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

[Helen]

And after 844 posts, BreadofLife still maintains a slight lead over all others......

I can't see that...but hey, we've got to give him 10 out of 10 for 'staying the course'.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Nope - just defending my Lord's mom against some pretty filthy accusations.

You should change your user name to Maryman

 

[Helen]

The above is so wrong that I won't even comment.
And what about Mathew 1:25?

SHE ( Mary) WAS NOT STATING AN INTENTION.
She was stating that she had never been with a man.
This was before she and Joseph were married!

Amen!! Totally agree.

Sorry, just couldn't stop my fingers from underlining and bolding...LOL

=

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

Amen!! Totally agree.

Sorry, just couldn't stop my fingers from underlining and bolding...LOL

=

oh oh...
Breadman won't like this.....

 

[epostle1]

What's that thing you are holding in your hand?

It's Jesus (not literally) holding the Bread of Life (literally). Beware of counterfeits.

 

[epostle1]

The above is so wrong that I won't even comment.
And what about Mathew 1:25?

SHE WAS NOT STATING AN INTENTION.
She was stating that she had never been with a man.
This was before she and Joseph were married.

I don't see how that matters. It is an INDICATION Mary had taken vows of chastity, not a proof text. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVM. Denial of the PVM was never taught by any Protestant church until some 150 years ago therefore it is a false man made tradition.

 

[OzSpen]

Jesus only established one Church (Matt. 16:18-19, John 17:20-23). He didn't establish the tens of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects that all teach different doctrines and all claim to have the "truth."

This doesn't mean that those who have been baptized in the Trinitarian formula are not Christians. It simply means that they are separated from the Church and in need of return.

There is no such thing as the "Roman Catholic Church" - only the "Catholic Church."
"Roman" simply refers to 1 of over 20 Rites of the Catholic Church.

BoL,

Does this one church include Protestants?

Place don't overlook the fact that there are quite a few denominations/movements within the RCC. There are more denominations in Protestantism than RCC, but please don't blame the Protestants alone as a source of denominations.

'there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations' Center for the Study of Global Christianity (2011).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

As I told bbyrd in post #688 -
Why do you cling to verses like this one that only work to prove the Catholic position??
As YOU and everybody here has already been shown - these are the children of the "other" Mary standing near the cross:

This has been shown to you to be untrue. But you're not listening.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

You are playing word games. This nonsense has been refuted using a "Bible alone" approach.
Jesus' "Brothers" and Mary's Perpetual Virginity

It's interesting that many of today's Protestants reject Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Bollinger's acceptance of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. Instead, they accept falsehoods that were invented in the 19th century by liberals and atheists. Before that, every Protestant church taught the PVofM.

And I also reject Calvin's teaching on double predestination, irresistible grace, and infant baptism.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

You have me a bit confused on your belief of this topic.

You agree with Thayer's etymology of adelphos which is a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or the same mother, but you then go on to suggest that Jesus had brothers that were born from Mary's womb. You seem to be taking a strong stance that Mary gave birth to children other than Jesus.

Since scripture calls Mary the mother of Jesus and it does not list any other children for Mary other than Jesus does not the above Thayer's definition fit that Joseph would be the father of Jesus "brothers" and that Mary does not necessarily have to be their birth mother?

Would you agree that the ONLY historical writings we have support this belief AND Thayer's definition?

Would you agree that for the first 1,500+ years of Christianity this was the predominate belief and teaching of The Church?

I agree with the above reference from scripture. Jesus mother name is Mary AND Jesus had brothers of the same earthly father (Joseph) AND those brothers names were James, Joseph, Simon and Judas. Scripture and historical Christian writings back all of that up.

Mary

You add to Scripture when you conclude that Jesus' brothers and sisters did not come from Mary's womb. Nowhere in the NT can I find that info.

It was expected of the normal Hebrew couple who were married would consummate their marriage and have children. Why should it be different for Mary and Joseph?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

My response was to twinc, not you. Did you think it was to you?

Mary

When you don't back quote, I don't know to whom you reply. Please extend to us the courtesy of back quoting so we can connect your post with the poster to whom you reply.

You said nowhere in your post that you were responding to twinc.

