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

[Marymog]

Mary,

Your support of perpetual virginity because 'Christianity HAS been teaching Mary's perpetual virginity for 2,000 years', is an Appeal to Tradition Fallacy. The logical form of the fallacy you committed is:

Christianity has been supporting the perpetual virginity of Mary for generations/centuries.
Therefore, we should keep supporting the perpetual virginity.
Our ancestors thought the perpetual virginity was right.
Therefore, perpetual virginity is right.​

It is fallacious reasoning.

Here is a list of some contradictions between The Protoevangelium of James and the Bible (from, Is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary a Biblical View?)

Protoevangelium of James vs The Bible
1 Gabriel is called an archangel (PeJ, Chapter 9:22), which was a common designation for Gabriel in apocryphal literature written after the first century. (For example, see Revelation of Paul, The Book of John Concerning the Falling Asleep of Mary, and The Apocalypse of the Holy Mother of God.)

The Bible never identifies Gabriel as an archangel, but Michael is described as an archangel in Jude 1:9. The idea of Gabriel as an archangel seems to be a misconception that began in the second century.

2 Mary’s response to the angel is different than what is recorded in Scripture. “What! Shall I conceive by the living God, and bring forth as all other women do?” (PeJ 9:12).

Bible: Luke 1:34 states, “Then Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I do not know a man?’”

3 Elizabeth fled the Bethlehem region with her son John (the Baptist) to the mountains because of Herod’s wrath when he decided to kill all the baby boys around and in Bethlehem (PeJ 16:3).

Bible: Concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:80 states, “So the child grew and became strong in spirit, and was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel.” It was Joseph, Mary, and Jesus who fled from Bethlehem because of Herod (Matthew 2:13–15).

4 Jesus was born in a cave outside the city of Bethlehem (PeJ 12:11–14:31).

Bible: Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the town of David, according to Luke 2:4, 11 and Matthew 2:1.

5 The angel of the Lord, when speaking to Joseph in a dream, said to take Mary but does not mention having her as a wife. The priest chastised Joseph and accused him for taking Mary as a wife secretly by the priest. Joseph takes her home but is reluctant to call her his wife when they go to Bethlehem (PeJ 10:17–18, 11:14, 12:2–3).

Bible: Matthew 1:19 reveals that Joseph was already Mary’s husband (they were betrothed) before the angel visited him in a dream. Matthew 1:24 points out that after the angel visited Joseph, he kept her as his wife.

6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

Mary: Mary and Joseph were warned of Herod’s plot by an angel, and they fled to Egypt (Matthew 2:13–14).

7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

Bible: Wise men came to Jerusalem to inquire where the child king was (Matthew 2:1).


This comparison should lay to rest any support of the pseudo ‘Infancy Gospel’ of James as a genuine document to be followed in its support of the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The Protoevangelium of James (The Infancy Gospel of James) is a fake that is in the Pseudepigrapha. It is a false document attributed to Jesus’ brother, James. Promotion of this pseudo document to support the perpetual virginity, is using the unreliable (PeJ) to support the improbable (perpetual virginity).
Oz

Hi Oz,

I don't know if your ignoring my post, #947, or if you just didn't read it. If I remember correctly you have a PhD which shows you are interested in a certain field of study so you spent a long time studying to get that PhD. Many hours and lots of money. Congratulations!

I have a Masters in history and a BS in Psycology. I am working on my Doctorate in history. As you know when one starts putting Doctor in front of their name or PhD behind their name it garners respect because you are supposed to have certain standards. One of those standards is accuracy in what we write and tell other people. They rely on us since we have that PhD or Dr. in front of our name.

Even though I feel your argument that the Proto. Of James has contradictions in it is a weak argument and I have given evidence why it is in fact a weak argument I would like you to clarify 2 statements you made. You gave example #6 and #7 from Proto. Of James that according to my research your translations is a BAD TRANSLATION. Would you please cite your source for those translations?

The two translations I have provided are VERY accurate. I can not find the translations you provided.

The translation you provided: 6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

The translations I have found: And when Mary heard that the children were being slain, she was afraid, and took the young child and wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid him in an ox-manger.

