother.” (Liguori, p. 155)
“As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in this world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice.” (Liguori, p. 159, 160)
Words of St. Bernardine: “. . . from the moment that this Virgin Mother conceived the divine Word in her womb, she acquired a special jurisdiction, so to say, over all the gifts of the Holy Ghost, so that no creature has since received any grace from God otherwise than through the hands of Mary.” (Liguori, p. 161)

Jesus Christ says, that no one can find him unless the Eternal Father first draws him by the means of divine grace: No one comes to me unless my Father draws him. Thus also does Jesus address his Mother, says Richard of St. Laurence: ‘No one comes to me unless my Mother first of all draws him by her prayers.’” (Liguori, p. 167)

The door
(Liguori, p. 43) “And St. Laurence Justinian asks, ‘How can she be otherwise than full of grace, who has been made the ladder to paradise, the gate of heaven, the most true mediatress between God and man?’” (Liguori, p. 153) “St. Bonaventure says that Mary is called ‘the gate of heaven, because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her.” (Liguori, p. 160) Words of St. Ambrose: “’Open to us, O Mary, the gates of paradise, since thou hast its keys. ‘Nay more, the Church says, that ‘thou art its gate.’” Liguori, p. 239 Mary supposedly appeared to St. Bridget and said: “I am the Queen of heaven and the Mother of Mercy; I am the joy of the just, and the door through which sinners are brought to God.” Liguori, p. 43

“The whole Trinity, O Mary, gave thee a name after that of thy Son above every other name, that in thy name every knee should bow, of things in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.” Liguori, p. 260

In other words, "I shouted louder and longer than you until such time as you got tired and bored with my evasiveness and refusal to actually face the challenges set before me, and you retired from the argument".

And your point is?

I’m ALWAYS hearing from anti-Catholics like YOU that Catholics don’t have ANY liberty of thought when it comes to personal belief. That we ALL mindlessly goose-step along with whatever “Rome” dictates.

Liguori was NOT the Pope.
He was NOT considered to be infallible.
He wrote about many things from HIS personal point of view – and not necessarily from the Church’s DOCTRINAL point of view.

Your post is nonsense. And your statement above, “collection of the patristic wisdom of the Roman Catholic Church from the Early Church Fathers till his day” is YOUR personal opinion and not necessarily the truth.

If you wanna know what we believe – just read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[BreadOfLife]

When I use whole chapters to prove a verse of scripture you call me stupid and ignorant.
Saying that my claims are unfounded.

Your insistence on your perfect faith rest on personal attacks, contradictory statements, contradicting your own statements and Baffling with BS and personal attacks, quite the perfect church I would say. This done Not just against myself but anyone that questions the RCC.

And you think that only protestants see these things? But a large number of unchurched see these things also. Many of the unchurched know the bible as well as you claim to and see, know and react to one verse run overs more negatively then anyone here.

But go ahead flail away.

Alfredthefifth

Anti-Catholics like you crack me up.

You think it’s “perfectly fine” to go around spreading your filthy lies and unsubstantiated historical rumors – but when an educated Catholic calls you on the carpet, then he’s just not a very “nice” guy.
I’ve had my fill of liars and anti-Catholics – which are usually the SAME thing and I have ZERO tolerance for it.

You guys seduce people away from the truth with your dishonesty – THEN you accuse people like ME of being “rude” just because you “disagree” with the Catholic Church.

I couldn’t care LESS if ALL you did was “disagree. That’s why I leave the majority of non-Catholics alone.
It’s only the ANTI-Catholics like YOU and others on this thread who always resort to the same manure.

So – when YOU stop your nonsense – there will be NO need for me to be here.
But, since sin is like CATNIP to a lying anti-Catholic – I see that my work will have to continue . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

When you use a Greek translation of a Hebrew concept to prove a point of an English translation of a Greek concept ... you forfeit any credibility as a Linguist. Now I doubt YOUR credibility ... you do not even properly understand what you are cutting and pasting.

Shows how woefully-little you know, my linguistically-bankrupt friend . . .

Not only did the Seventy original Jewish scholars hail it as a perfect translation - many scholars today laud the Septuagint as an even more reliable text than the Masoretic text because of its expanded use of language.

As a matter of fact – YOU’RE the first person I know who disapproved of it.
That seals the deal for me . . .

 

[amigo de christo]

… making all translators IDIOTS for mistranslating such a WELL KNOWN concept.

However, it changes nothing about the fact that we cannot read the Bible and believe ANYTHING that it says because God and the Translators deliberately obfuscated the truth … so we can only trust the RUMORS heard from PRIESTS based on “sacred traditions” which contradict the verbatim “Scripture”.

BINGO .
Any leader who makes such a claim as though HE alone and his institution alone is the only way YE can know the scrips
Is a man and an instituion that simply DESIRES POWER over the people . AND THAT IS A SOLID FACT .
The RCC is deadly and dangerous and i shall not fail to warn against her .

 

[amigo de christo]

I find little to no support for your Mariology.
It seems inappropriate to claim to be Catholic and to disbelieve in Perpetual Virginity, Mary’s Assumption, Mary as Queen of Heaven or praying to any saints for intercession.

I have enough sins in my past and life without deliberately courting hypocrisy.

Courting is a kind word . THEY IN BED with a harlot . ANd that bed has been decked out with all kinds of strange and allure perfumes
of twisted doctrine . THEY IN BED in the all out throes of adultery with an harlot . That is a direct , BUT VERY TRUE STATMENT i just made .
ANd out of great love i must warn all catholics as well as those who are not in her chambers , TO COME OUT from amongst her .
I Dont have the time to down play the dire danger of that church or any other church that would lead its peoples into the second death .
Its that serious to me . I love the peoples so i warn the peoples .

 

[amigo de christo]

I understand … you have it correct and every Greek Scholar that translated any Bible into English was unfamiliar with the English word “cousin” … I just do not believe you.

Exactly . SEE the bible even says BROTHERS and SISTERS . ITS THEY who try and say it means cousins .
ITS They who have to twist what the actual scrips say to justify what they leaders say .
I REFUSE to heed that church even once . BUT OUT Of love for the peoples i will warn . For i desire not one soul to perish .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Exactly . SEE the bible even says BROTHERS and SISTERS . ITS THEY who try and say it means cousins .
ITS They who have to twist what the actual scrips say to justify what they leaders say .
I REFUSE to heed that church even once . BUT OUT Of love for the peoples i will warn . For i desire not one soul to perish .

Maybe, it’s because the Bible wasn’t written in English, Einstein.

Greek and Hebrew have FAR more uses for their words for “brother (‘ach and adelphos) than English does.
Do your homework . . .