An Opinion about rituals "in religions:"

[Born_Again]

Matthew 1:25 (ESV)
25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.



Matthew 13:55 (ESV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The more I read on this, I do not believe Mary remained a virgin. Especially in 1:25. Knew her not UNTIL...
I have no reason to believe, based on this scriptural evidence, that she did remain a virgin after Jesus was born. I had never given this a single thought in my entire life until it was brought up on here. So, I had no previously formed opinions. Having read it for myself, I do not find evidence that she remained a virgin.
However, the RCC does seem to have a masterfully crafted explanation to the cause others to think otherwise. Well done, but simply not true.
I have sought this on my own and have come to my own un-biased conclusion. The fact of whether or not she remained a virgin does not matter to me in the slightest. Im not on a headhunt. However, it is obvious scripture reveals she did not remain a virgin.
I did not fail. It is YOU that has failed to convince me otherwise. Scripture states this plain as day. There is simply no explanation beyond this that wouldn't be a lie.
BA

 

[tom55]

Tom... No. you didn't get it correct and I did not change my statements. You simply didn't read them correctly. Now, I know you don't have any Biblical evidence to back up this fairy tale that Mary remained a virgin. I on the other hand do have Biblical evidence to say she had children after Jesus. Your only refutation of that is spin. That is, trying to claim the Bible doesn't really mean what it says.

Other than the Gospel of James (which is CLEARLY a work of fiction), you have nothing. I am no longer going to reply to your spin.

You deny what you said.

You deny what scripture says.

You deny what historical writings say.

Interesting opcorn:

 

[tom55]

Matthew 1:25 (ESV)
25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.
Matthew 13:55 (ESV)
55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?

The more I read on this, I do not believe Mary remained a virgin. Especially in 1:25. Knew her not UNTIL...
I have no reason to believe, based on this scriptural evidence, that she did remain a virgin after Jesus was born. I had never given this a single thought in my entire life until it was brought up on here. So, I had no previously formed opinions. Having read it for myself, I do not find evidence that she remained a virgin.
However, the RCC does seem to have a masterfully crafted explanation to the cause others to think otherwise. Well done, but simply not true.
I have sought this on my own and have come to my own un-biased conclusion. The fact of whether or not she remained a virgin does not matter to me in the slightest. Im not on a headhunt. However, it is obvious scripture reveals she did not remain a virgin.
I did not fail. It is YOU that has failed to convince me otherwise. Scripture states this plain as day. There is simply no explanation beyond this that wouldn't be a lie.
BA

The term brother (Gk. adelphos) has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological brother, extended relative or even a spiritual brother. In Genesis 13:8 for the word brother is being used to describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot who were not biological brothers. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than five hundred…brothers at the same time”. Did Mary gave birth to more than 500 children? So linguistically your wrong.

These “brothers” you speak of in Matthew are never once called the children of Mary, although Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14). James and Joseph, who are called Jesus’ “brothers” (Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother of Jesus. St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus: “There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40). Therefor scripture doesn't support your theory and you are wrong.

The Protoevangelium of James, which was written around A.D. 150, speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her youth. It tells of Joseph being an elderly widower with children who was chosen to be Mary’s spouse. Even though this document is not on the level of Sacred Scripture it was written very early and it very well may contain accurate historical traditions unlike the writings of men 2,000 years later who have written their theories on this issue and you choose to believe. Since shortly after the Protestant Reformation (men who disagreed with Calvin, Zwingli, Luther and others on this issue) it was fashionable to preach against anything the RCC taught. Your theory is a new found theory not based on the facts or history of the Christian Church. Therefore historically you are wrong.

The Reformers of the Reformation seem to have a masterfully crafted explanation to support their theory and disregarded linguistics, scripture and history. Well done!!

 

[Mungo]

I have sought this on my own and have come to my own un-biased conclusion.

And that is the classic reason why Protestants go wrong.

 

[Born_Again]

And that is the classic reason why Protestants go wrong.

As opposed to just believing everything Im told. Then there would be no need for discernment. Fortunately, I can think for myself.

 

[tom55]

And that is the classic reason why Protestants go wrong.

Sola scriptura?

It is completely illogical and has led since the time of the Reformation to the fragmentation of Protestantism into countless denominations, sects and independent churches. Sola scriptura has refuted itself.

 

[Mungo]

As opposed to just believing everything Im told. Then there would be no need for discernment. Fortunately, I can think for myself.