And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall.

Those two reliable translations are from Roberts-Donaldson and M.R. James. They CLEARLY differ from yours.

The translation you provided: 7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

The translations I have found: And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judaea, for Magi came, saying.."

And there came a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea; for there came wise men, saying..."

BOTH translations say that the Magi went to Bethlehem but NEITHER translation say they met Herod there. Both translations also say that Herod sent officer TO the Magi.

source: www.earlychristianwritings.com

If your basing your "contradiction" argument on a suspect translation then we need to talk. We need to discuss where you got your translations from my fellow academic.

Scripture has contradictions. What are we to do with those contradictions?

I look forward to your response.

Looking Forward Mary!

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi Oz,

I don't know if your ignoring my post, #947, or if you just didn't read it. If I remember correctly you have a PhD which shows you are interested in a certain field of study so you spent a long time studying to get that PhD. Many hours and lots of money. Congratulations!

I have a Masters in history and a BS in Psycology. I am working on my Doctorate in history. As you know when one starts putting Doctor in front of their name or PhD behind their name it garners respect because you are supposed to have certain standards. One of those standards is accuracy in what we write and tell other people. They rely on us since we have that PhD or Dr. in front of our name.

Even though I feel your argument that the Proto. Of James has contradictions in it is a weak argument and I have given evidence why it is in fact a weak argument I would like you to clarify 2 statements you made. You gave example #6 and #7 from Proto. Of James that according to my research your translations is a BAD TRANSLATION. Would you please cite your source for those translations?

The two translations I have provided are VERY accurate. I can not find the translations you provided.

The translation you provided: 6 Mary wrapped Jesus in swaddling cloths and hid him in a manger at the inn to keep him from the massacre by Herod’s men (PeJ 16:2).

The translations I have found: And when Mary heard that the children were being slain, she was afraid, and took the young child and wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid him in an ox-manger.

And Mary, having heard that the children were being killed, was afraid, and took the infant and swaddled Him, and put Him into an ox-stall.

Those two reliable translations are from Roberts-Donaldson and M.R. James. They CLEARLY differ from yours.

The translation you provided: 7 Wise men came to Bethlehem and inquired of Herod where the Child was born (PeJ 21:1–2).

The translations I have found: And there was a great commotion in Bethlehem of Judaea, for Magi came, saying.."

And there came a great tumult in Bethlehem of Judaea; for there came wise men, saying..."

BOTH translations say that the Magi went to Bethlehem but NEITHER translation say they met Herod there. Both translations also say that Herod sent officer TO the Magi.

source: www.earlychristianwritings.com

If your basing your "contradiction" argument on a suspect translation then we need to talk. We need to discuss where you got your translations from my fellow academic.

Scripture has contradictions. What are we to do with those contradictions?

I look forward to your response.

Looking Forward Mary!

Hi Mary,

I'm going to link a very reliable source for the PoJames.
It's Catholic.

I tried to go by paragraph but it does not match up to what you wrote.
You could check it out yourself...

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

 

[GodsGrace]

so you say, yet many of these supposed "we" interpret Paul to mean that he craved death in order to be "with the Lord."

In Paul's case it might be true.
It's believed that he saw heaven.
If we saw it, we might prefer to leave here and go there too.

 

[bbyrd009]

In Paul's case it might be true.
It's believed that he saw heaven.
If we saw it, we might prefer to leave here and go there too.

but there is no "there" to go to, see; we are plainly told that the kingdom of heaven is within you, right beside you, does not come by observation, etc. Paul did "see" heaven; be "absent from the body" and you can, too

 

[GodsGrace]

but there is no "there" to go to, see; we are plainly told that the kingdom of heaven is within you, right beside you, does not come by observation, etc. Paul did "see" heaven; be "absent from the body" and you can, too

The Kingdom starts here.
Do you believe there's no afterlife?