By the way, one of the opportunities of blogging on a Christian forum is that anyone can reply to anyone's post.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,

I was expecting a red herring or some type of 'fallacy' response from you.

It's a simple question based on what YOU HAVE WRITTEN and SUPPORTED in the past: Using CF to support your theories.

If you believe what you write and how you come to your conclusions then back it up or stop throwing out false accusations.

So I ask again: If Augustine doesn't matter in this conversation then why does he matter when you use him (or any CF) to back up your beliefs on your website?

Is it because I want to use him, he doesn't matter? Or because Augustine doesn't agree with your theory therefor he must be disregarded?

Curious Mary

Straw man and inflammatory post.

 

[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.

Thank you GG. I appreciate your thoughts. I never said leaning made a statement true. I simply said you seem to be leaning toward the experts that believe the Proto. Of James is a forgery and I lean toward the experts that say it is in fact a 2nd century document. I have evidence to back up what I believe. You seem to want to disregard the evidence. No big deal to me.

I am guessing you have no evidence to debunk the fact that Christianity HAS been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years. You have responded several times but never debunked it so I guess we are done and I thank you for your time.

Respectfully, Mary

 

[Marymog]

Straw man and inflammatory post.

Oops.....I forgot about the straw man accusation also. Another favorite of yours. Then accuse the other of inflaming the situation so you look like a humble saint without answering a legitimate question.

If it is inflamitory to ask you a legitimate question based on your past use of CF then I guess I am an inflammatory person.

Does Augustine matter in this discussion or not? It's a simple question.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

You add to Scripture when you conclude that Jesus' brothers and sisters did not come from Mary's womb. Nowhere in the NT can I find that info.

It was expected of the normal Hebrew couple who were married would consummate their marriage and have children. Why should it be different for Mary and Joseph?

Oz

Hi Oz,

You add to scripture when you conclude that Jesus brothers and sisters DID come from Mary's womb. Nowhere in the NT can I find that info. So we can put that argument to rest once and for all.

You throw away the evidence (Proto. Of James) that they DID NOT come from Mary's womb. I accept the evidence. We can put that debate to rest once and for all.

Mary and Joseph were just a normal Hebrew couple? Really? So the normal Hebrew couple were visited by angels and were given the task of raising Gods son? And Joseph, no doubt a holy man dedicated to serving God, gave in to earthly desires to have sexual intercourse with the woman who gave birth to Gods son? And Mary, who was no doubt devouted to the Father of her Son, thought it was important to give Joseph more kids instead of focusing on the Son of God? Sounds plausible to me.

For you normal couple = must consummate.

That theory in turn means: Not normal couple=does not consummate.

Since they were OBVIOIUSLY not a "normal Hebrew couple" why would you expect them to consummate their marriage?

Mary

 

[Marymog]

When you don't back quote, I don't know to whom you reply. Please extend to us the courtesy of back quoting so we can connect your post with the poster to whom you reply.

You said nowhere in your post that you were responding to twinc.

By the way, one of the opportunities of blogging on a Christian forum is that anyone can reply to anyone's post.

Oz

Hi Oz,

I don't know what to tell you. My post to twinc which is post #694 is back quoted.

You can reply to my post all you want. I do not have to respond to everyone's post. Do I?

Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

I find it astounding that you can't wrap your mind around this

well, i was not raised with it, and frankly to me it is a humongous argument about something that is completely irrelevant to Christianity, aside from being pointlessly convoluted and in denial of Matt 13:55, which is written pretty plain, you gotta admit.

 

[bbyrd009]

Nowhere in the NT can I find that info. So we can put that argument to rest once and for all.

so, is that how all Catholics deal with Matt 13:55? Just ignore it?

 

[Marymog]

so, is that how all Catholics deal with Matt 13:55? Just ignore it?

Hi,

I'm not Catholic.

Matthew 13:55 says that they came from Mary's womb?

Scripture does tell us that someone came from Mary's womb. Can you quote from scripture that names that person? Can you quote from scripture that names any other person that you have alluded to?

Curious Mary

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi,

Matthew 13:55 says that they came from Mary's womb?

Mary

well, not if you need them to have not have bad enough, i guess, but this sure strikes me as nothing short of deception by Matthew in that case, especially being as how Jews are so family-lineal oriented and all