It's why Jesus left a Church to guide people in the future and promised the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth.

Believing you can work it all out for yourself is what has given us 30,000 different Protestant denominations teaching different and opposing doctrines.

 

[lforrest]

It's why Jesus left a Church to guide people in the future and promised the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth.

Believing you can work it all out for yourself is what has given us 30,000 different Protestant denominations teaching different and opposing doctrines.

Thats the Catholic paraphrased version of John 16:13.

I prefer to receive my bread from the Holy Spirit, and not from a third party with a side of abuse.

 

[tom55]

Thats the Catholic paraphrased version of John 16:13.

I prefer to receive my bread from the Holy Spirit, and not from a third party with a side of abuse.

That (lack of) logic throws out The Church that Jesus established and the hierarchy that the Apostles set up all throughout the NT. That logic makes you your own church with the head of that church being YOU....Pope Iforrest!!

 

[kerwin]

Sola scriptura?

It is completely illogical and has led since the time of the Reformation to the fragmentation of Protestantism into countless denominations, sects and independent churches. Sola scriptura has refuted itself.

You really need to understand what the word illogical actually because you are just using it to imply you do not believe solely Scripture is a true claim. I believe the Jews go by it as well so it is an older claim than the reformation.

It is not the teaching of Scripture as the highest authority that causes divisions so much as the desires of the fallen human nature. I believe those that object to Scripture often are those who are afraid their teaching will be found wanting if tested by it.

There is a legit complaint and that is there are those that make Scripture their God and so do not come to God through Christ. Jesus addressed certain of his brethren that did that.

 

[tom55]

You really need to understand what the word illogical actually because you are just using it to imply you do not believe solely Scripture is a true claim. I believe the Jews go by it as well so it is an older claim than the reformation.

It is not the teaching of Scripture as the highest authority that causes divisions so much as the desires of the fallen human nature. I believe those that object to Scripture often are those who are afraid their teaching will be found wanting if tested by it.

There is a legit complaint and that is there are those that make Scripture their God and so do not come to God through Christ. Jesus addressed certain of his brethren that did that.

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do

 

[kerwin]

The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe,[a]that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do

Are you a Jew?

I am not nor am I a Catholic but I strive to do all that Jesus teaches us and that includes following a heretical gospel that is not the true gospel of Christ. In order to know the true from the false I must test the spirit of that gospel in order to see if it is from God or from humanity. Scripture serves as a tool in that endeavor.

If those that sit in Moses command me to sin then I will not do what they say but if they tell me to do right I will. Such is my goal.

 

[Born_Again]

It's why Jesus left a Church to guide people in the future and promised the Holy Spirit would lead it into all truth.

Believing you can work it all out for yourself is what has given us 30,000 different Protestant denominations teaching different and opposing doctrines.

What I love about this is that you totally and completely trust your leadership and assume they are leading you correctly. Who is your faith in, your leadership, or Jesus Christ? Numerous churches have had leaders with their own agenda. The RCC is not exempt from this. To believe different is blind arrogance.

 

[Mungo]

What I love about this is that you totally and completely trust your leadership and assume they are leading you correctly. Who is your faith in, your leadership, or Jesus Christ? Numerous churches have had leaders with their own agenda. The RCC is not exempt from this. To believe different is blind arrogance.

What I love about this is that you totally and completely trust your leadership and assume they are leading you correctly. Who is your faith in, your leadership, or Jesus Christ?

There is no conflict since Jesus Christ guaranteed that he would be with His Church and would not let its leaders teach false doctrines..

Numerous churches have had leaders with their own agenda. The RCC is not exempt from this. To believe different is blind arrogance.

Having their own agenda is not the same as teaching false doctrines.

 

[Born_Again]

There is no conflict since Jesus Christ guaranteed that he would be with His Church and would not let its leaders teach false doctrines..


Having their own agenda is not the same as teaching false doctrines.

But you blindly assume that they would never teach something wrong. Once again, who is your faith in?

 

[Mungo]

But you blindly assume that they would never teach something wrong. Once again, who is your faith in?

No not blindly. I put my faith in Jesus and his promises.

When it comes to doctrine who do you believe?
Local pastors?
Yourself?

 

[Born_Again]

No not blindly. I put my faith in Jesus and his promises.

When it comes to doctrine who do you believe?
Local pastors?
Yourself?