 

[amadeus]

but there is no "there" to go to, see; we are plainly told that the kingdom of heaven is within you, right beside you, does not come by observation, etc. Paul did "see" heaven; be "absent from the body" and you can, too

I see the three heavens as depicted by types and shadows such as the three levels of the ark built by Noah and the three divisions of the tabernacle in the wilderness. Our problem in understanding likely is aggravated by our own inability to see things outside of time and space. God would have no such inability. I'm no scientist so please don't go too deep that way.

What I see in the reality is God and the things of God, the "good" things. What men frequently see as being "real", this material world [planet earth plus] and men with their physical bodies as perceived by five natural or carnal senses and the physical brain alone is NOT the real world at all. So until people who hold onto to this imaginary or fictional reality begin to move toward God they for the most part remain very blind and very deaf to God's reality, the only one that really exists. When at the end of our allotted space or time or course or whatever as a corruptible being, we have NOT encountered and moved into God's reality, then we will finally lose even the imagined or fictional existence which we thought we had and which we thought was so important.

 

[bbyrd009]

The Kingdom starts here.
Do you believe there's no afterlife?

hmm, i wouldn't put it that way, no. I believe that "we do not know what we will be." And also that one might be led into living for tomorrow if they are not careful.

 

[Marymog]

Hi Mary,

I'm going to link a very reliable source for the PoJames.
It's Catholic.

I tried to go by paragraph but it does not match up to what you wrote.
You could check it out yourself...

CHURCH FATHERS: Protoevangelium of James

Hi GG,

Paragraph 21 and 22 have the same translation I provided. The link you provided re-affirms my statement.

If you look at the end of line 2 of Paragraph 22 the sentence starts with the word "And Mary, having heard..."

If you look at Paragraph 21 line 1: "And there was a great commotion..."

Love, Mary

 

[Jun2u]

Hi Jun2u,

I look forward to their response. This could be interesting and educational for me.

Using Sola Scriptura can you show me where you got your books of the Bible?

Curious Mary

Hello Curious Mary,

From KJV Bible of course, “but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

To God Be The Glory

 

[Jun2u]

1 Corinthians 9:4-5 'Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, and Kephas (i.e., Peter)?'

Since Paul is writing to Corinthians: citizens of a city in far off Greece, it is obvious that the distinguishing TITLE of 'brother' was well known to the universal Church, a Church which also knew very well what the title meant.

I apologize for the far and in-between responses, but some of us have all the time while others do not, specially when a study is involved in the response.

You seem to be an intelligent person and have a good command of the English Language, but alas! You lack intelligence in the things of God.

Have you ever engaged yourself in the study of the word “brothers” as opposed to the word “brethren?” The Bible is its’ own interpreter and defines its’ own terms.

Are you trying to deliberately deceive us by changing the original phrase “the brethren of the Lord” from 1Corinthians 9:5 to “the brothers of the Lord” which you wrote in the bold as evidenced from your post above? Or, was that an honest mistake? How long will you engage in deceit to prove your false Gospel church as the church???!!!

To God Be The Glory

 

[epostle1]

I think you have misunderstood my post. I was NOT contending about Mary’s virginity, rather about your church’s doctrine of belief she was a perpetual virgin. The word “perpetual” as I understand means “forever.”

And that is exactly my contention. Hence, the example I’ve offered of the Genesis account. I don’t see how you can get around that Adam “knew” (had sexual relation) Eve and she conceived and bare a son. Note, God was driving home this point three times in Genesis 4 to signify a perfect number as likened to three distinct persons in the trinity. This is not understood because it is spiritually discerned.

Genesis does not say "Adam knew her not", and no one has claimed that Eve was a perpetual virgin. You are playing a word game association with the word "knew". It appears 174 times in the KJV OT, and 77 times in the NT. If you apply "had sex with" to any random selection it gets really silly.

Likewise, in Matthew 1:25 we read that Joseph “knew” (sexual relation) not Mary till Jesus was born. I have no problem with the word “till” as you’ve alluded. It is irrelevant whether Joseph “knew” Mary a year, five years, or 10 years after she bare Jesus, the fact remains they had sexual relation – the Bible is very clear on this teaching – hence, Mary CANNOT be in a state of perpetual virgin as the CC and its’ members believes her to be!

It's interesting to note that whenever Matthew mentions the Virgin Mary, he always identifies her as 'Jesus' mother.' (See: Matt 1:18, 2:11, 2:13, 2:14, 2:20, and 2:21, in which the author all but beats us over the head with the phrase 'His mother.') It's unlikely, therefore, that Matthew is abandoning this point by later identifying her as merely the mother of James and Joseph: a secondary character, less important than Mary Magdalene. Taking all this into consideration, Mary the mother of James and Joseph and Jesus' mother are apparently two different women...
...
Mark 15:40 -- The Crucifixion

'Among them were Mary Magdalene, MARY THE MOTHER OF THE YOUNGER JAMES AND OF JOSE, and Salome.'

Here, Matthew's 'Mary the mother of James and Joseph' reappears as 'the mother of ...James and of Jose,' corresponding to Mark's reference to Jesus' 'brothers' James and Jose at Nazareth in 6:3. If one compares Matthew and Mark's accounts of Jesus at Nazareth with that of their accounts of the crucifixion, it becomes abundantly clear that they are speaking about the same two relatives of Jesus, whose mother -- like Jesus' -- happened to be named Mary: Jesus Brothers and Mary's Perpetual Virginity -- Catholic Apologetics, Philosophy, Spirituality

The Bible does not say Mary had other children. That is a false man made tradition that started about 150 years ago. No Protestant church taught this heresy before that. Protestant reformers Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Bollinger all taught the PVM. But a Protestant is not obligated to accept their own reformers on anything. That may be why there are so many denominations.
You are not aware you are denying the sanctity of the Temple.

I wonder why you did not respond to the Genesis account when you first responded to my post. Hmmm

No Genesis account proves Mary had other children.

 

[bbyrd009]

hey kepha, show him your gun!

 

[Marymog]

Hello Curious Mary,

From KJV Bible of course, “but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

To God Be The Glory

Dear Jun2u,

I don't see a list of books and I don't see how partially (miss)quoting 2Peter 1:21 answers my question.

Are you saying that holy men of God that were moved by the Holy Ghost gave us the books that are to be in our bible?

IHS...Mary

 

[Deborah_]

You seem to be an intelligent person and have a good command of the English Language, but alas! You lack intelligence in the things of God.

Have you ever engaged yourself in the study of the word “brothers” as opposed to the word “brethren?” The Bible is its’ own interpreter and defines its’ own terms.

Are you trying to deliberately deceive us by changing the original phrase “the brethren of the Lord” from 1Corinthians 9:5 to “the brothers of the Lord” which you wrote in the bold as evidenced from your post above? Or, was that an honest mistake? How long will you engage in deceit to prove your false Gospel church as the church???!!!

To God Be The Glory

What do you mean by "the word 'brothers' as opposed to the word 'brethren'"? They are the same word! Only 'brethren' is the old plural form of 'brother', which nobody now uses. There is no change in meaning involved in updating the language, and nobody is being deceived.

 

[twinc]

What do you mean by "the word 'brothers' as opposed to the word 'brethren'"? They are the same word! Only 'brethren' is the old plural form of 'brother', which nobody now uses. There is no change in meaning involved in updating the language, and nobody is being deceived.

James = son of Alphaeus = Acts 1:13
James = son of Zebedee = Mark 1:19
James = son of Mary/brother of the Lord = which one was he - twinc

 

[epostle1]

Hi Kepha
I'm sure that the CC basis it's teachings and dogma on scripture.
I just don't know how refined my search has to be to find some verses for what I quoted above.

The basis of CC teachings is truth.

I understand this very well.
It seems to happen in Protestantism too, thus all the schisms.
I agree that in Catholicism it's a much more serious matter.
I feel that the CC has kept hold of all the early and important theology.
Without the CC there would be no Christianity today, as we know it.
It kept heresies out of the church and defined what Christianity is.
The church became somewhat lost when it got involved in governing states. This was a big mistake since men seek power and are sinful and this is a dangerous mix which caused the church to lose its way.