I believe in the word of God. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Great Commission.

I don't blindly follow a leader of a church and assume everything I'm told is correct. I put zero faith in a pastor. I test it against the word of God.

That's why Sola Scriptura doesn't work for the RCC. It allows the RCC to claim what is and is not correct. They invented their own Cop-out.

 

[Mungo]

I believe in the word of God. I believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ. The Great Commission.

I don't blindly follow a leader of a church and assume everything I'm told is correct. I put zero faith in a pastor. I test it against the word of God.

That's why Sola Scriptura doesn't work for the RCC. It allows the RCC to claim what is and is not correct. They invented their own Cop-out.

And who interprets the word of God; the teachings of Jesus?
Yourself presumably - which would mean you are putting your faith in yourself.
That's how Protestantism got into the mess it is in.

I don't follow a leader of a Church blindly.
I don't assume everything I'm told is correct. Jesus never promised that.
But I do believe that Jesus will honour his promise that His Church will not teach erroneous doctrine.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work for anyone. It is a false doctrine that has led to 30,000+ different protestant denominations all claiming the teach the truth.
The fruits of Sola Scriptura are there for all to see.

The Catholic Church is able to claim what is and is not correct in doctrine because that is how Jesus set up His Church and why he promised it would not teach erroneous doctrine.

 

[FHII]

And who interprets the word of God; the teachings of Jesus?
Yourself presumably - which would mean you are putting your faith in yourself.
That's how Protestantism got into the mess it is in.

I don't follow a leader of a Church blindly.
I don't assume everything I'm told is correct. Jesus never promised that.
But I do believe that Jesus will honour his promise that His Church will not teach erroneous doctrine.

Sola Scriptura doesn't work for anyone. It is a false doctrine that has led to 30,000+ different protestant denominations all claiming the teach the truth.
The fruits of Sola Scriptura are there for all to see.

The Catholic Church is able to claim what is and is not correct in doctrine because that is how Jesus set up His Church and why he promised it would not teach erroneous doctrine.

I am trying to imagine why there is a lack of responses to this post. I can only imagine its because its so utterly rediculous. It would be easier to reply to a Spongebob Squarepants quote.

Fist of all... I don't think the Bible needs that much interpeting. Especially the NT. Its pretty clear. Maybe Isaiah, Jeremiah... Maybe even Revelations.

But the common man heard Jesus. The Pharisees were the ones that needed interpretation.

So Mungo doesn't follow a church blindly... But that doesn't apply to the Catholic Church? We have 30,000 groups that see error in that Catholic Church.... And they are the ones with a problem?

Really!?!?

It really sounds like you believe this doctrine because the Catholic Church SAYS its right... Not because it has proof(which it doesn't, and the proof says otherwise... Its the Catholic Church ONLY that says its true).

I appreciate that dedication...bit Mungo... Quit spinning the Bible to match up with the NT. And no... I am not in need ot an interpreter. I accept what is clear.


By the way... I am not a protestant.

 

[Mungo]

I am trying to imagine why there is a lack of responses to this post.

That's easy - because it is true.

Fist of all... I don't think the Bible needs that much interpreting. Especially the NT. Its pretty clear. Maybe Isaiah, Jeremiah... Maybe even Revelations.

What planet are you living on?
If the Bible doesn't need much interpreting we would have these interminable debates on a wide range of topics.

So Mungo doesn't follow a church blindly... But that doesn't apply to the Catholic Church? We have 30,000 groups that see error in that Catholic Church.... And they are the ones with a problem?

Really!?!?

Yes, really. Those 30,000 different groups not only disagree with the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ but with each other. Even those that are nominally from the same root (e.g. Lutherans) have branched of in all directions and don't agree with one another.

And you don't see a problem with that? Really!!

It really sounds like you believe this doctrine because the Catholic Church SAYS its right... Not because it has proof(which it doesn't, and the proof says otherwise... Its the Catholic Church ONLY that says its true).

I don't know which particular doctrine you are referring to but the Orthodox believe on most of the same doctrines as the Catholic Church.

I appreciate that dedication...bit Mungo... Quit spinning the Bible to match up with the NT. And no... I am not in need ot an interpreter. I accept what is clear.

Ah yes, protestants are always falling back on the claim that Catholics twist or spin the Bible when they are proved wrong.

By the way... I am not a protestant.

You do nothing but protest.