What is the date that the Church "lost it's way"? The standard answer is "gradually". OK, then what was the first official false proclamation? They are all written down. The Bible says it is impossible for the Church to "loose it's way". To disregard that is to disregard the Bible.

The Bible repeatedly teaches the Church is infallible and indefectable or Jesus lied and the Bible is wrong.
The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.... The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself.

I am concerned with Amoris Laetitia and I DO believe it's a change in doctrine - an important one. If this could be changed, anything could be changed.

It's a disciplinary change, not a doctrinal one. The Church has the authority to change disciplines or rules on who can receive the sacraments. Divorced civilly remarried Catholics have been left out in the cold. Amoris Laetitia is a very compassionate document and it is not infallible. No doctrine has been changed. It has nothing to do with Protestants.

The Marian dogma has been added and I really fail to see where it comes from. It's all theological. Mary had to be sinless because Jesus needed a sinless human mother, then she had to remain a PV because somehow the church has always taught that there is sin involved. Then due to her sinlessness she could not have a corruptible body... and so it goes. One idea leads to the next. I think it's a bit dangerous to stray from scripture. It was put together for a reason. To keep things simple and steady so that nothing could be added to it. John says in Revelation that nothing is to be added to the book. That could be meant for the entire bible. Joseph Smith added to it. And created with that wrong doctrine. JESUS has to be the final revelation.
We should be careful about development of doctrine. We know more today, but it still has to be understood as the ECF understood the question. IMHO.

Marian dogmas are not additions to the Bible, they are derived explicity, implicity or deducted from the Bible. They developed like all doctrines developed. The Bible itself is an example of development, since the canon took 4 centuries to be fully realized.

BTW, C.S. Lewis believed in purgatory.
THE DIVINITY OF Jesus was understood immediately.

THE DIVINITY OF Jesus was challenged by a heretic named Arius, who infected a majority of bishops at the time. That's why the Council of Nicae was convened.

 

[epostle1]

The hypostatic union took more to be confirmed but it was always accepted.

It was not accepted by the heretic Nestorius. That is why the Council of Ephesus was convened.

Ditto for the Trinity, although I do agree that it took 3 councils to come to an agreement on that.
Nicea
Constantinople
Ephesus (the three you mentioned)
Protestants can accept these (I speak of Protestant theologians) because they are easily found in scripture. The ones I mentioned are not.

You are missing the point. Heretics found their false teachings in scripture alone apart from the Tradition it flowed from. There were no Protestants in the 5th century. Complex Chalcedonian trinitarian theology is not easily found in scripture, it would be so much simpler if it were not for all the heretics.
The reason these councils were convened was to address the heretics who were using the Bible alone to promote their falsehoods. Their views could not be verified by the teachings of the Apostles (Tradition).

Where was purgatory spoken of early on? I can't remember to be honest. It seems to me that it came about in the year 800 or so. I'm not sure. Do you know of any ECF that spoke of purgatory?
I DO believe original sin was accepted early on. Could this be the reason why purgatory is not accepted but original sin is?
Another reason could just be that Protestants don't like the idea of speaking to dead people. Why, I do not know.

If Protestants want to throw out purgatory because it was a later development, then they have to throw out Original Sin which was more so. However, I think purgatory was not accepted because of politics, not the quest for doctrinal purity. The Communion of Saints is a HUGE topic. Purgatory, in it's kernel form, began with the Jews, (although they didn't use that word) developed by Jesus, and further, by Paul.

Maybe just to be different from the Catholics? Macabees was removed for this reason, IMO. Personally, I don't understand how dead persons could hear us.
Are they omnipresent??

No. Heaven is not a room down the hall, time and space does not exist there.

There are many problems with sola scriptura as can be evidenced on these threads. So many different persons with so many different beliefs,,,each one believing themself to be right and everyone else is wrong. No final word...
I can say, however, without a doubt, that not all Catholic higher ups agree on everything. It's just that we don't know about it, generally speaking. But the differences are contained and much has to do with the Bishop in charge. Is this better than just discussing differences of opinion?

Catholics have differing opinions on a lot of issues, we are free to disagree with the Church, but we are not free to rebel.

The rituals in the CC are different from the early church.

Rituals are inculturated, but the essence of truths of doctrines have never changed. Rituals are all over the Bible. Jesus didn't abolish them, He perfected them.

Other than that, I see it doing what the Early Church did.
They got together, they read the words of a letter they could get their hands on, or talked about the story of Jesus, they prayed, maybe sang, the broke bread together and shared communion.

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Peter 1:1; Peter 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”
THE EARLY PAPACY page 2

They respect communion more and give importance to the priesthood which is very much looked down upon but do not protestants have elders??

Yes, but Protestant "elders" are not the same as priests but the word origin is the same.

Personally, I have a problem with grace being distributed through sacraments. God is always dispensing grace. A sacrament is only a sign but we know from the CCC that grace is being given to the recipient of the sacrament, making it much more than a sign.

Another big topic.
Heartfelt Sacramentalism (Not Mere Charms)

There would be much to discuss. My number one complain with the CC is that there is not enough teaching and catholics are not "book smart".

The teaching is there for anyone who wants it, the same for Protestants.

Not that one needs to be to know God. I had never read a bible when I met Jesus, but it sure does help in today's world.

Nice speaking to you.

Nice speaking to you, too.

 

[mjrhealth]

but we are not free to rebel.

No reason why one cant rebel against teh catholic church has no authority over anyone except those who want it

 

[Jun2u]

What do you mean by "the word 'brothers' as opposed to the word 'brethren'"? They are the same word! Only 'brethren' is the old plural form of 'brother', which nobody now uses. There is no change in meaning involved in updating the language, and nobody is being deceived.

If you have not followed our discussions then it’s likely you’ll not understand why I said Kepha is being deceitful.

But to answer your post, yes I agree the word “brethren” is the plural form of the word “brothers.” However, if you look up the word brethren in the early chapters of the Book of Acts you’ll find the word brethren has a different connotation which means “countrymen” and/or “fellow Jews.” This is one of other reasons why I thought Kepha changed the word “brethren” in 1Corinthians 9:5 into the word “brothers.”

Jesus also used the word brethren to signify all believers, as per Matthew 28:10.

My discussions with Kepha together with the church he belongs to believe that Mary is in the state of “Perpetual Virginity” that is she is a virgin forever.

And I of course opposed that notion.

I hope this helps.

To God Be The Glory

 

[Jun2u]

Dear Jun2u,

I don't see a list of books and I don't see how partially (miss)quoting 2Peter 1:21 answers my question.

Are you saying that holy men of God that were moved by the Holy Ghost gave us the books that are to be in our bible?

IHS...Mary

Most people don’t know (even those who read and study Scripture) that God is the Author of the Bible. Had they known they would have trembled at the words they read concerning man’s decease of sin and it’s consequences, but will also learn God has provided a solution through His Son Jesus.

The Bible is its’ own interpreter, its’ own dictionary, and it defines its’ own terms!

For example, even to the singularity and plurality of a word God makes a distinction. See Galatians 3:16

If you’re suggesting a group of men put the books together and called it the Bible, you’re mistaken!

Let’s say you wrote a book and after finishing the first chapter leaves it in the bedroom, and then continues to write several chapters after and leaves them in other rooms of the house, will you allow someone to put those chapters together in a book not knowing how the sequence of chapters went? Of course not. Likewise, do you suppose God will allow sinful men to put His Books together without His guidance? I should say not!

The Bible is one harmonious and one cohesive whole, that is, the Gospel message should be seen in every page of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, and if we don’t see it, it does not mean the Gospel is not there, it is because God has not opened our spiritual eyes. Have you ever wondered why the book of Esther is in the Bible yet there is no mention of God there?

And, if you’re suggesting the Apocrypha books (hidden books) should be included in the Bible, one reading would immediately alert the reader that those books are not in harmony with the Bible. In contrast, the book of Esther is in the Bible yet the word “God” is not mentioned. Why is this so?

Because the book of Esther is full of many spiritual elements.

You can’t see these kinds of types and figures in the Apocrypha books.

To God Be The Glory